Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 23

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A full explanation is available on this AfD's talk page. Grandmasterka 10:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

Article forked from 9/11 conspiracy theories due to length of that article, but since the split, this article has become a hopeless quagmire of conspiracy theory nonsense, and even simple demands that the article try to meet NPOV have been met with further POV pushing. This is simply not what wiipedia is about...wikipedia is not for soapboxing, and is not an indiscriminate collection of misinformation. Delete.--MONGO 04:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin...the previous discussion has nothing to do with the current one.--MONGO 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification. The previous discussion can be read here:[1].--Thomas Basboll 07:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - since the split article has only become more NPOV, and better sourced (it almost hasn't grown in size and putting it back is out of the question). Simple demands you mention: well everyone can check on the talk page that your demands were very simple (Fix the problems that are in this article or it will be removed as an egregious violation of WP:NOT) and quite short and not explained and you made them yesterday. This is not what wikipedia is about... Check below for other arguments.SalvNaut 11:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong...the article is huge compared to when it was on the 9/11 CT article...when it was there, the complaints were that adding more nonsense then would make that article too big. After forking, conspiracy theory folks have made this a repository of junk science. I asked to get the known facts about Steven E. Jones put in the article and was essentially laughed off. Misuse of Wikipedia to push conspiracy theory propaganda such as this makes folks like yourself nothing but problem editors. I mean look at the singular focus you and the rest of the cruftists have...a blind man could see that your agenda is to POV push conspiracy theory nonsense...you hardly edit anything else. You're not fooling anyone.--MONGO 12:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong: MONGO laughed off?? - the facts about Jones you asked for are already in the article since yesterday (were added witihn hours you asked)... maybe you should concentrate on its content not your personal POV on this matter? What I edit is my personal thing - is it ad hominem argument you just brought on? To make this even I'll say that you make yourself look like a problem admin. No offence. SalvNaut 13:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit histories are transparent...yours are solely agenda driven.--MONGO 13:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you accuse me of lying? Mine histories are true and real: Revision as of 23:58, 22 September 2006; Thomas Basboll - at the end of The hypothesis (since then has been moved to Conflicts with official explanation) there are sentences about Jones paid leave. You asked for it on the talk page at 21:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC). 2.5 hours - I feel offended by your groundless accusation. SalvNaut 14:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I never said you were lying, so don't put words in my mouth. I stated, and looking at your entire editing history this is obvious, that you are here solely to advance conspiracy theories. So far, you have not demonstrated that your purpose on Wikipedia is geared in any other direction. Those links do not demonstrate that Alex Jones has been adequately debunked as would be completely mandatory for this article to ever be NPOV.--MONGO 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Our job is not to debunk anything. Our job is to make articles on any and all notable things reported by secondary sources for a free encyclopedia. Those here for anything else need to leave. · XP · 14:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No, MONGO, no - stop putting your words into my head. I am here to learn how to edit Wikipedia and gain knwoledge about 9/11. I won't discuss anymore with you, because it's got ad hominem and has nothing to do with the case. I can't find any source that would show that Steven Jones has been debunked (he was dismissed-its a big difference in science).SalvNaut 14:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopedic. Per nom. Vote Early, etc, etc. --Tbeatty 04:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic and severely undue weight to a minority viewpoint as well as synthesis of facts in order to support a hypothesis in violation of WP:OR. A minority viewpoint("hypothesis") does not require a full article explanation and this current treatment goes way afield of WP:NPOV's dictum on undue weight and POV fork. The prime contributor to his article has admitted it is a vehicle for presenting his POV[2]., in gross violation of WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. Delete with prejudice. --Mmx1 05:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 05:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The article violates no wikipedia policy and is a legit, well written, and sourced article about a extensivley argued theory. If there is an issue with specific content then address the specific content, don't AfD the entire article. NeoFreak 05:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  It's hopeless. efforts to get a NPOV in this article will be impossible.--MONGO 05:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Why are you, as an experienced wikipedian, totally giving up on an article both now and in the future? Ansell 01:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's "extensively argued" if at all, on the internet. If that were a criteria for inclusion, we would have an article on every crackpot physics "hypothesis" posted on usenet, and articles on which of the Manning brothers is a better quarterback. --Mmx1 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the article, it makes a strong case and it cites alot of academic and scietific sources to back the hypothesis. Do I believe it? No. That doesn't mean it is not encyclopedic. Because it is a touchy subject and is prone to POV doess't qualify the article for deletion. This article needs work, not a all out deletion. NeoFreak 05:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"it makes a strong case and it cites alot of academic and scietific sources to back the hypothesis" I see; it's an essay? --Mmx1 05:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The main reason the article exists is because folks were unable to get this nonsense in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article...it is a definite POV fork therefore.--MONGO 05:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not just making a case in the sense of debate but its continued existence on wikipedia which is really what I meant. An article talking about a POV or a established hypothetical concept has to do that. Which I think it does. I'd hate to see a article get deleted because the POV is covers is unpopular. NeoFreak 05:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, on the contrary...I believe the POV it covers is popular...the problem is the ability of this article to be neutral, which I see no prospectus for.--MONGO 05:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case it only helps the case for keeping it in an encyclopedia. Besides NPOV issues is not and never has been grounds for deletion. NeoFreak 05:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, not if it is a gross violation of WP:NOT, which it is.--MONGO 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The notion of an independent page for a minority POV is the definition of POV fork. --Mmx1 19:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. This article is a black hole of POV forkery, and roughly half its references are blatant violations of WP:RS. --Aaron 05:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Keep Not sure what the other people are even reading unless they have a personal bias stake in this. WP:POINT afd nomination that appears trolling or disruption attempt? This is a fork that includes 95 sources, from nytimes.com to house.gov to all sorts of international coverage. The theory as a theory is notable, and 40% of Americans polled per CNN believe in theories. There is a criticism section and volumous sourced data. Why is this even nominated? Close afd as farcical--why is this even open...?
• This version of the article has 108 references. Of them, just at a glance, I count at least 70+ that meet all Policy requirements for RV and V. They range from a variety of US government documents that touch on the theory, to news sources ranging from live reports by Dan Rather to the NY Times to the BBC. Seems notable enough to be an automatic keep, and rereading AfD policies we do not delete for POV reasons, nor neutrality reasons. We rewrite the article together, which is the only reason, and the only reason we're here: write free encyclopedia about notable things that are reported on by secondary sources. Closing admin: this article therefore per RS meets all qualifications that I can see. · XP · 05:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC) · XP · 13:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Trust me that I am not a troll, so I'll assume your commentary must be. The farce is when people misuse Wikipedia to POV push nonsense

such as this.--MONGO 05:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying the theory isn't notable based on the mountains of media coverage? Or that it's too big for the parent page, and per policy shouldn't be forked off? Those two policies say that this article has legs and stays. Policy is on it's side, at this time, from what I've read. If you can cite in policy with examples why it shouldn't be, I will reconsider my opinion. · XP · 05:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Efforts to have much of this information in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article failed, so it was then built up on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. This was split, and retitled and technically survived a different Afd, but this article has now developed into a repository of misinformation deliberately designed to give credence to something that has no basis in fact...it is an article that will perpetually masquerade as a scientific treatise. WP:NOT clearly states that wikipedia is not a soapbox, which this article is...a soapbox to promote conspiracy theory nonsense. Furthermore, I see no chance the article can be a neutral one and will ultimately be a battleground, further violation of policy. I rarely nominate articles for deletion, so when I do, I am most serious about my reasoning.--MONGO 05:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess it will be the community that decides if it stays or goes 5 days from now, with no one getting their points attacked I should hope. · XP · 06:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Then best you don't refer to my nom as trolling?--MONGO 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

True, fair point and struck. However, please justify and explain the comment you added then removed however of:

"The article will be deleted...I just thought I would bring it here for discussion...it's your job to convince me to not delete it. Since the article is a soapbox platform, that is a clear violation of WP:NOT."

Also per policy do not refactor others' additions to AfD or (I see your an admin now) be the one to close this--so, regretfully, it's not "your" decision for anything directly. Thanks! · XP · 13:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the first paragraph, demolish the rest - That's all that's needed. Of course, the conspiracy theorists would never allow such an edit to stand. Sigh. - Richfife 06:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Such a summary already exists in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. The question is exactly whether or not the rest of the article should exist. --Mmx1 06:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unencyclopedic per nom. Pull it. Dual Freq 06:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article passed an AfD at 09: 42 on 22 on September.[3] This nomination for deletion appears to have been made under 24 hours later. The phrase "since the split" should be read with that in mind. The requests to establish an NPOV and an encyclopedic approach have been met with friendly assurances that "we're working on it". The problems with this article had, as the nomitation notes, previously been problems with the 9/11 conspiracy theory article (which is coming around nicely) and (though this is before my time) the article on the collapse of the WTC (which is in great shape now - in part due to the efforts of editors who are working on this article). At this stage it is clear that the sections need to be trimmed in its "collection of information". As the closing admin on the recent AfD said, "it is clear that [Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center] needs to be made more neutral etc, but this is going way outside the area of AFD.".[4] I agree with that judgment, and it is too soon to say that the challenges have not been met. Anyone who reads the articles last few days of history will see it is going in the right direction. Anyone who reads its talk pages will be able to see the spirit in which the changes are being made.--Thomas Basboll 07:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a seperate issue, so no it's not too early. Now we can directly discuss the reason why we should allow articles like this to be on wikipedia...since the focus is now and always will be an advocacy platform and a gross violation of original research in that you have a "hypothesis" and then deliberately seak out sources to support that hypothesis. Sorry, but misuse of Wikipedia for this purpose is not to be condoned.--MONGO 07:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

While Mongo's reasons to nominate may technically differ from the original AfD (though it is unclear to me exactly how), it is clear that the editors who are voting here have interpreted the issue in similar terms. Again we talking about "POV pushing" on the one side and "a notable theory" on the other. Importantly, the basic justification for this article is that merging it back into 9/11 conspiracy theories would undo some substantial recent improvements to it. Splitting it has offered a way to make progress on the presentation of both 9/11 conspiracy theories in general and the controlled demolition hypothesis specfically.--Thomas Basboll 07:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Was this article up for AfD? This seems like a separate POV fork from the one that was deleted although it contains the same information. Tbeatty 07:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the result was to keep it.[5]--Thomas Basboll 08:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)ø

• Keep - Notable theory on a notable event. Sources are clear that this theory is asserted by a number of people. Cleanup concerns should not be dealt with through an AfD. JASpencer 07:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems like its the same old group of people who are proposing deletion of anything that doesn’t fit the 9/11 official story and the same people are against it. Gee, I wonder if that’s a coincidence. I'd bet not. Shortfuse 07:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Gee, it seems like the usual POV pushers of nonsense are all lining up to vote keep...I wonder if that is a coincidence? I'd bet not.--MONGO 07:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, this hypothesis exists and has been widely publicized. Article is no less encyclopedic than Nazi UFOs. Gazpacho 08:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• That article does not advance a position; it in fact makes it clear that it is a fictional theme. --Mmx1 14:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and fictional or a dumb CT, it's still notable however, and thus an automatic AfD pass. · XP · 14:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmx, I don't think you read very far into the article. Gazpacho 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (1)

• Keep the hypothesis is nonsense; however, it is notable. the article is a good place to document the nonsense. if the article is poor now, the solution is to fix it. if that is too difficult, npov tag it. Derex 09:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  I'm really troubled by the idea of "documenting the nonsense". If the article is nonsense, as you suggest, wouldn't it be appropriate to just WP:CSD:G1 it and move on? alphaChimp^(talk) 09:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep we want to honestly present in this article the status of knowledge about the hypothesis, which already caused quite a mess in the world. It's very notable among Internet users, it's made its way to the media, it's been considered among engineers (NIST, Bazhant - then dismissed) and there are academic papers promoting it (Jones,Cherpanov, Greening, who considers thermite reactions). There are voices form experts abroad (Swiss professor of structural engineering; Dutch, Danish demolition experts) agreeing with it. We want to present most notable points of this hypothesis (and there is a lot of them, they are mentioned in academic papers, summaries of researches, on thousands of blogs), present a critique of them (it's already done in many cases). There are secondary sources presenting this hypothesis, there is a critique of it, so the article can be very encyclopedic.

Proponents of deletion bring following issues on: WP:NOT a soapbox, WP:OR. My opinion:

• Propaganda,self-promotion, advertising, or advocacy - it's not propaganda cause the hypothesis lives its own life and this article only presents it. It's not advocacy because article is written in NPOV language and criticism is already there and more is very welcomed.
• publisher of orginal thought: the article presents thoughts which are on minds of millions of people(many scientists) - such thoughts deserve to be described and discussed, criticised.
• WP:OR:the hypothesis has been published, has been engaged with (NIST discussed it,FAQ). There is no drawing conclusions in the article, no orginal thought (please work on that more if you wish).

Proponents of deletion, instead of working on the article to make it better, would prefer to delete it. They're using this tactics very often with regard to 9/11 articles - I agree that in some cases they're correct - not in this one, and recent AfD voting has shown that, too. Again - strong keep per above, per Thomas Basboll, per XP about quality of sources. --SalvNaut 11:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Derex. People (including some Americans) seriously believe it, made a DVD out of it, etc. --Storkk 11:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Strong delete - This was split from the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think this material needs to be put back in the main 9/11 conspiracy theories article. It can be shortened by cutting OR, unreliable or non-sourced material, etc. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 11:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I think the name of the article is really insane (jeeze), but given the enormous list of references it certainly appears to be notable and not original research or indiscriminate information. If there are POV issues, those can probably be dealt with independently. Might need to be shortened a bit as well. ~ lav-chan @ 11:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not a publisher of original thought, and not a free web space provider for conspiracy theorists. The sources the article has are mostly self-published conspiracy sites — unreliable, systematically and purposefully unbalanced sources. The phenomenon of conspiracy theories can be covered in 9/11 conspiracy theories, but the point-counterpoint argumentation (the bulk of this article) is utterly unencyclopedic original research soapboxing. To improve the article: cut down the soapbox part (vast majority of it) and roll it back to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Weregerbil 12:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nomination. Crockspot 13:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Weregerbil above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per NeoFreak. // Duccio (write me) 13:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Mmx1 --rogerd 15:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant soapboxing, and as such unlikely to ever meet WP:NPOV. Many of these "secondary sources" aren't exactly reliable ones, either. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While clean up is certainly merited (a number of the sources I've managed to go through so far are, at the very best, barely capable of satisfying WP:RS), no one is arguing that this theory's existence is unverifiable, and it's certainly notable. I assume that the majority of those who have responded here have heard about the theory at some point. In my eyes, if the theory has gained enough credence that even my own government is taking the time to respond to it, it's also got enough to warrant a WP article. The article itself is not inherently POV, and the "blatant soapboxing" everyone is referring to can be cleaned up by clearing the worst cruft and citing the rebuttals where possible. POV is always going to be an issue with articles on controversial topics, but AfD isn't the place to resolve it. Philodespotos 16:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. This collection of minority viewpoints will never achieve a NPOV, will never have reliable sources, and will never stop being a soapbox (which Wikipedia is Not). It's also entirely unencyclopedic. Delete it now. alphaChimp^(talk) 17:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep perhaps speedily as a repeat AfD so close to the previous one. Like it or not, this is a noted crank theory. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Alphachimp. -- I@n 18:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I am trying very hard to assume good faith, and am not really succeeding. WP:NOT a soapbox, and these continual AfD nominations appear to be part of a soapbox. The article passes all the critera for inclusion. We should not care that the conspiracy theories are good theories or bad theories. We should simply document them as being a phenomenon that we record in an encyclopaedic manner. Our role is not to judge the theories in any way except to document that which is notable. The theories are patently notable. If the article requires editing that is a different matter from nominating it for deletion. Time to get back on message, guys. It's an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. 18:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. The theory is complete BS, but that's not the point. The point is that this article will never achieve a Neutral Point of View, has no reliable sources, and serves as a soapbox. alphaChimp^(talk) 18:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  No. that is not the point. Diligent editing can remove non neutral point of view items. We are not here to look into a crystalk ball, we are here to edit. We can flag disputed articles to suggest that they may not be neutral, we can do a great deal. The sources that are quoted to illustrate the theories are, usually, acceptable sources in that they pass the relevant tests. Fiddle Faddle 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  I'm a bit perplexed about how this article can ever be made NPOV. As for the sources listed, the only reasonably reliable one I recall is Popular Mechanics (correct me if I'm wrong). The majority are conspiracy sites. I suspect their content is just as POV as this article. alphaChimp^(talk) 08:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Per AfD policy none of your cited reasons are valid Deletion reasons. Why would this article because of subject matter some disagree with be exempt from established policy? · XP · 18:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  It's not quite so much disagreement as it is the absolute inability for this article ever to become anything beyond POV and hoaxcruft. alphaChimp^(talk) 08:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I count 60+ unrefutably reliable sources that no one can contest. The theory exists. It is reported on. It is notable. It is not a hoax that it exists, and either way none of this is a valid reason per AfD policy/procedure to delete. I think it's bullshit, but my view does not matter. Popular will cannot trump policy for what is meritous, and 60+ RS is certainly meritous. I want to AGF but the fact that this was nominated 24 hours after the last AfD on the same content is just the height of hubris, and as Jeff mentioned should be tossed on procedural grounds. This is already clearly going to be a no concensus or keep--this needs cleanup, and does not qualify for deletion, as AfD is not a vote (thankfully). Anyway, the sudden and premature AfD will at least insulate this from future premature AfDs as any new early ones will be certainly considered a disruptive WP:POINT vio of some sort. · XP · 08:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  I really think that it's in poor form to come out with allegations of bad faith and WP:POINT here. Let's stick to the topic at hand and save the ad hominem comments for other venues. As to your sources: of course, there is some wheat amongst the chaff. Yet those few good links only reference the unreliable hoaxcruft put forth by crackpot authors, personal websites, and other unacceptable sources. In essence: pull the unreliable sources and you get one POV--leave them in and you get another. Either way, it'll never be NPOV. alphaChimp^(talk) 08:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Wait, wait--so for some reason, because some of us consider it a dumb theory or disagree with it, valid RS reporting about the existance of a thing being espoused by possibly unreliable people means that we shouldn't have an article on it? That makes absolutely zero sense and I'd like for you to demonstrate where/how in policy such a thing is justifiable. Unless I'm misreading what you just wrote, your saying that is 1. I announce I am heriditary Emperor of the United States; 2. I post it all over the Internets, all over print media, and buy a TV spot Ross Perot style to espouse this; 3. I am a certifiable crackpot. 4. The NY Times and other international and domestic media cover my nonsense reliably; 5. I shouldn't have a wikipedia article because it's not provable that my statements may or may not be false? That makse zero sense and following that logic I can apply it to virtually any article on any fringe subject matter that I disagree with to get it removed from Wikipedia. That is wrong and not how the system works. · XP · 08:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Ironically, the same people whom this article cites as reliable sources would probably buy into your announcement. Fortunately, there are precious few. This isn't a matter of sanitizing the site for "my opinion" or "MONGO's opinion". It's a matter of removing an article that will always be a cruftish soapbox for an extreme minority of people. It's not our place to advertise theories and breed disdain for the US government, we're here to present the facts in the most neutral unbiased way possible. I do not ever see that happening with this article. alphaChimp^(talk) 09:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Ironically, I think my point was missed. It's not our place to decide if something is meritous based on it's virtue, and it's neither our place to breed disdain for the US government nor is it our job to prevent it. This is not the American Wikipedia, it's the English Wikipedia. American POV, pro or con, has no more relevance than English, Scottish, Canadian, Jamaican, Austrailian, South African, or New Zealand POV. Neither has any more intrinsic value than any other. If something is offensive to some Americans, that's of no relevance, and if the subject matter leads to people clucking their tongues at the US government... well, that's not our concern. Also, have you not noticed the constant surveys that says 1/4 to 1/3 of all people believe in 9/11 related Conspiracy Theories? Hardly an extreme minority, there are scores of such reports all over. From a major Aussie news source.. Basically, what I'm saying is that whether or not it's appealing or insulting to some Americans--which seems to be the implication for many of these delete votes--that's their issue, not Wikipedia's. · XP · 09:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, there are plenty of reliable sources that report on the theory, and also thoroughly debunk it, covering both sides of the coin. Here's one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  The Popular Mechanics article is one of the few somewhat decent, reliable sources that I've found in the entire reference list. The majority are conspiracy theory sites. alphaChimp^(talk) 08:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a unencyclopedic POV fork. Since the forking the article has grown into a massive OR synthesis. The small amount of usable content should be remerged into the original article. --Wildnox 19:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Weregerbil. Morton devonshire 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. This absurd and fantastical hypothesis is more than adequately covered elsewhere. Guy 21:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Legitimate conspiracy theory. As always, such an article needs to be monitored constantly for POV and OR, but that can be said of just about any article on a controversial subject. I've seen TV documentaries on this topic, so it's notable enough to warrant a separate article. 23skidoo 22:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Thomas Basboll, who has done an amazing job with organizing and condensing the significant amount of existing information and continues to keep it relatively NPOV, allowing the information to be seen, and not packed in on all sides with POV labels and opinions from the other side at every turn. bov 04:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• NPOV? How is it NPOV when 10% of the article is criticism and the rest is a WP:OR violation citing evidence in support of this hypothesis? It is wiki's place to state the hypothesis, it is not wiki's place to argue it, even in part. --Mmx1 04:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Agenda driven AfD nomination. If the article has problems, deal with them, but the subject matter itself is notable and there is too much info to merge it into the larger 9/11 conspiracies article. SchmuckyTheCat 04:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Agenda driven? This article is the one that is agenda driven.--MONGO 07:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Alphachimp and Mmx1's comment above. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Alphachimp and Mmx1's statements; whether or not people believe in it is one thing, the fact that it cannot be reliably sourced or conform to a neutral point of view is another. Ryūlóng 08:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the hypothesis exists and is notable, while also being of interest. Semiprotection would be highly advisable, to limit bad-faith IP edits. Ace of Risk 11:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and reconstitute. I think there's a good case for saying that the controlled demolition claim (hypothesis is too kind a word) is notable, as it's been tackled by some quite reputable sources in an effort to refute it. However, the sourcing of the present article is awful. I suggest deleting the present article and reconstituting it from scratch, using only reliable sources instead of the conspiracy cruft that infests it at the moment. -- ChrisO 13:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. "Hypothesis" is the word that both the official report on the collapse (NIST) and the most detailed statement statement of it (Jones) uses. This is very clear in the present article, which cites both Jones' emphasis on its hypothetical nature and NIST's use of the same word. As for the sourcing, yes, it is uneven. But the hypothesis itself is easily located in a handful of detailed conspiracy theories and mainstream media coverage and the official investigation (brief mention) and the scientific literature (very brief mention). We need to filter out some noise in the article, not start from scratch. (Though the thought has also occured to me.)--Thomas Basboll 15:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (2)

• Strong & Speedy Keep This article is fair, balanced and detailed. It has 108 references! It is a controversial topic, but it deals with both side of the issue fairly. The nominating editor, Mongo, is a well known POV pusher and abusive deletionist who has been frequently and recently blocked for numberious violations. I belive it is infact the article's fairness and lack of bias that this user objects to. This a a bad faith nomination.Self-Described Seabhcán 14:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  I once again appreciate Seabecan's personal attacks and odd linking to an arbcom case which has already resulted in two of those who were harassing me now being indef banned...and this is before the voting has even commenced. Seabhcan claims this article is balanced. The only fact based citations are those from mainstream science, not from non peer reviewed conspiracy theory websites. This article is clearly not capable of ever being neutral, except to those who dream and fantasize that controlled demolition is what really happened on 9/11. My guess is that, as usual, this kind of comment from Seabhcan is deliberately designed to provoke a hostile response...kind of the thing I deal with when he posts edit summaries such as these:[6], [7], [8] and of course there are more. Seabhcan's presentation of a barnstar to an indefinitely banned editor was also, well, strange, especially when done after he that editor has been banned.[9].--MONGO 14:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Again we behold the wonderous miracle of MONGO logic! Mongo declares above that the article is not 'neutral' on the one hand, yet complains in the previous sentence that the article presents both "citations ... from mainstream science" and from "conspiracy theory websites". Presenting both side of the issue is balance, and I stand by my assertion that it is this very balance that is mongo's main peeve. Mongo wishes wikipedia to contain only his version of truth. If this policy were to hold sway, we should presumably be deleting "Islam" next. Even if the ideas and theories in the article are untrue, the fact that they are notably discussed and believed by many, even by "those who dream and fantasize that controlled demolition", even if Mongo disagrees with these beliefs, this topic warrants an article. Self-Described Seabhcán 17:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Excuse me, are you calling him a bigot? Citing "both sides" is not sufficient for NPOV, as Thomas has stated so clearly below, the purpose of this article is to present his "sense" of the theories, a gross violation of WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, regardless of how many citations you put in.--Mmx1 18:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use terms of abuse on wikipedia. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hum....care to remove your personal attack above. If not I guess the next step will be some further conflict resolution.--MONGO 18:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack it is a statment of fact. If you can show it to be untrue, I will remove it. Your record of personal attacks and abuse are well known on Wikipedia and there is no need to repeat it here. You deletionist tactics are documented in the dozens of AfDs you have stated, solely against topics you personally disagree with or you feel should not be discussed. And is it not true that you have been repeatedly blocked for policy violations? Self-Described Seabhcán 09:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually vote in a lot of afds, but I rarely nominate articles to be deleted, so that is an incorrect statement. The most recent block for 3RR was of about a hour only, and the other fellow had himself violated 3RR on two different articles on the same day. The 15 minute block I got was from another wikipedian that has left the project and was villified for performing that block, the third one was from well over a year ago. Your linking to my arbcom case is ridiculous, and surely you know that...I have been blocked for nothing on that matter and two others, including the one who initiated the arbcom is now permabanned. Besides...your commentary about my editing in general on an Afd has nothing to do with the Afd itself and is a personal attack. If you don't know how to argue the merits of the deletion without pointing fingers at the editors, then you should abstain.--MONGO 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. For God's sake, put this unsalvagable POV fork out of its misery. --Calton | Talk 15:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The nomination offers two criticisms of article: (1) the article has become increasingly mired in "conspiracy theory nonsense" and (2) suggestions for improving it have been met with "POV pushing". The accuracy of the second claim can assessed by looking at the article's talk page under "Unencyclopedic"[10] and the associated edits (see especially[11] and compare with Mongo's "demand" in the talk pages.) The vast majority of the alleged "miring" and "pushing" has taken place over the last couple of days, working very quickly (note the cautious tone in the edit summaries). We have been trying to convert a list of curiosities into a coherent prose presentation. Of course, people who think that the views presented are incoherent will consider any semblance of coherence an act of misinformation. Many of us, however, who have looked at these theories in some detail, have come to concede that, even if they ultimately may prove to be false, they do in fact 'make sense'. It is the sense we have made of the controlled demolition hypothesis thus far that we would like to present on its own terms to other readers of Wikipedia.--Thomas Basboll 17:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not up to you to "make sense" of these theories by presenting evidence in support of it. That runs afoul of the "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" part of WP:OR. You are not here to present your interpretation of the facts, merely the facts as the sources state. --Mmx1 17:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A hypothesis is very often presented along with the prima facie evidence for it. This evidence is of course provisional and does not constitute proof; it merely informs subsequent investigations and (importantly in this case) it helps us to understand the content of the hypothesis. As with any other article, we are here to help each other understand (i.e., make sense of) the topic. A synthesis of, say, three presentations by conspiracy theorists, along with official responses and mainstream media commentary, without any intention of advancing either the truth or falsity of the proposition that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition runs afoul of no policy I am aware of. It does look like this AfD is testing your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. And mine.--Thomas Basboll 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of precedent ("very often"), the WP:OR policy is clear. "A and B, hence C", is inadmissible if only A and B are citable. The entire statement must be made by a RS to be included. Synthethizing the arguments of multiple theorists is a gross violation of that dictum. --Mmx1 18:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OR only refers to presenting a NEW synthesis of events, not reporting on theories published elsewhere. The CT theory has been published outside of Wikipedia. OR doesn't apply. For example, The theory of Evolution was a new theory by Darwin with was Original Research. Had he published it on Wikipedia it would violate WP:OR. However, as it was published eslewhere first, wikipedia may then have an article on evolution with isn't OR. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

