Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 17

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

The result was: obviously and unfortunately no consensus. Cleanup or merge would seem to be good compromise choices. - Yomangani^talk 21:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dragon Ball special abilities and others

• A Must Keep - The Kamehameha wave has become a universal icon and inspiration to the world of modern art and animation. As Western culture and practices become ever more influenced by methods and aesthetics of the East, the significance of the Kamehamehe wave is increasingly noticeable. I find that most arguments made against the inclusion of this definition stem from a disdain for "fans" or people who possess a zealous interest in the particulars of artistic expression (particularly television programs). Ultimately, this article is completely valid and factual in that it accurately represents a term employed in the program referenced, therefore such definitions are factually based, and factually based information, however trivial some may feel it to be, is indeed knowledge. Those who seek its removal seek, simultaneously, to limit the scope of Wikipedia's ability to inform. They seek to cut short knowledge. It is not for us to deem what is or is not "good" or "relevant" or "trivial" information. All information is of worth. And those who seek to remove any information, are guilty of crimes against knowledge.
  • Comment Uh... what? Knowledge is power? Test your might? What the hell was that? Danny Lilithborne 16:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply I think someone's practicing their abilities at emotional rhetoric. Maybe they plan a future career in politics? --tjstrf 16:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece attacks as a precidence, I declare that this attack list is fancruft and should be deleted. To quote one of the users in that discussion: "Let me see if I can, I was reading this and then had a look at the page. What does the one page attacks page consist of? Well when you break it down, it's a list of the different ways one character can punch another in the face [note: in this case, it would be "blast someone in the face"]. Using this logic, we should create a page for DC universe offensive use of superpowers - Superman has quite a few and using them in combination he can work up more than 5 "attacks". Once we have done this, we can move onto the same for the Marvel Universe etc. When you consider that minor characters should not have their own articles unless there is good reason.... attacks?" This is even worse than the linked page, since several attacks in this show are very similar.

Similarly, having a page for one attack is just plain silly. Thus, the following will be deleted too.

• Kaio Ken
• Kamehameha (Dragon Ball)
• Genki Dama

Hydromasta231 18:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am going to add this, don't just vote, add a full and valid oppinion; remember: voting is evil, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. (By valid I mean give your oppinion on why you support your position.) (Justyn 04:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

• Keep- The Kamehameha is a very important element in Dragon Ball and has enough information to keep it's own article. The attack list doesn't do any harm, and it helps readers understand more about what they're reading by giving a picture and description of each attack. I'd say these articles are pretty important, and this request is pretty rash. I also think it's interesting how your account is only 2 says old, and you have 7 edits (6 of which are creating this page and nominating said pages for deletion).--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 19:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- It's possible that they are fancruft, but that alone doesn't warrant deletion (please read WP:CRUFT). These articles are well written and cited. They should stay. I find Koji's point regarding your account interesting as well. CPitt76 23:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- Attack lists are perfectly valid to make articles about, and this is a well made one. For the record, I don't agree with the deletion you linked to either. Sigmasonic X 04:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, there's no need to delete this attack list page. Why would you want to do that in the first place? Dragonball1986 09:46, 09 October 2006 (UTC)
• Well, you see, it seems Hydromasta doesn't like attack lists and thinks they don't belong on Wikipedia (apparently, so do many other people, as seen in the articles for deletion linked), and is using the deletion of the One Piece attack list to delete the others. Sigmasonic X 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- It IS encyclopedic in nature. My only question about it is whather it's supposed to be ALL of them or just techniques used more than once.--Marhawkman 23:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's supossed to be all of them. But, as you can see, it's unfinished. Aperently nobody has time to list the ones that are missing, or not enough people can find the kanji/kana.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 23:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• To any mods (I believe that's who decides if the topics remain open or not), look at the link supplied in the first post for good arguements against attack lists. Hydromasta231 02:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Specifically, the arguement between Justyn and A Man in Black brings up several good points. Hydromasta231 04:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I read it. It's the same boring set of arguments that were posed in the articles for deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of injuries, accidents, and mishaps on MythBusters. The designation of "cruft" hinges on it being UNIMPORTANT to the topic in general. This one doesn't fit that because of the nature of the show. The anime has the various special attacks and such things as the way of determining combat. Thus having a list of them is almost as important as having a list of races or characters.--Marhawkman 03:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly fancruft. Make a Dragon Ball Wiki (if there isn't one already) and post it there. Wikipedia shouldn't be a fan's place for anything related to a certain thing. RobJ1981 04:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article doesn't give an greater understanding of the series to laypeople. "It's useful" is not a argument; game guides, weather reports, and bios for unknown people are useful but not befitting of Wikipedia. It "doesn't do any harm" is an even stupider argument; it's the Internet. Of course it doesnt hurt anybody. No deleted article hurt anybody. Please provide some actual arguments, people. 04:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete, total lack of sources; this is just original research based on the show. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Author's first actions were to nominate this article for deletion, so I don't think this AfD is in good faith and should be closed. Danny Lilithborne 05:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Now hold on. He may be new, and I may not agree with him, but this is no different than what the creator of the linked AfD did, and he seems to be a regular and respected editor. A bit ruder perhaps, but his reasons seem to be intended to improve Wikipedia. Sigmasonic X 05:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Charlesknight's first edit wasn't a congratulatory backpat followed by several AfD noms. My sarcasm sense is tingling like crazy. Danny Lilithborne 05:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - In general, it seems that most of the ability stuff is better confined to the characters who use it. Centralized information in the character articles is far more useful. Also, over 40 "fair use" images in an article is most certainly pushing it... Wickethewok 05:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Why is a user coming onto Wikipedia to nominate articles for deletion and spam talk pages with advertisements about this discussion? An experienced user would have been told previously that spamming of talk pages in the manner that the nominator did, is looked down upon by the community in general. Ansell 05:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• To address your complaint, I have contacted the users for attack lists as well. Hydromasta231 07:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. I agree with the nominator, and in the One Piece Attacks AfD I agreed that these also qualify for deletion. JIP | Talk 05:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• comment It exists because this sort of thing was an important aspect of the anime. The One Peice anime doesn't have the same emphasis on what attacks you use, thus it should not be considered a valid precedent.--Marhawkman 05:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Welllllll...I'm almost tempted to say keep the Kamehameha article, but no. Merge and redirect Kamehameha to Dragonball Z. Delete List of Dragon Ball special abilities with extreme prejudice, because it's listcruft. And yes, that is a valid reason for deletion. Why? Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ♠PMC♠ 07:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How is this page related to your quoted criteria, considering the criteria is a very limited set, and only refers to its status by saying that "current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply" (emphasis added). If this page is more than simply a list, the criteria does not apply. Ansell 08:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • All right. Let me rephrase that. My vote is delete, because there is NO REASON whatsoever that this article needs to exist on its own. The information (such as it is) in this article could easily be trimmed and merged right back into the individual character articles. (How hard is it to mention something like "Vegeta's 'Big Bang attack' creates a large sphere of ki which is then launched at the opponent, leaving a mushroom cloud in its wake" in the main Vegeta article?) So. This article serves no purpose that could not be served elsewhere, thus delete. ♠PMC♠ 22:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I've seen pages like this before, I don't think this is fancruff at all. I think this is a good attempt at handling attacks that most other major manga and anime attack pages fail to do and it DOES contain useful infomation. Now I'm not a fan of the show (in fact I can't stand it!), normally I would oppose everything to do with DB because I'm somewhat baised, however this page is okay in my books. It may not get read very often (but there are other wikipedia pages that don't get very often too that are far less informatitive) because of what its about... But it is useful. I don't see a problem with this article.

  Plus a lot of this page is just common knowledge amongst the DB, DBZ and DBGT media. If you delete this, this might make the DBA wikipedia pages incomplete somewhat. I agree there is still room for improvments, for instance there are far too many pictures for moves as some of them cannot be summed up in one picture. As someone pointed , many of these moves are simulair.

  And... Even Superman has his own attacks page so to speak.Powers and abilities of Superman, although its more abilities then attack (just listing what he is capable of doing). Perhaps if this was more written towards like how this article is, would you allow it? I say, if this page is delete worthy at least let everyone working on it at least give everyone a chance to rethink it. Angel Emfrbl 07:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah, the flawed and ill-founded "It's just like Powers and abilities of Superman." argument again! Powers and abilities of Superman is a Wikipedia:Summary style breakout sub-article of Superman#Powers_and_abilities. To justify similar breakout articles for one particular facet of Dragon Ball characters on the same grounds, you would have to show that they, like Superman had individual articles on the individual characters that were so crowded that one had to break out the special abilities section, summary style, from the main article on the character. Looking at Vegeta#Techniques_and_special_abilities, that's clearly not the case. Indeed, the information on the attacks in the character article is longer than the information on the attacks in List of Dragon Ball special abilities. This is clearly nowhere near being summary style. You're going to have to find another argument. Uncle G 08:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And for the love of God, STOP USING THE "IT'S USEFUL" ARGUMENT. Game guides are useful. Weather reports are useful. How-to guides are useful. Phone directories are useful. They still do not belong in Wikipedia. BEING USEFUL IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT AN ARTICLE. Interrobamf 09:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Even the Kamehameha, while perhaps an important concept in the series, does not need this much detail - the entire article could be boiled down into a single paragraph. Quite simply, this is an encyclopedia not a fan-wiki, and as such it is quite adequate to describe a character's most important abilities in that character's article, and only break them out if (like Superman) those characters and abilities are so culturally relevant that it is important to discuss them in more detail than there's room for in a single article.
  Note that this clearly doesn't apply to these abilities, because even references to Dragonball in other series tend to refer only to very general concepts like "powering up", not to specific attacks.
  As for the people above biting the nominator and assuming bad faith, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Note that it is necessary to create an account before one can nominate an article for deletion these days. It is quite plausible that the nominator is a long-term contributor who has not previously had any reason to create an account. — Haeleth Talk 09:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I would hardly classify the statements as biting any newcomer. Newcomers do not come straight onto Wikipedia to propose deletions, spam user talk pages, and generally try to make a point. If this were actually a new user, and not just a new username it may be correct to use WP:BITE as a reference. The statement I made did not assume any bad faith, it simply pointed out the behaviour, and its less than accepted way of going about it. Being a long-term contributor, they would know these things. Ansell 09:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• comment To delete or not seems to hinge on one thing: Is it encyclopedic? If you're going to do an encyclopedia article about DragonBall Z, then you're going to need to explain the various techniques and skills performed during the course of the show. Whether or not this takes the form of an itemized list is determined entirely by how detailed you make the article. IMO this article IS detailed enough to warrant a seperate list. As for "justification" I'd like to point out that there's only ONE article for all of the Dragonball characters.--Marhawkman 09:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No. You don't have to explain the mass amount of "attacks" "He blasts him away with ki energy." "He blinds him with a ki skill." It's rather easy to explain without resorting to pointless names that only confuse the lay reader. Interrobamf 10:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually I find it to be the opposite. That sort of explanation is suited to a plot summary. However it's not well suited to an encyclopedic article. Besides, the names aren't pointless. Most of them are mentioned in the anime/manga as the name of the technique when it is shown being used.--Marhawkman 10:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Hilarious how you refer to an "encyclopedic article", as a list of fictional attacks in a cartoon that's treated as if they were real isn't anywhere close to encyclopedic. I still fail to see how "Goku uses an Kalakamakma on Biggu Heado" is more encyclopedic than "Goku fires a blast of ki energy at Biggu Heado". Interrobamf 10:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
        • It's an encyclopedic article about Dragonball Z in general. The attacks shown are as much a part of DBZ as the characters are. Leaving them out would result in an incomplete article.--Marhawkman 10:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it as well as the rest: Why the heck is this page being nominated for deletion and on the basis that the One Piece Attacks got deleted? The Dragonball pages are more professional looking than what was deleted plus these moves are more notable than the One Piece ones. Do not delete them because they are integral. They exist because they are part of this types of character. The way a fictional anime and manga character hits someone with a named attack can explain alot of the character. They explain what a character can do and can't do. They explains how far they are willing to go. They explain the character's creativity based on how they deliver the attack. They explain alot of the characters that words alone cannot summarized. You can't explain that in a summary like what the Superman page. The only way to convey that message is to list the attacks in some sort of manner. This is not cruft. In fact as quoted by the admin who deleted the One Piece article "One man's "cruft" is another man's priceless tidbit on information, and regardless of anything else it's incredibly rude to the individuals who have volounteered their time creating the article to use a belitteling and pejorative term." In other words what is useless to one person is useful for another person. This page is worthless to somebody who doesn't like or even knows the show but it is useful to those who do. The One Piece Attacks deletion was a great lost to alot to the people who edited it. It made alot of people sad and angry. Did anyone think about those people who gave alot of sweat and blood for that page. Did anyone think of the long hours and research they tireless did. If you delete this page and others like them based on what really should be in a proper looking and real encyclopedia rather than a free source of information then you are alienating an entire community from wikipedia. You are alienating them all. You are alienting both editors and clients. I am saying all these because I was spammed by one for my opinion who's first post in Wikipedia was in the One Piece attack AFD discussion namely the guy who brought up these entire discussion. I am going a bit uncivil here and risking being blocked if not banned from Wikipedia but it is well worth it. I rather be blocked than edit in a place that alienates anime fans.CalicoD.Sparrow 10:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's the Internet. Get a grip. You might want to also refer to the notice below the editing box: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Again, BEING USEFUL IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT AN ARTICLE. Interrobamf 10:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Please do not use capitals, it is thought of as shouting, which can be seen as a personal attack. You can calmly discuss your point in a civil manner, or you can choose not to continue the discussion.
      • Then perhaps people should stop make the same useless argument. Which I don't see happening anytime soon with simple text. Interrobamf 11:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If the article is not popular, it will not survive. Thats about all there is to it. Two guidelines which spell out your entire predicament, if only in a totally ironic way, when you consider the effects of "common practice" and the fact that Wikipedia:Notability got into play purely based on AfD common practice. Ansell 10:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Do not delete them because they are integral. Yeah, because the universe would explode without a Wikipedia article about the Makankosappo. Danny Lilithborne 11:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge I've considered this for a while and feel that it'd be best to make a single attack list and use it as a sort of reference for the other pages in the Dragonball article.--Marhawkman 11:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The Dragon Ball Character articles are already massive as it is; now you want us to copy all these attacks and ect. into them? The list is a conveinient and informative article. It isn't "fancruft" at all. It's just ifnormation about attacks used in the show. How are we supossed to write the Dragon Ball articles and expect somone who's never seen the show to understand it? I've seen that in every peer review, Rey Brujo mentions that the article needs to be understandable to somone who hasn't seen the show. That's what this article is. I really don't see what part of this article warrants deletion, and every DB article links to it.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 12:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is part of why I'm voting merge. With a list of attacks we can leave all the attack discription on the list and simply add relevent links to the character pages.--Marhawkman 13:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I really don't see how these are all that different from the One Piece Attacks page, they have all the same positive and negative aspects. Reading the closing admin's reasoning on that deletion debate, it seems the main reason the One Piece Attacks were deleted was a complete and total lack of cited sources external to the thing itself. This is a valid concern, and one I brought up in my keep "vote" there. This AFD bundles the attack list with 3 pages on individual attacks. The main attack list is a little better sourced than the One Piece one (but not much), but the other 3 have no sources cited at all. Any keep argument I can come up with would be essentially the same as the ones I made there; however I definately do see the vital importance of sources to Wikipedia's credibility. A lot of people would make an exception for fiction, but I'm not convinced that fiction should be an exception to the reliable sources rule. I do believe, however, that a lack of cited sources is a clean-up concern and not a reason for deletion. However, in instances where sources can never reasonably be expected to be found deletion may be an option. The difference between the main list here and the One Piece attacks list is that this one does cite 2 sources, whatever you may think of the quality of those sources. Therefore, by that reasoning it should be kept. The other three articles however, do not cite any sources (though I imagine they would be the same as the main article), and therefore should be merged into the main list and deleted (or sourced appropriately, including a source for the contention that they are more important then the other special abilities and deserve their own article). Hence, the weak keep. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and close: No one has actauly given any valid reasons for deletion, as such, this is not an issue, if you din't give a reason you don't have grounds, there is no grounds for deletion here. Let's send a message here:

"Fancruft" is not a reason for deletion, don't nominiate things for deletion because they are "fancruft".

(Justyn 14:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as a valid article with no good reason to delete. Turnstep 15:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all: not just fancruft; nn, unencyclopedic fancruft. Eusebeus 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the Dragonball series is known for its special abilities and unique attacks. This is really no different than lightsabers or Hadoken. If you really want sources, there are enough guides on Dragonball that you can find them. And while I'm trying to assume good faith, it is hard not to be aware that there are some concerns with the integrity of this nomination. Mister.Manticore 15:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. The three individual attack articles are not just fancruft, they are also completely unsourced and are unverifiable. The list is full of Original research, there is no reason to see the attacks as anything other than non-notable cruft.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean they are unverifiable? If you look in various media about Dragonball (magazines, comics, video games), they describe many of the attacks outright. See for example the various books by Pojo. Mister.Manticore 17:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

See the well-written comment below by A Man In Black. Anything from "direct observation" counts as original research and isn't usable. Also Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which the list is a prime example of IMO.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So, if I watch a movie or a television show, and I note that a given star was in it, playing a given character, that is original research? Sorry, but no, that is not OR. Now concluding that a given star is making a comeback, or has hit rock-bottom, that would be. However, you don't seem to realize that I am talking about books and other media that are the ones who have done the observation of the Dragonball series, and as such, this content is clealry derived from that, so your first objection does not apply. To your second, well, I don't think it is a prime example of that, as this is all relevant information to the Dragonball series, which is itself a notable anime. If you think it's indiscriminate, please try to convince me without referring blindly to policies. Mister.Manticore 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are clearly verifiable facts in these articles. However, without a single source in any of the articles and just 2 external links to sites which may not be reliable, nothing is actually verified. I'd strongly suspect that a fair chunk of this is indeed OR and so unverifiable, if there are verifiable facts here - give a source so they can be verified. I feel it is indiscriminate in that it lists every attack, no matter how minor, the Kamehameha is important to Dragonball but can you really say that of the Gekiretsu Kōdan? My view is the stuff which should be said on these attacks would be best served in the other DB articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Gekiretsu Kodan doesn't have its own article. If you want to remove it from the collated one, I suggest you take it to that article's talk page. But since it is apparently used in some video games, presumably by name, perhaps someone with access to them, and their manuals can provide useful sources. I can't do it, as I'm not knowledgeable enough of Dragonball or Japanese to do it, I don't own any of the games, even the card game. Can others? Maybe. But an AfD like this one is unlikely to make it happen. Especially not when you mindlessly focus on one minor entry. Mister.Manticore 02:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ccbyi 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. First and foremost, very little of this is verified or verifiable, particularly the list. All of it is sourced to direct observation of the show itself, and Wikipedia isn't here to provide watchers' guides for longrunning anime series.
  
  Additionally, it's indiscriminate. The word "indiscriminate" gets thrown around a lot, but what it means is that Wikipedia summarizes subjects, instead of listing every single exhaustive detail. It would be perfectly reasonable to mention that attacks are frequently named in the articles on the various DB anime and manga, and it would be perfectly reasonable to name some of the most prominent attacks, even describing them as the signature attacks of certain characters. This is discriminate. Indiscriminate is a list so exhaustive that it lists Gekiretsu Kōdan, an attack that is never once used in either manga or anime.
  
  There are additional, aggravating factors. These articles are laden with fair-use images, illustrating every single attack however minor, even if that attack can amply be described with prose. These articles are often highly speculative, due to the lack of reliable sources. Romanizations are unattributed; I'm fairly sure that a number of these Romanizations are controversial among fans. The lot of these articles are written from an in-universe style, which is inappropriate. Even if these lesser issues were resolved, however, the fact remains that there's no verification and no discrimination, and that's just not the sort of thing that can be included in or allowed in this project.
  
  Incidentally, if anyone is questioning the nom's intent or credentials, then please consider mine instead, as I would have nominated these highly problematic articles had I been aware of them. I am neither a brand new user nor a possible sockpuppet or troll, as has been implied about the nom. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep only Kamehameha if sources can be found (which shouldnt be that dificult). I do not see how sources can be provided for other article here nominated. Shinhan 19:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all The Kanehameha is really the only notable attack enough. This is a little too crufty for me, and I accept a lot more cruft than I ought to sometimes. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The verifiability of the article is problematic because of the nature of the subject. Independant agencies aren't gonna write about this. It's going to be either fans or the people who made it. In this case that leaves us with two primary sources. The Anime and the Manga.(the primary sources for ALL of the Dragonball Z pages) But while this, arguably, may not fullfill the letter of the verifiability policy, it IS verifiable by anyone who watches the source material. We do have the various videogames made from the series though. But those are mainly useful for confirming what the anmes of the various things are called.--Marhawkman 21:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If we can't verify it, we shouldn't be covering it. There's no need to cover every single story ever told in any anime, manga, or other fictional work; if someone wants to know what happens, whoever-has-licensed-DB-this-week is more than willing to sell them tapes, DVDs, manga volumes, books, or other works. Our goal is to provide plot summary only insofar as it's needed to provide an encyclopedic description of the work or works as artefacts in the real world. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • My point is that in this situation it's absurb to consider the subject material of the article to be an unreliable source.--Marhawkman 22:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
        • My point is that it's absurd to be covering Dragon Ball in greater detail than any reliable sources have done. We should be following the lead of other publications, not forging new original research based on direct observation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Okay, guys, stop saying it's not notable. Dragon Ball is widley known, and is very popular. If you delete this stuff for not being verifiable you might as well delete every anime related article.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 21:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, so the Gekiretsu Kōdan is notable? Can you provide non-trivial coverage in third-party reliable sources to describe it? Do not mistake "Dragon Ball (and its followup series) are notable" for "Every single trivial factoid related to Dragon Ball is notable." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • So what's MFG and Daizenshuu EX? First Person views? Oh yeah, that makes allllllllot of sense.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • But there isn't an article on Gekiretsu Kōdan, it is merely a component of a larger article. Since the move is used for an episode title, and is found in several of the video games (where it is presumably named in the manual), I can't see a reason not to have it as part of a larger article. Mister.Manticore 21:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I use Gekiretsu Kodan as an example; nothing in that article is sourced to anything but first-person observation of the works themselves (or fansites of questionable reliability which aren't cited anyway). How are any of these attacks noteworthy except as minor parts of an extremely long-running fictional series? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • "How are any of these attacks noteworthy except as minor parts of an extremely long-running fictional series?" I just laughed when you wrote that. We've already explained in detail that these are major parts of the show. You've basically just listed the reason it shouldn't be deleted.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 21:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, I understand how they're important to the show. I've also explained how "The attacks are important to the show" means we should describe the attacks as a whole with summary prose, instead of making an indiscriminate list of every single attack that appears in the show. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
          • They're not all alike. How do we describe a hundred different attacks in one? You're making an assumption, and you know what happens when you do that.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 21:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Depends on the context. For DB as a whole, we could easily say, "Attacks in Dragon Ball are flashy, fantastic, and often pyrotechnic. Characters throw punches in flurries too fast for the eye to see, hurl massive balls of shining ki energy, and often shake the landscape or even split planets in the course of a battle." If we wanted to describe one character's style, we'd do that. They're not all alike, but they're all examples of a single, largely unified art style, and the vast, vast majority are different forms of ki or energy blasts, and the ones that aren't aren't attacks at all and would probably be described individually (flight, fusion, transformation) or are different ways of hitting people (which can easily be summarized). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
              • You're still not getting it. They're not all the same. Alot of them are completley different from others. There's more or less no way to summarize all of them into one section. And for your poitn about original research; that's exactly the same as deleting an article because it says grass is green with the edit summary "WP:OR".--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
              • =O OMG!! Look: Grass. Read the first sentence!! It violates WP:OR!!--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
                • There's a difference between a common-knowledge claim, trivially simple to source but unsourced as it isn't in dispute and excessive citation would clutter the article, and a claim made only on Wikipedia, attested to nobody. "Grass is green" is so widely verified that it isn't necessary to specifically attest it but attesting it would be trivially easy; these lists are of such narrow appeal that attesting their claims is nearly impossible. There is a difference, and if you can't see it I don't know if I can offer you any satisfaction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • There's a picture of the attack right next to it. There's also DVDs showing the attack. That makes it just as much common knowledge as grass is green. Go ahead, remove the green thing from Grass with the edit summary "WP:OR". I bet somone will put it back and say, "OR? There's a picture right there" which is the exact thing that would happen if you removed an attack from the proposed article.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Any textbook will tell you healthy grass is green. No book will tell you that such-and-such attack is used by such-and-such DB character, save for the exception of the fictional work in which that act happens. You've described, in extreme detail, the story of a fictional work in less-compelling style, without any reference to reliable sources. That fails WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT. If you want to know the attacks that such-and-such character uses, watch the anime or read the manga. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If you want to know grass is green, go outside and look. Does that statement warrant deletion of Grass? Oh, and by the way, according to what you just said, no Anime articles shoudl exsist, because the jist of what you said is that if somone wants to know info about an anime they should just buy it. Well, why not slap an AfD tag on Wikipedia and say if somone wants to know about encyclopedic things, to buy one. =) I'm sure that AfD would close instantly due to your trumendus logic.
    • The whole point of Wikipedia is to aquire the sum of all human knowledge. What you just said goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, and I'm sure if Jimbo were here he'd say the same thing.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You're persisting in comparing a dissimilar object. Grass is widely covered in reliable sources independent of...um...the grass itself, whereas the individual DB attacks are not. Most anime cruft is inappropriate to Wikipedia, and I daresay Jimbo hasn't issued any edicts protecting anime cruft lately. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
        • These attacks are widley covered in reliable sources like...um...the Anime itself. You said that yourself about 3 times, saying that it was part of why this article should be deleted. =D Contradicting yourself isn't a very good way to get an article deleted.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
          • That's a primary source, and subject to interpretation by the viewer. This is going in circles, and is not productive. If you cannot understand that an article sourced only to direct observation of the subject is not acceptable, then nothing I can tell you will satisfy you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
            • "an article sourced only to direct observation of the subject is not acceptable" Yet another good reason to delete Grass! Boy, you're just full of ideas aren't you? First you wanna remove sourced and obviousley correct ifnromation from Wikipedia, then you wanna delete an article for "not being obvious" when you yourself stated earlier that it's all in the anime. If either of us can't understand the point here, it's you.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 23:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I see five sources independent of grass itself in grass. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
                • I see about 249 sources for this article. The episodes of the anime. I also see millions of fan sites and official TOEI/FUNimation sites. I also see the pictures. Now, if you still' think it's OR, thank you for proving my point that too many people on Wikipedia drag arguments on because they hate to be wrong, and whoever has the most edits wins because administrators' dictionaries don't include "fair".--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 23:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • Those are not independent of the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • Well then, because all the information on the Dragon Ball pages is taken from official sources, the anime and manga, and things like Pogo, under your logic we should just delete every Dragon Ball page. And hell, under your logic, just about every page on fiction should be deleted as well. (Justyn 23:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC))
                    • Doesn't matter. They're still sources. And a hell of alot more than enough to rule out OR. Thanks again for proving my point about people hating to be wrong.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 23:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Santa Claus' last line at the end of the Robot Chicken parody. SchmuckyTheCat 22:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Question ......Uh....Scince when is a joke on Robot Chicken a reason to delete an article? 0_o Is there some new policy I don't know of?--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As I recall, it was "DBZ (bleep)ing sucks or something like that. I'm fairly sure this isn't a serious comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The question then would be why are people making non-serious contributions to this discussion. This is afterall not a vote, and the input is not helping. Ansell 00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It is a serious comment. Maybe it's not the last line, but one of the dragonball characters says a whole bunch of half-japanese/half-english junk and santa says "what the fuck did you just say, was that even english?" And that's about my feelings about everything in the article. This much information about a cartoon is ridiculous and only makes sense to people who already know what it is. SchmuckyTheCat 06:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Hmm, it seems that the One Piece attack list has been moved to a wikia, and a link to it has been provided on the One Piece template. Would it please both parties if the DBZ attacks were moved to a similar place, with links to that page replacing the ones currently linking to the pages up for deletion? For example, if Goku's article said "His main attack is the Kamehameha", it would instead say "His main attack is the [(insert link) Kamehameha]." Pretty much the only real changes would be that the attacks can't be found using the Wikipedia search engine, and that the links would have those squares next to them, but it technically wouldn't be on Wikipedia.Sigmasonic X 23:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with this, but under MIB's logic, we would have to move almost every article relating to fiction to a Wikia as well. And thank you for telling of my acomplishments. (Justyn 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC))
    • As you say, it is going overboard to insist on "independent" sources, whatever the real definition of that is. Reliable sources in the context of this article are going to be on the fan sites, where if something is said that is wrong, someone will pick up on it in a Peer Review fashion, which gives legitimacy to the site overall. Kind of like the peer review system here, except they are much more devoted to single topics on those sites (hence improving in accuracy value). Ansell 00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Independent sources are sources which aren't the subject itself. It's not an unreasonable standard to ask for some sort of commentary in third-party sources so that we aren't publishing someone's personal interpretation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Dude, scince when is a fucking Anime personal interpretation? Do you even have any legitamite argument anymore or are you making this shit up as you go along?--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 01:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see any real problems with this solution. Hydromasta231 01:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Big problem here. If this article and the Kamehameha pages get deleted, where do the interwiki links go? Back to Dragonball Z? (Half of you are wondering "what interwiki links?") The Kamehameha (Dragon Ball) article is already in 6 other Wikipedias! (To forestall the comments of "notability is different across Wikipedias", no it's not; that's heavy bias.) The attacks page only has two (French and Japanese), but we still need a place to put them. Don't ignore these! ColourBurst 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  They go nowhere. The fact that other Wikipedias have not yet cleaned up unencyclopedic articles doesn't mean we have to repeat their mistakes. (Now, before you argue that they're unencyclopedic, if they don't have any sources, they're unencyclopedic. If they DO have sources that aren't the subject itself, then we should take those sources and use them in these articles and negate my argument above.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  Dude, will you stop saying they don't have sources? They DO. They have about 3 million. What the fuck is your problem man? Sources which aren't the subject themselves aren't needed. How is an Anime not notable? Are you fukcing high or something? Saying there aren't sources is just plain biased. You want an independent source, fine, look at the millions of fan sites and merchandise. There's no way in hell for you to back up your argument of it being un-sourced, unless, of course, you expect everyone to just assume you're right scicne your an administrator. Two things I've noticed about this AfD is that it was made in Bad Faith by a possible sock puppet, and nobody really has any solid arguments against the articles. I'm pretty sure that warrants closing, unless you wanna use your godly administrator powers to change the policy on closing an AfD so you won't lose the argument.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 01:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  Repeating the word "fuck" or any misspelled variation is no substitute for commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject. If you want the article kept, the burden is upon you to produce such commentary so that the article can be written based on something other than personal observation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  Oh, okay, I get it, the 279 episode Anime is just my personal opinion. These articles should definitly be deleted, seeing as how having about 3 million sources isn't enough for any article. Let's see, how many artciles on Wikipedia have less than that? You better get started. Oh, by the way, this is directly from the admin guide for deletion: "Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." Seing as how this whole thing was started in bad faith, your job as an administrator would be to close it, not to repeatedly say that it isn't notable, when it obviousley is. Also: pay attention to what I write. Just because I'm used to using vulgar languege doesn't mean my opinion doesn't matter.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 01:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  You've mistaken "people interested in the subject" and "structural divisions of the subject" for "reliable sources independent of the subject". You've argued that there are a lot of DB fans and that there are a lot of DB episodes. That's nice, but the fact that DB is important does not necessarily mean that every single detail of DB is sufficient material for its own Wikipedia article. Given the lack of sources other than direct observation, the indiscriminate nature of these articles, the fact that these attacks can reasonablybe summarized in broader articles, and the legion of style problems with these articles, I think there's ample evidence that we don't need such overspecific articles.

