User:MacGyverMagic/Deletion/Debates

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

The result of the debate was Merge. Ral315 (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blake & Dylan Tuomy-Wilhoit

seems to be copy n pasted and is about relatively unknown child actors. --Phil 03:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep, being on Full House makes them notable enough even if that's their only acting experiencem, but a lot of unverifiable fan material (and dated statements) need to be cut for this article to work. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Based on their lack of further acting, I support the merge as well. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge (a summary) and redirect to Full House: Because these two infants haven't had much of a career since, their fame rests in the show alone. Therefore, there isn't really much need for a biography, and especially a corporate biography, under this extremely unlikely name. Geogre 11:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Dylan & Blake Tuomy-Wilhoit --Rob 14:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• KeepMerge per Rob. Actors in a wellknown TV show – they even have their own IMDB pages. --Ezeu 23:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I merged the other article into this, and got rid of all the unverified stuff (which is almost everything). --Rob 05:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was consensus to merge. I merged it with Characters of Lost, as the main article seemed inappropriate. Johnleemk | Talk 12:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Faith Harrington

This is a character from a book related to Lost. The book bears little connection to the series' main arcs, and this character does not appear in the series. It's essentially non-notable fanon. Since the character is not shown on the series or connected to an official website, it does not merit inclusion (via merge and redirect) on Characters of Lost. I think a delete is in order. Baryonyx 06:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Just because they're not part of the television version of Lost, doesn't mean the character doesn't warrant inclusion. If the book is published by a known publisher and supported by the show's creators, it's just as real as the show. We didn't kill articles about characters who only appeared in the film version of Jurassic Park and not the book because it was not official canon either. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge in a section in the tv show's article "Lost in other media" per discussion below. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: When Baronyx mentioned this to me, I didn't realize it was from a published book by the creators of the show. However, as it stands, I'm not sure if this is going to be fleshed out into a full article. Maybe this information should be moved to a more generic article about the book Lost: Endangered Species? --DDG 15:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Agree that Lost is more than just what appears on the TV show and such content may warrant a Wikipedia article. Between the book (with another planned), the announced short video vignettes for mobile phones, and the web sites, perhaps an article on "Lost in other other media" that would hold such content until separate articles are justified? Rillian 17:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Rillian. Merge this character article elsewhere for now. I don't know what the consensus is regarding book-only characters for Lost (as opposed to, say, Star Trek or Doctor Who or James Bond), but I think it may be premature for this character to have her own article unless it is known that the character is going to be recurring in the books and/or be added to the show. 23skidoo 17:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:FICT, which states "Major characters in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction", and suggests that individual articles should be reserved for "cultural icons". Which this woman sure ain't. — Haeleth Talk 23:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Lost (TV series), perhaps in a section called Non-televised Lost, which would also discuss the book(s). 147.70.242.21 00:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: if merge is the result of this vote, there's a section similar to that on the Characters of Lost page, which is where this material should end up (though, as noted in my nomination, I believe it should be deleted instead of merged there). This material wouldn't go on the Lost (TV series) page. Baryonyx 00:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge per Haeleth. Stifle 22:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 11:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Dolls

These might not be big enough to warrant an article... --Wonderfool 17:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic.--MONGO 03:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, coming second in the competition is sketchy, but playing at the Glastonbury Festival and landing a 5 album record-deal as a result, makes me think they're notable enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to MuggleNet. bainer (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emerson Spartz

Subject of article is webmaster of MuggleNet. Although MuggleNet is notable enough, the webmaster is not, particularly since all the information on the page is from the Mugglenet website. The article has numerous photographs that are copyrighted and whose use is questionable, at best. Jtmichcock 20:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep and severe cleanup. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. -[[User:Rhymeless|Tim Rhymeless [[User talk:Rhymeless| (Er...let's shimmy)]]]] 05:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Updated vote: Delete per nom or weak merge. Even when a website is notable that doesn't make everything associated with it (webmasters, servers, forum members, etc.) notable too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: vote updated to include merge option after considering Mgm's points on my talk page. The problem with covering webmasters is that, with only the rarest of exceptions, all information about them comes from themselves and their websites rrather than books, academic sources, or mainstream publications. Since this particular webmaster interviewed Rowling, I guess a certain amount of verifiable information exists. I trust that only the truly verifiable (and non-trivial) information will be merged when the time comes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Opposition to the top two entires. The website is globally noted by distinct fandoms that show interest in its main topic (Harry Potter). So it is entirely just to make the webmaster notible for this achievement and the popularity it has gained. Darlyn Perez 22:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge Even if the website of this individual is noteworthy in some respects, this information seems better suited as a sub-section of the MuggleNet article. It just does not seem relevent to have an article on a webmaster, and on their site also. Why not combine the two? There are obviously numerous successful webmasters out there, it seems irrelevent to have an individual article devoted to each one as well as their website especially for a fansite.

• Merge any useful information into MuggleNet, although there doesn't seem to be much there. The plethora of pictures is unnecessary. Joyous | Talk 00:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. Anyone who was personally invited by J.K. Rowling to interview her for the release of book 6 is quite notable in my opinion. The images are likely a copyright issue. All but one or two should be axed. If not kept, it should at the very least be merged. Link to the interview in question is at the Pottercast entry on deletion review - Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with MuggleNet and Redirect to that page. There's only the one site he has that has notability and integrating the information in one article makes the most sense. Jtmichcock 18:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with MuggleNet. feydey 00:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with MuggleNet. But in any case, I hope people will remove some of the family info etc. It almost seems to border on stalking, or something. -- 71.198.189.142 11:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with MuggleNet. It seems the best way to handle it short of revising the whole page, which would leave us nothing more than a stub :). Initially I'm for the deletion of the article but I think subordinating it within the MuggleNet article would be a good compromise.--Chinfo 12:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. When he does something else notable, we can have a breakout article. Gamaliel 00:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 24.224.153.40 20:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Please discount this anon vote. They have not provided a reason. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Water potential

this was part of my coursework, and was put on here somehow (not by me!). In our coursework we have to source everything, but come up with our own definition of water potential. I came up with this, it was put on here (thus becoming something I should source - but I couldn't, as our own definitions had to be exactly that - our own and original). So if it is not deleted then it is possible I could have taken it off here, as there is no proof that it was me that was using that IP when it was put on (even thought it was). Gjay 19:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• That was the most convoluted paragraph I have ever read (that wasn't my own). If you're saying that you are the author and want it deleted, then speedy delete. If you're saying that you are the lister and want to remove the AfD, then speedy keep. Otherwise, redirect to Water pressure. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • The article has been in existance for over a year and has been subsequently edited/added to by other editors --pgk^(talk) 23:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone tell me how this is not just a convoluted and confusing special case of chemical potential as applied to water? If so I suggest that the article state as much and refer to a discussion of chemical potential. If this is special notation in common (?!) use then that should also be stated. As far as I know there is nothing special in this formulation that applies only to water and not to arbitrary solvents/liquids. I suspect that this concept is obsolete and of merit for understanding older thermodynamic literature. However, if this is the case, it should be made clear. Certainly it seems odd that a "potential" should have dimensions of pressure. 67.85.203.239 01:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

how do I "speedy delete"?

• See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. However, it no longer qualifies as others besides you have now worked on the article. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep --SockpuppetSamuelson 12:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; The term is still in use. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - core concept in plant physiology from Google.scholar - Guettarda 16:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep although the original author may now wish it gone, it doesn't appear to be nonsense and has been edited by others. CarbonCopy (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hardvice 22:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep! The concept is there, the information good, it seems. IanManka 05:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected to properly finish the merge per policy, see links below. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Decisionsupportsystem

I have completed a merge of this page's remaining significant information over to the more-complete Decision support system article. I believe that this article is now redundant and can be deleted; it is an orphan and so does not even need a redirect. Steve Summit (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• If it has been merged, I believe the most correct action (under the GFDL) is to leave this page as a redirect to Decision support system. If I am mistaken, then disregard this vote. ESkog | ^Talk 07:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as is the usual practice for merges. Gazpacho 12:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: No pages link to this page, so I believe no redirect is necessary. Steve Summit (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per ESKog. It's to retain the edit history. Deletion would kill the edit history which we need to attribute the merged material to the right contributor. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and Wikipedia:Merge. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mass of Lightning

Delete: Hoax and/or nonsense as pointed out in Talk:Mass of Lightning -- JimR 05:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Units in the equations are not cited. A method of attempting to find if an equation is true or not is to calculate the units. From what I can see, the units appear to be kilogram metres to the power of 4. Sounding like a hoax? Deskana 08:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is unverifiable. JCA vol. 9, pp. 77-104 (2002); I found:

1. Journal of Contemporary Art
2. Journal of Contemporary Asia
3. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

None of which have anything to do with lightening or the correct field of science. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per above and the talk page. Also, lightning seems to be a very odd phenomenon to be related to a universal constant. The form of the equation seems quite odd: I don't think that anybody would use P₂(x²) in that context. They would expand the polynomial. It strikes me as an attempt to make the equation look more complicated than it is. Finally, fundamental constants are quite rare, and a new one would certainly get a lot of attention. ManoaChild 11:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and the talk page. Jasmol 21:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and the simple fact that alleged mass is a distance measurement. Das Nerd 21:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Second Coming. Owen× ☎ 23:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Second advent

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is a "book in progress," so it should be an "article nonexistent." JHMM13 (T | C) 05:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I forgot to say. In the meantime, the author deleted my afd tag and added thousands of words from his story. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Second Coming (aka second advent of Jesus) --Ezeu 05:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a free host. -- RHaworth 07:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Ezeu — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Really ugly mess of a page that totally lacks paragraph breaks. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 20:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy. Personal essay, original research, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Wikipedia is not a free web host, not notable, etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Ezeu. Do not userfy. The user only contributed to this particular article and does (as of yet) not seem interested in contributing to Wikipedia without advertising. We shouldn't allow people to abuse the userspace for advertising purposes either. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Duh. --Mihoshi 18:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 23:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ketchup on hot dogs