However, synthethizing the various individual conspiracy arguments into some "grand unified theory of controlled demolition" as Thomas Basboll has done, is a violation of WP:OR. It is no longer Jone's theory or Hoffman's theory, it's Basboll's interpretation (see grandparent post). And that is gross OR.--Mmx1 18:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If he had done that then yes. However, I strongly disagree that Thomas has written any new theory. The article doesn't violate OR. Check the references. Anyway, even if there are small localised violations somewhere(I don't see them) they can be edited, the article shouldn't be deleted because of small content errors. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been my intention to emphasise the claims that overlap in the presentations I know about. I have then tried to correlate these claims with mainstream media coverage wherever possible. There is, to repeat, a lot of work to do. The schema "A and B, hence C" might be a useful guide when we go through an ensure that our own interpretations and reasonings haven't snuck in along the way. I look forward to any help in pointing out such places. But most of the thinking here is being done by the sources we are citing. We're just trying understand what they say.--Thomas Basboll 18:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me add that this AfD is especially interesting to me as a relatively new editor. Not only has my judgment been called into question by the nomination (obviously in a sense, since I created the article), so too have my motives for being here. I should point out that my edits here were made in the same spirit (applying the same sort of synthesis) as the edits that I made on the "official" collapse of the World Trade Center article, where they were met with what I took to be approval. One of the things I will discover is whether my edits are generally considered acceptable, tolerable, or, well, cruft. I, of course, believe they shine.--Thomas Basboll 18:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; agenda-driven POV fork. Gives undue weight to a conspiracy theory of no significance. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The controlled demolition argument is one of the strongest and most well known among those who argue that 9/11 was an inside job. The fact that the 9/11 commission report didn't even mention the collapse of building 7, a collapse NIST admits is fundamentally inexplicable, is a red flag to Americans that there are significant unanswered questions concerning the events of 9/11. Those American currently number over 100 million. To say that a discussion of this on wikipedia is "unencyclopedic" is a pure POV play by User:MONGO and others. If he can't edit articles in a way that fits with the desire for information of a large minority of wikipedia readers and editors, then perhaps he should recuse himself from this debate. The base 9/11 conspiracy article is already overloaded and this is a logical expansion of one of the larger subsections. I don't see how this discussion can get any simpler than that. Kaimiddleton 21:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete or a Redirect Its one of the major conspiracy theories, but there's so much nonneutral point of view and OR in the article I can see why it needs deletion. Articles which cannot become NPOV are often deleted. Would suggest a protected redirect, however. There has to be something that's not junk in this article that can be merged back into 9/11 conspiracy theories over time. --Kevin_b_er 21:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Why should we be judging what is "nonsense" and what is not? That in itself shows the POV of the nominator. The article references its major claims from outside sources so it is not OR. Absolutely no reason why "indiscriminate collection" applies here. Possibly because it is one of the more vague statements on WP:NOT people are not sure where to apply it though. How is this a "soapbox" if it is what commentators are saying. Propaganda in the "soapbox" sense is usually put up by governments as single official stories of what is happening... Why should we follow that definition by deleting this article? Ansell 01:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There should be an article here. I don't think this resembles it, but that's no reason not to keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. SalvNaut and Basboll's reasoning is entirely persuasive.--JustFacts 02:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The subject is notable and widely known about. It is wiki's sole reason for existence to provide information, which we should do without fear or favour. This article does a very good job of NPOV, by stating and contrasting the competing views, making it quite clear which is the minority and majority take on the subject. I find it difficult to find any relationship between some of the delete reasons on this page and the contents of the article. Tyrenius 04:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  The article is forced to rely on unreliable sources to counterbalance the known evidence that is supported by virtually every structural engineer and the majority of the world's media. These sources are unreliable because they are under the control of one or a few webmasters and are outside the peer review process of engineering journals and the normal scientific community. It is wiki's sole reason to exist to provide information, not misinformation. There is no reason this article needs to exist when it can be easliy summarized with reliable sources that meet WP:V and then returned to 9/11 conspiracy theories from which it was split without consensus to do so.--MONGO 06:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The existence of the CD hypothesis is acknowledged by the very engineers (Sunder, Bazant) who have qualified opinions about the subject and has been widely reported in the majority of the world's media, although as a minority view. There is no evidence to suggest that the hypothesis is being vetted by "one or a few webmasters". There are, for example, several books that present a version of it, all (as far as I can tell) by independent small publishers [I'm actually not sure how small all of them are]. We must keep in mind that this article is not about the collapse of the world trade center, but about a hypothesis about that collapse. That is why the subject of most of the sentences is either the hypothesis or its proponents, on the one hand, andor the mainstream explanation and its proponents, on the other. In a few cases it presents a fact about the collapses directly (most often with a qualifier like "there were reports of..."). It should of course only do so when the fact is not controversial (the date and time of the collapses, the amount of buildings that collapsed, etc.) My point here is that the article is only "forced to rely on unreliable sources" if it claims controlled demolition brought down the buildings. It clearly doesn't do this. It says that there are people who suspect it was brought down by controlled demolition, and it explicates the main tenets of this suspicion, which, as Time magazine has pointed out, is no longer simply part of a "fringe phenomenon" but of a "mainstream political reality."--Thomas Basboll 06:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I fully understand most of what you state...but to present this "hypothesis" (if that is even an accurate word for such a matter), then ultimately we rely on references that are not WP:RS and oftentimes fail to meet WP:V. Synthesis of information to advance a position using sources that are tending tremendously towards disqualification for failure to be reliable is not an effort to build a better encyclopedia, but instead one to advocate a position. The undue weight clause of WP:NPOV for this hypothesis is enforced on the Collapse of the World Trade Center article, yet here, the minority viewpoint is now the point of advocacy. Wikipedia suffers from systemic bias when we allow this type of article to exist as a fork advocacy article of information that fails to meet policy for inclusion in the main article. Mainstream political reality is meaningless and has nothing to do with an encyclopedia which exists to advance the known evidence that can be referenced by reliable sources.--MONGO 06:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to cite which of the 109 sources do not meet RS in your definition here, or in a sub page of this AfD to avoid clutter? Many people have mentioned this that are supporting deletion, and I think it will help a lot to illuminate this point, as it seems to be the main point of contention. · XP · 06:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we think of this article as being about "political reality" (i.e., culture) more than about "physical reality" (i.e., engineering). Again, that's why the subject of most of the sentences are people and ideas, not buildings and physical laws. It refers to something people are saying, and only indirectly to what they are talking about. (Unlike the main collapse article, which talks about the facts of the disaster.) None of this is obscure in the article, though the occasional sentence may not quite pass muster. In this sense, the idea that "mainstream policial reality is meaningless" and not of interest to an encyclopedia is of course simply wrong. And that's obviously the sense in which Time mean[t] it.--Thomas Basboll 06:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As of this edit now, link numbers 7, 12, 15, 16 (not working for me), 17, 19,20, 24 (not working for me), 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36 (both), 40, 41, 43, 46, 47, 48, 50, 54, 59, 67, 68, 70, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 92, 104....are all links to websites that are unreliable for supporting the information presented, or are here to advance this minority viewpoint in the form of advocacy.--MONGO 07:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not this article is good, there is adquate evidence that there should be an article under this name. Also I believe the concept to be [[WP:NONSENSE], there are a sufficiently notable minority that believe the concept deserves recognition. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, as Arthur just mentioned, and also you've also just demonstrated links from a wide variety of global, international sources, highlighting how prominenet in the current world this theory is, and you've also thus demonstrated perfectly it's notability--all those links are talking on a huge array of websites, and also foreign news sources especially, about the theory. Again, as mentioned, international coverage of this is significant, and as Wikipedia does not rely only nor does it apply any special weight or value to any American view or lack of adequate American view... notability and merit for inclusion again demonstrated. Thank you. · XP · 07:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference 43 is a good example of one that is actually quite good but could be improved to be more informative. The sentence claims that some researchers make use of the oral histories of the events. It links to a researcher (Hoffman) who uses them (straightforward correct citation). Hoffman, in turn, has properly referenced his selection of quotes to the officially released oral histories, which have been published by the New York Times, a reliable source. That is, in this case we can say more than just "researches draw on oral histories", we can source those histories themselves to a reliable source.--Thomas Basboll 08:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How completely wrong the keepers are when they state that the links I menetion demonstrate notability...it only demonstrates that there are a ot of unrelaibale sources. You guys are weren't able to get this information in the factual based article, so you create this farsical one, which is a POV fork. Shame on you.--MONGO 16:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Ned Scott 10:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Might make a good section in a more general page on 9/11 theory but this is not encyclopedic. It's a agenda pushing advocacy page, most of the sources come from a tiny handful of people and the rest is original research. I've looked at this and it's a hand waving mess of a POV fork, which we don't do here. This piece of blue sky can be expressed in 9/11 conspiracy theories in as few words as it took to say this. The keep !voters are not convincing. Rx StrangeLove 04:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - absolutely z-e-r-o doubts the subjectmatter is notable.

1. It is a hypothosis like many theories finding third party proof is near impossible (and then it becomes "fact")
2. can someone point to me the WP:V citable proof of God please (another hypothosis)?
3. Article is well referenced, could be tidied but hell with the emotions flying here "good luck", and finally
4. "Kooky" does not equal unencyclopedic (Pee-wee Herman anyone?) Glen 12:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. POV fork, WP:NOT, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (3)

• Keep. A valuable article, being a lucid synthesis of conspiracists' claims counterpointed with real engineering. I particularly loved: "which were not open sided car parks". But this article obviously needs serious on-going editorial time to prevent it deteriorating into a free for all. I ain't volunteering, so unless someone is I agree it would be safer to, erm, pull it. JackyR | Talk 10:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Most/nearly all of the material in the Controlled demolition (CD) article previously existed in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Now we have a section, 9/11_conspiracy_theories#World_Trade_Center that discusses CD in brief, with mentions of details (e.g. Larry Silverstein's "pull it" quote) in both articles. The editorial time commitment to keep the main 9/11 conspiracy theories and the CD article both saying the same consistent, NPOV, RS things is arduous. The better solution is to put the CD material back into the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and get rid of material that is not in compliance with Wikipedia policies (e.g. WP:RS). That would take care of the article size issue. The time it takes to keep tabs on the 9/11 conspiracy theories spin-off articles only detracts from the goals of the Wikipedia project. At least, it has taken significant amount of my editing time away from working on other articles, and bringing them to good/featured status. It would be better for Wikipedia to have CD in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, rather than having this spin-off article which would likely be a soapbox venue. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 16:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The official theory about the collapse of the WTC was unclear. --Trek00 11:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JackyR, XP, etc. You may not agree with the theory; I sure don't. But that's not a reason to delete the article. I also agree with JackyR that this article needs constant editorial oversight to keep it from degenerating. --Myles Long 16:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article is ONLY unsalvageable for those who don't have the patience to make the effort to keep it NPOV. TruthCrusader 16:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Wikipedia has articles on Flat earth theory, Phrenology, Marxism, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, The Mismeasure of Man and other such nonsense, reporting on what large numbers of deluded people believe. In that spirit, this article deserves to be kept. However, if it is irredeemably a POV fork, and can't be fixed (or if fixing reduces it to a section-sized article), then it should be deleted. Argyriou 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC) (edited Argyriou 20:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC))

And we have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories, so we are providing space for this "nonsense". --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 17:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• 'Keep and ballance. From WP:V Verifiability, not truth so whether this is "nonsense" does not come into the equation. What is perhaphs a more appropriate policy is WP:NPOV Undue weight. Firstly is having this article giving undue weight to a particular conspiracy theory? Seeing as how it seems to be the domininant alternative account, covered by a wide varierty of mainstream media I would say not. A second question which does not relate to this AfD is whether this article gives undue weight to the pro controled demolition advocates against those who disagree with this theory. Jones and Hoffman raise several important questions: namely why were the collapses so neat and tidy, none of the references in the critisim section really address this question. --Salix alba (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This was already decided when the article Collapse of the World Trade Center was written. The consensus there was that few if any websites that document the controlled demotion "hypothesis" were reliable enough for inclusion in that article, so they were not allowed. This article is a POV fork of the other one, and uses the same websites that were deemed by consesus to not be reliable witnesses. Thonas Basboll, Seabhcan and others weren't able to get the Collapse of the WTC article to look like this one, so this was split, without consesus to do so from 9/11 conspiracy theories and enhanced. The article makes a passing mention that Steven E. Jones has been placed on academic leave for possible misrepresentation that his work on the controlled demolition theory had been properly vetted, yet this article cites Jones work as if it has been deemed reliable. Several articles already summerize the basic arguments of the controlled demolition argument, including and following WP:SS, the article on Collapse of the WTC...it folows the undue weight guidelines of NPOV policy, which is in accord with reliable references. It doesn't matter how many people believe in controlled demolition...if virtually every structural engineer, implosion expert and the world's major media do not support such evidence, then it is a minority viewpoint that deserves, at best passing mention, and/or no mention at all. This POV fork needs to be deleted.--MONGO 19:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mongo is right, we do have a place for this type of stuff, but this article is a POV fork. We are not deleting the place for this information, only removing the bad info that we can't include anyways due to policy. -- Ned Scott 19:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there is by far more than enough media coverage of the theory now to warrant the stand-alone article. POV is not a valid reason for deletion per policy. Notability, however, is valid for inclusion per policy. · XP · 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the article, once stripped of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR violations, would be large enough to warrant a split. Article size is a reason to split, not "importance". -- Ned Scott 20:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is incontrivertable that the theory exists, is believed in to some degree (according to constant poll results) by a significant portion of both American and international populations, and therefore "exists". So therefore the question is whether the article content is significant enough size wise to warrant a split. MONGO referenced approximately 1/4 of the listed references. However, many are primary sources about the theory, so they can be linked to as explanations of the theory. That does leave a possible portion of them up for debate--but thats not a deletion clause. For arguments' sake, if neutral, uninvolved individuals were to delete "in contest" content simply to see what was left, the existing article would be roughly 60%-70% of it's current size--altogether too big to merge into the original parent or grandparent, and therefore under policy due for a split. As the theory's notability is also established beyond a doubt, closing admin should thus close this as a pure Keep. · XP · 21:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I listed almost half the references as being unreliable and yes they establish notability, but they are all from websites that are unreliable for anything other than to be able to say...there a lot of websites that discuss controlled demolition. The problem is simply that no reliable websites, published engineer reports or even the media support the notion of controlled demolition, so since nothing reliable can be sourced, it isn't encyclopedic except to say that a lot of people believe this issue of controlled demolition. I have made it clear...this article is a POV fork of content that was disallowed for the very reasons of lack of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and other guidelines and policies from the Collapse of the WTC article, so it now resides here...that is the definition of a POV fork...look it up.--MONGO 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have and I strongly disagree with your interpretation and reading of this. Established, incontrovertable facts: 1) The theory is notable in and of itself now due to the massive array of media coverage of it, the 911 Truthers, Jones, Scholars, et al. 2) Many, many people believe in the existence of these theories and their basis, based on the various polls that constantly go around these days. 3) The content simply is notabable enough for coverage on WP, and this seems to revolved around one camp saying x links aren't valid RS, and the other saying they are. 4) #3 is not grounds for deletion. 5) This was a pure fork of the parent, which then expanded--that's not a POV fork, thats what articles do. 6) The parent is already too large. 7) Proper procedure is to clean up this article as it is, not delete it. 8) If the resulting article is too small, then it can be AfD'd for a merger. 9) There is overwhelming concensus here for a keep, as displayed so far, based on all these facts. 10) Above and beyond all these, for procedural reasons this AfD should be tossed as a close. The 1st AfD was 11 September 2006, this one was 22 September 2006. That is highly inappropriate as AfD is not to be reran until a desired result is reached. 11) AfD is not a shortcut for editorial process. · XP · 21:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

XP...have we met before? I see you're new editor for the most part, but I could swear we have run into each other somewhere else on wiki. The previous Afd did not discuss this article directly...so this on does. There already is an article at Collapse of the World Trade Center that uses reliable sources and facts...that's why this one is a POV fork. I don't see what further discussion the matter between us will do...time for some super sleuthing.--MONGO 06:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I recently discovered that the guidelines on forking say that "since what qualifies as a 'POV fork' is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as 'POV' — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism." Mongo, of course, does believe that this case constitutes an exception. The troubling thing is that he has now included my work on the collapse of the World Trade Center in his (somewhat implicit) history of the (presumably) "repeated vandalism" that allows him to refer to this article as a "POV fork". I encourage everyone to have a look at my edits on that article, and especially this [12] talk archive to see how a consensus for the most controversial of them was built. If I understand Mongo's insinuation here then my work on the article between, say, July 20 and 26 (see[13]) constitutes an extreme case of POV-pushing, which despite the sweeping changes it brought about, left me so unsatisfied that I had to create another article to get all the things in there that were reverted by other editors. Obviously, there is no basis for that insinuation: the article's form and content is very much in line with what I was after and I have come to be very happy with the outcome. Like I say, I am really curious to see what the community's take on Mongo's arguments turns out to be. If they are taken to hold water then Wikipedia is something very different from what I thought it would be. It would mean that this extremely hostile editing environment is indicatitive of the norm, and is not an unfortunate (and hopefully temporary) lack of restraint on the part of what appears to be a perfectly good editor and administrator when working on topics he has a real fondness for and interest in.--Thomas Basboll 21:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thomas, it seems very apparent from my previous workings with you, that had you been allowed to violate policy on the Collapse of the WTC article and create an article such as has been done here, you would have originally done so. You did seem to understand at that article why you couldn't have the links you want in this one...what better definition do you want of POV forking?--MONGO 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me make this clearer. As I understand the guidelines, you need to identify a set of edits to the Collapse of the World Trade Center article that constitute vandalism, and repeated vandalism at that. Though it would not be sufficient, you need to identify the edits by which I tried to get those links into that article. (Like you say, I made no such attempts, because I had read the previous discussion and understood the consensus for that article.) You need to identify my attempts to violate policy, or retract your accusations about my intent to do so. Sources are reliable relative to the claim being made. Finally, sources that are not suitable for one kind of article may be suitable for another (obviously, I would think). But all this misses the main point: all these links were already in another article. The article was split because the WTC stuff was way too long, not because attempts to insert links were meeting resistance from you. The "extreme" conditions under which the guidelines allow you to accuse a split of being a "POV fork" don't seem to exist. Except in your peculiar interpretation of your "previous workings" with me. Again, I encourage anyone who wants to know about those workings to read our exchanges.[14]--Thomas Basboll 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Mujinga 21:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete If you want people to take this encyclopedia seriously, get rid of this POV pushing nonsense. I believe two planes took down the WTC. (but that’s just my belief). Trash this. JungleCat talk/contrib 21:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, you seem to contradict yourself, are you saying that it is POV pushing to put down evidence for and against a theory, simply because it has its own page. And then you state your personal POV and use that as your reason to delete? And if a significant portion of the worlds population has tendencies toward the theory, as referenced by polls about the subject, then would they take it seriously if they thought americans were holding back information just because of their POV. Ansell 22:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

My input on this is not up for deletion, just this nonsense article. Please… Have you ever watched a controlled demolition being organized and documented on TLC or Discovery? Did you know that the WTC had a car bomb go off in it many years ago, and it survived. Those two planes were loaded with jet fuel. But believe what you want. Have you ever noticed that if you "chip" away at the word believe, you can get the word lie? Keep on chippin'. Why should Wikipedia be a platform for this crap? Yes, Delete. Thanks for your input. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

* Procedural request: This AfD for some reason was *NOT* listed on the log page for the past 48 hours -- why is this? This AfD needs to officially run at least a minimum of 6.5 to 7 days before closure review is allowed, as this has been quited from wide public review. I am adding it there now. · XP · 22:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Bizarre, nevermind. It was cacheing from two days ago; Firefox is possessed. · XP · 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back to 9/11 conspiracy theories So many "strong" votes on this. Let's turn off the emotions, folks, and look at this like robots. Let's read WP:POV and WP:NOT and try to personally turn off your thoughts on the subject and judge it according to WP guidelines. There is nothing about this article that should warrant its own page. Guyanakoolaid 23:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep For all the many good reasons already cited on here. My comment: It's amazing to see how many people shout out on this page to delete because they see it as "nonsense" and "cruft" and other derogatory descriptors. I expect most have never looked closely at the issue, but "know" to reject anything from the tin-foil hatters which they see this as a part of. They can't bear the thought of such information "spreading," as though it could "infect" more people. But what does any of that emotional bluster have to do with a neutral presentation of information? Seeing such a furious response to this topic makes it all the more clear how threatened most people who are calling for deletion actually must feel about this issue. Most don't calmly cite logical reasons, they are actually furious, and that comes out in their angry retortions. Why do people get that angry? Because the demolition hypotesis is a powerful threat to their perception of the world and represents something that most people would far prefer not to ever consider -- "please just make that idea go away!" -- so that their lives can go on as normal. This is a natural response. If it were indeed only "nonsense," say, a stream of letters which contained no meaning, there would be no such level of vicious statements about it as we see here. There would be annoyance, maybe the average blow up over a detail, but not such a level of war. Unfortunately, this makes the task of admins on this issue all the more superhuman -- to literally rise above the massive emotional response that all Americans have to the issue of 9/11 and examine the issue as though a living robot. Best of luck to you. Locewtus 23:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete, for obvious reasons. The day that even ONE liscensed SE will put an accreditation on the line for this garbage, it can have its own article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

We aren't discussing the validity of the theory scientifically as a criteria for inclusion, and calling delete based on that is not a valid deletion reason. We don't get to decide if the theory is valid, that's not our business here, our role, or anything else. We just present the facts as neutrally as possible. · XP · 03:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is asking licensed SE's to put their accreditation on the line . . . no one is constructing a building, afterall, but rather, examining theories about a collapse -- SE's aren't the only ones who examine forensic evidence when things go wrong. Failures involving fires and explosions involve much more than just how a particular steel assembly behaves under a load. But sad to think what would happen if even one SE were to get out of line and actually consider the question of the issue, in such an evironment. Locewtus 01:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Torturous, just to make sure I understand, you will change your vote to "keep" if I cite for you one licensed SE saying CD is the likely explanation? --JustFacts 01:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Afd isn't a vote. · XP · 03:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No I would not change my vote, but I would be interested in seeing it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, XP. Torturous, since this is not a general discussion page, I don't think it would be appropriate for me here to provide links just for our private edification. If it's not an issue that would actually change the view yuou express here, it's probably not appropriate. --JustFacts 15:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NOT:

• "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia."
• "Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this."
• "You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."
• Guyanakoolaid 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, still a PoV fork, still gives undue weight.--Rosicrucian 16:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (4)

