Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 31

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

The result was speedy delete CSD G11, qualifies as spam even if article is a hoax -- Samir धर्म 06:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikk hope, Nikk Hope

Obvious hoax. ghits: [1] NMChico24 23:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD-G11 and A7. Accurizer 00:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if A7 applies because the author does assert notability, however dubious, by claiming to have released hits with notable artists. That's why I chose to do AFD instead of speedy. --NMChico24 00:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That's correct. Unfortunately, Hoax, no matter how obvious, is not a speedy category. He claims to be a sucessful record producer. He's lying, but the claim is there. Fan-1967 00:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as quickly as possible, for obvious reasons. If the author removes the AFD tags one more time, ban him. Fan-1967 00:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete abvious "hoax" and even if it was true, just that does not qualify for inclusion. Cbrown1023 00:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. Hoax, not to mention it doesn't fit manual of style...but that's beside the point. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 01:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious hoax. EvilCouch 01:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete He is currently working with Simon Cowell? ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 01:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as it fails WP:CSD#G1. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Quite frankly horrific self promotion wtfunkymonkey 01:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as G11, spam. —Caesura^(t) 01:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - editor is being abusive with these "articles", plain and simple. My Alt Account 01:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete vanispamcruftisement. Danny Lilithborne 02:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Hoax. - jlao ⁰⁴ 02:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN vanity spam --Steve 03:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obvious hoax Green hornet 05:27, 31 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 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GROHOS

Non-notable so violates WP:CORP Xiner 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agree, Delete, it is also too small ("no-context"). Cbrown1023 00:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it exists, but it's not notable. Or verifiable. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 00:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable school. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 01:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This article isn't about a school. It is about a restaurant. Uncle G 02:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dar-Ape 01:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and the abreviation reminds me of Calvin's G.R.O.S.S. (Get Rid Of Slimy girlS) club. - Mike | Trick or Treat 01:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Interesting. That's what I was thinking too. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 01:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable wtfunkymonkey 01:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN eatery --Steve 03:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 03:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, though I'm really hungry now... EVula 22:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with EVula! —Brim 21:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing notable, has ONLY 2 sentences and sounds like a pathetic ad.

We Shouldn't be debating on this...-ECH3LON 01:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus after all that. Yomangani^talk 13:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classes in World of Warcraft

Game guide, prohibited by WP:NOT. World of Warcraft covers the subject of classes adequately without the need for a indiscriminate list. Combination 00:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There are many types of pages that describe things from video games (and movies and books......). I don't think that it is a game guide. A quote from our page on game guides: instruction books that contain hints or complete solutions to specific video games. The exact meaning of a "strategy guide" these days is very vague, as most could be easily ranked as "walkthroughs" or "hint collections". It doesn't give hints, it just describes the classes. Cbrown1023 00:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is not a game guide, aside from a few iffy sections. It merely describes something that is characteristic of a game. The information is primarily an extension of the already existing WoW article, providing more details about the classes than can easily fit there. If you see anything that says something like "Taurnes make the best Shamans when they do this build" delete it, but the article itself isn't a problem. If it is...check the category for Character classes. Mister.Manticore 01:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it appears to only list verifiable facts, and from the looks of the talk page, they've tried hard to keep it from becoming a guide. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't meet my encyclopedic threshold. Agree with nom that this is spiralling into a game guide -- Samir धर्म 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What is your encyclopedic threshold in regards to this article? Mister.Manticore 01:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a guide to an online game -- Samir धर्म 01:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That's not very informative. I asked about your encyclopedia threshold, not for references to what is a very ill-defined standard. The page you cited doesn't describe the difference between a game guide and information about a game at all, and IMHO, is close to outright uselessness. So I ask, where is the threshold for you (or for anybody else claiming it is a game guide, I'm not addressing this to you in particular) as to what is a game guide, and what is encyclopedic content about a game? Where do you, speaking for yourself, draw the line? What would shift the balance of this article to encyclopedic? Mister.Manticore 01:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
        • This article is essentially a summary of the WoW site on character classes: [2] and the sub-pages of that page. In my opinion, that makes it analogous to a gaming guide. Suitable for a gaming wiki, not for an encyclopedia -- Samir धर्म 04:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I disagree. While it certainly can be argued that this page is redundant to any number of pages on classes in World of Warcraft, that is not a reason for deletion. In fact, that's a good thing, since it means there are sources on it. Anyway, this is an article that has spun off from the main article about a game, and there's no question of deleting that. Nor does the information being about a game make it a game guide in the sense that I'd consider it inherently objectionable. So really, what makes an article about a game, or aspect of it a game guide? What do you feel would have to be removed or added to make this article encyclopedic? What do you feel about the other articles about character classes? Mister.Manticore 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't see much in terms of sources. The only WP:RS is the link I listed above and its subpages. This article is essentially a re-hash of that particular guide to the character classes. -- Samir धर्म 06:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Lack of sources is not itself a reason for deletion, and if you want to tag it as unsourced, go right ahead. There's no shortage of informative books about WoW, that's for sure. Mister.Manticore 06:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                • No, but this can fundamentally draw from only one source, right. In its ideal, it will be the players guide to the classes of WoW. That's what defines its (for want of a better term) cruftiness and non-encyclopedic nature -- Samir धर्म 07:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • So in your view all articles not being the game/movie/book etc. should be deleted? Say example articles built on said main article; Homer J. Simpson, Gandalf, Mario, Excalibur etc. Havok (T/C/c) 10:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • Fundamentally, almost all articles about an aspect of a creative media can only draw from one source. I don't think that means much. This article isn't existing in isolation, but is a daughter of the main World of Warcraft article. Since people what to know about that, this aspect of it needs coverage there. But wait, that article has become rather long. So a convenient section was spun-off. And while I suppose if you define ideal as "Completely exhaustive and informative about a subject" it might qualify as a game guide, but there's a difference between that and setting a goal as "ideal for Wikipedia" which would simply be informative to the extent appropriate for an encyclopedia. In this case, I'd say a sufficient description so that the uninformed person can understand what the classes individually mean in the game is what we should be shooting for. Where do you draw the line? Having no content whatsoever? Having one line summaries? Again, I ask, where do you draw the line? What should be added or removed? Mister.Manticore 14:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 01:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge I don't see why this article couldn't be condensed into a few paragraphs in the main article. EvilCouch 01:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it doesn't really seem like a game guide, it gives no info about how to play the class, only info about the class. As said above, if there were talent trees or even links to talent trees, then yes, it would be, but the way it is it is only factual info. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 01:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide, obvious listcruft. L0b0t 01:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The list of classes is kind of important to the World of Warcraft article, but including it all in the actual article would make it unreasonably long. Take a look at Professions (World of Warcraft), for example. That portion of the article has been pushed off to its own page. Seems sensible to me. But if this page ends up being deleted, we'll need to look at the other subpages off of World of Warcraft too. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Borderline game guide, but I can see how this could be useful information, not that this isn't avaliable in numerous other forms, however. wtfunkymonkey 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per Wtfunkymonkey. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 02:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. How about RuneScape? - jlao ⁰⁴ 02:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as nominated. Mr Spunky Toffee 03:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Neutral information for an obviously notable game, and the precedence is set by RuneScape per Jlao --Steve 03:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see how it is of any use except as a game guide. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Waddles like a game guide, Quacks like a game guide. Obviously a game guide. Fails WP:NOT. Bwithh 03:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to explain how this is a game guide? Mister.Manticore 04:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's well constructed, but there's a better article on WoWwiki. VergiliusMaro 05:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Virgil

Um, I hope you know that "There's better information elsewhere" is not a good reason to delete anything. Good reason to improve that part of Wikipedia perhaps, but certainly not to delete someting. Mister.Manticore 06:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Cut down, clean up, and merge to the World of Warcraft article.--TBCΦtalk? 06:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — as per DoomsDay349 Dionyseus 07:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep In need of heavy cleanup, which I have tried if you check the talk page. But I was flamed for my edits. Havok (T/C/c) 10:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've removed much of the information that made the article read like a game guide. I will now await the outcry of being an administrator and wrecker of information. The entire article seemed almost copy/pasted from WoWWiki to the letter. I also removed the entire second section of all the classes as it it only explained more in detail what was already in the article. Havok (T/C/c) 10:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of Warcraft deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 10:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 10:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as it is now. If it goes back to how it was previously though, I will change to a delete. The Kinslayer 11:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs a rewrite, but there is no reason this article shouldn't exist. How is this a game guide? Nobody's stated how it's a game guide other then the fact that it is - that's called Circular Logic. -Ryanbomber 13:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think what happened was when it was nominated, it WAS extremely game guidey (Believe me, I saw it.) But sometime into the debate, Havok went and essentially gutted the article, removing everything that looked like it was game guidey, meaning it was more suited for wikipedia then it was. The Kinslayer 13:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If one edit is all it took to fix it, then this nomination was REALLY short-sighted. -Ryanbomber 17:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the talk page and edit history for the article before opining thusly. It was a series of HIGHLY contested edits over several weeks that get constantly reverted by spotty fan-boys who don't seem to understand the purpose of an encyclopedia. L0b0t 17:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My complete lack of reading talk and history aside (Sorry!), it still doesn't make much sense. Just because the editors of the page aren't that great doesn't mean the information is any less inferior. The article needs work, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. That's called being lazy. And it could still use a bit of touching up, but this is a great start. -Ryanbomber 17:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

On page disputes should probably be resolved through means other than an AfD. Not that I'm seeing much from the people who participated in those disputes in this discussion here anyway. But maybe we'll get lucky and this will be an impetus to positive change. Mister.Manticore 20:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but only on condition that article is cut down further. Very good work has been done to this article but there is still a lot which needs to be cut out, IMHO. --Hydraton31 20:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article should be improved instead of deleting. The article does need sourcing and some more game guide information can be taken out. However, there is enough information to keep it off the main WoW area. fmmarianicolon | Talk 18:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, or else Merge with World of Warcraft#Characters. How is any of this information actually of interest to non-players? What is so special about WoW's Warrior that it can't be covered in Warrior (character class)? Stances and rage are pretty common concepts. Unless there are some specific reasons why WoW classes are different enough from the generic classes articles to exist separate from them, this should all be merged with them. Garrett^Talk 21:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So instead of one reasonably convenient article, you'd rather have 9 to go through? Not that I really see a problem with having the information in both places, as that's helpful in its own way. I also seem to have a different perception of this article not being interesting information to non-players, since it provides a very basic description that's probably of little interest to actual players. Mister.Manticore 23:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What I'm imagining is a quick list at World of Warcraft#Classes that summarises what WoW classes can do and how they are different from the same classes in the glut of other MMOs, and then linking to the generic articles for more in-depth comparisons of the non-unique features. Garrett^Talk 00:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I see it the seperate article is meant to summarize what the classes can do, and exists because doing those summaries properly would contribute to an existing Article size problem. Sad to say, the WOW main article is just that big. I don't see it getting smaller. Thus sections like this which can be treated independently are created, with more detail added as the size issue is not so much of an immediate problem. Talking about differences between the WOW classes and those in other systems is certainly appropriate for a different article, specific to the class, but getting into the differences might be considered original research. In any case, I'd strongly oppose this article being treated that way. This article is supposed to be about WOW classes, and should stick very carefully to just that. But feel free to bring up the issue on the existing class pages. Mister.Manticore 02:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Rage and Stances are common concepts? Since when? WoW's the only one I know of with them. How many other games have totems? Energy? Combo points? Heck, we can have a section based JUST on new class concepts and how the WoW classes are different from the archetypes.-Ryanbomber 23:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't go into detail here, but all those things have been done by other CPRGs or PnP games, albeit under different names. More on that in a minute. Afd is first and foremost critiquing articles' current status, not their potential. This particular article needs a better focus on what is new or different from previous games and/or fantasy worlds rather than providing the current grab-bag of new and old concepts without identifying which WoW changed or invented. Doing this would strip much of the generic class handling content (thus removing the "game guide" argument) and would clearly indicate the real world significance of WoW's classes to fantasy gaming as a whole, whereas right now the information only demonstrates its importance to WoW itself (which doesn't count when it comes to overall significance). This revision isn't that, however, so I'm still arguing for deletion. Garrett^Talk 00:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The World of Warcraft classes at one point all had articles each on themselves but many thought they should be merged because of "cruft" and "game guide" issues but I am not opposed to breaking them back down Derktar 16:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

• Keep, No comment SSJ 5 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, This is a basic list of the classes of the game, not a guide.
• Delete The Paladin is a supportive, hybrid melee fighter. Paladins use an assortment of spells, auras and blessings to aid themselves and others. → WP:NOT a game guide. ~ trialsanderrors 03:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Umm... that's not even remotely what "game guide" is. That's exactly what the Paladin class is. Game Guide is when someone explains to you how to play a class, that sentence does not. If that was the criteria, then we couldn't explain in the Mario article that he's a plumber. Havok (T/C/c) 06:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  Oh, so Mario is a game about plumbing? I don't know, if the article tells me that Paladins use an assortment of spells, auras and blessings to aid themselves and others then it tells me that Paladins use an assortment of spells, auras and blessings to aid themselves and others, which is exactly what a game guide does. But if you don't think that's a sufficient rationale, I go with Delete unsourced and potentially original research. ~ trialsanderrors 22:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  Oh please, these informations are available on the game website. We could add links to all class pages but it wouldn't really be useful. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  Excellent. Link to the website and delete this article then. An encyclopedia ≠ an extension of the corporate website. ~ trialsanderrors 00:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Mario isn't a single game, but several, and the articles on the individual games do include descriptions of gameplay. Check them out. List of Mario games. You'll find a lot about stomping and shooting fireballs. You may have a lot of rewriting in for you. And yeah, claiming this is unsourced is not substantiated. Mister.Manticore 23:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  Delete them all then. WP:NOT holds for Mario too. Why should I rewrite other people's policy-violatingcrap? ~ trialsanderrors 00:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  So, you're going ot suggest deleting dozens of articles because they describe the gameplay of their respective game? That seems excessive. Especially since what does and what does not constitute a game guide is not well established on Wikipedia. I'd suggest working on that issue first myself. Mister.Manticore 04:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Also, I just had this article pointed out to me Pokémon game mechanics. The AfD for it might be worth reading. Mister.Manticore 04:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  You've never played WoW, have you? Yes, it's true that Paladins heal people. That is what we in the inside-top-secret-know call a "basic description of what the paladin class does." GASP! The wiki does not tell you HOW to heal, merely that it exists. Game guides generally have the criteria of "telling you how to do things." Seeing as this wiki page has none of that... As for sourcing, that's not anything to delete the entire page over. It can be easily fixed - heck, you can do it yourself, if you so desire immediate change. -Ryanbomber 23:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  No, I desire immediate deletion, if that isn't clear from my comments. If it's sourceable and you want the article to be kept, follow our policies: WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and especially WP:V. ~ trialsanderrors 00:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Well, immediate deletion isn't going to happen, this isn't a speedy candidate. I don't think you are making much of a case by just rambling off a bunch of policy links either. Especially NOR and NPOV, which aren't at all applicable to this article. And a lack of sources/verification isn't an immediate deletion problem either, and it's not a real problem here either, as it should be pretty obvious that the character classes in WoW are easily verifiable. Mister.Manticore 05:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  I just checked, it's even already cited! At the bottom of the page, external links, WoW site. What more do you want? -Ryanbomber 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  Actually it was me who put the <references/> tag in because none of you Keepists could be bothered. Not that the single link actually establishes anything the article claims. ~ trialsanderrors 00:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  For someone so by the book, you're having a wonderful time forgetting WP:ATTACK. Not to mention you have yet to prove that there's actually anything wrong. I've got an idea, how about you put a "citation needed" for all these "controversial facts" that we need to cite? Because, unless you have some sort of grudge against WoW (which is my guess at this point) you have yet to actually say anything other then "THIS VIOLATES VARIOUS WIKI POLICIES." Saying what we need to cite would be a good start for improving this article, instead of just throwing away perfectly fine information. -Ryanbomber 01:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Hmm, the article is almost two months old, 2000 words long, has gone through 500 edits and up to today didn't even have a References section. How much more blatant can it get? ~ trialsanderrors 01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Maybe this is because a) nobody asked for citation and b) it was assumed to be obvious enough that we don't need to cite every single thing? Again, if you have such a problem with it, add "citations needed." And you're missing the point - this AFD is because it's a game guide, not because it's not cited right. -Ryanbomber 11:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, notable.--Josh 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and rewrite so that all game guide aspects are removed, there, wass that so difficult? -Derktar 07:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC).
• Keep, World of Warcraft is notable with over 6 six million players. The player class descriptions describe what each of the class can do however I think a bit of lore should be added to the description to keep it from being confused with a strategy guide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.114.175.195 (talk • contribs) .
• keep. 6M players means the main article probably needs to be broken into so-called "crufty" articles. that fools assume need deleted. Unfocused 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, Please familiarize yourself with WP:ATTACK and stay on point.L0b0t 16:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies, I knew better, yet didn't stop. This article is clearly more than simply a list but I should remember that such views are not self-evident to everyone involved. Unfocused 23:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, game guide and haven for fair use images that are not necessary. I like the suggestion of linking to the general character concept articles from the WOW article section. -- nae'blis 16:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: People, HOW IS THIS A GAME GUIDE? You guys have yet to prove the entire reason this article is up for nomination in the first place! -Ryanbomber 17:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree this is not game guide material, and for those who suggested to remove the game guide material from this, I challenge you to find game guide material first. This is the same nonsense that happened when the instances page was deleted. It really stinks that people have a grudge against WoW and they keep trying to attack it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.7.52.17 (talk • contribs) .

• Delete - Unsourced information that seems to be in large part to be original research. Wickethewok 22:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The term is "common knowledge," but if you really want sources then we can add them. Nothing to delete the page over. -Ryanbomber 23:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please see WP:CN, we do need sources, even for common knowledge. L0b0t 23:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty then. What exactly do we need to cite? Oh, and we've already referenced the WoW site itself... -Ryanbomber 01:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I can't see how this couldn't be simply looked at as a list of characters or something similar to that... DotDarkCloud 22:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, WP:NOT proscribes lists of fictional characters. L0b0t 00:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Then we have a problem: List of characters in Naruto, Category:Fictional dragons, Charmander -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, those are problems and should be deleted as well. Pointing out other articles that violate policy is no defence for this article to violate policy. L0b0t 23:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example." I know it's fun to grudge against WoW or whatever your point is, but can you at least read the policies you're quoting? -Ryanbomber 01:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. This isn't a list, it's a collection of different character archetypes. Even if they were fictional characters, WP:NOT makes it sound like they don't want a list of fictional characters if that is the article in it's entirety. If we outlawed any article with a list of fictional characters (even if the article goes on to explain them) then we'd have absolutely no content in the wiki on fiction. -Ryanbomber 23:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This page couldn't fit in the main article, and if it is borderline, I tend to think it is not a game guide. It might be a bit too detailed though, but since it is in its own article... -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Keep Most people that know of wikipedia and get WoW will probably come here to look for information on the game. What will they think when they come here and find about 2 paragraphs saying which characters you can be and what they focus on. As a player of the game I know what people will expect and that is a detailed article telling them what to expect in allies and enemies. Just think if you got something then while it was installing you came here to look for information on it and you found some scamp article that doesn't even outline what you need. Think about it. Pariand29 03:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm think those people would be better off looking at the many, many, many sources of game documentation rather than a general purpose encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for game players to learn more about their games. L0b0t 15:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Games players do look at Wikipedia to learn more about games they have not played yet. For example, players of other MMORPGs may look to this page to compare and contrast how their games' classes compares to WoW's. I've used City of Heroes characters to learn more about that game because I don't play it. fmmarianicolon | Talk 18:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why should people LEARN things in an encyclopedia?! What a stupid concept! [/sarcasm] Just because it's about pop culture or entertainment doesn't make it any less notable. -Ryanbomber 16:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your comment. I was replying to Pariand29, who was talking about players of WoW looking in the encyclopedia for installation and gameplay information. They would be better off looking at all the official documentation for the game rather than the general purpose encyclopedia. However, people unfamiliar with the game would also be better off looking elsewhere as Wikipedia is not a gameguide, directory, or instruction manual, see WP:NOT. "Just because it's about pop culture or entertainment doesn't make it any less notable." No, it actually makes it easier for it to be notable and as such, the bar for inclusion into the general purpose encyclopedia is set that much higher. Start a fansite, start a WoW wiki if there is not one already, write a book about WoW, just keep this obvious fanboy cruft out of the encyclopedia. L0b0t 17:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

HOW IS THIS A GAME GUIDE?!?! (You're going to ignore this because I've asked other questions.) Besides, if I ever want to look something "trivial" up really quick, I use the wiki. If I didn't play WoW, then a description of the classes would be a "trivial" thing that I'd use the wiki to look up. Not "trivial" as in without merit, but "trivial" as in... y'know... trivia? If we start deleting things from the wiki because there are other places to look, then we'd have no wiki. At all. The wiki is ALL STUFF FROM OTHER PLACES! First you people yell at us for not citing, now that we say "we'll cite it" you're saying that the fact that we found other sources makes this article moot? Make up your minds... -Ryanbomber 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. --172.164.241.200 20:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep It is an interesting insight into a game. When I go to a museum, I do not personally "like" all the exhibits. But I appreciate the collection. I view Wikipedia the same way: a cumulative collection of interests.

• Strong Delete It needs to go as it reads like a blatent gameguide. Its also acting as a magnet for prats and as such reads differently every hour or so. Its just not a professional or well written article, never was and seems like it never will be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.185.59 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment as asked above, what exactly reads like a game guide? Could you elaborate and please give us some examples? Havok (T/C/c) 06:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Argumentum ad hominem. Just because the editors are "acting like prats" (people vandalize the wiki, film at 11!) doesn't lessen the article's merit at all. -Ryanbomber 16:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Its specific information on a game, all of which can be found in far better detail on other sites and in the game manual. I realise you probably think you own this article Havok, but please let other people give there opinion and stop questioning everyone who doesnt agree with you. Also do not sign my posts for me. I dont band your details around the internet, dont do the same with mine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.185.59 (talk • contribs) .

Welcome to the wikipedia. Policy says you have to sign your posts or we'll do it for you. If you don't like it, don't post here. Also, don't tell him to stop questioning people's opinions, because in doing so you are questioning his opinion. He's allowed to have an opinion just as much as you are. As for "specific information," not really. If you wanted specific information, we could list all talents and talent builds and whatnot. We give no advice as to what you should do as a class (which would be what we like to call "a game guide") but instead give a general overview as to what all the classes are - something perfect for an information depository such as the Wiki. As for "there's better sources elsewhere," if you applied that logic to the entire wikipedia it would not exist, seeing as everything in it is cited. -Ryanbomber 21:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the real world. The point of this page is for people to voice an OPINION on what they think should be done with the page in question. I think it should be deleted, plain and simple. I am not "questioning his opinion" by asking him not to question mine. Your argument makes little sense. I am asking that people stop kicking off just because my opinion differs from their's. Do you walk into the voting booth on election day and start an argument with those who's choices did not match your own? I should hope not, though considering your apparent intellect I would not be surprised if you do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.185.59 (talk • contribs).

Please keep in mind that the debate is not a vote. And please stay civil and no personal attacks. Havok (T/C/c) 06:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem again. You keep arguing the people and not the actual argument. Also, your voting analogy is flawed, seeing as this is not a vote, it is a discussion. See WP:AFD -Ryanbomber 12:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Move this to the WOW page or other sections its gamecruft. --Cs california 07:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I hate WOW as much as anybody, but the classes deserve their own article. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 08:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's been compressed down from having a single article for each class. As it is, I see nothing wrong with it's content. PPGMD 19:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment We are trying to rewrite the article, please share your thoughts on the Talk page. -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article as it is currently written does not appear in the style of a game guide. Yamaguchi先生 05:16, 4 November 2006
• Delete This article, along with the professions article, doesn't feel right at all. It's so deep within the Warcraft universe, I doubt it has any basis on the rest of Wikipedia. The best case scenario, I'm thinking, is to just hyperlink the nine classes, mentioned in the main article, to the generic concepts scattered about. So that's nine different articles, about warlocks in general and warriors in general, etc, but not specifically about these Warcraft classes. NB, I just got here, so I don't know the entirety of the situation/quality of other WoW pages.--Htmlism 18:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The general articles are just sections with summaries of different classes from different games with similar names and one short paragraph describing a rough concept that doesn’t even ably to all the class listed.. There's absolutely nothing in common with, say, a druid in DND and a druid in WoW except the name. Moving all class information into those articles would create 9 over sized articles and make navigation difficult. Seano1 21:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Linking to other fictional archetypes of the classes is a good idea. Deleting the article over the lack thereof is not. Instead of destroying perfectly good information, why not just ADD the information you want to see, or at least suggest it on talk? -Ryanbomber 23:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Not a horrible article, but it fails to provide any context outside of game-guide content. Specifically, most of the subsections are just descriptions which is akin to having a dicdef article. I might be persuaded to keep if the text explained how the classes compare to their real-life counterparts (where they exist), or at least how they compared to other fictional depictions of those classes. Of course, there's the "original research" problem, but at least it wouldn't be a generic list of classes confined to WoW. Sure, WoW is tremendously popular, but how far does that popularity extend? Should there be an article about famous landmarks in WoW? What about foods in WoW? --Alan Au 19:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that classes are probably the most important concept of WoW aside... Locations in the Warcraft Universe Pop culture references in World of Warcraft List of Warcraft characters. There's precedent. Next. -Ryanbomber 23:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Since most people voting don't seem to know what a game guide is let me give an example. As you can see Classes in World of Warcraft is no more a game guid then Aircraft flight control systems is a flight manual. Some more examples http://www.mrfixitonline.com/albums/index.php?album=wow_hordelvl&image=39-ScarletMonastery.jpg http://wow.allakhazam.com/db/guides.html?guide=345 Seano1 22:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Aircraft flight control systems is the equivalent of Game controller. Classes in World of Warcraft is like having an article on List of Cessna Skyhawk parts. --Alan Au 02:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - gamecruft, not encyclopedic, not useful, reads like an instruction pack and is unreferenced apart from dubious external links. Moreschi 13:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you PLEASE give any sort of proof that this is anything you say? People just keep parroting eachother. Heck, I'm parroting myself because nobody will answer this freaking question. HOW IS THIS A GAME GUIDE?! -Ryanbomber 13:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This article deserves to be kept in order to save space in the main article. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete first, this is far to much detail; it belongs on gamefaqs or someplace else. Second, it is all taken from primary sources, which is bad. Third, we already have far too many articles on WoW. Fourth, this does seem, per several comments above, to violate WP:NOT a game guide. Guy 15:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

First, this is hardly any detail. It's a big topic. This page could easily be almost a megabyte and still not cover all classes fully. Second, how is it bad? Third, we have too many articles on elements, Richard Nixon, and the wiki itself but you don't see anybody complaining, because there's no such thing as too much information and I'm using this as an example. Fourth, STOP PARROTING AND TELL US HOW THIS IS A GAME GUIDE. There have been plenty of examples as to how this is NOT a game guide, but none on how it IS. Until someone shows an example I can't see how this will be deleted. I'm amazed there isn't a speedy keep clause for times when the deleters have no proof of their claims. -Ryanbomber 16:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep The article undoubtedly has problems, but it is being constantly improved and is definitely not a game guide according to the definition under wikipedia policy (if you don't believe me then check). I find some of the comments on here ridiculous e.g. "dubious external links" (this is the official website we are talking about here), "we already have far too many articles on WoW" (this is better than having one long article which would take ages to load on slow connections and be very difficult to find information in), variants on "there are no citations" (they can be added, why delete the article?), etc. Raoul 16:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why improve articles when it's easier to just delete them? Who needs information anyway...Ryanbomber 16:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I just picked my nose. That's information, therefore encyclopedic. Go ahead, start the article here.