Unencyclopedic. Can never be more than an essay, and will always be NPOV challanged Ezeu 05:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: see also ongoing discussion at Talk:Ketchup on hot dogs --Ezeu 05:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The article deals with an ongoing, albeit humorous, controversy that has been particularly notable in the Chicago area. Similar to the great "soda vs. pop" debate, sources are cited, including the national council cited in the article, and the debate has had prominent appearances in the media. Issues of NPOV were ironed out very early on after the article's creation and great care has been taken to insure the article's neutrality. Jtmichcock 05:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete Frivolous. Not encyclopedic. An essay. -Wiccan Quagga 05:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. More here than you might think. Needs a little work, but it can make it. Daniel Case 07:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I support Chicago's patriotic effort to preserve our culinary heritage from the Red Menace. Gazpacho 09:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I wish the hot dog article could fit this in, though. D-Rock 11:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't see how the use of ketchup on hot dogs deserves an encyclopedia article. — JIP | Talk 12:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• KeepSjc 12:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or delete Surely at best all the subject deserves is a pargraph in the main ketchup or hot dog article? -- Wezzo 14:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what is gained by this article again? -^demon 15:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with hot dog. It's definitely an interesting topic, but I think it's more worthy of being included in the main article rather than by itself. Make sure to cross-reference with Dirty Harry. 23skidoo 15:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like an WP:NOR vio. karmafist 16:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand, and do not merge. Initial reaction was delete, but this ties in too well with the hot dog article. Can't be merged because of length. Therefore, default keep and expand for other condiments. -- JJay 18:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I learned something new today. Next time I have a hot dog I shall try it without ketchup. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 20:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Straight Dope reference and two newspaper citations... borderline topic but commendable adherence to WP:V and WP:CITE makes it a keeper. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hopelessly unencyclopedic, hopelessly POV. --Bachrach44 23:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note, there is also a Chicago-style hot dog article. Maybe the controversial subject (in Chicago) of catsup on wieners can be covered there. --Ezeu 00:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Shorten to a paragraph and merge into hot dog. Zocky 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into hot dog or ketchup. -- Mwalcoff 02:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for obvious reasons stated above. wikipediatrix 02:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- discussion of notable food meme. (And I don't like ketchup on my hot dogs, but I don't like ketchup much to begin with.) Haikupoet 04:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Wikipedia is not a propaganda or advocacy machine. --Ezeu 05:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia also has a civility requirment. Jtmichcock 05:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sure it does.--Ezeu 05:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• You seem to be unclear on the multiple meanings of the word "discussion". Haikupoet 05:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, because this is an opportunity for people to learn of the cultural differences between many Americans and Chicago citizens. This is a learning an opportunity. (personal attack removed) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saxonjf (talk • contribs).
• Merge and redirect to Chicago-style hot dog which appears to be the proper place to discuss this. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per [[User:MacGyverMagic. This is a duplicate and an essay. Pilatus 14:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, this is somewhat borderline as a notable topic, but it is starting to lean towards an encyclopedic article on a genuine food-culture touchstone. I think it should go on Wikipedia:Unusual articles if it is improved further. Andrew Levine 07:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If Wikipedia can have an article Hitler has only got one ball, Ketchup on hot dogs fits right in. Jtmichcock 15:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • LOL. Good point. Looks like we may be setting a precedence for future AFDs. Maybe we should ask assistance from Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines --Ezeu 15:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm, a widely known propaganda song created and/or popularized by WWII Allies as a part of psychological warfare seems like a slightly more encyclopedic subject than a local debate over whether a certain ingredient should be used in a certain dish. Zocky 03:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Then would Toilet-related injury be more comparable? As stated by Wikipedia: "These articles are valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, but are somewhat odd, whimsical, or... well, something you wouldn't expect to find in Encyclopædia Britannica." Wikipedia ≈ Britannica. Jtmichcock 03:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Toilet-related injuries are a matter of public health concern, and have been studyied in detail by scholars. --Ezeu 04:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Kind of like food, or even hot dogs [1] -- JJay 04:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete I don't see this article as requiring anything more than a subsection of hot dog or ketchup --Mike5904 04:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep This article was created to allow for a more thorough discussion of the topic that could have been fit intot he hot dog article itself. If the vote comes out as merge, I would reccomend that it go to the Chicago style hot dog article, as opposed to the main article, however. Youngamerican 16:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Smerge or Delete A paragraph or two may well be appropriate in another hot-dog article, most likely the Chicago-style one. This topic though, 1) does not deserve its own article and 2) does not merit this much coverage in any article. The Literate Engineer 08:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 14:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep.  Grue  17:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_gallery

This existence of this article goes explicitly againstofficial Wikipedia Policy: in particular, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. There is already a Wikipedia Commons page for this purpose. Wiccan Quagga 05:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect to commons:William-Adolphe Bouguereau which seems identical. -- RHaworth 08:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Commons page has fewer entries than the Wikipedia page; comparison should be made to update Commons page before the Wikipedia page's deletion. -- ShaneCavanaugh 20:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I just brought the Commons article up to date with the WIkipedia article (excepting some images that need to be transfered to the Commons server). Could someone check this against the previous edit to make sure I didn't accidentally delete anything? -- ShaneCavanaugh 22:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Changing my vote to redirect as per RHaworth's recommendation --Wiccan Quagga 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Question: If the redirect is enacted should the orphaned Wikipedia images on the be deleted in the interest of saving space? --Wiccan Quagga 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Update the commons (transfer images where possible) and delete. We don't redirect across projects and galleries are very clearly not allowed. Images should not be deleted, but tagged with {{Nowcommons}} instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Commons is, in my opinion, a poor place for image galleries of this type. This galery provides valuable understanding of the artist in a manner that cannot be provided in any other way. In order to understand art, one must look at art. In order to understand a complex art topic, such as the development over artists career, or the characteristics of particular artists style, one must look at a lot of art, therefore, in my mind, the information provided by this gallery is clearly encyclopedic, the only question then is how to present it. I believe Commons to be a poor choice for the following reasons.

• Unsophisticated users of Wikipedia (who, I beleive, is who we should also keep in my mind as the primary audience for everything we do here) could be confused by following a link that takes them away from the English Wikipedia without warning.
• Despite having seen many claims on Wikipedia that it is the purpose of Commons to host image galleries, I have never been able to find such a statement on Commons. In my understanding, Commons was created to allow the several Wikimedia projects to have access to the same images without having to reload them to each project. In order to assist that effort, images are sometimes organized into gallery pages, however that is merely ancillary to the main purpose. If any one is aware of where on Commons it says something to the effect of "this is the place within Wikimedia for image galleries used in support of other Wikimedia project articles", please point it out to me.
• Commons is a multilingual project. As the project develops, more anad more pages will look like this one. Sending users of an English language encyclopedia to such a page a bad idea.
• It creates an additional burden on editor interested in developing and protecting such content since it would require them to watch two projects, rather than one.

Please note that I am aware of the restriction at WP:NOT and disagree with it and believe that this policy should be changed. Please see Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_to_modify_WP:NOT_an_image_gallery. Dsmdgold 15:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I've looked at this gallery and I've looked at the Commons page. The gallery article is superior. It has informative captions — in English — where the Commons page has ugly filenames. It's a beautiful, informative encyclopedic page. It's much more useful than the average "list of" article and I still vote to keep those. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Wikipedia has no explicit policy against having pages in the article space that are galleries. While WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information explicitly says that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files with no text to go with the articles and explicitly forbids articles that are Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles, this gallery provides encyclopediac complementation to the William-Adolphe Bouguereau article, and is annotated. The exact interpretation of the prohibition of collections of photographs is highly contentious at present, and according to the policy If in doubt, don't delete, a delete outcome is inappropriate. As evidence of the contentious nature of this rule observe the following past AfDs:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of illuminated manuscript images - keep (this gallery and Gallery of Book of Kells pages and Gallery of Vergilius Romanus miniatures)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Socialist Realism - delete, challenged in WP:DRV
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of pages from the Vienna Dioscurides - keep

and other galleries that have been claimed to have encyclopediac value and which have not been taken to AfD:

• Gallery of sovereign state flags
• Gallery of Pompeii and Herculaneum
• Erotic art in Pompeii
• Gallery of Fayum mummy portraits

--- Charles Stewart 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The dogged mantra of "if in doubt, do not delete" does not mean "if one editor disagrees with a policy no editor may apply it". You can say keep, but your doubt about the policy does not render others unable to be quite sure of it. -Splash^talk 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Policy is something there is consensus for - or at least 70% support. I don't think a rule prohibiting quality image galleries like this one would gain that kind of support if put to a poll. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've quoted that phrase precisely three times in my 16 months here at WP: it's hardly a dogged mantra of mine. Following the links I provided, and following the discussion on the WP:NOT talk page will show that there is considerable uncertainty about both how to interpret this rule, and whether the rule is, as currently phrased, a good rule. If three people are sure that rule should be interpreted one way, and three quite sure it shoould be interpreated in another incompatible way, does that make it a clear-cut rule? --- Charles Stewart 16:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete from this project, and do whatever is needed on commons The JPS 16:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with William-Adolphe Bouguereau. This is indeed an informative gallery which can become even better with a commentary on the painter's style through his career. -- Ranveig 17:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, "In order to understand art, one must look at art.", as per Dsmdgold and Charles Stewart. linas 17:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Commons per RHaworth. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 17:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Complete the transwiki to Commons and delete it here. Clearly belongs there more. The way to improve our sister projects is not to try to duplicate their mission here. —Cryptic (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I do not understand today's transwiki votes. All but the six fair use images have been copied across to commons yesterday, there would be nothing to transwiki. People should compare the two galleries to make an informed judgement before voting. --- Charles Stewart 18:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

  Comment - What I wrote was not true. There are PD images still to bring over. Sorry. --- Charles Stewart 18:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - This is an excellent addition to the page on William-Adolphe Bouguereau. He was a very famous artist and an annotated gallery of his works makes perfect sense to me.  The Steve  19:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (UTC)
• Transwiki to Commons and delete. I see no encyclopedic discussion (or dicussion of any sort) for any of these images. --Carnildo 19:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Commons is a repository of media. This is an encyclopedia. Commons is akin to a project page, with an interface optimized for dispersing media to all of the wikimedia projects. Unlike Wikipedia, it isn't an end product. An encyclopedia needs galleries to efficiently communicate knowledge about art. — David Remahl 20:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Adding my vote -- reasons for keeping have already been more eloquently expressed than I could manage...So just saying -- KEEP. --Nemonoman 20:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Does not defy NOT, useful addition to the Wikipedia. --Oldak Quill 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• redirect as per RHaworth, this is what Commons is for. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Where, on Commons, does it say that? Dsmdgold 00:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, from the welcome message on Commons Main Page:

The Wikimedia Commons is a project that provides a central repository for free images, music, sound & video clips and, possibly, texts and spoken texts, used in pages of any Wikimedia project

The key words are central repository. The use of the media contained in that repository should take place in the individual Wikimedia projects. OK, we arrange all the William-Adolphe Bouguereau images on commons with annotations to suit en.wikipedia. Great if you are French, German, Spanish, Italian, Korean, Japanese or any other non English speaker .... in short a recipe for anarchy and disaster. The use of the images must be the responsibility of each project separately. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Encyclopedic content is useful. Images properly categorized (perhaps in a an ordered series) serve to build a case in an article. --Ancheta Wis 22:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Because commons is a multi-lingual site, all those image captions could rightly be changed to french, chinese or whatever language, which would not help people wanting to see the info in english. Or to think about it another way, what if the German wikipedia wanted a gallery on Bouguereau, and they had to have a commons gallery with all the captions written in English. ---- Astrokey44|talk 22:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful addition to the Bouguereau article. Could of course be made more useful with more annotations, but we can't have everything. I understand the point about duplication with Commons, but it is not clear to me that Commons will present the material ideally for our (the English Wikipedia's) purposes, as their purpose is different. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (via edit conflict)
• Delete, duplicated on Commons whose mission it fits perfectly. Cross-fertilization of other WIkimedia projects is a good thing. Not every last bit of information must be absolutely contained with en.wikipedia; the Foundation would not have made the other projects if that were the case. WP:NOT an image gallery remains policy. -Splash^talk 23:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful supplement of William-Adolphe Bouguereau article, allowing annotations in English (Commons is multilingual).--Patrick 00:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A fine collection of work, sequenced and titled. Definitely encyclopedic. Denni ☯ 00:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment According to the Commons FAQ, it is inappropriate to put galleries in the main namespace, but they may be put in user space. Where the idea comes from that Commons is a good place for galleries, I do not know. --- Charles Stewart 00:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a gross misinterpretation. The only place in that document that mentions userspace galleries is in the section "How do I best make a gallery of my own pictures?" (emphasis mine). —Cryptic (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Where does the Commons policy/guidelines talk about housing and maintaining galleries outside userspace? Commons appears to have no editing policies about galleries in the shared space, which is to say that it is not a suitable place for galleries whose quality one wishes to maintain. --- Charles Stewart 15:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I find, at a very brief glance, Commons:Commons:Project plan, Commons:Commons:Village pump#Article or category?, Commons:Commons:Village pump#Image keywords; redundant cats; what we call ourselves, and Commons:Commons:Images on normal pages or categories:Vote. And if gallery pages are forbidden on the Commons, I suggest you head over there right now and start nominating for deletion; there are some 23,488 of them that need to go. —Cryptic (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
        • There are indeed many galleries/articles on Commons even if they don't have a clearcut policy on when to use them. One of the discussions you link to uses the Linx gallery as an example. That article starts with these words: "de: - Linz ist die Landeshauptstadt des österreichischen Bundeslandes Oberösterreich". Or take the Köln gallery. The multilingual information is very nice on Commons but it is in many cases unnecessarily distracting and cumbersome when compared with English language galleries on the English Wikipedia. - Haukur 16:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
          • The way to fix that is not to fork the project here. —Cryptic (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
            • The purporse of commons is not to house galleries whose purpose is to illustrate wikipedia articles. Commons is not broken and does not need to be fixed. Haukurth's point is merely to show how unsuited Commons is for a purpose other that that for which it was intended. --- Charles Stewart 16:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Cryptic: Thanks for those links, some were useful to me. I had conceded that galleries outside user space were allowed on Commons: I am sorry if that was unclear. The second point I made is that Commons has no editing policies for maintaining the quality of galleries in this shared space: unsurprisingly since it is not an encylopaedia. The point of galleries on Commons, according to the links you give, is parallel to the point of lists here on Wikipedia: they are a flexible alternative to categories. --- Charles Stewart 16:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, pointless duplication of content between projects.--nixie 04:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This collection of images is encyclopedic in itself. Additionally, adding a lot of additional text would make it more difficult to process visually and cherry-picking a few images and including them in an article would make them less informative by taking them out of visual context. Crypticfirefly 04:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nixie and provide a link to commons gallery from William-Adolphe Bouguereau. --Gurubrahma 05:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Entirely encyclopaedic and beautifully complements the main article without overwhelming the page. Commons is the wrong place for encyclopaedic use of content, it is a central repository. Read the welcome message on the main page if you have any doubts as to its intended function. All appropriate galleries should be kept. Cactus.man ✍ 09:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Now that we've established that there's significant support for keeping quality galleries like this one I think we should develop some pretty restrictive guidelines on what kinds of galleries are acceptable. A blanket "keep galleries" policy could lead to a lot of bad articles. Galleries of the type "Gallery of Artist X" are generally a good thing when there is a significant number of works and some intelligent captions. "Gallery of vaguely related stuff I like" should be out. - Haukur 10:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  Oh! And we can have featured galleries like featured lists. We're going to have so much gallery fun! ;-) Haukur 10:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Looks like a photographic list to me. Ashibaka tock 01:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This kind of stuff belongs at Commons. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Well-organized supplement to article. Commons welcomes a copy, where annotations can be in multiple languages, but English Wikipedia needs its own gallery in English. Fg2 05:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful in art history to show the full development and change of the artist's work over time. I also suggest people take a look at [this] policy proposal to allow for visual list articles / galleries in Wikipedia. --ShaunMacPherson 07:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Sure there's a lot of gallery webpages out there, but maybe the world needs a special Wiki just for galleries... -Wiccan Quagga 21:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Airliners.net