• Keep
  • I've not studied the article in detail, but every sample I looked at seemed to meet wikipedia standards — Xiutwel (talk)
  • It seems such a waste to delete the result of so much hard work, controversy, and solutions — Xiutwel (talk)
  • the people (MONGO, at least) proposing delete: you seem to not even have bothered being specific in your criticism. Just some general remark about a soapbox. — Xiutwel (talk)
• Comment I think we need a general debate on this: Wikipedia talk:911 POV disputes — Xiutwel (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have about 200kbs of commentary here in detail that clearly explains my rationale for deletion beyond calling the article soapboxing. I can't see how much more detailed i can get when I make it clear in my dicussion that the article is a POV fork...I said that repeatedly.--MONGO 19:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That your argument is the length of a dissertation does not make it correct. Precision and brevity is far better, but that does not make it correct either. Put very simply, if the text is no longer in the original article, except a summary paragraph, and if it has been split out into this article, there can be no fork. Instead it is a clerical exercise to split a lengthy article. You need to separate your thoughts on content of the article from the clerical exercise of splitting it. Fiddle Faddle 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That reasoning is flawed. I have summarized why this is a POV fork, so I'll do it again. Half the links in this article were disallowed for not meeting WP:RS of which they failed to meet WP:V in themselves from the main article Collapse of the World Trade Center. So instead, it was put in the article 9/11 conspiracy theories. This article is a POV fork of the main article because this is the information that was disallowed in the main article..it just resides here now. Had some editors been allowed to put these unreliable sources in the main article, it would have looked a lot more like this one. You need to to understand what is a POV fork and what isn't. If this article were to have all the unreliable sources removed it what remained could then be reinserted back into the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. The 9/11 conspiracy theories article needs massive reduction of unrelaibale sources itself...all those sources are good for is to demonstrate that the theories are notable becuase their are a lot of websites out there, but those websites are controlled by only one or a few webmaster and are not relaibale witness since they are based on fiction.--MONGO 20:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that reasoning is not flawed. The rebuttal you have just made is based on an incorrect starting assumption. It is very simple in reality. Split the article. No fork. Edit the split article down. Still no fork. Reduce any uncitable POV in the article, but not the aticle's commenary about the POV in the theeories. Still no fork. If you were correct I woudl agree with you. And for the recod I have no interest in these articles per se, no emotional connection with the atrocity, and simply think it was a sad and unwelcome event. Fiddle Faddle 21:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• 200 kilobytes per second? I'm impressed :) Seriously, I've missed it on the talk page. Could you please just link to it instead of saying "here"? About POV fork, I was not aware of this term but I think it is not right to believe that some articles would be subject to different guidelines than others. I think the forks are not to allow for cruft theories, unsourced, but to keep the main article readable, because elaboration of every doubt would destroy readability. To keep wikipedia consistent, however, the main article should be formulated cautiously where the Fork article would dig deeper into the specifics of the doubts. (Hey, I'll copy this.) — Xiutwel (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I sort of see what you're driving at here, Mongo. What you're saying is that the stuff in the 9/11 CT article was a POV fork from the WTC collapse article and that was somehow acceptable until it was split out for clerical reasons. Is that right? The move from Collapse of WTC to 9/11 CT was before my time. But the article we're discussing now (as many have noted above) could also have been reasonably created from scratch, at least today. It's a popular idea with notable proponents. But, like I say, I can see how the history of this problem might blind someone to seeing that. I think we will get this article onto a footing of RS, but I don't think it will ever get down to a size such that merging it will be the right thing to do. 9/11 CTs have many components, and are so broadly recognized today that presenting these components in detail and in their own articles does not give them undue weight. It just gives them the attention they deserve. I think the backstory you bring up here, while perhaps unfortunate (if accurate), may be obscuring the real reasons that this article is necessary. Anyway, thanks for clarifying.--Thomas Basboll 21:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to be a broken record, but if you take out the unreliable sources from this article and the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, you end up with maybe a 60kb article...which is bigger than the recommended size but smaller than many featured articles of which I have edited...if things are disqualifed from one article, they can't simply be placed in another due to them being POV and unreliable without it then becoming a POV fork...that is the definition of POV fork. Not being able to examine "closely enough" or whatever in the main article, evidence which is deemed unreliable, doesn't allow the creation of an article, even under a different name, that follows different rules than those that apply to all articles on Wikipedia. From Wikipedia:Content forking, "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies." Please understand this guideline.--MONGO 21:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You remind me of my best defense: "A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines." Since that was my not my intent when I created this article, this is not a POV fork. The intention is to produce an NPOV article on the controlled demolition hypothesis. Nothing about the split from 9/11 CTs to a separate article will avoid consensus building. On the contrary, its creator (me) is currently trying to build consensus for a focus and acceptable sources. Lastly, the CDH article will have much more information than either the 9/11 CT article or the WTC collapse article.--Thomas Basboll 21:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's necessary to have a separate article to cover the subject in detail. This is quite normal. It is not a POV fork, because it does not advocate a biased interpretation of another article. It gives a balanced interpretation, but a fuller one, of a small part of another article. It's a subject that's known about worldwide, so wiki needs to be an authoratitive and accurate source on it (as on anything else) if it is to be a leading work. To do anything else, is against the interests of building a comprehensive encyclopedia. Tyrenius 23:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC) (I do not believe the US govt is responsible for 9/11)

No, it is not necessary to have such an article, and the proponents of this theory are pushing for a separate article simply to boost its importance. Given that the only major external direct treatment is in one New Yorker piece (which, incidentally, goes into far less detail than it does here), and some allusive references in some rebuttal pieces, it is not at all clear that this subject warrants an individual article. Moreover, absent a reliable secondary source, saying "the New Yorker mentioned this guy, and Bazant alluded to another, so we should synthethize them into one theory" is a patent violation of NOR. --Mmx1 00:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid speculation about people's motives and ad hominem comments, unless you can prove what you allege. The theory of controlled demolition is well known about. I've certainly heard about it, and I'm not particularly interested in the subject. Haven't you heard about it, prior to reading this article? Wiki is a source of knowledge. Provide that knowledge without prejudice. Tyrenius 00:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (5)

• Comment: Googling for "controlled demolition" take me to page 70, and 691 - 698 of about 3,670,000. "controlled demolition WTC" is 68 pages, 671 - 677 of about 702,000. "controlled demolition world trade center" is 64 pages, 631 - 636 of about 895,000. "Controlled demolition 911" is 63 pages, 621 - 629 of about 1,270,000. [controlled demolition 9/11 "controlled demolition 9/11"] is 71 pages, 701 - 708 of about 934,000. A simple Google News search for controlled demolition turns up 278 news sources. Keep in mind that's only recent stuff--the past 1-2 months. "controlled demolition 9/11" on Google News is 146 sources--again, the past month or two only there; lots of older stuff is obviously about. The idea of the theory is clearly notable, and there are clearly MANY sources out there that have not been accessed and used yet. That includes "off line" sources such as books, magazines, print journals, newspapers that don't archive online (or indefinitely), slews of foreign media and books as well. Basically, the point is that the topic is clearly notable in and of itself, and *more* than enough data is out there online *alone* to give this enough content and sourcing to be on the level of a Featured Article. To delete, in the face of all this coverage online alone--keeping in mind the Internets are still a microcosm only of the real world--would be an affront to our goal of being the sum total of human knowledge, as Jimbo Wales put it. · XP · 00:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's just a couple from esteemed UK paper The Guardian. [15][16] If it is covered internationally in the press, it is by definition not "cruft", which is trivial material of interest only to afficianados of a topic, so can we please have a bit of objective intellectual rigour brought to the matter. Tyrenius 01:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)(I do not believe the US government is responsible for 9/11)

Ditto, for the curious--I argue because I honestly believe it's notable enough and with enough coverage to merit a standalone article, and the previous arguments of delete for lack of validity can be discounted utterly: if we delete unprovable theories/ideas, then all religous articles are gone. For deletion based on NPOV/POV--this has been demonstrated as not a fork, and POV editorial issues are never a deletion reason anyway; it's a reason to edit and do the only thing we are here to do: build the encyclopedia. Questions of no interest, lack of interest, etc., are dispelled by these simple searches, proving notability. And for what it's worth, I think the towers were brought down by 15 radical terrorists that both the current and previous US administrations did not do enough to counter ahead of time, simply from organizational complacency. "They don't do things here", and so forth. I think the only valid conspiracy is that a young John F. Kennedy together with future enemy Oswald covered up the Roswell incident to further Halliburton's oil profits (I'm kidding, obviously). · XP · 01:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Google is not a 100% litmus test. Search for my user name, I am the #2 hit. Wow! I need groupies! Second, isn’t Google an active webcrawler? (I am not an expert on the internet or computer jargon). If this is the case, isn’t this dispute and more talk here with the combination of the "time of residence" that the article has on this respected encyclopedia have an effect on Google searches? You know, when I do Google searches, I bet 75 to 90% of the time Wiki has covered whatever it was. Are we having that type of influence??? After all It’s Google! (BTW… I would like to have groupies!) JungleCat talk/contrib 01:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Any topic which has an "article" will have significantly higher Google search response over time for any search matching the name of that search. This is due to WP's massive Google ranking, and the fact the interconnected nature of the Wiki boosts it in turn. Any page that has few wikilinks into it will do worse; those with more into it do significantly better. It would be a violation of WP:AGF to assume or say that people want the article gone to keep general public access to the information that may or may not be in the article minimized in terms of public exposure, due to this. That unsaid, anyone even considering such reasons for Keep or Delete are both (either side) wildly abusing the principle of Wikipedia and the encyclopedia itself. No personal bias or reasoning in any or all directions can be allowed in article name space and will be stopped. · XP · 01:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree that bias needs to be stopped and that's one big reason to delete this article. Notability of subjects like this that require reliable references from the engineering community and other experts demonstrate that aside from a few that have yet to publish a scientific treatise on the issue, it completely fails notability aside from a bunch of POV websites that have no editorial review from outside parties. These websites can produce whatever nonsense they wish. We have an encyclopedic article at Collapse of the World Trade Center...and this one has a lot of the "references" that failed notability there, so they do so here as well. When the consensus doesn't agree to having some information in one article and then it shows up in another that looks at the same issue, that is a POV fork...it's very plain.--MONGO 06:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm a touch flabbergasted by your non-policy based reasoning above. Let's go by WP:DELETE, which is the only thing that matters here. Hows this for RS sources? When clicking that Google News link--yes, some are not RS-qualifying, but the vast majority overwhelmingly are. And that's just recently. Also, where in policy did you determine that we need "notable" structural engineers to validate the validity of this theory to have it be an article? The topic of this article is WP:V: the theory exists. We have mounds of WP:RS qualifying sources discussing it. Newspapers. Magazines. News shows. Books. Independent films. Also, from the Deletion Policy:

All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Together, these policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies is allowed in the main namespace.

A failure to conform to a neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing for neutrality, but text that does not conform to any of the remaining three policies is usually removed from Wikipedia, either by removing a passage or section of an otherwise satisfactory article or by removing an entire article if nothing can be salvaged.

Therefore, WP:OR comments are not applicable--per AfD policy, that is an editorial matter, not grounds for any deletion, period. WP:NOT is not applicable for the subject itself--all those statements can be tossed by the closing admin. Issues with internal content are addressed by editing, not deletion. I and others have established amply simple and robust notability for the theory. Ergo, it counts on that mark. Again, we have WP:RS talking about it, and we can WP:V facts about the the theory. Any comment implying, suggesting, stating, or demanding that the theory itself be validated to count for an article are irrelevant personal opinions which have no bearing on policy or how Wikipedia works. We have many, many, many articles on things which empirically cannot be scientifically confirmed, in any fashion. As mentioned above by others, anyone wish to stand by the courage of your convictions and AfD God, Love, Ghost, Lochness Monster, Illuminati, Reptilian humanoid, Montauk Project, and Elvis sightings? This is clearly now a resounding and overwhelming Keep. Also, this is likely the last gasp. Each year as this eventually even becomes a facet of folklore (if it isn't already) the yearly increase in coverage of this, each year, every year, will make this a permanent article. After all, people (especially in America) are still talking about the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate all these years later, and the JFK theories. · XP · 06:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I should add any Lexus-Nexis (or similar) search by those with access to such systems for "controlled demolition 9/11" would also beyond any shadow of any doubts establish validity to the existence of this article (in likely epic fashion, being a search of all published news articles...). · XP · 06:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What we are saying is that the premise of the article is OR. There are a few self-published sources (Jones and Hoffman) making these claims, who blatanly fail WP:RS. The New Yorker article mentions such a hypothesis, but does not treat the elements of the "hypothesis" in detail. Just because these people and their beliefs are ALLUDED to in reliable sources DOES NOT open the door to using them as primary sources. There is no collective "Controlled demolition hypothesis"; there are merely a number of theories and questions foisted by members of the conspiracy theory (or truth) movement which can be discussed. If you wish to collect these theories together, great. Blogspot's got plenty of webspace.

There is no "Controlled demolition hypothesis", not as advanced by any reliable source. There are people who believe "Controlled demolition hypotheses" of one sort or another, but they do not collectively make fodder for an article.

Reliable sources state "there are people who believe the building was brought down by controlled demolition". There are self-published sources that explain the reasoning and rationale for such a belief. The synthesis clause of NOR prevents us from using the former as a gateway toward inclusion of the latter. It's that simple. The 9/11 conspiracy article is the natural place to explain the former; nobody is saying that there aren't people that believe in controlled demolition. That's as far as the reliable sources go. None of them advance the theory and there is no place on wiki for delving into self-published and other such sources to fill that gap, which this article is an invitation towards. --Mmx1 06:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)--Mmx1 06:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For you: What do you think about deleting these articles: should they go too? God, Love, Ghost, Lochness Monster, Illuminati, Reptilian humanoid, Montauk Project, and Elvis sightings? I can't prove them, either, and no RS really pushes them, but lots of people believe in them. · XP · 06:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... your stock examples. Do you look at the sources? Just a sampling, each has numerous reliable sources.

• God: ""God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995."
• Love: "Helen Fisher. Why We Love: the Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love"
• Ghost: "Jung on Synchronicity and the Paranormal by C. G. Jung and Roderick Main (Paperback - Oct 5, 1998)"
• [17], [18]. Seems to me that the RS's point to the Loch Ness being a hoax or meme and the wording ofthe article should be changed; but one edit dispute at a time.
• Illuminati: "The Illuminatus! Trilogy: The Eye in the Pyramid, The Golden Apple, Leviathan by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson"
• You've got me on reptilian humanoid, I fail to see any RS's (unless you consider Icke one), and I wouldn't really care if it went away. But, again, one dispute at a time.
• I'm not of the inclination or training to judge whether the cited sources for Marx's alienation are RS or not, and it's late. But yes, if they're all his students citing him, that would fail to be notable enough for an article independent of Marx. --07:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

XP, I can see you simply don't understand the policies of this website. Last time...I'll make it easy to understand: Much of this information was not allowed in the Collapse of the WTC article..so now it is here...that makes it a POV fork...hello. The policies you cite above are indeed applicable in any and all deletions, so that's bewildering that you would think they aren't. Yes, WP:NPOV...the undue weight clause...clearly applies...it is a non notable subject since no reliable references are available that support the controlled demolition issue...so it gets a passing mention in the Collapse of the WTC article...in keeping with NPOV undue weight....the number of folks out there that "believe" in CD of the WTC are meaningless...because that is just an opinion. If you take the nonsense out of this article, you get about 5 kbs left...and that's about it (of course the mainstream references in the article that are only there as refutation of the CD argument wouldn't be needed hardly at all). Mainstream engineers don't address the CD argument usually, because it is an obvious waste of their time.--MONGO 06:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking I'm understanding them, and I regret that I begin to believe my Google comment above is actually playing a role here based on seen editorial histories. Anyway, shall we AfD Bigfoot as no RS can confirm the big lug exists? Lots of people believe in him, but that's not enough? · XP · 06:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Appealing to other articles as some sort of "precedent" is a false argument. But in case you're preparing such an AfD, Bigfoot has an abundace of reliable sources that directly address the subject matter, not just allusory comments. If all that were available were Simpsons references and CNN news snippets, yes it would be worth deleting. What would there be to say? "CNN reports alleged sightings of bigfoot; the Simpsons parodied it"? The bigfoot article itself seems to have some reliance on non-RS, but we aren't discussing Bigfoot. --Mmx1 06:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting anaology, but of course we don't delete Bigfoot or anything like that...we follow the policies and guidelines, and if that was done here, we wouldn't be dealing with a "Hypothesis that Bigfoot is real" article which would be a POV fork.--MONGO 06:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, "Hypothesis of the Existence of Loch Ness" would be a gross violation of NPOV, and even the current article that states "Lochness is a mysterious and unidentified animal or group of animals" is unsupported by RS and should be changed. --Mmx1 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Much of this information was not allowed in the Collapse of the WTC article," says Mongo, "...so now it is here...that makes it a POV fork." While I'm not sure Bigfoot and Nessie are the best analogies, keep in mind that much of the information in the articles that cover them would not be allowed in the articles on the Rocky Mountains (or bipeds) or Loch Ness (the loch, not the monster.) Bigfoot is a legitimate article even given the existence of an article on cryptozoology (the study of "hypothetical creatures" as the article puts it; compare: 9/11 conspiracy theories). Patterson-Gimlin film article is legitimate despite the existence of the Bigfoot article and it would not be allowed in any of the articles that cover the fauna of Northern California. That said, I do appreciate the critique of the title (Bigfoot hypothesis and Loch Ness Monster hypothesis would not be great, but simply calling it "Controlled demolition of the World Trade Center" would go too far in the other direction, I think. Maybe I'm wrong about that.)--Thomas Basboll 08:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (6)

• Comment on "self-published" sources: It is false to suggest that Jones is "self-published". His paper has been published in a book edited by Peter Dale Scott and David Ray Griffin (Olive Branch Press/Interlink). There is plenty of non-self-published material to work with, BTW: Griffin's paper on the WTC was published in The Hidden History of 9-11 by Elsevier. Tarpley's Synthetic Terror is published by Progressive Press. One may not like the editorial policies of these publishers, but these books are not "self-published".--Thomas Basboll 09:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I was talking elsewhere about this. I see a lot of POV pushing on both sides based on people's beliefs. Some think these conspiracy things are non-sense and unpatriotic. Some think that the government did this and that the people who want to delete it work for the government as CIA/Homeland Security/Majestic 12 at Area 51. Basicaly my reasoning is simple. To some extent the conspiracy stuff is notable. How notable and to which article I don't know. But the main thing is that if an article gets too long it should be split. This one article itself is HUGE (I didn't read it). The voting page is HUGE. The references on it is 105. If it could be slimmed down to a stub, I would vote to have the content moved to something else. But it is so freaking LOOOONG the article itself probably should be split into two articles just so it's not too long. Anomo 10:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Just a couple of observations and a summary at this late hour. The concensus in pure concensus terms is significantly more in the Keep side rather than any other (yes, AfD is not a vote, but yes also that the much larger majority clearly believes the article has merit and legs based on this). All the delete reasons seem to be one of four points: 1) That the article should be deleted as non-notable (beyond disproven); 2) the theory itself needs validation from qualified sources to merit inclusion (absolutely inappropriate deletion reason--many articles in scientifically unproven theories ranging from God to Bigfoot exist); 3) POV fork (this is highly disputed and refuted); 4) various scattered reasons which it is not a violation of WP:AGF to say are clearly based on personal reasons, rather than policy (all of them can be safely discounted--I respect ones' personal beliefs, but they are not appropriate for consideration or discussion relevant to Main article space matters). And again, this already passed AfD once as a keep, exactly 10 days before this AfD. You cannot rerun an AfD until you get the desired result, and subsequent AfDs before at least 4-6 months after this one should be closed immediately on disruption grounds. WP:CCC is not applicable or appropriate either as concensus cannot trump or overrule the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia, and the notability and validity of the article under policy has been established already once. · XP · 15:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There is an argument that the "theory" in this article is nonsense, or that it cannot be proved scientifically, and therefore there should not be an article about it. This is not a basis for not having an article, if the subject itself is widely known about. As I've pointed out above it has received mainstream UK press coverage. If it is nonsense or unproven, that is a basis for an article that communicates these things, and therefore serves wiki's purpose of being informative and authoritative, as is done with other possibly comparable subjects. See List of conspiracy theories. There is no reason to treat this subject any differently. Tyrenius 15:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to having some coverage of controlled demolition on Wikipedia, and not arguing that Wikipedia should not cover 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, "controlled demolition" is a central, key aspect of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. The 9/11 conspiracy theories is the article that covers "controlled demolition" and properly puts it into context of the other various theories. --Aude (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that's your opinion, as opposed to the majority, and its down to the closing admin to decide now... · XP · 15:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is covered in accordance with the undue weight provision of NPOV already over in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. The reason undue weight applies to this subject is that there is indeed a scientifically and correctly evauluated body of research that completely refutes the lack of scientific evidence that controlled demolition happened...it doesn't do this in a direct rebuttal format but it doesn't need to since there is no evidence to refute. It makes a passing mention, in accordance with undue weight...this article therefore, which has information that was unreliable is a POV fork. Should this article be erroneously kept, all mention of this nonsense will have to disappear from the main article aside from a link to be in accordance with policy. XP keeps talking about the majority, what majority? I see some people who want to violate policy and keep this article, but I see no majority anywhere, and if fact, the majority, definitely demonstrate either a desire to delete this article, or have weak reasons for keeping it.--MONGO 15:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You've ignored my comment above. The truth or otherwise of this theory is not the reason for its being kept: it is the widespread knowledge of it that matters. If this article is kept, then there should be a summary in the main article, and a link to this, as is standard procedure. Please AGF and realise that those who don't agree with you also have the best interests of wikipedia in mind. Tyrenius 17:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Afd is not a vote", but-- Keep: 34; Delete (or clearly thus): 25; merge/middle ground: 3. Simply labeling as where my barometer of concensus was based on. That is as of 12:00pm New York time. I will add this is almost an identicle ratio of support for Keep that the last AfD enjoyed 10 days ago, and is actually more ratio-wise in favor or support on this AfD, indicating concensus has moved more still to the Keep side · XP · 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The argument left is a vote tally then? I see 29 delte, 33 keep, 1 weak keep, 1 weak delete...so 30 delete to 34 keep...so based on the tally, the consensus would be to keep, but that means we end up with an article that is a POV fork of several but mainly one other article...an advocacy platform for information that is not supported by any fact based information, only some websites and other material that is either out there to make a buck at the expense of a lot of murdered people, or because some people wish to believe in fairy tales.--MONGO 16:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Everything you cite that falls under policy is reason to edit the article into a shape you feel falls under policy. And "out there to make a buck at the expense of a lot of murdered people, or because some people wish to believe in fairy tales" is not relevant (I'm sorry to say). Our opinions on any subject matter do not matter, mine, nor yours. · XP · 16:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We already did that at the Collapse of the WTC article...that's why this one is a POV fork. WP:NOT is clear on this issue as well, since Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information, not a soapbox and not a publisher of original thought.--MONGO 16:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion of the interpretation of policy, and again, neither your nor my final decision now. It is strictly for a neutral admin now. · XP · 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Footnote: I can't think of anything else for any of us to cover at this point, barring new, original comments or thought by new people being added for the rest of the day. Everything else is just going to be a circular rehash of all already debated points. · XP · 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is "not a soapbox and not a publisher of original thought", so people should not express their personal opinions, including the opinion that these theories are nonsense. That is what the article should examine from a NPOV. Tyrenius 17:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Baloney...any opinion can be expressed in comments, and if they are in article space, they only need a reference...where did you hear that people couldn't express themselves? This article is a POV fork, whether you wish to believe so or not and gross mischaracterizations of policies is not something I am impressed with when done by an admin.--MONGO 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My quote is from your comment earlier. We don't delete articles on the basis of personal opinions, I hope. Please steer clear of the ad hominem. Thanks. Tyrenius 20:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinions if sourced/compliant with policy can be entered if the source reported them. Your take/opinion, nor mine, is acceptable. · XP · 18:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong...so very wrong you are. The purpose of Afd more so than anything else is the points made so points stated as to the worth of an article can and will be made as that is the purpose of discussion. Trying to silence your opposition when you have no valid arguments is not an effective way to achieve your objective here. The fact that no one can demostrate that this article isn't a POV fork and keep harping that it is some great value to Wikipedia fail to see the fact that the issues are covered already in accordance wioth the undue weight clause of NPOV...read the policy and educate yourselves.--MONGO 18:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

While a demonstration (of a negative) may indeed be impossible, I think it's pretty easy to see, if you look at the split and the justifications offered for it on the talk pages, along with the recent edit histories that pertain to the WTC section (of the 9/11 conspiracy article at the time), that it was not carried out in reaction to any POV conflicts. It didn't try to avoid such conflicts; it was simply an attempt to clean up. So I think the burden of proof is on you Mongo. You've tried to identify possible motives by going back to something that happened on the WTC collapse article long ago. But you have not successfully shown that those were my motives, or that those motives will guide the development of the newly split article. In fact, everything since "controlled demolition" was introduced in the WTC collapse article in its present form indicates that you're dealing with reasonable people doing their best to present controversial material in an NPOV manner. IMHO.--Thomas Basboll 20:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thomas, you essentially rewrote the Collapse of the WTC article, unfettered for the most part, and evn endorsed by myself and others. It was made clear then that most of the questionable references I have listed previously here, we're disallowed in that article, yet now they are here, a repository of links that were unacceptable there. The controlled demolition "hypothesis" is a fabrication that is only supported by these questionable links and the basis of the information was originally on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, yet was moved here, re-termed as a hypothesis (which is isn't) and then the article goes on to use, multiple times, the work of a gentleman who is currently under adminstrative leave pending a review of his work, which, as evidence supports, has not been adequately peer reviewed or published by a reliable and neutral third party organization...it was published by an unreliable and biased organization as it helps them to promote their conspiracy theory. This article is a POV fork of the main one which you rewrote. Once the unreliable info is taken out of this article, you end up with a stub. About all you can say on the matter and be reliable is: Controlled demolition issues regarding the collapse of the WTC were examined by NIST and the conclusion was that no evidence exists to support the hypothesis. There have abeen several engineers and one phycists that have stated that the collapse of the WTC could have or looks as though it was due to controlled demolition, yet this has not been sanctinoned by the engineering community as a whole and no relaibale published material has been produced regarding the issue....that ;s the whole ballgame, and trying to stretch it out into something is isn't by using unreliable sources is not in keeping with policy. It deserves a passing mention, at best, and that is what it gets in the article you yourself rewrote.--MONGO 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

(shifting left)

Mongo, you seem to be conflating two different editing conflicts. The rewriting I participated in on the WTC article did not involve this "repository of quetionable links". Look back at the discussion that introduced my edits, and later led to the foregrounding of NIST's collapse mechanism. They all involved solid sources.--Thomas Basboll 20:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. To say that my work on that article was "unfettered" and "endorsed" by you demands that we ignore the part that took the most time: the rewriting of the "conspiracy theory" section into the "controlled demolition" section.--Thomas Basboll 20:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Precisely...we argued there about these references and the consensus was that they not be in that article since they failed to meet policy and guidelines...now, here we are again, arguing about the same thing, but this time it's in the POV fork version...deja vue?--MONGO 21:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Mongo: those references were not at issue. If you thought they were you were not reading my proposed edits. I suggested using the mainstream news source that was already in there when I started, the NIST report, the New Civil Engineer, and an engineering paper [that came later].--Thomas Basboll 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Where have I heard that before? :) · XP · 17:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is that Thomas wanted to use links to variuos websites that had previously (before he started editing) not been considered to be within policy for inclusion, on the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. I am probably wrong in that assessment. The effort that Thomas made to bring the Collapse of the World Trade Center article up to standards is indication that he probably has the ability to produce featured quality articles if he so chooses.--MONGO 07:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all (7)