  Now, as for being an admin, I'm here expressing my opinion as an editor, rather than closing the AFD debate (which I wouldn't do, as I've participated in the debate and additionally have a strong personal opinion). The fact that I am an administrator is only relevant insofar as it's good evidence that I'm a user in good standing, as opposed to the nominator, who is apparently a brand-new user. I never meant to imply that my arguments carried any extra weight because I'm an administrator, merely that even if this was a bad faith nom made by a new user with a grudge (the worst possible situation) that the nom had a point and such-and-such reasons were why. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  The attacks are probobly the second most important part of the show. The entire series focuses around them, so having articles describing them in detail and they're origin/history is notable, encyclopedic, helpful to the readers, and interesting.

  About the admin thing; I apologize for that. Latly I've somehow developed a sort of prejuduce against administrators, and when I see one making the same point that has already been proven wrong millions of times over and over, or seems to be violating admin guidlines/WP:AGF, or just acting in a questionable matter, I get a little snippy (see, I have self control. I could've said pissed, but I decided to use preppy talk so my opinion would matter =D ).--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 02:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  I could assert that the color orange is the most important part of the show, and then write Orange (Dragon Ball) about every appearance of the color orange. No interpretation, of course, just a list of every single orange thing in Dragon Ball. (It'd be a lot; orange is one of Toriyama's favored contrast colors.) The hedge against me doing so is the fact that we rely on (sounding like a broken record here) coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. These lists have the same problem that Orange (Dragon Ball) would, and the argument that the attacks are important would apply, just as reasonably, to the color orange, because it's a claim made by a Wikipedia user with nothing whatsoever other than that Wikipedia user's say-so to support it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  .....Okay, for the last time, this isn't someone's "say-so". This is a widley known fact about a widley known Anime show. This list is important to describe the attacks to help a reader invision and learn about the attack. Nobody has to invision or learn about Orange, because it's just orange. These are complicated, hard to understand, yet very important (and hard to spell =( ) things that the entire show (and not to mention the entire clump of DB Articles here on Wikipedia) revolve around, summed up into easy to understand explainations and histories of useages.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 02:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  If the facts in these articles are widely known, then there shouldn't be any difficulty attributing them to reliable sources independent of the subject itself. If there is difficulty, consider the possibility that they're merely the consensus of a limited minority. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  What more do you want, man? There's official websites, merchandise, a long chain of video games, even birthday plates/hats for litle kids. You want me to take a hobo off the street and ask him if he's heard of DB, and what he says decides if it's notable or not?--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 02:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  Commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject. I think I said it every other post here, and this can't be the first time I linked WP:RS. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  According to what you just cited, a secondary source is an opinion/source from somone unfamiliar with the subject. I know for a fact that more than half of the people who voted keep haven't edited this article once, and that the people making the merchandise don't know shit about the series (though I know for a fact the next reply you write will tell me neither of those matter). I hoenestly don't see what reason there is for deletion, as this is one of the most important articles in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and Manga because all other DB articles link to/revolve around it. It's notable, hs sources, doesn't violate any policies, and this entire thign was started in bad faith.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 02:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  We need commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject. If you want the article kept, the burden is upon you to produce such commentary so that the article can be written based on something other than personal observation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • you're missing the point. This is an ANIME. ALL third party sources are fan sites and thus inappropriate for use a source. ALL THIRD PARTY SOURCES. The only reliable information comes from the original source.--Marhawkman 14:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vectro 04:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a place for plot summaries. But if plot summaries are unsuitable, at least they have the inherent virtue of concision. Compare this monstrosity. One sample: It can also be utilized in conjuncture [sic] with attacks; the Shunkan Idō Kamehameha was used by Gokū during his fight with Cell. Gokū charges up for the Kamehameha (up to KA-ME-HA-ME) high up in the air, pretending to be shooting the Kamehameha from there (which would blow the Earth away if he did) and then uses the Shunkan Idō to appear right in front of Cell and blasts him with the final syllable (HA!). It was somewhat tricky and Cell was completely caught off-guard by Goku's attack. This isn't even a plot summary; it's a too-literally blow-by-blow running account. Delete this for its failure even to resemble an encyclopedia article, to the point where of course nothing like it is described in "WP:NOT". Anyway, it's just what Dragon Ball wiki is for; so take it away and plonk it there (if Wikia's "fair use" policies are sufficiently lenient). -- Hoary 09:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • • It's a needlessly elaborate description, but that's a CLEANUP issue, not a reason for deletion. Honestly I think moving it to Wikia would be a good idea myself.--Marhawkman 14:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree entirely with this. The above sample sounds like the kind of detailed screenwriting I had to keep in mind in a battle scene in a movie I'm supposed to act in: the sort of "I hit you on the shield and you hit me on the shield, this goes on three times, then you manage to go around the shield and hit me on the side, at which point I collapse on the ground. I try to lift my shield but you kick it away from me..." Whereas a plot summary would say something like: "A Caledonian warrior and a Viking warrior fought each other. The Viking won, killing the Caledonian. He then proceeded onwards to the Caledonian castle, intent on raiding its treasure..." JIP | Talk 13:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't the sort of area Wikipedia should be getting into. We're targeting a general audience, and whilst it's great to get detail, let's not go too far. Where the information is suitable, merge it. A Man in Black sums up a lot of the issues for me. Maybe an anime targeted wiki should be considered, is there anything on wikia we could consider a transwiki to? Steve block Talk 12:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: Yes, there's a wiki just for this: Dragon Ball wiki. -- Hoary 02:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Again with the Wikipdia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As it is Gokus signature attack, surely the basics can be fitted into his profile. MultiJoe 13:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• "As it is Gokus signature attack, surely the basics can be fitted into his profile." Which we were specifically told to shorten.... Geez, make up your minds already.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 13:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all or move to some niche-interest wiki; this suffers from WP:OR and general cruftiness. Stylistically, it also fails WP:WAF (which is not a reason for deletion, I know). Sandstein 17:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As explained already about a million times, these do not violate WP:OR in any way. It also isn't "fancruft", as explained earlier. Please try to read some of the discussion before voting.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 20:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I have done so, and was not persuaded. Please WP:AGF. Sandstein 21:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The "niche interest wiki" is Dragon Ball wiki. -- Hoary 02:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly merge sub-articles into List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Cleanup for excessive plot summary and speculation, but otherwise definite keep. The attacks are distinguishing features of the characters and sometimes reveal relationships between them, they are often puns that are opaque to English readers without explanation. They appear in manga, anime, video and card games, and secondary sources. Developing these techniques is actually the main thrust of DB/Z's plot.

Re: "It's Gokus signature attack," the Kamehameha is actually the signature attack of the "Turtle school" of Martial arts, and used by Muten Roshi, Goku, Kuririn, Gohan, Goten, Cell and various others. Explaining it in the Goku article is silly.

I volunteeer to give this article group some cleanup attention if necessary. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 18:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with cleanup and cutback of fan speculation. This was an dubious multiple nomination - it should have been conducted as four seperate noms. As pop culture/fiction, a measure of discretion is required requiring WP:RS; the show is extremely notable, and we can work, using common sense, from there. I am doubtful that there is much academic peer-reviewed information on Radagast (Middle-earth) or Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series, for example.--Nydas 18:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Rejoinder: I'm extremely doubtful too. But I would not be persuaded by any argument along the lines of "This article isn't any more awful than others and therefore deserves to stay." -- Hoary 02:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's one of the articles I put a lot of work into, and I like it alot for reference and stuff. --Phred Levi 05:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Its value for "reference and stuff" would be undiminished if it were moved to Dragon Ball wiki. -- Hoary 06:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The preceding comment by Hoary is oh so important. Why oh why would the article have less value to fans if it were on a Dragon Ball wiki? Probably because it's not as well-known as Wikipedia and there's an extra sense of importance that comes with your favorite topic having an article in here. But there's no denying that this article is entirely unreferenced original research and none of the articles' supporters have seriously adressed that concern. Man in Black put it pretty well: it does not make sense to cover this in an encyclopedia when no other third-party source has ever bothered to. It's useful to the show's fans? Sure, so move it all to the useful dragonball wiki and let's get on with writing an encyclopedia here. I urge the closing admin to go beyond counting the votes here. Pascal.Tesson 14:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Merge (if I can, following rules, otherwise Comment) I'd like to make you note that an encyclopedia should retain, at least, 'common' knowledge (or things commonly assumed to be known). A lot of "Dragon Ball"-related (as well as "<other anime/manga/TV series>"-related) topics are common knowledge for the young and not-so-young generations of many so-colled rich/industrialized/post-industrialization countries, nevertheless are important parts of their folklore-mythology, much much more than, e.g., ancient greek mythology (which is however naturally retained for historical reasons). Because of it, it's expected at least the presence of articles (or pieces of articles) regarding those most famous topics necessary to understand common cultural references (like Son Goku, other main characters, kamehameha and so on), but, as every good encyclopedia is expected to do, it should (and IMHO must) go into them a little more, exactly to tell the reader more about the things that gave birth to this widespread culture-folklore-mythology (simply what an encyclopedia is supposed to do). That said, I don't propose to retain a single article for every DB ability or such, but to list them correctly (e.g. per character) in the right place (like "List of Dragon Ball special abilities" was supposed to be) and use this page as the link for the other DB-related article citing that ability. I'm not writing that that article is perfect and sould retained as is or that all the 'abilities' should be written in it (IMHO only the most notable ones, but this is another discussion), I'm only writing it shouldn't be deleted. In my opinion, the deletion of similar articles is a sort of censorship of the 'olds' (OK, the world population is becoming older and older but there are younger people too) or cultural racism (something like "every single detail of the ancient greek mythology is acceptable for an encyclopedia because it's 'highly' cultural or 'ancient', but everything relating contemporary mythology is to discard as it isn't culture at all"). To sum it up: there are too specific articles to be merged into bigger ones (like ability-specific articles not culturally widespread, but a kamehameha article to me is perfectly just), there are things to change in these big articles and probably there are things to be deleted, but these, fewer, articles should exist [we are not talking about an unknown manga/anime which sold only two copies]. --87.7.62.159 16:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Hydromasta's reason's for deleting this article are horrendous. Unlike other genres of animated series, Dragonball is more or less a parody and a homage to martial arts. Techniques and how they are used are very important througout most of the saga although by late stage Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT the importance of individual techniques where minimized. Still comparing Dragonball to comics like Batman, Superman, Spiderman, etc is not appropriate. This article list is very informative especially to those new to the series and even those who are experienced fans. Individual articles on certain techniques however should be deleted. Articles such as the Kamehameha and Kaioken should be either deleted or merged into this one. Certain transformations however like Oozaru deserve their own article. --Maphisto86 17:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment: Oozaru Is a part of being a Saiyan so it'd work as part of that page. It's not really a technique anyways.--Marhawkman 13:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• In case any editors haven't seen this suggestion, I will post it again here: Hmm, it seems that the One Piece attack list has been moved to a wikia, and after it is cleaned up enough a link to it will be provided on the wikipedia One Piece page. Would it please both parties if the DBZ attacks were moved to a similar place, with links to that page replacing the ones currently linking to the pages up for deletion? For example, if Goku's article said "His main attack is the Kamehameha", it would instead say "His main attack is the [(insert link) Kamehameha]." Pretty much the only real changes would be that the attacks can't be found using the Wikipedia search engine, that the links would have those squares next to them, and it technically wouldn't be on Wikipedia. Sigmasonic X 17:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • comment: It was suggested. I don't remember anyone objecting. I personally liked the idea.--Marhawkman 03:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

    • comment I like this idea as well. It is a good understanding. My only hope is that the information and media in this article is kept intact. Moving it might disrupt links as well as media since they are linked to Wikipedia. I don't know if Wikia can use material uploaded to Wikipedia. Maphisto86 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, especially Kamehameha (Dragon Ball). This is a case where "delete x because y" ignores the relative importances and individual merits of X and Y. No One Piece attack has achieved a level of archetypical presence in all fighting manga. The Kamehameha has. They may need cleanup though. --tjstrf 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Definite Keep BrenDJ 00:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• A Must Keep - The Kamehameha wave has become a universal icon and inspiration to the world of modern art and animation. As Eastern culture and practices become ever more influenced by methods and aesthetics of the West, the significance of the Kamehamehe wave is increasingly noticeable. I find that most arguments made against the inclusion of this definition stem from a disdain for "fans" or people who possess a zealous interest in the particulars of artistic expression (particularly television programs). Ultimately, this article is completely valid and factual in that it accurately represents a term employed in the program referenced, therefore such definitions are factually based, and factually based information, however trivial some may feel it to be, is indeed knowledge. Those who seek its removal seek, simultaneously, to limit the scope of Wikipedia's ability to inform. They seek to cut short knowledge. It is not for us to deem what is or is not "good" or "relevant" or "trivial" information. All information is of worth. And those who seek to remove any information, are guilty of crimes against knowledge... Hmmmm, I may have erred in my posting practices earlier. I am new to this, apparently one is to place comments in chronological order downward? Also, it seems that a username is to be listed. I am currently uncertain how to accomplish this but will attempt my best. Patiencee please. GCZ 01:24, 16 October, 2006 (UTC) ... in fact added by User:12.218.119.147
  • Rejoinder: I don't even know what's meant by "universal icon" but doubt that this is one. You say Ultimately, this article is completely valid and factual in that it accurately represents a term employed in the program referenced which makes it seem as if this is a dictionary entry, but WP is not a dictionary. You also say And those who seek to remove any information, are guilty of crimes against knowledge... Stirring stuff indeed! But blatantly untrue, not least because all of this material seems suitable for Dragon Ball wiki. You can put it there. (Indeed, as it's GFDL you can save it and recycle it in any GFDL'd way that you wish.) Oh, right, it's already here in a different Wikia wiki. Meanwhile, any assertion that all information is worthy of preservation in Wikipedia would fly in the face of what's clearly written in "WP:NOT" (pay particular attention to what's written about Plot summaries.) Lastly, you "list a username" simply by logging in under that username, writing your comment, and ending it with four tildes. -- Hoary 06:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Definitely Keep : There is no reason at all to delete a perfectly fine guide to Dragonball Attacks. Its helpful and is needed. You can find information on these attacks and its a good list. There is no reason for deletion. Would you prefer that all the special moves were their own article!? .... added at Revision as of 19:52, 16 October 2006 by User:67.165.10.68
  • Rejoinder: Perhaps you haven't read what's above. If the article is helpful, it's just as helpful at this alternative location. And rather than simply declaring (twice!) that there's no reason for deletion, you might care to give your reasons for dismissing the reasons for deletion that have been clearly expressed above. -- Hoary 04:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This article is not a FAQ, travel guide, memorial, instruction manual, internet guide, textbook or annotated text, or plot summary. Most votes for deletion seem to be based on WP:NOT... BUT: "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." This is verifiable information, it doesn't push an agenda, and it's a notable part of an extremely popular and well-known anime & manga. Just because it is/will be on the Dragon Ball Wikia doesn't mean it can't also be here. Just adding links to the wikias (which are not all that well maintained and large portions of them are just out-of-date, partial WP mirrors) would quickly turn Wikipedia into a link directory anyway. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  It's an original synthesis of the plot of the various Dragon Ball anime and manga series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  OR? That can be excised. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 04:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  Well, it could be reduced to observations which are simple enough to be common to any reasonable observer, but that doesn't change the fact that every single detail is going to be a plot detail. I hesitate to call this a plot summary because summaries tend to omit trivial details and no trivial detail has been omitted here, but this is indeed nothing more than plot detail cut up and arranged in a new way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  Comment If we wanted, we could add to the article on the Kamehameha and establish its external presence from the series through the citing of direct references and appearances of the move from other notable anime and manga series. It would definitely be possible. You may note the already present mention in that article of Carlos Newton, whose entire fighting style is apparantly styled as a tribute to DBZ. What would you think of that idea? --tjstrf 05:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  Should we talk about Dragon Ball's subsequent impact on later works, including homages to its attacks? Absolutely. Is a lengthy description of the Kamehameha going to help that? Not even a little. Right now, there are two sentences in the kamehameha that aren't talking about DB, DBZ, or DBGT, and the place to talk about DB or DB*'s effect on other works would be in the article for the DB series or in the article for those other works, not in a out-of-the-way article burdened with excess plot detail. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This AfD is 9 days old and 81 kilobytes long. Shouldn't it be closed already? JIP | Talk 08:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, tjstrf 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment er, relisted? There isn't a consensus somewhere it the preceeding 81 kilobytes, or at very least a clear no consensus? I don't know what 5 more days of AfD will achieve other than more headache for the closing admin.--Isotope23 17:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe they're going to try to break the current record, 224 kilobytes in Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency? JIP | Talk 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Ha, I knew there was a reason... well, my condolences to whoever has to wade through this mess.--Isotope23 19:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment from my observations, relisting an AfD generally does not give it an entire 5 more days of hearings in actual practice. It's more like 2 or 3 at most. --tjstrf 19:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment it should probably just be closed as no consensus. Everything from here on out is just tacking on more reading for the closer and it's pretty clear that consensus will not be reached at this point.--Isotope23 20:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is an interesting article for the fans of the series. It should deserve to stay because it is informative and useful to the fans --ProfessorWikia
  • True, but this seems to be useful only to fans of the series, Prof. Wikia. Wikipedia is not a gigantic information vaccuum, however, and also should not have to keep every article ever created just because it could be useful to someone somewhere. That being said, I'd also like to point out that under WP:NOT it states "groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted". It seems that as long as each attack is condensed down to its absolute essentials, it should be alright. It was probably suggested somewhere above, but this article should be cleaned up and condensed. Andyuts! 19:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That would be a "keep and cleanup", correct? --tjstrf 19:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Question Why on earth is this appearing in the October 17 log like a new discussion when it's been happening since October 10?
  • Reply Because I'm an idiot who misunderstands the use of Template:Relist, most likely. Alternatively, it may simply be that due to the way nothing anywhere actually explains how relisting works or when to use it, I was confused and did so unnecessarily. --tjstrf 20:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry I didn't see the Relisted note... it's hard to see anything on this monstrosity of an AFD. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Anything useful should be merged up to Dragon Ball. This is far outside the bounds of an encyclopedia. --Improv 20:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This doesn't need to be relisted. It's roughly 21 keep/17 delete with no concensus, and none on the horizon. Close it as no consensus so we can get back to improving, please? --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 20:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Normally I am against this stuff but its Dragon Ball Z ... Kamehameha! ... my nephew has never even seen the anime, not that I know at least, and runs around screaming kamahameha and acting like he is firing explosive blasts. Oddly enough I found Dragon Ball Z from trying to find out what this phrase meant, being I heard the phrase before I heard of the show, its like the derka belacka craze but worldwide and with lots more people. --NuclearZer0 20:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - or maybe merge, Dragon Ball Z is notable, but the detials are not --T-rex 20:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete indiscriminate, original research, and canonical fancruft. Guy 21:20, 17 October 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 MONGO as spam. MER-C 07:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unified Field Equation

Prod'ed by someone else, creator (rather aggressively) disputes the prod. Seems like Original research to me.--Konst.able 06:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete I would consider redoing this under db-spam. (www.musics.com). If not, then jsut delete. --Tbeatty 06:43, 17 October 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 as no good reason given for deletion, and clearly a consensus to keep.