Nice strawman. Firstly, that's an announcement, not information for an encyclopedia. Secondly, I meant information that has any merit at all. Thirdly, the comment I was refuting had nothing to do with it being useful information or not. -Ryanbomber 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the fact that geek nonsense like this survives on Wikipedia, and lots of interesting real world stuff is deleted is the best example of systemic bias to be seen on Wikipedia. Delete, delete, delete, delete. Delete. Delete. --SandyDancer 18:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC) PS. Delete.

What excellent logic. "Other topics get deleted so this should be too!" Why not delete the main page while we're at it? -Ryanbomber 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Almost as good as the logic which says, "there are other game guides which haven't been deleted so..." And delete the main page ? I would vote delete as I missed the first vote. Jcam 21:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hurrrrrr. This isn't a game guide and saying "it is" over and over is just ad nauseam. You have yet to make any sort of example as to it actually being one.-Ryanbomber 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

So this article must be deleted as vengeance for an article or articles you like getting deleted. Seano1 21:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ryanbomber - The fact you lurk on this page making personal attacks on those who support deletion doesn't help your case. --SandyDancer 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't make personal attacks against people, I make personal attacks against hilariously terrible arguments. Which there seems to be a lot of. And it's sarcasm, mostly, not personal attacks. PS: even if I am a sarcastic jerk (which I very well may be,) calling that out to say my argument is flawed because of it is flaky logic. -Ryanbomber 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Self-imposed recusal/abstention, due to comments made in Rfa, yet still exercising my rights to comment here:
  • It's Afd's like this which make the World of Citizendium a very compelling place to many of us who are adults (or at least aspire to act like adults). You have a user who strongly favors keeping the article voting oppose in a request for administrator based on another user's vote to delete, not because the user said something like " 'cause World of Warcraft sux" or the such, but because they gave their opinion (which was well thought out, logical, and based on what many would say is a consensus interpretation of Wikipedia policies). A user should not have to worry about a good faith vote(and there is no other way to look at that vote) in an Afd being one day used against them in an Rfa.
  • Look at the edit summaries on the history page. Yes, occasional "cute" edit summaries are OK, but when the page looks like a myspace-page, it tells me there might be something wrong with the maturity of some of the users. This is an encyclopedia. And yes, while many of us did not have the benefit of new math such as AOLgebra, we understand that "CAPS LOCK AND BOLD = SHOUTING". Many of us even understand the corollary to the above equation which is SHOUTING ≠ WP:CIVIL.
  • For reference, there is a World of Warcraft wiki here. The reason I bring this up is this- a year from now, are there going to be less, more, or about the same number of WoW articles ? I would bet my next paycheck that there will be more, possible 5 times as many articles. Some of you WoW fans might find this frustrating as 99.9% of the articles which need to be written about the subject have already been written. This is a general purpose encyclopedia, it's not designed to be the encompassing source for all things WoW, and if you're likely to get bent out of shape over a WoW article you expended much effort in writing, your talents may be better utilized here.

Jcam 21:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 1; no comment. Paragraph 2; Yeah, okay, some of my edit summaries are stupid. The problem is that people aren't listening at all, and it's REALLY starting to annoy me. I guess I'm taking it out on the edit summary. I'll stop now. And I was e-shouting because people have yet to answer my question, which is the entire reason the article's been nominated in the first place. Paragraph 3; This argument would have a point if it were a 5-page biography on some obscure WoW character. The problem is it's not. Classes are pretty much THE most important topic in the game. It's too big for the main WoW, which is why it was moved here. -Ryanbomber 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you let this AfD lie Ryanbomber, I'm not telling you to not read it and/or comment on anything. But it might be prudent that you don't comment on every delete comment as you say the same thing; The closing admin will see your first argument about what you have said. Even if it is frustrating it might be best to let things just sail. Havok (T/C/c) 07:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Keep Read the secton on instruction manuals a bit more carefully. Yes, this article needs some serious work, but everything it contains is descriptive. It describes information from the game, and does not prescribe how to do things. It may contain some advice or instruction, but it could easily be fixed so as to not contain said elements. Also, as a gamer, I often use wikipedia to research games I am considering buying, and have often found pages like this useful. --Falard 00:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • CommentWikipedia isn't a resource to review video games. And just because an article is descriptive does not mean it should be on Wikipedia - here, the article is descriptive of information that doesn't in an encyclopedia. Aren't there fan websites to do with this game, if its so notable?
    • When I was a kid I was into computer games too - but I didn't expect to open up an encyclopedia and find details of every nuance of them... --SandyDancer 00:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this is hardly "every nuance." Again, classes are one of the most important things in WoW. Second of all, what's your point? Times are changing. The wiki isn't just for boring research. Interesting, pop-culture-y stuff is here too. -Ryanbomber 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In his time Shakespeare was considered unimportant cuff. Seano1 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is obviously not a game guide, which offers hints or solutions to the game, but a mere description of an existing set-up. I would like to emphasize, that it is of a purely descriptive nature, and not a guide. If how-to bits appear, they need to be removed, but the article itself should be kept. Gimlei 00:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Though has a "gameguide creep" problem and can be difficult to manage sometimes, it's certainly an article that deserves existence. If it didn't exist, then it would be necessary to increase the size of the World of Warcraft article to accomodate information on its classes. And I'm talking like 250-500 words per class, which would bloat the article significantly and it's large enough as it is. RobertM525 01:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Huh? Why would we need 250-500 words "per class"? Why is that information notable in the context of an encyclopedia at all? Wikipedia doesn't contain, for example, a 500 word profile of every character in Doctor Zhivago, and that is considered one of the greatest movies of all time - so even if this WoW thing is considered one of the greatest video games of all time, why do we need all this in depth detail? Couldn't we just provide an external link to the dedicated WoW Wiki for those who truly want to be immersed? --SandyDancer 10:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with SandyDancer, why so detailed? What makes WoW so special that it demands that much information while more mainstream notable articles can get their information across in far less. The Kinslayer 11:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It isn't so special. The difference is that people have written 500 words on WoW and not on, say, Doctor Zhivago. If you want an article to go into more detail about something, then write about it. That's the entire point of the wiki. -Ryanbomber 13:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - this doesn't rise to the level of a "game guide" in my estimation. Mangojuice^talk 12:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Choronzon (Band)

This article does not meet the criteria for notability in a music article, as the only label the band has ties to is a non-notable one. Additionally, the article was written by one of the band members; User:Psychaotic is the vocalist/synthesizer player. EvilCouch 00:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I believe you are misrepresenting some of the facts. They are associated with at least two indie labels: Nocturnal Art (the one that is likely a borderline notable label, been around for at least 12 years) and Earache Records (one that is definitely notable, and has been around for about 20 years). They have at least two albums out through NA, and at least one out through ER. They have other albums out in addition to those produced by the two labels above. As for the article being written by the band, that is a possibility. It is also a possibility that it's just a fan of the band. Unless we have proof positive otherwise, we must assume good faith on the part of that editor. It might be more productive for people to go and edit the article than to just AfD it without even trying to clean it up (more than it already is, as it was cleaned up due to a previous AfD in January 2006, and one for an article that was eventually merged into this one in February 2006. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: They are not associated with Earache Records. I believe you are confusing Choronzon (album) by Akercocke (which is under the Earache Records label) with Choronzon (Band). Additionally, the user name Psychaotic is used in several dozen websites by someone proporting to be a member of the band. I find it hard to believe that it is a coincidence that the same user name was the original author of the article. EvilCouch 01:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I hadn't caught that before. In that case, Delete'. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This article has been kept previously, what makes it different this time? ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Previously the article did not make claim to be notable. In its current form it does make claim to be notable, however the claim is false as per the reasoning above and on the article's discussion page. EvilCouch 02:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • In that case, Delete. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per evilcouch Green hornet 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC, non-notable band. Rockpocket 05:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't quite meet WP:MUSIC. The first album is on a notable label, but the last four [3] are on labels that don't have a Discogs [4] entry and get very few Google results. The number of listeners on Last.fm [5] seems rather small too. Heavy use of WP:AUTO doesn't help either. [6]. Prolog 09:20, 31 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 14:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian wikis

Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. Furthermore, none of these wikis are particularly notable as websites. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 01:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I wonder what the use of a wiki bible is... Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 01:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

LOLz, people do have crazy ideas. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Listcruft. If somone wants to find this stuff they can google it wtfunkymonkey 01:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's fairly well-written, but it has to go. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 02:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, we cannot allow someone to use one wiki to proselityze the other. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 03:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT a repository of external links. A properly sourced, verifiable article on Christian wikis might well have a place here (if there is something notable about christian uses of wikis), but this is just a link collection. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's just a list of websites by another name --Steve 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Delete, per above. IronDuke 03:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ITAQALLAH 06:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. BTLizard 12:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. Chris Kreider 14:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Perhaps if the article was longer than it's links, it couldve been cleaned up and kept.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AeomMai (talk • contribs) .
• Speedy Delete G11 Blatant advertising (of group) or A7 Unremarkable web content. Take your pick; either way, it needs to get gone. EVula 23:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, much as I hate to say it. It is just a list of web sites.Dogface 03:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Okay, I advocated merging content from unremarkable wikis here, but... uh... a mass of unremarkable sites is not really any more remarkable than its individual sites. In current state, if any of the sites are remarkable, they could qualify for external links in relevant articles. Without any more meat, this probably won't fly - we're not a web directory and just listing random sites isn't helpful toward building an encyclopaedia. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Trödel 15:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep - Yomangani^talk 17:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relational Dialectics

A POV essay of sorts, or something of a contextless bullet list. Certainly not an article, and would need a complete rewrite if it were to stay, so therefore delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Relational dialectics is a communication theory taught in interpersonal communication textbooks, it's notable. A very quick google search yields a page that lists 8 textbooks which include the concept here. The article is a badly-styled stub that's a bit low on context for people not at least briefly acquainted with the subject matter, but it's not a POV essay. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 01:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep contingent on rewrite-- I agree with points from both comments thus far made. The article is more of an essay right now, with the first paragraph just a quote that is the thesis of the argument, not an objective introduction to the argument as a whole. Yet Google shows that this concept is notable, as tjstrf points out, so it should be fixed. Dar-Ape 01:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if it isn't rewritten. What's this nonsense about centrifugal forces? I don't see what the physics of rotating objects has to do with this article. eaolson 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment The author means forces analogous to the physical forces. He uses the word centripetal as an analog for emotional forces tending towards unity and the word centrifugal for emotional forces tending towards divergence. Bejnar 18:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep/Rewrite It's just about impossible to understand, but I think that there's salvageable content. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 02:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (and rewrite and move to Relational dialectics) as a valid referencable theory --Steve 03:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've done a rewrite of the article to a decent descriptive stub. However, it was mostly reverted to the non-prose format. Here is my revision, which gives a basic description of the subject but not much more. If we could get the editor who is presently adding the lists of non-prose text to write the article in a proper style, I believe it could be quite good. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 03:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  Seems as though the editor is developing the text in that form as a class project! [7] --Steve 03:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  lol, I guess that explains why the format struck me as a reference outline when I looked at it. Well, I hope he doesn't get accused of plagarism... --tjstrf Now on editor review! 05:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• As written it is incomprehensible psychobabble. Delete Allon Fambrizzi 04:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
• Delete unless completely rewritten - currently it's a bunch of nonsense. "dynamic interplay between unified oppositions"? Say what? Opabinia regalis 04:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Rewrite I agree with Steve and others. The article in its current form is worthless, but it provides a pointer to an important, if somewhat difficult, topic. Stammer 09:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless rewritten in plain English, and I can't imagine that ever happening. What we have here is word salad, an essentially meaningless string of abstract nouns. The "core concept" here is "the dynamic interplay between unified oppositions". Vague allusions to Yin and Yang and Heraclitus are brought in, apparently to give some kind of weight to this bollocks. Even if this stuff is referenced, this will always be borderline patent nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Philosophy for most people is always borderline, that is no reason for exclusion. Bejnar 18:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep/Rewrite As it stands it's almost incomprehensible, but I've actually seen this taught so it *is* real and notable.--In ur base, killing ur dorfs 15:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per tjstrf Raffles mk 22:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I urge former nay sayers to read the newly partially rewritten article. Absolutely it needs more work, but it is a notable theory. The Dialectic has always been a difficult subject for many people to understand. Reading that article first may help editors to get a better grasp on exactly what Relational Dialectics is. Bejnar 18:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article, and its companion Action Assembly, gave me a headache. If it was indeed a class project, I hope class is over so it can be deleted. Wikipedia is not a place to work on class projects. Ugh. KrakatoaKatie 01:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Repost G4. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Idol Finalists Album Sales

Wikipedia isn't a fan's guide to American Idol. The album sales of each Idol finalist is listed on the individual pages, there is no reason for a page like this on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 01:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. EvilCouch 01:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as the article does categorize something that is significant and relates to a major TV show (business) and so in the spirit of an encyclopedia cataloguing human knowledge, something like this is indeed much warranted. I am in agreement that the article can be improved, as some have taken steps to do, but definitely keep this valuable article. --172.149.149.117 01:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Note This was 172.149.149.117's first edit on Wikipedia.--Húsönd 04:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wasn't this article delete before? TJ Spyke 01:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete under G4. Thanks DO, I knew I had saw this nominated before. TJ Spyke 02:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Can it be improved? Yes. Should it be improved? Sure. Nevertheless, this is a valid and helpful article that meets encyclopedic standards and so really does need to remain. Happy Halloween! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User has 32 edits. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 02:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G4 as recreated material. This article (along with a trail of redirects/moves) was deleted in an AfD. --Daniel Olsen 02:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per above. ςפקιДИτς ☺☻ 02:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User is notoriously pro-delete, i.e. "delete happy."
• Delete. Redundant information, as nominated. Mr Spunky Toffee 03:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Almost frighteningly strong keep. Not really redundant. Some of the contestants currently do NOT have their album sales listed, so some of this IS from non-contestant pages and this is far more handy than expecting users to have so much time as to want to compare every single Idol contestant ever to study these statistics, which are practical to individuals interested in the music industry, television, etc. and not just fans of the show. --172.163.162.176 03:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Note This was 172.163.162.176's first edit on Wikipedia.--Húsönd 04:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Definitely keep. for all of the rational reasons above. --64.12.117.10 03:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under G4 Besides G4 - Fancruft. Not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for fan pages. Wikipedia is not a reality tv almanac. Go make a American Idol website on Wikia or something instead Bwithh 03:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete (G4) Idolcruft.--Húsönd 04:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Note " Hús tends to go after Wikidians at a whim.

• Speedy Keep You heard right! Screw all this speedy delete crap! Let's start keeping more articles as many of these are indeed relevant and interesting to a variety of Wikipedians and we shouldn't just cater to a minority. --172.128.93.144 04:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Note " --172.128.93.144 04:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC) has atcually made hundreds of contributions to Wikipedia, just on many different computers in different cities! He's also right! :)

Note This was 172.128.93.144's first edit on Wikipedia.--Húsönd 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Note WHO CARES?! --172.131.213.162 05:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The closing admin cares - a well-explained comment from an established user is more likely to swing the decision than an offhand sarcastic comment from a random IP (and while I won't cry sockpuppet right away, may I point out that almost all the keep votes come from a similar IP range?) Confusing Manifestation 10:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC) (Edit: Ah, of course, AOL. Still, I'd say there's a fair amount of similarity in the votes, sockpuppet or not.)

• Merge Very fancrufty, and the precedent it sets isn't necessarily good. Merge relevant info onto finalists personal pages, album pages and on the American Idol page where it belongs. This information is superfluous, it should be on the other relevant pages. --The Way 05:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but we AOL and public computer users might have made AS MANY changes as registered users, but you guys won't know that because of using different IPs. Most of these reasons for deletion are hardly well-explained or non-sarcastic. They tend to insult users who try to create articles that are helpful and interesting to various readers. I really do think that some users are getting too quick to delete articles, when it would be far more useful to maintain as many articles as possible so as to best catalog human knowledge. --172.163.63.151 12:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a Keeper! --172.131.213.162 05:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There is no reason why this needs to be an article on its own Green hornet 05:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are a LOT more reasons to keep than not to. --172.135.150.253 05:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Crufty and redundant. The notes and references section says it all. Rockpocket 05:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Idolcruft. Dionyseus 07:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD G4, recreation of previously deleted material--TBCΦtalk? 08:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. If anyone wants to tag it, feel free, however I'm sure the AfD result will be the same as the CSD result. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD G4 or simply Delete, as redundant, pointless listcruft. Xtifr _tälk 11:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete CSD G4. Also I entirely agree with Xtifr: "redundant, pointless listcruft". BTLizard 12:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Lots of good points to keep this relevant and valuable article. --172.163.63.151 12:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Note = Happy Halloween! :)

• Delete per WP:NOT a collection of indescriminate information. This should be in individual artist articles. Anon flood largely lacks a coherent inclusion argument... Could even go speedy per Daniel...--Isotope23 17:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep A collection of relevant and useful information that would be cumbersome for users to locate if dispersed throughout all contestants' articles. This article is convenient and useful and if anything should just be revised and expanded upon. Most arguments for deletion lack a reasonable argument. To be simplistic, the article isn't hurting anybody and nor does it detract from Wikipedia in anyway. If anything, it adds to Wikipedia and therefore would be a shame if taken down. And, I'll echo the Happy Halloween wishes! I don't know how old all of you are (some appear to be pretty young), so be safe trick or treating! Sincerely, --164.107.92.120 17:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and ignore silly anon sockpuppetry. Danny Lilithborne 18:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Edison 18:17, 31 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 proposed merge target doesn't exist, but if somebody wants to write it I will copy this article to their userspace for source material while they are doing so. Yomangani^talk 17:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reman Mythology

Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable webcomic, fancruft. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 01:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 02:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for this one. Sequential Tart article, Silver Bullet Comics article, AnimeBoredom interview, PublishersWeekly interview (partly about S&S, partly about Reman). Amy was nominated for a Web Cartoonist Choice Awards 2004 for Reman but the notability of that is uncertain. She's also won the Rising Stars of Manga contest for Tokyopop (but not for this specific webcomic). ColourBurst 04:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment One more: PopImage interview, she talks about Reman and Flight here. I'm not going to pretend these are the most rigorous sources in the world, but Sequential Tart and Silver Bullet Comics in particular have relatively good reputations as magazines/reporters of the comics niche, which is what WP:RS requires. ColourBurst 04:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Let's merge & redirect this and Sorcerers & Secretaries to Amy Kim Ganter and then clean it all up. ColourBurst has a good source in the Publisher's Weekly interview (the others aren't so good), and I've found some others at my library (like Lexington Herald Leader and Pasadena Star-News stories) but they all deal with her Flight and Sorcerers & Secretaries comics more than Reman Mythology. In other words, we've probably got enough reliable sources to write at lease a decent stub article on the artist, but not on this comic. -- Dragonfiend 05:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That works for me too. Like I said, the articles I found are niche publications (not the main problem) and online-only, so I wouldn't solely depend on them for articles. ColourBurst 05:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Amy Kim Ganter who seems to be notable enough based on Google News Archive see [8]. Capitalistroadster 03:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 11:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect, per Dragonfiend. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ragnarok Wisdom

Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable webcomic, fancruft. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 01:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as there's articles about less notable things that haven't been deleted. Torte 11:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with you; There are articles that are less notable. However, if we're to follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it would be insane to try to delete the articles in order of notability starting with the least notable. For that reason, I think it's best to just look at the guidelines we have and not at other articles. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 13:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Of course one can't expect every unnotable article to be deleted :P. But see what I posted just below, it's notable enough on an "average scale", at least that's what I think. Torte 15:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment One mistake should not compound another, and if there are less notable things in WP they should be nominated as well. There isn't infinite manpower here; you can't expect everything to get caught immediately. ColourBurst 14:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment No, I know they shouldn't, nor am I saying they should :P. But what I mean is that it's, on an "average scale", it's still notable enough to be kept. Torte 15:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Same reason as Torte. Achiel 12:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)User registered today, this is his first edit--Wafulz 14:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, This article was not created by the comic creator, thus is not advertising under WP:WEB. Also, same reason as Torte. MVEAlpha 14:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)— MVEAlpha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Have you read WP:WEB? Where does it say that a comic is notable if it's not being used for advertising? ColourBurst 14:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, for the reasons Torte listed. Pyro1588
  • Comment. Wait a minute, how am I a single purpose account? I didn't register just to vote on this AfD. I've written the articles Samkin_Aylward and Hordle_John. My account was registered some time before this AfD. Pyro1588 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Fine, removed. I was suspicious because you've only had two other edits ever, both of which were nearly a year ago. Also, judging from your rationale to keep, I figured you weren't really an experienced editor- you're basing your opinion on a completely subjective statement that doesn't really hold its ground. I was under the impression you were "called" to the discussion and remembered you had an old account you hadn't used in a while. --Wafulz 16:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and because it's cruft. As for the keeps based on what Torte wrote, that's invalid. Simply because we haven't gotten around to deleted every un-notable article is not a reason to keep an unnotable article -- otherwise we could accomplish logic. Circular logic is neither required nor desired. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 15:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As I said above, of course one can't be expected to do that :P. But what I really meant was that it was still notable enough on an "average scale" to be kept... I should just put that argument in my ctrl+C, shouldn't I? =P. Torte 16:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your argument at all. What exactly is the "average scale" youre referring to? --Wafulz 16:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Read what I'm posting just below here :P. Torte 23:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. There is no such thing as "average scale" of notability. An article is notable, or it isn't. Have you read WP:WEB? Use that, and not this "average scale" theory that you made up, to make your argument. ColourBurst 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Nyah, sorry about not being clear, I was tired at the time of writing and probably didn't make it much clearer, or possibly worse. My apologies. I still stand with that I think it's notable enough to be kept. Also, what I meant with "average scale" is that there are things that, as far as my knowledge goes, are less noteworthy but are considered notable. Once again, my apologies if I wasn't making much sense. (P.S. I'm not very well versed with the policies on the site either, so thanks for linking it to me, I'll read it as soon as I have time available.) Torte 23:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment What exactly is your criteria for being "noteworthy"? You say that there are things that are "less noteworthy" but notable. ColourBurst 00:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No sources, failing WP:WEB, WP:V. Wickethewok 18:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB, and hopefully we'll get around to deleting even less notable articles in due course! --Steve 22:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - While the comic may not have a significant Alexa rating, I believe it has been an influence in several similar gaming comics, and is highly unlikely to cause a cluttering effect on anything in particular. It may be helpful to trim the article to a somewhat reduced state, such that it shows the history of the webcomic rather than a high level of fluff (such as detailed character listings), but deletion may be over the top. Theogrin 04:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment We can't just take your word that it has been an influence on other gaming comics. You'd need to provide reliable third-party sources to prove it. Deletion is not over the top if none of the information in the article can be verified. ColourBurst 06:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm fairly certain that sources exist that would make this article pass WP:WEB. I personally don't know them, but I encourage anyone who does to add them to the main article now. Once the article passes WP:WEB, any claims of notability are nullified and this article will survive AFD. Inmatarian 04:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I spoke to the author of the comic, and he gave me some links which might satisfy WP:WEB. If anything, these do at least demonstrate that the comic exists as an important part of the fan-based community of Ragnarok Online. [9], [10], [11], [12]. I again stress that if these links help satisfy WP:WEB, that someone make sure they are incorperated into the body of the article. Inmatarian 05:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The links you provided are of fansites, which are not reliable sources because they are self-published by fans. Reliable sources are things like newspapers and magazines. ColourBurst 06:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete original research, unverified by reliable third-party sources, WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 04:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - While the article may intrinsically fall under WP:NOT, as may several other listed webcomics, it contributes to both the List of webcomics (which is, in its own manner, a directory) -- and the Webcomics Wikiproject, should the article meet the requirements for a meritable one. Theogrin 05:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 11:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete--Tone 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radioactive Panda

Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable webcomic, fancruft. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 01:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It seems fairly notable to me. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We got hundreds if not thousands of similar cases. Indeed, it seems notable and well structured article. -- Szvest 11:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}
  • Comment There's no policy that says similar cases have the same notability, and actually, similar cases do not have the same notability (as explained in the essay Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability). There are no reliable sources, which is the main notability criteria criterion in WP:WEB. So to argue for the keep side, you need reliable sources. ColourBurst 14:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Per comments of above keep nominations. Chris Kreider 14:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (edit conflict). So far I have seen no rationale as to why this comic is notable. Two people have said it "seems notable" with no evidence to back them up, and one person has opted to keep because the previous two did. AfD is more than a vote. If it seems notable, I'd like to hear why. I see the author has published one book, but I can't find any information on it, leading me to believe it might be minor or self-published. Most of the links to it are from private blogs, it has a traffic rank of around 450k, and I can't find any third party sources to verify anything. In fact, the only two sources in the article are both primary- we have one from the website, and another from a forum. If someone wants to provide evidence to the contrary of what I've said I'll consider changing my opinion. --Wafulz 14:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete! AS PER ORIGINAL NOM. Look, this is about consensus, so you have to give VALID reasons why we should keep an incoherent article about a trivial webcomic. Saying that Wikipedia has a long list of other things that should be deleted is NOT a reason to keep it. WP:WEB clearly sets a stadard this does not meet. IF you can come up with a reason to keep it that answers the statements in WP:WEB, great. If not, then please don't spam keep votes just to keep your article up.In ur base, killing ur dorfs 16:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Doesn't look this meets WP:V/WP:WEB. Wickethewok 18:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete trivial web comic, fails WP:WEB, WP is not a list of such things. --Steve 22:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:WEB and I think it doesn't even assert notability. Sandstein 23:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 11:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was - delete - the rebuttal of the keep advocates, to which the keep advocates often did not respond to the notability question, as well as one vote, push this over the line. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Japanese Beetle

Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable webcomic, fancruft. DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 01:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Japanese beetle. Mr Spunky Toffee 03:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd argue against redirecting as we'd be setting a bad precident for having articles for The Lion, The Zebra, etc. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 03:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Qiszxo 08:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: It seems notable enough. Graphic Smash is a fairly major service. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment By using the rational that the hosting sites conveys its notability to the hosted site, then we'd need to have articles for every site hosted by Geocities, Tripod, etc. Hosts do not convey notability. It may "seem" notable enough, but you have to present evidence that it is, in fact, notable. --Kunzite 01:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Very well structured and detailed article about a fairly notable webcomic. Do not redirect to Japanese beetle as it has nothing to do w/. -- Szvest 12:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}
  • Comment I can write a very well structured and detailed aticle about my pet cat. Well written and well structured articles do not convey notability. You don't mention how it's notable. --Kunzite 01:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I can't find even an assertion of notability in the article. Also, no reliable sources are cited, so it goes down the WP:NOR drain as well. Sandstein 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Detailed and well-structured unverifiable original research. Graphic Smash is hardly a "fairly major service." Digger (webcomic) is probably their most notable comic, the rest are mostly ridiculously trivial. -- Dragonfiend 04:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think the now-concluded Fans (webcomic) is probably more notable than Digger. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm basing my idea that Digger is the most notable Graphic Smash comic on Digger being discussed in The New York Times and Ursula Vernon being nominated for an Eisner Award. Unless I've missed something, minor webcomics like Fans are far from that level of achievement, and this webcomics is even farther still. -- Dragonfiend 02:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 11:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've added an assertion of notability: It picked up a nomination in the Web_Cartoonist's_Choice_Awards in 2001 for "Best Superhero Series". Ordinarily, WP:WEB requires multiple nominations, but considering that the majority of the comic's run (including its salad days) occurred before the award had been founded, I think that can be reasonably waived in this case. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure if this would be a case in which we'd want to follow past precedent, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parallel Dementia was deleted despite having an award nomination. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for providing that example. I would've pulled to have that one kept as well, though. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Winning this award is not a notable achievement. If it were, reliabel sources would cover the award winners. Being simply nominated for this trivial award is definitely not an indicator of notability. It's just an award some people made up one day on the internet. My high school perfect attendance award is more notable. -- Dragonfiend 02:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree with this viewpoint, since I believe that the WCCA awards are the most prominent awards within the field of webcomics. If you are able to provide a more prominent example, I would of course be willing to re-evaluate that position. Furthermore, WP:WEB states that the award may come from either "a publication or organisation", which demonstrates that the award need not have a connection with print media. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I've already mentioned the much more prominent Eisner Awards; the Ignatz Awards are also much more prominent. The Lulu Blooker Prize is also more well-known. There are probably several more, like the Webby Awards. What WP:WEB requires is that the site or webcomic win a well-known and independent award. The Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards are neither well-known (that's why we have a dearth of reliable sources about them and their winners) nor independent ("The WCCA started in 2001 being hosted by ... Keenspace"). Also, this webcomic has never won this award. It's just an award some non-notable webcomic artists decided they were going to give to each other, and reliable sources have largely ignored it. The awards themselves are dripping with non-notability, and their 125 nominations a year (over 25 categories, 5 comics nominations in each category) are no sign of notability at all. -- Dragonfiend 17:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The Eisner Awards are exclusively for print comics, and as such, would not apply here. The Lulu Blooker Prize is no more notable than the WCCA awards, and if you're concerned about conflicts of interest, you may want to consider that Lulu Press is pretty much the printer of choice for print-on-demand bound collections of webcomics. The Ignatz awards seem significant, so I would accept them as evidence of notability, in addition to the WCCA awards. I'm also having trouble understanding your rationale for rejecting the award based on the voting body. Many of its members, such as Jeph Jacques, Lee Adam Herold, Eric Burns, and Paul "Pablo" Taylor are notable within the field, but even if they weren't, that still wouldn't be enough to discredit it. Participants in the Major League Baseball All-Star Game are determined through voting by fans, a group of non-notable individuals with no tangible connection to the industry whatsoever, but status as a starter in the All-Star game is still quite highly regarded among baseball players. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
          • The Eisner Awards are not "exclusively for print comics." For example, "In 2003, Justine Shaw was the first webcomic artist to be nominated for an Eisner Award when she was nominated for 'talent deserving of wider recognition' and her Nowhere Girl was nominated for 'best new series.'" This was covered by reliable sources, including daily newspapers in Oklahoma, as referenced in the article. Other webcomics have been nominated and have won Eisner Awards since. Nominations for non-notable awards like "Japanese Beetle has been nominated for a WCCA," are not covered by reliable sources, which is probably why there are no references to sources in the Japanese Beetle article. Your comparison of the WCCAs to a major sporting event makes little sense to me, and I'm not sure what your list of "members" is, as it includes no one listed on their committee roster [13]. And again, WP:WEB has a criteria for sites that have won well-known and independent awards. You seem to believe that these WCCAs are well-known and independent, but surely we can agree that this comic has never won one. If you're still trying to make the case that being nominated for a WCCA award is a notable achievement, then just please cite a reliable, third-party source saying so, as I did with Nowhere Girl's Eisner nomination. -- Dragonfiend 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --64.12.116.9 20:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a debate, not a vote. Present reasons why you think the webcomic is notable, not just add another keep vote to the list. --Kunzite 01:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article provides useful information to Wikipedia users, with no downside whatsoever. Verifiable, encyclopedic, notable, not a copyvio, and so on. Again, having this useful information does not harm the quality of Wikipedia in any way. Factitious 10:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is it notable? I can declare an article on my pet cat and it declare it, useful, notable, verifiable, etc... but it doesn't make it so. As someone who is advocating to keep the article, you must show proof of its Notability. Finally, on "harm".... it dilutes the value of other articles on the encyclopedia. To quote Wikipedia's founder: "Notability is important because we exist here to serve our readers. We want to give them useful, relevant information, not just a complete data dump.... It serves to give readers a quick essential summary of what they want and need to know. In order to do this effectively, we must exercise careful and thoughtful editorial judgment, and one part of editorial judgment is an understanding that treating irrelevant data as on equal footing with the essentials, is confusing and a disservice to the reader.--Jimbo Wales 16:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)" --Kunzite 06:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that we want to provide useful, relevant knowledge. This article provides useful, relevant knowledge to people looking for information about The Japanese Beetle. Therefore, I think we should keep this information. Factitious 07:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
      • How do we know that it is useful or relevant information? Because someone declares it so? What reliable third party sources do you have that indicates this as relevant or useful? --Kunzite 13:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I know what sort of information it is because I read the article. I don't think you could with a straight face claim that the information in it is not relevant to its topic. Factitious 21:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Look at it this way: Suppose you had heard of The Japanese Beetle, but didn't really know much about it beyond the fact that it's a webcomic. When you type its name into Wikipedia, what sort of results should you get? An article about the subject you're interested in, or no information? Is there any advantage at all to giving users no information about the subjects they want to learn about? Factitious 21:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia is not meant to be a collector of all human knowledge. There are many items that fall into this category of thing that usually do not meet notability requirements--fan-fiction, most web forums, the vast majority of self-published books, unrecognised web-comics, the majority of doujinshi titles, amateur movies, internet memes, game guides, your neighbor's garage band, etc. These things are relevant to a limited number of people. Including an article on every piece of fiction ever written would be a detriment to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia determines what should kept by its very loose notability guidelines. i.e. Has this work been recognised and written about by someone other than the creator or people affiliated with the creator? If there are multiple, non-trivial sources of recognition then, yes, we should have an article on the topic. No one has presented any information in the article or in this AFD that the subject of the article merits keeping other than the "I like it" or "It's useful" defenses. --Kunzite 16:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB. One nomination for an award with questionable merits does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion of web content. --Kunzite 06:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerkcity

Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable webcomic, fancruft. DoomsDay349'''Happy Halloween! 01:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just yesterday I came upon a crufty article, rewrote it and removed the cruft. Why is it an issue here? --Kizor 16:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all of wikipedia
  • Comment. This isn't being counted, right? --Kizor 16:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because this way Brad will finally get to be hall monitor. Xihr 03:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Jerkcity 03:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails swedish meatball test. Quatloo 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - even I've heard of this, and I hardly read web comics. Richard W.M. Jones 11:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - long standing notable web comic Gid0ze 19:31:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - If those asshats at User:Jerkcity want to delete it, then we should keep it. Galexander 19:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a no-brainer. Long-standing, well-known webcomic. -- Rynne 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:WEB is not Wikipedia policy, it's a guideline made up by the "consensus" of a population of certain wiki editors who get some sort of weird thrill out of imposing their judgements on others. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no credible reason to delete entries based on notability... other than that wannabe administrators simply enjoy doing it. Ariochiv 01:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Right at the top of WP:WEB it says this. "This page is a notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia, reflecting how the authors of this encyclopedia address certain issues. This guideline is intended to help you improve Wikipedia content. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.". I'm pretty sure that means it's official. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • False. Policies are official. Guidelines are not. Quatloo 03:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Guidelines are made up by the community, and can be edited by anyone; they are not official policy. Verifiability is policy. Neutral point of view is policy. Notability is a guideline, not policy. Nowhere in WP:DELETE is Notability listed as a valid criteria for deletion. I realize that you guys do it everyday anyway, but that doesn't make it right. Ariochiv 08:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:WEB isn't a policy per se, but it's nevertheless cited by many people as a keep/deletion rationale. The very outcome of many deletion debates may hinge on that. I'd say if you want to reject specific notability criteria, you have to then explain what other criteria you use to explain to keep the stuff; if you reject a long-standing guideline that's cited by a lot of people as it is, you have to find other footing to stand on. We're open to ideas, of course, it's just that WP:WEB happens to represent a bunch of rather well-tried ideas. So I'd like to ask is this: If you reject notability criteria, what else do you propose we do to stop us from being flooded with completely insignificant content? How do you help people from telling apart wheat and chaff? How do you help people find the remarkable content? If you yank the carpet from under our feet, you need to put another carpet in its place or people will keep slipping around on the bare floor.
    Also be aware that AfDs that manage to change the established procedures are few and far between - you probably need some excellent deletion-lawyering to wriggle out of this one... meanwhile, I propose you edit the article to say how it fulfills the current criteria for inclusion. You won't change people's opinions overnight - or within timespan of a single AfD debate. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yes, I've heard of this, too, I think it's a wonderful comic, but we aren't building an encyclopedia of wonderful things we've heard of. No, this does not meet WP:WEB which is a guideline. It also doesn't meet our official WP:V policy "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It also doesn't meet our official policy that WP:NOT and internet guide, and articles about websites should "should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." So, if we want to keep this article, find some verifiable info from reliable sources talking about the topic's significance. -- Dragonfiend 04:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the nominator had even taken a moment to do a Google search on Jerkcity, he would have found numerous third-party references. Amazon.com, TCJ.com, Salon.com, Rotten.com, nndb.com, Pigdog.org. Now of course, you can always claim that these aren't "reliable" third-party sources, but since there's no criteria on which to base whether a source is reliable or not, you're still just making it up as you go. And applying WP:V to an article about a webcomic where the accuracy of the article is not at issue is just double-talk. Ariochiv 08:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Aren't Rotten, NNDB, and Jerkcity all Soylent Communications websites? If so, it's unclear whether writeups on Rotten and NNDB are third-party references to Jerkcity. --Zippy 21:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • How is it that you consider a book published (and placed for sale on Amazon) by the Jerkcity people as "third-party"? Quatloo 09:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Feel free to ignore the Amazon reference if it fails your Swedish Meatball test. Ariochiv 00:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep bad faith nom Stormscape 05:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your accusation of bad-faith, malicious editing seems entirely unfounded. -- Dragonfiend 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep but if you decide to Delete, get rid of Penny Arcade too. --timecop 05:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- well-known webcomic. Also, I agree with Stormscape -- may be a bad faith nom. Haikupoet 05:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your accusation of bad-faith, malicious editing seems entirely unfounded. -- Dragonfiend 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah? Well, why aren't you assuming good faith on his assumption? That's what's great about guidelines, you can spin in circles all day defending both sides of any argument. Xihr
      • See your talk page.[14] -- Dragonfiend 06:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This nomination is honestly in good faith. I took a look at the article, the external links, etc and didn't see any claims of notability. Take a look at other highly notable webcomics; Megatokyo for example states in the first paragraph that it ranks among the most popular webcomics, and is the best selling original English-language manga. Jerkcity, on the other hand, makes no assertions of notability. That's why I nominated it. To clarify, I'm not saying all articles need to be as notable as Megatokyo, but they need to assert some form of notability. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 06:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • So why not add a note stating that it should reference its notability, rather than starting a vote to delete the article entirely? Xihr 06:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. I brought it to AFD as I honestly believe it comes close to WP:CSD#A7, which states that an article is subject to speedy deletion if it does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead.. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 07:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
        • If it comes close to it, then it isn't there, is it? So this is all just a waste of time. What else is new. Xihr 08:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If this site doesn't meet WP:WEB, then our guidelines are failing, not vice-versa. Yamaguchi先生 07:09, 1 November 2006
• Delete - Non-notable. Notable things say that they are notable as per WP:NOT. Reccomend to "Jerkcity" author to assert notability in similar manner as "Megatokyo" author to achieve req'd notability level. SUNSHINE INCARNATE — SUNSHINE INCARNATE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Very very weak keep - Meets the "I heard of this from outside Wikipedia" gut feeling, is pretty long-standing, has had (apparently self-published, limited-edition) book; 227 distinct Google hits for the term (shows 202000 (!) at first), so there's probably some name-recognition. That said, probably far from being the most important web comic in the town, and there's no solid evidence of otherwise meeting WP:WEB... If there's any evidence to contrary, I'd be more enthusiastic. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 11:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. --Myles Long 15:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep. clearly more important than a CD that sells 5,000 copies. Unfocused 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Screaming WTF DUH Keep i cannot for the life of me understand why the hell this was nominated for deletion.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I have not heard of Jerkcity myself, but from the little research I did it seems to be fairly well known and as it has been around for so long it should be kept. bbx 19:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Looks like it fails WP:V (which is policy), which would trump any claims of notability. No independent reliable sources coverage. Wickethewok 22:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  Please review WP:IAR. I think it's rather obvious that any policy ever written will encounter an unanticipated situation that invalidates it, that is, except WP:IAR. Given the other responses here, I think it's pretty clear which policy is more important in this case. Unfocused 22:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think Wikipedia will be worse off if this is kept, so I don't think IAR applies. Wickethewok 22:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• At least six other editors to date have either strenuously objected to deletion or considered this a bad faith nomination and you think Wikipedia is still better off deleting it? This is the kind of pedantic policy-worship that pisses off good editors and drives them away. Unfocused 23:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Please explain how "Wikipedia will be worse off if this is kept." Ariochiv 00:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's verifiable. I didn't have much trouble laying hands on this mention in Salon, and I know I've seen others. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't mean to nitpick, but this is the entire part of the article about JerkCity: "Exploitation Now and Jerkcity mix pop-cultural criticism with dark, often sexual humor." It doesn't even have its own sentence... seems pretty trivial. Wickethewok 06:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that it's a trivial mention, but even a trivial mention in a major media source is enough to demonstrate that the article's subject exists, which takes the "delete it, it's unverified, violating WP:V" idea out of bounds. That mention isn't enough to establish notability, of course, so you could still advocate deletion on those grounds, if that's how you feel. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I'm seriously shocked anyone could think Jerkcity isn't notable. It's been around forever, is pretty much universally known in I-spend-too-much-time-on-the-Internet circles, ranks huge in a Google search (I'm getting 137,000 hits after I prune out jerkcity.com and other sites connected to Jerkcity and its creators), exists in a print format, and is produced by the same shadowy cabal that's behind Rotten.com, Leisure Town, and Rands in Repose.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.252.194.180 (talk • contribs).

• Strong Keep Massive google search result, and not only that, this was one of the first

webcomics I ever heard about.ABigBlackMan 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Request - Could someone present some non-trivial reliable third party sources? Wickethewok 16:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Ariochiv already did. That said, the definitions of both "non-trivial" and "reliable" are so vacuous as to make almost any source arguable. --Kizor 03:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Question - Wickethewok, could you expand on what you mean by non-trivial reliable third-party sources? Thank you. Mrf 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That Comics Journal interview might work. The others just look like blog mentions which generally don't. Do you have any others like The Comics Journal? -- Dragonfiend 05:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ariochiv. Reliable sources also provided in sufficient number, facts are uncontested anyway. --Kizor 13:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep One of the most popular comics published on the web, it's been around for a number of years, still manages to publish daily after thousands of strips, and is pretty much the only place to find any insightful commentary about the internet era, in my opinion. Plus I like the jokes about sodomy.172.166.72.120 21:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm late to the debate, but this is a no-brainer. Verifiably notable, long-running webcomic that is, dare I say it, a part of net history. And I own the book. Polpo 02:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• NeutralConditional keep (as long as it passes WP:WEB's first test. WP:WEB guidelines specify three criteria. If any one of these is satisfied, the article passes the WP:WEB test. My feeling is that to resolve this debate in favor of keeping the article, we should focus on (1), as this is Jerkcity's strongest case for notability. I think Jerkcity will have trouble passing /2 and /3, the former because I have not seen any mention of awards for the site in this discussion, and the latter because of the requirement that sites that show the work be independent of the creators of the work. --Zippy 03:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. By the time you're selling hard copies it's a little late to start questioning notability, and nominator admits that this was part of a blanket listing. This should be a no-brainer. Chris Cunningham 13:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --Tone 23:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inside the Box

Comic fails to assert notability. Fails WP:WEB. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable webcomic, fancruft. You really don't like webcomics, do you? DoomsDay349 Happy Halloween! 01:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Check your talk page for a reply. I don't want to get too off course on this page. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 01:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Have we actually determined whether Keenspot is notable enough by itself to pass WP:WEB point 3? I thought the topic was still under debate. ColourBurst 04:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, because Wikipedia doesn't know anything about webcomics, and I'd rather not have my comics listed on it in the first place. -- Brandon Sonderegger
• Delete. Wikipedians don't do original research, so the problem here is more accurately described as "No cited verifiable information from third-party reliable sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy knows anything about this particular webcomic." We can, however, blame Wikipedia for being an encyclopedia and not an internet guide. If Wikipedia were an internet guide that published unreliable and unverifiable information, this article would be perfect. -- Dragonfiend 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment So then, by those rules, Keenspot really doesn't belong on this site either, being another internet site, until someone writes a book about it? Or is a magazine/newspaper article enough? What if a webcomic has a book or magazine written about IT? Does that qualify as "verifiable information"? (Asked in seriousness...) -- Alison Bellach
    • See the reference sections of such webcomics-related articles as Leisure Town, Megatokyo, Narbonic, Fetus-X, Nowhere Girl, When I Am King, Svetlana Chmakova, Get Your War On, Sluggy Freelance, Raina Telgemeier, etc. They each have multiple, non-trivial sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time Magazine, The Comics Journal, Publishers Weekly, CNN, etc. -- Dragonfiend 19:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Whether the comic is on the web or in print is not the issue. The issue is with sources (as Brandon is on the right track, we don't trust random Wikipedians to write correct things, we trust instead published sources). Dragonfiend has talked about which sources are considered reliable. ColourBurst 19:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Then I don't understand how you count someone's writeup of the Saw III plot as "verifiable". -- Alison Bellach
        • Comment Whether a plot summary is acceptable falls under the realm of original research, as they use a primary source (the book/film in question). Not verifiability. However, an article cannot be supported solely by primary sources (The Saw III article does not). ColourBurst 18:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anomo 11:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 01:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Janice Neuberger

Contested prod. Article gives little assertion of notability, and no sources. What little is here does not satisfy WP:BIO. Valrith 11:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: If true, she would be notable for being a key figure of the LaRouche movement. But we must have sources, precious, yes sources. Alba 13:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Wife of a frequent presidential candidate. I have added a source. ergot 00:53, 27 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, Whispering 01:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. She was divorced from LaRouche many years before he ran for President. She is briefly mentioned in the article on LaRouche. There is nothing notable about her. There is no reason to have a separate entry for her. Rentir 03:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you. Note the citation that I added; in a 350+ page biography of LaRouche, she is only mentioned on pages 8-9. Helga Zepp-LaRouche she isn't. But I'm leaving my !vote as weak keep because of the NOW claim, which I would like to see sourced and expanded if accurate. ergot 14:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I did web searches for "Janice Neuberger" on Google and Ask. Looks like almost all of the hits are for sites that Wikipedia or repackaged Wikipedia. It doesn't seem like there is anything notable about her. The NOW claim isn't substantiated. Rentir 17:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Changing my !vote to neutral since the NOW claim is questionable (and is a very vague claim in the first place). She certainly can't be described as a leader in the LaRouche movement (see my comment below). Perhaps this could be deleted on the grounds that it can't be expanded beyond a stub? Incidentally, looking around for precedent didn't provide anything useful. We kept an article on this girl (VfD discussion), whose only claim to fame is having dated a much less notable political extremist than LaRouche. We seem to have kept the article on Al Gore's youngest son five times now (see Talk:Al Gore III), but Gore is notable for reasons beyond his candidacy. We do seem to have an article on Ralph Nader's sister, who I'm not sure would pass the prof test and perhaps should be AfD'd. ergot 20:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because notability is established on two separate grounds: 1) leading member of LaRouche movement 2) leading member of NOW. I, too, would like to see this article fleshed out more and would reconsider my vote if, in a year, the article remains as is. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi

• "Leading member of the LaRouche movement" is inaccurate because they divorced while she and LaRouche were still in the Socialist Workers Party. ergot 15:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• See my comment above about Janice Neuberger web searches not finding much except for her Wikipedia entry (repackaged on a few sites). If Neuberger really is notable, shouldn't there be clear evidence of her being a leading member of the groups you mention? If there is evidence then it would be good if someone could bring it to this discussion because it might change peoples' views in this discussion. Rentir 17:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not really notable except by extension. I'm suspicious of the NOW claim, too -- seems to appear nowhere else but our article. --Dhartung | Talk 09:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable in her own right, but only by being married to someone for 9 years over 40 years ago. Emeraude 12:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence from sources satisfying WP:INDY that she meets WP:BIO. Even if she was still LaRouche's current spouse that wouldn't be adequate for WP:BIO notability in the absence of sources primarily about her. GRBerry 03:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Arbusto 08:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of PlayStation 2 budget games

Completing malformed nom from Ceros (talk • contribs). No vote from me. Daniel Olsen 02:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No reason for this to exist, there is already a List of PlayStation 2 games. TJ Spyke 02:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Budget games isn't defined, but unless there's something non-arbitrary about it, it really just makes this list a shopping list. Mister.Manticore 02:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's basically a shopping list. No need for this on Wikipedia. Ceros 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article doesn't define what a budget game is. Even if all the above arguments were rendered null and void, it would still have to be deleted for that reason. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per list already in existence and what defines "budget" --Steve 05:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious POV violation. How one defines what a "budget" game is differs from person to person.--TBCΦtalk? 06:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Qiszxo 08:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just a list of names - by themselves meaningless. Cruft. BTLizard 12:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as pointless cruft. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 12:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete In response to the above voters, there's no great mystery about what a budget game is: They're simply games released at a significantly lower price point than "major" games. A typical budget game costs $10-20 when first released, as opposed to $40-50 for a major game. Budget games do not count major games that are discounted after release, and are something of a genre unto themselves. Nor are budget games anything new: they've existed for computers since the early 80s. With all that said, however, this list is a redlink farm at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, listcruft. EVula 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for being unhelpful and poorly defined. No clear definition has been given (are we talking actual budget re-releases such as the Platinum range, or just games that have slipped to a lower price-point?). Also: budget games where? America? The article doesn't say, though that's what I'd assume. Even if listing all games released on budget labels/re-released onto budget labels were helpful (I don't believe it is), there'd then have to be one for other territories too. QuagmireDog 16:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft, WP:NOT a shopping list. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 04:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Yanksox 21:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional military operations