• Procedural Comment Correct me if I am mistaken, but tallies during AfDs are deprecated, are they not? This AfD requires a wholly uninvolved, totally disinterested and highly experienced Admin to close it. One who will read the monotonous argument, counter argument and repeats thereof, and will sort out the wheat from the chaff calmly. Since emotions are running high on this it might even be wise (assuming procedures will allow it, and using the spirit of WP:IAR if they do not) to close the discussion prior to considering and posting the outcome. Were I an admin, and were I to be stuck with the task of closing this monster I would look not only at the arguments made in this discussion, but at many surrounding circumstances and naturally at the article itself, knowing that this was also likely to be taken by either "side" to deletion review. And I would write a small treatise on why I reached the conclusions I reached. I am pleased I am not in this position. Fiddle Faddle 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My count was simply to explain my current concensus position. EDIT: Also, I like your idea of closing admin detailing at length the reasoning, so no one comes away with hurt feelings on either side. · XP · 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Keeps don't have a review process such as Deletion review.--MONGO 16:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So they don't. Silly me. But those who wish to delete do have the option of further nominations for deletion, which, in some ways, amounts to the same thing. Fiddle Faddle 16:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Provided ample time has elapsed from one AfD to another (any repeat of this one should it be a keep sooner than 6+ months would likely be inappropriate--two keeps in two weeks is ample proof of worth, if this is a keep). Repeated AfDing quickly can be seen as a disruption/POINT violation. · XP · 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've seen a number of "Keep" results taken to Wikipedia:Deletion Review. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I volunteer to close it. Grandmasterka 02:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I support having this admin close this dispute. I feel he will be impartial and will act in an unbiased manner.--Shortfuse 03:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If shortfuse thinks Grandmasterka is the best candidate to close this Afd, then I would prefer to have someone else. Thanks.--MONGO 03:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you questioning Grandmasterka's neutrality in evaluating this AfD? If not, what's the issue? Sparkhead 03:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am now in the process of closing it. I think I can be unbiased. If you wish to make additional points, do it in the next few minutes, I will check the history. Grandmasterka 04:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Your volunteerin to close this and th support to do so by two folks that voted keep makes you a bad candidate to do so and may lead to a sitaution. I don';t like to make threats, but being over eager in this fashion, I doubt you understand that this article is a POV fork. Afd is not a vote.--MONGO 05:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that this article is a content fork from 9/11 conspiracy theories as a result of that article becoming too long. Such content forks are indispensible tools for organizing large amounts of information, and in no way violate policy. --Hyperbole 05:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is realy simple. We have an admin who has not been involved in the discussion and who has volunteered to close this discussion. Since no-one would take on this task lightly it follows that the result is likely to be based on sound assessment of the Wikipedia policies together with the content of the article itself, the various arguments put forward here, a judgement about content fork vs POV fork (valid and desirable vs deprecated and deletable). Since the closure of this nomination is subject to scrutiny at so many levels the closing statement is likely to be more than a single "keep" or "Delete". And it is most unlikely to be based upon a "vote". I think complaining about our volunteer because one person has said "Seems impartial to me" is probably human nature, but is not wholly helpful. After all, we have so many systems in place for scrutiny that it would not matter, except transiently, if this person were biased as biased could be, though I have every expectation that is not the case. Let's just wish them luck and give them space to work, and not expect results for a reasonable period of time Fiddle Faddle 06:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I am aware of the person who has stated that they support this admin for the closing, otherwise I would agree. Whatever is decided by the closing admin will get no response one way or the other from me. Their decision will be accepted as final.--MONGO 06:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the article has links that were not permitted by policy in the Collapse of the WTC article, and the split of this article from 9/11 conspiracy theories was not supported by consensus to do so. If you remove the same unrelaibale links from this article that weren't permitted in the other one, you end up with a stub, nicely rolled back into the 9/11 CT article, where it belongs. --MONGO 05:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think there are inpermissible links in the article, that's an issue for the editorial process. It solves nothing to delete the article - the debate over whether the links should exist would simply spill back to the main, now more bloated, 9/11 CT article. --Hyperbole 05:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We already did that, over at the Collapse of the WTC article...why do it again? If we eliminate the sources that fail WP:RS due to problems with them meeting WP:V, then we have no need even for the factual rebuttal of th eremaining links from NIST, FEMA and the rest of the sources that meet policy...you then have a stub...that's all.--MONGO 05:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The body of this article originated on the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page. Thus, saying it's a fork of Collapse of the World Trade Center is completely without merit - the fact that a parallel argument exists on this article that existed on that article does not create a "fork." Why have the argument in both places? Well, because it exists in both places. That's pretty common when you have a topic big enough to encompass many articles. --Hyperbole 05:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - 9/11 Conspiracy Theories was far, far too long, and branching off this theory - arguably the most notable of them all - was the proper remedy. The theory is obviously notable; it is obviously verifiable as the article is well-sourced. It is in no way unencyclopedic. Every reason given for deletion appears to me to actually be a reason to continue the editorial process. --Hyperbole 22:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yes it could use a bit of cleanup but links mentioning the theory, including at least one link from http://usinfo.state.gov/ seem notable and reliable. There have been some changes (diff here) since the fork, but nothing to say the article has degraded beyond repair since the fork, which passed keep the last AfD (or whatever that double-AfD was). By the way, for an admin to make the statement The article will be deleted...I just thought I would bring it here for discussion...it's your job to convince me to not delete it. Since the article is a soapbox platform, that is a clear violation of WP:NOT. is outrageous. Seems he acknowledged such by removing it from this page. Sparkhead 03:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that is outrageous is those that fail to see a POV fork when it is staring them right in the face. I removed the comment myself so what's your point? Afd is not a vote and not one person who has voiced keep has understood that this article is a POV fork of Collapse of the World Trade Center.--MONGO 05:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's because it's not, MONGO. It's a content fork from 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. A great deal of the text is simply cut-and-pasted from that article because it was too long. Thus, if you're arguing that this article is a POV fork and must be deleted, you're necessarily arguing that 9/11 Conspiracy Theories itself is a POV fork and must be deleted. --Hyperbole 05:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that the CD issue should not be covered, I am stating that it doesn't need it's own article...the 9/11 CT article needs a lot of trimming too as a matter of fact...--MONGO 05:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that sounds like an argument that it's an unnecessary content fork - something that may be subject to deletion if there's a consensus that it's unnecessary, but is certainly not a violation of policy. I'd urge you to respect the result of this AfD: it's clearly not showing any consensus on that issue. --Hyperbole 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As a man of science, it is sad that so many wish to misuse Wikipedia to push their far out POV and create POV forks like this one. Shame on those that do so. Afd is not a vote, but a discussion and the discussion that this isn't a POV fork is weak and without a basis in fact.--MONGO 05:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"POV fork" is perhaps the most misused term on Wikipedia, and I'm certain that you're misusing it here. We both know that this article came into being because 9/11 conspiracy theories was too long - which makes this a content, not a POV, fork. Look, it's inevitable that 9/11 conspiracy theories, and anything forked from that page, is going to have a different POV from other articles about 9/11, and anything forked from those pages. But the existence of articles that present different POVs about the same material does not imply the existence of a POV fork - because if that were true, no mention whatsoever of alternate viewpoints about anything would be allowed on Wikipedia. You couldn't have Judaism's view of Jesus or Shi'a view of Abu Bakr or Kennedy assassination theories. Is that how you really want to interpret the term "POV fork"? --Hyperbole 05:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous...how many articles does this seies of conspiracy theories deserve? I feel that one is enough and that one si the one we have at 9/11 conspiracy theories. Collapse of the world trade center had a redirect to the 9/11 CT article section on this article. Basboll did a fine job rewriting the Collapse article, but consensus was to not have all these links (link farm) in that article, so now they are here...that's a POV fork.--MONGO 06:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is the idea that a group of editors carrying a content dispute from one article to another pre-existing article would retroactively make the latter article a "POV fork." If those editors started adding those links to, for example, 7 World Trade Center, should we then delete that page as a "POV fork"? Simply, content disputes are solved through the editorial process, not AfD. Yes, we're aware that you think there should be only one article on 9/11 conspiracy theories; it also seems plain that the community does not agree with you. --Hyperbole 06:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the recent deletions of 9/11 cruft articles indicates that this isn't the case at all. I'm glad to see it happening as for too long we have been dealing with this shameful effort to misuse Wikipedia for advcacy of nonsense. Simply put, the bar of notablity is simply too low.--MONGO 06:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and Rewrite This article could be really good if someone took the time to rewrite it and many users actively patrolled it as with George W. Bush, butMONGO seems to be trying to get it deleted at any cost from what I have read (up to the third arbitrary line break). I have seen a lot of evidence for a controlled demolition and a lot of evidence against. This article could cover both equally if we would just take the time and effort.--Acebrock 06:25, 28 September 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 08:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Declaration of peace

POV, unnotable as compared to other demonstrations that have occured against U.S. actions related to the War on Terror, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Controversey articles over the 9/11 Attacks, the War on Terror and the War in Iraq can handle this just fine, thank you. --Kitch 02:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Last I checked UPI and the Washingtonpost [19] [20] were major news outlets and wikipedia can handle this just fine, thank you. grazon 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A mere news event can go into WikiNews. Unless this does something notable, merely existing does not mean it should have its own article. --Kitch 02:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The Washington Post coverage is a local city news article. See this link for the "Metro" category market in the top left corner. That's why the story is filed under the "Metro" section and not the "National" or "Politics" section. Remember, the Washington Post is not just a national newspaper, it is also a local and regional newspaper. There is no coverage of this event in the New York Times at time of writing[21].As for United Press International, this is a newswire service, and like its rivals, Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse and so on, it carries many minor stories as it primarily services news outlets (its main customers) with as a great a choice of news as possible, and is not primarily driven by editorial selection of stories. A Newswire is not comparable to a major newspaper in terms of news selection. Bwithh 13:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a week long event and the arrest of jim winkler alone makes this important enough to be on wikpedia. grazon 02:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Article needs serious work, but seems to meet WP:ORG and WP:RS. Article should be focusing on the organization, rather than the demonstration, as that what the title reflects. eaolson 03:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There's no limit on amount of storage space we can use. Other marches and events like this get coverage, and it hurts nothing to have an encyclopediac article on it. You going to Afd Million Man March in 10 years as no longer relevant? · XP · 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, enough coverage for notableness. · XP · 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but wikify and clean-up. --Ineffable3000 04:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. The cites are to small, "news-in-brief" sorts of articles, and the article would need to be rewritten from scratch to conform to Wikipedia standards. It's just another demonstration that will be forgotten in days. --Aaron 04:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, not encyclopedic. Tbeatty 06:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. As an added bonus, the article is unwikified, written in first person ("our"), and references are not inline. Andjam 06:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete press release. Gazpacho 07:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I suppose, but Wikipedia is not a place to promote things before they are noticed. Gazpacho 10:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have just formatted the article to help wikify it; however there needs to be a section added for against the Declaration of Peace as well as for. -- Casmith 789 08:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It needs some major TLC, but I think we can salvage it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this article is preliminary, because notability is still a bit questionable. however, the event is being covered in major newspapers, so it's not a clear-cut delete case and it may end up being clearly worthy (by my standards). deleting the article right now tends to close off options, because there is a strong bias against re-creation of deleted content. there's no harm in waiting a week to decide.Derex 09:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep 2420 references to this in the news today. Clearly has crossed the notability threshold. Even more notable than Lauren B. Weiner was (inside joke for T). Derex 10:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment You got to use quotation marks and targetted terms when searching google or google news or google whatever. Otherwise you get lots of false hits like this. If you use quotation marks for "declaration of peace" and add in term "iraq", you get only ~81 hits - mainly local news coverage, including local city news coverage from the Washington Post (notice that it's filed under the "Metro" section rather than "National" or "Politics"[22]. I didn't see any other major newspapers. Zero coverage in the New York Times for instance Bwithh 13:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply fair enough. with quotaion marks, it still gets well over 60 newspaper articles, including the washington post and several major city dailys, and is carried on the upi wire service. (it also gets +400 unique non-news hits). that meets my standards. i frankly don't see what's bad about providing information on what's clearly a reasonably large event, as indicated by the geographical breadth of the coverage). isn't that what we're supposed to do: provide neutral information about things people care about? people seem to care about this, as evidenced by widespread coverage. Derex 08:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually, if you want to use my notability standard on Weiner, I voted Delete--Tbeatty 17:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Merge to Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war or Delete if not Merged Event has only had local news/small newspaper and independent internet media (e.g. indymedia coverage so far (about 81 hits on Google News). Special week and special day declarations are a dime a dozen. If this gets any major traction sufficient for major news sources, than promote the article. Otherwise, its just another protest event. It has some national organization, so ok to include in the main protests article but not for its own article. Bwithh 13:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Crockspot 13:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Johnbrownsbody 13:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete By itself it is a local news story. As part of a greater whole, it might be notable. Either way it does not stand alone as its own article. Maadio 17:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Morton devonshire 19:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete promotion. Perhaps in a few months it will be possible to separate hype from fiction. Guy 23:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to Protests against the Iraq War. Of the other protests described in that article, the most recent one to have a separate article, September 24, 2005 anti-war protest reported an attendance of 150,000 people in Washington, D.C. The Washington Post's coverage of this event reports 75 attendees at the "kick-off" event for this protest in D.C. on the 21st. I think the difference in scales is compelling evidence that this is insufficiently notable for a separate article. Choess 23:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note of order: By precedent, and I invoke the deletion of George Allen Smith, which stated that routine publicity is not enough to make a subject notable enough for an article. --Kitch 18:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Merge to Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war What Bwithh said. Edison 21:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Jared Hunt September 24, 2006, 23:05 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Stilgar135 23:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Gray Porpoise 21:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. -- GLGerman 10:18, 29 September 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 08:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melrose Bickerstaff

More ANTM models - these ones haven't even finished competing yet.

Also nominating:

• Megan Morris
• Eugena Washington‎ -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. Bigtop 00:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. - Joshua Johaneman 00:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. MER-C 01:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all...realitycruft. Kill them before it spreads. ♠PMC♠ 02:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. 99% of reality show contestants are not notable. TJ Spyke 02:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Premature. · XP · 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - all of them heavily violate WP:N --Ineffable3000 04:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - Needs more information and notability
• REDIRECT all to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 7 and protect. This is all very crufty. The girls have hardly started the show yet, and here are fans making entries. Please do not allow any more wasting of anyone's time. I had already redirected [some of these] to ANTM7 before, but some crufter keeps undoing these redirects. Protect until the show is at least 9 or 10 weeks in, when they will be whittled down to the last 3, or someone has signed a notable modelling contract. Ohconfucius 14:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all for now but keep open for recreation when there's more info about them. All the other girls from past cycles have pages, and we just went through a huge discussion on whether they should be deleted, and they all ended up being kept. HurriKaty 11:50 PM, 27th September 2006

Comment I think you've got your facts wrong there. Not all the girls have articles, and in the last AFD batch the articles were either merged or redirected to the relevant cycle. See Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Cassie Grisham. Looking at Template:America's Next Top Model, it appears that about 2/3 of the girls have articles, but I don't think I'd be stretching it to say that some of those articles are stretching it. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 06:15, 28 September 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 Withdrawn by nominator. — NMChico24 01:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Ogonga

Notability/importance in question. ghits: [23] — NMChico24 00:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep A well-known figure in African Art circles, notable. - Joshua Johaneman 00:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Tentative Keep "Well-known" needs verification... but I'll accept on a preliminary basis that this guy is encyclopedically notable from the google search. The article was created very recently and should be given time for better referencing/context. And its especially deserving of leeway with the need to fend off systematic bias (WP:BIAS) in mind (both in terms of his regional background and his profession Bwithh 01:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bwithh; we aren't going to get accurate information on the notability of a Kenyan artist from Google. The ghits system is useful for garage bands from Michigan, not this. :) Anyways, establishing connections with a Brussels organisation, installing a large art project in Mozambique, and founding some sort of East African art organisation are all pretty good indications of notability. I wouldn't have worked on wikification if I didn't think the article had value. Picaroon9288 01:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That's true. I hadn't really thought about that. I'm going to withdraw this nomination. Thanks for the input! — NMChico24 01:51, 23 September 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 InShaneee. (aeropagitica) 20:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exile and the Kingdom (Lyrics)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not to mention that this is likely copyrighted material. If it can be speedied, go for it. -- Merope ^Talk 00:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. — Joshua Johaneman 01:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notice that it was written by a single, very new, pageless user.—Argentino (talk/cont.) 01:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as copyvio. Tagged as such. MER-C 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per MER-C. —Khoikhoi 03:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom · XP · 03:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete due to copyright infringement. --Ineffable3000 04:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, Copyright Infringement, not part of wikipedia - there are plenty of other sites for this --bdude Talk 05:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- contains no encyclopedic information, just a collection of maybe copyrighted material. -- Casmith 789 08:55, 23 September 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 08:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and mythology

The sole purpose of this article seems to be to draw a distinction between the definition of the word "religion" and the word "mythology". Wikipedia is not a dictionary or usage guide, so this seems dubious. Of course there are huge variances in opinion on that issue, especially because "myth" has the connotation of "false" for many people. There are complaints on the talk page that this page does not treat this topic in a neutral fashion, and that it was created as a POV fork of the explanation given on mythology. Given that both religion and mythology are defined or at least explained in their respective articles, and can refer to each other as needed, this third article seems spurious. Beland 00:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - Joshua Johaneman 01:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with religion and/or mythology --Ineffable3000 04:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the similarity or differences between religion and mythology are a live debate. Perhaps it could be better named, but I've no suggestions. JASpencer 10:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, i think. It might need some help, but it does have references and it does seem like a valid topic. Maybe needs POV work, but that's no reason to delete it outright. Merging might be a good idea, too, although i'm not sure how that would work (adding it to both mythology and religion seems redundant to me). ~ lav-chan @ 11:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the academic references establish parallels between religion and myth as a valid topic. Cleanup maybe, but I don't see why it should be deleted. Leibniz 16:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The relationship between religion and mythology is complex and certainly a valid subject. Even if the article as it stands now is flawed, it remains helpful. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, and clean up where necessary. Yamaguchi先生 18:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Article coul do with some referencing from Freud's Totem and Taboo - same sort of area. Prickly topic which will be hard to avoid POV tags.Cas Liber 00:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Mythology is one component of any religion. It outlast other components due to its literary value & recordability. So people get confused & imagine its a seperate thing. But Dante's Inferno, for example, will far outlast christianity. Maybe we out to merge to Mythology and explain that all religions consist largely of mythology in the religion article. JeffBurdges 20:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteAll rekigions are in some way revealed. Mythology is not.--Anthony.bradbury 22:09, 24 September 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 16:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boccaccio (nightclub)

This page appears to contain little information not already listed under New Beat. The independent notability of Boccaccio appears to be limited. Ortcutt 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but expand and source better. The Boccacio was the first and for a few years most important mega-discotheque in Belgium, and the origin of a new music style. It was located in Destelbergen (near Ghent), not in Ghent as the article states, and even though its fame was before the boom of the internet, searching for Boccaccio + Destelbergen still gives 23,200 Google hits, though only 164 in English, e.g. [24]. A French language article calls it "le temple de toute une génération" (The temple of a whole generation"), which indicates the impact it had in Belgium and the surrounding countries):[25]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fram (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 September 2006.
  • Comment this seems like it may be notable, but sources establishing that must be added before I can vote that way. Tewfik^Talk 16:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Mets501 (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with sources and expansion —Argentino (talk/cont.) 01:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - looks notable enough for Wikipedia. --Ineffable3000 04:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notability asserted in article. JASpencer 16:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comments above. Yamaguchi先生 18:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comments above. Brz7 23:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, no assertion or evidence of notability. Guy 23:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CGMA

Non-notable independent "association" operating from a PO Box in Missouri. Google searches bring up mainly hits related to a different, more well-known, Country Gospel organization of the same acronym: the Canadian Gospel Music Association (cgmaonline.com). Also hits for various other groups called CGMA, but not this one. Fails all notability tests. wikipediatrix 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see where this article does not meet the notibility test? This is a viable and ligitimate organization. I am sorry Wikipediatrix, but you seem to rely on Google for an aweful lot of your resourcing and Google has not been found to be the most reliable source for information. There are plenty of references to this organization and I do not feel it needs to be deleted. Would deleting this article make it any less true that this organization exsists or has a rightful place in the field of Christian music? Hmmm. We might want to ponder that. Thank you for your time. Junebug52 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete, no evidence of notability proffered. Nandesuka 01:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as it stood at the time of nomination, it fit the deletion requirements, with the additional edititing, it still does not meet the requirements of WP:ORG and the only sources provided are fromt he organization's web page, which fails WP:RS.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Mets501 (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Can't seem to find much online referencing this org. Fails WP:V and WP:RS, and doesn't meet WP:ORG criteria for inclusion. eaolson 03:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:N, and WP:ORG --Ineffable3000 04:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't assert notability. JASpencer 16:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 16:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete per above. (Though perhaps create a page for the Yodeler of the Year Award !!) -- Beardo 18:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete although it should be noted that, if I recall correctly, the Wikimedia Foundation received mail at a postal box of sorts as well for many years. Yamaguchi先生 18:54, 23 September 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 08:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pacifico Student Cooperative Housing

This is an article about a housing co-op for students and it's about 4 houses that house like 100 students. That isn't even close to notable enough for an encyclopedia. WP is not a directory. Giant onehead 01:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Bwithh 01:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Wikipedia is not a free advertise site. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 01:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 01:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete —Khoikhoi 03:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Prolog 12:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 15:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. It does have a claim for notability in that the article says it is "one of the only student housing cooperatives in the United States that was specifically designed and built for students". I've asked for a citation. If none appears then I'll change to delete. JASpencer 16:12, 23 September 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 08:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Keith Lipinski

I believed I have unearthed mother of all vanity pages. Subject is a minor internet commentator on pro-wrestling, his "radio show" is more like a podcast (albeit a somewhat popular one), and if he was somehow able to pass WP:BIO, I would bet that only one sentence would make it past cleanup, maybe three. Prod was removed by User:Dr Vader with the comment "Article improved as requested. Objection to potential deletion due to the cult popularity of the show, and the major contribution Keith offers to the Dave Meltzer Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Thanks". hateless 01:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete I've heard of him, but he doesn't deserve an article. Possible vanity. Just because a wrestling figure has a "cult following" doesn't mean it is a big one, usually is more like 50 fans. Giant onehead 01:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Delete it as fast as you can. Not every internet personality is worth an article, clever as they might be. ♠PMC♠ 02:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete opening paragraph is painfully vain and borderline nonsensical, and it doesn't get much better from there. Nuke it from orbit. Danny Lilithborne 02:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Danny. It's the only way to be sure. Bwithh 02:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WOW; He really took some time on that. Arbusto 03:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Danny Lilithborne and Bwithh. You can bill me. --Satori Son 03:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Umm, yeah, Delete Obvious vanity. Resolute 04:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and disturbing pics.--Húsönd 04:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --MaNeMeBasat 10:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• WP:SNOW delete per above. MER-C 10:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep He is known in wrestling circles, but only a small part of the page is salvageable Gretnagod 12:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be shown that the Dr Keith show is either "vastly popular" or "highly regarded". JASpencer 16:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 16:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hopeless vanity, grossly POV, and I for one cannot be arsed to clean it up to the one sentence whihc is probably all that can be sourced. Guy 23:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't think we should waste any more words on this article. Em-jay-es 23:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with a big bellyflop. --Charlesknight 12:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 14:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... he is certainly not a Mustache Pete - Alexbonaro 04:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. What a load of rubbish. Jeendan 07:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I saw nothing which verified notability, and the tone of the article is appallingly non-encyclopedic. --Elonka 04:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article should be rewritten I agree, but it seems there's some amount of personal bias going into the nomination and all of the "vanity" attacks. In wrestling circles he's just as well known as the people he interviews, and a majority of them have Wikipedia pages (I won't list them all because then they'll be proposed for deletion too). BronzeWarrior 06:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is, whether he's well-known by word-of-mouth, or whether there are verifiable print references from credible sources, which prove his notability. If there are, then by all means, please provide links. But simply saying that someone is well-known, is not sufficient. You may wish to review the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability for more info. --Elonka 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The page itself lists his credentials - Pro Wrestling Torch, Figure Four Weekly, Puroresu Power Hour, and so forth. If print is the key aspect of this debate, it should be noted the F4W newsletter is printed and delivered to tens of thousands of subscribers all around the world every single week. I'm not saying Dr. Keith Lipinski is as famous as Dave Meltzer or Bryan Alvarez, but I am saying he's more than Joe Schmoe on the street and the caliber of guests on his radio show (top wrestlers from Japan to the US to Europe) speak volumes about how known he is. I still think much of the debate here is an attack on wrestling rather than a true judgment of his notability. BronzeWarrior 08:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep but needs to be rewritten (and shortened) Igbogirl 04:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing says notability like having your article's photo taken by yourself via an outstretched arm.Vic sinclair 06:48, 28 September 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 08:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novastatic

Tagged as an nn-band, but Talk:Novastatic claims BBC Radio 1 coverage, so doesn't really make the PROD grade. AfDs love, care and attention is thus needed. Also note the (now) redirects at Redfalls and Skipping Beats. -Splash - tk 01:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless User:Novastatic can cite independant and reliable sources so an article can be written. Wikipedia is not a promotional site. Gain notability first, then have your entry on Wikipedia, not the other way around. Equendil Talk 01:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note. Links to Redfalls [26] and Skipping Beats [27] before redirection. Equendil Talk 02:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity page. MER-C 02:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:AUTO. arj 21:25, 23 September 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. —Mets501 (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slacked

Contested prod that asserts the non-notability of its subject, e.g. "small, independently-operated" and "about 50 to 100 users during peak hours." MER-C 01:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Rl 07:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article updated to show notability. - Article author Shadow16 10:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a subject that should do well on Google if it was indeed notable or "well-known", as the article now claims – but it does not. Two or three outside links in some discussion board. I suggest the author provide references that might establish at least some notability besides their own assertion. Rl 10:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't seem notable to me, despite the 'Z' security device the article mentions. If 'Z' is so well-known, perhaps someone should create the article for that and just mention Slacked there. ~ lav-chan @ 11:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The Z security system may be notable enough for an article. JASpencer 16:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. arj 21:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable; the terms Z Slacked IRC in conjuction get 387 google hits, so for anything internet-related this is way below the bar. >Radiant< 21:41, 23 September 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 within the Haverford College article. RFerreira 05:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Haverford Review

Nomination for deletion I'm sure this publication is a worthy showcase of Haverfordian artistic talents. However, as a free student arts publication localized to the Haverford campus and without much history, it lacks encyclopedic notability (compare e.g.The Mays) - and Wikipedia is not a campus activities directory. Also, the creator of the article[28] is the web manager for the Review[29]. Bwithh 01:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Insufficiently notable publication, and no "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as required by WP:V. --Satori Son 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nice for them but not notable. Nigel ^(Talk) 12:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge on reading the discussion that follows --Nigel ^(Talk) 15:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 15:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Haverford College. Only assertion of notability is "The magazine is the only of its kind at Haverford". Not good enough. JASpencer 16:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, as a short menetion, at Haverford College.-- danntm ^T _C 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Arbusto 17:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Anonymous User, - This article serves a purpose. It is interesting to users who do not attend Haverford College. While not more than slightly notable, many articles are about subjects that are not noteworthy.