Vanity for a semi nnwebsite with little facts and more advertising to it --Reid A. 09:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep - The article maybe badly written, but the site itself is a popular place for planespotters to get / exchange pictures of aircraft, airports and the like. I'm not an airplane nut, but I've still heard of it and visit occasionally. Jamie 10:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep – A very popular site which deserves a mention here. News from within the aviation world often appears first there. Also the faked picture of a man on the WTC just before impact Tourist guy used a photo stolen from the Airliners.net database here Dave 14:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment-Really needs a better article for this entry then, as all that this one is, is advertising.71.3.123.8 21:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Alexa rating is: 2,251, so this site has enough visitors to be more notable than the nominator claims. Article also doesn't look overly promotional or full of praise. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Well known site, should be inproved, not deleted Prodego ^talk 21:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think this article should be edited, not deleted. At least post a message saying the article needs to be cleaned up or something. --Mohaas05

• Strong Keep; very well-known and popular aviation site. Good Alexa rank, and I believe the assertion of forum membership. May need editing to be less promotional, but it's a notable site. MCB 01:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Alexa ranking. Jendeyoung 02:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shabnam Sharma

Non-notable writer. 98 hits on Google, most of them referring to different people, Shabnam being a common name and Sharma being a common surname Gurubrahma 09:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Most of the notability claims refer to print sources that may not be available online. Do you have any evidence apart from Google to call this person not-notable? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• The burden of proof is on the claimnant. And anyway, the quality of the article is so low my conscience won't let me say anything but delete. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 12:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comments - no Vote: In case, she is a recipient of the award instituted in the honor of Mahadevi Varma, she must be be notable. I found by chance a link (last but one para) of the Tribune Nahan: Poetess Honoured, a widely circulated newspaper of North India, which states that this poetess has received more than 20 awards. However, in my opinion all awards may not be of significance, except few ones including the one which I have indicated. As regards the language, this aspect may be attended to any time. --Bhadani 14:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no source for the Mahadevi Varma award. The link that you provided talks of a local award and refers to the poetess as a local poet. For non-hindi Indian poets, a low google count may be ok, but definitely not for hindi ones (especially since here the "Shabnam Sharmas" returned in google hits are all different people). --Gurubrahma 15:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. In order to continue here as an entry, her notability MUST be established beyond doubt. In case, it is not established, my comments may be taken as a vote for Delete. --Bhadani 15:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory

Note: previously survived a then-VfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postcodes: New South Wales on 25/09/2004.

I consider a list of postcodes to be of very dubious value on wikipedia given it is derived directly from freely available data from the Australia Post website. Unlike some other lists, this one adds nothing that isn't already available elsewhere in basically the same format. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - for reasons stated above. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I was just bouncing around the ZIP code listing in wikip looking up some info (so having here is kinda useful) and if US postal codes are kept, I don't see why Aussie ones should not be. novacatz 04:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.

• Keep. These lists are very common and reliably pass AfD. This one has been recently formatted, looks good and is up to date. It is not harming wikipedia by being here. --Martyman-(talk) 04:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

nitpicking perhaps, but it was not up to date at the time of your vote, I have updated it--A Y Arktos 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful list for ACT residents. This page has not yet been listed on the AfD but it will be now. Capitalistroadster 04:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or at the very least reformat into a very short article with a link to the current Australia Post web site. I appreciate a lot of work has one into this but I question the value of maintaining such a list; the only current list is maintained by Australia Post. It is not a particularly static list and if someone wants authoratative information we should be pointing them in the right direction, not offering something that might not be up to date. My comments apply to all lists of postcodes in Australia. They do not imply that the current lists are not up to date, but we cannot guarantee they will be completely right in 6 months time. Took me years to cotton on that ANU had its own weird postcode (0200 not 2600) - not sure when it changed but I believe well before I dropped the habit of addressing letters to the institution under 2600.--A Y Arktos 04:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

We are not just setting a precedent here for australian postcodes, this would also apply to all the lists of US zip codes etc. PS. I think the ANU has been 0200 for as long as I can remember (at least 10 years) these things do not chnage on a weekly basis. --Martyman-(talk) 04:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. These lists have survived AfD overwhelmingly before, are fairly static (making the reliability objection bunk), and I'm currently in the process of cleaning them up so they're less ugly. Ambi 04:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. A nonsense nomination, unless the nominator intends to nominate the hundreds of such lists on Wikipedia.--cj | talk 06:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is no less encyclopaedic than any other "List of ..." article on Wikipedia. I'm interested to hear the nominator's opinion on the rumoured similar lists for states in the USA, too ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm aware of heaps of these lists and I'm not about to target all of them as there would never be a consensus, however for this State as a start, I see no problem with testing the waters again. Having survived afd previously is a fairly weak substantiation for keeping them. Perhaps I should create a list of all the numbers between 1 and 100 because I'm sure people use those all the time. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Unlike numbers between 1 and 100, however, people are likely to need to consult a resource to find out postcodes. I and others do so on Wikipedia first. Ambi 08:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It is probably sarcasm, but please don't create list for 1-100 -- remember WP:POINT novacatz 14:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sarcasm; just a light hearted jest. Garglebutt / (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - its more useful that a post code list off the post code site because it links to articles about them as well, thus making it very handy. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - Wikipedia seeks to be a sum of human knowledge, and even mundane details like postcodes are part of that. Brisvegas 10:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Er, not exactly ... see Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair 12:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, perhaps not perfectly formatted, but the info seems to be correct. If we've got a List of ZIP Codes in the United States, deleting this would aid systemetic bias. I don't see how this is any worse than US ZIP codes. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

And let's not forget Lists of postal codes which lists postal codes outside the US for a substantial amount of countries. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment You're tempting me to put up an AFD for for "Everything linked to from Lists of postal codes. The Literate Engineer 18:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep While I do agree it's a fairly mundane list, it's useful. And if this were deleted, then why not all the other Lists of postcodes? Chanlord 12:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's good to have these lists with links to articles, there's plenty of precedent, and it is inappropriate to nominate this list and not all the others. JPD (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment as I have already voted delete above. (Some of us graduated from ANU more than ten years ago :-)!) You would be surprised how quickly these lists do get out of date and what an issue it might be to maintain them, for example to cover new suburbs. In my (real world) work, most documents of importance (or not just importance but reference), for example policies and procedures, are tagged as being not an authorised copy and that the only authorised copy is the electronic version from a specified location on our intranet. I think at the very least any and all lists of postcodes should be similarly tagged with a qualification and pointer to where the official list should be found. Due to the success of Wikipedia, googling list of postcodes means our pages will rise to the top. At the moment googling postcodes and canberra gives Wikipedia third, after the WA government and the white pages. We are followed by Aged Care and the ACTU before Australia Post comes up, and even then it is not a post code page but a page for Express Post. Obviously, one can format the search better, I am trying to think how the "punter" might approach the issue.

When one navigates to Australia Post's post code page, you can download the database. It comes with a disclaimer, firstly about copyright - and there have of course been copyright coases on telephone listings and the like but I am sure that lists of postcodes are not copyright so long as they are not generated by a cut and past. The second is the qualification about accuracy and a caveat about not relying on the list - to my mind something akin to buying a child for a toddler, marked clearly for two year olds with a warning not to be used by a child under three - if you can't rely on a list from Australia Post?!?

I have not searched the database for wrong codes, but have found missing ones (2914 for Harrison,Bonner and Forde ; according to the Harrison article, building in Harrison has commenced and thus people are quite possibly already there.) If we cannot and are not maintaing the list (and I did fix it), should we have it and similar lists? The ACT is small - I bet NSW and Vic have even more ommissions. I can't speak about overseas. In conclusion, at the very least such lists should be tagged as potentially not complete.--A Y Arktos 21:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything in this article was correct. Postcodes for already existing suburbs don't change. Making sure we add new suburbs when they are created (heck, Bonner and Forde don't even exist yet, but have been recently given postcodes anyway) is something we'll have to keep an eye out for, sure. However, that is easily enough done, and even with an omission or two in these very new cases, the list is still a reliable and useful resource for at least the vast majority of cases. Ambi 22:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Accept the previous result. Rhollenton 00:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sarah Ewart 02:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - though I personally would delete all articles on postcodes, telephone area codes and road numbers as more suitable for an almanac than an encyclopaedia. But if people want to keep ZIP codes and UK postcodes then theres no reason to delete the Australian version - or the postcodes of Mongolia if someone chooses to put them up. A list is just about OK - the problem is people then start creating linked pages entitled "Area Code 123" or some such. Jameswilson 04:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• KeepJcuk 09:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as perfectly useful information that has already survived an AfD. Almost seems bordering on WP:POINT if the nominator's intention was to "test the waters". Raise this on the Village Pump or elsewhere if you just want a discussion about removing all postal code information from Wikipedia. Turnstep 01:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I was not the nominator, however, in response to Turnstep's comments: The last debate was over a year ago and was not conclusive by the concensus standards that have now evolved. The previous debate's results were :The result of the debate was KEEP. (6 delete, 9 keep, 1 ambiguous) - a 60% keep vote, ignoring the ambiguouos vote.--A Y Arktos 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Suburbs are noteable. Ordering them by postcode seems fair enough. Andjam 07:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Myron Evans

Delete. Article appears to be original research, and subject of article is non-notable. Srleffler 03:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Qualifying this a bit: the article has been rewritten to focus on Evans' biography. It is no longer "original research", and it may well be the case that Evans is a notable crackpot. Those who read the article early in the afd process might want to take another look and see if it changes their vote.--Srleffler 04:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom; vanity as well. Billbrock 03:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep pending references. Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements. —Simetrical (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. The link to the argument about Wikipedia not needing notability requirements makes the above essentially an argument for deleting this page. If even the page's supporters admit that the subject is not notable, the page is surely deletable under current policy.--Srleffler 06:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

At the time of my original vote, I was unaware that speedy deletion was mandated for articles not asserting the importance of an individual. I'm not happy with this policy, frankly, and I don't think it actually has consensus at this point (it only ever passed with 74% support, less than that required to make someone an admin), but I recognize that we can't very well allow individual editors to question policy because they don't think it has consensus (WP:IAR aside).