The tiny amount of meaningful information this simple list presents is original research. (Contested PROD) ➥the Epopt 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I really I don't concur with the reason for nomination (I don't see any original research in this article), though I do think this article is poorly organized and probably needs to be rewritten. Perhaps seperated into individual fictional works in some cases. Still, it's no worse than List of military operations Mister.Manticore 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Mister.Manticore. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a list too far. This list doesn't define its parameters: so far it appears to include only recent movies, but the title would imply that it could include other media, such as books and computer games. There must be thousands of films which would qualify, and tens of thousands of books, so the list will either be absurdly selective or impossibly huge. There's also a boundary issue, a lot of fiction using fictionalised derivations of military operations; how heavily fictionalised must an op be for inclusion? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it already includes things besides movies. There's several books, computer games and TV series mentioned. However, I do agree with you that this list needs some explicit specifications. It might even be worth breaking into sections based on TV/movies/books/computer games as media. Mister.Manticore 03:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia shouldn't be a TV guide. This is just another collection of information somebody made from watching TV. Mr Spunky Toffee 03:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not jsut from TV, but also collected from video game manuals, books, and references. --Eldarone 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment BTW, has anybody here looked at the Category for Lists of fictional things ? Mister.Manticore 03:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, Great Ghu. That's the scariest thing I'll see this Halloween. Unbelievable. Bpmullins 20:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh. Delete for the article itself. -- Bpmullins 00:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Comprehensive list would be unmanageably long. Don't see the encyclopedic value either. Listcruft. Please, please, someone make a special ListWiki so listcrufters can be shipped off to their own home Bwithh 03:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopeddic value is that's it a rather quick reference. Ever tried looking up a certain type of Hydrania? Wikipedia tends to have it kind of hard looking for specific types of things. --Eldarone 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not really OR, but it is unencyclopedic listcruft. Opabinia regalis 04:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per my reasoning on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional wars.--TBCΦtalk? 06:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. In what way is it original research? I'm sorry, but I don't see it. People seem to be throwing around the term "original research" more and more these days without reading Wikipedia policy on the subject. OR is "unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories" according to the definition, and these entries do not fall into that category. Please stop invoking OR when you actually mean "I don't like this article". It's a perfectly valid list. -- Necrothesp 11:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft - no use to man nor beast. BTLizard 12:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft. It's a useless list because it is so broad. I don't really find much use for it and it doesn't seem encyclopedic. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 16:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone elaborate why it is listcruft? --Eldarone 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The list is OR and the title is far grander than the content, which is restricted in genre and in historical depth. Edison 18:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Then the there will be several smaller lists going around Wikipedia --Eldarone 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, very pointless list. Sandstein 23:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- list lacks the Scouring of the Shire, World War III from Red Storm Rising, the Dominion War, and, I dunno, gazillions of other fictional military operations. Category is far too broad; even a reasonable threshold of notability would probably bloat this page beyond the point of maintainability. Haikupoet 06:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, the Dominion war and World War III, is a WAR, not a specific military operation. There is a difference. The Scouring of the Shire is a sepcific event in the Lord of the Rings, not a planned overall assualt with stragetic objectives. The page is quite maintaianable, since there are not too many "Fictional Military Operations", and most can be verfied quickly if it is relavant to the plot or not. --Eldarone 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - too broad a range of operations without articles to explain them. Keep them listed in the books/movies/games in which they appear. --Vossanova ^o< 15:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Then if someone is searching for a specific operation, how will they know when and who and what series? --Eldarone 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no corresponding category possible, as no one would suggest creating articles for these operations. The list currently lacks structure and is only alphabetical. Suggest that the topic is approached at a smaller level, such as overview articles for specific areas (such as military operations in computer game series X), and then create a category for those overview articles. Carcharoth 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

the List is structured enough. If you have issues, make recomendations to the talk page. --Eldarone 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - --Eldarone 19:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • • Fictional Military Operations is perfectly relevant to the many science fiction universes, books, RPG's, etc. It's a quick and easy aid for one to find a group from a stroy and look up the right series. And the ,list is maintable, and has been maintianed well. Also, this list is relavent due to the imporantce of the Military Operations to the plot of many stories. Instead of creating many useless pages that just deals with the oneoperation, a single list will be able to maintian any and all plot relevant operations. --Eldarone 23:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cbrown1023 21:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Incredibly Strong Keep Lists are legitimate and useful parts of encyclopedia. There are lots of lists in Britannica, Compton's and others and so here is what could be the largest encyclopeia in the world, these sorts of things are essential as part of the ongoing quest to catalog human knowledge. --164.107.92.120 23:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an ongoing quest to catalog human knowledge. It is a general-purpose encyclopedia meant to be accessible to the general reader. This list is useless for the general reader. Detailed and unencyclopedic lists like this belong on a specialist wiki. Carcharoth 00:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Uselessness is only in the opinion of the editor. There are a variety of Fictional operations ranging from modern day stories to the fantastic. It is useful for anyone researching stories or doing literacy reports. --Eldarone 04:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And for specialist information and trivia, go to a specialist website or wiki. Not to Wikipedia. Carcharoth 10:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. And who appointed you guardian of Wikipedia's policies and content? Because it's your opinion doesn't make it the one true way you know. -- Necrothesp 11:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite true. How do you suggest this debate moves forward? Carcharoth 13:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

How about that this list is not speicalized in any way? It covers a broad range of fictional operations from many types of series and games, that it's not speicalized to fit in any sort of speicalized Wiki. Tell me one Wiki that can take every single operation as one single list? --Eldarone 04:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Not paper.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete completely open-ended list per WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. Ohconfucius 01:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I actually like the idea of this list, but it's simply not sufficiently defined in terminology and thus excessively broad. A comprehensive list would probably include hundreds of thousands of entries from books, games, movies, songs etc. -Kubigula (ave) 03:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, because I don't think depictions of military operations per se are that substantial in fiction, as opposed to battles or wars. This will inevitably be little more than a list of military operations that are referred to in fiction, which is trivia. Postdlf 04:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate collection of information (like the other two). Do we want any list which can grow indefinitely? Also, Object because the threesome wasn't merged into one AfD. Duja^► 15:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete - due to OR concerns as to the criteria, and there being no properly defined criteria for inclusion. Aside from that, all the IP "keeps".Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional wars

The tiny amount of meaningful information this simple list presents is original research. (Contested PROD) ➥the Epopt 02:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Again, I don't see the original research in this article. (Perhaps you could specify the parts you claim are original research??) It's a bit better than the fictional military operations one, but it could use a little reorganization. It's just not well-presented. Still, that's a clean-up issue, not a reason for deletion. Mister.Manticore 03:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Mister.Manticore. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hopelessly ill-defined WP:OR (actually non-defined), and impossibly wide in potential scope (WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information). Does it include movies, games, novels? How heavily fictionalised does a war have to be to be included? the list includes fictionalised versions of most of the major 20th century wars. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this list includes movies, games, novels, comics and tv shows. I agree though, there should be some criteria for belonging on this list, and it should be at the top of the page. I'll bring it up on the talk page. Mister.Manticore 04:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It is original research. Somebody watched a lot of TV and compiled a list. Very useless, totally unimportant. This has no educational or even entertainment value. Mr Spunky Toffee 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Compiling information doesn't equal original research. Especially since in many cases, the compilation can come right from Wikipedia. And there are people who do care about various fictional wars, otherwise they wouldn't talk about them so much. Mister.Manticore 03:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you really want though, this could be added as a source [15] for at least part of it. Mister.Manticore 04:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I was trying to think of a polite reason. How about this: it's total, absolute crap, and it's not fit to be printed on a roll of toilet paper as trivia for someone taking a dump. It's not only pointless for the African dirt farmers who can't afford textbooks for whom this encyclopedia is ostensibly being written, but it's pointless for all but the White and Nerdy set. I'm sure there are a few geeks out there who care about fictional robot wars of the 24th century after the show is over, but I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to cater to their fetishes. Mr Spunky Toffee 20:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not a valid argument, as demonstratable by the uncivil nature of your remarks. You may well not find this interesting, but so what? Not all Wikipedia articles are going to appeal to you. Perhaps it would be helpful for you take a step back and realize that your personal attachment to the information in an article is not necessarily a good guideline for us to follow. Mister.Manticore 01:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just ignore Mrs. Spanky Toffee. She's a no good delete hound for practically every article list she votes on! Too much of Wikipedia is being needlessly deleted as is. --64.12.117.5 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Comprehensive version of this list would be too unwieldy - would have thousands of entries. Even with this list, it's got out of control - we've got entries like "World War III (occurred in The Simpsons)" which probably refers to a few scenes in a 6 or 7 minute story in one Halloween episode of the Simpsons. Plus, apparently they're trying to list every fictional conflict in video games which are often shallow plot backdrop ("The Kremean Wars (Donkey Kong Country)"). Next up will be comic books, anime, thousands of years of fiction, every entry from the nuke war simulation list from the War Games movie etc etc Bwithh 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a clean-up issue there, with a mind towards specifying which fictional wars qualify for list membership. I agree, there are some things that are too sillly to belong. And now that you bring it up, I do think World War III deserves an article of its own. Oh wait, it already has one. Probably worth pruning those bits out, and adding it as a See Also link. Mister.Manticore 03:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got not problem with World War III as an article. I have a problem with WWIII from one-third of a Simpsons episode being on this list. 15:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got no objection to that, and I'll tell you what the solution is...remove it. Mister.Manticore 01:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: all wiki-legalese aside, this topic is so broad as to be meaningless and to make the article laughable. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
• Delete s above; not really OR, but it is unencyclopedic listcruft. Opabinia regalis 04:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree it is not a orginal research issue, but rather requires clean up. I also disagree that the topic is not too broad nor laughable. There are few mentions of fictional wars. Perhaps we can limit the list down to wars that have importance to the plot of stories. --Eldarone 04:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Limitations would have to be in terms of clearly defined criteria. "Importance to the plot of [the] stories" is not such a criterion; it invites original research. Also, I think you may underestimate the number of fictional wars, even including those that ARE objectively a major element of the story. My shelf of science fiction books probably includes a hundred alone. Serpent's Choice 05:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, importance to the plot is not a good criteria, but the lenght is itself not a problem. There are plenty of long lists, and this could be broken up into several smaller sections. For example "Lists of Fictonal Wars in Science Fiction" and "Lists of Wars in Fantasy" for easy, if not optimal, choices. Mister.Manticore 05:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as hopelessly broad. There have been thousands of works of fiction that depicted fictional warfare--if the work has an article in wikipedia, we can mention it there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Original research, unmaintainable, and unencyclopedic. Most fictional works (especially those in the science fiction and fantasy genre) have some sort of war or conflict, thus listing all of them would be unreasonable.--TBCΦtalk? 06:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. In what way is it original research? I'm sorry, but I don't see it. People seem to be throwing around the term "original research" more and more these days without reading Wikipedia policy on the subject. OR is "unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories" according to the definition, and these entries do not fall into that category. Please stop invoking OR when you actually mean "I don't like this article". It's a perfectly valid list. -- Necrothesp 11:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Original research isn't the only reason that this article should be deleted. See my comment above.--TBCΦtalk? 14:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information - and a list of fictional wars may be considered unencyclopedic by some. --SunStar Net 11:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There seems to be a proliferation of listcruft going on, and this is part of it. BTLizard 12:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless list, unfocused, not encyclopedic. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 16:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It at least goes back to the 18th century in its selective coverage of a broad topic, and I found some interesting fiction I would not otherwise have encountered. Keep and expand. Edison 18:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Split content into more manageable articles by medium, e.g. List of fictional wars in literature, List of fictional wars in film. The same could be done with List of fictional battles. --Vossanova ^o< 19:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC) On second thought, Delete. Separate lists would still be too hard to maintain , and Category:Fictional wars is enough. --Vossanova ^o< 14:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is an indiscriminate collection of original research. Sandstein 23:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- unmaintainable even within the currently rather limited scope of the article (i.e. SF and alt-history). There is simply no way this could ever hope to be complete. Haikupoet 06:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete provided someone checks that all the linked articles are in Category:Fictional_wars. Carcharoth 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and give it some criteria to keep it from spiraling out of control. Some entries not being suitable is not a deletion criterion in my book, it's an editorial issue. -- nae'blis 16:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• delete. This is the sort of thing best handled by categories. Unfocused 16:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not sure we should encourage stubs on each of these wars just to make them categorizable (yes, we can technically categorize redirects, but that's not well-known). Lists are good at compiling groups of data that would not individually rise to the level of encyclopedic worth; see List of Bundestag Members for an example. -- nae'blis 17:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  I also asked for categorization, but just to be clear, I asked only for those battles considered worthy of having an article to be categorised. Anything else should only be mentioned in the relevant article. If people might search for this fictional war, then create a redirect under that name pointing to the relevant article, and categorise the redirect in the appropriate category or, better still, create an anchored link to the relevant section of the relevant article, and put this anchored link directly on the category page (in the bit at the top), effectively creating a list at the top of the category page for "fictional wars without an article is still covered by an article". This workaround is needed because redirects can't point at article sections. For example, the list currently has "Centauri-Narn war" in the Babylon 5 section, but no article. Now, have a look at Category:Babylon 5 wars, where I've added Centauri-Narn war in the way described above. I have also added the redirect to the category to show how that could work (but it currently doesn't because redirects can't point at sections within articles). Wars without articles or sections can still be listed in the category. Carcharoth 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  Any work of fiction might reference dozens of fictional wars, especially a work in the science fiction and fantasy fields. If the wars referenced are important enough to be cataloged in a list rather than merely mentioned in the article about the work they appear in, they should be important enough to have a stub. Whether a stub is worth having or not is a good measure of whether they're important enough to be here in any form greater than as a footnote of the work where such war is fictionalized. Using a category for this would function as a sort of self-regulating "importance" test in place of an unmanageable article, yet offer this particular article's authors another method of proving their contributions valid in this particular marketplace. Further, the category page itself can contain some of this list without creating individual stubs for them, and they could be linked to the parent work of fiction. Unfocused 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Our Wikipedia:No original research policy was designed to discriminate against originally researched ideas, not useful lists of information. Yamaguchi先生 19:39, 1 November 2006
• Keep per above and Yamaguchi. Cbrown1023 21:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Incredibly Strong Keep Lists are legitimate and useful parts of encyclopedia. There are lots of lists in Britannica, Compton's and others and so here is what could be the largest encyclopeia in the world, these sorts of things are essential as part of the ongoing quest to catalog human knowledge. Plus, this and the other ones on fictional battles and the like are among my favorite articles! Please keep! Too many Wikipedians seem delete-happy these days and while plenty of these list articles are incomplete and can be improved, this should not diminish from their usefulness and interest-factor. --164.107.92.120 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:List, Wikipedia:What is a featured list?, and some of the examples at Wikipedia:Featured lists for what a list should aspire to. Carcharoth 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I still find that a lot of these lists do indeed meet those standards. Cheers! --164.107.92.120 01:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• A Must Keep I see no respectable reason to delete this article. --172.168.193.115 01:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep not paper Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 05:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Completely open-ended list per WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. Ohconfucius 01:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I actually like the idea of this list, but it's simply not sufficiently defined in terminology and thus excessively broad. A comprehensive list would probably include hundreds of thousands of entries from books, games, movies, songs etc. -Kubigula (ave) 03:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, because no good reason not to. :) --172.131.9.168 21:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as this is a no brainer! --205.188.116.10 21:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep! Wikipedia has been delte happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-this would just become a massive split project. If the contributor has a lot of knowledge of fictional wars, he or she (and everyone) would be better served to improve the existing articles. Seraphimblade 03:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wars are a significant subject in fiction, and organizing their depiction in lists is a sensible way to organize that information. All of the problems above are issues for cleanup—using an appropriate limiting concept for "war" so it doesn't just include any story with a hyperbolic or catchy title,[16] and sourcing and annotating appropriately to verify that it was actually a depiction of a war. There's also no need to include wars that are merely mentioned, so the "shallow plot backdrop" can simply be trimmed out. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic in thinking this can all be worked out, but I think it's a worthwhile list of fictional depictions of a single subject to maintain. Postdlf 04:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - why would we ever delete such valuable information? MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Many of the recent votes/discussions have been from anonymous users, which as per WP:AFD typically carry less weight than registered users, especially those votes without a logical explanation. Also, at least one of these votes comes from a suspected sockpuppet. --Vossanova ^o< 14:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate collection of information. Do we want any list which can grow indefinitely? and Object because the threesome wasn't merged into one AfD. Duja^► 15:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the various well-argued reasons listed by some above. --64.12.117.5 21:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This ill defined scope of the article results in a giant list with many heading and next to no content. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani^talk 17:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Countdown to Degrassi

Non-notable clip show used to promote the American syndicated rebroadcast of a Canadian television program. fails WP:NOT and WP:EPISODE L0b0t 02:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per my nomination. L0b0t 02:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 06:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. EVula 23:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. "Non-notable clip show?" Huh? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into DTNG--andrew|ellipsed...^Talk 05:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clark Brothers Gun Shop

Speedy deleteion for advertising was vociferously contested, so I'm sending this here. Gush article about a gun store, 302 Google hits and a smattering of mentions on Newsbank, although some of them are in NY Times and WaPo. ~ trialsanderrors 02:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Fails WP:NOT, L0b0t 03:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per L0b0t --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 03:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete (G11) Spam.--Húsönd 04:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• If this were done like an encyclopedia article instead of badly written spamvertising, I'd say it'd be notable enough to keep. But the author doesn't seem to be capable of that, and seems unlikely to learn how, either, so Delete but not precluding someone else writing a better article later. Tubezone 04:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is less awful now. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd say if the claim that it's "one of the most famous gun stores in the United States" is verifiable it's a keeper. But articles that just happen to mention the store in the context of gun violence aren't enough to establish that claim. ~ trialsanderrors 06:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've lived in northern Virginia for going on 15 years. I frequently take day trips out towards the mountains with my folks, and we almost always pass through Warrenton. I don't recall once ever seeing anything about this place. I've never heard of it. Hell, I'd be more inclined to support an article on the Sperryville Emporium... --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 07:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, need a lot more press to establish notability. --Dhartung | Talk 09:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lacks verification.-- danntm ^T _C 14:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable. EVula 23:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Albert Herring the stores on Rt 29 6 miles south of Warrenton going to Culpepper, not on 211 which goes to Sperryville. More press all stories about Clark Brothers Gun Shop: Washington Post Nov 6,1977 Angus Phillips, Washington Post Aug.31,1975 "Shooters will aid childrens hospitol",Washington Post Jun 19,1978 Blaine Harden,Guns,Washington Post Nov.21,1986 Bill Sautter "Standing Around Shooting the bull". Press from Washington Post goes on and on. Wiki has articles about Big Texan steak ranch and other business that I could call advertising. This is a famous place Clark Brothers signs advertise the store for 20 miles distant. Look at references in Google groups-- Decodiver 18:28, 31 October 2006 (EST)
• Delete. It's multiple AND non-trivial media mentions: the NYT and WaPo stories are using the place as a backdrop to discuss larger issues, not as the central subject, and the one remaining is the local paper explicitly covering local subjects. --Calton | Talk 02:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Mereda 08:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blatant advertising. —Brim 21:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Fairsing 06:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - consensus that she fails WP:BIO, Seraphimblade sums it up nicely. Yomangani^talk 17:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calley Anne Slagle

This was put up for proposed deletion with the following reason: "Reads like CV, no assertion of notability, Google doesn't know this one too well." I disagree with all these reasons, but I think the article may be a good candidate for deletion based on how unimportant the subject seems to be in the grand scheme of things. However, she is a real person, and I tend to think real people are worth keeping, much more so than the many minor fictional characters that litter the encyclopedia. Mr Spunky Toffee 02:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, very little notability or mention in third-party publications that I've found so far. Seraphimblade 03:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete appears a very minor figure in the pageant world per my research, thus fails WP:BIO for me. Rockpocket 06:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — NN. Dionyseus 08:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Plus, article was written by "Msidusa" whose contribs page [17] says "I am Calley Anne Slagle Haws and just wanted to enter some data that people might find useful." so personal promo page as well. Emeraude 12:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --172.164.241.200 20:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 172.164.241.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep - Miss USA state titleholder -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 03:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - state champion in an event which attracts wide coverage. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete she never won the Miss Potatoland contest, but got there by default, which is a very weak claim to notability. People will remember the winner in a regional/state thing, but rarely the runner up. Different if it were Miss America. That the original editor of Miss Potatoland article only remembered her by Calley Slagle is a case in point. Against her is the conflict of interest. Precisely 4 Ghits for "Calley Anne Slagle", of which 2 wiki. Ohconfucius 02:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, what's with calling the contest "Miss Potatoland"? That is rude and uncalled for. She might have been the runner-up but regardless, she did hold the title. Another in a similar position is Ashley Litton. Conflict of interest? Well you haven't told us what that is. Slagle appears to have started the article, but had she been a more recent titleholder I would have started it myself (again, see Ashley Litton). I didn't because I don't have time to right articles about titleholders from 1997 as what little time I have is spent on more recent ones. As for the ghits... this is extremely obvious. She reigned in 1997, when the internet pageant scene was in its infantcy. Had she been a few years later, I would have been able to gather information from Turn for the Judges but that site only starts from 1999. Similarly to my earlier point, if she was more recent there would undoubtedly be some news articles on her but we are going back 10 years and its unlikely there's anything on her still available on the internet now. As for the name thing -- check out any list of pageant titleholders and you'll see most include (often multiple) middle names. I generally get rid of them per the naming conventions. However some do go by their middle names as well and I assume I'm not expected to remember all of this. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 05:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree that "Miss Potatoland" wasn't called for. As to Litton-I'm not sure she's even really notable enough to stay, but at least with the one writeup as the winner she's at least much more borderline. Still very few ghits though. This one, however, is even less notable then she is. Unfortunately, the argument seems to be "She was a state titleholder", but I don't see anything in the bio qualifications that winning a state beauty pageant (especially not even really winning it) makes one notable without any further consideration. If this were Miss America, that would be quite different-even the finalists in that would be likely to achieve notability. But state competitions? Should we include the winners of state spelling bees? Little League championships? There are lots of state competitions, winning one doesn't by default make one notable. At a national or world scale that's likely different-a Miss America winner would be notable just by virtue of winning. Since there's generally little information beyond the short winner-bio on many of these, perhaps a list and short bio of winners would go better on the state pageant's page, and link to the winner's page if one does become notable? Seraphimblade 06:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Hearts (game) - Yomangani^talk 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Bitch

Appears to be a neologism as well as a very short article. MAYBE redirect. i kan reed 03:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT. Belongs in the Urban Dictionary.Tubezone 03:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dictdef. Mr Spunky Toffee 03:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rather clear Delete, an obvious pejorative term about whose special notability has not been established. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
• Redirect. It's a pretty well-established alternative name for the game Hearts (I've rarely heard it called anything else, in fact - and I learnt the game in High School in the 1970s, so it's hardly a neologism) and for the Queen of Spades within that game (which is also known as the Queen Bitch and the Black Lady). FWIW, the United States Playing Card Company's Official rules of card games prefers the less derogatory "Black Lady". A google search for "Black bitch"+"Queen of spades"-wikipedia returns several hundred ghits, which isn't a huge number, but I'd contend that this is a very plausible search term, so should be kept as a redirect. Grutness...wha? 04:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect though I'm not sure whether Queen (playing card) or Hearts (game) is a better choice. However, it is known by a fair number of names. See this [18] discussion. Mister.Manticore 04:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge half to Queen (playing card) and half to Hearts (game). Then turn into a disambig. --Steve 05:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Steve or just Delete. Don't really care which, but there's obviously not enough there to make an actual article, and never will be. Xtifr _tälk 11:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --172.164.241.200 20:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicdef. —Brim 21:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --164.107.92.120 03:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There is nothing to merge- nothing is referenced. --- RockMFR 07:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hearts. -- nae'blis

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Matadors

Non-notable band as per WP:MUSIC. No citations for any of the info. StumpyRaccoon 03:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. 428 listeners on last.fm, which is slightly beyond "local band" territory but not by much. Doesn't look like they meet WP:BAND. --Dhartung | Talk 09:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete they do have two of their albums listed on AllMusic, but I don't think the labels are notable, and there's hints of a developing international audience, but no assertion of a national or international tour. Switch to Keep if and only if both Stumble and Devil Doll, are shown to be notable indy labels. Xtifr _tälk 11:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BAND. More importantly, provides no reputable, reliable, third-party sources as required by WP:V. -- Satori Son 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seekipedia

I know there's various games that can be played with WP, but "Seekipedia" does not appear notable enough for its own article. I could find barely anything but Wikipedia and its mirrors during a Google search. Perhaps this is known under a different name, but if someone wants to keep it on WP my suggestion would be to find a way to fit it on WP:FUN, or possibly create something like list of Wikipedia games (but ONLY if references exist). JayMars 03:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, absolutely inappropriate for article space. A list of games would be fine for project space, not as an article. Chick Bowen 04:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete violates WP:NOR if nothing else. --Steve 04:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete though I suppose if somebody could find some references to it, it'd change things. Mister.Manticore 04:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  Only Google hits seem to be wikipedia mirrors --Steve 04:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Seems like a classic case of WP:NFT#That infamous game. ColourBurst 05:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia = Encyclopedia. Wikipedia ≠ Instruction manual. -- IslaySolomon | talk 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and IslaySolomon's comment. EVula 23:11, 31 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. Chick Bowen 17:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Strain

Contested speedy deletion candidate. Listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 04:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable for a career in law enforcement and his actions during hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, not just for his racist comments. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. His actions appear to have made the regional press. Needs a serious cleanup though. Rockpocket 06:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is not "an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject."