• Note Above comment by first time anonymous IP account user User:165.82.172.172 [ip165-82-172-172.haverford.edu] terminates at the Academic Computing Center at Haverford College according to WHOIS check. Bwithh 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note While I don't necessarily agree that the Review is not a notable publication, and did in fact recently learn that it's been going on for a lot longer than I thought (I will add this and further information to the page if and when the AfD is removed), if the overall feeling is that this article serves no purpose, I wouldn't be against its deletion, or someone else's merging it with the Haverford College article. On the other hand, having looked over the terms for deletion... it's not clear, in my opinion, and moreover I think this argument would be better-served on an article that serves considerably less purpose than this one. Poesian 23:11, 26 September 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. Luna Santin 03:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donald M. Kendrick

A choir teacher, no sources, created in April. I tagged this with {notability} because it lacks sources, WP:V, and notability. Then the creator of the article removed my tag and left a rude message on my talk. A choir teacher fails WP:BIO, that's assuming that this article is accurate even though it lacks sources. Arbusto 02:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also delete: Donald M. Kendrick/Temp. --Arbusto 01:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Asserts notability, but does not provide citations. Subject is more than a mere "choir teacher," but this article must provide evidence of the claims of international renown.Johnbrownsbody 03:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely lacks sources. Possible vanity. Resolute 04:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 12:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Asserts notability in article. Should come back to AfD if no citations ready. JASpencer 16:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It appears that is exactly why this article is at AfD now. the creator was given plenty of time to cite sources and failed to. Resolute 16:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Remove the uncited text before bringing in an AFD. JASpencer 19:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't do that because it'd look like bad faith if the nominator removed the reasons for keeping the article. Arbusto 01:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - appears to be notable, simply lacking references. (I have added some). I can see nothing on either the main or talk pages about lack of referencing or lack of notability until tagged on 22 September. Just because an editor removed the tag, doesn't justify AfD. We need more articles on subjects like this, not less. -- Beardo 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The source you added was to confirm he started and directed a children's choir. How does that meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC? Arbusto 20:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually added five sources. I suggest that you spend more time trying to improve articles rather than just AfDing them. The CSUS bio could be used as a reference for much of the bio - but we need better references. It seems he was conductor on a recording of the Boston Philharmonic included in their 20th Anniversary Box set, but I am not sure a link to the Amazon listing for that is enough. -- Beardo 21:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You added links that don't assert anything to pass WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Arbusto 02:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country"; does the Canadian Encyclopedia count as reputable media ? -- Beardo 05:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, do you have a source for a tour? I see claims that he played 5 European cities. Arbusto 21:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I count 17 unique hits outside Wikipedia. I ahve never heard of him, and I am a listener and occasional performer of classical and church music. I don't see any evidence that this guy reaches the level of notability of Stephen Darlington or Barry Rose, to name two I know personally. Proper sources, please? Guy 22:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure which 17 you mean, Guy - but there seemed a lot more than that to me. (Not all references include the M.) -- Beardo 05:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There is more than one "Donald Kendrick". Narrow your searching to music or you'll get this Donald Kendrick [30] professor of psychology in Tennessee. Arbusto 21:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Well-documented article shows that Kendrick has achieved international exposure conducting choirs on world tours and in leading concert halls such as Carnegie Hall [31]. Characterizing him as just a "choir teacher" is misleading and insulting. --JJay 14:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Well-documented"? Which sources and how does he pass WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. The article asserts he played Carnegie Hall once, however, your link does not make that claim. It claims he is at CSUS and "director of music at Sacramento's Sacred Heart Church and co-founder and previous artistic director of the Sacramento Children's Chorus." He fails WP:MUSIC. Arbusto 17:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• This was already answered above: How about "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country". Not to mention the amazon albums, major concert halls, etc. Not bad for a "choir teacher" --JJay 19:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, do you have a source that one of the albums he was part of sold 5,000 copies-- if so that meets WP:MUSIC and the article will be saved. Once again the claim that he played Cargnie Hall not only isnt cited, but is moot if WP:MUSIC isn't met. I agree with what another user said about your voting in AfDs.[32] Arbusto 21:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:Music at your earliest convenience. Please review the article for the Carnegie Hall link - or are you contesting the NY Times as a valid source?. Otherwise, while I wasn't aware that Mr. Kendrick was a Norwegian ski jumper, I do value your opinion of my AfD voting at the same level as your AfD nominations. --JJay 21:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't blame me for your miscite on this afd page. So your basing his notability on an article from 11 years ago, which said "the ensemble" was hired "because it was inexpensive, not because it was distinguished." And the performance concluded "only the most overtly dramatic sections had any real drive. "[33] The NY Times even said his group WAS NOT DISTINGUISHED! Do you have a NY Times article from the last ten years to prove otherwise? Arbusto 22:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The one Times review of the Carnegie Hall performance is largely sufficient for me. Furthermore, I didn't have to search very hard for the link since despite your denials it was a source in the article. And while your selective quoting of the review is interesting, the Times does go on to say that "The chorus -- a combination of the Wayne State College Choir, the Donald Kendrick Chorale and the Long Island Masterworks Chorus -- produced a reliably robust, polished sound". --JJay 23:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Great so he played one time with a bunch of other performers and sounded good with Wayne college, and Long Island performers. The issue is notablity and the source said "the ensemble" was hired "because it was inexpensive, not because it was distinguished." That is an article from 11 years ago. Anything current to prove notablity? Arbusto 00:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are sincerely interested in Mr. Kendrick's career, please read the article and follow the links. You will see that this "choir teacher" is far more accomplished than you are willing to acknowledge and has been actively touring. In the meantime, by repeatedly selectively misquoting a bolded passage from the Times - that was actually attributed to a musicians union protesting the use of foreign performers - you are seriously demeaning your argument. --JJay 02:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Follow;

1) The article states "Mr. Kendrick debuted in Carnegie Hall with the Verdi Requiem in 1995" with a NY Times article linked.

2) The NY Yimes article says "Local 802 of the American Federation of Musicians challenged the orchestra members' visas, contending that Mr. Tiboris hired the ensemble because it was inexpensive, not because it was distinguished."

3) Then the article continues: "The performance of the Verdi Requiem on Saturday evening showed that the union may have a point. Although the orchestra's strings produced a unified, warm sound, its winds were lackluster, and its brass players muddled their big moment at the start of the Tuba mirum. The performance, conducted by Donald Kendrick, was surprisingly leisurely; only the most overtly dramatic sections had any real drive."

4) Got any sources from the last ten years to dispute this "not distinguished" claim? Arbusto 04:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• weak keep even the most distniguished musician can get the odd bad review. Bio also asserts performances on CBC, it would be nice to see direct proof of this, rather than via the university biog as this would then allow assesment on the following WP:MUSIC grounds:
  • Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
  • Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network.

JzG, I could also name a number of current and former English Cathedral Directors of Music (see the article I wrote on Stanley Vann for a start), but would struggle to do the same for cathedrals outside England I don't think that necessarily means that they are non-notable. David Underdown 08:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Peta 02:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per others above. I'm not sold on the case that has been made for this subject's inclusion. PJM 02:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, there simply isn't enough here to meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 15:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 17:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Meets the notability criteria suggested at WP:MUSIC on several counts, such as radio network features and international tours. He has performed at Carnegie Hall at least twice. Even one hit wonders survive AfD, so if we delete this we would reinforce a systemic bias in favour of popular culture. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Alas. Carnegie Hall is available for all to rent. There's a New York company that specializes in bringing out-of-town choirs to NY to sing there - for a fee. It's essentially a vanity tour. (I've paid my money and done the same thing, and so have performed in CH.) The booker of these tours is mentioned in comments above. I don't think notability has been established. Bpmullins 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. PJM 19:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Do these vanity concerts regularly get reviewed in NYT ? -- Beardo 12:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ours was, but I can't speak to the general case. Here is the current lineup for these Carnegie concerts. There are notable names as conductor (Rutter, for one) but the character of the choirs singing shows what the series is about, IMO. When we went, our director conducted because we'd brought along enough singers. -- Bpmullins 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional consideration: International tours is, like the Carnegie gigs, an overstatement. I've been on these tours as well; you pay for your tour (usually it's 2 weeks or so on a summer vacation) and sing several concerts in churches in various cities. Tours like this are a staple of the volunteer choral singer's life - most of us have been on one or more of these. The more I read the more convinced I am that the subject is NN, even though I'd probably love to sing for him. -- Bpmullins 19:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unconvincing notability.--Húsönd 19:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are sources, but they do not establish the subject as meeting WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, unless we're seriously considering every person who has traveled with a choir on trips around the states as going on a major trip, in which case I'll start the bio on my middle school choir teacher soon. GassyGuy 05:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Does your choir teacher takes choral tours to Eastern Europe and China, and release records sold through Amazon from the tours ? -- Beardo 12:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but that's also not part of the guideline being cited as reason to keep. The keep votes say to keep because of the concert guideline of WP:MUSIC, and I made my reply to that. This issue is tangential at best and we can address it when that article goes to AfD. Also, it would be best not to refer to her as my choir teacher, as I haven't been in a choir for many a year.

• Comment I'm confused. This is AfD. This is it. The article will be deleted today if the consensus is Delete.

• I'm well aware of what this is. I was referring to the hypothetical AfD of my hypothetical article of my real former choir teacher. GassyGuy 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Minor pop bands survive AfD by WP:MUSIC; there should be more conductors on WP.

• It's a fine ideal to hold, but the conductors still have to fall within some sort of policy. GassyGuy 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• WP:MUSIC for a musician says one tour of a medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources, or one half-hour network radio broadcast. The sources say he has several of each of these. If you disagree with WP:MUSIC, that is fine, but if you do cite the guideline, please try to do so correctly. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• I believe I made that quite clear within my response when I introduced the segment being cited in my attempt to show why what holds true for a band or musician might not necessarily be the best arrangement for a conductor. Please don't be patronizing. GassyGuy 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. For me, he fails the academics test. Batmanand | Talk 10:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Though in fairness I should note the creator has not left any messages on my talk page. Cedars 05:34, 1 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 00:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christ's Church Cathedral (Hamilton)

Unnotable church, lacks independent sources, looks like vanity for Donald M. Kendrick. I tagged this with the notability tag hoping to see improvement, but the creator of the article removed it and left a rude comment on my talk. This church lacks historic notability and fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). The one "news link" is from the Anglican church, which is tied to the church itself.

I searched "'Christ's Church Cathedral' Hamilton oldest" and got 40 hits none of which claim it is the "oldest".Arbusto 02:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Creator removed afd tag four times.[34] Arbusto 02:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me suggest to you that if this happens in the future with another Afd, warn the user using the right template from WP:WARN, which is a menu of warning templates. The creator has been warned now about not removing the template. I'm going to check this out because this page was one I was tracking as one that might require an AfD myself. My "vote" will be listed once I have reviewed material. Erechtheus 02:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep:'Oldest Anglican cathedral in Canada' asserts notability. I've inserted a demand for a citation of that statement. Hornplease 02:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's true and notable, it'd be on a historic registry. Also you'd think their website would mention that, but it doesn't.[35] Arbusto 02:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep:'Oldest Anglican cathedral in Canada' asserts notability. An important ecclesiastical centre for the Niagara Peninsula, Christ Church was erected in stages, its form altered as the size and prominence of the congregation increased. Begun in 1835 as a parish church, the frame building was expanded in 1852-54 with the addition of a stone chancel and nave extension designed by the renowned Toronto architect William Thomas. The present nave, fashioned by Henry Langley, a specialist in church architecture noted for his masterly High Victorian Gothic designs, was completed in 1876, a year after Christ's Church was designated the cathedral for the newly-formed Diocese of Niagara. Although the building has undergone various alterations and renovations since then, notably the extension of the chancel in 1924-25 it retains its handsome 19th-century character. Source: http://www.waynecook.com/ahamilton-wentworth.html Johnbrownsbody 02:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: That link doesn't say its the "OLDEST". Thus, the lead sentence that "Oldest Anglican cathedral in Canada asserts notability" is deceiving on two accounts. There is no source for the oldest catherdal claim, there is no source this is on the Canadian historical registry. If these links are supplied it would be an obvious keep, but its lacking WP:V now.Arbusto 02:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about oldest Cathedral congregation or building? In the former case, it would be Cathedral of St. John the Baptist (St. John's) in Newfoundland, which dates to 1699. In the latter case, it would be hard to say, since so many have been renovated, have burned down (or in the case of St. Jude's Cathedral (Iqaluit), destroyed by arson]], and/or have been rebuilt/expanded that it's a tough call. Carolynparrishfan 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I searched for something that would cement the "oldest" status and couldn't find anything. If we can get a citation on that, I'll happily reconsider. Erechtheus 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Keep as a nicely documented article that demonstrates the subject's notability. Erechtheus 17:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Here's another Cathedral of St. John (Saskatoon) "first Anglican parish" (this one of Saskatoon) created by the same user. Arbusto 03:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep ...as a historical site. · XP · 03:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I want to keep historical site articles. What event or people are tied to it to make it historic? Arbusto 05:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as a historical site; being the oldest Anglican cathedral in all of Canada suggests notability. Yamaguchi先生 04:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Source for claiming it is the oldest cathedral? Arbusto 05:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per XP. Resolute 04:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per XP. --Ineff a able3000 05:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to fail WP:RS. --Aaron 05:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - though it should be tagged "Unreferenced". There are less than 30 Anglican cathedrals in Canada - List of Anglican cathedrals in Canada - I think all deserve articles. -- Beardo 09:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That is according to a list made by the same creator List of Anglican cathedrals in Canada a few days ago. You are saying because its one of 30 on a WIKIPEDIA list of a sect of an episcopal denomination it gets an article. Perhaps you can cite that? Are all List of cathedrals in Canada getting an article? Arbusto 17:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So? The United States is 300 million people, should every government building get an article too? Arbusto 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC) -- How many of those were built in 1835 ? But even so merge, not delete. -- Beardo 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Anglican Church in Canada has between 800,000 to 2 million members - I am not sure what "sect of an episcopal denomination" is supposed to mean. The Anglican Church in Canada is clearly notable - the question is on what basis do we decide which of its places of worship deserve separate mention. If not, then this should be merged into Anglican Diocese of Niagara not deleted. But I think it should remain. -- Beardo 18:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Historic Hanover Courthouse was built in 1735, was the site of a significant case Patrick Henry was involved with, and was also the site of an important battle. The battle has an article. The locality has its article. Are you suggesting that the building itself should have an article?Erechtheus 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not ? -- Beardo 22:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that there are likely a good number of very old buildings in some European locations that certainly don't merit articles. Beyond that, there does seem to be an issue with the 1835 date due to the expansion of the facility. Thanks for answering my query. Erechtheus 23:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Cathedral church. Claims to be oldest Anglican church in Canada. Taken "notably" liberal stands within Anglicanism. That's three assertions of notability before XP's point. JASpencer 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment And the liberalism assertions is referenced, even if the other two claims were to fall. JASpencer 16:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Check the googles for "Christ Church Cathedral" Hamilton (46,000) or Ontario (~40,000). Sounds like the article is simply at the wrong title (or it's at the right title but the rest of the world doesn't know it!) Guy 22:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. All cathedrals are inherently notable. -- Necrothesp 01:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Even the Stained Glass Cathedral? Erechtheus 01:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly preferable to numerous pages about minor characters in Japanese anime or towns in video games. -- Beardo 07:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment. No, because that's not a cathedral! It just calls itself a cathedral. A cathedral by definition is the seat of a bishop. -- Necrothesp 12:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The following are the dates of Canadian Anglican cathedrals apart from those of dioceses created in the 1880s and later on the prairies, the Arctic and northern Ontario:

• Holy Trinity Cathedral, Québec City — 1804 (first Anglican Cathedral to be built outside the British Isles; the designation as to Christ’s Church, Hamilton should be oldest in Ontario, oldest in anglophone Canada)
• Christ’s Church Cathedral, Hamilton — 1835
• St Paul’s Cathedral, London, Ontario — 1846
• St James’s Cathedral, Toronto — 1853
• Christ Church Cathedral, Fredericton — 1853
• Christ Church Cathedral, Montreal — 1859
• Holy Trinity Cathedral, New Westminster — 1859 but lost cathedral status in 1929 when the see city was transferred to Vancouver
• St Peter’s Cathedral, Charlottetown — 1869 but not raised to cathedral status till 1879
• Christ Church Cathedral, Ottawa — 1872 but not raised to cathedral status till 1896
• Christ Church Cathedral, Vancouver — 1895 but not raised to cathedral status till 1929
• St George’s Cathedral, Kingston — 1828 but destroyed by fire in 1899 and rebuilt 1900
• Cathedral of St John the Baptist, St John’s — 1850 but destroyed by fire 1892 and rebuilt 1893-1905
• All Saints Cathedral, Halifax — 1910
• St John’s Cathedral, Winnipeg — 1926
• Christ Church Cathedral, Victoria — 1929

One does wonder why this cathedral article in particular is singled out for deletion when it is part of a series on Anglican cathedrals in Canada — and no, I did not create that list; I did rename it from a somewhat cumbersome earlier title. Are cathedrals not inherently notable? At least that which is the second oldest in Canada, the oldest in anglophone Canada and one of only three pre-Confederation Upper Canada/Canada West cathedrals? The issue of older colonial buildings existing in the USA is of questionable relevance: anglophone Canada is of much more recent establishment. Masalai 19:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep I'm inclined to agree that all cathedrals are notable, plus the issue of same-sex blesings (along with the ordination of gay clergy and bishops e.g. Gene Robinson) are things currently threatening the worldwide unity of the Anglican Communion. David Underdown 07:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep We should not even be entertaining this farce of an AfD. It's a Cathedral for God's sake. I also think Arbusto has some explaining to do for referring to the Anglican Church of Canada as a "sect". Carolynparrishfan 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment As a member of the Anglicanism project, I take offence that our work is being hampered by rogue editors who want to randomly delete articles about major cathedrals. Carolynparrishfan 17:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment. Arbusto called it a sect because that's what it is in at least one widely used sense of the word. I'd suggest you peruse WP:AGF. As to your project, everything in Wikipedia is subject to processes like AfD. If that is offensive to you, perhaps the Wikipedia project isn't for you. Erechtheus 17:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:AGF, thank you very much. It does not mean to assume good faith in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The use of the term "sect" is at best unfortunate and misleading. I am curious as to what this "widely used sense" is: Wiktionary provides one definition - "A cult or religious movement, a group sharing particular (often unorthodox) political and/or religious beliefs." The connotation here is quite strong, even if the denotation could be argued to be harmless. Carolynparrishfan 17:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

1. a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination. Erechtheus 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Connotation, connotation, connotation! Carolynparrishfan 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF, WP:AGF, WP:AGF! Erechtheus 19:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if you look at Sect you see "A sect is in a non-Indian context generally a small religious or political group. Sects have many beliefs and practices in common with the religion or party that they have broken off from, but are differentiated by a number of doctrinal differences. In contrast, a denomination is a large, well-established religious group...". So to follow AGF, we come to the conclusion that the deletion proposal came from an editor who didn't really understand the subject at hand anyway. -- Beardo 22:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Cathedral buildings as a rule are notable, and this one clearly has a history, both architectural and ecclesiatical. Deleting it as collateral punishment for Donald M. Kendrick is way out of line, and the use of "sect" instead of "denomination" is derogatory. But that's beside the point: the article contains notable material, and that's sufficient justification. Mangoe 18:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Before you conclude that this was a matter of collateral punishment, consider that the article was not in the exemplary condition it is now at the start of the process. The nominator was not the only person who had good faith concerns about the article -- I previously proposed its deletion and was monitoring the article's progress at the time of the nom. Erechtheus 19:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Poorly written articles about notable subjects should be tagged for cleanup, not for deletion. -- Necrothesp 23:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. I disagree in part. There were no apparent sources that could be found to improve the article based on my cursory search. In addition, I disagree with this Cathedral="notable by default" theory that has sprung up in this discussion. I think it is biased in favor of religious institutions that have Bishops and could very well lead to a situation where Cathedrals that aren't very notable are kept "over" individual parishes that are more notable. When there is no apparent basis for notability, bringing an article in for AfD discussion is the only responsible thing to do if you ask me. Erechtheus 23:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. Sorry, but I completely disagree with this. Any major church, whether of an episcopal denomination or not, is notable (we have many articles on churches which are not cathedrals). But cathedrals can easily be defined as notable for being the mother church of a diocese and usually (not always, but usually) pretty large. Nobody is saying that the churches of episcopal denominations are more notable than the churches of other denominations, but only those denominations have a group of churches that are defined as inherently notable in this way, so it makes sense to define cathedrals as a class as notable buildings. Like it or not, people are interested in cathedrals. When I visit a new city, the cathedral is always the first place I head for. And I'm not religious in the slightest - I just like fine buildings. -- Necrothesp 23:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well yes, but you were also considerably more disposed to assume my good faith than Arbusto. If you recall, you said as follows:

How long do you believe it will take to add material that may establish the notability of this Church? I'm certainly happy to leave you be for a number of days or perhaps a month before re-checking the article to make sure any concerns have been met. Erechtheus 08:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My concern is simply that most Church locations are not notable. There certainly are ones that are, though. What you have mentioned already sounds promising, so I really don't think there will be a problem once you're farther along building the article. In fact, I'm rather looking forward to it. That's one part of the reason why I like to go back and look at the work done. Do remember to remove the proposed deletion template if you have not already done so. Erechtheus 08:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And the last sentence of your 13 September 2006 comment is what caused me to remove the proposed deletion template. Which is what really put the skunk in the air conditioner. I'm still wondering what the issue is with filling in the red-linked articles in a prior list of cathedrals (or indeed of anything). All Wikipedia articles are, after all, works-in-progress and the gratuitous insertion of a proposed deletion template in an article bearing the stub template without any prior notice by Arbusto as opposed to your approach to the matter does reverse the onus as to the presumption of good faith. Masalai 19:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment The original AfD tag was added barely four hours after the "notability" tag was added. It seems odd that at no point was anything included on the talk page by either of the warring editors. -- Beardo 02:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cathedrals are generally notable buildings and organisations, unless there is exceptional circumstance (such as a very recently established cathedral with only a few adherents in its diocese). --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it already for Christ's sake. RFerreira 23:35, 28 September 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. Not pretty sure what dabbify means, but if it addresses the WP:NOT issue per nom I have no objections to creating split articles. - Mailer Diablo 16:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starship class

This page is an indescriminate collection of information in violation of WP:NOT as the author(s) have randomly chosen several fictional universes and listed ships from said universes. There is no over-arching theme or analysis that makes this an actual encyclopedia article. Indrian 02:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I don't think it's random, so much as incomplete. Possible needs a clarification to Fictional Starship classes (see List of fictional spaceships). And maybe better criteria. But on the whole, I find it useful enough to meet WP:LISTS and better than a category since it allows for quicker red-link access. Mister.Manticore 02:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The first problem with this line of analysis is that this is not a list, but an article. Now that, of course, can be resolved by renaming it, and if this article is kept, it should be renamed. As to your second point, it is doubtful that this list will ever be complete, so it remains random due to its incompleteness. Furthermore, it is indescriminate whether complete or not, as the items on the list have no relation to each other except that they all happen to be fictional. As for usefulness, how is it useful? Articles relating to each individual fictional universe undoubtably already has this kind of information, so it is not useful in that sense. Any one looking for a specific ship or type of ship in wikipedia are unlikely to look up a list named "starship class" or "fictional starship class." I cannot fathom that anyone would need to see all this information in one place, and even if they did, it would still fail WP:NOT. Indrian 03:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's an article versus a list? I'm afraid I don't see the difference. You'll have to explain what you mean. And I'm sorry, but it's pretty obvious to me what the conection of the items are is, they are all classes of Starships in various fictional environments. Now you may think the entries are random, but that's not true at all. They are all spaceships from more or less notable series, grouped by series. Given that people are most likely to do what they know first, and what attracts interest to them, I completely expect such things to go first. Yes, it's not very systematic, but somewhat haphazard. That's the nature of Wikipedia sometimes. That's also why I agree it's doubtful the list will ever be complete, as I doubt that Wikipedia will ever be complete. People are creating new content every day, but I doubt it's increasing at the same pace of new things to include are. However, I point to this example of people wanting to look at Starships [36] presented as a visual comparison to size. If people want to do that(Slashdot and Sci-Fi Weekly both gave it a nod)), I can easily imagine someone wanting to look at it on Wikipedia. I certainly think it's useful. Perhaps some people might work backwards from it as well, if they're looking to compare several classes or genres. It's certainly no less useful than numerous other lists. You may not find it useful, I however, disagree. Mister.Manticore 04:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Never mind about the article/list thing, I figured it out. And yes, I agree it should be moved to something like List of Fictional Starship Classes, but I do not feel it needs to be deleted.
• Split and dabbify - split into lists for each fictional universe, and then make this article a dab page linking to lists of starship classes by fictional universe. 132.205.44.134 04:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll note, that's already done for examples like the Trek universe which already has fairly complete coverage for their various entries. Mister.Manticore 04:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The introduction is basically original thought. The remainder of the article is an utterly unmaintainable, indiscriminate, fan list. Articles on the individual science-fiction franchises will inevitably be very thorough, but compiling an all-encompassing and comparative list of fictitious spaceships is ridiculous. Determining which spaceships are of equivalent notability is impossible, since none of them are real. Pure fancruft. --IslaySolomon 04:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem original thought to me. At most, it's a transference of the Naval Ship class article to Starships. Something that would seem to be well, obvious from the fact that numerous documents on the fictional works say "This is a class of Starships" or equivalent. But hey, you want to redirect to Ship class go right ahead. I agree, though, that eventually breakdown by fictional universe will be helpful. Since that's already being done though, I don't see the point in objecting, however. Mister.Manticore 05:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only are the first sentences original thought, they are not even provably true. Show me one place in a Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, etc. source where any of the following is stated, and I quote from the article: "By tradition, [a class] are [sic'] named after its first ship, known as the lead or class ship. Classes of starships, like their naval counterparts, are used to save effort and money; it's considerably easier and cheaper to build multiple units to the same design than to develop a unique plan for every individual starship. It also simplifies maintenance, training, and procurement of spares (not inconsiderable factors for any service)." While this is certainly ture when it comes to the real world, no proof exists that any of it is true in these fictional universes. Indrian 05:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, so what you're saying is that the information is transference from the real world? Sorry, but I don't see how that fits the criteria of original thought. It does for example, apply to Star Trek, if you look at some of the technical books for it, like the Star Trek Encyclopedia (or see [37] for something on the web. It is minor, but it's what I can easily find online.) So at most, it's a little overbroad, since it might not apply to every example. Feel free to rewrite it, I could concur with that, as I do think the article itself is slipshop. Mister.Manticore 13:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Simply reporting naming conventions from a single sci-fi franchise isn't original research, but stating a theory on how those naming conventions inter-relate is. -- IslaySolomon 15:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Even when it can be observed in practice? I can accept some distancing from it, since it may not be true in every case, and I did try to reword the statement accordingly, but I'm sorry I just cannot concur with you that it's original research. It's observation of readily apparent information, justified sometimes by outright statements (see some of the Trek books for examples). If it's not in others, well, feel free to say which ones you know about and we can rewrite the text. Mister.Manticore 17:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete Crufty fan essay. Artw 05:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redlinks galore, treats fiction as fact, mostly just a list duplicated elsewhere. The intro is original research and highly questionable - plenty of the civilizations listed don't even use money, so how could they save it by using starship classes? An non-list article about the cultural history of fictional spacecraft might well be interesting; this isn't it.--Nydas 08:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Efficiency applies even if you don't neccessarily use money. Mister.Manticore 13:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It's original research to shoehorn real-world economic concerns (like efficiency) into fictional universes.--Nydas 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, whatever, I removed that section anyway, so that's a no longer something you can object to. I think it is still applicable, but it's not necessary. Mister.Manticore 17:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Duplication of lists like List of Starfleet ship classes. Other universes without such lists should create them for that universe alone, not lumping them in with every sci-fi ship ever seen on a TV screen. --Mnemeson 11:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as fancruft. Simply not appropriate for Wikipedia. Within specific fictional universes there may be enough WP:V information to create such an article as with List of Starfleet ship classes. But this reads like collector trading cards. --Dhartung | Talk 12:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Split and dabbify. Starship classes within a single continuum are notable things, but when putting all them together, they have nothing to do with each other, so it ends up being useless listcruft. JIP | Talk 15:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Wikipedia is one of the premier sources for SciFi trivia on the internets, and deleting this would compromise its reputation as a world-class entertainment guide. It's a bad encyclopedia, but a kick-ass guide to TV, movies, video games, pop culture, and porn, and it should stay that way. Billy Blythe 17:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This list is just too broad and lacks added value to make it worthwhile. Any purpose it serves can be handled by a category.-- danntm ^T _C 17:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not Redlinks, which may be very useful. Mister.Manticore 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Split and dabbify per previous recommendations. I think there's something here. It certainly doesn't deserve an article and the stuff on top is original research. However, it may deserve to be a list. Other lists are less than exhaustive yet legitimate. In short, I'm most in favor of making a category and least in favor of outright deletion of the list and its content without at least putting it to good use. Yes. --Maadio 17:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wrong content, wrong title. Guy 23:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Split and dabbify Per JIP. Aggregating these into a single list turns what could be a number of useful article subsections in their own cosmologies into listcruft. Choess 23:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Islay and Nydas. Andrew Levine 01:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Islay Solomon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft. It's enough having starship class articles for the individual franchises (or none, if said franchise is not notable enough for its own). To be honest, I think it should all be transwiki'ed. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate recepticle for data, or something like that. Don't know it verbatim. --Kitch 23:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Wikipedia is very good at this sort of article.--Poetlister 16:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is PRECISELY what Wikipedia is good at. Our strength is in chronicling those corners of popular culture which might not end up in any "real" (ie, formally published) encylopedia, but are of major interest to users in certain fields. this page serves another vital role of such articles; ie, it serves as a forum and convergence point for fans of one genre through many different works, shows, franchises, etc, etc. Therefore, i feel strongly that we should keep this. Why shouldn't this be worth keeping precisely because of the people most interested in it, precisely as it is, such as, for example, science-fiction fans, budding writers, or those interested in the broad shape and pattern of speculative fiction, etc?