So let me change my reasoning in this case: Dr. Evans appears to have some hundreds of Google hits (some of the 1,150 appear to be talking about another Myron Evans but most seem to be referring hto the man in question), he has 59 Google Scholar hits. He is not, of course, profoundly notable, but he's certainly modestly notable at least. My vote remains keep. —Simetrical (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears to be vanity, content is disputed. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, not speedy. This is probably pseudoscience but appears to have close to sufficent visibility to be worth documenting. It has 10000 Google hits (but only 150 unique hits). Claimed books do exist, though publisher appears to be some sort of vanity press. ManoaChild 06:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the current article is an unverifiable laudatio for a crackpot. Writing an encyclopedic article about Evans can as well start with an empty edit box. He has some Usenet and Web notability, in diverse lists of crackpots. Compare point 25 in John Baez' crackpot index. --Pjacobi 09:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep, per citation in Google Scholar. Much cleanup needed, and verification of Civil List Pension and reasons therefore.--SarekOfVulcan 09:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete per User:ManoaChild. PJM 12:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, at least in part a copyvio (first paragraph comes from Americanantigravity.com. I suspect based on the lack of wikification and the general tone that the rest if copyvio'ed as well.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, per SarekOfVulcan comment. J. D. Redding 14:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Undecided - the article as written is grossly unencyclopaedic and the chances of some scientist nobody has ever heard of developing the Grand Unifying Theory at that age is very small indeed (most scientists seem to do their best and most visionary work when young). Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Peeper 16:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is a hoax, or whacked, or both. Eusebeus 17:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• small Thimble full of keep rewrite about the person, mention the theory and link outside WP, else delete  J\/\/estbrook       20:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Ifnord 20:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He really did win the Harrison Memorial Prize in 1978, he really is (was) the editor of ISBN 0471304999 a very boring and worthy book, plus some others. Just becasuse he later came up with a possibly dubious GUT doesntmean we should not have an article on him. Rich Farmbrough 23:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Edwardian 08:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --ScienceApologist 19:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia's own definition of an Encyclopedia is 'An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia) is a written compendium of knowledge.' If this article is not knowledge highly relevant to the whole human race, I'll eat my hat! Solmil 23:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you like your hat served with tartar sauce or plain? --ScienceApologist 15:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, my thoughts exactly. Note that User:Solmil is the original author of the disputed article, which is not, unfortunately, an attempted hoax.---CH 01:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The prize and scholarship makes him notable, though I'd be happier if the article were more heavily focused on him, and if the section on his theory included language indicating that it's not widely accepted within the scientific community. -Colin Kimbrell 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Certainly, Evans is a classic crackpot. (Einstein and Cartan are rolling in their graves.) But is he even notable? The Harrison Memorial Prize and apparently indistinguishable Mendola Memorial Prize are awarded annually "to a British Chemist who is under 30 years of age for promising original investigations in chemistry", according to Royal Society of Chemistry list of prizes. Is this really a sufficiently notable prize? RSC lists a very long list of prizes at their website, check it out. As for a scholarship, I dare say most commentators have recieved one of those at one time or another. I have been utterly unable to verify the claims about affiliation with Cornell Theory Center, etc., although this is mentioned at a large number of websites like American Antigravity, Free Energy News whose reliability is... suspect :-) I did find however that Myron Evans is one of these charming fellows who likes to take legal action to discourage debunkers. Check this out: Myron Evans Censorship Rebuttal. The "AIAS" which Evans mentions is something called the Alpha Institute of Advanced Studies, an organization directed by himself. At least some of the prizes he claims on his C.V. appear to have been awarded by... AIAS! Hence the need for independent verification of alleged notability. The UW library does have three monographs coauthored by Myron Wyn Evans. All in all, it seems very clear that if we decide that Evans' contributions to chemistry are notable (I'd guess they are not, unless we want to have a biography of everyone who has coauthored a technical book, but I'm not a chemist), then the article needs to be rewritten to clarify the dubious nature of Evans's crackpot claims about free-energy and his so-called "theory".---CH 23:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I was using "scholarship" in the sense of "body of scholarly effort produced by an academic". In particular, I was referring to some of his books and papers. The article could stand a few edit sessions, there's no question about that, but I think a deletion might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. -Colin Kimbrell 00:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Colin, we might be getting off the track, but did you notice that your Google Scholar search includes papers from Evans own site which apparently have not been published? So evidently you must be cautious in using Google Scholar to verify claims in suspect WP articles: there is certainly no guarantee that what you turn up there is even referreed, much less appeared in a respectable research journal. (Even then, of course, as the Bogdanov affair shows, problems can arise.) Also, AFAIK there is no "Evans lemma in gtr" except in his mind, and I think I know the gtr literature pretty well. What are your standards for notability? Simply having published a scholarly book or some papers? I think we need to maintain a higher standard than that, while perhaps not setting the bar as high as Brittanica. Still, I don't think you've answered the question: I see evidence for the dirty bathwater, but where's the baby?---CH 00:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Some of those books and papers are self-published and/or self-referential, but others are legitimate (like this one, for example). The question is whether there are enough legitimate accomplishments remaining after a thorough sort to make Mr. Evans notable. I personally believe that there are, but of course you're free to differ. -Colin Kimbrell 19:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In general, I'd like to see a higher standard of notability, but recognize that many do not agree. I can suggest a compromise solution for what to do with this article, although I hesitate to suggest it because I've had a bad experience in a similar context.

Question for all participants in this discussion: would you find it acceptable if some user were to rewrite the article to describe Evan's work in chemistry, which appears to be "mainstream" (it would be best if whoever does this were a chemist! or at least checks with a knowledgeable chemist), plus the Harrison Prize, followed by a brief WP:NPOV description of what I would call his "cranky" claims? It should be possible to briefly describe those claims in NPOV fashion, adding a dry disclaimer such as: this "theory" appears to be little known in physics, and is apparently regarded as cranky by those physicists who do know about it. (Whoever did this would probably want to omit the "scare quotes", but I can't bring myself to apply the word "theory" to these particular claims without qualification!) Keep the external links so that readers easily find both Evan's writings and critiques of his writings.

Assuming there is a consensus that this would be a reasonable compromise, someone could volunteer to make the changes. But probably only an admin should volunteer for this kind of content cleanup job!---CH 22:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe. First, I would want to know if Evans is actually notable as a chemist. If not, he may still be a notable crackpot, but in that case the article would have to focus on his theories, his efforts to promote them, and the scientific community's view of his work. In other words, if he is notable, the article should focus on discussing whatever it is that makes him notable.

I don't see why you think it would be necessary or even helpful for an admin to do this. Admins are not that different from ordinary editors.--Srleffler 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. If he is notable - for whatever reason, including being a notable crackpot or controversial theorist - he deserves an article. The quality of the article is not really relevant; there is sufficent content and AfD is not cleanup. I simply don't see enough to convince me that he is notable. His tendency to self publish and self award actually works against him here, because it makes it difficult to separate out his actual accomplishments. The Harrison Memorial award seems to be significant, but it isn't clear to me that it is important enough by itself to justify an article. ManoaChild 20:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's why I suggested obtaining confirmation from a neutral chemist that Evans could reasonably be considered notable for his chemistry work. Again tending to want to set the notability bar higher than some, I doubt Evans should be notable purely as a crank, since the only references I could find to his "theory" were on crank websites, which I suspect are very little known except to the tiny tiny minority of freelunchers. However, I am searching for a compromise with Colin, so while I myself would not include a biography of Evans, including one emphasizing his mainstream(?) work at the expense of his obscure crackpottery still seems to me an acceptable compromise.---CH 12:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the re-write proposed by CH, is the amount of watching, reverting, RfCing, RFAring (and sobbing) which is needed to keep it this way. Look at our fine perpetuum mobiles at Adams Motor, Motionless Electrical Generator, or Testatika. The antigravity department at Hutchinson effect and Lifter. Theory department at Scalar field theory, Autodynamics, Hydrino theory, Electric Universe. O.K. most of them seem to be under control in the moment. But they are always a threat to Wikipedia's reputability [2].

Pjacobi 13:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

CH's suggestion sounds like a good idea to me. -Colin Kimbrell 21:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Mathematical joke (makes more sense than redirecting to October 31). howcheng {chat} 20:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OCT 31 = DEC 25

Maybe I'm missing something, but I really don't see the encyclopedic significance of this. Pharos 12:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, but only to cover up Pharos's ignorance. Josh Parris#: 12:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Gee, thanks for the consideration!--Pharos 14:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I also merge it into October 31. --Anthony Ivanoff 13:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Merges need to be finished with a redirect to attribute the original contributor. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Math/CompSci trivia, along the lines of: if you saw DEAD people, how many people would you see? (Answer: 57005) — RJH 16:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why 57005? :) --Anthony Ivanoff 17:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Hexadecimal! :)
      • OMG, great! =))) --Anthony Ivanoff 19:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with Mathematical joke. --keepsleeping say what 18:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Keepsleeping. Good call. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - beautiful riddle. 31 in octal = 25 in decimal. Love it. Of course, we don't celebrate Halloween here, but still great. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Ajdz 03:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mathematical joke. No merge required, the joke already appears in that article. Zunaid 12:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Changing vote to Delete per Anthony Ivanoff below. Zunaid 14:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why redirect - one will never type Oct 31 = Dec 25 in the address bar to be redirected to Mathematical joke. I know redirects are cheap but this is unnecessary. --Anthony Ivanoff 13:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I included the joke in to Mathematical joke (just added the few lines from here). By the way, the Mathematical joke page needs a massive cleanup, as the jokes would be great as their own sub sections. I am happy for it to be deleted now (so long as the joke remains). I think that a redirect from here is in order, as YES, I do think that there would be occasions when someone might type OCT 31 = DEC 25 in to a search engine. For example - when someone asks them how OCT 31 can equal DEC 25! Also could have a redirect from Halloween = Christmas too just to be sure. I think that everyone basically agrees with this (one way or the other) so I am hoping that this is seen as the consensus view. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Enough Merging :) - this info is now merged into:
  • October 31
  • Mathematical joke
  • Category:Computer humor --Anthony Ivanoff 17:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 04:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alt.sex.stories

Was tagged as speedy candidate with the reason: "Not Notable, promotionion of a singular website which contains large amounts of illegal material (eg alt.sex.stories.pedo)". As far as I can tell, Usenet newsgroups can be notable and containing large amounts of illegal material shouldn't be a reason not to have an article on it. We also have articles on other questionable material. Abstain. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is an encyclopedia, not a moral judgement. User:Fuzzywolfenburger
• Keep Josh Parris#: 12:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. I was surprised to see a Speedy Deletion tag posted, ostensibly because of "notability" and "illegal material." Let me address each one:

• First, lack of notability is a criteria for deletion, not speedy deletion. The Usenet hierarchy alt.sex.stories is critical to an understanding of the growth of the internet into its present form. Usenet predates the Worldwide Web by well over a decade. Many people who are not familiar with the history and background that gave rise to the internet tend to think of the Web as the internet. That's simply not true, it is only one aspect of the Internet and only the most recent. Before there was a Web, there was Usenet. And one of the most important portions of Usenet that drove the popularity of the web were the stories told through the alt.sex.stories hierarchies. This was an important factor in drawing people to the internet in the first place. As detailed by the article itself, understanding the alt.sex.stories hierarchy is critical to understanding how the internet was born. To say it lacks notability is absurd.