The importance is, after one of the worst catastrophes in human history (Katrina), happened in New Orleans, the sheriff of a near by parish said in so many words that black folks weren't welcomed there. It was major news. I was surprised that the page didn't exist to begin with. This is a government official being openly racist towards poor black folks who had just experienced one of the worst disasters in history - not only the hurricane, but the criminal lack of action by the federal government to help the victims.

I don't understand what the problem is? Clearly this guy isn't some "nobody" that no one's ever heard of. There are entries on much more insignificant people here. Redflagflying 05:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Redflagflying 08:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just need to say it: despite Redflagflying, I vote delete unless the article is expanded to cover more about his post-Katrina notability/notoriety. The quote just isn't enough to make it seem worth an article for me. "Said something once" doesn't fit "involvement in notable events" in my book. --Dhartung | Talk 09:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. The guy is barely remarkable on his own, but the article documents a newsworthy facet of a very important event. Stammer 09:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because of his newsworthy/notorious post-Katrina remarks. NawlinWiki 15:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He has earned his place in Wikipedia. The article can be expanded to be as comprehensive as, say Bull Connor's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edison (talk • contribs) .
• Keep elected official who became known for some controversial remarks. Wikipedia is not paper. No one is being hurt by this article being included, and there is some useful info in it. Nlsanand 22:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Elected official who made a bit of a splash. EVula 23:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not very notable except for something he said that made the news. In ten years, will anyone remember this guy? —Brim 21:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per NawlinWiki and commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 05:19, 4 November 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gender/Feminist archaeology

Though I can see the worth of having the articles gender archaeology and Feminist archaeology, and usually have no complaints about disambiguation pages, this one... well, why do we have it? Do we need it? I'd say we don't, and this can be quite safely deleted. Grutness...wha? 04:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no one in their right mind would search for this title, so as a disambig it fails, and it doesn't have any independent content. Opabinia regalis 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Disambigs are usually for articles with similar titles, not similar content.--TBCΦtalk? 06:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Indeed I can't think of a reason to keep it. Actually, shouldn't Feminist archaeology and gender archaeology rather be merged? Stammer 10:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is little more than a disambig right now; nothing links to it and it is unlikely anything will. I tend to agree that feminist archaeology should be merged to gender archaeology also. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pointless disambig --Steve 23:00, 31 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 13:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Korak Day

Non-notable film maker and author, created by Korak Day himself, removed speedy deletion tag. Main website referenced in the article [19] is dead Steve 04:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO, WP:VAIN/WP:COI, CSD:A7, etc. Non-notable person writing about himself. --Daniel Olsen 06:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant self-promotion. NawlinWiki 15:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Move to User:Korak Day. --GringoInChile 17:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Brim 21:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Poorly written autobigraphical article of an undistinguished individual in dubious praise of himself. Ohconfucius 02:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mighty Mike McGee

Vanity Green hornet 05:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. All due respect to Mr. McGee, but Wikipedia:Autobiography strongly discourages autobiographical articles, and lay out appropriate criteria for notability and verifiability which also are not being met. Under these circumstances article is defined as vanity per WP terminology. Green hornet 05:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He is notable and the information is verifiable. Editors other than the original author have made significant changes to the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Editors other than the original author have made significant changes to the article. No they haven't. There have been some cats and some bot edits and that's it. Right now I'm neutral- he seems to have won some championships but I have no idea how important they are in the scope of poetry. --Wafulz 18:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable enough; the article could use some formatting and editing... and, um, does the world really need to know how he solves his personal sanitation issues? Needs, uh, cleanup. --Brianyoumans 07:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity and as per nomination. Dwain 22:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets basic standards, "vanity" isn't a reason to delete, it's a reason to clean up if there's an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- At Wikipedia: Vanity: "conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is." So Badlydrawnjeff is technically correct that vanity is not in itself a reason to delete. I should have more exact in the word I used as primary reason to delete. It is non-notability...in the form of autobiographical vanity. In this case vanity is a valid reason to delete insofar as it is an autobiographical article about someone whose notability is not at current on an encyclopedic level. Article therefore does not and cannot meet basic standards. A clean up may make article itself more encyclopedic, but has no effect on lack of notability. Green hornet 18:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep. Clearly a valid article. Unfocused 16:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

^Delete Not notable w/ 100 google hits.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Top google hits are for myspace and wikipedia.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Definitely needs cleanup. McGee does appear to be known in the field of Slam poetry, of which I am no authority. Out of his 101 unique Ghits, many are listings and a few personal websites and blogs. Some certainly do acknowledge him as World Open Slam Poetry champion. There was this article on him on a site with Alexa rank in the 1.2 millionsths. However, no hits on poetryslam.com, no hits on poets.org. Ohconfucius 02:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete due to OR and NPOV unsalvagability. Also, anything here would already be in the OBL page if necesary, so nothing is lost by deleting. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden

1. There are no pages on Worldwide Perception of George W. Bush or Worldwide Perception of Winston Churchill, and it would be completely extraneous to create them. A person's article should cover their public perception insofar as it is notable and important to their lives and to history.

Comment: Public_perception_and_assessments_of_George_W._Bush#Global_Views_of_Bush

yandman 07:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Then I'll get that one, too... -Thesocialistesq 18:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

2. This kind of article will do nothing but cause arguments and lend a platform to unsubstantiated POV garbage. (See the argument about Osama being an "Anti-American folk hero" on the talk page.) "Worldwide perceptions" is so vague a title that almost any set of morons with an opinion can be included. I can see no real benefit to Wikipedia by maintaining articles like this, and therefore I submit that it be deleted. -Thesocialistesq 04:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or at the least merge but do not delete- worldwide perception regarding OBL is varied and reveals a lot about the society that perceives him. He continues to be the symbolic leader of worldwide Sunni terrorism, and a great deal of terrorism is fueled by how certain societies view him as a hero, rather than by his direct action. On the other hand libertarians can argue that Western perceptions of him make him a larger than life force of evil that has resulted in a loss of personal liberty due to the militarisation of government. Whatever your own perceptions of him are, it can be shown the varied perceptions of him are an important topic of study. Green hornet 05:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. The OBL article itself should encompass the worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden per WP:BIAS. Rockpocket 06:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Current article is functionally a content fork of the main OBL article. Verified, cited material should be included there instead, giving due weight to varying points of view. Serpent's Choice 06:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Delete. I started to examine this article with the intention of practicing what I preached and beginning a bold merge (or, at the least, a bold comment on the main article's talk page), but reached the same conclusion noted below ... this page is devoid of actual content. Even the quotes in the fatwa section, from major speakers whose comments can surely be verified from well-established responsible sources, are largely message board posts. I stand by "Merge" as the typical approach in cases like this one, but here, there is simply nothing of substance that will be lost. Serpent's Choice 07:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Super-uper-dooper Delete While I understand the above points of view and don't generally disagree, this is a special case.

Please read the article in full to see what I mean. Six cites total. 3 (half) that support the 'OBL is in love with Whitney Houston' (FOX, etc...). A fourth cite is to a Chomsky editorial. A fifth cite is to support claims of jokes about Osama bin Laden.

I mean, REALLY. (RECAP, again, please review the article)

6 cites total about the 'worldwide perception of OBL' of which

3 are about OBL in regards to Whitney Houston (?)

1 is a Chomsky editorial (argh, editorials)

1 is about OBL jokes (?)

The remaining one is in a sentence that 3 times asks for citations in regards to his tactics.

IMO, this article is a complete embarrassment vs Encyclopedic value.

I should add that this material will never survive (IMO) a merge into the OBL article. I have edited/watched the OBL article over a long period of time and I assure you that this is the case. This stuff will not be accepted by consensus in the OBL article in the foreseeable future unless hell freezes over and we get free ice skates due to it being complete primarily speculation and/or editorial matter.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 07:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with That Guy that there doesn't look like a lot of usable material here; it is kind of a mish-mash, and most of it isn't very good. Brianyoumans 07:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Too many ^{[citation needed]} s. I would have been for a merge, but on taking a closer look, one sees that the rare things in this article that are backed up are already in other articles. The rest is unsalvageable. yandman 07:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge: Please, folks, AfD is not the place to discuss the poor state of the article. Whining about how bad the sources are is silly when you're talking about a topic like this one, since it could easily be the topic of a serious and straightforward article with better sources. Poor sources is not a reason to AfD unless the sources are inherently poor due to the topic. This is quite obviously not the case here; this topic is written about in a variety of sources and has been for years. Anyway I don't think this is the best topic for an article, I'm for merging whatever might be here that isn't already on the OBL article, or for having an article on this but with a different title and focus. There is plenty to record about how OBL is perceived worldwide (in fact, a list of polls on the matter would be extremely helpful), but I'm not sure this is the way to do it.--csloat 08:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I broadly agree with the reasoning behind the delete motions, however to my understanding a merge is the correct process to use (as the article has the potential to be informative, even if it isn't currently). However if during the merge process there is little new content to add (as seems to be the case here) then, for all intents and purposes, you are left with either redirecting or deleting. I have no problem with redirecting the title to the OBL article in situ. Rockpocket 08:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree - there's not much content to merge here, other than the topic itself. A topic section on the OBL article about polls or perception of him would be useful.csloat 10:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. csloat said: Please, folks, AfD is not the place to discuss the poor state of the article. Whining about how bad the sources are is silly when you're talking about a topic like this one, since it could easily be the topic of a serious and straightforward article with better sources.

While I do agree in the majority of cases (normally I don't comment like the above in an AFD!), I do believe that in light of no improvements since the last AFD, it is not likely to be salvageable. Hopefully, someone will prove me wrong and make something of this article before AFD is over and I can reconsider my view.

Your input is appreciated, -- That Guy, From That Show! 09:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not likely to happen during the AfD. Five minutes of research would make this a better article, but I don't care to do it myself at this moment, and particularly not under the pressure of an AfD. That's why it's bad to use AfD to try to improve an article. When an article is poor, the answer is to improve it rather than AfD it.--csloat 10:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the wholesale piece of original research based on a couple of random publications plus a collection of chaotic facts taken from who knows where. There are no references here that specifically discuss and classify Worldwide perception. `'mikkanarxi 08:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Tbeatty 09:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to OBL with redir. There is absolutely no reason not to have an article of this title. We have many sub-articles on all sorts of facets of notable people. However, it's poorly sourced and basically original research. So, what's left can easily fit in the Osama article. I oppose deletion because there's nothing wrong with an article in principle, yet an AFD vote would effectively preclude ever re-expanding this out to a full well-sourced article. No reason that couldn't be done if someone cared enough to do it. Derex 10:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. A delete for no present salvagable content does not preclude creating a new, clean, article. (Written without looking at the article — just a general comment on the deletion processs. Even if an article could be placed at this name, deletion is appropriate if none of the article is here.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In principle, you're right. In practice, you're wrong. People routinely ignore the rules on when they can speedy a re-creation. When admins get that right, then maybe we can delete without fear. Derex 05:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge whatever can be salvaged. While Derek has a point, I thing the underlying issue here is that the war being fought is also a media war and a war of perceptions, where Al Qaeda's media strategy and its impact are obviously important. I would rather have an article about it rather than one about OBL's public image. Stammer 10:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Brianyoumans and User:Mikkalai. -- Szvest 12:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}
• Delete per nom. Given the title, will never be anything other than opinion and original research violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Unfixable. Morton devonshire 12:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not really mergable. Title is an unlikely search term, so don't bother with a redirect. - Crockspot 12:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- A collection of original research and POV. --- ابراهيم 13:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Unless the entire article can be cited, if that happens before closing please let me know on my talk page. Right now as it stands its a monster of original research. It kind of reads like an essay trying to prove a point, so I would prefer its rewritten as well in a less POV way and more counter arguements given before I would feel comfortable changing my opinion. --NuclearZer0 13:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete - definitely not encyclopedic. GabrielF 13:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything that can be salvaged, but delete the namespace. We do not need a redirect, as it is unlikely to be a search term.--Rosicrucian 15:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above reasons. Khoikhoi 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete inherently original research Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete violates WP:NOR. --Aude (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Magabund 20:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and no redirect anything useful, which I don't see myself, but may be there anyway, should go in the main article. No redirect, nobody is going to search for Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden without searching for Osama bin Laden first. User:Pedant 21:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete / Merge "Worldwide perception"-type content should be restricted to the subject's article (unless the article needs to be split and it is heavily sourced). Merge what you can, ditch the rest. EVula 23:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge: But incorporate the salient info. OBL, an admitted terrorist culpable for the deaths of 1000's has roughly twice the approval rate in Pakistan as Pres. GWB has in the USA! Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV article written with original research on OBL - Yikes! JungleCat talk/contrib 03:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable with no redirect per above. Dryman 05:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic, not appropriate for WP. Brimba 08:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Opinion solicitation disguised as an article. Unfocused 16:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge relvant, non-repetitive portions back into OBL article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is nothing left to merge, all valid content of this article is already in the main article. It is not the writing style that condemns it so much as the lack of additional notable encyclopedic content that is not already in the main article. Bejnar 19:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect content is wikipedic in so far as thoroughly treating the subject.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; OR/POV essay. --MCB 05:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic OR. Support to merge only if necessary for consensus. Eusebeus 14:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is a POV essay, and original research, neither of which are allowed here. --SunStar Net 14:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete useless pov and OR. --Strothra 16:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP is not an Opiniopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 17:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - disgsuting. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the NPOV sections and create a redirect all to Osama bin laden--MONGO 10:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Life Of Riley (Webcomic)

Non-notable web comic, CSD contested with its notability based on it being on a faulty server and disappearing for a period of time Delete Steve 05:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB, although not a delete reason, naming a webcomic after one of the most famous radio shows in history is a pretty dumb thing to do, for both legal and practical reasons. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Looks like it fails WP:WEB. Wickethewok 18:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable and lacking in reputable, reliable, third-party sources. -- Satori Son 02:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Vegaswikian. MER-C 10:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Innovative Veterinary Sciences

Borderline ad, article previously speedied as ad, no references or notability assertion Seraphimblade 05:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nothing encyclopaedic here --Steve 05:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD G11 (blatant advertising) and CSD A7 (article does not assert the importance of the company).--TBCΦtalk? 06:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot find one google hit for this company. That's pretty rare. --Marriedtofilm 06:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - CSD A7. So tagged. MER-C 09:24, 31 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. — CharlotteWebb 02:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leading Edge (company)

Never heard of these guys. Notability needs to be established, otherwise this article is hard to justify. The link to about.com and the BBS really says nothing. Egil 05:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete trivial, obsolete PC manufacturer --Steve 05:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Keep per references, thanks Edison --Steve 22:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see any evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Deli nk 13:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. References recently added establish notability. Deli nk 19:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact that the company is defunct (or that it survives only as a division of another company) is irrelevant. It was notable as a computer manufacturer in the past, and so it retains its notability. The problem, though, is that locating references on the company is difficult 20 years later. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable as one of the first manufacturers of desktop IBM-PC clones, along with Kaypro, NEC, and Compaq. See last comment - because they're no longer in business or you've never heard of them doesn't mean they should be deleted. History, anyone? See Leading Edge Model D and do a Google search for the complete term. --Vossanova ^o< 19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I added a number of references to substantiate its meeting WP:CORP. The company was a substantial challenger to IBM with its powerful PC clones, and one of the top selling computer companies in its heyday, and their Model D was a Consumer Reports Best Buy. Notability verified via reliable sources. Edison 20:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as Edison has fulfilled notability requirements. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep They were widely known. Fg2 07:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep. "I don't know about it so it surely must be deleted" syndrome strikes again. This company had the 6th largest market share in the early days of personal computing, with millions of dollars in sales. Unfocused 16:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and strongly so, this was once a leading personal computer company. Yamaguchi先生 19:36, 1 November 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 SPEEDY DELETED by User:Nihonjoe. JIP | Talk 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astor Group

Borderline ad, no assertion of notability. Previously speedied as ad. Seraphimblade 05:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Articel should NOT be deleted. Article spells out nonpartial facts relating to company. No different than Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch or any similar business. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barkerp (talk • contribs) 2006-10-31 05:59:13 (UTC) — Barkerp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Article abides by Wikipedia criteria. Is notable to users interested in this space. should not be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duke93 (talk • contribs) 2006-10-31 06:00:34 (UTC) — Duke93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Do not Delete. provides helpful encyclopedic information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoshWorkman (talk • contribs) 2006-10-31 06:02:50 (UTC) — JoshWorkman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment. Note that as of these writings, the preceding contributors have five or less edits and are recent accounts. Please also note that these articles were previously speedied after being written by an InvestmentAdvisor who wrote them in the exact order from Astor Group's website. I will leave the conclusions from there up to the reader. Seraphimblade 06:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sound like it came straight off the corporate fact-sheet, and it fails to convince me that the company is notable. --Brianyoumans 07:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable ad, and vote spamming (even though this isn't a vote) by spa accounts. yandman 07:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 09:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It's just a peg on which to hang a link to the corporate website, isn't it? BTLizard 12:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ad for NN company. Emeraude 12:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Searching, I cannot find anything at all written about this investment bank, apart from various Yellow Pages entries and some recruitment advertisements. The WP:CORP criteria are not satisfied. Goldman Sachs#References shows how this company is very different to Goldman Sachs. Delete. Uncle G 15:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I spent awhile yesterday tagging this whole walled garden for Astor and its clients as spam when created by InvestmentAdvisor (talk • contribs). Looks like he has a new username (or more than one, based on posts above) but the same goals. Nowhere close to WP:CORP, and clearly self-promotional. Fan-1967 15:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, agree this is a borderline case for speedy deletion. Even if the company were notable, this content is junk that would have to be rewritten from the top. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the puppets. JIP | Talk 17:53, 31 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 13:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crownarita

Non-notable drink. Article claims some kind of notability but there are no sources, so it's original research and unverifiable to boot. No love on Google. Melchoir 05:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Obvious violation of WP:NEO. Article claims that the "combination was coined Crownarita at the Wirefly X-Prize Cup in Las Cruces New Mexico on October 20, 2006", meaning the term has existed for only eleven days.--TBCΦtalk? 06:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable neologism. Rockpocket 06:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism that's less than two weeks old. NawlinWiki 15:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete *hic* Danny Lilithborne 16:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Move Perhaps this would be better served in wikibook:bartending

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YAM (Yet Another Mailer)

Yet another mailer. Literally. No evidence of significance, user base or being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Guy 11:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ironic delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 11:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would say "The 2.2 version was then also rated as the best e-mail client for Amiga computers back in 1998." is an assertion of notability. Cheers --Pak21 12:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Rather a small pond, that. And by whom, anyway? Guy 12:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That's why it isn't an assertion of notability, because I can say that without revealing that I made it up or any evidence whatsoever to back it up. If it were sourced, yes.MER-C 14:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• this is a full-length magazine review in Svet Kompjutera by Nikola Smolenski. this is a personal review by Adam Hough. this is one paragraph in AMIGA-Magazin by Uwe Röhm. this is third-party documentation for YAM written by Jérome Chappuis in March 2002 and published in Obligement. this (see pages 24 and 25) is a medium-length magazine review in issue 3 of Total Amiga. Uncle G 14:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The program has been mentioned in several Amiga magazines as the best Amiga mail client ever. JIP | Talk 16:46, 20 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, JIP

• Delete notability is asserted, but not evidenced. We need more precise references than "mentioned in several Amiga magazines", and I'd happily reconsider if the evidence is produced. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It has already been produced, and is right there immediately above. Uncle G 15:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep b/c i have heard of it. PFA 01:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge. I will redirect, anyone who wants to merge over content can do so. W.marsh 17:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goon Show trivia

Seems like cruft to me. I suppose a rename to running gags of Goon Show would be fine, if the page does need to exist. RobJ1981 06:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to The Goon Show running jokes--TBCΦtalk? 06:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per TBC. BTLizard 12:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per TBC. --Richhoncho 17:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, not as a trivia section though. L0b0t 22:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, It has been subsumed back from whence it came. --AGoon 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility

The content reads more like a diatribe, is very POV, and the sole contributor has a similar name to the (previously) only source on the page (after raising that objection, the source was changed from "Jayanta" to "J." and another source added, but no content). All efforts to clear up these questions with Jayantaism have yielded no response on his/her talk page. Some content could be salvaged and merged into Corporate social responsibility. It is unclear whether or not this is a vanity page, but this user has only been adding content with Jayanta Bhattacharya as the sole source. Rkitko 06:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Pretty well unreadable and, as far as I can distinguish through the clotted prose, utterly bogus. BTLizard 12:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Interestingly, as administrative and political governance worldwide is finding it difficult to deal with the problems of the people to its dismay, there is an increasing dependence on the corporate world as one having some solutions to the problems-certainly not without the dichotomy, dispute, debate and doubt of their capability. . . " A sad example of what happens when the fashion for hyper-abstract bollocks reaches people who learned English as a second language. Keep it real, folks, if only for the sake of the rest of the world. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsensical essay. Danny Lilithborne 16:52, 31 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 13:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Conflict

Non-notable videogame competition. --Nehwyn 07:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Under CSD A1 and A7. Imoeng 12:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Nothing in the article will be of any use to anybody (no information pretty much at all). Speedy on A1
• Delete nothing on google.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete'Blnguyen' (bananabucket) 04:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Wilson (Entrepreneur)

Non-notable biography about the creator of a bargain hunter website. Article created by a single-purpose account. --Nehwyn 07:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree: Website, work in education is notable. — Possible single purpose account: Thepose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Note: the comment above is from the author of the article. --Nehwyn 07:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Further references from Wall Street Journal, ABC News, E-Commerce Times and others proving that "notable" is not at issue:

• http://www.bradsdeals.com/wsj.htm
• http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/features/47482.html
• http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=3744452
• http://www.internetnews.com/ec-news/article.php/3556116
• http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/printStory.pl?article_id=24784
• http://www.bradsdeals.com/press-titanium.cfm

• Delete This is pure self-promotion. Note that the author User:Thepose has only written two articles: this one and BradsDeals. He has also contibuted to KIPP: Lead College Prep Charter School, but his main effort there has, once again, been self-promotion. Emeraude 13:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Thepose has stated he is a coworker of the subject of the article. This woul qualify as WP:VAIN, I believe. --Nehwyn 10:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet WP:BIO requirements. Deli nk 13:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom and WP:SPAM.Tubezone 14:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete vanispamcruftisement. Danny Lilithborne 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The article will benefit greatly from expansion, but already meets criteria of WP:BIO, notably that The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Any delete vote that includes the word cruft or any form of the word is usually enough to convince me to keep the article as a sign that people are submitting knee-jerk deltion votes. Alansohn 17:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Responding to a supposed "knee-jerk" vote with one of your own? Nice. Danny Lilithborne 17:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Let's see. I looked at the article, read the sources and reviewed relevant Wikipedia policies, making reference to the criteria by which the article deserves retention. Then I did some additional Google News Archive searches verifying the information, and expanded the scope of the article with references. You came up with "vanispamcruftisement". I'd say knee-jerk is pretty accurate. Can you refer me to a Wikipedia source for "vanispamcruftisement" as a justification for deletion? Alansohn 18:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment whose source is independent of the person is the key phrase, the articles cited here are almost all puff pieces that depend on Brad for the contents. This major electronics distributor and this hot dog stand have both gotten more press than Bradsdeals, but don't have WP articles. I guess the question here is whether publicity = notability. Tubezone 18:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment WP:CSD G11, smartypants. Danny Lilithborne 18:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment 1) Tubezone - The individual in question has been covered by the Wall Street Journal, a source that is independent of the person and is not a puff piece (Are you familiar with the Wall Street Journal?) and has been covered by several other independent articles in full compliance with WP:RS and WP:V The fact that you can supply other articles that you feel are less notable is completely and entirely irrelevant, either to support the article or to oppose it, it simply is not a valid argument. The question is whether we observe the fact that this article meets WP:BIO, that The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. or to use Tubezone's imaginary standard of does it have more coverage than some arbitrary hot dog stand. 2) Danny Lilithborne - I don't see "vanispamcruftisement" at WP:CSD, nor is this article a candidate for speedy deletion. Please make an attempt at justifying your vote, above and beyond concocting "vanispamcruftisement" by reference to relevant policy. 3) Will anyone address whether the individual meets WP:BIO using sources that fully satisfy WP:RS and WP:V? Alansohn 18:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment Do you have a subscription to WSJ? Because without one, it's impossible to verify the "Wall Street Journal" link to provide (really a BradsDeals page which ostensibly reprints the article). And that's all this guy has so far; even then, I still don't buy the relevance of the other (local) sources. And just because an article is up for AfD doesn't mean it can't be speedied. In my opinion, it meets the G11 speedy standard (which is sometimes called vanispamcruftisement) and should go. A "strong keep" vote, on the other hand, has zero justifiction given the tenuous sourcing. Danny Lilithborne 19:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment Tenuous, like WP:VSCA? While it means that you will actually have to do some work, the full text of the article is not available online to non-subscribers. That it exists, refers to the individual in question is undeniable, and there is no requirement of WP:V that requires a link that will pull up the article in its entirety (nor has anyone ever provided one of those concocted sources that says so). The link provided in the reference is an accurate copy of the full article as it appeared online and corresponds exactly to the article that appeared in the Eastern Edition of the Wall Street Journal on page B8 of the January 4, 2005 issue of the paper. If you can demonstrate that this source does not pass both WP:RS and WP:V, let's hear. WP:VSCA is a cute little blurb, but we don't pay attention to things someone made up in school one day, we use actual Wikipedia criteria, such as WP:BIO. Please stop using imaginary, made-up criteria and deal with the issue at hand: the Wall Street Journal article fully satisfies WP:BIO with a source that meets WP:RS and WP:V. Alansohn 19:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I'd say knee-jerk is pretty accurate. I'd say it's mind-reading on your part, actually, to proclaim that you know the thinking and methodology of someone else using the thin evidence you have, Or perhaps "projection" is more apt. --Calton | Talk 19:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Are you implying that "vanispamcruftisement" is a demonstration of "thinking and methodology" on anyone's behalf? And aren't you projecting what my thought process was? Please address the issue at hand with reference to Wikipedia policy, not with what you think I thought someone else meant. Alansohn 19:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • It's called a "conclusion": the mere conclusion of something says nothing about how that conclusion was reached. And as for your thought process, that's in evidence. Your possible projection issues I leave to those more qualified to analyze it. --Calton | Talk 01:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment WP:BIO repeatedly says in its texts that multiple non-trivial sources are required. All the articles here, including the WSJ article, are fluffy "next big thing" pieces of little importance. (edit: I'm getting too heated and I don't even care about this topic. I'm not withdrawing my vote, but I'm not going to defend it.) Danny Lilithborne 20:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Comment I'm glad you're referring to WP:BIO, which does not define "non-trivial". WP:CORP provides the definition of trivial coverage as Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. [or] Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories. This standard is more than satisfied by teh sources provided. The article in the Wall Street Journal and the coverage on WLS-TV (the ABC flagship affiliate in Chicago) far exceed the non-trivial standard required, as they cover the individual, his business and the industry at length and in detail. I'd suggest taking a look at a print copy of the Journal, which does NOT print "fluffy" articles. You can use that argument if there was only one article in one local publication, but the pattern of coverage in national publications demonstrates full compliance with WP:Notability, using non-trivial sources from major media that meet the WP:RS and WP:V standard required by WP:BIO. Anyone else want to defend thair delete vote? Alansohn 20:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • Comment JMHO, you're WikiLawyering. The items cited including the WSJ articled are non-critical (and, yes, IMHO the WSJ has a POV to push, and can be as gullible as any other media outlet). Like the hot dog stand guy, this fellow obviously has media friends to get this much coverage on what amounts to yet another coupon/referral site that gets most of its business through paid search-engine advertising and doesn't handle any actual merchandise. I don't think skillful media manipulation should necessarily equal notability. Tubezone 22:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • Comment JMHO, but your WikiLawyering charge is offensive and ignores the facts. All you can come up with is an appeal to WikiLawyering, which the article itself defines as "pejorative". My definition is that stooping to charges of WikiLawyering is what individuals do when Wikipedia policy does not fit their own arbitrary personal interpretation of what they have decided, based on their own personal research, to be the "right thing". While I have pointed to multiple major media references and explicit Wikipedia policy, all you can come up with is your entirely unsupported supposition that there has been "media manipulation", skillful or otherwise, of the "media friends" that he "obviously" has. As to your utterly pointless concern regarding the fact that it "doesn't handle any actual merchandise", isn't that sort of like the EBay business model? When will you be opening the EBay AfD? Alansohn 19:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I might add that one of the strategies suggested by Wikipedia guidelines for trying to understand whether web-based sources, such as GHits, are inflated by publicity is to do a newsgroup search. I've tried that, and there's pretty much nothing. --Nehwyn 18:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