[edit] Royal Forest

totally unsourced, should be shelved until sourced. An article like this cannot continue to exist on Wikipedia totally unsourced. Too much POV and possible gross inaccuracies Harthacanute3 00:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep While there are many things that should be carefully watched, I can't find anything in this article screams to me that this is too much POV or grossly inaccurate. It's certainly historically true. I believe what you should have done is look for some clean-up templates instead of nominating for deletion. Mister.Manticore 00:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Wavy G 00:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep its not perfect but it's a good article --Seadog.M.S 00:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well written article. a bit POV, butit just needs rewriting not deletion. --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 01:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Well written and informative article. Probably needs a bit of editing, but well worth keeping. Pursey 02:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A hell of a lot of Wikipedia is unsourced. There are more offensive, libelous pages out there than this one. --Zeality 02:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Fix the inaccuracies, add citations. --- RockMFR 03:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article isn't controversial so there can't really be a POV. The page can also be improved. Worth keeping. ||150.203.177.218 03:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, two years ago this could have been a Featured Article. Tag the problem areas, and don't use AFD for good articles that need work. --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per above. Cnwb 06:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, it needs sourcing and copyediting to be more encyclopedic, but there's nothing so funamentally flawed that it needs to be deleted altogether. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While sourced articles are preferable, there is no stipulation that unsourced articles should be deleted. -- Necrothesp 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There is a source cited. Only one, but it's still a source. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above -- Librarianofages 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep' - POV and unsourced information are not good reasons for deletion. --Ineffable3000 22:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and close this out per WP:SNOW, this just needs some simple improvements here and there. RFerreira 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Why is this article not being deleted for lack of sources when a similar article Anglo-Saxon hunting IS being deleted right now for the rationale of lack of sources? Harthacanute3 03:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As (I think) the principal contributor to this article some time ago, I admit that the sourcing is not as clear as it could be. Most of the material on forest law (the bulk of the article) was taken from the first chapter of John Manwood's treatise and from Blackstone's Commentaries, both of which are linked in the text; there are also external links to several royal charters in the "History" section. The principal problem, as it stands, is that Manwood (whom Blackstone relied on), though a Tudor justice of the forest, lived at a time when forest law had to some degree fallen into desuetude. His listing of the beasts of the forest is not entirely accurate, as already noted (see also the amply-cited Warren (free)), and I am now given to understand that his classification of the court of swainmote is also problematic. Unfortunately, I will have to go to some difficulty to read GJ Turner's Select Pleas of the Forest, an important corrective to Manwood, and will not be able to revise it immediately. But overall, I think you'll find that the bulk of this article can be verified in the sources I've named, even if they haven't yet been arranged into inline citations and so forth. I hope this clears up some mysteries. And speaking of which, might I ask the nominator (who appears to have had some experience of Wikipedia before registering his name) why he marked the addition of the AfD notice as a "minor edit" and omitted a summary, and why his contributions so resemble those of the short-lived User:Fecal Matters? Or what the POV is in the article? Choess 04:48, 18 October 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. There is a clear consensus to delete here, and there is really no need to let this go any longer. --Coredesat 04:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mission: Impossible IV (2009 film)

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The content is unsourced/rumors. — ERcheck (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 00:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 01:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No IMDB profile for a future release. Article created by Loontheschoon who has a history of making destructive edits [1] --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 01:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 01:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Ageo020. CovenantD 02:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per above. Keeping this article is... Mission Imp... ok, I'll stop. :) Pursey 02:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; Hawke has not been announced, plus WP ain't no crystal ball. --Mhking 02:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and swift Burn it with fiar. WP:NOT Crystal ball. Axem Titanium 02:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. Way too early for this. Prolog 03:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per norm --150.203.177.218 03:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, come back when you have a press release. Alba 04:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverified gossip and guesswork. Details about future Mission: Impossible films seem to change with the weather anyway. This article will self-destruct in 5 days. --Canley 05:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete WP:NOT Knowing Is Half The Battle 05:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 06:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No way is that worth keeping.--Seadog.M.S 11:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom and everybody else. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom TheRanger 13:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. *drew 14:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crystalballism. Danny Lilithborne 16:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated. AuburnPilot 19:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - not on movies.com --Ineffable3000 22:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above.UberCryxic 01:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ugly Girl

nn song Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 00:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm pretty inclusionist when it comes to songs, but this is a parody song whose artist isn't even known! That's about as unnotable as it gets. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 02:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Man, this thing brings back memories - everyone was singing it in my fifth grade class. There was a flash animation and everything. You're so ugly, you disgust me, boohoo! boohoo! Anyways, remaining on track, if we don't have any more information than that we don't know who the author is, it sholdn't be on wikipedia (despite its 22,500 hits). Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 03:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing the verifiability requirements of WP:V and insufficiently notable per AfD precedent summarized at WP:AFDP#Music. --Satori Son 04:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I think wikipedia should actully have more song articles, but by notable people.--Seadog.M.S 12:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, can't even judge attempt to satisfy notability criteria standard until verification or the name of the artist.-- danntm ^T _C 18:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable song. --Ineffable3000 22:06, 17 October 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sales orientation

No references, seems to be a C/P job KaoBear^(talk) 13:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No sources, almost smells like WP:OR.-- danntm ^T _C 22:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Question What's C/P? I thought that stood for child pornography. Anomo 04:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I read it as "copy and paste". Uncle G 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Avi 00:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:OR Avi 00:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 00:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 02:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 07:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cluster Missiles

Delete. A small paragraph article about a special weapon from a star wars game. Merge is sort of out of the option, because of the name of the article and the fact that the article would probably only mention it briefly in a gameplay section. — Deckiller 00:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 00:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --teh tennisman ^{Speak your piece!}_{People person!FREE STUFF CLICK HERE} 00:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Star Wars fancruft. --Tarret 01:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 02:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -Per Mer-C.--Seadog.M.S 12:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I can see how it is relevant to the games, but it doesn't deserve an article of it's own, probably should be included in an article covering all the weaponry (even if that should exist). James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Star Wars Expanded Universe. --Ineffable3000 22:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That merge would make absolutely no sense, since this is a minor special attack from a video game, whereas the EU article provides a broad overview of the multimedia and whatnot...— Deckiller 11:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with List of Star Wars ship-mounted weapons. Not worth its own article, but since we have an appropriate list, we might as well merge it. BryanG^(talk) 01:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • IMO, that would encourage gameguide-cruft, which really doesn't have a significance outisde of the game itself. — Deckiller 11:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 07:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coma gas

Delete. To be honest, I'm not even sure where to merge this one; besides, there is not even much information to merge in the first place. I think deletion would be our best bet here, in lieu of redirect or merge or both. — Deckiller 00:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 00:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Maybe you can merge it into the Starwars article? --Nissi Kim 01:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Star Wars is such a large and encompassing universe, so the major option would be merging it into the weapons list (however, it is so minor, and I don't even get any significant google hits, that I feel it might be best to just ignore it completely). Plus, it seems to be slang numerous other terms (relating to comets and manufacturing), so a redirect is out of the question. Finally, a disambiguation of such a trivial term may be frowned upon. — Deckiller 01:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It isn't significant enough for a merge. --150.203.177.218 03:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Insignificant 'weapon'. Sr13 07:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, It would be nuts if Wikipedia had a seperate article on every single weapon used on starwars.-_Seadog.M.S 11:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• 'Merge with Star Wars. It is interesting information and should be noted. --Ineffable3000 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above comments. RFerreira 00:58, 18 October 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. --Coredesat 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mandy Chiang

Notability unable to be determined. Gives only a sentence about what she does and half a dozen links to outside sites. --Nissi Kim 01:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete The article has been up for nearly 10 months. I think a span of 10 months merits enough time for "organic" expansion. --Nissi Kim 20:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - IMDB profile. MER-C 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep WP:notable Valoem ^talk 03:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, The article itself is too small and does not seem notable, Weak Keep if someone would show some facts.--Seadog.M.S 12:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting one, this. She's apparently a celebrity-turned-singer - but nothing explains what made her a celebrity before her singing career (a bit suspicious, that), and 2CDs only is not very impressive, nor is what seems to be a bit-part role in a minor film? On balance, delete. This isn't set in stone - if someone can prove notability to me, I'll think again, but as of now I'm not impressed. Delete Moreschi 12:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Her acting includes parts in some well-known HK films [2] such as New Police Story. She's also been identified as a celebrity by Microsoft [3] and Oxfam [4], and "popular" by Citigroup [5] - though I'd assume most coverage of her isn't written in English. Mereda 16:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - The Chinese Wiki article goes into much more depth, so a translation is probably necessary to fully justify the article. Caknuck 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per possible growth --T-rex 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Allow for organic expansion -- Librarianofages 21:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - No evidence of non-notability. Incompleteness is not a valid reason for deletion. The Chinese page has a lot of information and appears to be notable --Ineffable3000 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the above comments, this is a disappointing nomination for deletion. RFerreira 00:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep — There is enough here to show she has done stuff to be notable, but I agree that the page really needs to be expanded. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 23:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep she rocks out better than Mandy Moore. 152.163.100.74 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, we are not operating on a deadline, just fix what needs fixing. Yamaguchi先生 03:55, 22 October 2006 03:55, 22 October 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. Nothing to transwiki. --Coredesat 03:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambush at Derra IV

Delete. I hate to seem like a deletionist (I'm quite proud of Wikipedia's pop culture sections and the ones I've helped, it's just that many of them need cleanup, compression/merges, and an out of universe perspective)...but I don't know what to do with this article. It's been staring me in the eye for a while, because it is a plot summary of a minor part of a novella called Side Trip, which doesn't even have its own article. Mention of it could be made in relevent articles (such as Thrawn and the Baron), but after that, redirect is probably not a solid hope (nor is disambig). — Deckiller 01:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Welcome to the Dark Side, Deckiller. Actually, based on the article, I don't think this battle would be notable enough if the Star Wars universe and its wars were real. I mean... Empire attacks Rebel convoy. Rebels outgunned. That would happen quite a lot, I would guess Bwithh 01:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Plus, I think the novella's title, "Side Trip", basically dooms this article :) — Deckiller 01:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki Assuming that the ever-popular Wookiepedia doesn't have it already, if it does, go ahead and delete. Mister.Manticore 01:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 01:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wookieepedia and delete, natch. Alba 04:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't Belong Here Knowing Is Half The Battle 05:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I am starting to hate articles like this --Seadog.M.S 12:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wookieepedia's version is more extensive already, I doubt there's anything to transwiki. BryanG^(talk) 01:25, 18 October 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 05:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Frist medical school experiments controversy

An entire article written from one newspaper source. An excellent example of why article forks like this should not be allowed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 01:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article was created because the issue was overwhelming the main Frist article. I served as an informal mediator during its creation, and the article, at least at that time, was a satisfactory compromise between about five editors with strong views. Daughter articles are a very standard way of keeping relatively minor, but still notable, issues from swamping a main article. This technique has been used extensively, to generally good effect, in many articles. Arbcom itself suggested such a remedy for the John Kerry article, which resulted in several new article covering details of notable controversies (which then allowed the main article to keep focused). Clinton alone has got a good half-dozen such. As to the stated complaint .... this stuff was widely covered. Broaden the sourcing if you like, but it's plenty notable and easily sourced. Also note that the main source was Dr. Frist's own book. Derex 01:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound flippant, but it is irrelevant why the article was created. This "controversy" is based off of a bunch of weblogs and one article in the Boston Globe. No other major source picked it up, or even bothered to look deeper into it. The nature of this manufactured non-event is apparent with the void of reporting on it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not irrelevant. The question is not whether this material should be included in Wikipedia or not. The question is where. It should be presented in a manner that is most convenient for the reader. Usually, that place is in a subarticle if a controversy takes more than a paragraph to describe. Frankly, leaving it in the main article violates the undue weight provision of NPOV. Omitting it entirely is censorship of an issue that is widely known -- google it and see. Thus, a subarticle to allow a neutral presentation, at greater length, for the interested reader. Derex 03:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and should not be used as such. Run a Nexis search on it, and see how many other newspapers picked this up. Answer: very few. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It was carried by United Press International, one of the largest wire services, under the name "Frist asked to atone for killing cats". Conveniently, someone lopped off that reference which was in one of the earliest versions. Here's a link to an archive service.[6] 03:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A handfull of newspaper articles from four years ago does not an encyclopedia article make. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ceteris paribus, the age of a topic or its references is wholly independant of verifiability or appropriateness for the encyclopedia. Serpent's Choice 07:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep As per Derex. Pursey 02:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As per Derex. --Hemlock Martinis 03:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As per Derex. --150.203.177.218 03:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I could only find two relevant articles on google news, and they both only contain small references to the experiments to illustrate larger points. Also, Frist's own book isn't exactly a third-party source. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 04:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Google news only covers news articles posted within a couple weeks. This event and story is from quite a long time ago; it's not news. Derex 08:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the approrpiately weighted part of this article with Bill Frist. By my estimate that's about two sentences of material. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-Sourced information properly moved from the Bill Frist article as per longstanding precedent. Whether the sources are from four years ago is truly irrelevent. This is not Wikinews. —Nate Scheffey 06:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Dhartung; it deserves a mention, but, seriously, attempting an entire article on this is just overkill. GassyGuy 06:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep under the precedent set by ArbCom re: John Kerry, the longstanding system of upgrading sections to articles as necessary, and also in order to respect the process of the original talk page's discussion in which subpage genesis was at least marginally prefered as the means of dealing with this material. Serpent's Choice 07:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, needs some clean up--Seadog.M.S 11:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Three major newspapers, a lesser newspaper, a press service, and his own book are pretty good sources. Hardly "one article" as claimed. The key fact is that he improperly used shelter cats for medical experiments, not that he did experiments outside the norm. Some would applaud him for advancing medical research. Others condemn any experimentation on anmals wherever they were obtained. Seems enough well documented controversy for a subarticle, perhaps too complex for the main article. Certainly too complex an issue for "two sentences" in the main article.Edison 13:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems like a reasonable place for the information. And the information is encyclopedia, IMHO, similar to many other subarticles for other people. Rbraunwa 15:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article is wiki material -- Librarianofages 21:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article is a notable event about a very public figure. JGardner 23:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per commentary above, notable article, notable figure, public controversy with obvious interest to reader. Smeelgova 01:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC).
• Keep, notable event and has appeared in major newspapers. Article needs to be cleaned up. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 06:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Derex and Edison. Essential info for those researching Frist. NBGPWS 09:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Derex and Edison. Good info that just needs a little clean up. --DixiePixie 11:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Use of daughter articles to streamline politicians' bios should be encouraged. JamesMLane t c 10:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is a spinoff... if it wasnt an independent article than it would just be cluttering up the primary.  ALKIVAR™ 17:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above, no valid reason for deletion here. Silensor 19:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comments written above, it is a valid subarticle. Yamaguchi先生 01:37, 22 October 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 delete. Dakota 07:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series

Not notable, fails WP:WEB. Also see Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series. Khatru2 01:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 01:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Shiroi Hane 02:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Dont' delete It's a very popular series and deserves a Wikipedia article. Nintendo Maximus 03:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'm going to say DELETE unless someone can show that this passes WP:WEB. As for being "a very popular series," if it fails WP:WEB it isn't popular enough. N Shar 05:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Dskj 09:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What is this doing on Wikipedia--Seadog.M.S 11:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if it did pass WP:WEB (which it appears not to), it still fails WP:NOT by virtue of consisting almost entirely of episode summaries. — Haeleth Talk 13:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete absent multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. Guy 14:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series.--Isotope23 15:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this show is hilarious, and I even quote it on my userpage, but there's no way it's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Danny Lilithborne 16:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete something posted on YouTube is non-notable. --Ineffable3000 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as mentioned before it doesn't pass WP:WEB. The target is a copyvio too. I think we have a policy against generally not linking to those in WP:EL. --Kunzite 01:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Please explain how "Something posted on Youtube is non-notable", when there are articles on Wikipedia about people and their videos that have become notable as a result of being on Youtube. There is plenty of notable YouTube content. In addition, many episodes of Yu-gi-oh! The Abridged Series have gotten well over 100,000 views. Considering how fast it got there, it's only a matter of time before it is reported elsewhere. --Paltheos 01:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment these other articles about people reference significant coverage of the person or videos in external media sources, thus establishing that they are notable for their YouTube contributions (see Lonelygirl15... MSNBC, CNN, Mtv, NYT all have written about her). I see no evidence of any significant external coverage of Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series. WP:NOT a crystal ball, so until this is reported elsewhere, there is no justification for having an article about it on Wikipedia.--Isotope23 14:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete this show is getting big hits, and gets more every week. Shadow Skye 05:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Dakota 07:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BaboViolent 2

Software does not currently meet requirements for WP:SOFTWARE MidgleyDJ 01:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 02:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete only 89 google hits, most of which are forums. --Ineffable3000 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I am being bold and disregarding simple "votes" that gave no reason to keep the article, and mere existence does not grant notability to something. AfD is not a vote. If the keep "votes" had given legitimate reasons for keeping aside from "all schools are inherently notable", I would close as no consensus. --Coredesat 03:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Altona Green Primary School

Primary schools are generally not notable, generally it is only high schools that are listed. I find no reason why this school has any reason to be listed based on its notability. It also fails the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL TheRanger 01:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no assertion of notability. MER-C 02:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 02:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 03:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh???Edison 13:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 03:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is nothing on the page to assert the school's notability--150.203.177.218 03:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability.--Húsönd 04:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.MightyAtom 04:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:SCHOOL. Catchpole 06:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Probably a fine school, but no claim of notability. It could just as well be mentioned in an article about the town or the school district. Not all schools (or all high schools ) need their own articles unless they have verified notability.Edison 13:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 14:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable and notable. Merchbow 15:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merch, what makes this school notable? TJ Spyke 19:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please explain how its notable you have left same reply on several AfD's without details.TheRanger 19:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - per Merchbow, all schools are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Altona Meadows per WP:SCHOOLS. — RJH (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - it belongs to a district and is therefore notable according to WP:SCHOOLS. Ineffable3000 22:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? Being part of a school district is NOT one of the criteria of WP:SCHOOL. TJ Spyke 01:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fulfills none of the criteria of WP:SCHOOLS. "Belonging to a district" both does not show notability and is not mentioned at WP:SCHOOLS.—Cuiviénen 00:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Vsion 01:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment apparently, the school is the reigning national tennis champion. [7] --Vsion 02:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• The source you cite says that a student at the school is a highly ranked player for 12 year olds but not that the school has a highly ranked team.TheRanger 02:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• I probably have misread the championship thing. Let me find if there is any school ranking on this. --Vsion 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence given that it meets even close to the WP:SCHOOL guideline: it is 15 years old, it does not have an exceptional enrollment or an exceptional program, it has not been the subject of any third-party work. Now the one claim made of notability is that one 12-year old student is a pretty apt tennis player (and no one would suggest that she is notable per WP:BIO). Moreover the article explaining this fact mentions that "Gorgescu trains privately at Westgate indoor sports centre in Altona three times a week under Michael Tucci." so there is essentially no link to the school whatsoever. Also, I'm not sure where Ineffable3000 read that being part of a school district is sufficient with respect to that guideline but, if I may, I would suggest that he re-read this before posting that same absurdity in every school AfD out there. As for the "notable and verifiable" well let me try to say this again: AfD is not a vote and these arguments are meaningless since they don't reflect precedents, current practice or consensus. Pascal.Tesson 03:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. An EBBSCO Australia and New Zealand media database came up with one reference on this school: a letter to the editor by a student at the school. Google News Archives comes up with nothing at all. Given that there doesn't seem to be many third party sources available, I favour deletion although it is worth mentioning in the article on Altona and the relevant school district if we have one. Capitalistroadster 04:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- pointless nomination. The clear community consensus at schoolwatch is that EVERY schools is notable. --ForbiddenWord 14:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Let me just say that what is important is the consensus among all Wikipedians, not among schoolwatch this is a very alarming statement and not at all in the spirt of wikipedia goals. I visted the link to Schoolwatch and found no discussion as to what are notable or what is not. All I found were a list of AfD's current and a past AfD's with results totaled by month list with totals by month. As to its point of view I found this statement right at top of page "the terms 'keep' and 'no consensus' are used interchangeably (as no consensus defaults to keep)." TheRanger 15:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment consensus at schoolwatch has no real bearing on consensus at wikipedia as a whole. This isn't a reason to keep.--Isotope23 19:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I didn't even know it was theoretically possible to fail WP:SCHOOLS, but this one manages to do it. -- Kicking222 16:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons described at User:Silensor/Schools. Silensor 17:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and as usual see User:JoshuaZ/Schools. JoshuaZ 19:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kicking. This as about as non-notable and unverifiable as it gets. JoshuaZ 19:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable school. Looks like there's a sentence there that could be useful in National Primary School Tennis Championship. Oh, what do you know? The only thing resembling an attempt at asserting notability here is that they have a student that won a championship for which we don't even have an article. —ptk✰fgs 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:SCHOOLS. --Myles Long 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Montco 01:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth, no object to merging in the interim. Bahn Mi 02:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all enduring public institutions. --Centauri 14:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all schools.  ALKIVAR™ 20:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to school district (I think merge is per wiki:schools?) Jcuk 16:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, just as notable as any other school. bbx 20:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge do not keep. Just as non notable as most schools. Vegaswikian 23:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Rebecca 02:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Keep why? Just saying keep is not adding to this AfD, as this is not a vote. What is needed is reasons based on wokipedia policy as to why it should be keep or deleted.TheRanger 14:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to the appropriate locality according to proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline. Yamaguchi先生 03:40, 22 October 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 delete. Mangojuice^talk 14:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AegeanLinux

Does not appear to be a notable subject, and there doesn't seem to be any references to back up the material. —this is messedrocker (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 02:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Tarret 02:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - yet another non-notable Linux distro. MER-C 02:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not even on distrowatch yet. The current article is also quite POV. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 04:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Egregiously POV, not notable. Xdenizen 05:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Deletion I am a co-developer of AegeanLinux, but may I just say this, it is purely ridicules that you would want to delete the AegeanLinux article from Wikipedia. If you delete this one article here, you are going to have to delete many other articles that are Linux related. I, personally, along with Tim Groeneveld (another dev of AegeanLinux). You should maybe join #aegeanlinux on irc.freenode.net and see how much enthusiasm the AegeanLinux team has. And what you say about things being notable, all I will say is come and look at this this and this—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kdeman (talk • contribs) 01:37, October 22, 2006 (UTC)
• Why?Why do you want to delete this article? It's a real distro, all the info is factual. I can't see any proper reason to remove it.Lunarctic 11:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  Comment All content on wikipedia must meet notability guidelines, We have a Wikipedia:Notaility (software) which many people (see above) believe the subject of this article does not meet. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Non-notable Linux distribution, with no information from reliable sources available. The article is currently little more than a POV vanity page. Recommend deletion. --Slowking Man 17:04, 22 October 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. Mangojuice^talk 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ballam Park Primary School

Primary schools are generally not notable, generally it is only high schools that are listed. I find no reason why this school has any reason to be listed based on its notability. It also fails the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL TheRanger 02:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 03:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep meets notability criteria Valoem ^talk 03:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is nothing on the page to assert the school's notability--150.203.177.218 03:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The "50 years old" criteria should not apply in this case. --- RockMFR 03:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I don't think solely being 60 years old is enough for inclusion. 107 Google hits doesn't assert notability either. Prolog 03:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Húsönd 04:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Fails to assert notability, but does meet the proposed guidelines. Pursey 04:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteper above. Catchpole 06:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Has been around 60 years, but no other claim to notability. It could just as well be mentioned in an article about the town or the school district. Not all schools (or all high schools ) need their own articles unless they have verified notability. Edison 13:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable and notable. Merchbow 15:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please explain how its notable you have left same reply on several AfD's without details.TheRanger 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see that he needs to reply, what he is saying seems to be self-apparent -- Librarianofages 21:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Self-apparent"?? As in the US Decl. of Independence? ("We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and that all schools are notable.") You have to present an actual argument as to why this or any school is notable, other than argument by assertion. Pan Dan 14:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I notice you dont argue with people who just put Delete NN. If people who vote keep have to present an actual argument, dont people who vote delete? Jcuk 16:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

First, it's funny you should say that, because about an hour before you posted that I posted this. Second, notability has to be shown. Those voting "keep" have to actually come up with some non-trivial sources that have taken note of the school. Those voting "delete" have no such burden, although in a perfect world we would all look for sources before voting. Pan Dan 23:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Per Merchbow, all schools are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 21:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the local community page per WP:SCHOOLS. — RJH (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It is part of a school district and therefore meets the criteria of WP:SCHOOLS. --Ineffable3000 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into an article about the local community or the respective school district per WP:SCHOOLS unless significantly expanded upon. RFerreira 01:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Btw, WP:SCHOOLS proposal has stalled, isn't it? --Vsion 01:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the relevant community or school district or both. I can't find any references to this in either the Google News Archive or EBBSCO's Australia New Zealand database. Capitalistroadster 04:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect with community and district articles, once identified. I don't see that there's enough here to justify retention, or that there is more material to adequately expand it, but Deletion is destruction. Alansohn 12:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP and do not merge or redirect, there is a clear consensus in the community at schoolwatch that all schools are notable and deserve their own article. --ForbiddenWord 14:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Let me just say that what is important is the consensus among all Wikipedians, not among schoolwatch this is a very alarming statement and not at all in the spirt of wikipedia goals. I visted the link to Schoolwatch and found no discussion as to what are notable or what is not. All I found were a list of AfD's current and a past AfD's with results totaled by month list with totals by month. As to its point of view I found this statement right at top of page "the terms 'keep' and 'no consensus' are used interchangeably (as no consensus defaults to keep)." TheRanger 15:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge if there's an article for its school district, delete otherwise. As usual, non-notable. -- Kicking222 16:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the US, I don't think Australia has "school districts"... (JROBBO 04:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

• Keep for reasons described at User:Silensor/Schools. Can be merged per Capitalistroadster, but that does not require an AFD discussion. Silensor 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and see rebuttal essay at User:JoshuaZ/Schools. JoshuaZ 19:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 18:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable primary school. JoshuaZ 19:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability. Plenty of schools use these colors and occupy structurally sound buildings. —ptk✰fgs 20:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable school. Montco 01:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth, notable to the communities served. Bahn Mi 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all schools.  ALKIVAR™ 20:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As a Lexis-Nexis search shows only trivial local coverage of the "community events" sort, the school's notability is not established and there is no chance of expanding the article with verifiable material. Pan Dan 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep please school is notabel and meets proposed guideline too Yuckfoo 02:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge (which may be the preferred option according to wiki:schools)
• Keep all schools. --Czj 16:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all schools, they are useful content in our encyclopedia. bbx 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as empty. Just as non notable as most schools. Vegaswikian 23:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Rebecca 02:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Keep why? Just saying keep is not adding to this AfD, as this is not a vote. What is needed is reasons based on wokipedia policy as to why it should be keep or deleted.TheRanger 14:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think she is voting based on one of the reasons stated above. Anyway, why does it matter? You don't have to give a reason. (JROBBO 04:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

Since Afd isn't a vote, a vote without a reason is pointless. Pan Dan 14:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - as per Vsion. (JROBBO 04:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

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

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

The result was delete. I'm fairly certain this guy is notable enough, but the article really doesn't make his contributions clear. No prejudice against recreation, but if the article is recreated, it should be clear on his importance. Mangojuice^talk 14:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick Carr

I am nominating this article for deletion under the "Non-notable" section of Wikipedia's guidelines. While I personally know Fred Carr (and attend the University of Oklahoma for that matter), I do not feel that he has contributed to Meteorology in a way that would be notable enough for a Wikipedia article on him. TNLTRPB 02:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Frederick Carr is notable; he invented the carr. Just kidding...Delete. Wavy G 02:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep professors are notable. Valoem ^talk 03:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete professors are not notable. See WP:PROF. Herostratus 03:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be more notable than the average college professor, which is typically treated as the minimum notability requirement. --- RockMFR 03:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't feel that the article gives a reason that meets WP:PROF. --150.203.177.218 03:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Although you may have counted my nomination of this article as a vote for "delete," I'm going ahead and placing my vote here for formality. BTW, the WP:PROF page notes that it is -not- a policy at this time, only a proposal. TNLTRPB 05:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as the article fails to assert notability beyond head of the School of Meteorology, which just barely meets the standard. I'm comfortable with university presdients getting an automatic notability pass, but individual schools within a university, not so much. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not quite notable enough for me, I'm afraid. If he ran this American Meterological Society, then fine, but just being a fellow isn't good enough. Moreschi 12:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep A research professor is easier to find notability for. Other than his dissertation, no research, no books, no invited papers, no research awards are reported. Google sucks for such research, because there are too many other men with similar names. It says he edits journals and is a Fellow of the national body of his specialty. Carr is more interested in teaching per his facuty page. The article doesn't cite winning teaching awards. Maybe some quotes from famous people in the field whom he mentored could be included to verify notability as a teacher, or publications, invited talks, and editorships could be documented. Points for being the department head. Edison 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Try Google Scholar instead of Google Web. Uncle G 17:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep per above -- Librarianofages 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What "above" are you refering to? I mean Edison's "keep" opinion is a very very weak one (and I almost suspect he meant "weak delete") and Valeom's opinion is not at all representative of current stantdards applied around here. That leaves RockMFR which isn't particularly well-documented. Pascal.Tesson 01:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - Fails the criteria of WP:PROF --Ineffable3000 22:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The Google search for his name + meteorology gets 68 unique hits which is waaaay low for anyone who might qualify as a truly above average professor. Pascal.Tesson 01:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The Google Scholar search for his name + meteorology gets only 28 hits [8], also solidly below the "average professor" threshold, and I see no evidence from independent sources of him meeting any of the tests at WP:PROF. GRBerry 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Restated Keep Sorry I didnt have time to add comment. Professors are notable SEE WP:PROF "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, they are definitely notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on verifiability".: http://www.caps.ou.edu/CAPS/carr.html

Pascal.Tesson I'm afraid you are wrong I did have my reason for keeping. Do not randomly insult people it is trolling. Valoem ^talk 03:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I pointed out that your opinion does not reflect consensus. I'm not sure how you could misconstrue this as a random insult. And I insist: consensus on Wikipedia is that not all professors are notable enough to deserve an article. I take it from what you just wrote that you agree Carr does not meet the criteria of WP:PROF. The extra link you just gave is his description on the Oklahoma University website. For all we know he wrote this himself. That hardly counts as a reliable source. Pascal.Tesson 13:59, 19 October 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 nomination withdrawn. JPD (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bankstown Grammar School

<Primary schools are generally not notable, generally it is only high schools that are listed. I find no reason why this school has any reason to be listed based on its notability. It also fails the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL TheRanger 02:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "This was listed in error, at the time I thought that this was a grade school and it is in fact a high school. Based on this fact I now think that the article should be kept. I would like to withdraw my nomination.TheRanger 04:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Super Speedy Happy Time Keep If you click the link to the actual school, you'll find that it is a High School. A Grammar, or Private High School at that. Rather Exclusive. Article needs expanding, but certainly not deleting. Pursey 02:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of importance of subject. Catchpole 06:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. More notable than many High Schools and they are generally kept. --Bduke 07:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 08:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteNo particular assertion of notability other than being a high school, and I do not agree athat every high school is notable. In what ways has this school excelled, as described by newspaper articles or recognition by bodies which evaluate schools in the area? The article does not mention adequately its Christian emphasis and pastoral care for the students as described at the website. Edison 13:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The article should probably be marked for cleanup, but not deletion. Pursey 16:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Verifiable and notable. Nomination appears to be a mistake.