--Sm8900 02:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT if notable put it in the franchises pages. No need for a huge indiscriminate list. Whispering^(talk/c) 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Could do with a reformat and tidy, but everything there is notable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Islay Salomon above. Sandstein 09:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Split and dab per JIP. Accurizer 21:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - too random to be encyclopaedic. Anything useful can be extracted by the editors of the main articles. BlueValour 03:38, 1 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 08:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newcastle United Fan Video Podcast

Delete. Non-notable podcast; 3 Google hits for "Newcastle United Fan Video Podcast" and 15 for "Nufc podcast" ... discospinster _talk 02:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nn webcontent. MER-C 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 04:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Vanity. Resolute 04:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Patrick 06:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 15:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If "Newcastle United Fan Video Podcast is the first Newcastle United Podcast ever made." is it's claim to notability, it's failed. JASpencer 16:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The only citation that is directly relevant to the podcast is the homepage of the podcast itself. arj 21:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Dodge 11:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete totally non-notable spam/vanity page, possible speedy under WP:CSD A3 & A7. Qwghlm 11:37, 25 September 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 08:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singularity Inductor

Nomination for deletion Gamecruft. Wikipedia is not a game guide. SMAC is a great (if somewhat flawed) game, but this is not encyclopedic. Taking this to afd rather than prod'ing in case there is some real life physics or whatever term that I don't know about. Bwithh 02:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki if a gaming wiki wants it, else delete per nom. MER-C 02:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as there's not even a list of Secret Projects in the Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri article. Mister.Manticore 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And the information seems to already be at the Civ wikibook page. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Civ Mister.Manticore 03:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom--I love SMAC as much as the next guy but this doesn't at all make sense as its own article, nor would it really fit into the main article due to a lack of list of secret projects. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 03:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. The speculation about "real" singularity inductors doesn't help. Choess 23:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete And I played SMAC last night. Totally unencyclopedic. Go to Civfanatics or Apolyton if you want every last thing to do with CIV games. Spartaz 22:05, 25 September 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 08:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puras Inside

This article fails WP:MUSIC based on the claims made in it. In addition, there is only one English language search result. It does not establish any grounds for notability. Deprodded by creator. Erechtheus 02:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 02:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: Creator has removed AfD template. Erechtheus 14:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maadio 17:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: Despite warnings, creator has removed AfD template three times. Erechtheus 00:44, 24 September 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 08:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of flavors of chewing gum

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is basically listcruft. Crystallina 02:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This has to be a joke... · XP · 04:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 04:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above and WP:OR.--Húsönd 04:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as chewcruft. Actually, I wouldn't mind a representative list of kinds of gum added to chewing gum, but a list of flavors is, in my opinion, not encyclopedic. Furthermore, this is a list of the names of flavors, not an attempt to taxonomize the flavors themselves. Is "Cherry Chill" really different from "Cherry"? And what the heck flavor is "Blue Blowout"? Someone worked hard on this, and I don't want to denigrate that, but I don't think this should be retained. Pleather 07:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with suggestion that the author put this information in the articles about the brands. Gazpacho 08:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as completely useless listcruft. Many of the names are marketing-speak which doesn't tell anything about the flavours. JIP | Talk 15:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. 23skidoo 22:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can hardly believe this exists! Guy 23:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete flavoured listcruft, do not swallow. QuagmireDog 03:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does he qualify for a Barnstar for triviality?--Anthony.bradbury 22:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I disagree that this article constitutes indiscriminate information (and it falls under none of the categories listed on the policy page. The article is directly related to other articles in wikipedia (we have articles on chewing gum itself, as well as on individual brands like altoids, Trident gum, Bubblicious, etc., and flavors like spearmint and bubblegum). The information is also completely verifiable. Note that there are also related lists also in existence, like List_of_chewing_gum_brands. It's certainly as encyclopedic as many of the other lists on Wikipedia. It wasn't created just for the sake of creating a list. There are a lot of people who actively follow the chewing gum/candy/mint market, collect containers (like Altoids tins or tic tac boxes), and are interested in buying gum *across* the range of brands, not just within a particular brand. As a result this is actually a useful list for many people. The fact that Wikipedia has so many articles on individual flavors and brands demonstrates that fact in part. Ideally, it would be a section on the chewing gum page, except that it's clearly too long for that. If there were only, say, 12 chewing gum flavors in existence, nobody here would have a problem with listing them on the chewing gum page. But the list has become too long to be a sub-section, so it really needs its own article at this point. It is fairly comprehensive, although obviously not complete, and I'm the first to admit it needs some work. There are lists on wikipedia seemingly more trivial (i won't bother listing them here. you've all seen them). In many ways, a list of flavors of gum is analagous to a List of genres of music. It's true, they aren't taxonomized, but that's more of a reason to improve or reorganize the page than it is a reason to delete it. Also, yes, the flavors are "marketing-speak" to some degree, but so are brand-names (what does "Altoids" or "Kraft" really tell you about the products those companies manufacture and sell?) or book titles, and we certainly have lists of those. Also, somewhat as an aside, "marketing-speak" is actually of interest to many people. Although admittedly the consensus so far is to delete, that alone isn't reason to delete an article, i really think i've addressed the relevant issues here. -Bindingtheory 00:12, 28 September 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 08:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 02:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This one. NN. · XP · 04:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 15:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Pavel Vozenilek 14:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages (WP:V: no secondary sources have been published on this language). —Ruud 20:45, 26 September 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 08:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L00P

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn · XP · 04:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --MaNeMeBasat 10:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 15:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Pavel Vozenilek 14:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages (WP:V: no secondary sources have been published on this language). —Ruud 20:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another brainfuck derivative not notable on its own. Equendil Talk 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Daniel.Bryant 09:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L33t programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This page was a no consensus keep at its first AfD in March 2005. Xoloz 03:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This one. Has enough spread of use to merit a stub at the least. · XP · 04:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:XP. JIP | Talk 15:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the comments above. Yamaguchi先生 18:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Esoteric != Nonnotable Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:29, 24 September 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 08:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lambda programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This one. nn · XP · 04:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable programming language. JIP | Talk 15:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Alternatively replace with single line text that lambda calculus is not a programming language to clear confusion of some people. Pavel Vozenilek 14:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages (WP:V: no secondary sources have been published on this language). —Ruud 20:52, 26 September 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 08:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lazy K

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 03:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This one has some spread, warrants an article. · XP · 04:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, I don't think it's that notable. JIP | Talk 15:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the following is a quote from the article. Another unusual quality of Lazy K is its flexibility of dialect. Lazy K can be written in a combinatory logic notation (like (K(SI(KK)))), Unlambda-like notation (`k``si`kk), Iota notation (**i*i*ii***i*i*i*ii*ii**i*i*ii*i*i*ii), or Jot notation (1111001111111000111111000111001110011110011100). Sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever. Its not vandalism is it? --Spartaz 22:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per it not being Unlambda. —Ruud 21:57, 26 September 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 08:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music videos broadcast by CMT Pure Country

Delete. It's just useless collection of infomation. --Caldorwards4 03:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT Danny Lilithborne 03:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - useless listcruft. MER-C 03:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yay! More lists! eaolson 03:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Heh. —Khoikhoi 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - another useless list. --Ineffable3000 05:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as scary precedent. Listcruft is one thing--lists of things performed by entities created to perform those things is something else entirely. What next? Books checked out of Wisconsin libraries, perhaps? {shudder} Although, I must say I admire those hearty souls who watched CMT in 1990, when all it did, apparently, was continuously broadcast a Garth Brooks video. --Pleather 07:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete quickly before someone thinks a similar list of videos aired by MTV (over, what, 25 years?) is a good idea... 23skidoo 22:43, 23 September 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. —Mets501 (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White-ball

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 vote, 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}}.

Completely unverified. A game a guy told his grandson. Non-notable. eaolson 03:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Nom pretty much sums it up - Richfife 06:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Gazpacho 07:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't assert notability in article. JASpencer 16:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Its a game and maybe people want to learn i dont see the harm. The information is correct.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.145.193.193 (talk • contribs).

The harm. Also, "correct" isn't the criterion.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Popular game in Calgary, played at multiple group meeting including 'Club' which is the weekly meeting of Young Life ([Young Life Canada Website [38]]) and also 'Ventures' meetings, which is a part of Scouts Canada ([Scouts Canada Website [39]]). There is not verification because Heritage Park Historical Village will not allow the photography or copys of the history to be published. Amathers 20:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment The village not allowing copies of the history isn't really the point. If the game is being played (even if you can't publish a photograph of the rules), then there needs to be documentation about it from reliable sources before it can be on wikipedia. - Richfife 20:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The game may exist but without being verifiable through reliable sources it can never be more than an assertion of existence. That is not the province of an encyclopedia. By the by, Mike Shamos' Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards (ISBN 1-55821-219-1) has no entry for it and I know of no more comprehensive resource (and I know pretty much all the resources on the subject of pool and billiards).--Fuhghettaboutit 03:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The game exists, and should be on here just as much as something like Soggy Biscuit is. --DanceCommander 11:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Soggy Biscuit is disgusting, yes, but also a notable game (or at least an urban legend about a game) that has had a lot of coverage in print and on the web. Wikipedia doesn't pass judgement on whether something is good, bad or ugly, only whether it is notable. Also, for the record, DanceCommander is not an actual account (the signature is fake). - Richfife 15:44, 26 September 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 Betty Suarez, Merge the rest to Ugly Betty. No prejudice against un-merging these if Ugly Betty increases in notability and the content on these characters starts to crowd the Ugly Betty article. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Betty Suarez

Character(s) from a upcoming TV show on ABC called Ugly Betty, which has not premiered yet. WP is not a crystal ball, and I don't think it is necessary or notable to have every character from this show, which has yet to be determined to be popular or notable in the long run since it has not premiered, to have their own article. What if the ratings tumble and it gets cancelled in 5 weeks? It's not out of the question. This could also be considered fancruft and original research, and it may have been lifted from promo materials. Giant onehead 03:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are unnotable characters from said show:

• Ignacio Suarez
• Hilda Suarez
• Justin Suarez
• Daniel Meade
• Bradford Meade
• Wilhelmina Slater
• Christina (Ugly Betty character)
• Amanda (Ugly Betty character)
• Marc (Ugly Betty character)

• Pare down and Merge All to main article. If the show lasts until, say, a third season (or is a major hit), then consider breaking them out into their own articles. - Richfife 04:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't pare down. Merge or keep On the grounds that the show has emerged as a breakout hit (and the fact that it's actually pretty damn good), I'm changing my vote. - Richfife 00:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Ugly Betty per Richfife. The show hasn't even premiered yet. TJ Spyke 04:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Ugly Betty or Delete. Wikipedia's not a crystal ball. What if it gets cancelled after 1 episodes, let alone 3 weeks? We don't know, and that's the good of not including certain things predicted to warrent articles. The very spirit of the crystal ball arguement for deletion. Kevin_b_er 04:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 05:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete all per above editors. --Aaron 05:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Premature to have articles yet. Agreed wait a few weeks and see if the show survives first, and once it does, only create an article on Betty herself until or unless any of the supporting characters become notable. 23skidoo 22:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All Including ugly Betty Seems to be prediction not reporting fact. At the very best OR. at worst speculation and PR puffery. Spartaz 22:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply I think that's going a little too far. The show premieres this week on a major network and would be notable at this point even it's cancelled before airing (which is very unlikely given the positive buzz about it). - Richfife 23:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I never intended for the show's article to be deleted, I just think the characters need to go. Giant onehead 16:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Ugly Betty. If the show becomes a hit and that article becomes unmanageably long, then we can re-assess this. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- for now (and monitor). WOULD IT KILL US TO WAIT A MONTH AND SEE? Someone obviously went to a lot of trouble to create all the articles. If the show is a hit the articles will probably get expanded. Deleting or merging now could just create the need to redo all the work. If the show tanks, all the merging, etc., can be done later.
  • However, in any event the articles should be renamed to indicate they are TV show characters. RickReinckens 05:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The thing is, we have standards here, and we can't go around and make exceptions like that. Just because someone "worked" hard to create the articles does not mean that they are instantly notable or should be kept. Yes, the show has a fair amount of hype, but that doesn't mean that the show will be sucessful. I think it's best to delete/merge the articles until it can be assumed that the characters are notable (if ever). Giant onehead 13:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is what's the big deal about waiting one month? Many articles are listed as stubs with only 2-3 sentences and they are kept sitting around for months "in case someone decides to expand it". One month won't kill anybody. Regarding "we have standards", "Wikipedia is not a beaucracy." It isn't necessary to make a decision immediately--monitoring relevant external events for a short period is the best approach. RickReinckens 02:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Well, you're wrong, simple as that. There is a problem waiting another month or so as we can't just make exceptions for articles. Odds are, the article will be merged or such, and if it's certified as a notable show to allow character pages, then perhaps they can be recreated at a later date. WP is not a crystal ball, and we can't just forcast what is notable. Giant onehead 04:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per others. Never Mystic (tc) 01:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Ugly Betty has just premiered with ridiculously high numbers, so cancellation is unlikely. This is no different than the articles for characters of Lost or Desperate Housewives.--Isocyanide 18:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I really don't think the reasoning for this vote is valid. Yes, it did get decent ratings, but that doesn't mean that the show would be kept long-term at this point. And Lost and Desperate Housewives are confirmed hits and have been around for a few years, this show has only aired one episode and probably got the high ratings mainly on curiosity and the fact that Grey's Anatomy was on afterwards. Even a show like We Got it Made got pretty high ratings at first, but that show got dumped fairly quickly, and not even all of the actors on the show have articles, let alone characters. Giant onehead 20:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Ugly Betty. The previous versions of this show have had at least moderate (often great) success in many other countries, including Russia, Spain, Columbia, and Mexico. Also, with the large Latino population in the United States, there are many people within the country who are familiar with the show already. While the jury is out on how it will fare in the US, I think that given its previous track record, the hype surrounding the show, and the great ratings it has recieved so far, so what's the harm in simply merging them with the Ugly Betty page and going from there in a month or so? Mhtbhm 04:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for Betty Suarez and Merge to Ugly Betty for the rest. In time, the supporting characters could branch out into their own articles, but right now there isn't enough information in those articles to keep them seperate. - Lex 05:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I hate that I'm making so many comments on this issue, but I'll make some more. I really don't understand where people think that initial good ratings mean that the show is an instant hit or is instantly notable or what. I'm not suprised that the ratings were alright for the premiere (not a "giantic success", but respectible), there was a lot of hype and the premise was unique and it has Grey's Anatomy following it. Who knows what the ratings will end up next week? Even a show like The Single Guy always had decent ratings based on lead-ins and such, and I don't see any characters getting pages for that show. I'll make a compromise and Withdraw Betty Suarez from consideration for deletion. Even if the show got cancelled tommorow, the hype and buzz about the character make her notable for WP for sure. I still stand by that the other articles nominated should be merged/deleted. Giant onehead 04:32, 3 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 redirected. MER-C 04:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golden shoulders

Duplicates Golden Shoulders. (Speedy?) →smably 04:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy close, I created a redirect to the proper article. hateless 04:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops, thought this was a cut-and-paste move kind of situation, but I guess it's different. Thanks for dealing with this. →smably 04:09, 23 September 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. —freak(talk) 00:36, Sep. 24, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oleg Voronoy

DELETED BY AUTHOR. END OF DISCUSSION! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilith angel (talk • contribs).

The page contains no useful information about its subject; most of the enigmatic text is copied directly from this ad, selling the Russian language book. Jim Douglas 04:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable author, unencyclopedic text, creation is the only edit by the author. Nope. - Richfife 06:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• UnDelete Notable author. More than 424 entries in Google [40] and [41]. More than 8000 readers on-line [42] and [43]. Published books registered with Library of Congress ISBN: 1-4116-0995-6. Popular songwriter in Russia. [44]. Most of "enigmatic text is copied directly from" Wikipedia to LULU [45], not a vise versa. This article fully complies with “Biographies of living persons Policy”
  • Comment Most of those google hits are either (1) wikipedia mirror sites, or (2) lyric sites that end up at a dead end if you actually click through. I just tried to search for that ISBN. It's possible I entered it wrong, or did the search wrong, but it doesn't find anything. -- Jim Douglas 17:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment An ISBN # doesn't mean anything. Anyone can submit anything to the Library of Congress and they'll keep it for you and give you a # - Richfife 20:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment "Anyone can submit anything"? Way be correct, but any author who submits work to Library of Congress, think that his work is some contribution to the public. There is no "Anyone" and there is no "Anything". For every work allways some readers and some fans... and some people critics. Every one judges on level of they intelect.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilith angel (talk • contribs).

Reply I'm going to assume that the implied insult is a result of a language issue. The author's intent is of only minor importance. People write what they consider to be "the greatest book ever" every day. - Richfife 21:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply Richfife: I do not want to insult nobody here. Love! Peace!

• Delete Doesn't assert notability in article. JASpencer 16:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you define "Notability", since it is no Wiki Policy on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilith angel (talk • contribs).
    • Reply Wikipedia's Notability Page on People - Richfife 21:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply Lilith angel: Also on the WP:BIO page, see WP:AUTO (Has this been written by the subject or someone closely involved with the subject?) -- Jim Douglas 21:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply Jim Douglas: Yes, this article has been written by the subject. I don't mind if you delete it, I'm not trying to achieve glory and recognition by submitting this article to Wikipedia. I was just submitting my BIO to Living Russian Poets, that’s it... Unfortunately in our time, most of the work published on Internet, in different languages and form, so “Notability” is the question. Are you “Notable” if you receive more than 100s emails a day from your fans? Do I really need Wiki for that? Was just wandering that you decided to delete it now, after this article been published for 6 month.
      • Reply Lilith angel: I honestly have no axe to grind here. I was clicking the 'Random article' link and this article happened to come up. The first thing I noticed was that the external link was for a personal photo site. That seemed a bit unusual, so I spent a few minutes looking around on google, and the only other link I could find was here. I was wondering, though; wouldn't readers of ru.wikipedia.org be more likely to be interested in Russian-language poetry? -- Jim Douglas 22:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        • ReplyJim Douglas: It’s funny, but you hit my site right at the moment I was updating it. It is not personal photo site, but artists home. I just left the photos, since I have been asked by fans to keep photos while I do maintenance of the site. Look at the article again.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lynx Log Works LLC

Non-notable company vanity page, created as advertising [46]. ProD removed by creator after rewrite. Only established this year, zero google hits [47]. Fails WP:CORP. IslaySolomon 04:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with extreme prejudice. --Aaron 05:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - spammy. MER-C 05:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 15:54, 23 September 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. Transwiki optional. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Deck Formats and Strategies

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Original research galore on this one, as well. While there's a Yu-Gi-Oh project going on (which I'm a part of), I think this kind of info is better served on the Yu-Gi-Oh Wiki. Danny Lilithborne 05:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki if they want it, else delete per nom. MER-C 05:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wpwpd 09:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki if they want it, else delete per nom. per MER-C. Andrew Levine 01:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom --Charlesknight 12:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - wikipedia is not a strategy guide.Bakaman _Bakatalk 20:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article isn't a strategy guide, since it doesn't teach how to make the decks; if it was a strategy guide, it would say "The perfect aggro deck is: and give a list of cards. Nor is it original research, because there's websites such as Pojo.com and some about.com websites that explain what these decks are and how to build them. I think that if the sections can get expanded, this will be a good article. HOWEVER, I think this shouldn't have the word "strategies" in the title, but rather just be called List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Deck Formats.

P.S. If you're going to delete this article, don't stop at just this! Here's two other articles that are quite similar to this one: Tank (computer gaming) and Munchkin (role-playing games); they are similar in that they teach about different styles, or strategies if you must, about MMORPG's and RPG's. SuperDT 04:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment I don't see any similarity whatsoever, other than all three articles are about games. The article I nominated is a how-to guide, and you haven't said anything that proves otherwise. Danny Lilithborne 16:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment They are similar in that they explain about different styles of playing a particular game; for example, the tank article is a how-to guide on how to "tank" in MMORPG's, and the Munchkin one tells how to play as an underestimated character. The article you nominated tells about different styles of play that Yu-Gi-Oh players use. Second, I'm not sure how this(The article you nominated) is a how-to guide, could you please enlighten me? SuperDT 18:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment "Tank" and "munchkin" are common enough terms in gaming in general to merit having an article explaining their meaning and source; this article just explains how decks differ from each other using fan-based terms, with no sources whatsoever. "Aggro deck" has no meaning outside of MTG variant type games. Instead of trying to get the article kept as is (which it obviously won't), why don't you add some sources, or (better) consider a transwiki. Danny Lilithborne 01:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I guess I will try and find some sources, and make this article better, but you still haven't answered my question: how is this article a how-to guide? These are how-to guides: Aggro deck, Combo Deck, Control deck, and Midgame deck.