• As to "illegal" materials, there is no "alt.sex.stories.pedo" as far as I can tell. If one was created in the past (and a Usenet group is easy to create), there is no indication that it in any way has propogated. My Usenet service is among the most comprehensive, with over 120,000 Usenet groups. There's no "pedo" subgroup. If any such group is out there, it is certainly not being distributed. Nonetheless, even if it was out there, the other subgroups certainly do not deserve to be shunned because someone decided to create a questionable subgroup. It is all protected under U.S. law; written materials --even involving minors -- are protected by the First Amendment.[3] There's no such thing as an "illegal" textual description of a sexual act.

• I believe this nomination was made in bad faith and without any checking of notability or legality. Jtmichcock 13:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per Josh and Jmichcock, and suggest adding a clean-up tag to break things into a few subsections; perhaps Purpose, History and Sub-groups, for example. Confusing Manifestation 13:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete For those who say there is no "alt.sex.stories.pedo" may I point you to this Usenet listing. Not only does it exist, but it appears to be active. And as if that wasn't bad enough there is also "alt.sex.stories.babies" which describes inself as "STories involving pre teen children and sex". alt.sex.stories is a usenet group not a website, but it is the equivilent of a single website. Wikipedia has a policy of not allowing articles devoted to single websites. There are litrally thousands of porn websites out there, so why don't they all have Wikipedia articles devoted to them? And as far as telling the story of Usenet is concerned, I think the Usenet article does that just fine. —gorgan_almighty 14:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I recall reading where Yahoo was being pursued by law enforcement because it was allowing its chat rooms to be used by pedophiles to pick up children. I suppose by that logic Yahoo should be de-listed. By way of background, alt.sex.stories is a hierarchy, not a single group and most certainly not a website since it has existed before the Web was even invented (although you can now access the usenet through Google Groups). The subgroups include just about everything that you could imagine, just like Yahoo chat rooms have all manner of behavior. Within the alt.sex.stories groups, there are two main moderated hierarchies, alt.sex.stories.moderated (ASSM) and alt.sex.stories.gay.moderated (ASSGM), both of which have very strict policies on underage sex. I happen to be the moderator the latter and have been for six years (as well as being an assistant moderator prior to taking over). Just the mailing lists for our group includes some 30,000 people and that does not include the tens of thousands of people who read the stories off the web nor those who obtain through Usenet. Our "straight" counterpart, as you can imagine, has an even larger audience. There is no question of notability. I would again urge a Speedy Keep. Jtmichcock 16:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes I noticed your connection to alt.sex.stories. So the alt.sex.stories Wikipedia article is written by the moderator of alt.sex.stories is it? That in its self has been cause for deletion of articles in the past. Please don't take my request for deletion as a personal insult against you, as its not. Your comment about Yahoo being pursued by law enforcement because it allowed its chat rooms to be used by pedophiles is very true. I'm just concerned about the same happening to Wikipedia. Can we get some comments from people who aren't directly connected to alt.sex.stories perhaps? —gorgan_almighty 16:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • There is no moderator of "alt.sex.stories", Jtmichcock moderates "alt.sex.stories.gay.moderated", and he is far from the only contributer to the alt.sex.stories article here on Wikipedia. I have created a section on the ASS.* hierarchy to attempt to clear up this confusion. And for the record, I have no connection to alt.sex.stories other than appreciation of Usenet's history and impact in general. --W.marsh 16:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • We've never deleted articles because of who wrote them. We delete advertising articles because they're POV, and vanity articles because they're non-notable, not because of who writes them. This article seems perfectly fine with regards to NPOV. As for the legal issues, I can't see any in regard to talking about a group that may or may not have a similar name to another group that may or may not be doing something illegal. Didn't a whole WikiProject dedicated to censoring Wikipedia to comply with Florida obscenity law get shot down not too long ago? I remember voting in the AfD on it but wasn't around when it was closed, and can't remember what it was called to look it up. (For the record, I have nothing to do with ASS. Teeheehee.) --Last Malthusian 16:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I think the proposer has some misconceptions about Usenet and how groups are formed and managed. I have the codes and passwords for the ASSGM Newsgroup and not any others. While I have some familiarty with the folks working at ASSM (our websites cross-promote each other), I don't have the authority or means to approve, delete or otherwise affect any posting in that group. As to the balance of the Newsgroups in the ASS hierarchy, I don't even check those unless I hear that someone's writing a diatribe about us. I'm not even sure how many other Newsgroups there are. ASSM and ASSGM were both chartered hierarchies set up years ago. Once you got your group, that's what you handle. Individual ISPs that carry your group or not, it all depends on the demand. Largerly, most ISPs won't carry Newsgroups with any sort of underage content designation; Google carries all sorts of groups without such restrictions, but refuses any binary files. As to whether or not Wikipedia should mention a hierarchy that might contains underage materials in a subgroup, I would certainly hope so. If for no other reason to caution people about what their children/spouses/other family members may be getting themselves into. Jtmichcock 17:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a long-established newsgroup (with 1,380,000 google hits... [4]), not a website... Wikipedia has plenty of articles about webpages and even newsgroups less known than alt.sex.stories. Not to drag this out, but subgroups really have no connection to their parent group... due to the nature of Usenet, anyone who knows how can create a subgroup. --W.marsh 15:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable newsgroup, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of prudes minors. --Last Malthusian 15:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Given that there's not a single delete vote, I think we can safely Speedy this. (Not counting the 'nominator', by which I mean the guy who put the speedy tag on, not Mgm.)--Last Malthusian 23:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, this is a large section of the usenet heirarchy. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable newsgroup, and seriously, are pedophilic stories even considered illegal? I can understand photos or videos, but stories? For a murder mystery, do authors go to jail for 25 to life? Flyboy Will 17:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have articles on far less notable newsgroups than this. It is an important part of usenet's history. Capitalistroadster 17:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Written word is not illegal, and if that is the basis of its main argument for deletion it is inherently flawed. Additionally, is is as already stated NOT a website, it's a newsgroup, and the differences exist in format, protocol, usage and more. Anyone who equates any Usenet hierarchy as a website is completely ignorant of the internet as a whole. Pan 18:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - One person's disgust with Internet sex stories is not a valid reason to delete an article. FCYTravis 22:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and censure for user:Gorgan almighty for his attacks on other editors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Gorgan almighty has never attacked anyone. Everything I have said and done has been in Wikipedia's best interest. Whether you agree with the nomination or not it was made in good faith. And if you look at my contributions to date you will see I have a history of resolving disputes & protecting Wikipedia against vandalism. Please do not attack me because my views are different to yours.—gorgan_almighty 10:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • "Everything I have said and done has been in Wikipedia's best interest." Including placing a bogus speedy deletion tag on an article which did not meet any of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion? A nomination that did not even correctly identify the subject of the article as a newsgroup rather than a website? And then in this discussion, when someone tried to address the fundamental error of fact upon which your argument for deletion was founded, you attacked him with an ad hominem circumstantial: "So the alt.sex.stories Wikipedia article is written by the moderator of alt.sex.stories is it? That in its self has been cause for deletion of articles in the past. ... Can we get some comments from people who aren't directly connected to alt.sex.stories perhaps?" You would be better advised to pay attention to where you're getting your facts completely wrong than pointing the finger at the person pointing out your error. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Let's not make this ugly - it's not worth it when this discussion's surely going to be closed soon. I don't think Gorgan acted in bad faith, and I don't think an ad hominem is the same as an 'attack' - that implies something far more violent and aggressive. --Last Malthusian 17:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree. I think the proposer saw the rogue sub-newsgroups and panic took over. That's perfectly understandable. I think we should all be mindful to check things out before proposing an article for deletion. It would save a lot of time and effort if you have thoroughly checked out the background. I do hope that we can close this debate soon. Jtmichcock 19:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• With apologizes to Phroziac, extreme lesbian keep. a.s.s is pretty much synonymous with pornographic or erotic fiction on the internet; I'm having trouble thinking of a more-notable usenet group. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme Keep. I heard of a.s.s. before I even had internet access. It is that Notable. (friendly) tip to nominator -- please check background some more before nominating for deletion. novacatz 04:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• I feel it is my duty as an immoral Wikipedian to say vehement support of maximum keepification. (Plus, good lord, this usenet group is probably more notable than any other.) Cernen 09:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, very notable newsgroup. — Zazou 02:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted content. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Americas Funniest Home Videos/Opening Credits (sic)

Detailed descriptions of the various opening sequences of the television series America's Funniest Home Videos. Of interest to no one but intensely obsessive fans of the show. tregoweth 00:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Could be useful for future scholars of the show and American culture. -- JJay 00:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with America's Funniest Home Videos, for those interested in that kind of minutiae --Thephotoman 01:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Neither the show nor the credit sequences in question really justify a separate article on the subject. 23skidoo 01:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, wikipedia users should be able to read about the opening credits if they choose, and also able to avoid them (so don't merge). Rename as appropriate. Kappa 01:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep under corrected title, America's Funniest Home Videos. --The Famous Movie Director 01:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, then let editors hack it down on the main article. exolon 02:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obscure fancruft. --Apostrophe 04:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although it needs a rename. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Should be a link from America's Funnies Home Videos tagged Trivia - Videos /Opening Credits

These types of articles should not be merged and cause concise articles to be obliterated. Let them have their own page with a link from the title "Trivia" and the hyphen explaining what type. 68.194.42.219 04:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)TikiWike

• Comment. I believe this was up for AFD not too long ago, perhaps under another name(?) •DanMS 04:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You would be looking for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Opening Credits of America's Funniest Home Videos. The result was Delete, and should be again. Saberwyn 11:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not useful and merging would only cause clutter. Non-notable. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 05:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just when I thought I've seen it all... Wikipedia continues to redefine obsessive-compulsive for me every day. Flyboy Will 07:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it was up before (and probably deleted before) or it would've been merged or linked. I can't find any reference to the old article. If it was deleted, this can be as well for being a near identical copy. This is exactly the kind of thing one should not try to describe in words. That's why you have videos. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. I could swear this was on AfD recently under a different name. -- Kjkolb 09:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per Proto. -- Kjkolb 12:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Opening Credits of America's Funniest Home Videos
• Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Opening Credits of America's Funniest Home Videos. Proto t c 11:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted article. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - pointless and unencyclopedic. - squibix 16:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)``
• Weak Keep and expand/cleanup. -- MisterHand 16:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Wiki's not paper so what does it matter if an article is consise? Jcuk 18:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Week Keep or Merge. I don't think this is non-notable, so it can't be deleted on that basis. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 20:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The other similar page was deleted so why should this be an exception.Deathawk 22:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G4. Have tagged as such. howcheng {chat} 22:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 14:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Rivers Pitt