Merchbow 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the nomination appears to be in error, keep with cleanup. However I do not know how to withdraw the nomination..TheRanger 17:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep no reason to delete, per Merchbow, all schools are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the local community page per WP:SCHOOLS; note that the later is not a deletion criteria. — RJH (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Fits a more liberal interpretation of WP:SCHOOLS. It is interesting information and there are tons of pages on Grammar Schools like this one on Wikipedia. --Ineffable3000 22:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Vsion 01:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There are some sources for this including Google News Archive [9] showing it was under threat from an expansion of Bankstown Airport. Capitalistroadster 04:17, 18 October 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. Again, for one, this is not a high school, it's a primary school (and is a fairly new primary school). It would not meet the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL, and even if you disregard that, no reasons for keeping were given (again, something existing, or the fact that Schoolwatch exists are not reasons for keeping, and in the case of the latter, stare decisis does not exist here). AfD is not a vote. Furthermore, the article reads like an ad. --Coredesat 03:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beaumont Hills Public School

Primary schools are generally not notable, generally it is only high schools that are listed. I find no reason why this school has any reason to be listed based on its notability. It also fails the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL TheRanger 02:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails to assert notability. Also full of irrelevant trivia. MER-C 02:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 02:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is nothing on the page to assert the school's notability--150.203.177.218 03:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability.--Húsönd 04:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to assert notability. Pursey 04:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Catchpole 06:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Merge somewhere if you want to. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 12:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable and notable. Merchbow 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What makes it notable? TJ Spyke 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please explain how its notable you have left same reply on several AfD's without details.TheRanger 20:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Again, I don't see that he needs to reply, everything that he has said seems to be self evident -- Librarianofages 21:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Per Merchbow, All schools are inherently notable -- Librarianofages 21:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Since when was it wikipedia policy that all schools are notable?150.203.177.218 05:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Since the development of coordinated spamming of VfD's. Read any comment by ForbiddenWord on a school AFD; they all say "keep, because we'll spam it with keeps regardless". It's honestly the most appalling thing ever to happen to notability on this encyclopedia. People spend far more time, over the course of their lives, at work than they do at a school, and yet we don't have articles for every place of employment (which, in any reasonable interpretation, are often more notable in their communities than schools are said to be). The ability of the schoolwatch crowd to bully every non-notable school into the encyclopedia is truly depressing, but it doesn't seem like there's anything left to do about it. —ptk✰fgs 20:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with the local community page per WP:SCHOOLS. The later is not a deletion criteria. — RJH (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into the local community page or respective district per WP:SCHOOLS. RFerreira 00:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Vsion 01:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, almost all schools are notable (see link above). This one with 550 students is no exeption. bbx 01:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete when a school is so special that the best one can find to say about it is "Playground Awards are for behaving well at lunch or recess." you know that you're in trouble. But, yet again, school inclusionist fail to provide anything beyond their statement of principle that "every school is notable". This school is 5 years old. By the article's own admission it is "not exccedingly popular", it has a modest enrollment, it has received pretty much no reliable third-party coverage whatsoever [10], it most clearly does not meet the current WP:SCHOOL or any previous version of that guideline. Pascal.Tesson 03:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. There are some sources for this school notably a story in the Sun Herald about the high rate of burglaries from 2001. Google News Archive shows something as well see [11]. The stuff about the playground awards can go though. Capitalistroadster 04:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• I followed your "news link" and got three things related to the school two were comunity clanader (which are not notable) type notices a notice of ceremony for the ground breaking in 2000 and a up coming movie night in like 2006. Also a brief notuce that Children have been evacuated because of concerns about an odour in the classrooms in 20003. Now I would not call these notable at all.TheRanger 04:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP, pointless nomination. Everyone at schoolwatch agrees all schools are notable and should be allowed organic expansion and growth. --ForbiddenWord 14:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Let me just say that what is important is the consensus among all Wikipedians, not among schoolwatch this is a very alarming statement and not at all in the spirt of wikipedia goals. I visted the link to Schoolwatch and found no discussion as to what are notable or what is not. All I found were a list of AfD's current and a past AfD's with results totaled by month list with totals by month. As to its point of view I found this statement right at top of page "the terms 'keep' and 'no consensus' are used interchangeably (as no consensus defaults to keep)." TheRanger 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand for reasons established at User:Silensor/Schools. Silensor 17:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment and see reply essay at User:JoshuaZ/Schools. 19:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as being not notable, not even meeting the proposed highly inclusionist standards at WP:SCHOOLS. Furthermore, there is no substantial material that would even help in regard to simple WP:V concerns. JoshuaZ 19:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing here resembling an assertion of notability. —ptk✰fgs 20:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wouldn't qualify for SP:SCHOOLS. --Marriedtofilm 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable regardless of schoolwatch. Montco 01:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all enduring public institutions. --Centauri 14:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Should Wikipedia have an article for every DMV office? Every post office? Pan Dan 22:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Silensor/Schools.  ALKIVAR™ 20:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JoshuaZ; non-notable and no chance of expansion with verifiable material. This position is confirmed by Pascal.Tesson, TheRanger's response to Capitalistroadster, and a Lexis-Nexis search by me which shows only trivial local coverage of the "community events" sort. Pan Dan 22:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per capitalist roadster and bbx there is no reason to erase this Yuckfoo 02:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge do not keep. Just as non notable as most schools. Vegaswikian 23:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Rebecca 02:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Keep why? Just saying keep is not adding to this AfD, as this is not a vote. What is needed is reasons based on wokipedia policy as to why it should be keep or deleted.TheRanger 14:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge into the appropriate locality according to the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline. Yamaguchi先生 03:43, 22 October 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 keep. Unlike the schools above, this school does appear to meet the proposed guidelines, and there appears to be at least a rough keep consensus if the simple votes are disregarded. --Coredesat 03:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beecroft Primary School

Primary schools are generally not notable, generally it is only high schools that are listed. I find no reason why this school has any reason to be listed based on its notability. It also fails the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL TheRanger 02:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain This is tough. I want to vote delete, but under the proposed(as in not official ploicy yet) WP:SCHOOL guidelines, this would qualify to be kept by being more than 50 years old. TJ Spyke 02:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I missed that fact about it being more than 50 years old. TheRanger 02:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• (via ec) Nooooooo! I went there! Don't delete it! Actually, I can't think of a good enough reason to keep it, although there's always a chance some part of it was actually heritage listed or something. Weak delete until I become famous enough to be listed as a famous former student ;) (Edit: Checking out the proposed guideline, I'll shift my vote to neutral. Also, it needs to be considered that there are actually more Ghits for "beecroft primary school" referring to a school in Leeds, UK.) Confusing Manifestation 02:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep meets notability WP:SCHOOL Valoem ^talk 03:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep over 50 years old, but other than that, there is nothing else particularly notable about the school.--150.203.177.218 03:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete WP:SCHOOL is not a policy yet. I, for one, believe that the 50-year-old proposed criterium should apply only to high schools/universities. Otherwise we may end up with articles about 50-year-old kindergartens.--Húsönd 04:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't the place to discuss the criteria. It's the place to apply the criteria. Your rationale doesn't even mention the subject of this article. To apply WP:SCHOOL, look for multiple non-trivial published works about the school. If you find them, the primary criterion is satisfied. If you don't find them, then apply the secondary criteria. Uncle G 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Policy is only proposed at this point, and meets proposed policy guidelines anyhow. Pursey 04:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SCHOOL. A 51 year old primary school is not any more notable than a 49 year old one. Catchpole 06:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only claim to notabiliity is having existed 109 years. There should be some press clippings about all the great things the school has done and some of the contributions made to society by its alumni, some academic awards and sports championships, some recognition for its excellence in the press and by whatever body evaluates schools in the area. Otherwise merge it into an article about the town or school district.Edison 13:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Keeping it because it is more than 100 years old is a bit ridiculous, age only gets important when you are something like "the oldest in the state" or so. Apart from that, there seems to be nothing notable about this school (if students have to wear a uniform or not is not really the kind of information I'm especially looking for...) Fram 13:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable and notable. Merchbow 15:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You said the same thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beaumont Hills Public School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altona Green Primary School. You have not said on any of them though what makes them notable. TJ Spyke 19:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the town article per WP:SCHOOLS. — RJH (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep (same reasons, i know)--Vsion 01:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is better known as Beecroft Public School see [12]. There are some sources available for this. Allan Seale who was a well-known gardening presenter on the ABC apparently went to this school.Capitalistroadster 05:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Age and history confer notability. Article would greatly benefit from expansion. Alansohn 12:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- pointless nomination. Everyone at schoolwatch agrees all schools are notable, and Schoolwatch can turn out enough people to influence any AFD. --ForbiddenWord 14:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think you may have opened a can of worms with your comment here, and I don't think that it will benefit schoolwatch... Let me just say that what is important is the consensus among all Wikipedians, not among schoolwatch. Fram 15:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree this is a very alarming statement and not at all in the spirt of wikipedia goals. I visted the link to Schoolwatch and found no discussion as to what are notable or what is not. All I found were a list of AfD's current and a past AfD's with results totaled by month list with totals by month. As to its point of view I found this statement right at top of page "the terms 'keep' and 'no consensus' are used interchangeably (as no consensus defaults to keep)." TheRanger 15:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Doesn't this Schoolwatch inherently promote canvass? I believe that such page is prone to disrupt Wikipedia's natural consensus building process.--Húsönd 16:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't think that Schoolwatch exists to disrupt process. All its purpose is, is to provide a single page that comprehensively lists AFDs so editors can go out and stop them from being deleted. --ForbiddenWord 18:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Erm, no that is not exactly true either. I personally use it to help improve articles that need improvement. I hope you do realize that anyone can view that page, and that it is watched by several "deletionists" as well. In the end, this is a discussion and not a vote. Silensor 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
            • The comments by ForBiddenWord are directly opposed to wikipedia policy which states "It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia." TheRanger 18:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I'll not comment on the actual reason Schoolwatch exists, but the way Forbiddenword presents it, is actually the perfect way to disrupt process. See Wikipedia:Spam, the section about canvassing. If one of the reasons Schoolwatch exists is to "turn out enough people to influence any AfD", then it should be abolished for being a POV votestacking mechanism. If this is not the purpose, then it should be made clear to Forbiddenword that his impression of it (and possibly of his perceived consensus as well) is quite wrong.Fram 18:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
                • There were, a long while ago, concerted efforts to votestack in the very manner that ForbiddenWord describes. They were disruptive, and caused much division and rancour with no actual improvement to the encyclopaedia. Any editor attempting to restart that should be aware that there are a lot of editors around here who went through it the first time around, and are highly unlikely to favourably regard any attempts to bring back the rancour and factionalism. Uncle G 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster, the subject actually does meet WP:SCHOOLS contrary to the nomination. Silensor 17:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Silensor. This does meet WP:SCHOOLS. --Myles Long 19:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the only thing here resembling an assertion of notability is that uniforms are required. Non-notable, unverifiable school stub. —ptk✰fgs 20:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth, meets relevant guidelines. Bahn Mi 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Which relevant guidelines? Remember, WP:SCHOOL is only a proposed guideline which, according to the talk page, will have a hard time getting a consensus, and will thus probably never become a real guideline Fram 07:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all enduring public institutions. --Centauri 14:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: depending on the country and your definition of enduring, publican institution, this may include every library, kindergarten, postal office, police station, toll booth (wrong word probably, I mean a manned border crossing station between countries), ... Is that really your proposal? If so, why?Fram 15:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a proposal, and a toll booth is not a discrete institution - although libraries, kindergartens and police stations are. In case you've forgotten, Wikipedia aims to document the sum total of all knowledge. --Centauri 01:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Within certain limits, perhaps the main one being that there has to be enough independent, non-trivial, verifiable coverage, which is seriously lacking for many of these institutions. We currently have guidelines excluding lots of knowledge from this encyclopedia, and there is no reason (except consensus or lack thereof, but not some basic policy) that schools or kindergartens should get an automatic free pass. In case you've forgotten, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, a directory, or many other things, even though directories, game guides, ... contain knowledge. It is up to us to decide what information is important enough to be included, and while our standards are quite different from paper encyclopedias, they are not non-existant. Your idea of what should be included is equally valid as anyone elses, but I hope that it won't get consensus. Anyway, nothing in this article is verified (as per WP:V), and I wonder if apart from the basic existence, much can be verified (the uniform? doubtful...) Fram 05:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per silensor.  ALKIVAR™ 20:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep please established in 1897 it looks verifiable and notable to me too Yuckfoo 02:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, all schools. bbx 20:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets what I believe should be a WP:SCHOOL guideline of over 100 years old. Vegaswikian 23:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Rebecca 02:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Keep why? Just saying keep is not adding to this AfD, as this is not a vote. What is needed is reasons based on wokipedia policy as to why it should be keep or deleted.TheRanger 14:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Silensor, this school does meet the proposed guidelines, the nominator is incorrect. Yamaguchi先生 03:44, 22 October 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 redirected. This page was originally a redirect before a spammer came along and has been reverted. Please check the page history before nominating. MER-C 05:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JMG

Non-notable company advertisment Mozzie 03:17, 17 October 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. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 14:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Trundle

The subject of this article has requested its removal on the grounds that its existance may tend to compromise his privacy. This in itself is not sufficient grounds for deletion, although per the spirit of WP:BLP one might give him the benefit of the doubt provided that he is on the borderline of notability anyway. You make the call. This is an adminstrative nomination. Herostratus 03:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral as nominator.
• Question well, he does seem to have some books published, but they might be self-published or something, I don't know. Any idea who produced the books? As for privacy concerns, if there's anything that wouldn't available in the biography section of his works, I can't see it from a first pass. Mister.Manticore 03:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if the subject wants it to be. I looked on amazon.com, his books do not appear to be self published, although they are not too popular. He appears to be weakly notable. I don't think wikipedia would be worse off without this article.
• Weak delete. I understand the subject's privacy concerns, and I don't think Wikipedia has to index every author in the world. On the other hand, if you publish books, you have to understand that this exposes your private information somewhat. In the absence of the subject's request I would vote keep for this article. N Shar 05:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the subject would appear to pass the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria of being well known, important, and honoured in their field. (Whether UFOlogy is an academic field may be contestable, but I digress.) He also appears to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) in general by having non-trivial mentions by real newspapers such as The Cincinnati Post [13]. --tjstrf 08:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Awkward keep. The Fate Magazine and Cincinnati Post references are clearly independant coverage of his writings, whether those are self-published or not. He probably doesn't meet WP:PROF but those two articles ought to earn him the minimum level of notability needed for a keep under WP:BIO as an author. The remaining problem is the WP:BLP concern that led to this administrative nomination. Nothing in the article seems to fall within its demense, however. The ufology material is potentially controversial, but it is strongly sourced. The remaining material is not controversial, nor is it "details of [his] personal li[fe]." Furthermore, the caveats of WP:BLP's section on the "Presumption in favor of privacy" for "Non-public figures" seem to be met. To wit, the article's content clearly exercises restraint, disincludes material from primary sources not covered in verifiable secondary sources, and is not "sensationalistic" or "titilating." WP:BLP is designed to shield people against misinformation and attacks, but I do not believe it is meant as a blanket means to hide otherwise-notable material from the wider world, at least not as the policy currently is worded (cf. Talk: Angela Beesley). Serpent's Choice 08:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Just because you write a book doesn't mean you get a WP entry, and the Cincinnati Post seems to be a local newspaper that and doesn't really guarantee notability. "Top 100 Ufologists" speaks for itself, really - bull. Moreschi 12:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He has written several books. I added the publisher names from Amazon. They sound like "scholarly publishers," but I am not familiar with them. One book is around the 500,000th most popular on Amazon. I would be inclined to give some of the books a read based on the Amazon reviews. I do not see anything remotely defamatory in the article other than noting that the books he has written are about their subjects! So far as we know, no one forced him to write about UFO's, and it is not as if we snatched his private journal out of his desk and made an article out of it, or we sleuthed out the actual name of someone who published under a pen name. Publishing books pretty well removes any claim to personal privacy about having published the books. The books are listed in the catalog of his college, so it is not as if he will get into trouble at work for having written about whaty he wrote about. What is the issue?Edison 16:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If he doesn't want an article about himself here, then it shouldn't be here, especially since it's questionable whether he passes WP:N in the first place. --Aaron 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "If he doesn't want an article about himself here, then it shouldn't be here" this is a blatantly false statement of policy, the wishes of the subject are not an applicable argument in favour of deletion. (nor in favour of keeping, obviously). --tjstrf 18:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I posted the above in full awareness of what policy says; that's why I didn't say anything even remotely close to "Policy says we should delete it." It's my opinion, and one I happen to hold strongly: A living person that doesn't want an article here should be allowed to request its removal. Take it or leave it. (The fact that it's not policy is also why I included the argument about him probably not meeting WP:N, so the closing admin will accept my vote on that basis rather than my opinion about requests from living persons.) --Aaron 18:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: The AfD of a particular article, for better or worse, is not the appropriate place to debate whether policy (and consensus) should move in the direction of this opinion. We cannot appeal to opinion, but only to facts, verification, and policy. An "opt out" policy might (without comment on its merits here) be worth discussing on the BLP talk page or even as a central community issue. Serpent's Choice 04:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: as I originally added the {{db-author}} speedy template to it. -- JHunterJ 22:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep According to WorldCat, Camus' Answer is carried in 144 libraries while Medieval Modal Logic & Science is carried in 128 libraries. That's reasonably impressive. And I don't understand Moreschi's suggestion that the "Top 100 Ufologists" claim is "bull" - the Fate article is available online, so you can see for yourself. Yes, ufology is arguably a pseudoscience, but plenty of people are interested in it, so being named as one of the top 100 Ufologists isn't too shabby. Zagalejo 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Claims in fringe communities often are not able to meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. Fate, on the other hand, has been in continuous publication since the 1940s, and certainly has earned a position of repute by this time. Their awards and commondations are substantive in the appropriate field. Although giving undue weight to fringe communities or conflating their ideas with established thought does disservice to the encyclopedia's goals, in an article about a fringe science writer, there can be no better verification of impact than the recognition and admiration -- in print, from an established source -- of that same community. Serpent's Choice 04:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to be worthy, and his opinion isn't really all that important regarding inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. His philosophical work would make him notable regardless of the UFO stuff. JamesMLane t c 10:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Fails wp:prof notability. His philosophical work is not substantive. He did not publish with any noted presses in philosophy. His citation count is 3 or less (and given that philosophers tend to cite themselves...) The ufo stuff is interesting... However, I don't see the content there. --Buridan 13:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I believe strongly that people who are not major public figures should have their wishes respected if they want to opt-out. In specific here, UFOlogy is a topic that draws ridicule and mockery, which raises the risks of the article being vandalized. -- Seth Finkelstein 04:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep enough valid arguments for keeping this have been expressed above.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. The privacy concerns are invalid: there's nothing in this article that reveals anything that infinges on his privacy, and Wikipedia is organised so that such details would be unlikely to remain. There are claims to notability, but if he's being a pain about this, then best get rid of him. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:03, 26 October 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spiders in Israel palestine

• Mammals in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip
• Mosquitoes in Israel palestine
• Nematoda in Israel and Palestine
• Biodiversity in Israel Palestine/Snails
• Chordata in Israel and Palestine
• Mosquitoes in Israel palestine
• Biodiversity in Israel Palestine/dragonflies and dasmeflies
• Beetles in Israel and Palestine
• Moths in Israel and Palestine
• Ticks in Israel palestine
• Protista in Israel and Palestine
• Cnidaria in Israel and Palestine
• Porifera in Israel and Palestine
• Arthropoda in Israel and Palestine
• Mollusca in Israel and Palestine
• Birds in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip
• Reptiles in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip
• Amphibians in Israel Palestine
• Scorpions in Israel Palestine
• Butterflies in Israel and Palestine
• Annelida in Israel and Palestine

I was in the middle of fulfilling several move requests regarding these articles, but I have been wondering why these articles exist. None of these articles seem to indicate why separate articles are needed regarding the presence of these species in the region. As of right now, they're simple lists of species, so at the very least, these articles should probably be merged into one (perhaps Biodiversity in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip). -- tariqabjotu 02:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• CommentI don't know what to make of this, the articles just appear to be lists of fauna found in the region. If they were merged the article would be huge. ||150.203.177.218 03:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but move and merge to List of mammals in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, List of reptiles..., List of invertebrates..., and List of birds... to make these lists consistent with the others in "Category:Lists of animals" -- the lists themselves are potentially useful. Shimeru 06:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - none of these pages is likely ever to be maintained to any reasonable standard of accuracy. Michael K. Edwards 10:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - while assigning species to regions is certainly normal, it is odd to assign it to countries. does that mean those species do not appear in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt .... besides: the information where a species occurs is already contained on the wiki pages of the various species Yellowbelliedmarmot 12:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Are birds and spiders in Israel/Palestine so different from the ones in Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan? Surprisingly, no Loons were reported. Merge to fewer and more comprehensive lists. Make sure that climate/geography is the boundary determinant and not political lines on a map. As for maintenance problems, once the list is created, how often will species evolve, become extinct, or move into and out of the subject geographic area?Edison 16:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep all (possibly rename to whatever the convention is to talk about Israel + the occupied territories) Certainly they will be different than those in Egypt (with the very specific ecosystem of the nile), Jordan (which is more desertic) and probably the northern part of Lebanon. So I'm not sure what's the fuss about. Such lists can be very useful for school children who want to know about the very specific part of the world in which they live in and I see no reason why these could not be maintained as accurate. Pascal.Tesson 01:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge at the very minimum. It was pointed out on the move discussion that the only analogous pages are Biodiversity of New Caledonia and Biodiversity of New Zealand, and neither of them is anywhere near the length of this series. I've notified the creator to see if we might not get some of his feedback. Tewfik^Talk 15:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Michael K. Edwards and Yellowbelliedmarmot, Merge per Edison and Tewfik if Delete fails. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete per Michael and Yellowbelliedmarmot. -- tasc ^words_deeds 17:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom, merge at best, provided sound scientifical reasoning is given. --tickle me 17:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Yellowbelliedmarmot. Isarig 02:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Yellowbelliedmarmot, otherwise merge. 6SJ7 14:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or maximally merge into a general Middle East entomology article that is actually maintainable. Very few species are bothered by political encumberances and will happily climb the West Bank Barrier even if that were to lead to international conflict. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge at the very minimum per Tewfik and Jayjg. Amoruso 21:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep those things is worthy in an encyclopedia Nielswik_(talk) 00:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment well how do you respond to the problems listed? Tewfik^Talk 06:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment What problems? All I see is a string of "delete per"s. The only actual arguments raised were Michael K. Edwards' assertion that such lists aren't maintainable (answered by Pascal.Tesson) and Yellowbelliedmarmot's contention that listing such things by country is "odd," if that can be called an argument. There's precedent, though, for what it's worth: List of Azerbaijani mammals, List of mammals in Brazil, List of Estonian mammals, List of Texas butterflies, List of dragonfly species recorded in Ireland. Perhaps that simply means all of those should be deleted, too, but I don't see that a good argument for doing so has been raised. The articles as they stand are poor, but for what reason is the information contained in those articles not encyclopedic? They're verifiable and sourced (via the parent article Biodiversity in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip), so that's not the issue. Is the argument that flora and fauna are not encyclopedic? Shimeru 08:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
      • There is no "POV" issue as we've already agreed to rename this to a more accurate/neutral form - however when looking at the extent of this series (~25 entries I think; see {{Biodiversity in Israel Palestine}}), it seems that the coverage here is grossly out of proportion to anywhere else, and that that may be unencyclopaedic. Tewfik^Talk 13:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Is the fact that we're lacking other articles really a rationale for deletion? Or for creating those articles? The sheer number here does seem excessive, but merging would address that. What is it about the information itself that makes it not worthy of inclusion? Admittedly I have no expertise in the field, but an easily-accessible set of lists of species found in a given area seems like it might be useful to me -- especially if the alternative is to look up each individual species' article to determine whether it is in fact found in the region in question. It's true we have much more information in this vein for Israel etc. and Britain than elsewhere, but I don't see why that's a problem requiring deletion. I'd think this sort of thing is what the "not paper" guideline is for. Shimeru 19:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure what we're arguing about, since I advocated merging into the standard format for these lists. I commented on a vote that ignored the context of the discussion in an attempt to illicit a more nuanced formulation of the user's position. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 15:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm not trying to argue with you specifically, I'm trying to obtain more information from those who voted delete. Your question just seemed like a good place to start from. Unfortunately, most of those who favor deletion don't have their own rationale, and those who do apparently don't feel like expanding upon it. We'll see whether Thameen's new comment has better results. Shimeru 16:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Yellowbelliedmarmot. -- Avi 00:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete seems like the creation of either a prank or a crank... Man that was so clever.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I did create these lists and they are the result of a lot of research on the net and in books. I did not mean to make them as articles, I just wanted lists to support the main article Biodiversity in Israel and Palestine. Those who want to see these lists deleted raised the following points:

• • Do we need to have lists of species in separate geographical areas: The geographical area of Israel Palestine is a very unique one from an ecological point of view. The main article Biodiversity in Israel and Palestine describes this area. This geographical area may not have many species unique to it, but its combination of species is unique and this is what the main article and the lists are about. The lists in question of deletion are part of that main article.