SuperDT 03:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Transwiki, it's all original research with no sources. TJ Spyke 04:12, 2 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. Luna Santin 03:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ballet Theatre of Central PA

Unfinished nom found by User:DumbBOT. Procedural nom. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Article should be "Ballet Theatre of Central Pennsylvania". My first instinct was to keep, but reading between the lines on their home page it seems clear that they're really just some kids after school dance teachers. One production (read: recital for parents) a year, always "The Nutcracker", performed at a local high school auditorium. Nope, not making it. - Richfife 05:52, 23 September 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. If anyone wants to transwiki, I'll happily provide you with a copy of the page. Wickethewok 15:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Awards in Battlefield 2: Modern Combat

Game guide article. No value M8v2 05:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP is not a game guide. TJ Spyke 05:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to battlewiki.com TJ Spyke 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki if a gaming wiki wants it, else delete per above. Don't forget to delete all the related images. MER-C 05:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a good idea, is there a Battlefied specific Wiki? If so, transwiki it there. If not, then to a general gaming Wiki. TJ Spyke 05:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Found one. MER-C 12:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. JIP | Talk 15:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. We all agree that Wikipedia should not include game guides - that is, articles where there are instructions, hints, guides, tips, and other text where the article generally instructs the reader how to play the game. What Wikipedia is here for is to state facts and other reference information - and that is all this article does. It is also all the other articles do that this user has put up for deletion. I would really like to know what separates this article from any other game related article. How does this qualify as a game guide? If this article was merged into Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, would that article also be a game guide? A LOT of articles are being put up for deletion by this user, and if they get deleted because of a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy then a lot of work will be wasted. Please consider voting on the other AfD's that this user has decided to start (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Remy B 03:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I also have to object to the term "no value". Surely it is easily conceivable that people would come to this article to look up this information, hence giving it value? What about the information in this article is "no value" that vast majority of Battlefield 2: Modern Combat is not? If all these articles get deleted should be begin a massive cull of all game articles for "no value" information? Remy B 03:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This article has no value. All the exact same info can be found on any gamesite.--M8v2 03:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. So can all information on Wikipedia - that is a necessity because original research is forbidden. Are you suggesting that any information on Wikipedia that can be accessed on other sites doesnt belong here? Remy B 03:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Not all. I'm just saying that all the info in the article is a direct copy of info you would find on gamefaqs. Other info that is posted on wikipedia from other sites is atleast summarized and edited to a certain degree before it is added.--M8v2 04:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete extreme cruft, fails WP:FICT, sub-topic of game does little to serve the larger topic of game. Does not aid the reader's understanding of the over-all game, but instead lists awards as if it were a game manual or a collection of trivia. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki if required and Redirect to Battlefield 2 article. Lists such as these are game guide material as they're exactly what you'd find on GameFAQs and of no relevance to those who don't play the game already. Until someone sits down and actually plays the game, how can they compare the difficulty in accomplishing these tasks?. Why would gaining 'insert award here' mean anything to them? Talking about these things, what kind of requirements players would need to pass etc. is useful information. FAQ-style lists spurting out all over the place add precious little to the information and drown readers with useless information. QuagmireDog 04:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Very crufty game guide, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 05:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C, QuagmireDog (but no redirect pls). Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cruft. --Charlesknight 12:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Gameruft, unencyclopedic, etc. --Calton | Talk 13:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A single sentence explaining that there are awards for accomplishments (X kills under Y condition) in the Battlefield 2 article will suffice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Battlefied 2: Modern Combat. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 12:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong DeleteThe Kinslayer 13:41, 27 September 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 08:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ERP5

Completing incomplete nomination by User:82.226.112.70. No vote from me. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - spammy, fails to assert notability. MER-C 05:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't attempt to assert notability. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't think I would call that an article - a business flyer maybe. Nigel ^(Talk) 12:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 16:54, 23 September 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, should have been speedy due to lack of deletion reason. — CharlotteWebb 15:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GNU Enterprise

Completing incomplete afd by User:192.169.41.44. No vote from me. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Expand 136,000 GHits, lots of chatter. I can see why the article would cause concern, but it looks real to me. - Richfife 05:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the FSF has identified it as part of the GNU project [48]. Gazpacho 08:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, an official GNU project package/subproject, and is included in Linux dists (is in Debian at least as gnue-*). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:37, 24 September 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. Wickethewok 15:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Sonic Adventure Cutscenes

Completing nom made by User:Knuckles sonic8. No vote from me. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 05:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki if a gaming wiki wants it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a gameguide, game/list cruft, useless trivia. MER-C 05:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wpwpd 09:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruftus maximus ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is plenty to say/has been said about one of the Dreamcast's flagship titles without resorting to listing in-game cutscenes, let alone spinning them out into a seperate article. Dear me :( WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. QuagmireDog 04:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The plot of the game is covered just fine in the main Sonic Adventure article. This level of detail is way beyond what's appropriate in an encyclopedia. Ace of Sevens 06:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Alexie 23:10, 24 September 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 09:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friendship Sloop "Old Baldy"

Non notable subject matter. MidgleyDJ 05:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Next up, an article about my 1960 VW bus "Boswell" - Richfife 05:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Capsize - nn yacht. MER-C 05:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - The creator of Friendship Sloop "Old Baldy" has commented on the proposed deletion on the discussion page. Is it worth redirecting them to this discussion? MidgleyDJ 06:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. MidgleyDJ 06:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This particular yacht is nn. But perhaps the author should be encouraged to author an article of "Friendship Sloops" as a class of yacht. --Pleather 07:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe the author already has done (see:Friendship Sloop). "Old Baldy" could possibly be included as an example? Perhaps then some of the material could be merged. MidgleyDJ 08:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Scuttle... notability severely questioned. --Storkk 11:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable sailing ship. JIP | Talk 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, "Old Baldy" already appears in multiple volumes of the printed press; she is already noted. Agreed that both the section on the type of vessel "Friendship sloop" needs expansion, but that does not preclude documenting individual vessels much in the same way that the U.S.S. Enterprise has a separate history apart from the class of ships known as "aircraft carriers". Friendship Sloops were contemporary working vessels of the famous Glouchester Grand Banks fishing schooners some of which are used as yachts and cruising ships today."Jwilsonnh 23:31, 23 September 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 16:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Jones' websites

No notability asserted. All 15 references are to one of the same websites listed in the article. Suggest Merge into Alex Jones (radio) and delete. Aaron 06:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No merge necessary. --Tbeatty 07:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Strivercruft. Misuse of Wikipedia for conspiracy theory advocacy.--MONGO 07:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge anything not already there into Alex Jones (radio). —CWC(talk) 07:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any info not already there into Alex Jones (radio). Outright delete is not proper. --Shortfuse 08:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Since the sites are Alex Jones's property, and the article is descriptive, I don't see a basis for deletion here. Gazpacho 08:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there is nothing in this article that the reader wouldn't know by simply going to the sites. as such, this article is simply advertising. Derex 09:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Alex Jones (radio) and delete. --MaNeMeBasat 10:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any useful information to Alex Jones (radio), else delete. MER-C 10:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Commet It is against the rules to delete after a merge. --Striver 12:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing to merge. Sandy 12:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Basically spam. No merge. Crockspot 13:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak merge I think Alex Jones' websites should be mentioned in the Alex Jones article, but not to the extent they currently exist in Alex Jones' websites. -- tariqabjotu 13:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tbeatty above Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox GabrielF 15:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect Into parent. · XP · 15:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge content, but no redirect. Namespace is not a significant search term, and most people looking for these will go to Alex Jones first. Redirect is not needed in my opinion, but the pages that were merged into this one will need redirects corrected to Jones anyway to avoid double-redirect.--Rosicrucian 16:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Rosicrucian. Morton devonshire 19:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete, we're not a directory of websites Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 22:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Tbeaty, Rosicrucian and Night Gyr or barring that Merge to Alex Jones. If the merger does occur we should do a history merger as well so we don't have the GFDL forcing us to make a redirect (since the search term is unlikely). JoshuaZ 02:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JoshuaZ, if merged, merge history per JoshuaZ. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I don't see any indication that any of these are notable, other than through others of his websites. If there is anything to be merged into Alex Jones (radio), do something to ensure the redirect from this name is lost. I'm not sure a history merge would work; perhaps moving the source of the redirect to something plausible would help. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no merge necessary, Alex Jones (radio) already gives as much weight as is due to this subject. Guy 10:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or Merge and redirect. — Xiutwel (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No notability asserted? Comment the websites are notable. 9790 google hits in the Netherlands alone: http://www.google.nl/search?q=infowars+site%3A.nl You will see there that the website is even mentioned in major Dutch newspapers. /— Xiutwel (talk)

I agree that no notability is asserted in the article. However, it's still appropriate in Alex's own article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 25 might give a solution, to merge several of articles into one, allowing for a more encyclopedic article? — Xiutwel (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: I suggest that the article we merge this stuff into should be Alex Jones (radio). Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Alex Jones (radio) Mujinga 00:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Trim and Merge into Alex Jones (radio).--Jersey Devil 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. --Peephole 07:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not necessary. Rmt2m 21:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteFail to see the point.--Freddulany 21:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP This sort of thing has been featured on some radio talk shows, such as Jeff Rense's show and on the Coast To Coast AM radio show. Martial Law 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment A radio talk show host's websites have been mentioned by other radio talk show hosts? How is that notable? Beyond that, Rense is a conspiracy theorist himself and Coast to Coast's own article says that it focuses on conspiracy theory and oddities.--Rosicrucian 14:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Worth keeping for information. --Nutschig 06:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Do not merge. Delete with prejudice. ---Charles 17:21, 3 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, bad faith nomination. — CharlotteWebb 16:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiroshi Komiyama

nn--NONONONONON 07:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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

• Comment This is the president of the University of Tokyo. However, the page is such a mess that unless someone shows up wanting to fix it, I see no harm in deleting it and letting it be recreated later. —Celithemis 08:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Wpwpd 09:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I fully translated the article from Japanese version. Please check it, and correct the grammatical errors. :-) --Masao 10:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Current president of Todai is notable. And page being in mess is no reason for AFD (althugh this page looks like a typical bio stub). Shinhan 11:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:DP#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed, and also Masao's edits. Neier 11:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A good stub now thanks to User:Masao. —Celithemis 11:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment jawiki is copyvio from [49]?--Ss2d 11:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a blatant copyvio. It is just a list of events; and a similar list can be found here and other places. The 2002 entry on the ja page isn't listed on either of those lists. Neier 12:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The president of a major nation's most prestigious university is of course notable. Fg2 03:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:12, 25 September 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. Author has userfied it. -- RHaworth 22:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tomas Perez Acle

A rather average scientist, doing your average scientist's work: Giving lectures, publishing papers, talking at conferences. Nothing particularly notable. No reliable sources given except for his publications. Fails WP:BIO (actually, since I'm no expert in the field, he might pass WP:PROF without me knowing it, but the article gives no indication). Delete. Huon 07:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like his CV. --Storkk 11:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - resume. MER-C 12:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clearly fails WP:PROF. Leibniz 21:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Didn't anyone notice that the link for the editor who created this page (User:Tomasao) is a redirect to this page? Isn't there a policy that forbids creating articles about yourself?? --141.156.232.179 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

* See WP:VANITY for details. Leibniz 19:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Only 7 publications, in at best medium-rank journals; the institute he's head of doesn't seem to be an independent institute of any obvious note, though someone who can translate the website might be useful. Espresso Addict 09:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Hi There... all of you are right... Actually is my personal page and is not more than a CV. I was creating a personal page for my user Tomasao, and suddenly I wrote Tomas Perez and I got a Baseball player page that is currently under Wikipedia. So, I thought that if a baseball player have its own wikipedia page, why not me?... certainly breaks several wikipedia "laws" and I will remove it.

• Please do. Creating a page about yourself just drives home the fact that Wikipedia considers you much less notable than Pikachu. Leibniz 13:08, 25 September 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 19:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Duffee

Stub about a candidate for office. No notability asserted. Prod was removed without comment, so I left it alone for a while, but it hasn't been expanded in the past month and a half. I do not believe this individual is noteworthy. If he wins the election, then an article can be created for him. Shimeru 08:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 11:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as candidates aren't notable just for being candidates. --Storkk 11:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment same editor (User:Cstangler) also created Ralph Ferrucci, another NN Connecticut Green Party candidate. (Gee, they created that page as well!) --141.156.232.179 19:51, 24 September 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 RexNL. (aeropagitica) 20:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage Theory

Non-notable original research from video-gaming forum ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - CSD A1. Tagged as such. MER-C 10:31, 23 September 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 19:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redworth (hostel)

Delete entirely non-notable hostel. Charlesknight 09:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 10:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as noted, article fails WP:NN -- MarcoTolo 22:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no claim of notability and has existed for 2 years yet contains 1 sentence. WP is WP:NOT a web directory. QuagmireDog 05:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The article's subject is not a web site. It is a business. Uncle G 10:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My bad, incorrect term. What I mean is that a two year old sentence describing the services offered by this business seems like an advertisement (and one which apparently wasn't worth devoting much time to). QuagmireDog 12:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Further to that, having a look on Google seems to replicate the exact same sentence on many sites via Wikipedia or featured on that site (often surrounded by a stack of adverts). Struggling to find anything not involving that sentence or WP. QuagmireDog 12:38, 24 September 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 16:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valerie Oskin

Survived an attack in 2005, but since then the article hasn't been edited. Doesn't seem to warrant an article. —Xezbeth 09:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete, fails to meet WP:BIO --Storkk 11:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into some article that lists other similar attacks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well as far as I can tell, said article doesn't exist. So a merge vote is a little redundant. —Xezbeth 18:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. She's an example of a type of incident that would probably make a good article. --Maadio 17:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. Nothing notable here, just a hopeless stub with info linking another case as padding. If there's anything to merge anywhere, please do it. Ohconfucius 13:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If anyone ever gets round to writing the aforementioned article I'm sure the details can be found on the WWW. Otherwise the lack of information makes the article redundant and of doubtful notability--Spartaz 22:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can provide a merge target. Punkmorten 09:22, 29 September 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 RexNL. (aeropagitica) 20:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Harbor Sea Scouts

non-notable local group jergen 09:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. Tagged as such. MER-C 10:32, 23 September 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 after re-write. Daniel.Bryant 09:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organic lawn management

A how-to stub, unlikely to become an article but a good start for a chapter in a gardening book. Has been transwikied to wikibooks (b:Transwiki:Organic lawn management) --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 10:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom, article accepted. MER-C 10:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I've pruned it drastically (and you've been a lovely audience). Should be encyclopedic now. I've also asserted the importance within the article. JASpencer 15:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Change to Keep - It's now a good stub thanks to JASpencer, but definitely a stub. Hopefully someone with good knowledge about the history of the "organic landscape movement" will come along and add some history, references, etc. :). (Nice work!) --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Question - Does that mean that the nomination has been withdrawn by proposer? JASpencer 16:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but that doesn't actually close the AfD. I'd be happy to see a speedy close though :-). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to List of motorways in the United Kingdom. Not sure why this was relisted, it was a pretty clear consensus to merge prior to the relisting. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unbuilt British Motorway Plans

Delete: Granted Wikipedia is the sum of all knowledge, but I just don't think that this is really important enough for inclusion.--*Kat* 08:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into List of motorways in the United Kingdom, which already has some of this info. ::Supergolden:: 12:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Although the current article is probably not worth keeping in its present form, the actual subject matter is very interesting, and certainly warrents a page of its own. [50] is a great place to start. Dave 21:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Supergolden - there's not really much that can be said about these plans that's worth having a whole article for them. Let Pathetic Motorways deal with the fine details. — sjorford++ 17:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into List of motorways in the United Kingdom. Kirjtc2 19:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 10:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Supergolden, &al. ~ lav-chan @ 12:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per everyone. There is something encyclopaedic about transport plans which are not built, because it allows consideration of previous forecasts for road use. David | Talk 18:42, 23 September 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oozinator

Fails WP:CORP for products. I can find no coverage in neutral/reputable media, and the article is filled with original research speculating about the contents of the television commercial and an Internet meme. It's been around a while and has had plenty of time to improve, but there simply isn't anything out there to make this a quality article. I don't think any of the contents here even warrant a merge. Delete. Kafziel 16:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article has a link to the official Hasbro page on the toy, and a link to the commercial, so they're not speculation. Perhaps some tone editing would help. NawlinWiki 17:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The company website and a commercial for the product are not independent sources. As I said, it's verifiable, but not notable. Kafziel 18:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This toy caused considerable controversy. There is no good reason to delete the article. Tim Long 01:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What controversy? Where? A blog and an AV Club spoof? Look, if anyone can show me some quality sources indicating some kind of notability, I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. So far, I've seen no evidence. I've seen plenty of nonsense, but nothing to indicate that this was anything more than a blip on the most obscure of geek radars. Kafziel 05:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for insufficient verification regarding notability. Wryspy 03:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep That thing is just HI-larious. -- GIR 03:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 10:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Funny, but not encyclopedically notable based on current references. If Hasbro gets called to a Congressional hearing on this issue, we can have a rethink on the article Bwithh 13:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Eh, Keep, or at least merge relevant content with Super Soaker – if nothing else, it could be added to the list of product models. Oddly enough, the Oozinator did receive some coverage in newspapers, based on Factiva and Lexis-Nexis searches. The Washington Post named it "[one] of the toys kids raved about" (June 12, 2006); the Florida Times-Union said the bio-oooze "looks like something that would come out of your nose" (May 29, 2006); the Arkansas Daily Gazette compared it to the monster from Alien (May 24, 2006); and it was even mentioned – albeit briefly – in a New Yorker article (July 24, 2006). There were additional results from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Star-Ledger, the Buffalo News, the Columbus Dispatch, the Modesto Bee, Newsweek, Business Wire, and Playthings (mostly included in "summer fun!" articles). None of these sources mention the semen thing, though. Zagalejo 17:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Skeet skeet. Wooty 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Super Soaker. Equendil Talk 18:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As far as I can tell, the oozinator is not the subject of any of the articles that mention it, which WP:CORP requires. Those articles are about supersoakers in general. Pan Dan 23:48, 27 September 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 00:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver Furious George

rec league sports team. On a side note, I vaguely remember a 90ies punk band with the same name ccwaters 18:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Furious George is a men's (open) ultimate touring team, not a rec league (www.vul.bc.ca) sports team. I'd like to correct the name to "Vancouver Furious George" to avoid confusion with the 90ies punk band you mention. Seumono 18:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the band in question was on Lookout! Records, and is listed in allmusic.com. I'd say they are borderline per WP:MUSIC ccwaters 18:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please excuse my ignorance, this is my first entry (which is why i'm copying your markup). Does changing the name to "Vancouver Furious George" allow the entry to remain? I do not see a "move" tab on my page, so I'm not sure how to rename the article. Seumono 18:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is decided that your team is notable it would probably be named something like "Furious George (Ultimate)" ccwaters 10:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Changed to band. Keep and move to Furious George. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 20:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh that's right. That is George Tabb of Maximum RocknRoll fame. ccwaters 02:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, but now the band is afd'd, and the ultimate frisby team is not. the frisby team was nominated, not the band, so now the afd is all out of whack . . . --heah 19:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed. --Satori Son 21:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Question* - if "Furious george" and "Furious George" are both credited to the band, I'd like to create a valid page called "Vancouver Furious George" for the ultimate team? Thanks 66.38.134.26 15:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I added Vancouver Furious George under Ultimate teams so it is distinct from the band. seumono

• I based my page on these other ultimate pages. Seattle Sockeye and Eugene DarkStar. Eventually, Vancouver Furious George page will look similar to Eugene DarkStar. seumono 66.38.134.26 19:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Vancouver Furious George. This is a fairly important and widely-known Ultimate team. Adamkik 08:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 10:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I think. WP:ORG applies here, and the VUL seems like a local amateur Ultimate league. Moreover, there are no reliable third-party sources to verify this article. ColourBurst 00:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Changed my vote. It seems that UPA is a major North American league, and they won the championship in multiple years. Works for me. ColourBurst 06:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per colourburst and makes no claim to notability at all. -- Chabuk 04:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Addressing these two votes: They are not part of the VUL, they are a touring (elite) team. Moreover, I've added WP:RS's to the article. Themindset 23:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep They were the 2002, 2003 and 2005 UPA champions in the open division. They are very well-known in the ultimate scene, are hands-down the best men's team in Canada, and are considered among the top ultimate teams in the world. Rawr 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Recuse I would have voted keep, but I was unfortunately directed here by a message board post. I am a regular AfDer though, and my opinion is that this team is quite well known, being UPA champ is equivalent to being a championship club team in any other sport. Themindset 22:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - I've added references for their championships. Themindset 23:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep per themindset. three time upa championships seems notable enough. --heah 23:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is probably the most well-known team in Ultimate of the past few years. They are not a rec league team, these guys are as close to professional as you can get in Ultimate. --Liface 19:43, 28 September 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. —Xyrael / 11:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert ÆOLUS Myers

Musician and composer; doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Relevant Google search. Craaaazy unicode character, though not a critereon for deletion, makes a successful search for the subject unlikely. Fernando Rizo 19:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is asserted that all details of the article are true and verifiable. As regards searchable with Æ as a character in the name, Google has a number of entries for this specific person under the exact spelling Robert ÆOLUS Myers already in their database. User:Hiiaka 19:40, 14 September 2006
  • Assertions are well and good, but what we need is references. Please have a peek at the inclusion guidlines at WP:MUSIC and if you can find any verfiable source that meets those guidelines, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination for deletion. Fernando Rizo 19:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As Cited in WP:MUSIC this article satisfies:

1) Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.[2

2) Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

3) Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). – numerous press articles in Honolulu Advertiser & Honolulu Star Bulletin – see google reference cited under Christian New Age references

User:Hiiaka 19:59, 14 September 2006

Revisiting the above arguments note that WP:MUSIC states, "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria". These are three of the cited criteria that are met--1) Robert ÆOLUS Myers' tour to Spain which included the Expo '92 in Seville does not have readily available web citations, though hard copy information could be supplied in verification; 2) Relevant Google search as cited above derives a number of citations corroborating Robert ÆOLUS Myers' inclusion in Global Pacific Records roster. See Global Pacific Sampler, FRUITS OF OUR LABOR; 3) A major article in the Honolulu Star Bulletin (Mike Gordon, "The New Age of Music," _Honolulu Star-Bulletin_, 5 Nov. 1987.) is cited in a 1993 reprint for web article "How 'New Age' is New Age Music?" cited from Christian Research Newsletter, Volume 2: Number 1, 1989 by Elliot Miller.

Hiiaka 23:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If the sources mentioned above are the best ones available, then it's pretty obviously a delete. None of them are articles about the subject, the best one is the "How 'New Age'..." thing, which has one paragraph out of 12 mentioning him. 29 unique google hits for "Robert ÆOLUS Myers" (which also includes results that have ae instead of Æ) have no relevant mentions of him either. - Bobet 07:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The above refenced article, Mike Gordon, "The New Age of Music," _Honolulu Star-Bulletin_, 5 Nov. 1987 does indeed fulfill the criteria noted in WP:MUSIC, while the "How 'New Age'..." article does not, but does contain the reference. However, Honolulu Star-Bulletin articles from 1987 being pre-internet phenomenon are currently unverifiable by interent seach engine research. I will see if I can access a hard copy of the article and post a link to a scanned copy, though this may go against Wikipedia linking protocols (please advise how to submit hard copy references).

A second WP:MUSIC criteria is the artist's participation in "one of the more important indie labels" with a roster of "notable" artists. Global Pacific Records, with artists such as Bob Kindler, Steve Kindler, Georgia Kelly, David Friesen, Paul Greaver, Ben Taverna King, Charles Brotman, and Tor Dietrichson, etc. was a strong enough label to be purchased by Sony records in the mid-eighties when Private Music and Windham Hill had a lion's share of the new age market so that Sony could establish themselves in the market as well. Additionally, the above mentioned "notable" artists are search engine verifiable.

• Note: two albums released on Global Pacific as cited on Global Pacific Gems.Hiiaka 20:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I reference the WP:MUSIC criteria that states that only one criteria need be met to let an article stand and that declining the acceptance of articles due to criteria outside of the guidelines is capricious at best and Wikipedia reputation damaging at least. To defer to "not researchable by Google" is not cited as criteria for dismissal. Hiiaka 17:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - there has been a lot of research completed to support this article in the AfD process. I would suggest that one of the people who want to have this article kept should take the time to use this info to provide citations in the article. As it stands, the article still does not meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Citations to entities not the artist could be readily made, i.e. to the record company, the artistic collaborators and affiliations, and to specific articles within Wikipedia itself referencing the Sufi masters and Expo '92. This would get a cross referenced article, and I would be happy to do that. However, what remains under dispute is how important an indie label is Global Pacific (I am not sure that a citation would help this and would smack of a commercial citation), is the Honolulu Star Bulletin an important journal (this still does not cite the article under question), and did the Spain tour occur (no citations for this are available outside of citing the Expo '92)? I would suggest letting the article stand on the merit of the Record company and inputting the available citations. Citations are a good enough idea, but needs a bit more consensus to be seen a remedy. With a nod and/or a wink I could make it so.Hiiaka 08:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 10:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am in the process of uploading archived articles for citation.Hiiaka 01:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Citation sources scanned from the original articles have been referenced at the end of the article. Additionally Wikipedia cross references have been cited as well as pertinent web based citations highlighted. I hope these edits will contribute to its merit and verifiability.Hiiaka 08:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was "speedy" close. This is a problem which does not require deletion. MER-C 12:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metro (System of a Down single)

This is not a single, it is actually a B-side. Please move this to the System of a Down songs category.

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 10:59, 23 September 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 19:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bedroom eyes

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Senordingdong 11:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Not very well written either. ~ lav-chan @ 12:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per nom. MER-C 12:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If its badly written, rewrite it. Bad writing is not a valid deletion criterion. In any case this could be significantly expanded into far more than a dictionary entry by showing how the term has entered popular culture in film, popular music etc. --Centauri 12:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef Bwithh 13:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef There's no real opportunity to expand this past a definition, and WP really isn't the place to do liguistic analysis. eaolson 13:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Open and shut. JASpencer 16:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. FairHair 02:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone. I'm giving it 'dustbin eyes'. QuagmireDog 05:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef "Dustbin eyes" - LOL! --Charlesknight 12:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, pretty much any word or phrase can be expanded into something resembling an encyclopedia article. But, hey, let's not, since that's a waste of everyone's time. Recury 18:16, 25 September 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 flagged as copyvio from [51]. MER-C 12:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Symposium

Promo, advertisement. Delete. KleenupKrew 11:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Not encyclopaedia content at all. ~ lav-chan @ 12:04, 23 September 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, please defer merge discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of schools in Antwerp

Useless list. (see WP:NOT) --Lord Snoeckx 11:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge somehow into List of universities in Belgium if 'schools' in this case means higher education. Otherwise, this appears to fit in with List of schools by country (in fact it's linked from that article, or a sub-article of it anyway). Someone clearly has gone through a lot of trouble to come up with the lists, but i'm not sure if 'lower' institutions of education are notable enough for Wikipedia. If they aren't, i guess somebody should delete all of those lists, not just this one. ~ lav-chan @ 12:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(Comment: School is in this case secondary education, so this belongs to List of schools by country --Lord Snoeckx 14:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC))

• Merge and redirect to list of schools by country. --Myles Long 19:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I can't see anything wrong with this list. List of schools by country is merely a list of articles. One of the articles is List of schools in Belgium, which lists three articles, one of which is List of schools in Antwerp. So I fail to see what we would achieve by redirecting it - it would be a purely circular redirect. -- Necrothesp 01:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless list. It is an old copy of this list. Note that it does say" incomplete". Well, Steiner-Hibernia in the town of Antwerp is missing, for instance. --Pan Gerwazy 12:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Poor argument for deletion. This is Wikipedia. We can add to lists any time we want. Incomplete lists are perfectly valid. -- Necrothesp 13:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. You are right, I should have elaborated. How is this one: if we add the ones that are now included in the list I mentioned above (Kunsthumaniora eg), would not that constitute a copyright violation? --Pan Gerwazy 15:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: WP:Notability is not an issue for lists, those are supposed to have minor items in an attempt to be[come] complete. There should be a notable interest for having such a list. Since there is a List of schools by country, such is clearly the case, less all lists of schools become a grouped AfD. Does anyone assume the list of UNESCO monuments to have been created by looking for signboards across the world? Many lists are copy-edited from an external source. The information is not some copyrighted material and can [have] be[en] obtained elsewhere. The present scheme of countries / provinces (or departments or...) is good: if all 10 provinces would become completed, it would probably be too large for a single page. It certainly would be for larger countries, and it seems better to maintain a classification method that can be used for any country. The Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg does not have provinces. — SomeHuman 3 Oct 2006 22:01 (UTC)
• Keep per SomeHuman and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 00:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful list. --Vsion 01:01, 4 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. Punkmorten 09:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bracuta

Reason Extranauta 11:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Vanity, self promotion

• Weak keep, with conditions. On the surface it seems like vanity or at least it has POV issues, but the article does hint to notability (internationally recognised, TV appearances, all that jazz). If somebody can reword the page to have a neutral POV and qualify her notability, i would say keep it. ~ lav-chan @ 12:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody improved it. Punkmorten 09:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. Cordless Larry 17:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 04:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I visited her blog. It's mainly just "this and that". No matter how many hits she gets there's absolutely nothing notable or encyclopedic. No comments on politics, world affairs, art, literature, etc., just "Here's what happened to me and my friends over the weekend," type stuff. Apparently the Wiki article was written by her sister. RickReinckens 04:44, 28 September 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 08:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One World (project)

Promo for a personal website of two peoples' travel journals, non notable, advertising. Delete. KleenupKrew 11:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 12:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Hello32020 12:49, 23 September 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 08:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Lowellist

There is no evidence that this publication even exists, let alone that it has any significant readership or is otherwise notable. The page was added by a user who has created many other articles about the individual Norman Lowell SandyDancer 11:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 12:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTABLE. Hello32020 12:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Drew88 15:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails to assert notability, even by its author User:Drew88 Maltesedog 19:39, 27 September 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 08:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Alkova Group

Prodded and endorsed for failing WP:SPAM, removed by article's creator. So brought here, still fails WP:SPAM. Delete--Richhoncho 11:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: nn WP:VSCA. Leuko 12:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 12:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Hello32020 12:48, 23 September 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 09:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefield 2 Awards

Game Guide Article. Prob deletion was removed by another user.--M8v2 04:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to here if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, crufty. Don't forget to delete all the related images. MER-C 12:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. We all agree that Wikipedia should not include game guides - that is, articles where there are instructions, hints, guides, tips, and other text where the article generally instructs the reader how to play the game. What Wikipedia is here for is to state facts and other reference information - and that is all this article does. It is also all the other articles do that this user has put up for deletion. I would really like to know what separates this article from any other game related article. How does this qualify as a game guide? If this article was merged into Battlefield 2, would that article also be a game guide? A LOT of articles are being put up for deletion by this user, and if they get deleted because of a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy then a lot of work will be wasted. Please consider voting on the other AfD's that this user has decided to start (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Remy B 03:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. gamecruft Bwithh 04:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete I've been looking at all these articles in this little group of deletions, and they all appear as guides that do not belong on Wikipedia. gamecruft, not notable outside of the game, but this level of detail does not aid a reader's understanding of the game, it would only be relevant to a person playing the game in the form of a game guide. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Very crufty game guide, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 04:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC, very crufty indeed. If you have the game, you'd already know this, or could read it in the manuals; if you don't have the game, the article lacks sufficient context. Cruft in other words. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cruft and per WP:NOT --Charlesknight 12:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide, cruft, unencyclopedic, etc. --Calton | Talk 13:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• KeepGood Stuff Road guy 15:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki first then do so. It's a list of requirements, by BF2 players for BF2 players. Contributors' time would be better spent getting the main article up to scratch and rising through the ratings then trying to list info far above and beyond WP's remit. QuagmireDog 15:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article does not classify as a game guide becuase it has no helpful hints. It merely shows what the rewards are when a player has reached the levels on their own. Some of the other articles up for deletion are game guides, such as the articles with the maps. Those articles do clearly provide hints. Espiro 8:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • — Possible single purpose account: Espiro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delte. Helpful hints are not the only thing listed in game guides. Stuff like awards, requirements, etc. are game guide material. Hbdragon88 05:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP What the fuck is with m8v2 and his hate for battlefield 2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badhand (talk • contribs) .