• Delete. Violation of Wikipedia's criteria of inclusion of biographies. See: Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies#People still alive. 0nslaught 00:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Author. What is the problem here exactly? -- JJay 00:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Has written three books so notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a notable enough author according to the deletion policy. E-goldman 00:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, more notable than Cyrus Farivar. Kappa 01:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Seems to be published by an upstart/vanity publisher [5], and has abysmal amazon sales rank. However the War on Iraq he co-authored with somebody else was also translated into French, [6], so I suppose he's borderline notable. Flyboy Will 01:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, sufficiently notable by my standards. --Goobergunch|? 01:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even close to being a notable enough author according to the deletion policy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.184.70.33 (talk • contribs) - 01:49, 21 December 2005.
• Delete. This entry should be deleted. It's little more than a vanity posting, as Pitt is not well-known outside of the Democratic Underground forum. He's not an "essayist" in the league with Joan Didion or the late Susan Sontag. He's basically an amateur writer trying to score in the big leagues.There are thousands and thousands of writers out there who are much more well-known but don't get an entry in Wikipedia. JohnSmith9810 02:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)User's 2nd edit
  • That there are a lot of writers don't have articles says less about their respective worth and more about Wikipedia's incompleteness. Check the red links at the list of Booker Prize winners, the Pulitzer Prize for History or Biography/Autobiography. The Booker Prize page was a SEA of red links only a year ago. The question on the table is not comparative, it's whether THIS author -- on his merits or lack thereof -- rates an article. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails any notability. Have 5000 people bought his books? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If he has, in fact, gotten at least one book on the NY Times best-seller list, then yeah, he probably sold a least 5,000 books. That claim awaits verification, however. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently best-seller lists are compiled based on how much books are sold to bookstores by distributors, not how many actual customers bought a book. Personally, I really don't think they're reliable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Ajdz 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — what the nominator is trying to say per his link is that the author is non-notable. Agreed. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 05:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep. Three actual books, including one co-authored with Scott Ritter. Claims to have cracked the New York Times bestseller list, which would make him obviously notable enough, though I'm having trouble finding proof. If true, a no-brainer; if not, borderline. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While his Amazon sales ranking are abysmal, Publishers Weekly called "Context Books" one of his publishers, a "well-regarded New York City publishing house". That kills the vanity argument for me. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Mgm, Carlton, and CapitalistRoadster. --Squiddy 10:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, published author, notable, no namespace issues. Eliot 13:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Having done a quick Google over his name, I'm pretty satisfied that he is a well-known figure in the anti-war circles, although I admit to never having heard of him myself. It came up with 235,000 results, and many of them seem to refer to him. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. His book has been mentioned in the New York Times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by thunk (talk • contribs).
• Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Article needs work, though. --MisterHand 17:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability page is a guideline not a policy. Jcuk 18:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The above rationales are applying the notability criteria. Uncle G 19:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He is reasonably well known, his writings are widely disseminated, and he gets around on the speaking circuit. BCorr|Брайен 01:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Capitalistroadster. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems sufficiently prominent as a writer. -Colin Kimbrell 20:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A closer inspection of the book he wrote reveals that it is nothing more than a printed interview, of which William Pitt is responsible for less than 1000 words out of the entire text of the book. "Written by" is a dubious credit at best.
• Keep. Basing the inclusion of an entry on popularity or supposed lack there of is foolish and without merit.
  • I believe you have not read the rules for inclusion of biographies. Here is a link: Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies#People still alive 0nslaught 17:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. His books are thought provoking and should not be censored by right-wingers who disagree with his views. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.209.8.157 (talk • contribs).
  • Who is trying to censor him for his political views? I don't see one person here mention right-wing or left-wing politics. The debate is whether he is notable enough to warrant a biography. 0nslaught 10:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. His books have been translated in Belgium and Germany as well. KittenKlub 00:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 15:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grant Neufeld

Non-notable, non-elected politician, vanity. Delete -- Spinboy 01:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Previous afd's at vote 1, vote 2, vote 3

Bad faith nomination. User:Spinboy nominated this article twice before one ending in "no consensus", the other in "keep". Nothing has changed since then and he presents no new arguments that would change the outcome. Furthermore, there is a policy discussion on this subject at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates on this topic of electoral candidates, past and present, where a new argument for deleting this article could emerge. The centralized discussion is not intended to be in this afd. --maclean25 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • A bad article is a bad article, regardless of precedent. Spinboy thinks it doesn't belong: do you have any reason to doubt his sincerity or are you just throwing mud? --Calton | Talk 07:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, it appears I got a little distracted by the legislative candidates part of it. However, I called it bad faith because it just appears that he has a vendetta against Grant Neufeld aka User:GrantNeufeld, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew McLauchlin aka User:Montrealais (although it is difficult to determine his stance). His only edits to the page have been to tag it but has done nothing to address the issue in the talk page. All the attempts to delete...just looks like he is out for blood. Wouldn't have been an issue if any of the other (how-many)thousands of other users would have put it up for deletion. Let me know if you think I'm "just throwing mud". --maclean25 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Uh huh. And your reasons for believing he has a "vendetta" is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Ok, maybe the above comment was a little too confusing. So, in case you genuinely don't understand, and not just playing dumb, here is an outline of my rationale in a more simpler step-by-step format, all of which was taken directly from the links provided in the previous statement:

1. User:Spinboy attempts three times to delete Grant Neufeld [7], [8], [9]
2. unsuccessful, User:Spinboy tags the article as {{Unencyclopedic}}, {{OriginalResearch}}, {{POV check}} but does not participate in the talk page is discussion on the tags (only User:GrantNeufeld does)
3. User:Spinboy leaves Wikipedia on Oct 27.
4. User:Spinboy comes back stating "Oh, I'm not staying. I'm still extremely pissed off. I just saw something that cried out for an afd nomination, and I couldn't do that without logging on. I seriously dislike the hypocracy around here, one of many reasons I left." (refering to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew McLauchlin aka User:Montrealais)
5. Several days after his return he posts this afd with the same rationale as the last vote "Non-notable, unencyclopedic, vainity. Delete. --Spinboy 23:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

He returned to put up an afd on User:Montrealais (and none of the other dozen-odd other Canadian legislative candidates). While back he couldn't resist kicking this article one more time. Do you understand how this is can be interpreted as malice? --maclean25 05:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

So, in case you genuinely don't understand, and not just playing dumb I've noticed that bad writers often try to shift the blame for the confusion, ambiguity, and mystery they cause by insulting their readers. But you wouldn't know about that, would you?

Do you understand how this is can be interpreted as malice? Sure -- if you start off assuming malice.

Quitting in disgust and coming back is proof of what? Well, that he got over it. If this is suspicious behaviour, I'll work up a (long) list for you of shady characters for you to watch, including User:Ta bu shi da yu

I like the reasoning, though: he's nominating this for deletion for a third fourth time because he has a vendetta. The proof he has a vendetta? The fact that he's nominating it for a third time. Why is he nominating it for a third fourth time? Because he has a vendetta. Rinse, lather, repeat.

And the fact that he nominated this and not others proves what, exactly? It's a slight variation of the bogus rationale offered by hundreds of voters in past AfDs: namely, the whine "if the Pokemon/one-horse town/trivial-in-my-opinion-subject article stays, so should mine": the appropriateness of this nomination has bugger all to do with other lack of nominations. If this (in your view) double standard upsets you, give me a list of other candidate articles, those running on the No-Hope Party ticket in the Riding of BFN that, gosh darn it, Spinboy should have nominated for deletion and I'll do the job myself: I've got some time to kill right and I can get right on it. Though be quick, I'm leaving in half-an-hour.

Maybe Spinboy has nominated this article for deletion because he thinks Neufeld doesn't rate an encyclopedia article? Yes, standards in an encyclopedia -- that's just crazy talk! As far as I'm concerned, if Mr. Neufeld wants free publicity for himself, he ought to check out MySpace or Geocities.

In case you genuinely don't understand what I wrote, let me know and I'll use smaller words. --Calton | Talk 07:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. Ground Zero | t 16:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't want to drag this on, I think we both made our points, but I just want to clarify something. I just realized where you got the circular "Rinse, lather, repeat" argument from. The five points above are not five individual arguments, that is, point 1 is not by itself a complete argument. They are a chronological list of events that ended in this afd, that is to say, one argument leading to the conclusion. --maclean25 11:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I seriously resent that. I'm allowed just like everyone else to make afd nominations. If you're going to be a jerk, be it somepalce else. I left because of jerks like you, and I will be leaving again. -- Spinboy 06:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: Just a point of clarification - this article wasn't posted as an "electoral candidate" article (although I have been one). The reasons given for 'notability' were my roles as president of the Green Party of Alberta, and founder of the Revolutionary Knitting Circle (laugh if you want, but we've got chapters on two continents and have had mainstream media coverage on three - I'm most proud of my interviews in Interweave Knits and Vogue Knitting :-). --GrantNeufeld 05:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Started by subject, edited by subject, not notable as he has not been elected. This is vanity and lacks the ability to have a NPOV with Mr. Neufeld's involvement in it. FullSmash26 05:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • He shouldn't be editing his own article. -- Spinboy 06:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It's obvious that I disagree with that view. I think that folks with direct knowledge of a subject should be contributing to the articles here. I'd see a serious problem if they were the only ones working on the articles, but the presence of "many eyes" on Wikipedia balances off any POV issues that such contributors may create. I've contributed to a lot of articles on Wikipedia where I'm not "at arms length" (such as the Green Party of Alberta), and provided detailed references when questions have been raised (such as on the article being debated here). In any case, the previous two votes on this article have not found my auto-biographical contributions to be sufficient cause for deletion. As to the imposibility of auto-biographical NPOV, I encourage you to review the comments from Earl Andrew, Kevintoronto and gord on the article's talk page as counterpoints to that view. --GrantNeufeld 07:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • It's obvious that I disagree with that view. Whether you disagree with it is utterly immaterial, since this isn't your website, and your blatant self-interest/vanity/self-promotion/whichever doesn't trump long-standing policy. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I wasn't aware that a formal policy against any auto-biographical contributions had been established. I know there's a general discouragement against it - but I have not heard of a prohibition being adopted. --GrantNeufeld 07:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment That is because there is no such policy. In fact during the recent debacle regarding Mr. Seigenthaler many people were critical of him because he did not simply change the innaccuracy himself and instead made a big deal out of it. It seems people desire to have it both ways on the autobiographical issue. Vanity is bad but people are far more capable of reasoned self appraisal then some seem to think. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia:Autobiography: to baldly state that ... there is no such policy without acknowledging these clear guidelines is playing a bit fast and loose with your rhetoric.
            • To baldly state that there is no such policy is absolutely correct precisely because that document is NOT policy and is a guideline. In addition the document itself does not even forbid the practice but defines why it is ill advised. And yet Jimbo is clearly shown to edit his own article with regularity. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 19:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• From the intro: Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy and neutrality of such articles, including one about Jimmy Wales himself. Refraining from autobiographical editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV pushing. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Just like last time, I say delete. Still non-notable, still gross vanity, and still should go -- at best -- to user space or MySpace.