• • Do we need to have lists of species in certain countries: These lists are not about a certain country but about a geographical region that includes Israel and Palestine. So the issue is not countries but a geographical region that has a certain combination of species.

• • That the information where a species occurs is already contained on the wiki pages of the various species: The wiki page of each species answers the question where does this species live. These lists answer a different kind of question What species do live in a certain region. These are two important questions. These lists are here to answer the later question regarding the geographical area of Israel Palestine.

• • That the coverage here is grossly out of proportion to anywhere else: I do not see how can this be a problem, It is a good thing.

• • That these are not complete article: I only wanted to create lists that support the mean article. I did not mean to create articles. These lists are long so it is not suitable to merge them in the article, this will make it very long and crowded. I always wanted to know how can we create lists in wikipedia without the need for these lists to meet article standards. Can any one help me with this?

• • My opinion is that these lists are very informative for any one seeking to understand the ecology of this area. They are a great reference for any one looking for a certain species in the area. It will be a great loss if we delete them. I hope more experienced wikipedians may help us put these lists in a more friendly form while keeping them as extensions of the main article Biodiversity in Israel and Palestine--Thameen 09:36, 26 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palaeodicots

Original research from User:Brya; the group as imagined in the article does not exist in AGPii or in any other literature [O uses on the ISI web of science]; the only web hits are from wikipedia and mirrors. --Peta 03:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This appears to be an informal term used by a single group of researchers. Perhaps the information belongs on the page belonging to the formal term. (However, the page doesn't link to that formal term)--150.203.177.218 03:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Francis Tyers · 11:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (but perhaps move to original and more common spelling "paleodicots"). This is a concept that was introduced with some of the molecular phylogenies addressing the earliest branches of the angiosperms, when it became apparent that "dicots" were a paraphyletic group. The problem with the article as originally written is that it implied that this word and concept were used by APG II when it was not. I've tried to clean up the most egregious problems, and added one of the pre-APG references that did use the term, but the article needs a lot more cleanup. MrDarwin 13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done a major edit to the article (and moved to Paleodicots to reflect the more common and apparently original spelling); please check it out and see if that helped. MrDarwin 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The term is widely used and well-understood by those interested in angiosperm phylogenetics. The group itself warrants an article.--Curtis Clark 13:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as per Mr. Darwin and Curtis Clark. JoJan 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --Stemonitis 17:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now, as it is, the references quoted don't define the term at all, and it's not defined anywhere else but on Wikipedia. Modern secondary sources to the large 1993 Chase articles use "paleoherb" not "paleodicot." KP Botany 21:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Paleoherb and paleodicot are not synonyms.--Curtis Clark 04:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --Berton 21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - keep voters seem to be ignoring the fact that this term is not in wide use, nor is an actual definition agreed on by anyone. It is, at this stage, a taxonomic neologism. --Peta 03:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not so much a neologism, as fallen out of use (AFAICT) since the late 1990s, when I first heard the term.--Curtis Clark 04:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • A word used to describe a poorly defined group, that has been used in a total of 4 publications (google scholar search) is not an encyclopedic topic. It just creates confusion.--Peta 05:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The word is not poorly defined, it simply represents a non-monophyletic group (as do many group names in plant systematics): those dicots that are not eudicot. That fact does not make it "poof" out of existence. Sure it's a neologism, but plant systematics is full of neologisms, as anybody active in the field in the last 20 years well knows. Wikipedia is full of articles about obscure and rarely-used terms and concepts. If they were all deleted, there wouldn't be much left! I would argue that Wikipedia is at its very best when it provides explanations for the obscure and hard-to-track-down subjects. Here are my tests: does the term actually exist? Has it been used in the literature? Is anybody ever likely to want to know about it? And finally, is the information presented factually? MrDarwin 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. IMHO palaeodicot is a useful term, denoting those angiosperms which are neither monocots nor eudicots. While it may have had less usage as yet than palaeoherb, I expect it to be more persistent - it denotes a grade/paraphyletic group whereas the palaeoherbs are polyphyletic. Lavateraguy 23:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is the sort of term that some poor grad student might run across, wonder what the heck it means, and later feel fortunate that someone was kind enough to write a wikipedia article on it. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons cited. - MPF 00:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia is in the business of explaining existing concepts... not determining which classifications are 'right'. This term gets used and requires more than just a dictionary definition to explain so it is reasonable for inclusion here... as it would be in any encyclopedia of taxonomical terms. Knowledge is good. --CBD 12:25, 19 October 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. --Coredesat 03:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Glass Elevator

Also Crocodile Tears and Great Glass Elevator (band) (see below)

Full text: Great Glass Elevator is a fuzzy fighter space rock band from America who are signed to Atlantic Records. (although not according to the Atlantic Records roster) Beyond that, little else is known. This article needs to be either completed and sourced or deleted (along with the download-only single "Crocodile Tears"). ~ trialsanderrors 03:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Also Great Glass Elevator (band).

• Delete all three and redirect main article back to Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator per WP:V, WP:MUSIC and WP not a crystal ball. Last.fm confirms the band exists and even has a few listeners, but the record deal seems unconfirmed. Even if it's true, two years and two self-released EP's doesn't quite cut it. Prolog 04:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. AfD tag added. ~ trialsanderrors 04:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - non-verifiable, otherwise fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 04:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all unless someone provides a verifiable source showing that they're signed to Atlantic. NawlinWiki 15:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect per Prolog. Danny Lilithborne 16:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Per nom. "Fuzzy fighter space rock"? Caknuck 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all lets wait for them to release an actual album. And be able to provide more article content, with a recognized genre.-- danntm ^T _C 22:59, 17 October 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. KrakatoaKatie 06:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ObjectStore

Article about a programming api. No evidence of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE. Valrith 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 1. The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works

[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Book: Databasteknink (Padron-McCartht, Rich) ISBN 91-44-04449-6 chapter 16 Book: Object-Oriented Modeling and Design for Database Applications ISBN 0-13-123829-9 Chapter 15 and 16. (There are more, how many are considered multiple non-trivial published works?) 2. it's not an api it's a ODBMS (An object database management system)--Marsve 09:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see

• #1 is in german which I can't read

So what? It contains these (English) references:

Soloviev, V.: An overview of three commercial object-oriented database management systems: ONTOS, ObjectStore, and O. ACM SIGMOD Record, Band 21, Nr. 1, S. 93-104, 1992.

Ahmed, S.; Wong, A.; Sriram, D.; Logcher, R.: Object-oriented database management systems for engineering: A comparison. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, Band 5, Nr. 3, S. 27-43, 1992.

• #2 & #3 both point to the same issue of CACM which is inaccessible to non-members (Volume 34 , Issue 10 (October 1991)) and appears to have been written by the originators of ObjectStore

This paper was written by the originators but was accepted by the CACM, doesn't that make it a valid paper. The CACM was never free, not in its original paper form either. Does that make its papers less valid?

• #4 & #5 are reports that Starwood hotels is using the software
• #6 is not an article about the software, but notes from Cisco documentation of a Cisco product that uses ObjectStore
• #7 & #13 appear to be just press releases from the software's authors
• #8 is very short and only indirectly about ObjectStore; it's subject is actually another piece of software which uses ObjectStore
• #9 is in german, but appears to be just product documentation
• #10 & #14 are again just product documentation
• #11 is a perl extension that uses ObjectStore
• #12 is just a comparison of various databases, not an article about ObjectStore
• ISBN 91-44-04449-6 could not be found at either amazon or the library of congress
• ISBN 0-13-123829-9 appears to be about databases in general, not about ObjectStore

So, while there seems to be plenty to indicate the software is in use, I only see 1 of these that might satisfy the guideline (eg. qualify as an article about the subject that is non-trivial). Valrith 20:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Another reference is the book "Object Databases in Practice" by Akmal B. Chaudhri, Mary Loomis, Hewlett-Packard Professional Books which includes a section on each of 5 object databases, including a chapter on ObjectStore.

Hibernate has a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia entry, and is not considered a Java API for persisting data. ObjectStore is a full ODBMS with backup, recovery, archiving etc.

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with Valrith. There are not "multiple non-trivial published works" -- in fact, there is maybe one. And if a paper was written by the authors is to be a non-trivial published work, it will have to have received significant attention. Merely being accepted is not enough in my view. N Shar 05:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep, to quote [28], which is on the first page of google hits for "ObjectStore," "In the 1990s, ObjectStore was foremost among a handful of OODB vendors." It was the top product in its field and it's been around since 1988. The nomination is inaccurate; this isn't an api, this a database product that's been on the market for over 18 years and recieved plenty of coverage over that time. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - ObjectStore is of some significance in the genealogy of DBMSes and an article on it is of more actual encyclopedic utility than a majority of Wikipedia entries. Michael K. Edwards 12:55, 17 October 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. --Coredesat 03:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Windows Live Messenger

This article's content is an almost exact copy of that found in MSN Messenger's Version History section. No need for a duplicate page with same content. Luke! 04:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - it's a changelog. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. MER-C 07:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. — Gary Kirk // talk! 07:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Forks like this support the rationale for merging MSN Messenger to Windows Live Messenger --RoninBK_ETC 16:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Article was created to allow MSN Messenger to redirected to Windows Live Messenger once any relevant content had been merged and to stop Windows Live Messenger from becoming excesively long. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nominator (User:Luckyluke) - the article in question is just a list of events and doesn't present any encyclopedic information (WP:ENC Point 1) --Anthonycfc (Talk to Me) ^{(sandbox) (E-Count)} 18:21 17 Oct 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I think the deletion of this duplicative, and newer (June 2006, vs Jan 2003) article should likely end the discussion/debate about the MSN Messenger article. As Mathew Fenton states above, the Windows Live article would be too long with all this information in it. MSN Messenger has the longer edit history (Jan 2003, as noted above). So given the choice, this article is the "weakest link". Merge to MSN Messenger any non-duplicative material, if necessary, but ultimately - Delete. - jc37 22:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - If the article needs to be recreated later for size reasons, fine, but that case isn't so, yet. (per nominator) —Keakealani 21:02, 22 October 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 Nomination withdrawn. -- Longhair\^talk 06:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northholm Grammar School

< Primary schools are generally not notable, generally it is only high schools that are listed. I find no reason why this school has any reason to be listed based on its notability. It also fails the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL TheRanger 04:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "This was listed in error, at the time I thought that this was a grade school and it is in fact a high school. Based on this fact I now think that the article should be kept. I would like to withdraw my nomination.TheRanger 04:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong KeepThis *is* an exclusive grammar high school. Pursey 04:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What is so exclusive about this school? By reading the article, I can not gather any exclusiveness as implied by the nominator and WP:SCHOOL.Luke! 04:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a Private Grammar School, likely with exhorbant fees. Grammar School in Australia also frequently have an application process or testing process to receive entry. It's a moot point anyhow, it is a High School. Pursey 05:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The school charges tuition fees, and presumably does not admit every applicant. This provides some exclusiveness. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Based on the following being true: tuition fees are higher than the local norm and by doing so presumably do not accept every potential student. Tuition information is available at this school page. However, regional basis for comparison not available. In my belief, tuition alone does not assert a strong solid case for exclusiveness. In my view, it only marginally meets one criteria of the proposed WP:SCHOOL, point #4. Luke! 05:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The school offers high school grades. On the school's site, http://www.northholm.nsw.edu.au/webpages/curri_curriculum.htm appears to indicate that the school offers grades 5 through 12. "Grammar school" is a synonym for elementary school in most contexts in the United States, but elsewhere it can refer to a JK-12 school, often one which charges fees. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Added grades offered to article's infobox. Luke! 05:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. So we provide a free advertising space for thos schools that ask a lot of mone, but don't do the same for those that are free? That's bizarre... Being expensive is no argument for inclusion: has it received sufficient independent, non-compulsory, non-trivial coverage to show that it is somehow exceptional beyond its fee? Is it located in protected monuments? Is it the first (or last) of its kind? Has some prime minister or other truly notable person been there for a few years (as a student or even better, as a tecaher)? No? Then get rid of it, please. (Oh, and if kept, please rewrite it, as parts are very close to a copyvio of their homepage (e.g.[29]), and the rest is probably failing WP:V rather badly, since there are no independent sources of e.g. the "Houses")Fram 14:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable and notable. Nomination appears to be a mistake. Merchbow 15:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete But that does not imply the school does not offer an education as delightful as Hogwarts. I do not agree with the proposal that every high school in the world automatically gets an article. Mention in an article about the town is sufficient for most. Notability cannot be established only by the subject's website. There should be multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the school itself. None were presented. Edison 16:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — A nicely-developed page that would be unfortunate to delete. It would be good if the page could be modified to meet the WP:SCHOOLS criteria. — RJH (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Truthbringer Toronto, go hash this out on WP:SCHOOLS if you disagree with the current guidelines as they're proposed, please. RFerreira 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: why should I go to WP:SCHOOLS when it is quite clear from reading the talk page that is has failed to get consensus, and doesn't seem likely to do so anytime soon? Perhaps people should stop using WP:SCHOOL as a keep argument when it is clear that the proposed guideline will never get accepted... 05:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Vsion 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep though i don't agree on WP:SCHOOLS --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 01:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Merchbow and nomination withdrawl request. --Marriedtofilm 05:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There are some stories about this school namely at Google News Archive. [30]. Matt Dunning, a NSW and Australian rugby player went there so it has at least one notable old boy. Capitalistroadster 05:48, 18 October 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 10:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collector's Edge

Contested prod of non-notable corporation. No evidence of satisfying WP:CORP. Valrith 04:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no obvious notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, reluctantly. I do remember their cards, but reliable sources are almost impossible to find. It might be worth merging into an article regarding the smaller, or shorter term players in the sports trading card market though, if one were willing to start such an article. Resolute 00:29, 18 October 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, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salisbury Mall

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]}}

Yet another American suburban shopping mall, in this case a failed and probably-to-be-demolished-soon one. Grasping-for-straws references to prop up its notability are one local newspaper article and two links to the local city planning department. I doubt its own neighbors will remember the place in three years. Calton | Talk 04:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Once encyclopedic, always encyclopedic. The fact that this mall may be demolished soon does not detract from the fact that it was once an important retail area where many people were employed. Understanding the rise and fall of shopping malls in an era of widespread car ownership is an important part of economic history, in the same way that the development of electric streetcars meant that downtown department stores could tap a larger geographic catchment area, at the expense of neighborhood merchants. One role that Wikipedia can play is answering a reader's questions about the sort of company where the reader's grandparents worked. Articles about vanished factories, department stores and even malls play a role in answering those questions. In any event, the references meet WP:CORP, but there are a number of ways in which the article could be expanded. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Once encyclopedic, always encyclopedic. It was never encyclopedic to begin with, whatever grasping at straws you do. --Calton | Talk 05:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It appears to be an ordindary and non-notable mall. The article dpesn't even attempt to assert notability. TJ Spyke 05:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not reading any importance here.Luke! 06:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'd be willing to keep most malls. Arguments to delete aren't persuasive. SchmuckyTheCat 06:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keeping a mall just for the sake of keeping it is NOT a valid arguement. It appears you have no arguement for keeping it. TJ Spyke 06:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It doesn't assert notability within the article. GassyGuy 07:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep According to the article this was their very first enclosed climate controlled mall for the Delaware,Maryland,Virginia Tri-State area (Delmarva Peninsula)I think it's an notable article. I remember this mall when my family shopped there while on extended vacation in 1976 and being the ONLY mall within a 100 mile radius at that time, it tends to stick in your mind, so if I remember it after 30 years I am sure that it's neighbors will NOT forget it after 3 years, as the first person who commented on it suggested. It's a part of that area's history, so I say keep it.--Sonicnukleo 12:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sonicnukleo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • Wikipedia doesn't operate based upon the personal testimony of editors. See our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If the mall is part of the area's history, as you claim, then it should be possible to cite sources to support that claim. Please cite some history books where we can find this mall recorded in history. Sources are your best argument. Personal testimony is no argument. Uncle G 12:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am from New York City, and I remember this mall as well. My husband and I were vacationing in nearby beach resort Ocean City, Maryland (about 30 miles east of Salisbury,MD) and in 1979 I was very happy to find this mall when I needed to stock up on supplies for my vacation. It was the only indoor mall on Delmarva at the time, actually it was the only indoor mall from 1968-1982, until the Dover Mall in nearby Dover,Delaware opened in 1982. It holds historical importance as far as the economic history of the Delmarva Peninsula is concerned. It would be sad to see the article deleted.--ShellyWindsor 12:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: ShellyWindsor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • See above. Uncle G 12:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am one of those neighbors that will certaintly remember this mall long after it's gone. I live just 4 miles from this site, and it was the very first job I had back in 1970. I won't be forgetting it after 3 years as one person had suggested earlier. It was the largest retail outlet and the largest retail employer in Salisbury from 1968 until the new larger mall opened across town from it in 1990. So I would say being the largest retail employer for 22 years in a 50-100 mile radius is of GREAT historical importance! Keep this artice, please!--AnneHthway 12:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: AnneHthway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • See above. Uncle G 12:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. And nothing notable is ever defended by a sockpuppet army, because it doesn't have to be. Moreschi 13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am working on a documentary that focuses on the old Salisbury Mall and I assure you, there is more to this story than an old building on 80 acres of land in some mid-Atlantic town. I would be more than happy to edit the entry and include any and every detail I have been able to dig up in my last 4 months of research. For anyone who doesn't live anywhere near Salisbury, that mall has been the thorn in many people's sides for quite some time, especially since it's now considered an open invite for transiants and crime. I have a vast archive of photos, store listings, Daily Times articles, old ads and everything in between to ad, if need be. Some possible points of interest are that Miss America was on hand at the October 1968 opening. Only 16 stores were ready the day the mall opened. Pennys from the fountain were immediately marked as contributions to a local charity. There was a murder within the mall in the mid-70s and another in the early 90's, the latter seeming to be the beginning of the end for the establishment. The mall is comprised of two parts: the west and east sections. The west was the original and the east was added in 1976. To just drive around the empty parkiing lot (3300+ spaces, FYI) it's such a trip because this mall is literally useless and taking up so much land but the history of it is also very apparent. I am 26, I am fresh from college; this may not seem the most exciting topic in the world, but if a 26 year old can find the time to research and drive 2 hours a weekend to chronicle this old mall, I'm sure someone else will find it interesting, as well.Aside from an article I have contributed to Labelscar.com and a few photos, there is literally NOTHING about this mall online. It would be a disservice to delete this entry, leaving almost nothing for anyone to utilize as a source for information.User: Clauramoist10:25am, October 17, 2006 — Possible single purpose account: Clauramoist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • If there are no sources about this mall, then we cannot have an article. Conversely, to demonstrate that this mall is notable, cite sources to show that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. You say that you have dug up the sources. Please cite them for us. Uncle G 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep while the unsourced personal recollections of Wikipedians may not be enough to determine the content of an article, they are persuasive as to the subjective value of whether an article should be kept. Wikipedia is a worldwide site, and as such, local content will be covered, and in some detail. This information is not always available to the public at large. Thus it's helpful to see the local memories of people who can speak informatively if not authoritatively on a subject, and provide some sense of the value of something. Now whether or not Malls qualify as notable, I don't know, but they're hardly worse than High Schools. Maybe there needs to be a WP:Malls? Mister.Manticore 15:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:CORP was already linked to at the top of this discussion, and Notability is not subjective. Notability is not gauged by editors making personal judgements. Indeed, we have no way to know that what is written above even is "local memories". There is a reason that we have a Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Uncle G 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but Notability is absolutely subjective. It's inherent in the concept of the word, there are things we think are more or less important than others. That is why Presidents of the United States is an article while Presidents of my local school is not. You should rewrite your attempt at defining policy to cover that it is less about personal thought and belief versus the feeling of a group's decision. As it stands, you're merely using your own writings to endorse your own position, not represent an accurate portrayal of the situation. Heck, even Jimmy Wales has said notability is subjective. [31]. But hey, I disagree with your attempting to post self-written thoughts as somehow subjectively more important than actual argument anyway. As I've said before, when you post like that, it's not actually encouraging. This doesn't mean I don't think you're well-intentioned, I just think you're doing it poorly. And actually we do have ways of knowing whether something is local memory. It's called looking at resourcs on a local subject. In this case, there are newspaper articles on the mall, all of which are consistent with the statements made here, so I have no reason to doubt them, but will AGF. It's also possible that there are local books on recent history, and I'm sure it would make you happy if they were cited, but as I said, your way of trying to get people to do that, just come across poorly to me. Perhaps it would be better if you restricted yourself to just making the same point once in an AfD instead of replying to everyone on it? Yes, I know you consider it important, but saying it so often in a single AfD diminishes the value of it. Mister.Manticore 16:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Wrong. Read what I linked to. Notability is not subjective. Notability is not determined by Wikipedia editors making subjective judgements, no matter what you think about the presidents of your local school.

        And actually we do have ways of knowing whether something is local memory. It's called looking at resourcs on a local subject. — And yet you criticise when someone asks for such sources. Your argument lacks any logic and your position is self-contradictory. If you don't like the fact that we insist upon sources here (and if Argumentum ad Jimbonem is your thing, there's a very strong Argumentum ad Jimbonem for insisting upon sources — see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Further_reading), once again I say that you will not find Wikipedia to be a comfortable place. If an editor dislikes the repeated requesting of sources until they are supplied, the problem lies with the editor, not with the requests. Uncle G 17:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

        • Actually, I did read what you wrote and the fact of the matter is, I simply do not agree with your opinion, and I stated why. Notability is subjective. You can continue to represent your position the way you want, but I find it unconvincing and unpersuasive. What you're really disagreeing with is the importance of individual opinions as opposed to the group or worldwide opinion. I think rewriting your position statement with that in mind would be more accurate and persuasive. And no, I don't have an inherent problem with asking for sources, merely the occasionally chosen method of doing so. For example, I have a problem with complaining that there are no sources, acting like that there never can be sources, and thus claiming an article is unverifable. A lot of people use the term "unverifiable" when what they really meant to use is "unverified" and that's just bad for Wikipedia. It's annoying. It's also annoying when someone makes the same point several times in the same AfD. It's one thing to be talking with someone, it's another to effectively copy and paste the same information to people who may not even respond to you. I really do hope you recognize that it may not be the best way of doing things, and if not, I'll continue trying to persuade you. Mister.Manticore 19:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Wrong. If one is applying subjective criteria, one is not applying notability criteria. Once again: Read what I linked to. As for your unfounded assumption that people aren't going to respond in discussions (which implies that you have a low opinion of those people, note), I suggest that you pay more attention to what happens when one does not encourage editors, in particular new editors, to focus upon and to cite sources, and contrast that to what happens when one does. I also suggest that you consider that I and other editors have managed to engage novice editors in discussion and in productive work on citing sources here in this very discussion, resulting in improvements to the article since nomination, whereas you have not. Uncle G 12:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Again, I read what you wrote. It wasn't convincing. Sorry, and I'm frankly perplexed that you won't respond to my concerns. Notability is subjective, and what you're talking about is an individual opinion versus a number of people with opinions. I'm also confused as to why you think it's such a negative statement to say that people may not respond to you. That's hardly as negative as you make it out ot be, though honestly I haven't seen responses by most of the people you responded to, or any edits at all, so I'd say it's hardly unfounded. I'd say it's based on pretty solid evidence. But that wasn't even the point anyway, the point was that the methods was not effective, even if the intent was laudable. You can go on and on about encouraging editors, but if you don't recognize that it's important to consider what effect you're having, well, that could have unfortunate results. But really, rewriting that page you're so found of quoting about Notability would be nice. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying you're presenting it poorly. You can do better. Mister.Manticore 02:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I've responded. You're, quite simply, wrong. Notability is not subjective.

                the point was that the methods was not effective — Rubbish. I've asked you three times to actually read the explanation of why notability is not subjective. Now I ask you actually read this very discussion. I point out again that I and other editors have managed to engage novice editors in discussion and in productive work on citing sources here in this very discussion, resulting in improvements to the article since nomination, whereas you have not. When it comes to effectiveness of methods, that speaks volumes. Uncle G 10:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