No need to insulting about it. Game-guide articles like these get cut from WP sooner or later anyway, the more there are floating around the more other contributors think it's OK to make more - more time wasted. Better to give WP readers a concise article stating the facts then replicate what's on countless game-guides. QuagmireDog 19:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unreferenced and therefore failing the verifiability policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As much as I like BF2, I don't see how this article is notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia. EvilCouch 07:00, 29 September 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. Wickethewok 16:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalian Plant

Gameguide article. Gives hints such as where vehicles and spawnpoints are and how they can be taken. Delete this.--M8v2 04:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to here if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, crufty. Don't forget to delete all the related images.MER-C 12:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep Definitely not a game guide. Notable. Not cruft. A valuable sub-section of Battlefield 2. --WikiCats 02:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a game guide? Really? "There are a couple of places that can be used for cover on this flag, as well as a large orange tower, which is good for sniping." "There is an anti-aircraft missile launcher on the dock pointing towards the US aircrafr carrier. So if the Chinese are in control, attacking from the air can be difficult." "There is a small area of the first floor of the nearby building where it can be captured, but if spotted, the player can easily be taken out."

Strange new meaning of the phrase "definitely not" I was previously unaware of, since it is definitely, you know, a game guide. --Calton | Talk 13:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. We all agree that Wikipedia should not include game guides - that is, articles where there are instructions, hints, guides, tips, and other text where the article generally instructs the reader how to play the game. What Wikipedia is here for is to state facts and other reference information - and that is all this article does. It is also all the other articles do that this user has put up for deletion. I would really like to know what separates this article from any other game related article. How does this qualify as a game guide? If this article was merged into Battlefield 2, would that article also be a game guide? A LOT of articles are being put up for deletion by this user, and if they get deleted because of a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy then a lot of work will be wasted. Please consider voting on the other AfD's that this user has decided to start (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Remy B 03:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

How does this qualify as a games guide? let's see - This flag is next to a large warehouse. Around the flag itself there is little cover, but there is a small area inside the warehouse where the flag can be captured, though it is fairly open. The flag can also be captured from the roof if you have a helicopter, This flag is quite open, and the only real cover is the sand bags around the flag itself. This flag is not very easy to defend due to there being three entrances by land, as well as the aircraft carrier behind it. However, there is a tank and an attack helicopter, making it a valuable asset, though on the 64 player version the attack helicopter will only spawn if the USMC side hold the flag. How does that NOT read as a games guide? --Charlesknight 15:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Clearly a game guide and also crufty. The article is about one game map and is full of advice about tactics for how to play on the map. Bwithh 04:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect, main article seems to contain all relevant and encyclopedic information already, so there's no use in a merge. gamecruft, Wikipedia is not a game guide/manual. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong redirect to List of maps in Battlefield 2, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 04:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C, Bwithh. As there is BF2 wiki, that's where this belongs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cruft - take it to the BF2 wiki. --Charlesknight 12:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide, cruft, unencyclopedic, etc. --Calton | Talk 13:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and remove extraneous info - there are many aspects of "game-guide" in here, mentioning common strategies, and even in-universe perspective. Having the basic info, and what real-world locations it's based off is informative and needs to be kept. The in-universe description is in fact copied verbatim from List of maps in Battlefield 2 so this article only offers a little extra info and a picture. merging and fixing the article is the best course of action as there's not enough info here to reason that it would be better broken up. -Zappernapper 15:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Game guidish. List of BF2 maps article should have all the info. Unicyclopedia 05:26, 27 September 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. Wickethewok 16:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Wall (Battlefield 2 map)

Game guide article. Gives hints and locations of objects. No value--M8v2 04:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to here if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, crufty. Don't forget to delete all the related images. MER-C 12:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep Definitely not a game guide. Notable. Not cruft. A valuable sub-section of Battlefield 2. --WikiCats 02:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a game guide? Really? "Snipers that lay claymores can be devastating, as there is no way to disarm them if placed properly, and movement is limited throughout the walls." "If the PLA were to capture the Quan Fortress, the European Forces defending the Lao Tian Ye Road would have a difficult time defending the PLA from capturing it." "While parachuting in is more dangerous, it can also be the quickest route to the Fortress Village."

Strange new meaning of the phrase "definitely not" I was previously unaware of, since it is definitely, you know, a game guide. --Calton | Talk 13:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. We all agree that Wikipedia should not include game guides - that is, articles where there are instructions, hints, guides, tips, and other text where the article generally instructs the reader how to play the game. What Wikipedia is here for is to state facts and other reference information - and that is all this article does. It is also all the other articles do that this user has put up for deletion. I would really like to know what separates this article from any other game related article. How does this qualify as a game guide? If this article was merged into Battlefield 2, would that article also be a game guide? A LOT of articles are being put up for deletion by this user, and if they get deleted because of a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy then a lot of work will be wasted. Please consider voting on the other AfD's that this user has decided to start (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Remy B 03:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I suggest you please assume good faith. After all, everyone has their own perspective on Wikipedia's policies so there isn't really a "right" or "wrong" interpretation. --TBCTaLk?!? 04:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Clearly a game guide and also crufty. The article is about one game map and is full of advice about tactics for how to play on the map. Bwithh 04:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect, main article seems to contain all relevant and encyclopedic information already, so there's no use in a merge. gamecruft, Wikipedia is not a game guide/manual. Even if a great deal of work has been put into it, it's simply a great amount of something that should not be on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong redirect to List of maps in Battlefield 2, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 05:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 05:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C, Bwithh. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cruft and as per WP:NOT. --Charlesknight 12:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide, cruft, unencyclopedic, etc. --Calton | Talk 13:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, per Calton's comments. This is textbook game-guide material. What on earth could a non-player possibly glean from this lot? How can this information be laid out in such a way to mean something? Where are the citations going to come from? GameFAQs? Sorry, but allowing this kind of material encourages others to do the same, resulting in more time wasted and more needless articles getting dragged to AFD. QuagmireDog 16:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete extremeley detialed. Could just be listed in three bullet points. Maybe a sentence. Any more and the average reader will not care. Hbdragon88 05:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Game guidish. List of BF2 maps should have all the info. Unicyclopedia 05:33, 27 September 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. If anyone wants to transwiki it, feel free to ask for a copy. Wickethewok 15:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ranking system in Battlefield 2: Modern Combat

Game guide article. No value--M8v2 05:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to here if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, crufty. Don't forget to delete all the related images. MER-C 12:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. We all agree that Wikipedia should not include game guides - that is, articles where there are instructions, hints, guides, tips, and other text where the article generally instructs the reader how to play the game. What Wikipedia is here for is to state facts and other reference information - and that is all this article does. It is also all the other articles do that this user has put up for deletion. I would really like to know what separates this article from any other game related article. How does this qualify as a game guide? If this article was merged into Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, would that article also be a game guide? A LOT of articles are being put up for deletion by this user, and if they get deleted because of a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy then a lot of work will be wasted. Please consider voting on the other AfD's that this user has decided to start (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Remy B 03:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am also very confused as to why the article has been labelled as "no value". It seems perfectly obvious to me that people could come to Wikipedia to look up the ranking system of this game. It would be a great reference for people wanting to see the various things involved in going up rankings. How is that "no value"? Why would you want to delete something that people would use as a reference? What could possibly be gained? Remy B 03:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gamecruft Bwithh 04:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete extreme cruft, fails WP:FICT, sub-topic of game does little to serve the larger topic of game. Does not aid the reader's understanding of the over-all game, but instead lists as if it were a game manual or a collection of trivia. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Very crufty game guide, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 05:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC, MER-C. Transwiki to the BF2 wiki if desired. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide, cruft, unencyclopedic, etc. --Calton | Talk 13:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Anyone who would be interested in this already owns the game and has the manual with this list of ranks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong keep Why in gods name would you delte this? It is very valuable, and just cause you have the game dont mean u have the manual. It is not agame guide, just a reference as to what people who play this game online require to gain that next rank the want —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wacko3.16 (talk • contribs).
• Extremely Strong Delete By the ANONYMOUS guy aboves definition, this does indeed qualify as a guide, and it's only use is for people who have an illegal version of the game. The Kinslayer 13:44, 27 September 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. Wickethewok 16:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Songhua Stalemate

Gameguide Article. Gives flag positions and vehicle locations. Little to no value.--M8v2 04:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to here if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, crufty. Don't forget to delete all the related images. MER-C 12:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep Definitely not a game guide. A valuable sub-section of Battlefield 2. --WikiCats 02:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. We all agree that Wikipedia should not include game guides - that is, articles where there are instructions, hints, guides, tips, and other text where the article generally instructs the reader how to play the game. What Wikipedia is here for is to state facts and other reference information - and that is all this article does. It is also all the other articles do that this user has put up for deletion. I would really like to know what separates this article from any other game related article. How does this qualify as a game guide? If this article was merged into Battlefield 2, would that article also be a game guide? A LOT of articles are being put up for deletion by this user, and if they get deleted because of a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy then a lot of work will be wasted. Please consider voting on the other AfD's that this user has decided to start (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Remy B 03:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect, main article seems to contain all relevant and encyclopedic information already, so there's no use in a merge. gamecruft, Wikipedia is not a game guide/manual. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong redirect to List of maps in Battlefield 2, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 04:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

delete as cruft and per WP:NOT - how many of those fucking things are there???? --Charlesknight 12:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. No, it's an obvious case of correct intrepretation and execution of Wikipedia policy since this and the others I've checked so far are, in fact, very obviously game guides, of only real value to those playing the game. --Calton | Talk 13:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cruft Bwithh 14:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Game guidish. List of BF2 maps should have all the info. Unicyclopedia 05:31, 27 September 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. Wickethewok 16:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strike at Karkand

Game guide article. No value.--M8v2 04:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to here if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, crufty. Don't forget to delete all the related images. MER-C 12:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep Definitely not a game guide. A valuable sub-section of Battlefield 2. --WikiCats 02:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. We all agree that Wikipedia should not include game guides - that is, articles where there are instructions, hints, guides, tips, and other text where the article generally instructs the reader how to play the game. What Wikipedia is here for is to state facts and other reference information - and that is all this article does. It is also all the other articles do that this user has put up for deletion. I would really like to know what separates this article from any other game related article. How does this qualify as a game guide? If this article was merged into Battlefield 2, would that article also be a game guide? A LOT of articles are being put up for deletion by this user, and if they get deleted because of a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy then a lot of work will be wasted. Please consider voting on the other AfD's that this user has decided to start (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Remy B 03:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect, main article seems to contain all relevant and encyclopedic information already, so there's no use in a merge. gamecruft, Wikipedia is not a game guide/manual. -- Ned Scott 04:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd just like to make it known that while I've been cutting and pasting some of my deletion rationales, but I have been viewing each article and evaluating it independently. I completely agree that these are game guides and do not belong on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong redirect to List of maps in Battlefield 2, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 05:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C, transwiki to BF2 wiki if so desired. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide, cruft, unencyclopedic, etc. --Calton | Talk 13:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as gamecruft Bwithh 16:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Game guidish. List of BF2 maps should have all the info. Unicyclopedia 05:31, 27 September 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. If anyone wants to transwiki, feel free to ask. Wickethewok 16:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table of ranks in Battlefield 2

Game guide article. Gives points needed for Ranks and the rewards per rank. Prob deletion was taken done by another user. It's external link is a website that gives you the same info.--M8v2 04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This is not a guide, there are loads of lists on Wikipedia, what is your obsession with putting all BF2 related articles up for deletion? --Lorian^T_C 07:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to here if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, crufty. Don't forget to delete all the related images. MER-C 12:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Bwithh 14:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep Definitely not a game guide. Notable. Not cruft. A valuable sub-section of Battlefield 2. --WikiCats 02:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This is an obvious case of misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. We all agree that Wikipedia should not include game guides - that is, articles where there are instructions, hints, guides, tips, and other text where the article generally instructs the reader how to play the game. What Wikipedia is here for is to state facts and other reference information - and that is all this article does. It is also all the other articles do that this user has put up for deletion. I would really like to know what separates this article from any other game related article. How does this qualify as a game guide? If this article was merged into Battlefield 2, would that article also be a game guide? A LOT of articles are being put up for deletion by this user, and if they get deleted because of a complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy then a lot of work will be wasted. Please consider voting on the other AfD's that this user has decided to start (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Remy B 03:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete I've been looking at all these articles in this little group of deletions, and they all appear as guides that do not belong on Wikipedia. gamecruft, not notable outside of the game, but this level of detail does not aid a reader's understanding of the game, it would only be relevant to a person playing the game in the form of a game guide. -- Ned Scott 04:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Very crufty, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--TBCTaLk?!? 04:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC, classic cruft - only useful to fans, who already know this, but entirely useless and indiscriminate detail for the rest, for whom it lacks context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide, cruft, unencyclopedic, etc. --Calton | Talk 13:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Anyone who would be interested in this already owns the game and has the manual with this list of ranks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete game guide material not encyclopeidc transwiki to StrategyGaming if possible. Hbdragon88 05:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete For all the above reasons. The Kinslayer 13:47, 27 September 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. If anyone wants to transwiki, feel free to contact me. Wickethewok 16:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wake Island 2007

Game guide article. Gives hints and locations of objects. No value--M8v2 04:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to here if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide, crufty. Don't forget to delete all the related images. MER-C 12:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Map is notable, though I question its having its own article. However, being based on a real island, and for being probably the second most-played BF2 map, keep and cleanup. I also question the spirit of this nomination: "no value" seems to be a pretty harsh assumption. Wooty 19:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info, it's completely pointless to have an article on maps within a game, all of the other BF2 map articles should be deleted. GrahameS 01:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep Definitely not a game guide. Notable. A valuable sub-section of Battlefield 2. --WikiCats 02:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. gameguidecruft Bwithh 04:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I voted to keep the list. This is the singular most notable map in the Battlefield series, but it still is nothing in comparison to the deleted de dust. - Hahnchen 04:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge into the list of battlefield 2 maps. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C, GrahameS; optionally transwiki to BF2 wiki. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - --Charlesknight 13:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide, cruft, unencyclopedic, etc. --Calton | Talk 13:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The Kinslayer 13:52, 27 September 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 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toby Grotz

Not notable per WP:BIO. Leibniz 12:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 13:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This looks like a vanity article to associate with a very poorly formatted HTML essay[52] linked to the Nikola Tesla page, and the only External link on this page. --141.156.232.179 20:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteNo evidence of notability. Jeendan 07:40, 26 September 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; problems can be solved, seems a useful article. Luna Santin 03:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of compositions for harp

Contains the names of two of the people who were part of User:Musikfabrik, as well as at least one of the people that company publishes. List is untrustworthy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Clean, Rename As much as I agree that this user has teken too many steps toward appearing harmful to Wikipedia, I don't see this list any different than List of important operas or whatever else. Does it need cleanup? Most definetly; and as it's be impossible to list every existing composition for harp (this isn't an octocontrabass clarinet), maybe 'Notible works for harp' or something similar would be better. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Yes, an article of similar content deserves to exist, but unless someone wants to adopt it and reference it, it'd be hard to get it NPOV, and I'm not certain how much content would be keepable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It should go for the reasons Adam Cuerden mentions, unless there is a systematic overhaul of the whole article. I have concerns that this list may be being exploited for promotional purposes. A way should be found of avoiding this. If not, it should go. Therefore I'd say keep and give till the end of 2006 to fix POV problems --Folantin 13:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Neither the Sonata for Harp and Concertino for Harp by Germaine Tailleferre are published by Musik Fabrik. The Sonata for Harp was a commission by Nicanor Zabaleta, is the most widely performed and recorded Harp Sonata according the SACEM and widely used as an imposed work at major Harp competitions. It is published by Peer Music. The Concertino is published by Heugel-Leduc, was premièred by the Boston Symphony under Serge Koussevitsky and has been widely recorded. All of the works on this list may be verified here: [53], including biographies of all of the composers. This is clearly becoming a "witch hunt". Jean-Thierry Boisseau 13:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  The link is a very long list, compared to the very short one on that page. It proves they composed for harp, not that they are particularly notable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: As a minimal step, have deleted all known Musikfabrik composers from it - it may well be this results in unfortunate losses. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: The source listed, the Association Internationale des Amis de la Harpe was founded by Pierre Jamet, for whom Debussy wrote his famous Sonata for Flute, Viola and Harp. All of the main teachers of the instrument throughout the World are members of this association or of it's chapters. The list given on their site in not inclusive, but selective. All of the composers listed here are not only listed, but have a biographical page. I assure you that if this organisation lists it, it's a reputable source. This list is short because it needs inclusions, not deletions. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 23:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment I doubt me the list has even 1% of the names listed there. Unless you intend to add every name on that site, it's not really a valid reason for selection to say that it's on there. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Dammit, Boisseau. I'm trying to believe in your good faith, then I learn that whilst you may not publish some of poor Talleferre's compositions, you still include every single one listed in your catalogue. Can you please not try to imply things that aren't true? Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm not sure this can be saved. There are very serious problems. Why non-exhaustive? Who decides notable? Why is a particular piece notable? Can you offer any evidence that X piece is played less than Y piece? These give me very serious doubts as to whether the page can be saved, even before we get onto the whole POV issues surrounding the Musikfabrik role account business. Moreschi 15:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Are the current versions of Flute repertory, List of solo cello pieces, List of compositions for cello and piano, List of compositions for horn, List of compositions for piano and orchestra, etc., unwelcome on Wikipedia as well? None of these lists could possibly be exhaustive and they do not articulate the criteria for the inclusion of entries either. --Defrosted 22:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reply: Let's see how the vote on this one goes. It may well be that all or some are salvagable, if some sources can be found, or even be decided to be fine as is. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; extremely useful list, as would be any list of compositions for a specific instrument. Needs expansion and notability-checking, but it's certainly keepable. Antandrus (talk) 03:42, 28 September 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; related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of compositions for harp, carrying over similar consensus. Luna Santin 03:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of organ pieces

Contains the names of two of the people who were part of User:Musikfabrik, as well as at least one of the people that company publishes. List is untrustworthy

• • Delete as per nom. (unless there is a systematic overhaul of the whole article). I have concerns that this list may be being exploited for promotional purposes. A way should be found of avoiding this. If not, it should go --Folantin 13:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Although I do have some reservations, Keep and clean up, paying very careful attention to possible addition of non-notable composers, as indicated in the nomination. These kinds of lists can be useful, although this one would become extremely long if ever completed. Antandrus (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If an article is untrustworthy, the solution is to edit it, not to delete it. Fg2 03:31, 24 September 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 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious Pseudonym

Non-notable band. Had a minor hit, with no sign of any high chart placement. No entry on AMG shows level of notability

• Delete - nn. Not a speedy. MER-C 13:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination Equendil Talk 18:44, 25 September 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 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Canadian Space Opera Company"

PROD removed without meaningful discussion. Article doesn't assert any importance, a Google search [54] reveals just 15 mentions lifetime, which seem to ammount to official pages, blogs and college newsletters... all really just mentioning that the Company exists, with no reviews or information about it from which we could write an article. If kept it should be retitled to remove the quotation marks. --W.marsh 13:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 13:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under WP:CSD as A7 ("Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.") as an unremarkable group of people. Cool3 21:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• I wrote the original article. I've retitled this to remove the quotation marks, and added as much notability as I could. :-) I wasn't sure what the notability standard was for Wikipedia. Feel free to delete the article if you think it best - I won't take it personally. Cheers! Davetill 15:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally, meaningful coverage by independent sources. Have they been reviewed in widely read newspapers? Magazines? Etc. --W.marsh 19:32, 24 September 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 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 666 rail

Non-notable sporting event. Only Google hits for "Chris Haffey" "666 rail" lead to forum postings and a YouTube video. Talk page says this "is considered a great achievement by the Aggressive Skating community," so it should be mentioned in a press article or a organizations web page somewhere. Lacks reliable sources. Contested prod. eaolson 13:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RS unless somebody can find reliable sources. Crystallina 15:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, can i ask what would make this article better? Because I don't understand why there needs to be any reference to this in the media, Aggressive Skating is becoming an ever incresingly popular sport so we want people to know about great acheivements that have happened in the sport and give the public a place where they can find out information about the acheivemnts.--Churchill 13:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as Originial Research and non-notable. As per the above question, Wikipedia requires reliable, independent sources for articles. Because anyone can post to youtube or a blog, such sites are not considered reliable sources of information. Also, most Wikipedia requires that the subjects of articles be notable (see Wikipedia:Notability). Media articles or references in academic literature easily assert notability, but blogs and youtube do not. Dozens of articles are deleted on the basis of notability every day. However, if you can provide citations to reliable references for the event, it will be considered notable and factual. Just find a few, and everyone will be happy. If there are none, it is likely that the article will not be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. However, you can always move the article to a subpage of your userpage so that people can still access the information. Cool3 19:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 12:35, 27 September 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. Luna Santin 16:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audree Jaymes

Article as it stands right now does make a valid argument for her to be considered notable as per WP:BIO and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. A check at IAFD reveals only 33 films. Tabercil 14:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• • To clarify what I'm saying, she's non-notable. Tabercil 21:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no reason given for deletion. JYolkowski // talk 15:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I'm following your notion... Punkmorten 09:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Sulfur 23:21, 28 September 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 20:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mecha as Practical War Machines

Page spun off from Mecha today. A heady combination of unsourced, unverifiable, essay to which is added more than a hint of crystall ballism and a hearty helping of cruft and original research. There is a slim chance that an article can be salvaged from this trainwreck, so I don't presently have an opinion as to the Right Thing to do here but I'm certainly tempted in the direction of deletion. Make this into a good article and you're sure to win Danny's third contest. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fancruft per nom. Leibniz 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Mecha is awesome and extremely popular. There should be as much information on mecha on Wiki as possible. Article can be cleaned up, and AfD is not cleanup. Billy Blythe 17:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a heady brew of original research. No refs, is essentially an essay. This will open the door to similar fanciful weapon systems having 'Are they practical' articles as well. --Nydas 18:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR essay. Inappropriate title for an article stubification/rewrite. There is an article to be written about DARPA's Exoskeletons for Human Performance Augmentation project and related research initiatives. There's an existing article on Artificial powered exoskeletons but unfortunately, about 85% of the quite lengthy article is focussed on popular culture and fancruft references. Personally I would ship off all those fan culture references to their own specifically titled pop culture article, and expand the real life research stuff in the exoskeleton article. Also, BLEEX could do with some help too. I'll put it on my to do list Bwithh 19:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Robocruft. Artw 20:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the problem itself is genuine enough, but it does need sources. Mister.Manticore 23:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I split this material off of the original Mecha page specifically because it was a big ugly mess of unreferenced conjecture that had no place being attached to a page that was otherwise very good. While it might make interesting reading, the fact that it is all conjectural means it belongs on somebody else's website. I would have just deleted it, but for the fact that Mecha fanboys will probably just revert it back to the original mecha page. Jboyler 00:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As things stand, the vast bulk of this article is useless conjecture. We should write a concise summary of attempts to construct a RL mecha for the main article and leave it at that. Kensai Max 01:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft as impractical OR machines. It's a mecha fanboy's favourite talking point and should be saved for the chat-rooms. QuagmireDog 05:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR and crystal-ball work. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR using the level-7 anti-cruft cannon. --Charlesknight 12:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep The OR rule is only put in place to stop vandals from proposing their own theories about subjects already established. There has never been any research into mecha being used in the military. Therefore finding sources is impossible. But it is still a subject of interest to mecha enthusiasts, therefore it should be kept because it is a notable subject of interest. Subjects on wikipedia also include pop culture topics which don't have acedemic research. See donkey punch for example. This is another topic based on pop culture. Lengis 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There has never been any research into mecha being used in the military. Yes there has. But they're known as exoskeletons. Bwithh 18:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, since nobody's coming around to close this. ;) Luna Santin 02:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pesfan

Contested prod. I still hold that this fails both WP:WEB and WP:RS and should be deleted. Crystallina 14:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)