On further thought, I should also add that some of the content of the article tries to establish notability for the website, not for the person. These are different things. There was an article about the website, by the way, only it got deleted as g11. --Nehwyn 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Spam, vanity, fails reliable sources criteria (local business papers are NOT reliable except as sources of rewritten prss releases and puff pieces. --Calton | Talk 19:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Are you calling the Wall Street Journal article a "puff piece" Or is the WSJ a "local business paper"? You have a prayer of justifying "spam" or "vanity", but you can't possibly defend that WP:RS is not met. Alansohn 20:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • My apologies: I should have included the adjective "multiple" and "non-trivial" so you couldn't Johnny Cochran you way through it. --Calton | Talk 01:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • • How about this link, providing coverage on Mr. Wilson and his business from WLS-TV, the local ABC flagship station in Chicago? This is one of several such articles listed in the articles. That reads "multiple" and "non-trivial" to me. Alansohn 02:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
        • WLS-TV did a nice bit on this hot dog stand. The same hot dog stand just got a front-page writeup on the Chicago Sun Times food section. Yet, no WP article. I won't write it, I don't think he's more notable than Superdawg.

• Delete per above Z388 20:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Multiple independent verifiable sources for notability: Wall Street Journal and ABC News far exceed the requirements. Edison 20:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The fact that he created his own article isn't enough of a reason to delete. There's good evidence of notability from reliable secondary sources. This could be developed into a perfectly good, interesting article that would enrich the knowledge base of Wikipedia. Let's welcome this newcomer and give him some guidance about editing. Please don't bite the newbies. He just needs some help, that's all. OfficeGirl 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment This guy by his admission spends $400,000 per year on web advertising, so he's hardly a "newbie". He also knows that being listed here raises his Google PageRank, too. IMHO this article is just more media manipulation, now he can point to WP as well to assert credibility and notability. I bet he's reading and enjoying this discussion, too. Sorry, OfficeGirl, I've learned to be just a tad cynical about this kind of thing. ;-) Tubezone 23:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Article needs to be neutered and spayed though Raffles mk 22:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete G-11 WP:CSD, vanispamcruftisement. L0b0t 22:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You've taken a first step, refering to an actual Wikipedia policy as an excuse for deletion. Unfortunately the policy you refer to Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. refers to companies, products, groups or services, NOT individuals. If this is your only justification, it doesn't hold. Alansohn 13:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename to Brad Wilson (businessman) references are given for notability --Steve 23:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Absolutely non-encyclopedic material. As it stands now the article is some kind of business directory/whatnot entry, not an encyclopedic article. Ekjon Lok 03:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there a specific Wikipedia policy that you feel is not being fulfilled? Alansohn 18:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • While I do not wish to label this as "vanity" or "spam" or anything like that, I believe that the person is just not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The person described is a very succesful businessman, apparently, but nothing more. Wikipedia cannot have articles on every successful businessman. The article is a short resume of his achievements, but does it contribute much to the general knowledge? Or think of it this way: can this article be significantly expanded by someone not connected personally with Brad Wilson or any of his enterprises? Can this ever become anything close to a featured article? I think not; if kept it will forever remain what it is, a directory entry. It's true that the Wall Street Journal is a reputable source, but simply being interviewed by the Wall Street Journal does not yet constitute notability. Ekjon Lok 17:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree that the Wall Street Journal is a reputable source, and it is not the only unimpeachable, independent, non-trivial source, as listed above and in the article. I have alrady edited this article and will continue to do so, expanding the article using the multiple available sources. I'm unfamiliar with your "successful, but nothing more" or the "potential featured article" standards, and you aren't making reference to a specific Wikipedia standard that is not being met. It's very difficult to defend an article against original research and gut feelings
        • I do have understanging for all the "keep" votes, but my vote still stands for "delete". As I have said, the person in question is indeed a very successful businessman, and I do not doubt that he is much admired by all around him and generally regarded as a pillar of society, but there really must be something more than that to make it into Wikipedia. Bill Gates is notable. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak are notable. I am sure the person in question, Brad Wilson, has achieved much and made a very valuable contribution to society, but I just don't feel he is significant or exceptional enough to be included in a general knowledge encyclopedia. After all, we do not include every high school teacher, however much admired by his (her) students, or every church minister, however much loved by his (her) congregation. I urge everyone to stand back, for a moment, and look at this project (Wikipedia) as what is aspires to be: a general-knowledge encyclopedia, a free counterpart to Britannica, Encarta, Columbia etc. We must maintain at least some standard for inclusion of entries. Simply being a successful businessman, founding successful companies, getting millions in revenues, and being interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, is just not enough, in my view. Ekjon Lok 03:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per OfficeGirl and Edison. All of us have to start somewhere, this is taking the whole "single purpose account" thing too far. Yamaguchi先生 08:09, 1 November 2006

Okay, but User:Thepose personally knows the subject of this bio article, as they work together. That's a major mark of a single-purpose account. --Nehwyn 10:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply - Even if the article was created in conflict with WP:VAIN, that is not a justification for deletion, as long as other editors are editing the article, verifying the information provided, and doing so in a neutral manner. I have already edited the article, and will continue to do so, and I have no connection whatsover to the individual involved. As the article complies with WP:BIO using independent, non-trivial sources that meet WP:RS and WP:V, there is no reason that any initial concerns regarding WP:VAIN are irrelevant at this point. Unless these delete votes citing WP:VAIN isues are solely vindictive, the simple remedy of having these editors checking and editing the article themselves would solve their problems. Alansohn 13:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete NN. Arbusto 23:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. 124 unique google hits for bradsdeals.com . 500 UNIQUE google hits "Brad Wilson". It may be that the huge ratio of total hits to unique hits suggests google bombing is in effect. BradsDeals garners no hits from forbes bitpipe.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Switch to keep Based on Wallstreet Joutnal coverage.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Back to original posistion. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You really don't think he doesn't know how to google-bomb or manipulate media, or that WSJ doesn't have an agenda or is open to manipulation? The average McDonald's does twice the actual gross this clown does, we don't give each and every McDonald's restaurant their own Wikipedia article. There's real estate agents that sell a lot more than $2,000,000 of property a year, if a real estate agent tried to put an vanity article in Wikipedia, it'd get shot down in a heartbeat. This guy runs a coupon/referral parasite website, it's no more notable than any other crap referral or coupon web site, and there's thousands of them. Letting this guy in is setting a precedent that every web weasel who can get some print notice ought to be in Wikipedia.Think. JMHO, folks.Tubezone 04:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So you have decided that this individual has manipulated the Wall Street Journal, the nation's leading financial newspaper, to write an article about him and his company. And he finagled television coverage on WLS-TV, the ABC flagship station in Chicago. And he supposedly bought coverage in several major national industry publications. So based on your own original research POV supposition, just your own humble opinion, we are supposed to override the clear dictates of WP:BIO, which states that The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, to include newspaper and articles. Why should we be asked to respond to your mere hunches -- what Wikipedia refers to as Original Research -- and not follow the explicit dictates of the WP:BIO policy? This is not my opinion; this is a direct reference to Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 19:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment the whole thing is just silly. "In one instance, a batch of desks, computers and school supplies with $90,000 originally budgeted, was purchased for $22,000 using the BradsDeals approach" – is this what it takes to make it into Wikipedia these days? The whole article is a blatant ad. Ekjon Lok 11:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Could someone please show me a link to the acutal Wallsreet Journal Article? I'm not finding anything relevant with factiva.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply See this link for a copy of the article. Based on a seacrh in ProQuest, an online search tool available through my library system, I have independently confirmed that the link provided -- in the reference in the article -- is an accurate copy of the full article as it appeared online and corresponds exactly to the article that appeared in the Eastern Edition of the Wall Street Journal on page B8 of the January 4, 2005, issue of the paper. There are several other links to independent verifiable coverage from reliable sources, including coverage by WLS-TV, the ABC flagship station in Chicago included in the article. Alansohn 19:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Emeraude Vyse 13:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Violates WP:SPAM. I despair when I see such poor journalism as the reference article in WSJ, but unfortunately unless we can prove the above was a paid for infomercial, the subject appears otherwise to satisfy WP:BIO. I see no grounds for delete. Cleanup candidate. Ohconfucius 03:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

vote changed to delete. I'm now inclined to think this is indeed spam for a not notable corporation. One or two mentions does not a notable corporation make. I have now seen how journalists churn out company propaganda as their own work. The subject's company is smell beer. Ohconfucius 04:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment but what is he notable for? I repeat, simply being a successful businessman, getting millions, being interviewed by WSJ, is not enough! What noteworthy has he done? Why should he be included in an encyclopedia? Can this entry ever become a real encyclopedic entry, and not just a summary "born such-and-such, educated such-and-such school, founded such-and-such company" etc.? Wikipedia is not a business directory! Ekjon Lok 21:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see that he's actually notable for anyone. Impressive CV, certainly. But lots of non-notable people have those. --SandyDancer 10:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No. Notability is more than having a blurb in a paper. I can't see he has any thing to be notable for. I can't see anyone expanding this ... vanity article. What's there to expand? --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 22:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Why is this AfD still open? L0b0t 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ekjon Lok Slo-mo 00:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (A7, no assertion of notability) by User:BanyanTree. ColourBurst 15:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Skunk (writer)

Original Research, not verifiable, not notable Feeeshboy 08:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete an anonymous poster-to-blogs is not even close to being notable! :) I suppose the article was intended as a well-intentioned warning of sorts, but it simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Xtifr _tälk 11:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Failed notability test. -- Szvest 12:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7, beacuse no assertion of notatbility. Sadly, people who post offensive things on websites are not rare enough to be notable. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. BTLizard 12:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete obvious A7 case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - No notability, Just trying to draw attention to some idiotic thing somebody does. Needs to go away, and fast. Chris Kreider 14:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - per the reasons above, and tagged as such. Note that an article will not be viewed as a speedy delete candidate until the article is tagged as such. Go here to find tags. -bobby 14:44, 31 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 (G11, spam) by User:BanyanTree. ColourBurst 15:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Church of Eclectic Pagan Fellowship

Pure spam. No third-party references. -- RHaworth 08:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as spam. The creator was CEPF (talk • contribs), guess what that stands for? So tagged. MER-C 09:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• CEPF...? Nope, i got nuthin. ;-) Delete per nom. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 10:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hint: Try looking at the title of the article... MER-C 10:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm...nope, still nothing. A winky paints a thousand words.... OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 11:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Take out all the minor words in the title... MER-C 11:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This article is an obvious spam article, and shouldn't be here. SunStar Net 11:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - CSD G11 advertising. BTLizard 12:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for all reasons stated. Emeraude 13:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Probably copy-and-pasted mission statement and other documents of the group. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 14:18, 31 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 13:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pan Asian Coalition

Delete - even after removing the copyright material, this seems to fall into the same category as the cold war article of the same game. I cite WP:NOT: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic Charlesknight 09:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep WP:NOT is not a delete guideline.--Zhangquiong 09:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not ? then why is it used to delete gamesguides and how to manuals? It's official policy and the article is not inline with official policy - that's seems a perfectly good reason to delete. It's POLICY and that trumps guidelines as far as I'm concerned. --Charlesknight 09:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

actually checking WP:NOT IS a delete guideline - it's the first one in the table here --Charlesknight 10:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for the reason given by Charlesknight. -- Hoary 10:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 12:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete because it is the same as the plot summary for Battlefield 2142 except with added Pan Asian Coalition info
• Delete per nomCheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn after article was restructured. JYolkowski // talk 00:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thornton High School

Bare stub about a high school that hasn't been touched since it was written two months ago. No assertion of notability (unless one counts the statement that an actor who is not noteworthy enough to have his own article, having had a bit part in one film according to IMDB, is a graduate). Unsourced. Article doesn't even bother to say where in America the school is located -- there are several schools sharing that name, including ones in IL, CA, and CO, and none of them appear particularly noteworthy according to my searches. (This school is the one in IL, incidentally.) Contested prod, on the grounds that it's a school. Shimeru 09:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nothing to distinguish it from thousands of other boring high schools in the world, no chance the article will ever be more than a stub. Mention it in the article about its city if you want, but stop littering Wikipedia with thousands of useless school-stubs. (I'd suggest merging, but there's clearly nothing to merge.) The people who claim "it's a school, it deserves an article" need to start writing some actual articles if they want my support. Stubcruft is annoying. Xtifr _tälk 12:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Objections withdrawn after dab conversion. Xtifr _tälk 20:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no sources, no assertion of notability, no evidence of notability, and not even enough info present to qualify as a stub. If the author of this substub can't even be bothered to state where in America the school is, I don't see much sign of any commitment to expand the article. I would not rule out an article at a later date, if it was at least a viable stub with some assertion/evidence of notability, and some sources. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • recommendation changed to Speedy keep, now that TruthbringerToronto has usefully replaced the article with a dab page. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, not even stub-quality, and one article that doesnt meet the proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline. There are those bound from the WP:SCHOOLS project that are likely to come on here soon and argue to keep on the basis of "School, notable" without any decent explanation. So they need to clearly expand various school-stub articles with sources if they are to sway my opinion. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 12:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Speedy Keep per TruthBringerToronto's disambiguation page. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 14:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I replaced the article with a disambiguation page. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - With new shiny disambig page! Chris Kreider 16:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as disambig. page. — RJH (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as restructured by TruthbringerToronto. Alansohn 17:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not convinced any of these schools should be kept but in so far as this is now a disambig page it makes more sense in this form unless these schools are deleted. JoshuaZ 17:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Withdrawn as the article I nominated no longer exists. Shimeru 18:16, 31 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 13:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narodnye Naviny Vitsebska

Online publication, recently inaugurated, notability not established, authored as the only contribution from a new account, posted on several Wikipedias, poorly Googlable. If to be deleted, also check Special:Whatlinkshere. lcamtuf 10:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Google "Народныя навіны Віцебска" and Google "vitebsk news" and List of newspapers
  • Comment: (the above is an unsigned comment by the author of the nominted article.) The first URL returns circa 30 unique pages; the second search for vitebsk news without quotes is obviously bogus; the last link goes to Wikipedia, where this online-only publication was only recently added by an IP address with no interests outside that article. --lcamtuf 12:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • "vitebsk news without quotes is obviously bogus" ??? Silverrebel 13:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes it is, unless, say, this hockeyway.com article, one of the first hits, is in any way related to your online newspaper. --lcamtuf 13:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • and Google "vitebsk people news" Silverrebel 13:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • This returns three pages; that's not very notable. --lcamtuf 13:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Linking to Google searches isn't citing sources. If you want to make a valid case for keeping this article, please cite sources that are about the web site, that show that it satisifes the WP:WEB criteria. Uncle G 16:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as not notable. Bejnar 19:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for google hitCheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Народныя навіны Віцебска" nets 4 unique google hits.
  • "Vitebsk people news" gets 2 google hits Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ungoogleable but something founded month ago hardly has any notability. Pavel Vozenilek 17:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Daniel Olsen 05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo Ouija

A non notable label full of non notable bands that fail WP:MUSIC. T REX_speak 23:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - 87,800 GHits seems like a lot for a non-notable imprint[20]. Defunct and not a great article but that's not a bar of itself. Needs cleaned up rather than deleted. Ac@osr 14:03, 26 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, Yomangani^talk 10:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. This is a perfectly good and valid central point to chronicle the "non notable" bands published under the label. Many otherwise non notable bands should be found under their publishing label rather than deleted. Unfocused 16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is a notable record label. It is too bad that the list of artists takes up so much of the article with so little information. Bejnar 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It looks like a notable yet defunct record label which is still attracting a lot of attention. Yamaguchi先生 19:42, 1 November 2006
• Comment anyone have any reliable sources saying that this is notable? T REX_speak 20:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 17:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pandatone

A non notable band that fails WP:MUSIC. T REX_speak 23:03, 25 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, Yomangani^talk 10:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find anything about them that is notable. SunStar Net 10:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing presented suggests meeting WP:BAND. Deli nk 13:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. Chris Kreider 14:06, 31 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kettel

A non notable artist who fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Has released a number of albums, although on non notable labels. T REX_speak 23:06, 25 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, Yomangani^talk 10:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, another borderline-notable IDM guy. I'll say keep because Planet Mu (and Neo Ouija to some extent) are notable and he's been in lots of festivals and things. Shouldn't be too hard to write a decent article from reliable sources but I'm not going to say I'll do it cause I'll probably forget or not feel like it ever. Recury 20:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I pretty much concur with the above but with the added information of 4,660 listeners on Last FM, a number in considerable excess of many artists with undisputed articles. Google search pretty useless in this instance, Discogs page is extensive amd AMG knows him by both his real name and this alias. Ac@osr 22:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep. Per prior keep texts. Unfocused 16:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence he passes wp:bio and WP:MUSIC. No asseretion of significance in the article. In fact, the first sentence of the article does not even mention he's a musician. 100 UNIQUE GOOGLE HITS for "Reimer Eising"Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Policy wonkism has its place, but having separate (relisted!) afds for album stubs from a deleted band is a bit much. —Cryptic 11:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanta

A non notable EP by a non notable band (Zegunder) that was recently deleted. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distant Birds? Thought They Were Leaves... T REX_speak 23:10, 25 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, Yomangani^talk 10:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 11:23, 31 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 13:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BBCalls

Self-promotion for some very marginal piece of software. Richard W.M. Jones 11:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, or possibly merge into Jajah. Richard W.M. Jones 11:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as promotion of non-notable software, per WP:SOFTWARE. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Herrick 12:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence or claim of notability. Deli nk 13:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - A1, little or no context. There is nothing of use in this article. Chris Kreider 16:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Chris Kreider. Danny Lilithborne 16:49, 31 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 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who's Who in Tudor England 1485-1603

This is a strange article, explicitly labelled as the index/contents listing of a book published in 1990. I have no doubt that a list of significant people in Tudor England is both useful and appropriate for wikipedia, but I am unsure about the acceptability of an article which is simply the contents listing of a book which is still in copyright. Is it a copyvio? Are there other policies it falls foul of? I'm unsure, so I make this nomination without a recommendation either way (I may make a recommendation later on if some persuades me in one direction or the other). BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• OK,I will recommend a 'strong keep on the basis of info provided below, particularly

Wjhonson's point that an index is a "minor extract". --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, interesting one. Not many redlinks here - it actually functions as a pretty good index within wikipedia on a topic of quite wide interest. Perhaps it could be developed along those lines and the references to the book phased out? I don't think a list of names could be a copyvio. It looks as if it could be useful, so I'm saying keep. BTLizard 14:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There is the concept of compilation copyright, which as I understand is both a bit fuzzy and rather weak, but that's what I had in mind when suggesting a possible copyvio. However, it sems to me that if the book index is used as one of the sources, rather than being drectly reproduced, we should be okay.
    However, more work is need to make it into a useful list, because it lacks annotations: it should say something like "Edward Smith, papist heretic from Glossop; Joe Smith, online mead merchant from Much Hadham" rather than just "Edward Smith; Joe Smith"). Quite a few of the liks point to dab pages, and it may be unclear which (if any) of the names on the dab pages is the right one. Coukd this perhaps be best considered as a very long stub? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This page has a lot of promise. In addition to identifying who the names are, I'd suggest adding dates (since the list is largely ordered by date). A new title would let us decouple the list from the book, since it would be useful to be able to add other names to the list. --Bpmullins 20:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If it is not a copvio, it would be useful in sorting out the people of that era. Edison 21:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and improve, If not copyvio, we need more of this and less of webcomics and video games. L0b0t 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Interesting article. May need a rewrite, but I've access to some good sources. --SunStar Net 23:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with BrownHairedGirl's comments on providing context on the individuals, and reorganising into common professions rather than page numbers --Steve 23:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  and Rename to Who's who in Tudor England per Bpmullins's comment --Steve 23:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Rename as per Bpmullins via Steve. Useful and IMO pretty much in Wikipedia's spirit. However, be prepared for a storm of new articles from "Who's who in Pericles' Athens" to "Who's who in German concentration camps". Stammer 07:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment wouldn't a better title be "List of notable people in Tudor England"? That seems to be the usual format for lists in wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree on "List of notable people in Tudor England" . There are already dozens of such "notable people" lists. Stammer 05:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Ah I've been away. Yes an index is not a copyvio by nature, that's why I did it. Indexes are protected as "minor extracts", which is why a library can cite all the chapter headings of a work in its catalog by the way. The extract doesn't go "to the heart" of the work, and doesn't copy an inordinate amount of detail. Also the distinction here, vs Stammer's comment just above is that this is an actual work published, whereas Stammer's examples aren't. Not that I'd be opposed to "Who's who in German concentration camps" but the majority of course would probably fail Notability. Anyway, I'd glad the community decided to keep. Wjhonson 07:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Oh and by the way if anyone wants to annotate it, go right ahead :) Rearrange it, do what you want. It was just a way to get a useful index started, on a topic on which I'm particularly interested. Wjhonson 07:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If, as you appear to argue, the legitimacy of the article depends on it originating from a published work, doesn't editing the list amount to original research? Stammer 08:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No more than any other article, provided that the additional info is also sourced. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• keep. delete. WP is not an index for other written work. Such list trivia, where it belongs, is surely better represented by a category. But as an article about the work published in 1990, this is fine. 90% of content should go, though. Unfocused 16:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Oh to the comments about the name of the article, see Who's Who in British History. My original intent would be that there would be an article on each book, describing what's in the book basically. But since I don't own any of the other volumes, I'll go with the consensus if someone wants to rename the article. Wjhonson 07:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diablo 3