                • No, you haven't responded to what I've said. Sorry. If you had, you'd have said different things, rather than repeat yourself. But hey, you don't want to recognize what I said, I can't make you. And since most of the people you did reply to with your C&P reply haven't made edits, and have been tagged as possible sockpuppets, I don't think you can take any credit for anybody's actions here. The only consistent editor has been involved with this article from the beginning, and was already committed to it. Since they haven't done anything with any other articles, I'm not sure that there's much to take credit for, but if it makes you happy to claim it, go right ahead. But do remember, it's not good to toot your own horn. Mister.Manticore 03:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable DCEdwards1966 15:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Valid local history topic. Merchbow 15:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Only if it has already been documented as local history. All that we have so far are personal testimonies and an editor saying that xe intends to create a documentary about the mall. Please cite sources if you wish to demontrate otherwise. Uncle G 15:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep: Where should these sources be cited? For the moment, the current news on the site can be found in a number of articles:http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=5524676&nav=MXEF http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061013/NEWS01/610130311/1002 http://www.delmarvanow.com/dayinthelife/salisbury/pages/salisburystory2.html http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061015/OPINION01/61015003 I wrote the submission on http://www.labelscar.com. The documentary that I am creating is still in the research stages but it's part of my thesis for graduate school at the University of Delaware. Other articles exist on the malls opening, namely from the Week of October 16, 1968 when the first section of the mall opened and from September 12, 1976 when the second section was opened. How else should I go about providing citations as to the validity of this subject? And I assure you, this is more than just "local memories." The Salisbury Mall is a statement on the fickle nature of commerce and how even a $10 million structure can be rendered obselete. User:clauramoist
  • 'Comment It is not a good idea to publish your email, phone number or address here, because these comments may be picked up by spammers or mirrored on other sites. Maybe the local library or historical society has clippings from papers when the mall was important which could be used to improve the article and establish its former importance. It was kind of early to have left traces findable with Google.Edison 17:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Cite them in the article, since a good article is always a strong argument, in the "references" section if they are references for the article content, in the "further reading" section if they are not, using the conventional citation templates. I've started you off with two. This is exactly the sort of thing that we are looking for. Well done. Uncle G 17:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, that the text is not available on-line just means that you cannot fill in the URL field of the citation template. A URL is best regarded as a bonus in a citation of a news article. The important parts are the publication in which the article was published, the byline, the title, and the publication date. Verifiability isn't intended to involve FUTON bias. That there's no handy hyperlink to follow just means that a reader wanting to read the source has to consult the publication's public archives, or a library, directly. (Of course, you can always help readers by providing a sentence of potted summary describing what the source has to say about the subject. Indeed, for best results, expand the article using the source.) Uncle G 17:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Personal testamonials here cannot establish notability. Multiple nontrivial published sources are needed. The articles cited still just say it is an eyesore and a hazard, has been boarded up 15 years, and should be knocked down and redeveloped. One article says a young person thinks it might have been significant in the past, before his time. Still nothing establishing any notability. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information.Edison 17:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Personal testimonials by single purpose accounts are not very compelling, but this borderline based on some of the sources that finally have been produced after Uncle G stated exhaustively what was necessary here. I don't subscribe to WP:LOCAL as it is a proposed guideline, but I suppose that if these sources are added to the article it at least meets WP:V and it may be of local importance, though I personally don't see much notability in the "...first enclosed climate controlled mall on the entire Delmarva Peninsula." It would be nice if there were a source that actually validated that this building has any kind of local historical significance, other than a blog, which isn't exactly a reliable source.--Isotope23 17:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• QuestionWhat could be included (aside from articles -- which I will post this evening) here that would validate this building's story beyond just another local mall-turned-dump? I took a class as an undergrad about folklore and the professor always stressed the importance of chronicling the past, especially when its future is in jeopardy. This mall is scheduled to be be razed by January 2007 and while some of you have pontificated the general banality of this subject, none of you, save Uncle G, have offered suggestions on what information could be provided in order for this article to be deemed valid. The novelty of Wikipedia is that it IS a venue for random information. If it wasn't, I wouldn't have been able to have found the original airing date's of "Mama's Family" (the syndicated version), where a crab apple comes from and exactly which Fleer baseball cards are considered worth money, all in one place. User:Clauramoist
  • Don't be disheartened if people express opinions before you supply all of the evidence. This is a discussion, not a vote, and the presentation of additional information can change editors' minds. People here are reasonable, and opinions are not necessarily set in stone. Uncle G 17:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• I have been working on research for months now and sadly, most of Salisbury Maryland's local paper is only on Microfilm so what I have is mainly what I have scanned from a second rate source. I will follow your advice and add as much as I have. This really isn't your run-of-the-mill mall. It isn't tucked on some roadside off a busy interstate with weeds growing up around it. It's literally in the middle of this town. There is a huge arena across the street. A major shopping center backs up to its parking lot. It's failure is mildly interesting but it's also relative to the area's commercial history. How much time is given before the article *may* be deleted? User:clauramoist
  • Comment, an AfD usually runs for about 5 days; sometimes longer based on how busy the closing admins are. Personally the thing I'd like to see is some evidence of historical contenxt here. Sources don't necessarily have to be online, citing books and newspapers is perfectly acceptible... you just have to include a bibliography.--Isotope23 18:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It has been 3 days since you wrote that. Do you have any more sources to add to the article, yet? I've been reserving forming my own opinion pending the sources that you said were forthcoming. Uncle G 10:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia or gradschool-related work. I had to make a choice ........... however, I have included 2 links so far, the first worked, the second from a Washington Post article from 1990 isn't formatting, and I followed the pattern for the previous articles. I have a number of articles from 1968 when it opened, 1976 when it was expanded, 1990 when the new mall opened and 1991 when there was a murder, and I want to make sure I'm doing this properly.User:clauramoist
• Delete per nom. "[T]he first enclosed climate controlled mall on the entire Delmarva Peninsula"? Worst. Assertation. of Notability. EVER! I'm literally falling over laughing from that line! --Aaron 18:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Edison, and Aaron. Agent 86 18:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to meet notability standards JGardner 23:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Truthbringer. Fishboy 10:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Truthbringer.--Davenort77 16:19, 20 October 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, probably also could have been speedy withdrawn after nominator changed to keep. However, concensus exists to keep it, so that's how the record will stand. Daniel.Bryant 05:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ETouch Systems

Reason This is a notable company, but some other editors think the article seems to be an advertisement. I am taking the article here for a community decision. The article needs to be improved, but perhaps someone with specialist knowledge can do a better job than I can of expanding the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Article has references, and the company seems notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but the article could use more sources -- is this all there is? --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Week keep per Dhartung. — Gary Kirk // talk! 08:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, negligible content Michael K. Edwards 12:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be a notable company with a big-name client list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless seriously improved for informative, encyclopedic style in plain English as opposed to its current state of vacuous prose:

• . . . has developed proprietary social computing technologies including an enterprise wiki solution . . .
• eTouch has leveraged its experience . . .

The company probably is notable and deserves an article. But this rubbish is intolerable. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Close; nominator !voted keep. ergot 14:44, 19 October 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 page will be recreated as a redirect to Quarantine (game). --Coredesat 03:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quarantine (video game)

not noteworthy Numsgil 05:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Deletel NN indy game. TJ Spyke 05:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Nom Knowing Is Half The Battle 06:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete current contents and Redirect to Quarantine (game). If the creator happens to read this, naming your game the same thing as an existing published game is a big no-no, for all sorts of legal and practical reasons. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I never wanted an article to be deleted, but this one justs asks for it. It's not even close to Wikepedia's standards on how to write an article.--=='''[[User:E-Magination''' ==]] 14:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per User:Starblind. ergot 19:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• No vote. This game really sucks poop. --Thad McCotter 00:28, 22 October 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 - there are no reliable sources mentioned in the article with the site as the subject and none have been provided during the course of the AfD. The fact that other similar sites have articles is not a basis for the inclusion of this one. If reliable sources can be provided there is no reason why this article can not be recreated, but as it stands it fails WP:WEB. Yomangani^talk 10:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halopedia

Does not pass WP:WEB. The articles linked to have only mentions of the website. This page was previously nominated for deletion here. The result was merge to Halo (video game series). Khatru2 05:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not nessacary Knowing Is Half The Battle 05:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing to justify this article's existing. GassyGuy 08:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to neutral based on Angela's argument below unless I have time to re-examine the sources linked from this one. GassyGuy 15:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Upon further review, I am back to delete. While it does have references, few if any of them appear to concurrently satisfy that the source be reliable and the coverage non-trivial. GassyGuy 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Halopedia is the biggest information database for the Halo Universe just like Wookiepedia is the biggest information database for Star Wars. Also this reference is needed on Halopedia so people know where to put Halo articles that aren't notable enough to stand on their own in Wikipedia. Much in the same way that Memory Alpha exists so that people can move obsure Star Trek articles that get aFD on Wikipedia. -- Esmono 06:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Isn't there some gaming WikiProject that can link to this as a depository of Halocruft? I believe there is, but either way, this simply doesn't have the coverage that those other two have. GassyGuy 00:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Halopedia is the biggest Halo information database almost as big as Comixpedia in the amount of articles it has. --Esemono 12:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Simply put, the Halo games have a large following. The fanbase is not necessarily larger than Star Trek or Star Wars, but there is enough interest in the site that it recieves 1000-2000 unique visitors a day. There have been 40,000 visitors from the USA, and significant numbers of visitors from 25 other countries. (Stats) Also, the site is more active than some smaller sites which have their own articles here on Wikipedia, such as PlasticsWiki or TikiWiki (Chart). In fact it has stayed in the top 25 most active wiki sites on wikia.com since it transfered to that format. To me, these statistics conform to the notability policy at Wikipedia. -Ed! 01:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Those stats seem too low. I don't think you're accounting for page caching. Google reports 20000 impressions per day, and that's usually a underestimate of about 33%. Angela. 10:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you or anyone else who believes the article should be kept demonstrate how this website satisfies WP:WEB? Has the website been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself? Has the website won a well known independent award? If so, please add references to the article. Khatru2 23:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB states it is a "rough guideline." Can it be ignored in this instance with the argument behind keeping the article? I'm not well aware of how the rules work, so correct me if this is impossible. --OGoncho 07:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Wookipedia has an article, Memory Alpha has an article! Why can Halopedia have an article! Its Sony Bias and jealously if you ask me! (Kidding) --Johnston49er 01:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above --KoRndoG 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: KoRndoG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Anyone notice how the things supporting for keep are much more detailed and reasonable? --Johnston49er 03:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most of the keep support prior to this was along the lines of "other wikis have articles, so this one should too" or were trying to justify it as a Halo website instead of as a website in general so, while detailed, they were not particularly reasonable. However, what is a reasonable keep argument is Angela's below, which at least attempts to show how this meets actual WP guidelines. GassyGuy 15:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets the criteria of WP:WEB since it's been mentioned in various news sites (which are linked from the article). At least 20,000 impressions a day and 26000 Google hits. (disclaimer: Wikia now hosts this site). Angela. 10:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how reliable some of these news sites are:

1. Wikiriot News - Halopedia - 07/31/06 - appears to be a blog posting.
2. Bungie.net - Halopedia Knows - 2/14/06 - also appears to be a blog or message board posting, but it may be from the game developer. I am not sure about this one.
3. Tahlequah Daily Press - Old Man Winter freezes out Halo tourney - 02/20/06 - is a reputable news source, but only has a passing mention of the website.
4. http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Halopedia:What_Halopedia_is_not - the website itself.
5. Navy News - Halo3 - 07/03/06 - similar to number 3, reputable source, only a passing mention.

I am still not convinced that it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works as outlined in WP:WEB. If it is, please correct me. Khatru2 18:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Other sites having articles seems like a reasaonable reason, its also a very active site.--Johnston49er 06:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Inclusion_is_not_an_indicator_of_notability for reasons why many do not consider "there are other articles about <category of things>" to be a reasonable argument. GassyGuy 06:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per inclusion in Wikipedia of Wookieepedia, Memory Alpha, and even Uncyclopedia. --BlueSquadronRaven 08:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Bungie.Net is a very reputable source! Its the actual company that makes the game! --Johnston49er 03:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--- It's a good Wiki with a good community and a lot of hard work put into it --Climax Void 10:48, 23 October 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 06:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dois Filhos de Francisco - A História de Zezé Di Camargo & Luciano

Virtually no context or content, no cited verifications of notibility. Knowing Is Half The Battle 06:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Possibly Speedy Delete As Nominator Knowing Is Half The Battle 06:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Nice cleanup and verification, Smerdis! I was under the impression that this was a poorly written article about a non notable film. This should be expanded, please accept my appoligies for arguing for its deletion. Knowing Is Half The Battle 16:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article needs to be expanded, but the film was wildly popular in its native Brazil. The fact that English-speaking audiences may not be as familiar with it isn't grounds for deletion. GassyGuy 08:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really in research mode, so I don't have a great source to offer, but here's a site that mentions the film and should give you some idea of its popularity: [32]. The film does have an entry on Portuguese Wikipedia, although it appears to do more to document the plot than its significance: [33] (this may be undeserved criticism, as I don't speak Portuguese.) Anyway, it seems a pretty clear keep to me, though the article definitely needs cleaning and expansion. Hopefully somebody else can find better sources. GassyGuy 09:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)]

• Keep per GassyGuy. Appears to be a notable motion picture; has its article on Portuguese Wikipedia. The text here was obviously by someone for whom English was not a first language, and I have tried to clean it up some. Suggest that this should at minimum move to the simpler Dois Filhos de Francisco, or better yet, to an English language title if it ever be released in an English language version. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well known movie in Brazil. --Carioca 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per nom's change of mind. Her Pegship 03:51, 19 October 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 a copyright violation of a web page that is clearly marked "(c) 2006 Fox Television Stations, Inc., and its related entities. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication, or distribution in any form is expressly prohibited". Well spotted, Caknuck. Uncle G 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Halden

A WEEKEND TV news anchor (newsreader for you Brits) in a TV station in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Textbook vanity bio. Was prod'ed, but tag removed by creator, whose work has been solely on this article. Calton | Talk 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not seeing any of the criteria for WP:BIO being met. Luke! 06:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO (it's interesting to note that the creator inserted pugs about himself twice in an article resembling his name) --Daniel Olsen 06:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Those appear to be good faith attempts on the part of an inexperienced editor to add family name disambiguation. Uncle G 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 08:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - C&P job from here. Site has a copyright notice that prohibits reproduction, so this satisfies the criteria for speedy deletion. The associated image (Halden.jpg) is also a copyright infringement and should be axed, as well. Caknuck 22:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 23:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: notability concerns, vanity concerns, copyright concerns. Zap it. Pascal.Tesson 01:32, 18 October 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. -- Steel 17:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lorenzo Manetti

fails WP:BIO; Original research; Article may have been created by Lorenzo Manetti himself - as per WP:NOT & WP:N. James Bond 05:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - violates WP:AUTO. MER-C 08:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable yet. NawlinWiki 15:31, 17 October 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 a7, fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 15:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Marc I

King Marc I is the Ruler and Sovereign of a proud nation of four people and has IMHO no other merits to fulfil WP:BIO - about 6 Google hits. Speedy deletion contested, so AfD. (The page can be perhaps moved to the user page of User:KingMarcI who created it.) Ioannes Pragensis 07:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. "New Oscland" isn't notable (it's a "pretend" micronation), so its dignitaries aren't either. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - complete bollocks. Cheers, Sam Clark 14:30, 17 October 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 17:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shibaricon

This was proposed for deletion, but I do not think the reason "no reliable third-party sources" is by itself reason for deletion. Therefore I bring the article here for more discussion. Abstain. JIP | Talk 07:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Dskj 09:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverified original research with no reliable sources--Kunzite 16:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Only source for the article is the events own website. Fails WP:N and WP:V. The Kinslayer 13:36, 23 October 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 17:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navarro's Original Taco Filling

Totally unverifiable, possible hoax, non-notable even if it does exist. Seraphimblade 08:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete Hoax. There is no "Navarro's Food Inc" near Davenport,IA, or any "Navarro's Foods" at all outside the Phillipines. All the Google pages for the subject (in quotes) point back to this page or some derivative, eg Answers.com, etc. The article contends the product was introduced in 1933, in 1933, it's doubtful one could have even bought tortillas in Davenport, much less meat specifically for tacos. This might be a candidate for Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. It lasted 2 1/2 months without being spotted as a hoax, which might in itself be notable. Tubezone 08:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I hate hoaxes. NawlinWiki 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious (or more likely not liscious in this case). Danny Lilithborne 16:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A hoax you say, but why? What idle hands some must have to pull such a funny hoax... anyway, delete as not verified. QuiteUnusual 22:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the point was to see how long this would fly under the radar before anyone noticed. A fictional taco filling hoax, is kinda funny now that I think about it... Tubezone 23:12, 17 October 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 shave, with soap and not shaving cream. --Coredesat 04:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of bearded people

Not really a very useful list, in my opinion. Also unlikely ever to meet any objective criterion for accuracy or completeness. Michael K. Edwards 08:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, bearded status can change in a matter of days, and a beard affects a man's performance or image in barely measurable ways, thus making the need for a list miniscule. User:Kelsch

• Delete. No one will use this list to find other articles. Beardedness is last and least among all possible distinguishing features a person could have (except for humanity, I guess). --Ling.Nut 11:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - absolutely useless and unmaintainable listcruft. MER-C 12:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete beardcruft. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 12:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Please explain why you list 3 usernames? Does your Delete count 3 times as much as mine?Edison 18:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply If you hovered over the links, you would notice that "Tizio" leads to User talk:Tizio, "Caio" leads to Special:Contributions/Tizio, and "Sempronio" leads to User:Tizio. Apparantly his signature is some sort of Italian phrase or reference. --tjstrf 19:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if it did, AfD is a consensus, not a vote; it doesn't matter if he had fifteen names. --RoninBK_ETC 22:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My delete counts more because I have a beard. Since AfD is not a vote, however, that only implies that the closing admin will read my post above twice. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 11:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'd say almost every male who reaches beard-growing age has given it a try at least once, and we shouldn't forget that there are some cultures is which beards are nearly universal. In short, unmainatanable and unencyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on the above. "I'd say almost every male who reaches beard-growing age has given it a try at least once" -- with all due respect, I submit this is not true! I know personally (very well) at least one person that is a counter-example to your sweeping assertion :> (To be fair, you said "almost"). Ekjon Lok 19:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C. --Alex (Talk) 13:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not useful. --Rbraunwa 15:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Utterly pointless. Merchbow 15:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Hmmm!" I said, stroking my beard, I go on and off the list every time I need a shave. And no Gabby Hayes! http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0371025/ Gol-dern unmanagable list! Apply Occam's razor.Edison 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely and utterly pointless. -- Necrothesp 17:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable. --tjstrf 19:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only maintainable if it refers to the David Gest/Liza Minnelli type of beard and not the Grizzly Adams type of beard. Caknuck 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • LMAO You came THIS close to needing to replace my laptop... Thankfully I turned my head in time, my cat was not so lucky... --RoninBK_ETC 22:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Glad to be of service  :) Caknuck 15:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• I just don't believe this. Is this for real??? If yes, then you may keep this, and good-bye Wikipedia as a serious (even secondary) source. If, however, you care for Wikipedia -- even a bit -- then repeat after me: delete! (And who, by the way, had that much free time on their hands as to actually create something like this? Incredible! LOL!) (Yes: Bums and cult leaders... deities and devils... dwarves, Father Time, Hells Angels and other bikers... Hippies, Gnomes, Kings and Old Men... Patriachical Figures (shouldn't forget about those!) Pharaos, Philosophers, and... wait for it... Pirates! Rabbis and Revolutionaries! And Santa Claus! And Satan! And Sea Dogs, oh yeah! Not to mention Sages, Vikings and Wizards...)

Something that beats even Borges. [34] Gabriel Knight 00:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Even though it might be maintainable if we use Caknuck's suggestion, such a list will run afould of WP:BLP. And the current version had WP:V and common sense problems.-- danntm ^T _C 02:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Well, some beards have passed on; Rock Hudson's ex-wife died just last year, IIRC. Although I shudder at the article title List of deceased beards. --Charlene.fic 13:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Rintrah 10:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C.--Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 03:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Shave. Ha ha. Seriously, though, as others have noted, a beard isn't a fixed trait, and it doesn't generally define a person or character (with a few exceptions which aren't worth basing the entire list on). Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Shave per Zetawoof. Listcruft and unmaintainable. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I've userfied it at User:Endgame1/AutoCAD Layers if someone would like to transwiki it -- Samir धर्म 04:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AutoCAD Layers

Page is essentially a how-to/guide for AutoCAD software and is a POV editorial on the software's appropriate use in the eyes of the artice creator. Wikipedia is not a how-to and while this software is notable, its every nuance and function is not. ju66l3r 09:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree; this article shows what an Architect actually does, in regards to AutoCAD and why the AutoCAD Layers are the most important tool of an Architect in the software AutoCAD. --Endgame1 21:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep :

• I have improved the article. --Endgame1 21:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am currently studying Architecture in post-secondary institute, and I believe the information in this article is valuable, for other people. --Endgame1 21:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Finally I would like to state the purpose of an Encyclopedia: A reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty. --Endgame1 09:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• You should read the links that I have provided you on what this website is NOT, specifically the subcategory on "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" nor is it a collection of essays (also on the WP:NOT page). It addresses your misconception that this encyclopedia is for the purpose of cataloging the entire range of human knowledge. Thanks. ju66l3r 09:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• The purpose of "Google Books Project" is then an indiscriminate collection of information for the purpose of cataloging the entire range of human knowledge? --Endgame1 09:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Science and human intelligence are of the highest importance. If a belief cannot stand up to reason – if it cannot be demonstrated by experiment – then it has to be discarded."--Endgame1 09:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you want to discuss this as a question of the policies of Wikipedia, you should do so on the WP:NOT policy's discussion page. The point remains that as per the policy as it exists now, this page does not qualify for inclusion in my opinion. So, I put it up for responses from other editors to determine what a consensus of editors will decide on the matter. I believe your views as the article's creator are clear here, so please just sit tight and see what others have to say. The process is a 5-day one. ju66l3r 10:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ju6613r please compare my article to 0.999....

Delete - Wikipedia is not a how-to or an essay collection. Michael K. Edwards 09:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment you know, if this information is truly valuable, you may wish to put it on your own personal webspace, or see if there is interest at Autodesk User Group Int Mister.Manticore 16:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• The website you are refering to is a paid website. Information should be free in the "Information Age."--Endgame1 21:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I never understood layers in Autocad, so I found the article interesting. It is far from "indiscriminate information."Edison 17:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a "how to guide" it is in effect WP:OR. If kept it needs a complete rewrite for style QuiteUnusual 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete But I agree with Endgame1 that a good article about CAD layers would be encyclopedic. The problem is, AutoCAD is not the only software to use layers -- (I'm a Vectorworks user myself.) And this article is far too instructional in tone. What's needed here is an article titled, perhaps Layers (CAD) with a description of how layers function in CAD programs and are used, not suggestions about how best to use them. I'm a bit of hack with Vectorworks myself, however, I think Endgame1 could create the appropriate article... Dina 23:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or completely rewrite - I'm an AutoCAD user so can vouch for it's factual accuracy and suggest the original R12 manual as a good source if the article's unreferenced nature is a problem for others - for me though, this article reads like the person ruminations of an autocad user and is, as such, unencylopedic.

"An important thing to realise about AutoCAD is that it is not some kind of digital drawing board. A lot of inexperienced users approach the program as if it was MS Paint for engineers, and end up creating horribly thought out and disorganised drawings that can cause no end of strife and frustration for those who may later be required to work with the files. Not only can badly created drawings cause ulcers to other AutoCAD users, they make it a lot easier for design flaws to sneak into the process."

Complete rewrite needed per Dina above I'm afraid. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia isn't a repository of software documentation. If the article was about general CAD principles and architecture, and not specifically AutoCAD, I'd say keep, but as it is, I say delete or completely rewrite. =Axlq 04:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Transwiki/Rewrite I think WikiBooks is the right place for How To stuff. Rewrite so it discusses layers as a general principle of CAD software.--Richard 05:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiBooks. This is a well written peace whose author obviously put a lot of work into, I see no reason why it should just be deleted.--Konst.able^Talk 12:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:

  Do not, under any circumstances, just scribble down a line in a place that "looks" right. What kind of database user are you to be inserting 199.9813 when you mean 200? If you want one line to begin where a previous one ends, then ensure they contact at EXACTLY the same point. You can use the "Object Snaps" feature to make this work properly, and there is no excuse for creating drawings that contain elements that look like they line up until you zoom in to micrometer scales and discover why those polylines weren't joining correctly or those hatches weren't applying properly etc.

  -- That is an example of good writing? ju66l3r 17:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it may need a clean up, but it looks like a legible peace of writing with some valuable information to me. If the Wikibooks people think it's beyond hope (I doubt they will though), then they can delete it there.--Konst.able^Talk 03:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP is not software manual. What would be the next - ProEngineer volume modeling? Pavel Vozenilek 16:25, 21 October 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. --Coredesat 04:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woodrow Kroll

Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 13:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just some preacher, you know? NawlinWiki 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete reasons above. Luke! 02:05, 18 October 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 17:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] V-trend

Three year old article, was prodded for OR. Bringing here instead of deletion due to lengthy edit history. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. V is for Volatility, which is already in decent shape and would not be improved by merging this bit of punter numerology. Michael K. Edwards 13:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless the article can show how it's calculated and how it's differentiated from the content of the volatility article. =Axlq 04:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Richard 05:17, 19 October 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 - as an "indiscriminate collection" issue, which is essentially subjective, this comes down mainly to the weight of opinion; hence, no consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of countries exempt from rabies quarantines

Indiscriminate list, 2nd nom. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 12:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not an indiscriminate list, but rather the list established under United Kingdom law and found at a United Kingdom government site, http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/quarantine/pets/procedures/support-info/countries.htm See also Pet passport. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If this list is nothing more than that found at a UK site, then the proper option is to put the URL as a link in an appropriate article, or articles. For example pet passport would seem to be the proper choice. Mister.Manticore 14:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - while this list may be extremely useful it's not encyclopedic. Moreschi 13:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Not encyclopedic. DCEdwards1966 16:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep backed by the reference from the UK gov site. I could certainly see people looking this up whilst planning vacations and such. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge: I don't really understand this nomination. There's nothing "indiscriminate" about this list. The verifiability issues are easily remedied. Also those using "not encyclopedic" as a deletion criterion must have a subjective definition of that word which they're not telling us. Having said that, it's too short & not useful enough to be an article in its own right and there's no scope for expansion. A merge to pet passport seems the obvious solution. AndyJones 09:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and require that the nominator and supporters above reread WP:NOT ten times each. I think that some editors don't really understand what "encyclopedic" means, especially as it applies to Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't your typical encyclopedia, having already become the largest encyclopedia in the world and the one with the widest scope. The point is you should be able to find anything you are looking for on Wikipedia, or be directed to it. For example, we don't generally have recipe collections in this encyclopedia, but we certainly have links to them. And I didn't see the pro-deleters above mention anything about providing access of any kind to this useful list they want to delete, which one of them admits is highly useful. One thing Wikipedia is reknowned for is its lists. We have many thousands of lists on just about everything you can imagine. Many of those lists are about the most frivolous of subjects, yet they are deemed "encyclopedic". And here we have a list that travellers with pets may find quite useful. We have articles on travelling (and this is one of them). We have many articles on pets (and this is one of them). We have articles on rabies and a great many other diseases (and this is one of them). We have articles on customs regulations, and this is one of them. That's four encyclopedic subjects by which this article is differentiated from all the rest, narrowing its focus down to a very specific issue, and you say it is indiscriminate. How about these lists and the their underlying articles:
  • List of Pokémon by name
  • List of Pokémon by stage
  • List of Pokémon by National Pokédex number
    • List of Pokémon by Johto Pokédex number
    • List of Pokémon by Hoenn Pokédex number
    • List of Pokémon by Shin'ou Pokédex number
• They're considered encyclopedic, and yet you think this real world and useful list is less encyclopedic than those? You need to read WP:NOT again, and when you do, please explain to me exactly how this article is indiscriminate with respect to that policy's definition of the term.   The Transhumanist   11:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, damnit, it's a very useful list. But can you imagine Britannica, even if they had indefinite space, including something like this? Wikipedia is not a travel guide. This is a useful list purely for travellers. Surely the obvious solution is to include a link to this (i.e to the UK government site) at the bottom of the Pet passport article? WP:NOT AN INDISCRIMINATE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION. Wikipedia should not be including advice. Then it's not an encyclopedia. Moreschi 11:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• The "Britannica argument" holds no merit whatsoever on Wikipedia which goes way beyond other encyclopedias in scope. Wikipedia abounds with articles and lists that currently don't appear in Britannica or any other formal encyclopedia. Wikipedia is more informal, like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and includes lists such as the List of films that most frequently use the word fuck, a very useful movie guide indeed (I've watched almost every movie on there, and will watch the rest when I get around to it). :) Britannica will probably never have articles like that!!!! But Wikipedia does. And the list in question isn't purely for travellers - see my comment below.   The Transhumanist   14:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point #2 "Travel guides." GRBerry 02:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I believe you've taken point #2 out of context. This list is a bit more important than "the phone number or address of your favorite hotel in Paris". Here's the policy you cited:

2. Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.