So what is it with the Canadian election? Suddenly it seems every no-hoper-party candidate for every one-horse riding in Canada thinks they deserve an article on Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Sounds too much like vanity to me. As per anon user above, this is more appropriate material for a user page. Comment Regarding the repeated nominations, in the absence of a policy or guideline I think Spinboy is within his rights to nominate this again, although it does seem to be abuse of a loophole. Zunaid 07:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Grant is the president of an active provincial party and an Alberta Centennial Medal recipient. Reviewing the articles for other political parties in Alberta shows that most of the leaders (elected or not) have articles as well. Grant should probably refrain from editing his own article however, to prevent the accusations of vanity. -Dr Haggis - Talk 07:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolutely. And note to GrantNeufeld, usually when coming up for a vote, instead of attacking your opponents, you might want to try to prove why people should vote for you. Just for the future. Flyboy Will 07:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that you perceive my responses to other comments here and points of information to be "attacking". I'm not interested in flaming anyone (even though there are some significant disagreements here - disagreement does not have to mean disrespect). Please review my comments above again—I believe on close examination they can be seen to be talking specifically to the issues, and are not 'attacks' on any of the participants in this discussion. --GrantNeufeld 16:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, President of Alberta Greens, candidate in Alberta general election, 2004) and founder (in 2000) of the first Revolutionary Knitting Circle (now an international activist movement). are claims which make this individual notable in my view. People are allowed to edit articles about themselves as long as they remain neutral and while starting your own article is frowned upon, there's nothing forbidding you to do so. Anyway, neither of these are reason to delete an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. That this has survived earlier discussion is astonishing: execrable self-promoting vanity page of an insignificant that heavily exaggerates asserted notbaility. The organisation which the subject has founded, Revolutionary Knitting Circle should also be brought to AfD as inherently unnotable as well. Perhaps other Canadians here can chime in on having heard of it or not, but so far my running tally is 0. I find maclean's suggestion that this is a bad faith nomination hard to fathom. A badly self-authored page that is nothing more than a funnel for an out-of-control ego should not be on WP; bringing it up for nomination is a perfectly good thing to do. Eusebeus 12:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Mildly notable as the president of the Green Party in Canada. -- MisterHand 17:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Except he's not, Jim Harris is [10]. The provincial party got 24,588 votes in 2004, 2.75% overall but no seats, making them #5 in the league tables. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Clarification: Jim Harris is leader of the Green Party of Canada, Bruce Abel is president. --GrantNeufeld 18:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Also clarification: Wikipedia has a clear precedent that leading figures in a political party within a defined political entity, even if that political entity is the provincial or state level, merit articles regardless of the party's electoral success, on "because they're party leaders" grounds. Bearcat 05:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, barely notable, but he is a Green Party President.Gateman1997 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The president of the Green Party in Canada is indeed notable and so is the Revolutionary Knitting Circle — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Except he's not, Jim Harris is [11]. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Jim Harris isn't the president of the party either. Perhaps you misunderstand Canadian political party structures. "President" is a position within the political party's internal structure, who's responsible for running the organization. It's rarely, if ever, the same person as the party's candidate for Prime Minister (who gets termed "leader", but is not actually the top authority in the party structure.) Bearcat 05:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If this article has survived two votes already why the heck must we have a third!? Wiki should have a policy of no renomination for deletion IMHO. Jcuk 19:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the article is poor and contains a lot of trivialities, the guy is the pres of the Green Party. --NormanEinstein 21:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Of Alberta, not Canada. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- JJay 04:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nothing has changed since the previous nominations. Grant Neufeld's edits since APril 2005 have been to add a picture and categories. Nothin POV or vanity going on here. Ground Zero | t 14:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' I don't see it as POV (although it is a bit heavy on the vanity front). I also think that the repeated nominations for deletion will eventually cause it to be deleted, if only because the ones seeking to have it deleted will keep coming back, but the people voting keep will eventually move on assuming that once the vote was settled, it was settled. I don't see how an article can be nominated for deletion after passing an AfD vote and the article not changing significantly. (unsigned vote by GordonBonnar, 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC))
  • I have revised the article to remove the vanity aspect and make it more encyclopedic. In previous communications that I have had with Grant Neufeld, he has indicated that he understands and accepts that other editors will revise the article. This is no longer a "vanity article". As far as future attempts to delete this, if this attempt fails, it will be clear that future attempts will be bad faith nominations. Ground Zero | t 16:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Mildly notable politician. The last AFD was a keep, and the precident stands. The only time a keep should be overturned, is if it was based on information that turned out to be false and/or unverifiable; or else if there was some kind of failure in process. The nominator shouldn't just keep redoing AFD's till they get what they want. Far to many articles and AFDs go without attention, because AFDs are clogged with these unfounded nominations. Note: if this article hadn't survived a prior AFD, it would have been entirely justified to nominate as this is a "week keep" level person. --Rob 16:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: this is WP:POINT. Stifle 02:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Totse

No notability established, seems to have constant bits of NN facts added by bored totse members. It does have a lot of google hits, but many of them are for the wikipedia article, and the number is inflated due to it being an internet website... -Greg Asche (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totse.

• Keep. Major repository/archive of text files from the early Internet and BBSs. Just being vandalized should have no bearing on its deletion. --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Not terribly notable and a vandal-magnet to boot.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Spammers The article should not be deleted, just cleaned up, people are spamming. 21 Dec

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.163.43.67 (talk • contribs).

• Delete this nn silliness.--MONGO 04:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Care to explicate why it is non-notable and silly? --Maru (talk) Contribs 05:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, What is non-notable about the article or silly? - SS 21 December 2005

    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.163.43.67 (talk • contribs).

• Keep. I'd err on the side of caution here. It gets a lot of hits and links, it's notable to those users even if it's not to me personally. --kingboyk 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per comments above. -- JJay 05:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is informative because it gives a broad description of the site, and therefore it belongs on the Wikipedia. -- Zachary Murray 05:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The question is, why does an article about this site belong in wikipedia? How do we know there are people who would try to look it up? E.g. can any third-party coverage be shown? Kappa 05:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Who are you and why are you using Kappa's account? Gazpacho 06:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I am Kappa, this is my accout. If someone else hacks into it, I'll let you know. Unless they kidnap me or something... Kappa 07:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Please, it is NOT a waste.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.226.131.100 (talk • contribs).

• Keep if they indeed have 32K forum members as they claim. Flyboy Will 08:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Maru. Alexa ranking 17460 is quite good. --Squiddy 10:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, an Alexa rank of 17,460 should be enough to keep this. Even if they don't have a large number of members, they clearly have a large number of people visiting. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Totse is just as informative as Wikipedia or even Britannica. Check out Totse once it gets back online and you'll see. Plus anyone who says delete is an idiot.- Pingy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.169.149.27 (talk • contribs).
• Keep. Though I have to agree that this article acts like a honeypot for vandals, I would also like to argue that we should never use that as an argument on AfD. Adolf Hitler, George W. Bush, Britney Spears, Jimmy Wales...all of these people are notable. And all of these articles should never be deleted from this encyclopedia. Just because Totse is not as notable as *THESE* people, doesn't mean that it still holds a considerable amount of notability. It's been on the web for almost a decade, it has a really large community and I believe that the site's subject is rather unique. I can see your guys' point in deleting it to prevent vandalism..but we can also protect pages..if it goes out of hand (I got this article protected once). So just to make sure, I'm not a big fan of the constant adding of non-notable descriptions (for example, thorough descriptions of its moderators), and I don't like the high rate of vandalism either..but for every vandal there's a vandalfighter. We can handle it. -- SoothingR^(pour) 15:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Soon enough the Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy will be able to take care of vandalism on pages like this.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No. Semi-protection is meant for seriously vandalized articles like GWB- not piddling persistent vandalism like Totse. --Maru (talk) Contribs 20:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup and watch. FCYTravis 23:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Maru, cleanup's good, deletion's unnecessary
• Keep. This is actually one of the more notable Internet forums, and I had some experience with them over Holden Dapenor . --King of All the Franks 06:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Notable because of size and enormous collection of text files; irrelevantly, I was a member for a while but left because I got sick of it. YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 17:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete The Blockbuster downtown is big and has an enormous collection of DVDs, but I don't think they're wiki-worthy either. Entry seems to serve primarily as a means to boost site's ratings in search engine. Any changes made to it draw highly-POV responses from users thereof, precluding rational commentary. Digital Avatar 05:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

See the Alexa rating above. That seems to indicate they're not really in need to of search engine boosting. They already get visitors. - 82.172.14.108 11:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is not solely informational due to its large collection of textfiles. It is informational for being a popular website and forum that is (for all intensive purposes) unique; for example, an article on your downtown Blockbuster might be not notable, but an article on the company Blockbuster which rents DVDs is notable. Totse is notable due to its popularity, uniqueness, and community. Zachary Murray 22:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The difference between the Blockbuster in question and this site is that the many things in this collection are people, which are also the primary viewers of Wikipedia. If there were to be a wiki for DVDs to look up information, then they would probably like to have your Blockbuster on their site. That didn't make any sense, but that's beside the point. In any case, being a magnet for vandalism is no reason to get rid of an article, right? --ParkerHiggins ^{( talk contribs )} 08:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If it was, we wouldn't have an entry on George W. Bush.  :) --King of All the Franks 20:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's an interesting idea, for better or for worse, and it could count as having high relevance to a fledgeling subculture because its users seem to be united around a set of central ideas that could survive without the presence of the website but would be significantly weakened without it. Additionally, it's well-known enough to have connection and significance to the world at large, even if not a major one. It's a keeper. Anonymous 4.88.1.16 01:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No real reason to delete--67.49.157.152 03:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known website/former BBS. Andrew_pmk | Talk 18:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see why this article should be deleted, after all, it does supply the same quality of info as other articles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drummondjacob (talk • contribs).
• Keep Im a member of the board and this is the way i get news when the site is down —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.171.211.54 (talk • contribs).
  • An encyclopedia entry is not the place for people to post news about the site being down. This kind of abuse is a major factor contributing to responsible editors' desires to see this article deleted.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 06:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • And those who want to keep it are irresponsible? --Maru (talk) Contribs 14:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Apologies for being unclear: Those who abuse the article are irresponsible.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If Something Awful has an article, I can't see why this shouldn't. Unfortuantely many members of the site like to vandalize the article so I personally think that it should be permanently locked to all anonymous users. - Drahcir 08:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Is TOTSE as well known as Something Awful?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Probably not, but they both appper to be quite popular and both sites are quite similar in some ways. - Drahcir 02:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Totse is a community. While the entry existing now is more about the website itself, information on the subculture would fall under the category of this page, and is definitely something that belongs on this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChickenOfDoom (talk • contribs).
• Strong Keep It belongs. Totse is well known among the online community, as the Alexa rankings will testify. But anti-vandal action does need to be taken.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evil0verl0rd (talk • contribs).
• Keep No one questions having a page about YTMND, why is anyone questioning a page about TOTSE? Deletionists trying to pick off the weakling articles, eh? Al-Kadafi 22:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --Angr (t·c) 19:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous overweight people