There has been no indication as to the existence of Diablo 3, this article even stats so itself. All in all it's just rumors on rumors. Until Blizzard announces the game, I don't see any reason that this article should be here. It also breaks WP:NOT a crystal ball. Sorry. Havok (T/C/c) 12:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 12:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't know if there is a 'Wikipedia is not a gossip column' guideline, but there should be. The Kinslayer 12:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that falls under Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Havok (T/C/c) 12:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Yep, that covers it. It also seems to be largely original research, for example saying that because World of Diablo is trademarked, it hints at Diablo 3. It could also be solely to stop someone else from attempting to use the title, and have nothing to do with a new Diablo game. After all, GTA has trademarked GTA:Tokyo, GTA: Borneo and a few others, but that in no way means that there are actual plans to make those games. The Kinslayer 13:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment My thoughts as well. I forgot about WP:OR as well. Thank you for mentioning it. Havok (T/C/c) 13:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - As a player of Diablo 2, I can tell you that there have been rumors of a Diablo 3 game for years, and while it isn't currently announced, we can expect Blizzard to eventually make one. There's a very serious fanbase behind Diablo 2, and I don't think Blizzard will abandon them indefinitely-- there's too much money involved. The article as it is is poorly written, and should be shortened to a stub in order to remove the speculation (since wikipedia is not a crystal ball). However, I feel that it could have encyclopedic value. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How is this any different from saying there's bound to be a Half-Life 3 because it stands to reason? It's not. It's fan speculation based on tenuous rumours and unconfirmed statements. If it transpired to be a massive hoax, then it would be article worthy. As it stands, leave your speculation for the various fan message boards. Wikipedia is not for reporting rumours and drawing conclusions. It's for reporting FACTS and Diablo 3 is NOT a fact, no matter how much fans expect it to happen. If Blizzard turned round tomorrow and said 'We are making Diablo 3' that would be a different matter. But they won't. The Kinslayer 15:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply Please be civil when replying. I just wanted to throw my two cents in, and it feels like everyone's jumping on my ass because of it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment GIS Blizzard "Diablo 3" returns 315,000 results. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment What encyclopedic value is there in keeping Diablo 3 in its own article? What little information that would be left after your suggestion can just as easily be added to Diablo (computer game). There is absolutely no reason why this article should exist. And even though it might not fail the guideline WP:WEB, it still fails WP:NOT which is policy. Havok (T/C/c) 15:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Compromise It would be acceptable to say that there is/has been fan speculation about Diablo 3 somewhere in the Diablo (computer game) article, and redirect Diablo 3 to that section. Aside: something I noticed while looking at those search results (the ones with content/relevant rumors)... most of them are very recent. Interesting. Regardless of the fate of this article, I hope that the game Diablo 3 is eventually made. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Food for thought - I just remembered an extremely similar article that got deleted for the same reason i.e. Crystal Balling. Starcraft 2. Same company, same unconfirmed sequel to a game, same attempt to build an article out of fan expectations, unsubstantiated rumours and not a single fact to go on. The Kinslayer 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 14:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - not that quite worthly keep. SYSS Mouse 15:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Sorry folks, this kind of article just isn't going to cut it. We don't make things that don't exist yet. Once D3 becomes a confirmed reality, I am sure the world we be more than happy to receive this wiki article. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - While we do have articles about software in development, this is pretty much fan speculation and failing WP:V. Wickethewok 18:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - There have been a few bad arguments here I'd like to address. Most come from WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but that doesn't mean that diablo 3 has not had discussion or cultural relevance. Being a crystal ball would be to assert it exists, or that to speculate on content. Much like windows "longhorn" was never a released product, it was still a valid target for documented information. There's at least one solid reference on the page. That meets WP:Verifiable. i kan reed 21:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: That source is questionable at best. The source isn't anyone involved in the actual meat of the production - he writes novelisations of computer games, which does not place him in the position to guarantee a future game. The article also cites the fact that "World of Diablo" is trademarked, ignoring the fact that the phrase has already been used in commerce and therefore does not indicate a future game. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 23:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... I was looking at the trademark app for "World of Diablo" (you have to search for it, their website won't let you direct-link like the rest of the internet) and it lists "IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer game software. FIRST USE: 20060715. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20060715 IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment services, namely, providing an on-line computer game. FIRST USE: 20060715. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20060715" as the use and "(APPLICANT) GENERAL COMPUTERS, INC. CORPORATION NEVADA 606 JOHNSON AVENUE, SUITE 18 BOHEMIA NEW YORK 11716" as the owner. Anyone know who "General Computers, Inc." is? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Judging from the Blizzplanet interview, Diablo 3 will exist one day. However today is not that day. If there was any official indication (like Microsoft vaguely confirming Fable 2 at E3 2005) then yes this could stay. Until then, delete it. Garrett^Talk 21:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete until we have more available information that "it may exist one day". Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 23:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wait until it's real. L0b0t 23:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge But only a sensible bit, to the main Blizzard article, or the one on the Diablo series. Mister.Manticore 04:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete until more reliable sources come along, or redirect to a main Diablo article. Yamaguchi先生 07:06, 1 November 2006

• Complete Delete This does not belong at all until there is confirmation, then there is a space for it DotDarkCloud 22:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Whirlwind Delete WP is not a crystal ball. ——(chubbstar)^{— talk | contrib | 20:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)}

• Delete. Article can be recreated if/when Diablo 3 is officially announced (via verifiable sources). --Alan Au 03:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Definitely Keep - Up till Richard A. Knaak's interview, you could argue it's only rumors. Not now though. If you apply the same logic there should be NO Windows Vista article. For all I care, it's only rumors - it has been announced, delayed, postponed, announced again. I haven't seen the box, have you? Of course, there will be inaccuracies at this point but the disclaimer at the top addresses that.Krasimir 21:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Then please give me any sort of proof other then a sentence made by Knaak where he said "I am not writing for a dead world... but a world with dead. 'nuff said!" which means nothing really. Besides, bringing up Windows Vista is flawed seeing as it was announced in the form of a press release ages ago, even before the name Vista was given to it. There is a difference between unsubstantiated rumors and facts from the company making the announcement. Blizzard have said nothing in the form of fact yet. Thus the article is suffering the crystal ball syndrome. Havok (T/C/c) 13:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and merge any verifiable content into a parapgraph or so in Diablo (computer game). jesup 22:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diablo_III, merge and redirect both titles with existing articles (such as "Possible sequel" section appended to Diablo II: Lord of Destruction).--John Hubbard 15:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete -- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Andre (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Crystal ball article Borisblue 03:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyderabad-The software training capital

Directory of businesses. Advertising. Ligulem 12:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge whatever is useful into Hyderabad, India. This seems like an unnecessary and unencyclopedic list. I see little purpose except to advertise the businesses mentioned. Deli nk 13:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - spam. BTLizard 13:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. NawlinWiki 15:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 15:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 16:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. A researched, veriiable article on the software industry in Hyderabad might be entirely appropriate, but this is just an advertising. It's also hopelessly POV. Even the article title is POV. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD G11. Obvious, blatant advertising.--TBCΦtalk? 00:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete CSD G11 again. -- ChrisO 01:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete  Doctor Bruno  15:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coincidence theory

First deletion reason. Article fails to assert its notability by reference to a single reliable source WP:NN. Wholely original research and opinion violating WP:RS and WP:NPOV (Note: blogs don't meet WP criteria). Part of a walled garden in conspiracy theory circles. Article has been deleted once before, and re-created.Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Morton devonshire 13:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - is there a link to the past AfD? I would like to see past reasons given for deletion and see if it passes any of those in its recreation. --NuclearZer0 14:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume it's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coincidence theory. Wrong again. Coincidence Theory was speedy deleted in 2005 for {{db|Minimal and unencyclopaedic content}}. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Coincidence+Theory — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Article contains no citations, no sources other then Indymedia and other blogs. Per WP:V and WP:RS I believe this article should be deleted. After Edison added the citations I ran into another problem, I wanted to test out the usage of this terma nd so I searched CNN, NyDailynews, NyPost, BBC, and *.gov (through google) and surprisingly came up pretty empty except for its usage in relation to biology and one source that uses in quotation marks, seeming more to mock the idea of coincidence then actually use the term genuinely. --NuclearZer0 14:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

CommentThere is a New York times article referenced in the talk page. Catchpole 16:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you please link it into the article, then add a few more so it appropriately passes WP:V and WP:RS. --NuclearZer0 16:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I added 3 other references from the New York Times which use the term in the sense of the article, not including the one mentioned in the talk pade, which I think uses it in a different sense. I also revised the last paragraph to accurately describe coincidence theory as an alternative to conspiracy theory, based on the fact thay when you examine a worldwide collection of people and events, soem surprising relationships are found purely by chance. Now it is NPOV and has reliable and verifiable sources. Edison 17:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am changing my vote to neutral per the new links, but not keep because while NYTimes comes up with 3 hits, which isnt much in 24 years of archives, BBC and CNN come up with none at all, making me wonder if the term is really notable or widely used enough to warrant an article. I will do some more research on other news sites I find to be reliable and change my vote accordingly. --NuclearZer0 17:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Changing back to delete, I checked two local papers and 2 more WP:RS sites that contain archives and couldnt find this term anywhere other then on NYTimes, which makes me wonder if its based more on the person they interviewed or on the fact that they use the term, meaning did they ask for it be stated in that term. I appreciate Edison's efforts but its obviously lacking notability and possibly should just be transwiki'd to the dictionary wiki thingy. --NuclearZer0 18:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Unsourced, OR, per nom. - Crockspot 15:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Took a second look, no change in opinion. Crockspot 14:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable neologism unused outside of conspiracy theory circles. Bears superficial resemblance to pseudoskepticism and perhaps authors would be better off improving that article. External links list reads like the authors did a Google search for the term and just put a laundry list of links in, with no real regard for reliable sources. Individual claims are not cited, and thus it is hard to tell if it is original research.--Rosicrucian 15:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - this discussion has been linked to at User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Catchpole 16:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also at User:Morton devonshire/IlluminatiNoticeboard. 04:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mathematical coincidence or Coincidence point. Disregarding the realm of conspiracy theories, it is a valid mathematical concept in and of itself.[21][22] [23] Google on "coincidence theory" -conspiracy mathematical for more hits. *Sparkhead 16:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and others above. I think this was created to make a point about the use of the term conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Added 3 citation from the New York Times to the article, showing its use from the 1990's to the present. It is really an alternative to a conspiracy theory, based on the law of large numbers. Edison 17:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• If its primary use is to insinuate that some things actually are coincidences, then the article is taking the exact opposite approach.--Rosicrucian 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• After my edit, it no longer says that "coincidence theory" supports conspiracy theories. Coincidences can be just that. If you consider 6 billion people's individual experiences for even one day, 6,000 of them should experience "one in a million" happenings just by coincidence.Edison 21:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom and because its a neologism. Brimba 19:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom Tbeatty 05:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above.--CSTAR 02:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Albright

Asserted to be the first non-governmental inspector of the Iraqi nuclear program, but otherwise seems to be non-notable. Gut feeling: delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am also proposing Institute for Science and International Security (no other assertion of notability other than he is the president of it) for deletion. --Nlu (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - In addition to being the first non-governmental inspector in Iraq, Albright also has an impressive amount of published articles and books on the topic of nuclear proliferation. The article needs improvement (and sources besides the individual's college bio) but I think Albright passes notability standards both academically and on the basis of his career as an author. -bobby 14:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This guy is more notable than your average college professor. He's got quotes from the recent North Korean nuclear incident, so he's still worth finding. Mister.Manticore 15:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If anything, this article understates his notability. Wasn't he the guy that said that Bush et al had deliberately misled everyone with their lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? (See for example: D. Albright, “Iraq’s Aluminum Tubes: Separating Fact from Fiction,” December 5, 2003. Online at www.isis-online.org) Emeraude 16:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I thought that name was familiar. He's quoted in this Guardian article, and here and here are CNN interviews. Certainly with the North Korean dispute on the front pages, this should be an easy decision. Bpmullins 17:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup by citing sources such as those listed by Emeraude and Bpmullins above. Barno 20:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Request for further comment -- please also see what your opinions on whether to delete Institute for Science and International Security. --Nlu (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that one is a delete. There's a lot of overlap with Albright and in this case I'd let the person's article represent the organization. -- Bpmullins 21:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete I agree with Bpmullins. Better avoid potential duplication and/or conflicting versions. Stammer 07:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The guy is a quite influential expert in his field. The article should rather be expanded. Stammer 06:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like he's well-regarded as an expert in the field. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Frequently a consulted "expert" on news shows and for print articles. --Oakshade 02:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject is notable as an expert in his field. Yamaguchi先生 05:18, 4 November 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sucks.com

Unsourced, spammy neologism. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB, may possibly look like a CSD-A7 candidate. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 14:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Doesn't qualify there since it's not about a Web site named sucks.com; rather, it's about a genre of Web sites. --Nlu (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The article is surprisingly wordy considering it could just as easily be summed up as "A sucks.com is a website devoted to saying something sucks." I figured that much out before even clicking the link. Also, there are a lot of external links, and no sources cited for the term. Coincidentally, I think this qualifies for deletion under WP:No Articles that Suck. -bobby 14:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Suck.com as a plausible typo or possibly delete. ColourBurst 15:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No article should have more external hyperlinks than actual content. Chris Kreider 16:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam, original research, non-notable neologism and conflict of interest. WP:VSCA.--Húsönd 05:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anomo 11:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Retain: As the main author, I would naturally argue that this article should be retained. This type of website is important. As mentioned in the article, it is only medium which in the event of a grievance, puts ordinary people on a more level platform with big business, bearing in mind that litigation is often ruled out as an avenue for redress because of the costs involved. One contributor has suggested a conflict of interest but any such information and/or links can be deleted rather than deleting the entire article. I would just add for the record that I have no involvement in any business of any kind. Websites in which I am involved are all entirely non-commercial with no subcription charges, donations or paid advertising. User: Johnadonovan. 1 November 2006
• Retain: This is a great article about how complaints are voiced in the 21st Century. At the minimum this site could be moved to Gripe Site
• Delete per nom --Mhking 19:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Retain: First, I should mention that one of the websites mentioned in the article, WillowBendMallSucks.com (more commonly known as TaubmanSucks.com), is mine. I'm bringing that up not only as a warning that I may not be impartial on this issue, but as evidence that I have some expertise in the matter at hand.

To state my position up front: Rather than deleting the article, I feel that it should be revised and strengthened, and allowed to remain online.

A "sucks.com website" is a specialized kind of "complaint website" (you could think of sucks.com sites as being a "subset" of complaint sites). Their distinguishing characteristic is that they communicate their complaint as part of the domain name itself, typically in conjunction with the name of the organization (often a business) that is the subject of the complaint. This succinct and stunningly effective use of domain names allows a complaint to be communicated without even requiring the viewing of the website.

Because the portion of the domain name that precedes "sucks.com" is often a trademarked name, sucks.com sites have engendered a rash of lawsuits, in which businesses typically charge site owners with trademark infringement. For years, decisions (court and arbitration) were uneven (and perhaps even capricious), as no lower-court decision was binding on any other jurisdiction. However, my case was the first sucks.com case to reach the level of the US Court of Appeals, which definitively ruled that a non-commercial sucks.com site was purely an expression of free speech, and as such was not subject to trademark law. The decision by that Court has been adopted as precedent by other circuits, and is well on its way to becoming established law throughout the US.

The point I'm trying to make here is that sucks.com sites are the bleeding edge of the ongoing struggle for free speech on the Internet. I recognize that the crudity of their names makes many Internet purists uneasy, in that they would rather fight the Internet free-speech battle on a less-offensive front line. But I still feel that the concept is an important one, and eminently deserving of a Wikipedia article.

I should point out that the US Court of Appeals weighed in on the issue of the importance of sucks.com sites when they said, in their decision on my case:

"Taubman concedes that Mishkoff is 'free to shout "Taubman Sucks!" from the rooftops....' Essentially, this is what he has done in his domain name. The rooftops of our past have evolved into the Internet domain names of our present. We find that the domain name is a type of public expression, no different in scope than a billboard or a pulpit, and Mishkoff has a First Amendment right to express his opinion about Taubman, and as long as his speech is not commercially misleading, the Lanham Act cannot be summoned to prevent it."

I couldn't have said it better myself... :) -- HMishkoff

The above highly informative comments by Hank Mishkoff should in my humble opinion be included in the article in an appropriate manner. User: JohnaDonovan: 1 November 2006

• • Nowhere in the opinion is the phrase "sucks.com" used. It's still an unencyclopedic neologism. --Nlu (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's not correct. In the opinion, the judge said, "In Internet parlance, a web name with a 'sucks.com' moniker attached to it is known as a 'complaint name,' and the process of registering and using such names is known as 'cybergriping.'" He also specifically indicated that by adding "sucks" to the domain name I differentiated my case from an otherwise similar case in which "the defendant used the plaintiff's trade name as a domain name, without the qualifying moniker 'sucks,' or any other such addendum to indicate that the plaintiff was not the proprietor of the website. In contrast, 'taubmansucks.com' removes any confusion as to source. We find no possibility of confusion and no Lanham Act violation." In other words, the opnion clearly states that the fact the my domain name included the phrase "sucks.com" significantly contributed to the fact that I won the case.

I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia culture, and so I don't know if "neologism" is some kind of code word -- but I'm puzzled by your contention that the fact that sucks.com is a neologism (a "newly coined term") would disqualify it from inclusion in Wikipedia. "Internet" is a neologism. "World Wide Web" is a neologism. "Wikipedia" is a neologism. In fact, it seems to me that one of the strengths of Wikipedia (in contrast to convententional encyclopediae) is the ease with which it embraces neologisms. So while I agree that "sucks.com" is a neologism, I think that argues for its inclusion in Wikipedia, not its exclusion. HMishkoff 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• With the permission of Mr Mishkoff, I have used his comments above to expand the Sucks.com article. The article name could be changed to gripe.com or some other appropriate title rather than losing informative content material to the electronic age which has made Wikipedia possible. A number of multinationals and famous individuals (and their PR agents) will no doubt welcome the deletion of this page but this is probably not a criterion appropriate to take into account. User: JohnaDonovan: 2 November 2006.

• From the "Good Timing" Department: This showed up in my inbox a couple of days ago as part of an Intellectual Property newsletter to which I subscribe. (The URL of the complete story is http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=270395.) In the article, the author says, "Brands are frequently mocked in parody advertisements, and some Web sites vilify companies. (Go to Google and type in 'sucks.com.' You'll get about 250,000 hits.)" I tried it, I got 231K hits. The point I'm trying to make is that the sucks.com issue is hardly "non-notable," as it's been described in this discussion. In fact, if you'll go to the "News" page on my website (http://www.TaubmanSucks.com/news.html) you'll find links to something like 75 articles that have been written about my case alone. Some of the articles are "newsy," but many of them are serious pieces written by attorneys to discuss my case and the sucks.com phenomenon. So YOU may not think that the sucks.com issue is notable, but intellectual property lawyers seem to disagree. HMishkoff 22:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Where did I say that it's non-notable? I said that ti's an unsourced, spammy neologism. --Nlu (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• As correctly pointed out, the article has been described in this discussion as "non-notable", not by you, but by another contributor. It seems logical to conclude that you at least concede that the article is notable which is surely an important factor. Sources have been added as a result of the comments fairly made and more can be done if deemed worthwhile. The article has been improved as a result of the various issues raised. The point about neologism has already been covered by HMishkoff. User: JohnaDonovan: 5 November 2006.
  • He ignored that the reason why neologisms are not welcome on Wikipedia is that Wikipedia does not allow original research. --Nlu (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've lost you. What do the issues of "neologisms" and "original research" have to do with each other? Sounds like apples and oranges to me. Every article that has anything to do with the Internet (and especially with the Web) will address a neologism, by definition, and it may or may not include original research. The point is that "sucks.com" was not a phrase that was coined for this article, it's a notable phrase (judging by the amount of press and other attention it's received) that's been around for a few years. How long do we have to wait until it's old enough to be included in Wikipedia? HMishkoff 19:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• I believe the technical term or legal term for a sucks site is "gripe site", maybe just move this whole article there? Router 04:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• delete. Spam, nn notable neologism.--75.117.212.25 04:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. I thought there was a relevant policy, but couldn't find it at the time. BanyanTree 15:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viva Hate (band)

Band. See talk for claim of notability. (Closing admin: This is a procedural nom; count me as neutral.) BanyanTree 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - From the notability guidelines: "A musician or ensemble is notable if they meet any one of the following criteria...Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". We could even speedy keep this. -bobby 15:06, 31 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 non-notable (CSD A7). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Helmet Productions

Non-notable school film production group. Weregerbil 14:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - Article does not assert why the group is notable. Tagged for speedy under A7. -bobby 15:10, 31 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 13:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryszard Mohan Matuszewski

Non-notable. Google gives less than 20 distinct hits, 9 of which are Wikipedia mirrors or copies, several are chat forums. The ones in Polish I don't understand but they don't look particularly useful in establishing notability. (Perhaps a Polish speaker could check these out.) The subject's own website is dead! Links on the page to other language wikies all come up with the equivalent of the page not existing (perhaps they did but have been deleted.} Creator has no other contibutions listed - not in itself a reason for deletion I know, but certainly a question to bear in mind.} Emeraude 15:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of significance in the article. 8 unique google hits.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not even 100? Can't be notable (or did we ban the use of that term?) -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The only interesting mention I could found in Polish materials was that in 2002 he was taken into custody by agents of Polish secret service (with all that blowing up doors and armored men storming in effects). Self-promotion, the text is copied from (now defunct) Matuszewski's site. The "Mohan" is not lagal part of his name. Pavel Vozenilek 17:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The dance music artist, X Green

Arguably asserts notability as music producer, but I don't think notability is established in the article. NawlinWiki 15:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand the Notability of your argument. I think it worth putting out information which describes an artistic acitivity somewhere in the world. The importance of this wording is clear to those who like the genre or would like to find out about it.
  • Note - The above comment was made by Xgreen, the page's creator and (likely) subject. In the future, please use ~~~~ to sign your posts. -bobby 15:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I was prodding and got an edit conflict. Blatant self-promotion in violation of WP:COI (see name of user), no sources verifying content, and a google search find this guy's website and nothing else but numerous false positives; not-notable.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - As it is now, the article is unsourced, biased and non notable. I guess with significant rewriting (from an editor other than Xgreen{sic}) and some sources to establish notability I could be persuaded to let it stay, but as now it reads more like a Myspace page. -bobby 15:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• In the modern world we live in today most art works and technology is owned by idividuals and of course writting about them reflects the personal interest of those individuals, however that does not mean that poeple will not be interested to read about them. (answering the self promotion question).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xgreen (talk • contribs) .
• I agree with you. People might be interested in reading about you, and the Interent has all types of free sites where you can post anything you'd like to about yourself. This is not one of those sites; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and some of the links posted above show you the policies and guidelines we have developed for figuring out encyclopedic content.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This doesn't matter; Wikipedia is WP:NOT myspace or a promotional tool, and is an encyclopedia. That means you need things like reliable sources to verify information in the article, of which you have none. ColourBurst 15:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• I have done some research in Wikipedia and I would never attempt to write such article if hundreds of alike meterial didnt already exist on the site. Would you like me to post links to some of these pages?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xgreen (talk • contribs).
  • On talk pages and in discussions, please sign your posts by typing four tilde's (~~~~) at the end of your entry. It will translate to your user name with the date and time. It really isn't that hard. Fan-1967 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe the only thing I can point out as a reference link for deep dish except the ones which I have already added and considered unapproves is the Discogs.com link. which I will add now to my article. Xgreen 15:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Have we reached a final decision about this? Wikitorian 16:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Note Forged signature. Actually posted by Xgreen (talk • contribs)
  • Reply - The closing admin will make a final decision based on the arguments presented in favor of each side (keep/delete). I must say that trying to sway the course of discussion by altering your appearence is not going to be very convincing. I encourage you to click on a bunch of the links throughout this discussion to get a better idea of what Wikipedia's guidelines are. -bobby 17:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for obvious reasons. Danny Lilithborne 16:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I didnt try to be convoncing using appearance alteration. Just happend to be the same time i was checking the account preferences. Anyway I guess its better to leave the judgement for those who moderate the site. I mentioned my point. at the end of the day there wont be a third case, either kept or deleted. I'll do what I think is right and write what I think can be useful. Good day Wikitorian 20:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Note Forged signature. Actually posted by Xgreen (talk • contribs)

• Delete Not notable. Obvious conflict of interest. No assertion of significance in the article.
  • "in July 2006, they launched their digital label Caedmon records" "Caedmon records" +"Alex Celler" nets 7 unique google hits, including myspace.
  • Alex listing appears to be about someone else.
  • "X Green " +dance +music +artist -myspace yields 400 UNIQUE google hits, the top which are not relevant.
  • "X Green " +"dance music artist" -myspace nets 1 google hitCheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

X Green Caedmon records google returned at least 10 relevant hits Wikitorian 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Note Forged signature. Actually posted by Xgreen (talk • contribs)Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Half of those are myspace, which have no value, since anyone can create myspace pages. Notable artists generate hundreds, preferably thousands, of google hits. And who's "Wikitorian"? Fan-1967 18:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NN per bobbycole. I've hit it with blatant copyvio tag. Ohconfucius 03:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ski Bums

Social organization. (Procedural listing; count me as neutral) BanyanTree 15:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Travel club with 400 members, not notable despite their charitable work. NawlinWiki 15:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - As it is now, the club doesn't pass Wikipedia notability criteria (not enough non trivial published articles). If someone digs up sources that make this more than a 400 member outing club, I'll gladly change my vote. -bobby 15:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to WP:CORP, "trival" coverage refers to the like of simply reprinting directory listings, "announcement of club meetings" or "store hours." The articles on this organization are long and involved and credit a reporter... not just "store hours". Time Out New York has a huge readership in New York City, and Next Magazine has a wide circulation in New York City's gay community. Being from the gay press doesn't make something trivial. Per WP:ORG, these are not "internal documents".
• Keep. It is the largest club of its kind in the United States. Plus, minority-based organizations are inherently smaller, but no less significant. If Wikipedia allows for other similarly-sized LGBT sports organizations like NYCGHA, Kings Cross Steelers and The Gay Football Supporter Network, I see no reason why this article shouldn't pass muster. User:Fry1974 17:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The fact that other articles on nonnotable groups exist on Wikipedia may just mean that nobody has noticed them yet. I've now listed Kings Cross Steelers for deletion below. The other two organizations actually run sports leagues, so I'm not quite as ready to list them for deletion. NawlinWiki 16:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is notable.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OC Transpo Route 95, OC Transpo Route 96, OC Transpo Route 97

A bus route is not a suitable article subject for Wikipedia. WP:NOT a travel guide. Delete Proto::type 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• NB - also included in this nomination:

**OC Transpo Route 96 **OC Transpo Route 97

Nomination WITHDRAWN. I won't remove the AFD notices or close this - as nominator, it's not my place to do so; please could an admin do so (on all 3 articles). Proto::type 09:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge/Redierect - Put any info not already covered here and redirect to the same. (That goes for all 3). -bobby 15:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. These are high-volume routes which carry an awful lot of passengers. They also use dedicated roadways (the Transitway) for part of their routes. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Calgary alone has 50 (you read that right) bus routes with higher volume than any Ontario bus route. I don't think they belong in Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not a city bus schedule. So why should these? --Charlene 17:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - ^{[citation needed]} Dl2000 23:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep or Merge with OC Transpo article (but certainly not to deleted) They are the 3 buisiests routes in Ottawa and are rapid-bus routes that travels through all areas across cities via the Transitway (a unique transit corridor), serves major touristic areas in Canada's National Capital region (such as the Rideau Canal, Parliament Hill, Byward Market, etc.. No reason whatsoever to delete this. They are consider like most London bus routes in addition to be a mass commuter routes also as touristic routes. See also [[24]]. And also it belongs to the Ottawa WikiProject--JForget 21:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• ABSOLUTE Keep I see some people come and saying that I was the nominator to delete all routes, but remember I said EXCEPT 95,96 and 97. They are all Transitway routes which are necessary to the city and have an history. We cannot remove them. It's not about not being a travel guide, it's about three very important bus routes that link almost anywhere in Ottawa to Downtown. I repeat, absolute keep. --Deenoe 21:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add, since Transitway Routes 95, 96 and 96 are Ottawa's current mass transit, perhaps we should also remove Montreal's Subway, Toronto's etc... --Deenoe 21:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP--As per reasons above, except for the comments Charlene made about Calgary....Bacl-presby 22:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep of course. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The transit way is as much akin to a subway as a a standard bus route. - SimonP 23:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per others; the history and importance is notable (not to mention the sheer passenger volumes if one actually sees the 95, etc. in action). Dl2000 23:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point of the volume.. Just to see 95 pass every 3 minutes, and that, full-packed.. :p --Deenoe 02:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, agree with SimonP, Deenoe and TbT. These high volume routes are the major mass transit modality for Ottawa -- Samir धर्म 01:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A primary public transit route in a major metropolitan city (a national capital, no less). --Marriedtofilm 07:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, major transit links in a capital city. Skeezix1000 12:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to OC Transpo. Kirjtc2 12:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If anything, it should be merged to OC Transpo Routes --Deenoe 21:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Quick comment - if this route is so important, perhaps you could bother to ensure that articles assert this in future. There are SEVEN lengthy paragraphs that describe the route the bus takes. These paragraphs are not assuredly encyclopaedic information. There is then a paragraph on the frequency of the bus route - this is travel information, and is best served with a link to the bus companies website, which already provides this information, and is guaranteed to be up to date. It is neither Wikipedia's responsibility nor its remit to provide that. I have had a go at revising the article so it makes sense. I have also withdrawn the nomination - ok, it's notable, but the article needs reworking. I confidently expect my changes to be revetrted ASAP. Proto::type 09:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• CommentI've just posted in the Canadian Public Transportation Forum (Ottawa area) [25], a group of transit fans to see if anyone has sites that can contain history about the Transit Routes 95, 96 and 97 (including an older version of route 96) When the info is out, the changes will be drastict. I'm think essentially the utility of the route along with its history and recent and future changes as well as key destinations along its way will be enough along with an infobox just like it was done with route 99 before it was canned.--JForget 03:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP I don't know if there is still a chance that this will be deleted after the folk who proposed the deletion had withdrawn the proposal, but I do think that the network of roads and transit routes are an important background to many articles about the national capital area, just as the names of buildings are perhaps more important in some circles in ottawa than the actual addresses. (C.D.Howe Building vs 140 Queen Street or 240 Sparks - Same building)One of the advantages of an online encyclopedia is that one CAN have articles on non-mainstream topics without adding to theh weigh that one can ship..

cmacd 13:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The 95 is an important route, for more than one reason. — Editor at Large^(speak) 12:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I'm closing this early because there have been no dissenting votes, the copyright owner is pissed, and there's no need to continue the debate any further. Mangojuice^talk 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abe Katsuyoshi

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 an article 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 (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

The reason I have marked all these articles to discuss for deletion is twofold. The first one is the question of copyright. Every article I have tagged has a single source (http://www.samurai-archives.com/dictionary/A1.html or later pages in that same source - for now I have only tagged the A's). In most cases it is also an uncited source. Regardless, the text of each of these articles is merely an exact duplicate with a few words changed around. In nearly every case, the content (meaning) and order of the content (meaning) is the same, even if some words have been changed. Whether this is blatant copyright infringement or not may be questionable, but that is not the only issue.

Quality of scholarship The second issue is quality and scholarship. All of these articles only have that one source - the Samurai Archives website. In many cases, if not most, sources are not cited on that website. Therefore, we can not verify the validity of the entries on that website. One of the requirements of Wikipedia is that articles include information that is verifiable. Information taken from the Samurai Archives is not verifiable. The simple fact of the matter is, aside from it not being verifiable, if there are any errors in information on that website, we are now propogating them all over the internet. This is because all of the articles I tagged are created only from information on the Samurai Archives website. That is just plain poor scholarship, and has been noted on other discussions regarding this, adding articles such as the ones I have tagged cheapens wikipedia and it cheapens the work that we do in adding information to it. Another issue is that many, or possibly most, of the articles I tagged, have not been added to for months, which tells me that there is little information out there that can be used to supplement them. So the issue of both verifiability and scholarship leads me to feel that these articles need to be eliminated. The articles I have tagged are of low quality, and of almost no academic value, and I back that statement up with what I have written above.

There are over 100 articles almost identical in situation to the few that I have tagged here - and you will also notice that it is the same contributor on every article Darrin Fidika - he apparently been made aware of the situation many times over, but continues to blithely post articles of identical poor quality as those I have marked below. That worries me. He has been talked to many times according to his talk page, but he never stopped this activity.

Sorry it took me so long to figure out how to go about all this, I have always been happy to just anonymously add information to wikipedia from work during slow times, but this issue, first brought forward a few days ago, really caught my attention as a major quality control issue that all of us who contribute to wikipedia need to pay attention to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeyheadster (talk • contribs) . 20:07, October 30, 2006 (UTC)

Articles included for deletion

• Abe Katsuyoshi
• Ayukawa Kiyonaga
• Atagi Fuyuyasu
• Ashikaga Haruuji
• Ashida Nobumori
• Asari Nobutane
• Asakura Norikage
• Asakura Kagetoshi
• Asakura Kageakira
• Asahina Nobuoki
• Arima Yoshisada
• Arima Toyouji
• Arima Noriyori
• Araki Yukishige
• Aochi Shigetsuna
• Anzai Sanemoto
• Anemori Yayoi
• Anegakoji Yoshiyori
• Anegakoji Yoritsuna
• Ando Morinari
• Anayama Nobutomo
• Amari Masatada
• Amakusa Hisatane
• Amako Hisayuki
• Akechi Mitsutada
• Akechi Mitsukuni
• Akazawa Tomotsune
• Akamatsu Norifusa
• Akamatsu Masanori
• Akaike Nagato
• Akai Terukage
• Adachi Yasumori
• Adachi Tokiaki
• Abe Katsuyoshi

--Monkeyheadster 20:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: After looking through several of the articles listed above, I can see that one of the main sources was definitely Samurai Archives. However, all of the articles I looked at had more information than found in the Samurai Archives, leading me to believe there was at least one other source for the information. As all of these articles are quite short, it's understandable the information would be presented in similar ways—there are only so many ways to write 2-3 sentences. I do think the articles need to be sourced, however, so it can be more easily determined what information came from where. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I disagree - what you are seeing is "fluff" added by the contributor - throwing in that such and such was a lord of such and such province because the province is mentioned later in the text. It is one contributor, one known for this sort of thing, and frankly, I do not believe it can be argued that the only source is not the samurai archives, because it plainly is the only source - most of these articles only exist in the english language at the Samurai archives site, and I am most definately sure that Darrin is not translating his own information. Here is a good example:

Marume Nagayoshi Here is a good example of a typical "entry": Samurai archives - Nagayoshi was a retainer of the Sagara family of Higo Province. He is said to have met the wandering swordsman Kamiizumi Nobutsuna and studied under him, later forming his own school of swordsmanship on Kyushu. Wikipedia: Maruma Nagayoshi (1540-1629) was a retainer of the Japanese clan of Sagara of Hizen province during the Sengoku Period of the 16th century, extending to the 17th century of the Edo Period. It is said that Nagayoshi ran into the famous swordsman known as Kamiizumi Nobutsuna and began training under him. Nagayoshi later established his own school of swordsmanship at Kyūshū.

They are obviously the same. You can see how he adds fluff by stating that it took place during the sengoku period - that most definately does not indicate an "alternate source" - he even goes so far as to add incorrect information to hide his plagiarism - he changes Higo province to Hizen province.

I challenge anyone here to come up with another source, preferably a book rather than the internet, due to the sad fact that Samurai Archives information has been propogating due to wikipedia all over the internet. If there is a belief that multiple sources have been used, I challenge someone to provide one.

However, that is only a small part of the issue - the issue of poor scholarship is much larger. My argument above about poor scholarship stands. The unfortunate fact here is that we have let this go for 10 months now, and it has created a monster. People seem intimidated by having to remove over 100 articles, but any one of these articles on its own would be a solid candidate for deletion. We shouldn't let the volume of articles get in the way of objectivity in this matter. --Monkeyheadster 21:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now and tackle the problem differently: there does seem to be a potential plagiarism issue here, but I do not think that AfD is the right way to tackle it. Five days is simply not sufficient time for people to check so many articles and confirm that your claim that they are all problematic. The AfD process was not designed to handle large-scale cases like this, and we run the risk of throwing babies out with bathwater.
  It would IMO be more appropriate to open a centralized discussion of the matter, possibly as a subproject of Wikiproject Japan, to give the full set of articles a proper consideration, establish which can be cleaned up and which cannot, and resubmit the unsalvageable articles for deletion with more than one editor's word for the claim that they need deleting.
  For example, it appears that in many cases there are articles on these people on the Japanese Wikipedia, which certainly will not be based on the Samurai Archives website, and which could thus almost certainly be used to salvage the English articles. — Haeleth Talk 21:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It took me a mere 2 hours to confirm it. Not only is 5 days plenty of time, but this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. There are nearly 100 more articles that are the same as the ones I have already tagged. It is time that we take care of the issue that Darin Fidika has been allowed to create. This has been discussed to little avail on LordAmeth's talk page and on the Japanese Military History task force talk page. Someone should have caught this months and months ago, and furthermore, the lone contributor must be brought to task for his actions.

All of the articles listed are identical in format, and from the same contributor. None of them use more than once source. This is specifically why I chose these to tag. Because they are all essentially the same. I believe they should be removed until such time as interested and responsible wikipedians can go through and create new entries with multiple sources.

As it can't be disputed that the tagged articles are rewrites of articles from the samurai archives and no other sources were used, I do not believe this can be considered fair use of the material. These articles duplicate the information from the samurai archives while not adding anything new to them - they are mere copies with different wording. This has gotten way, way out of hand, and I think removing the articles until such time responsible and interested parties come along to do actual orginal work is best. --Monkeyheadster 21:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• The precident is set - You will notice that the article called Hinarasu has been deleted. The author (a contributor to the samurai archives website) tagged it for copyright violation, made his case on the talk page, and it has been removed. His article is representative of every article I have tagged here, and this precident should show that I am correct in my request for deletion of these articles. Yet again this was an article added by "Darin Fidika". --Monkeyheadster 22:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• In Summary - I will summarize my points here, with detalied information standing above as the detailed talk.

1. It can't really be argued - Darin got nearly every piece of information in the above articles from the Samurai Archives site, from the page I have listed. (See above quote from Marume Nagayoshi as an example).
2. I do not belive this is "fair use" of the samurai archives information. "Fair Use" of information includes using multiple sources to pull together an orginal article - using any one source as a mere reference - "one among many". These articles are not original. They are copies of the Samurai archives, with some changed words, and a little "fluff" (see above) to make them look different. Hoever, the content (ideas) is nearly identical, as is the presentation of the order. These are not original articles by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, after checking the Samurai Archives forum, it has been made clear that all further research activity will stop on the page because of the wholesale gutting of the page by Darin Fidika. Understandable, I wouldnt want my hard work to be simply copied, pasted, and then a few words changed around and have it called an original work.
3. The Hinarasu article. (see above) That article on wikipedia, placed here by Darin and taken from the Samurai Archives, was identical in form to all of the articles that I have noted here, and that one has been deleted. That sets the precident that these articles are justified in being removed. In fact, the author of the original article who requested it be removed pointed out that Darin also incorporated errors into his wikipedia article in his attempt to "hide" his plagiarism. He did the same with his copy of the Marume Nagayoshi article I mentioned above. Notice how he changed the province name to Hizen province. This guy will go so far as add wrong information to hide his plagiarism. That also needs to be addressed. I believe this could even be considered vandalism and could potentially invalidate all of his "contributions".
4. Scholarship issues. Since these articles all do come from the samurai archives (with minor fluff and a few changed words), and they have not been edited hardly at all since they have been posted to wikipedia, that tells me that either there are no other sources to pull together, or at this time there is no one interested in doing so. Therefore, I believe that it is in the best interest of wikipedia to delete them until such time as more responsible and interested users can pull together multiple sources to create new, original articles. No one has added information in 10 months, so it is highly unlikely that enough, or even any, information will be added to change the state of these articles.
5. Error propogation. Any errors made by the samurai archives site has now been moved to wikipedia, because no other sources have been used. There are references to "Uzu" castle, an accidental mistake on the samurai archives (recently brought to attention on that forum), and now "Uzu" castle has made it's way to wikipedia - and from there, all over the internet. It is actually "Uozu" castle, but wikipedia has secured it's place in hisotory now as "Uzu". Not to mention Darin Fidika adding false information into the articles he copies to help hid his plagiarism.
6. Verification. One of the requirements of wikipedia is that included information be verifiable. The samurai archives for the most part does not cite sources. Since Darin has been using the SA exclusively, he is essentially using an unverifiable source. This is not good, and throws into question the quality of wikipedia itself if such articles are allowed to stay. Even where sources are listed, since Darin is only using one source (the samurai archives), the info he is pasting and changing words on has not been verified by him. His "addition" of Hinarasu further goes to show that he is not above adding errors into his articles to hide his plagiarism.
7. Darin Fidika. Darin has a history of problems as evidenced by his talk page. It is very clear that he is incapable of utilizing sources correctly, and has a documented history of plagiarism. He is unfortunately incapable of creating an original article using multiple sources. Is he a "bad" person? No, I don't think so. Is he misdirected? Probably. What can't be disputed is that his information comes strictly from the samurai archives - he has stated as much on his talk page, saying "I did not realize that meager articles needed citations", and has also said he has taken from the samurai archives. Comparing his articles to the link to the samurai archives I provided shows that he just copied it, and changed words around. Like I mentioned, he has a history of questionable behavior, and has admitted to taking info from the samurai archives. As far as contributors go, he appears incapable of scholarship, and that alone throws any of his articles into a questionable light.
8. Wikipedia quality. Keeping these articles would be a severe disservice to wikipedia, and also sets the precident that it is OK to steal, as long as you try to hide it by changing some words around. Maybe what I have tagged is not true outright copyright violation (most are certainly plagiarism), however my other points alone are more than enough to justify removing these articles. It is the right and moral thing to do.
9. Precident. We need to set the precident that scholarship and research is expected, and that plagiarism and unverified information is not. It states clearly that "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." on the edit page. We need to stand by this. We have allowed this to go on for 10 months, and now we have to deal with a monster - over 100 uncited, unverifiable, plagiarized, low quality articles. It would be a simple matter if this had been tackled long ago, but we are dealing with it now, and qualms about the number of required deletions should not cloud objective judgement.

I believe that each and every one of my points have merit, and and every one alone justifies removing the pages. Please don't try to debate a single point while ignoring the rest. I believe, however, that removing the articles is the right thing to do, again, until such time that responsible and interested parties can come up with orginial article from multiple verifiable sources. I believe we should be working together here to make wikipedia a good place for information. I hope my belief that we can and should make wikipedia a better place for information is justified. Because, by leaving these articles copied by Darin up, we are hurting the quality, and the reputation of wikipedia - both as a source, and as a place where plagiarism and bad scholarship is not tolerated. --Monkeyheadster 22:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete - This is absolutely ridiculous. Such blatant plagarism should be stamped out. This is copyrighted work. Rather than try to "improve" them, which I can assure you no one will volunteer to do, delete and start from scratch. Fairest thing to do. Wikipedia shouldn't about breaking honest rules to make our lives easier. John Smith's 23:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate your backup on this. It truly is ridiculous. I have been working for 3 or 4 days to bring this to someone's attention. I fully agree with you - NO ONE will volunteer to improve these, and so keeping them up just hurts wikipedia. We do have a problem here, however - There are over 100 more articles in an identical situation as these. How do you recommend I move forward with the rest of it? --Monkeyheadster 23:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you "worked 3 or 4 days to bring this to someone's attention," when a simple post on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan page would have gotten someone's attention. Almost all of the articles you mentioned are listed as part of the project on their talk pages (and have been for months). Additionally, I think you're hurting this AfD by posting a novelette in explanation when a few concise statements would have sufficed. Most people who participate in AfD don't want to have to spend 15 minutes reading the AfD, and I don't know any who want to spend 2-3 hours perusing and comparing all the articles that are part of just this one AfD when they have many others to go through daily (have you ever spent time going through the AfD pages? They fill up very quickly.) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been done User Talk LordAmeth and Japanese Military History Task Force. The "3 or 4 days" were at these places. When nothing came of it, it was time to force the issue. As for the "novel length", I believe most people want a cogent argument and justification for removing 40 articles, and the literate members, I am sure, will appreciate it. I do appreciate you admitting that you con't care about the quality of wikipedia's articles or have any interest to put in the time that I and others are in order to guarantee quality (don't want to have to spend 15 minutes reading the AfD, I don't know any who want to spend 2-3 hours perusing and comparing all the articles that are part of the AfD.) but like myself, everyone else that does care about the major quality control issue we are facing will be glad to help out. Thanks for the input, it is appreciated, but rather than attack me, I believe we have a major quality issue here to deal with. We - you, me, and everyone else, are the ones responsible for wikipedia. If you are not interested in putting in the time to maintain that quality, your negativity really doesn't help things. ---Monkeyheadster 00:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please keep the mind-reading to yourself, as you aren't very good at it. Please show me where I wrote I didn't care about the quality of Wikipedia? As for spending time here, I imagine I've spent a far cry more time than you on Wikipedia. I've spent countless hours cleaning up articles, writing new ones, translating them from the Japanese Wikipedia, and generally helping out. So do most of the people who take time to go through AfDs, and I can tell you that many people will just skip over an AfD that's so huge right at the beginning. Maybe you have all the time in the world to spend here, but the rest of us have jobs, families, and lives outside of Wikipedia, and don't spend all our waking moments here. Therefore, my point was that it is a good idea to try to keep your reasons for posting an AfD concise so that it receives more attention from more AfD patrollers. It was just a friendly suggestion to keep in mind, so please don't take it negatively. I've adjusted my comments above to be more clear on what I meant. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete-I'm the one whose Hinarasu article got stolen. Since that was my research--no one else checked my sources or checked to see what I had was accurate. Check the Hinarasu discussion page for the low-down. Darin just copied what I had, with no checking. Even made some ridiculous statements to cover his tracks. Delete. Nagaeyari 00:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. In each individual case, the text is changed a reasonable amount. However, the fact that virtually every one of these are derived from the same source by the same editor is a serious copyvio concern. Mangojuice^talk 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Let me add that the most troubling of these are the ones where there is hardly any information. That's actually a good argument for deletion: these samurai can't be very notable, and there are verifiability issues. Mangojuice^talk 05:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete--Mass copying seen in the above examples is unacceptable. The above numbered argument--especially numbers 5 and 6 hold true for wikipedia-- makes my decision final: copyvio Mhirama 01:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • — Possible single purpose account: Mhirama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Definately Delete -- I am in a state of shock and awe that a single user was allowed to plagarize to this extent, even after repeated warnings. I have compared at least 15 articles, side by side with two browser windows - in one I have the orignal source, the other I have the wikipedia "article". For all intents and purposes, even if he changed the words, the articles are identical. This is something of a minor scandal, and I suggest that we take care of this by removing these articles, and by disciplining the culprit. What I find most disturbing is that there are apparently over a hundred articles that this one user has put up that will now have to be taken down. --63.164.145.198 03:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You might want to read WP:AGF. Truth is, these are very short entries, and often the WP article has a lot more in it than the source. I wouldn't object to any of them, because even from the first, the wording and structure was not the same, but the amount of material that has been treated in this was is just too large. Mangojuice^talk 05:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is the problem - the structure is identical, only words have been changed. And since he is only using one source, and just changing words and adding in fake info to hide his plagarism (see above), I find it hard to justify keeping these here. --Monkeyheadster 07:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree - delete Funny, the night I decide to create an actual login after contributing tidbits here and there, I am shown that I have been a moron. Rather than researching facts, I should have been taking a source, change some words around, and create a new article with it. Yeah, that's the ticket! These articles should be deleted. The arguments for deletion by all involved are pretty much ironclad. I think that if the user had done the exact same thing, but had put it within a larger article, that probably would have been acceptable. However, this user didnt do that. He started countless articles from one source, which is plagiarism in my book. I've only looked at a few, but the ones that I have looked at have not been touched in months, except for the occasional additon of Japanese in the entry. I think this user really wanted to increase his standing by creating all sorts of articles. I think it must have been calculated, because it appears that he has also been adding in fake or false information in his wikipedia entries to cover his tracks. That is simply dishonest. I hope this issue is taken care of, I've had fun contributing, but this sours me a bit on wikipedia. --BranePan23 04:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • — Possible single purpose account: BranePan23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, Copyvio. delete all articles, indef. block for creator, I am shocked that this has been allowed to stink up the encyclopedia for so long. L0b0t 15:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (and possibly relist in JapMilHist). This is not prejudice for recreating the articles in the future, but this is honestly poor research and plagiarism in the highest degree, because of the amount that was taken from one source. If it pulled together the original sources to create these articles, that would be a different story. (Having a single source is also problematic for notability issues.) I'd rather wipe these and restart afresh, this time taking proper care. This might mean a smaller amount of material in a longer amount of time, but it also means safety for Wikipedia. However, this does bring up a different point - since Wikipedia is so large, is it possible that many different articles by different editors will pull enough material for there to be a copyright violation based on amount of material pulled? ColourBurst 16:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as discussed above - this would be too difficult to go through and repair one by one; better to start fresh and allow recreation without the plagiarism and with better sourcing. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke and Pave - Nuke the current articles and pave the way to better sourced, non-copyvio versions. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 22:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• So there seems to be a strong consensus...When does this end? What is the next step? Nagaeyari 00:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • • — Possible single purpose account: Nagaeyari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • This has been up for barely more than a day. AfD's are generally listed for at least 5 days. Patience. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow, your kindness is amazing. Nice tone. Nagaeyari 03:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Look at these: Compare earliest entry on the 380-word article on Hosokawa Tadaoki with http://wiki.samurai-archives.com/index.php?title=Hosokawa_Tadaoki. Are they identical? Only the "compare" function on a WP knows for sure. See also Hosokawa Fujitaka and http://wiki.samurai-archives.com/index.php?title=Hosokawa_Fujitaka. I had wondered why there was nothing on the Siege of Tanabe and I was going to add something on it myself. I am glad I did not. Hosokawa Yoriyuki and http://wiki.samurai-archives.com/index.php?title=Hosokawa_Yoriyuki (Note "costing an asset" was changed to "caused an asset," whatever that means.) Stone-turner 01:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • — Possible single purpose account: Stone-turner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Comment: I tried listing the above 3 articles at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. Maybe that will work.Stone-turner 01:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The discussion here is doing the same thing, so listing it there will do nothing more. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I've removed the AfD tags from Hosokawa Fujitaka, Hosokawa Tadaoki, and Hosokawa Yoriyuki: you shouldn't add new articles to an AfD unless you started that AfD, and you didn't start this on. Also, you suspect them of being copied from the "samurai wiki" section of samurai archives, which isn't the same thing as the larger concern in this debate. In fact, according to the history link on those articles, they were created on the Samurai Wiki in September of this year while all the articles on Wikipedia are older. Our articles aren't copyright violations: theirs are (since they are not licensing the info under the GFDL.) Mangojuice^talk 13:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I've gone and made sure there are attributions on that site to Wikipedia in these articles, and raised this as a general issue. Hopefully they'll change their site to a GFDL license. Mangojuice^talk 13:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Mangojuice. Check the user who added the Hosokawa bios to wikipedia. Yep. Same user who stole the rest of the above. Look at the Samurai Archives site (biographical dictionary). You will see them on the site. Members of the Samurai Archives have been copying and pasting that work into the SamuraiWiki, which is OWNED by Samurai Archives. Therefore, you just claimed that Darin Fidika had original work concerning these biographical entries that have been on the Samurai Archives site, copyrighted 2005. I see a major problem there....Do you know why wikipedia articles are older? Because Darin copied and pasted them from the Samurai Archives site months and months ago, while the SamuraiWiki is a new venture, where the old S-A information is being transferred over. I would know...I've been a part of the transfer. So that would be great if you could remove that information you just added. In case you don't believe me, check the Samurai Archives detailed update log. Here is a copy of pertinent information: " 01-15-2000 -Added descriptions for Hattori Hanzo, Hosokawa Fujitaka, and Goto Mototsugu". That's older than wikipedia. Nagaeyari 13:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Responded on User talk:Nagaeyari. Mangojuice^talk 15:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)