• And the list in question goes beyond travel, in that it indicates countries in which rabies isn't considered a major problem, which makes it significant to Wikipedia from a geographical perspective. I think the article should expand on this point, but it can't do so if it is deleted!   The Transhumanist   04:38, 20 October 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 AfD failed. In a mass nomination like this, every article involved must be tagged with the {{afd}} template, so that everyone involved in the article has the chance to have their say. This is not my opinion, in fact it's almost contrary to my own opinion - but deletion review overturned a similar mass deletion here for exactly that reason, resulting in a lot of wasted time - List of United States musicians, which encompassed about a hundred sub-articles (two for each state). I argued against that result, but that doesn't change the fact that consensus on this issue of process is against me here.

In this AfD, only the root List of hospitals was tagged. Consensus exists to delete that, but deleting that alone would be absurd, and any consensus on the rest is null.

I'm sorry that I have to be the one to say this when everyone has wasted their time discussing, but I'm disappointed that none of the participants in this AfD noticed earlier before it became too late. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of hospitals

Important: I am also nominating every article linked to from this page.
I am not entirely sure whose bad idea this was. We do not need a list of every non notable hosptial in the entire world. Wikipedia is not a directory, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just to give a small sample of the 150+ articles I'm nominating:

• List of hospitals in Africa
• List of hospitals in Egypt
• List of hospitals in Liechtenstein.
  -- Steel 11:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Laughing Delete - worthless list per WP:NOT. Moreschi 12:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Teaching hospitals (those affiliated with a medical school) are generally notable, and so are many community hospitals. Lists of hospitals are valuable because many notable hospitals (particularly those in countries where the dominant language is not English) do not have articles, and the redlinks in the lists serve as a useful reminder of where articles need to be created. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'm sorry, but I fail to see how something this List of hospitals in Egypt is anything but a directory, prohibited by WP:NOT. It even gives telephone numbers!! Surely WP:PROD is appropriate for this list: it's a flagrant violation of policy. Moreschi 13:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If a hospital is notable, you create an article on it. What you don't do is create 150 articles listing every hospital in existence when only a tiny fraction are worth talking about. -- Steel 13:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete - there is no "YP" in Wikipedia, please help us keep it this way. Michael K. Edwards 13:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep You are nominating 150 articles? That's a tad excessive, and hospitals are hardly less inherently notable than high schools, and there are swarms of lists about them. If you want to adjust the list to only cover notable hospitals, that'd be something worth discussing, but I'm not aware of any explicit policies on hospitals. I think it would be better to discuss that first, then tackle the list. Mister.Manticore 15:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That sounds like a good reason to delete the school lists per WP:NOT.--Isotope23 21:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well said. I see nothing notable about the lists of high schools either. =Axlq 04:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a position which you could successfully develop as a consensus, but you're welcome to try if you want to stick your hands into that beartrap. Mister.Manticore 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What, no consensus on School Articles??? Where is your sense of optimism? I'd do it, but I'm mostly retired from the school debate.--Isotope23 00:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Many hospitals are very important and lists can be organised and annotated in ways that categories cannot. Merchbow 15:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If a hospital is notable, it would have its own article, and any annotations and other facts can then be in the article. The listings in the category pages is sufficient. =Axlq 03:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see. Everything that's notable already has an article on Wikipedia. Why are we bothering to be here at all then? Once again, lists are a useful way of seeing what does and does not have an article. They ARE NOT superseded by categories. -- Necrothesp 09:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • No, everything that's notable should have an article, or at least a stub. And in this case, the list is better served by a category listing. The list in question is nothing more than a "yellow pages" directory, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. =Axlq 16:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. DCEdwards1966 16:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sorry to those voting Keep, but this is thoroughly ridiculous. Danny Lilithborne 16:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Many hospitals are notable, and have articles, but even the best-known ones are mostly stubs. But categorizing a hospital as a hospital adds nothing, and listing hospitals as hospitals adds little. If I were looking for a hospital in a new city, I would Google to find hospitals and their ratings, so I can't see what purpose the state listings serves.Edison 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep lists by country, but not this particular list or lists by continent (it's better to use categorisation than superlists). As usual, lists perform a useful function by indicating what does and does not have an article. Only major hospitals should be listed though. -- Necrothesp 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory Individual articles on notable hospitals is one thing, but many of these are directory style lists, or when you drill down they are lists by state/city just naming the hospital or redlinks. Even where they are bluelinks, something like is infinitely more useful. It looks like alot of work went into this, but there just isn't much value here.--Isotope23 21:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - my fingers walked, and said - WP:NOT applies. QuiteUnusual 22:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all ~150 of them per WP:NOT (an indiscriminate collection of information, a phone directory, etc.). ergot 19:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. This vote applies to the subject article and all articles linked therein. =Axlq 04:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 03:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delte List of hospitals and Keep all others. The lists serve to list identify notable institutions that need articles. If the vote is to delete, then there are a lot of similar lists that can be nominated for the same reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs).
• Keep all 150 of them. Too many blue links in the collection to justify wholesale deletion. Lists are never redundant with categories. AndyJones 10:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, wikipedia needs to list every notable hospital in the world. Until we have separate, unmerged articles for all of them, lists will have to serve that function. After that point, annotated and organized lists will still be more useful than the plain lists generated by the category software. Kappa 07:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Aside from notability concerns (which aren't that relevant) these can be better handled by categories and Wikipedia is not a directory. I see no major benefit by having so many red links especially when many of these are not notable enough to justify having their own articles anyways. JoshuaZ 15:05, 26 October 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of High Schools in South Africa

I think this page should be removed as it is full of errors, is not linked from any significant pages and is made redundant by Category:Schools in South Africa. - Raker 11:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes which clearly states that the generally accepted consenus is that "Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate in different circumstances. These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." Alansohn 03:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep yes it could be better but hey, it could be a heck of alot worse.--Seadog.M.S 12:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Lists of schools are valuable because many notable schools do not have articles. All the redlinks in this list are evidence of the fact that many notable schools do not have articles. If there are errors in the list, they should be fixed. The capitalization of the article's title should also be fixed. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 12:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - there is no "YP" in Wikipedia, please help us keep it this way. Michael K. Edwards 13:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article might be redundant with Category:Schools in South Africa, but it is not a business directory. It is a list of internal links to articles on high schools in South Africa, arranged by province. Uncle G 14:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Are we supposed to take the lack of "YP" as a reason to delete a useful article?!?!?! Alansohn 11:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - most of the links are redlinks that have no articles. An encyclopaedia is made up primarily of articles, not links. Schools should be added as articles or stubs and categorised appropriately. - Raker 15:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the ability to include red links is one of the main assists of lists. Merchbow 15:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Merchbow. Lists are a vital tool to allow editors to see which articles need creating. -- Necrothesp 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not redundant as it provides a basis for expansion. Gazpacho 18:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep The list needs a lot of work: completion, disambiguation & creation of articles/stubs to take care of the redlinks. But it's still somewhat useful as is, and can become very useful with careful cultivation. Caknuck 21:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Lists not redundant with categories. I've started a new religion where I go around voting keep every time I see that non-argument. AndyJones 09:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Despite the meaningless rhetoric, lists and categories are not equivalent and do not -- and never can -- serve the same purposes. The fact that the nominator (and those voting delete, for that matter) doesn't even bother to refer to a supposed Wikipedia policy that bans lists, or articles with many red links, speaks strongly for the retnetion of this and other, similar articles. I don't see any of the "errors" that the nominator mentions. I do see many red links, which are NOT a justification to delete an article, serve as placeholders for future articles and will magically turn blue once the corresponding articles were created. The fact that lists CAN have red links is a point in their favor. If someone started a religion whereby adherents would vote to keep any article where the list vs. category argument is used, I'd sign up in a second. Any info on such a religion and details on what holidays are observed would be appreciated. Alansohn 11:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Violation of WP:NOT and Wikipedia:List guideline combined. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. =Axlq 04:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: References to WP:NOT almost always merely mean "things I personally think don't belong here" and need far more detailed reference as to what aspect of WP:NOT you think are WP:NOT being satisfied by this article. Otherwise, we will WP:NOT know what we can do to address your concerns. Claims based on Wikipedia:List guideline are a new one on me, but I see nothing whatsover in Wikipedia:List guideline that would justify deletion of this particular article. Again, we need to see a far more meaningful explanation of what is not being fulfilled in this particular article. If anything, this list fulfills all three of the primary purposes of a list as specified in Wikipedia:List guideline: Information, Navigation and Development; none of which are fully satisfied by a category. Alansohn 04:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, Axlq, will you please specify which WP:CSD criteria you are referring to? AndyJones 12:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm confused, the votes are to delete List of hospitals and keep this? What is wrong with that picture? Vegaswikian 23:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools for missing highschools.--Rayc 02:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply 1) There are no entries for South Africa in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools; 2) Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools is completely lacking in organization, even for those areas that are covered, making it useless to see desired entries; and, 3) A list can contain ALL of the items in a category PLUS all of the missing articles. Categories AND lists; perfect together. Alansohn 03:26, 24 October 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. --Coredesat 04:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asa Spade

• delete - is this really notable enough for a bio page?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.18GB (talk • contribs) .
• Delete. I don't think so. Gazpacho 01:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Is this one on Afd? Or just a prod? If so, what is it doing here? I'm a bit confused. -- 131.111.8.104 01:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As noted above, the nominator questions whether the subject meets the WP:BIO criteria, and I agree, this does fall short. (As a procedural note, this probably should have been left as a proposed deletion rather than sent to AfD.) —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete obviously db-bio Michael K. Edwards 13:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity bio. *drew 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, voice parts in two computer games is insufficient notability. NawlinWiki 15:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete nnbio. Danny Lilithborne 16:30, 17 October 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, for now, though little consensus in what form, and User:Kubigula raises the central concern of verifiability (obviously the term exists, but if we can't get a coherent picture of what exactly it means, we can't even start to write a verified article), but there hasn't been any other discussion on that one way or the other. It's somewhat difficult to image a nomination like this, a malformed objection to this redirection, actually resulting in deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad science

• Oppose -- This article should definatly not be deleted nor should it be a redirect page. The term "bad science," is used by the scientific community to describe "scientific findings" arrived at without proper scientific procedure, and does not exclusivly refer to Goldacre's writing. Mrwuggs 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with junk science and pseudoscience. (I am tempted to suggest that about 80% of Wikipedia "science" articles should be replaced with semi-protected redirects to pseudoscience; but that would be rather cranky of me, wouldn't it?) Michael K. Edwards 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to junk science. This article is completely unreferenced; it has the appearance of original research. For that reason I am not in favour of a merge.  --Lambiam^Talk 17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Reading the article will disclose that Bad science includes Junk science and pseudo science as subtypes,along with other aberrations. There are many kinds of bad science that are far from pseudoscience. Pseudoscientists are usually lacking scientific credentials and lack a university setting, but bad scientists may have credentials and be at a university. Some use "bad science" as a term of art to discount things like global warming or statistical sampling to estimate the civilian death count in Iraq. Senator Inhofe said of global warming: 'Mann's results are "based on using end points in computing changes in an oscillating series" and are " just bad science." I repeat: "just bad science."' A large proportion of published research and textbook content qualifies as bad science. Bad science is a good title for an umbrella article encompassing an overview of all its branch articles. Someone comfortable with philosophy of science and Epistemology has to wrestle some heavy references to back up the text of such an article. All the related articles are presently a bit lightweight except Pseudoscience, which appears broadly references, but too specific to absorb Bad science.Edison 17:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article could certainly use some attention from a good editor as mentioned above, but it's worth keeping. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Perhaps something could be done with it, but, unfortunately, the real definition of bad science is "science I don't agree with". There isn't a global, acceptable, definition. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This AfD is still incomplete in that it is not clear who nominated it for deletion or what reasons the nominator had. --Bduke 00:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. No, it isn't. (Not remembering whether I was the one who put the AfD on...) Consider it procedural, unless someone accidently deleted the nomination reason. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to junk science.150.203.177.218 05:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Arthur Rubin. The article lacks references or citation and I could not find any universal understanding of what constitutes "bad science". -Kubigula (ave) 01:01, 19 October 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 due to apparent bad-faith nomination. --Coredesat 04:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daisuke Sakaguchi

4.18GB 01:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)is this really notable for a page?

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep, perfectly notable seiyu. As much as I hate to say this, this AfD reeks of a bad faith nom. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep notable voice actor with many roles in major games and series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Dskj 13:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable voice actor. NawlinWiki 15:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as bad faith nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Does appear to be notable. Pursey 20:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- RoninBK_ETC 22:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I dont think this is a bad faith nom, but this is definitely a notable person. Resolute 00:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy snowball keep the article does him no justice. (See the Japanese article for further details.) The seiyu industry in Japan is very large and produces nationally known stars. He's a very prolific seiyuu and, I'd say, notable. --Kunzite 01:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Any chance you, (or anybody for that matter,) could translate and add info from :ja to here? Not that it needs it to survive AfD, but it would be nice. --RoninBK_ETC 02:58, 18 October 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 author's request. No other user contributed content to the article. Turnstep 13:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DeKrayic Paganism

Unreferenced, zero GHits —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.18GB (talk • contribs) 01:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - unverifiable. MER-C 12:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, along with DeKrayic Pagan and The Question of Life - db-hoax. Michael K. Edwards 13:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy as above. Not even a single Google hit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I prodded it with this reason, I'm really not sure why 4.18GB converted it to an AfD. There's nothing to discuss. It's either a hoax or an nn cult. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable junk. PJM 14:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. NawlinWiki 15:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per verifiability rules. Drake Wilson 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I wrote the articles, feel free to delete them, should have looked closer to the rules, it is a small section of Paganism. I'll replace the articles after book containing the information is published, as then I'll be able to cite sources. My apologies. KjSexton 06:57, 19 October 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 06:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Meakins

I just don't see why Meakins in notable.

Delete per not noteable enough for wikipedia. Minfo 22:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. He holds a professorial chair at the University of Oxford, is co-editor of a journal in his field, and member of the Order of Canada. It seems that other people have already recognized him as notable. Tupsharru 12:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Order of Canada recipitent. Catchpole 12:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Both the current Nuffield Professor of Surgery and, as mentioned, a member of the Order of Canada. The Nuffield Professorship of Surgery at Oxford is an analagous honour (equivalent in stature and notability in their respective fields) to the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge. --Charlene.fic 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. Merchbow 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Holder of a major chair at one of the world's most famous universities and an Officer of the Order of Canada to boot. -- Necrothesp 17:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the Order of Canada is Canada's highest civilian honour, and he's got a prominent position in a famous university. Edward Wakelin 18:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. The Order of Canada is not given lightly. Resolute 00:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Hopefully the nominator now sees why this person is notable.  ;-) RFerreira 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, oh dear, I normally don't list articles for deletion and this is why. I still slightly unsure of notablity, but I might be missing something. He is a co-editor of an unlinked (although possibly still prestious) journal, has written some papers (as all college professors do), and is a member of the Order of Canada. So I guess he is notable, but hopefully you guys can understand where I'm coming from. Order of Canada, to me, equals an MBE and most of the MBEs do not have articles. Λinfo 03:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If they were created (Members of the Order of the British Empire, or Order of Canada, or Royal Society of Canada, or High Society of Country X, or whatever) they would almost certainly be notable due to both the award they recieved, and whatever they did to recieve it.Edward Wakelin 04:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • He's an Officer (not just a Member) of the Order of Canada, which makes him equivalent to an OBE at least, probably higher since Canada doesn't award knighthoods. In general, I would say that anyone with an OBE is probably notable, although not necessarily those with MBEs. -- Necrothesp 13:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A rough guide is that membership of the Order of Canada is roughly equivalent to a UK KBE, officership is equivalent to a baronetcy, and companionship is equivalent to a life peerage. The only medals worn "before" an OC medal are the Victoria Cross and the Cross of Valour. Being an officer in the Order of Canada is almost a guarantee that the individual is notable in his or her field. --Charlene.fic 13:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep per all above. OddAud 16:41, 18 October 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 due to apparent bad-faith nomination. --Coredesat 04:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naoko Matsui

is this really notable enough for a page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.18GB (talk • contribs) 01:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep, appears to be a bad faith nom along with this. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Dskj 13:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to be a notable voice actor. NawlinWiki 15:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Does aopear to be notable. Pursey 20:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- RoninBK_ETC 22:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Are you kidding? Danny Lilithborne 23:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy snowball keep the article does her no justice. (See the Japanese article for further details.) The seiyu industry in Japan is very large and produces nationally known stars. She's a very prolific seiyuu and, I'd say, notable. --Kunzite 01:07, 18 October 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Hamiltonian

article consists of crankish claims. Mct mht 05:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Whatever the claims, it's a hodgepodge of things with the name "hamiltonian" in it.--CSTAR 05:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - mishmash of BS. Michael K. Edwards 09:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

split. this article should only be about the classical relativistic hamiltonian as applied in QM. all other aspects not related to physics and regarding understanding the difference between classical mechanic hamiltonians and QM hamiltonians should be moved to a new page or abolished completely to avoid further confusion. however, a fundamental understanding of the difference of hamiltonians in QM application, classicals mechanics and other fields like group theory is needed and a brief overview of said differences be accessible from the Hamiltonian disambiguition page. andrej.westermann 12:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment The nominated article is not the droid you're looking for. The quantum field theory analogue of the Hamiltonian is passably described in an interlocked set of articles including Hamiltonian (quantum mechanics). Michael K. Edwards 13:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

these are not covering what we are talking about. you just proved again the need for a clear identification that the Hamiltonian has at least two distinct but closely related meanings. you mention QM and this article is wrong placed there, agree. perhaps you would care to take your time to understand the issue other than just picking up on some flaming. 84.227.129.102 14:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC) oops, was not logged in. öandrej.westermann 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

*Delete: this is either original research, or some useless, uninformative, malformed piece of weirdness. -- Ekjon Lok 13:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Cancel my vote. The article is certainly not perfect and needs a lot or work, but is no longer the utter nonsense that it was when I made my vote. Ekjon Lok 18:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

could we get a reply from another math whiz, please? preferably senior. i am getting tired to argue this and the argument shows the need. it is not original research. as some research might prove to the quick-dismissers. 84.227.129.102 14:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC) oops, was not logged in andrej.westermann 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The article has been changed considerably since I made my vote, but I still maintain delete [delete vote cancelled, see above, Ekjon Lok]. The article currently cannot say anything other than what Hamiltonian (quantum mechanics) does for quantum mechanics, or Hamiltonian mechanics for classical mechanics. If you wish to add information on how to incorporate electromagnetism into Hamiltonian formalism, either in classical or in quantum mechanics, then add appropriate information to the two articles above. (I must also say, as an aside, that the article Hamiltonian (quantum mechanics) is itself not in the best of shape and definitely needs some work.)

the article tries to distinguish the two. they, or their applications should not be confused. again, a reason to keep it with a strong call for improvement, which has been this issue's history as far as i can trace it. andrej.westermann 17:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the current version of the article contains much nonsense. "Kamiltonian" is not a word.

it is. but again, not well known. look it up. or add the link. or follow it. there was a paper, for the time i have lost it, anyone care to help? how should i ever get to complete it if i constantly have to argue against completion due to being incomplete? andrej.westermann 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The formula "H=T+E=E" is nonsense, did you mean "H=T+V=E"?

yep. corrected. thanks. andrej.westermann 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement "Hamiltonian ... is time and mass independent" is pure, utter nonsense: how can Hamiltonian be mass independent for a massive particle?

AFAIK, it needs be mass independent initially to describe mass. andrej.westermann 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement "Hamiltonian ... uses wave functions" does not mean anything; in first quantization Hamiltonian is an operator that acts on wave functions (states), it is the generator of time translations.

so why not phrase it better? will go and do. andrej.westermann 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In short, the article now is in such poor shape that delete is the only option. After deleting, just redirect to Hamiltonian (quantum mechanics). -- Ekjon Lok 17:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

disagree as per comments andrej.westermann 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Some replies:

• "Hamiltonian is mass-independent" is generally wrong. It does contain a parameter, m, the mass of the particle. Leaving aside subtle thins such as mass renormalization (which only occurs in QFT), this is the mass of the particle. The typical example would be H = p² / 2m. Your example contains an m under the square root sign.

• yep. tried to clarify. same content, different context. anyone please help me put this clearly? that's what this is about. no less, no more. thanks andrej.westermann 17:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Most importantly, read my comments at the end of this section: if this article is really cleaned up and improved, it cannot be anything other than the standard discussion in Hamiltonian (quantum mechanics). It will only duplicate existent material. Currently it does not say anything new, anything that other articles on Quantum Mechanics on Wikipiedia do not say. Quite frankly currently it does not say almost anything at all.

-- Ekjon Lok 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Cleaned up. andrej.westermann 15:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

suggesting removal of AfD as further investigation indicates attack from a possibly biased group of contributors. Before you take offense, note that i said possibly, as it is my interpretation from reading Mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics and the corresponding Talk page. Wikipedia is NOT a peer review system for ideas, so different views should not try to delete each other. It is maybe a presentation peer review system of some sort and any comments should be taken serious, even if they come from seemingly opposed positions. As you can see, i am trying to oblige. But again, opposition to the views held in an article does not directly lead to AfD, as said authors might appreciate themselves.84.227.129.102 15:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC) oops again andrej.westermann 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

For me, this argument is over, the contested article has been cleaned and contributions to the Hamiltonian Operator are in preparation. As far as i can see, all sides should be satisfied so far. Comments? 84.227.129.102 15:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC) and oops again. i am not my sockypuppet :) andrej.westermann 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Still Delete, as it has gone from being weirdness to empty, redundant, and poorly sourced. I'm sorry to be a wet blanket, Andrej, but I don't see a need for this article. Michael K. Edwards 16:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

we know already. you might want to read the AfD guidelines again. Better yet, show an understanding of the argument instead of making crude claims to irrelevance. This article has been suggested long time ago, see Talk:Hamiltonian mechanics. Maybe i have missed its existence, which would be the only claim for deletion (or merge) i could accept. andrej.westermann 16:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

the references are fine, but there seems to be a link repeatedly breaking to Eric Weisstein on Wolfram Science World. should be better now. andrej.westermann 17:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

again, this whole discussion seems to be vs people not being aware of this Hamiltonians significance, which to me is just te argument to keep it. If you would help phrase why it can be disregarded in your fields, that would really improve the article. i have tried in the intro but naturally can not make a convincing case to irrelevance :). The subject itself will always stay short and precise but because of its implications (and differing interpretations as to validity), it should stay separate. andrej.westermann 17:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I simply do not understand why you want to create a separate article. Hamiltonians are indeed very important. They are important in classical physics, where they are certain functions of coordinates and conjugate momenta (and possible explicit time), and they can be used to obtain equations of motion as Hamilton's equations. They also have a geometric significance, as generators of time translations, using symplectic manifolds, Poisson brackets etc. All this is described in the article Hamiltonian mechanics. They are also very important in quantum physics, where they are operators that act on states and again are generators of time translations. They can then be identified with energy operators, for example in the famous time-independent Schrödinger equation, where H is the Hamiltonian (operator), is the eigenstate of this operator and E is the energy, the eigenvalue. All this is described in the article Hamiltonian (quantum mechanics). I do not see what can you possibly say in a new article that is called "Quantum Hamiltonian" that is not already said in one of these two. -- Ekjon Lok 17:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• exactly the point. there is no need to state anything new but there is a need to state the differences you just mentioned in one article. they do well make the distinction themselves, however, for the layman, this distinction gets easily confused and i am still looking for a way to clear this. so far, this is the way and i have tried keeping links to it few and if possible only from the disambiguition page or the areas you mentioned.andrej.westermann 17:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest reading good books on Quantum Mechanics. You can always use Wikipedia as a secondary reference, to clarify concepts that seem unfamiliar. Generally, the connection between classical Hamiltonian and quantum Hamiltonian is made via the "canonical quantization" formalism: the Poisson bracket is replaced by commutator (times some factors such as i and ). Classically, Hamiltonian is just a function (in most cases it is just the energy). In quantum mechanics Hamiltonian is an operator. In both cases they can be viewed as time translation generators (classically by the Poisson bracket action, quantum-mechanically by direct action on state vectors, or by commutation on other operators). All good books on quantum mechanics usually describe this. -- Ekjon Lok 17:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Final final comment: if you really want to write an article on how Hamiltonians are used in classical and quantum mechanics, what are the connections, what are the differences and similarities, then it should not be called "Quantum Hamiltonian". It should be called something like "Hamiltonian in classical and quantum physics" or something similar. That might, indeed, be quite useful. -- Ekjon Lok 17:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• yep. now i'm starting to understand. i support this point totally, see discussion :) thank you very much! andrej.westermann 18:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

conclusion: suggest move as per EkjonLok to new page Hamiltonian in classical and quantum physics or equivalent and then delete this. help still appreciated. andrej.westermann 18:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

does anyone read the original argument? Talk:Hamiltonian_mechanics andrej.westermann 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: What was this Hamiltonian called by theorists who worked on it? Obviously it wasn't called the quantum Hamiltonian before QM existed. Gazpacho 17:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (as mostly nonsense, and the remainder being an essay; signed, etc.) and possibly create a new page Hamiltonian in classical and quantum physics. (For what it's worth, the "source" for Kamiltonian is worthless as reference.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

yep, this reference to kamiltonian is nada, have seen other though, anyone remembers? been busy otherwhise... :) andrej.westermann 19:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• still move and delete waiting 24h for other suggestions/objections. there is enough material out there. i apologize from the confusion. any help much appreciated. so far, all comments very appreciated, thank you all! andrej.westermann 19:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Quote from above: *Final final comment: if you really want to write an article on how Hamiltonians are used in classical and quantum mechanics, what are the connections, what are the differences and similarities, then it should not be called "Quantum Hamiltonian". It should be called something like "Hamiltonian in classical and quantum physics" or something similar. That might, indeed, be quite useful. -- Ekjon Lok 17:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I consider the relationship between Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations of a physical theory to be about the deepest topic there is in mathematical physics. If you can treat it with any remotely useful degree of mathematical accuracy within the constraints of a Wikipedia article, you're a better man than I am. I think I'll just skip the rant and point out that http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Yang-Mills_Theory/ is an offer of a million smackeroos more or less for an explanation of how a sane Hamiltonian can emerge from a realistic Lagrangian. In the meantime,

• Hamiltonian mechanics is decently accurate but opaque to all but the most sophisticated readers, and should perhaps be moved to Hamiltonian (classical physics);
• Hamiltonian (quantum mechanics) is a jumble but at least links to most of the relevant terms;
• Hamiltonian (quantum field theory) is missing; it should bring probably together concepts like Dyson series, interaction picture, and canonical quantization, and explain why the BRST formalism seems largely to have eclipsed the latter; and
• Quantum Hamiltonian delenda est.

Michael K. Edwards 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, don't move; this has no content and is still mostly wrong. Please feel free to plan new articles from scratch. Melchoir 22:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• To clarify my short delete comment above: Of course the connection between classical and quantum mechanical Hamiltonians is a valid subject. My delete should not be interpreted as opposing that somebody write about this, either in Hamiltonian (quantum mechanics) or in a new article. However, the first step is necessarily to delete the current text. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete with possible further action. I've tried to use cascade-formatting to make this legible; there is a lot to note here.

This is illustrative of the problems with many specialized-field science articles on the encyclopedia at this time. At its best versions, it has duplicated the effort of the two existing articles discussed in above notes. At its worst, it has been disingenuous and factually inaccurate. The justifications given on the article's discussion page are particularly circuitous or nonresponsive. And, of course, the references are varyingly unacceptable (a toequest.com forum post), extraordinarily generic links that are functionally definitions, or wholly inapplicable to the topic discussed (William H. Rowan's original work). The encyclopedia has standards for math and science articles that are steeper than those for, say, popular culture, and this does not meet them.

Wikiproject Physics has largely concluded this author is, to use their words, "a crank or a prankster". This article and references to it have been systemically poor since inception, and have been all but exclusively the playground of a single-topic account (andrej.westermann) and a veritable host of sockish-seeming IPs (84.226.146.13, 84.227.60.147, 84.227.80.45, 84.227.129.102, 89.217.60.227), perhaps from a semi-dynamic host. As further evidence of the curious lack of transparency by this editor, the piped link to this page from Swinging Atwood's Machine is particularly evasive -- AfD readers will likely have to examine the article code to even locate it. This diff from Quantum mechanics illustrates the use of another inappropriately piped link to this article by this IP cluster.

OOOh, this link looks like a nasty hack. apologies. the article started from a hodograph... ouch, am ashamed. andrej.westermann 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if a seperate article under this name were viable (which I do not believe to be true), this must not be the way to go about it. Serpent's Choice 06:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Followup note: all of the above-listed IP addresses are from DSL provider Sunrise in Switzerland. The likelyhood that they are the same editor is very strong. Serpent's Choice 06:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this as an unusable version. Followed by cleanup and harmonization of all Hamiltonian-articles we have (about 20, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Hamiltonian_articles). --Pjacobi 08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

DELETE absolutely and agree to all except the sockypuppet theory and making obscure critical comments (including yours truly), will be logged in always when doing even minimal maintenance and generally get informed about most anything re Wiki and applied Hamiltonian. Final comment: E=mc² as polar spherical hamiltonian brought me here, please excuse my other ignorance and any trouble caused therefrom. THANKS A LOT! andrej.westermann 20:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. There are a variety of existing articles that cover this set of topics in great detail. There's nothing here to save or move or split. linas 03:59, 27 October 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, after discounting single-purpose accounts and/or arguments that do not relate to Wikipedia policy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RussArt.com

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]}}

One of many Netflix clone sites. There is nothing particularly notable about this one. Was speedy deleted under A7, but its creator objected, and I felt that in the interest of fairness, we might as well open this up for debate: the fact that they specialize in Russian movies is something unique, enough to pass A7. But I still don't see notability to the level of WP:WEB here. Mangojuice^talk 18:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Even though it utilizes the same Netflix business model (with some deviation, like "express" service), it deliberately avoids the Netflix content, trying to position itself as a mutual exclusive company content wise.

  I am using both companies for my "movies" needs, just because of the unique RussArt.com content. For more then 6 million Russian speaking people in US, RussArt.com is really a one of the few threads which they can use to preserve their culture.

  RussArt also provides with extensive info about movies/TV serials which help to make a decision what to order next.

  I am actually looking for another site like RussArt.com, but dedicated to exclusevly French movies, since Netflix does not satisfy my demand on them either, but cannot find it just yet....

  --Bakhteiarov 19:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep To me it is very offensive that a mass culture giant Netflix dealing 90% in Hollywood production, shields honorable attempts to compete in cultural niches. Let's take a hypothetical site that, say, rents gay and lesbian movies. Well, Netflix does carry the Brokeback Mountain, so let's ban the site from everywhere because it's just another copycat. That's a poor approach, missing the points: (1) the gay and lesbian community is proud to have their own service, (2) there is much more for the visitors than just rentals - like gay and lesbian news, events, movie reviews from particular angle, etc.

    I vote for diversity - let's allow the Russian/Ukranian/Jewish/etc. American community to have their cinema portal RussArt.com, which also happens to rent DVDs like Netflix does, - listed.

    Helgrot 03:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Helgrot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see this passing WP:WEB at present. No coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It passes WP:WEB. The Internet Movie Database and Google are pretty reliable sources. There more then several references from both of them. Also, over 6 million people culture in the US is pretty notable. Especially if you take into account that this culture influences the World's one very much. Should I present a list of movie producers/composers/musicians/artists/authors here for those who is unaware? --Bakhteiarov 13:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • IMDB and Google (1) aren't reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense and (2) offer only very tangential information. Mangojuice^talk 14:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What you should present is a list of source citations for in-depth books and articles written about this web site by people independent of its and its creators/publishers, to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. A simple assertion, with no cited sources, carries little weight, which is lessened yet further when it is claimed alongside that Google is somehow a source. Uncle G 14:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I did not know, that I should explain that "Google Video" is not only a search engine per se... but it is now looks like the case. Google has gone well beyond of being search engine and became a content provider. I used coverage from Google Video, which is a reputable content provider on the Net. --Bakhteiarov 14:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • When I search for "RussArt" in Google Video, it returns a bunch of videos in Russian. How does that reflect on RussArt.com? Surely, the videos RussArt provides are notable. Mangojuice^talk 14:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You still aren't citing sources. Please cite sources. Uncle G 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Please, explain me what the difference in notability with SmartFlix and RussArt.com, for instance? --Bakhteiarov 14:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I was interested in the subject and was able to find it on the Web easily. Google Video and IMDB look like quite reliable sources to me. Helgrot 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Helgrot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Struck, second vote from this user, also likely sockpuppet (see contribs). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (I originally speedied the article); fails WP:WEB and WP:V. NawlinWiki 15:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not voting second time, I'm just offering more information. You guys might not read Russian and in such case it's hard for you to see what I see. I spent some time on this site and see that DVD rentals is just a small part of it. It offers public forum, where anyone can contribute content, post reviews and comments. It has online games, challenging knowledge on russisn cinema and actors. It has tons of news articles about movies and actors, including biographies and anecdotes. So I'd qualify it at least 50% as a cultural hub. Helgrot 15:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Helgrot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • None of that is relevant. The criteria are WP:WEB. cite sources to show that this web site satisfies them. Uncle G 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry, I need to repeat this, since everybody decide not pay attention to this, - Please, explain me what's the difference in notability between SmartFlix and RussArt.com, for instance? --Bakhteiarov 15:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's irrelevant. "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. You've been told what to do to make a good argument: cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. You still haven't cited a single source. Uncle G 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I am sort of agree with you, from another hand, in Aristotel logic, it is called transitivity and can be very well applied here. --Bakhteiarov 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Just because SmartFlix isn't up for deletion doesn't mean no one thinks it should be deleted. I for one think that if this is deleted, SmartFlix should be too - this would be a solid precedent. Mangojuice^talk 16:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I also like this TigerCinema. I do not mind to be deleted if you guys apply the same set of rules to everybody...Why the "Russian" word has caused such a turmoil in your rows? Why did not you notice all these similar articles before the Russian has poped up? --Bakhteiarov 18:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comrade Bakhteiarov: looks like they are against cultural diversity here. Isn't it illegal in the US? Shall we fetch a good lawyer from the great Russian American community and see what we can do this way? Helgrot 15:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Helgrot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I suggest you look at WP:LEGAL. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 18:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• No, it is about their notability, so far I have not seen here a single Russian-speaking editor, so they just do not notice this....but lot's of Russians who live in US do! --Bakhteiarov 15:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It just doesn't meet notability; all other discussion is irrelevant if you can't get past WP:N. --Aaron 17:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Awesome possibilities to be in charge of the very latest Russian movies. Love it!! Michael ÷Pycckue 18:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC) — Pycckue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - blatant advertisement. This and other pages like this one should be deleted. 130.36.62.140 22:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)rusman

• Hi all. Ok, here is the thing. I'm Russian living in US for the past 10 years. I moved to US when I was 14. Even though, I speak, read and write almost perfectly in my native language, sometimes I come accross words that I never heard before. Believe it or not, when I search Google for the newly heard word, it often displays Wikepedia's page in the first few results. For the past month, it helped me learn 3 new words in my native language. Deleting this content would be a huge mistake. Thank you. 22:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)~ Dmitriy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.188.33.222 (talk • contribs).

• Keep RussArt has a good source of Russian cartoons and fables for Russian children! -Ludmila Globa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ludmila Globa (talk • contribs) 00:56, 18 October 2006. — Ludmila Globa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment: The Russian Wikipedia does not have an article on RussArt.com. Vectro 02:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Followup comment: There was a RussArt.com article on the Russian Wikipedia, but it was speedily deleted. It is mentioned on the Russian wikipedia article for "film", however. Vectro 05:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 03:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; fails WP:WEB, WP:RS, WP:V, etc. And I wouldn't mind seeing sources for the claim that 90% of what Netflix carries are Hollywood productions. I've been getting Bollywood movies from them for over a year now. ergot 19:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, apparently you mean Netflix not RussArt.com here, since RussArt.com does not carry a single Indian movie. So, your comment looks more then a strange one to me.--User:Bakhteiarov 14:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I said. I have rented literally hundreds of Indian movies from Netflix, thus I am inclined to doubt Helgrot's claim above that 90% of the movies that Netflix carries are Hollywood productions. It doesn't really have any bearing on this AfD discussion, it just struck me as being a strange and unlikely claim. ergot 14:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am Netflix customer too, but I am a customer of RussArt either, do you think it is because I have spare $20 a month? If you are unable to verify the facts, please do not comment, but you have decided to vote even! --Bakhteiarov 15:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I said that the article fails WP:WEB, WP:RS, and WP:V, which is all that matters here. ergot 15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

For billions, Bollywood is not notable. Notability is very subjective matter.--Bakhteiarov 11:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so now you're saying that we should delete the Bollywood article? What does that have to do with anything? If you want to try to get that deleted, go nominate it and see how it goes. What we are talking about here is RussArt.com, which doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion and should be deleted as such. As a matter of fact, it probably could have been speedied under CSD G11, which we have recently been directed by the Wikimedia Foundation to vigilantly enforce. ergot 15:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I (and billions other people) think Bollywood is not notable. Existence of the article like Bollywood emphasizes the fact that Wikipedia article admission process is far from perfect. And I would move Bollywood article to indian Wikipedia.--66.189.88.27 20:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

So do like I suggested and go nominate it for deletion. I would also suggest that you take a look at our criteria for notability. But what we are discussing here is RussArt.com. ergot 00:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Russian-speaking people are of different religions, political convictions, and races. RussArt.com is looking beyond any of these, aiming to unite Russian-speaking migrants on a ground of Russian language and culture. Just my 2 cents... 65.213.54.119 19:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Wolf — 65.213.54.119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete per nom Anomo 01:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This human admin system does not look sustainable to me, number of new articles grows in geometric progression, admins are not able to catch everything up even today. --Bakhteiarov 02:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - do not see anything encyclopedic about this. It is good comercial service catering to Russian speaking movielovers in continental US, but I do not think this is a reason enough for an article. There is nothing special or unique about it except for the large specialised collection of the DVDs that are crossreferenced with actors/movies database. The bisness model isn't unique, and for info on movies/actors one usually goes to specialized Russian sites like http://www.rusactors.ru, http://www.ruskino.ru/, http://www.kinoexpert.ru as well as for authoritive resources in the RUNET or Wikipeia itself Актёры СССР, Актрисы СССР, Актёры России, Кинематограф России and such —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmaryakh (talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 October 2006. — Dmaryakh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note: Dmaryakh's original Russian text were all redlinks to the English Wikipedia; only the last exists on the Russion Wikipedia, and is the article for "Cinema of Russia". Vectro 15:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Just wanted to point to the previous note that the topic under which RussArt.com is being published is called "List of online DVD rental companies" and has nothing to do with general encyclopedic content about Russian cinema. Helgrot 04:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC) — Helgrot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep - The Chinese and Indian DVD rental sites are listed, why the Russian one shouldn't be? - Observer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.3.60 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 October 2006. — 71.202.3.60 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep I've read about it on a forum and was curious enough to follow the link. I tend to agree with the previous voter. 216.88.134.61 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC) — 216.88.134.61 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • This user seems to be responding to this canvassing request. Interestingly, the comments on the forum are mostly in favor of (or indifferent to) deletion. Vectro 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • "Well, despite the title of this thread, they don't ask for our vote, they ask for well-thought arguments, and mainly, they want YOU to cite sources to satisfy their criteria. Good luck!" -- Solominka.
    • "Коммерция, однака... Ежели бы Вы художникам помогали... А так... Свой бизнесс делаете... Нет, не буду голосовать... Платное искусство в массы?" by mastadont, which babelfish translates to "Commerce, odnaka... If you helped artists... But so... Your bizness you make... No, not I will vote... Paid skill into the masses?"
  • More notes about canvassing: The canvasser appears to be Helgrot (talk • contribs); I have placed evidence on his/her talk page, and the associated profile of the canvasser suggests that s/he is affiliated with RussArt.com. Vectro 22:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Russian speaking people in US is a tiny slice of population (~ 2.6%), so social clubs and services for these people are barely notable in american society, meaning they just cannot be as notable as, say Netflix. Having said this, it is still 6-7 millions, which is a size of some European country. Notability notion, here, materializes a simplified democratic principle, - "the size does matter" and that the majority defines the ultimate truth, a.k.a. consensus. As related to RussArt.com article, - I am satisfied with the discussion and as long as "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL" in the List of online DVD rental companies on Wikipedia, - we are in a concensus here :-). Thanks.

--Bakhteiarov 11:23, 25 October 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 14:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Trinity Catholic Church -- Ladera Ranch, California, USA

Non notable church, orphan article. Catchpole 12:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, single church with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki 15:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No verified claim of notability. It's a good idea to include published press references to the church's importance or accomplishments or architectural significance, if any, when the article is created. But not every church is notable, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Mention of the church could well be put in an article on the town, under "Religious institutions."Edison 17:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all enduring public institutions. --Centauri 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Centauri that Wikipedia should keep all of its articles about "enduring public institutions", but this is not one of them. It is brand new, has not done anything, and is part of a larger whole that is well represented in the Wikipedia. Bejnar 06:34, 20 October 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 - speculation about the motivation of the nominator doesn't matter when there are legitimate policy-reasons to argue for deletion. Those arguing for deletion, including the nominator, have done that, and the keep side hasn't come up with credible third party sources (not passing mentions) to refute them. Wikipedia is a website run by a non-profit entity, and speaking for myself I'm not being paid for this, so I'm not particularly concerned with 'conflicts of interest'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Webopedia

Advertisement/promotional; fails WP:WEB - commercial web site promotion. Geomguy 16:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Reasonably high Alexa ranking [35]; mainstream media mentions: [36],[37], [38]. Bad faith nomination; Note this comment on the Tech Dictionary AFD mentioning Webopedia; note that Geomguy (talk • contribs) was the creator of the Tech Dictionary article, and the only other keep vote for Tech Dictionary is from the anon IP that Geomguy started this from. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If the criteria of a high alexa rank or mainstream media mention deserves a listing on wikipedia then online casino gambling web sites should also be considered for inclusion on Wikipedia. This page violates the policy that pages should not exist soley "to attract visitors to a web site" - this page provides no useful information other than directing someone to the Webopedia web site. Geomguy 17:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. An advertising-like tone for an article is not grounds for deletion, but for cleanup. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Geomguy. Michael K. Edwards 14:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Association with Jupitermedia and media mentions push it past WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, bad faith or not. Ohnoitsjamie's links do not include any nontrivial coverage of the website, only mentions and links; they do not satisfy WP:WEB. Without such sources, the article would be impossible to clean up. Melchoir 22:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not sure why "Association with Jupitermedia" has any bearing on this. This entry is an advertisement for webopedia.com - (bear with me I'm new at this) so I fail to see the value to wikipedia.JudyJohn 21:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and cleanup I am unconvinced that this passes WP:WEB but I am worried about the possible conflict of interest: in some sense Webopedia is a "competitor" of Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 15:02, 23 October 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 Naconkantari 14:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable YouTube memes

Notable as defined by?.... As per YTMND, we are not the FAQ or howto for YouTube. Where are the multiple non-trivial references in reliable independent secondary sources from which this article is derived? Guy 13:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The people have made significant news coverage in their own countries. I have listed many links to newspapers and media sources which are independent of YouTube - and I didn't even use them all because I thought it was overkill. If someone doesn't have media coverage, they aren't worthy of inclusion here. That's simple. I don't even think you've read the sources. (JROBBO 05:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC))

Keep. There is probably a great deal of media coverage for many YouTube memes, unlike YTMND. I would suggest cleaning the article down to those which are verifiable, but deletion is overkill.Delete, after reading the below comments that articles already exist for all the notable memes, I have changed my vote.— Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 14:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete The few Youtube memes that truly are notable either have their own articles or are covered elsewhere. We are not a guide to Youtube trivia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Starblind. The entries that meet WP:BIO already have standalone articles and should be tied together with a category (if at all), as was done before this article was created. Those that do not meet WP:BIO shouldn't be included here or have standalone articles.--Isotope23 14:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete its weak point for massive damage. Danny Lilithborne 16:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If they're truly notable (not that there acutally is such a thing as a "notable YouTube meme"), they'll have their own article already. --Aaron 17:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly redirect to YouTube. Tarret 20:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. List is too short to serve a useful purpose, and the content not having own articles is YouTube trivia. -- Northgrove 22:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is going to be nothing but a spam magnet. Resolute 00:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - hang on please!!!! It's not fair to just delete this article - I wrote this article to stop the squabbles about notability, because after all these people derive their notability solely from YouTube, not from anywhere else. All the people on this article have had significant media coverage as I have established by the references from news sources and other newspapers. I spent several hours sourcing articles that made these people notable. I don't think there is anyone else worthy of inclusion here - and I'm willing to keep deleting stuff unless it is notable so the spam argument has no relevance. YouTube has given people significant media coverage, and I was trying to establish this in an article. What's wrong with that? This was meant as a replacement for the standalone articles, not an article in addition and for the most part I merged those articles into this one. It's not fair to just delete all my work. (JROBBO 05:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC))
• Merge to YouTube with a little pruning. The viral internet video phenoms are a critical part of YouTube's success (and billion-dollar price tag). Tracking the ones that have received substantial news coverage is helpful to readers, and I think more helpful than a boquet of small articles. I know editors here passionately hate the infiltration of internet cruft, and rightly so, but if the New York Times and the Washington Post deign to mention something, I think we should humor them. William Pietri 07:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is not a compromise I believe is beneficial - merging unencyclopaedic content to one article isn't always best in that it ignores the premise that it probably shouldn't be represented in the first place. This is less offensive than individual articles on these subjects, but I have to agree with Isotope that it's a matter of either they pass the guidelines and get an article or they don't pass them and get mentioned nowhere. GassyGuy 10:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Choose the ones that are truly notable (e.g. have also been popular outside YouTube), split them off, and delete the remainder. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 10:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only the ones with huge impact outside of Youtube, like lonelygirl15, geriatric and Smosh should be kept, and hey- they have their own articles! chuck this away...Leemorrison 18:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• If this gets deleted, split the Judson Laipply section to its own article. This guy is definitely notable, as the citations in that section prove. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Judson has a standalone article, all that needs to happen is the redirect that was placed there when this article was created needs to be reverted.--Isotope23 18:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep I don't see any difference between Chuck Norris Facts, All your base are belong to us and this article. And, in my opinion, all of them deserve an article on Wikipedia. The YouTube memes are a phenomenon to be described in its own article. --Angelo 20:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: You Tube is a phenomenon. Virtually all of what originates from You Tube is not. AYBABTU and the Chuck Norris jokes have truely been widespread internet fads. Neither I, nor anyone I know ever heard of a single one of the people involved in this article. Resolute 23:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• That's a shame, because at least three of them have come up in news articles recently. Try searching Google News for Geriatric1927, Judson Laipply, and Lonelygirl15; I get 5, 33, and 243 news articles in the last month. A quick search in the New York Times archives gets one mention for Geriatric1927 and 12 for Lonelygirl15. William Pietri 06:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You're completely right, William Pietri. In addition, the Youtube memes have been popular even among Italian news, such as Repubblica and Corriere della Sera, the two most sold newspapers in the country (look at their website and you'll find articles about several YouTube memes). --Angelo 13:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Geriatric1927, Lonelygirl15, & Judson Laipply all have individual Wikipedia articles (though Judson's redirects here right now). I don't think anyone is suggesting that articles on YouTube contributors who meet WP:BIO be removed, but having a catchall article isn't really necessary. These individuals should have standalone articles tied together with a category.--Isotope23 18:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the catchall article isn't necessary, which is why I'm for a merge. Eventually the section may grow too big, in which case I think we'll need the catchall. William Pietri 17:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Pjacobi 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- not encyclopedic. - Longhair\^talk 23:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Anomo 01:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Any YouTube "meme" that passes notability will/should have its own article (and own category, in fact). This appears to be a dumping ground for stuff that doesn't pass notability requirements on their own. If it's notable, it'll pass scrutiny on its own. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The big problem here is that people object to individual articles on YouTube users (I had to fight uphill to get Lonelygirl15 kept—the most notable YouTuber ever!), so a compromise solution is to merge all but the most notable of them to a list; however, this compromise solution is sabotaged if this article too is deleted. It's senseless. Everyking 08:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, removing any unsourced information. The link to YouTube makes these people more notable, not less, than the other junk 'internet memes' we have regrettably decided to include in this project. The Land 09:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - As per Everyking. Unlike List of YTMND fads which I voted to shoot down, this list is well sourced. If we enforce the need for multiple third party sources then it won't just be a dumping ground for crap. The reason why so many people have voted to delete above is based purely on the really crap name that someone chose. It would be a lot more useful to merge the Youtubers into this page rather than to keep them on the increasingly large and stupid List of Internet phenomena. For example, there are multiple sources for BowieChick, including a Houston Chronicle article dated October 2, which should be way after her 15 minutes. - Hahnchen 15:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep, most seem to have notability established. Stilgar135 20:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep the notability claims are all sourced. at least one article was just deleted partially on the grounds it could be merged here. i respectfully (and unusually) disagree with khaosworks here. notability is different than requiring a unique article ... that's simply an organizational decision. one could similarly argue that any facet (section) of an article should require it's own article if it is indeed notable. Derex 00:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; possibly categorify; notable entries should get their own articles. As is, this is a cruft magnet. Borisblue 02:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all individual articles with this one to eliminate clutter. These people are notable, but they are notable because of youtube, so should be listed here. Buttle 03:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and return the category of notable youtube users. This is a pointless list, which will ultimately turn into a mess in time (as there will ultimately be more notable youtube users in the future). Belongs in a category.--Andeh 14:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Notable "YouTube memes" is an oxymoron, like "notable Kleenex tissues": they're disposable, useless, and of little interest. - Nunh-huh 03:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If any Kleenex tissues get to be as notable as these people, with press attention, then we will need to create content for them, too. Everyking 06:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per List of YTMND fads, the ones that actually are notable can get their own articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment if this is kept, it badly needs to be renamed. Terrible, terrible name for the article. --Xyzzyplugh 12:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep by creating individual articles As far as I am concerned I do not believe it should be kept. However, Wikipedia rules clearly states, "if an article can be cited by multiple independent sources and is WP:V" then is must be kept. Valoem ^talk 17:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have created individual articles are rved former ones. This article can be removed now. Article Emmalina needs to be Wikified. Valoem ^talk 18:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

See, they aren't going to let you do that; they redirected Emmalina to YouTube. The only way to get in content about YouTubers of second-rank notability is to compile them all on one page like this. Everyking 05:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, b/c seems interesting, yo! --164.107.92.120 03:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Lots of good references. --- RockMFR 05:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, if they are truly notable there will be enough information from reliable sources to create separate articles on all of them. Links to their articles could be put on the YouTube article, if you want a centralized place for them. -- Kjkolb 05:53, 26 October 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golf School District 67

Primary schools are generally not notable, generally it is only high schools that are listed. I find no reason why this school has any reason to be listed based on its notability. It also fails the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL TheRanger 13:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: "After changes made to the article it is now clear that this is a whole school district and not one elementary school. Based on these facts I now think that the article should be kept. I would like to withdraw my nomination." TheRanger 16:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom nn--Jusjih 15:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is a spot to talk about this school in the Morton Grove, Illinois article. No notability (WP:N, WP:SCHOOL) is claimed in the article or documented via multiple nontrivial articles in newspapers, like historical significance, awards won, athletic prowess, famous alumni, or high test scores.Edison 18:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Solid Keep — Waaa...? This is a school district, not a school. School districts are generally considered notable. So the above commentary makes no sense. This article is correctly following the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guidelines by merging in school information. — RJH (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per RJHall, verifiable and meets both the letter and spirit of WP:SCHOOLS. This is is the type of article we should be merging small 2 sentence stubs into. RFerreira 00:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It took me several times to understand the article and the web site, but this is not an "elementary school" in "district 67", it's "elementary school district" number 67, which has multiple schools within the district. It's amazing what you can find out just by reading! School districts are inherently notable and meet all qualifications for retention. Furthermore, the entire justification for this AfD is irrelevant and invalid. Nomination should be withdrawn. Alansohn 11:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- pointless nomination to the editors that schoolwatch regularly turns out for AFDs. --ForbiddenWord 14:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep of course school districts are notable.  ;-) Silensor 17:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 02:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all schools.  ALKIVAR™ 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. --Myles Long 06:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)