Listed for CSD under the reasoning, "defammatory", thus claiming CSD A6 as a personal attack. But then, it's true, they all do fit a certain mass-related criterion (they're pretty fat, and pretty famous), so we'll open it up for debate. Harro5 06:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 'Overweight' and 'famous' are too subjective when combined. If there were a criterion by mass or weight or BMI for 'overweight,' and 'famous' was the same as our 'notable,' then it could be debated or considered, but as it stands, there's just too much room for opinion. - CorbinSimpson 06:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The list was already growing in the heavily trafficked and frequently vandalized obesity article and making a separate article is the best way to get it out of there. You know that we have a class of editors whose idea of contributing to human knowledge is to point out that "John Doe is fat". Let's give them a separate place to play so they don't interfere with a real article. Thanks. alteripse 07:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Serving as a lightning rod for vandalism is a very poor reason to keep an article. Does it have independent merits? JFW | T@lk 08:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course it has no merits other than keeping people who think it's worthwhile away from the obesity article. I don't personally care whether it lives or dies by itself but I thought it was a useless distraction and a lightning rod for trouble in the obesity article. As long as it is understood that no one re-creates it as part of the obesity article, we can delete it as far as I am concerned. Will you back me on keeping it from being re-started there?alteripse 01:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no reason not to have this list. It is important and can be verified based on government definition for fat or obese or using Body mass index. -- JJay 07:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment : we do have other lists of this type that are sourced, defined and maintained such as List of famous tall women, List of short actors or our list of Notable anorectics found at Anorexia nervosa. -- JJay 07:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Those lists are much more narrow. A "list of obese actors" could be manageable; even "list of people famous for their weight" could too - but a "famous overweight" list is too much. This list is like having a "list of tall people" and "list of short people" instead of the ones you posted. Flyboy Will 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think it can be managed. The definition could be refined. Maybe by sex like List of famous tall women. -- JJay 08:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm really unsure about that; and also, honestly, how much worth is to this list? Who's going to look at it and go "oh wow, I had no idea Chris Farley was fat! you learn something every day!" A person's weight is immediatley apparent, and this kind of list would mostly be based on public perception, not fact. As such, what's its value, if all the contents are already in the public's mind? Finally, why the hell does this even matter? Save for a handful of comedians, these people's weight is of absolutely no consequence to their notability. Also, what do we do about people like, say, Kristie Allie? Flyboy Will 08:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Look, I'm not saying that I have all the answers, but while we know that Farley was fat without the list, isn't the same true for height, race and many other criteria listed at Wikipedia? Yet, editors find these lists very useful and appealing. From the intellectual standpoint, the list is achievable within wikipedia policy guidelines. Therefore, I can't vote against it. -- JJay 09:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Weight is not always publicly known, and it is subject to change. Shall we put Renée Zellweger and Roseanne Barr in there or not? JFW | T@lk 08:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete undefined, unsourced and unmaintainble.--nixie 07:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per above. 9cds 07:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Overweight" is an insanely broad term. Somebody like Brad Pitt is technically overweight, at 6' and 203 lbs [12] (I just randomly looked it up, not that I know Brad Pitt's weight by heart). Anyway, this list is completely unmaintanable, and even if the inclusion criteria is modified to be obese-only, it can still quickly grow to be the biggest fattest article ever on wikipedia, as soon as we dip into history past Santa Claus. Flyboy Will 08:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnecessarily stigmatising, serves no real informational purpose, sourcing is a nightmare (who knows Brad Pitt's BMI), potentially endless as the definition of "famous" is too flexible. JFW | T@lk 08:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• As for Jennifer Aniston, she has a BMI of 18.3. Her husband -- the hunky Brad Pitt -- has a BMI of 27.5. From "The girth of a nation" at Salon.com [13]. -- JJay 08:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Many professional athletes would qualify by the BMI index. It only compares height to weight, not body fat or muscle mass. I'd love to go on a "tall" diet but my height has been constant for years. The analogy is problematic. Durova 08:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rename and constrict inclusion criteria then clean it up. It may be problematic now, but it's a problem that can be solved without deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I have no problem with the term "overweight" which is not necessarily defamatory. However, I think that it should be careful of inclusion. For example, it should only include people who recognise that they are overweight - some people might take offence at being called "overweight" if they personally don't think that they are. However, the likes of Roseanne and Oprah, who have documented their weight problems, probably wouldn't mind (note: both of those have lost weight since stating that they had weight problems) Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename — overweight is too inclusive. It can even include actors and actresses who bulked up for a particular role. This should be moved to something along the lines of "list of famous obese people", which is a well defined criteria and more restrictive. Perhaps even narrow it down further to morbidly obese if necessary? :) — RJH 15:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Ghirlandajo 16:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete violates WP:NPOV as there is no definition given for "overweight" and "famous". Also unmaintainable and listcruft. Gateman1997 18:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per JJay Jcuk 20:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Gateman1997. --kingboyk 23:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Useless, unmaintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 03:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How do you handle close cases? Mail them a scale? Will Kirstie Alley rejoin if she eats the cannoli? Jtmichcock 04:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seriously, Wikipedia may have plenty of frivilous articles, but this crosses the line from "frivilous" to something you'd find in The Inquirer. Also, earlier points of difficulty with accuracy.Sean Hayford O'Leary 10:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --Angr (t·c) 20:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of eponymous albums (songwise)

nn listcruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. When is this madness going to end? Delete Zunaid 09:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Many editors have been working on this for quite some time. They as well as others find it useful for research. Furthermore, why was there no preliminary discussion on talk page from nom prior to AfD? -- JJay 09:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay. Flyboy Will 09:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Delete cos its listcruft, weak per JJay. I'm curious as to the nature of the research for which this article would be useful, though. --Squiddy 10:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• "Listcruft" is not a reason for deletion. One man's crap is another's life. Please be more specific as to why you don't think this is useful.
  • Comment "Listcruft" is a neat way to summarise "an indiscriminate collection of information", in the same way you see the terms gamecruft, moviecruft and any other cruft being used. In this regard it is a reason for deletion. p.s. I'm not arguing from a standpoint of usefulness. Perhaps someone somewhere out there would find the potentially useful, I don't know. What I am saying is that it isn't encyclopedic. Zunaid 11:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I agree with Zunaid. I also think that a useful guideline for lists is that there should be at least a reasonable chance that they will be largely complete at some point. With this list, there is no chance whatever of that happening. That's why the term 'indiscriminate' is applicable in this case. --Squiddy 11:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Songs that lead to the naming of another entity (see eponym) are notable, so I don't see why they shouldn't be listed. Categorization would kill the possibility to mention what they named. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of songs with the same name as song artists and consider rename to Eponymous music. No need for 2 lists with repetitive, overlapping information when one would do. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.Gateman1997 17:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (entrywise). An absolutely staggering number of albums have an eponymous title track. There's no chance this list will ever be complete. Regina0613 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Modify to maintain manageability. I'd suggest limiting criteria to eponymous albums that have reached a position in an album chart in a definitive recording trade magazine, like Billboard, Cashbox (now defunct) or New Musical Express. In the same vein, I'd recommend a similar Eponymous hit singles as this would be very manageable (if memory serves me correctly, there are only about a dozen fitting this category from Billboard's Hot 100 chart and a relative handful from NME). In both cases, the name of the act and the name of the recording must be identical. B.Wind 18:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• keep as above Jcuk 21:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per Regina (also, I thought that by eponymous there would be some connection between the artists' names and their songs. Needs a retitle if we decide to keep this and let it expand to suck up all available memory on the system.... Carlossuarez46 22:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No no no. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is also unmaintainable and guaranteed to never get anywhere near completion. Stifle 01:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was ambiguous.

The strict "vote count" argues for deletion but Mgm is correct in his assertion that we are required to preserve the attribution history of anything that contributes to an article. This is a requirement of GFDL. At least one edit to the Armenian Genocide article appears to me to have been made with material from this version. Of course, we can not be sure without interviewing every editor - a tactic which is not feasible given the number of anonymous editors to the article.

Comparing the two article histories, I strongly argue against a history-only merger as a way of preserving the attribution history. It would badly confuse the edit history. In this case, I must agree that this sub-page can not be deleted. That brings the "vote count" to 3 to 2 and fails to reach the necessary consensus for deletion. I am going to exercise my discretion, though, and close this discussion as a redirect back to the original article. Rossami (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Genocide/Working version

Working version of heavily edited document. Has been nominated in April, but was a keep because sufficient time hadnt been elapsed to allow for a working version to mature (original discussion to be found here. This working version has seen little activity since. The original article on the Armenian Genocide has been edited extensively and no longer even resembles the working version. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 16:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete it had it's time... Gateman1997 17:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if this working version was used to construct the article either its history needs to be merged with the main article, or it needs to be redirected to attribute the people who contributed to the article. (see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as I nominated the last afd. --DanielNuyu 09:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warren Wald

vanity page Asw32 01:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• delete this international playboy who travels to Yugoslavia MNewnham 01:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Appeared on Pop Idol with news coverage. -- JJay 02:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per JJay Thesquire 05:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wannabe nobody...WP:VAIN--MONGO 06:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pop Idol which contains all the encyclopedic info we have on him. The fact he didn't make it into the show (as far as I can tell) and decided not to pursue his music career, shows me he doesn't deserve his own article, but a redirect is useful for people who want to look the guy up. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it says he was famous across england after singing eye of the tiger. One-hit wonders are notable enough to have bios here. -- Astrokey44|talk 11:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there are "rumours in the tabloids" about his person who appeared on Pop Idol with news coverage. Kappa 18:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If we are going to keep articles based on "rumors in the tabloids", then Wikipedia is definitely going down the tubes.
    • Yeah I can see it would too bad if wikipedia catered to the inferior tastes of the lower classes. Kappa 23:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Mgm Cynical 20:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Mgm Denni ☯ 02:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Mgm. Stifle 12:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Singing on a show does not equal a one hit wonder. At best maybe a sentence or two in the Pop Idol article but not all this content. ++Lar 15:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Astrokey44. Pepsidrinka 00:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As requested by the subject of the article. It has become a magnet for vandalism and is non-notable in the context of encyclopediac knowledge. 81.64.37.91 15:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Forgive my newbiness, but what's the next step in all this? How does it get delete/kept? Have tried looking up Wikipedia "how to..." articles but can't find anything Asw32 01:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1st Street (Taylor, MI)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of streets in Taylor, Michigan. Article doesn't tell anything about the road which cannot be gleaned from reading a map. Wikipedia is not a road map. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, you were doing so well until the vote! Bugger, eh? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as NN streetctuft. I said this was going to happen.  :) Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 10:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hit the road, Jack. (couldn't resist - but certainly should've). PJM 15:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the M25's just a road, but it has an article... Jcuk 21:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment there's a different between an article for a major thourougfare and streetcruft like this. There were a bunch of AfDs a copule of months back about various streets in Toronto. The net result was that only the major arterial roads (and not all of these), as well as "important" shopping and cultural steets were kept. And even after that purge, Toronto seems to have a loweb bar for street notability that most other cities on Wikipedia. According to the article, ths little street runs 4 blocks, and was the article was likely created only because someone found it as a redlink on List of streets in Taylor, Michigan (which is also on AfD). I would suggest that a good guidline for streets might be that if there is nothing more to say about them than can be learned from a map, then they don't deserve an article. But perhaps we should have a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion on notability for steets? Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, very nice. Well done. Have a biccie; you've earned it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No sense having an article on every bloody paved road in the world. Search4Lancer 23:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Apjake. Not every road in the world is encyclopaedic. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and Apjake. Wikipedia is not a road map in prose. --Metropolitan90 15:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Big thanks to Metropolitan90 and fuddlemark for reminding me to fix my sig line to reflect my new username! Completely forgot. Search4Lancer 16:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate pudding

I realize that chocolate pudding is notable enough to warrant mention on Wikipedia, but this article is so brief as to be almost empty. Plus the author makes a claim and provides no reference for the claim. The statement "Currently, the top-selling brand of chocolate pudding is manufactured under the Jell-O® brand by the Kraft Foods Corporation." the author needs to date that statement, and provide a reference. So I suggest Delete and any relevant information can be combined into an article about puddings.TheRingess 04:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but slap it into a stub, and removed the biased stuff. -- 9cds^(talk) 05:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand User:mizmuzik 3:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If you remove the unsourced statements, you're left with nothing apart from the statement about it's dark color (which is false if you talk about white chocolate pudding). There's really not much to keep. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep the rewrite. Good job. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with pudding, which could use some cleaning up, BTW. --Angr (t·c) 12:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Changing vote to Keep the expanded version. --Angr (t·c) 09:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. There is a lot to be said about chocolate pudding rather than pudding in general. As for the claim that Jell-O brand is the top selling pudding, I don't know, but according to Kraft's website Jello-O brand gelatin is the "world's most popular prepared dessert." Kraft says that the pudding "has been an American family favorite for 63 years" and that 64% of mothers they surveyed said that the pudding is their child's favorite snack. Based on that, I wouldn't be surprised if it is the top selling pudding. Crypticfirefly 16:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe that instead of marking this article for deletion, it should have been marked for cleanup, as a stub, and as needing verification. Therefore, I have rewritten the article to accomplish at least some of those things to a certain degree. Crypticfirefly 19:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks where recipes etc. belong. Durova 16:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment this isn't a recipe. Crypticfirefly 17:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Great article on important food. -- JJay 19:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and CLEAN UP america isnt the only country to eat chocolate pudding!? Jcuk 19:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Where else is it popular? Is it also called "pudding" there? Please add the info if you have it. Crypticfirefly 21:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand --NaconKantari 19:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, looks like it's been much improved since the VfD. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 00:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in present form. Legitimate topic, food that is of cultural significance in the U.S. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I would say "merge with pudding", but the other puddings have articles too. --FuriousFreddy 01:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. It now looks like a solid stub. Jamie ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voice of the Borg

This doesn't deserve its own article. Perhaps a merge into Star Trek: First Contact. Delete, JHMM13 (T | C) 07:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, too trivial, we don't have articles for "man on bus" or "newspaper salesman" for other movies. -Drdisque 07:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Star Trek: First Contact, according to the guidelines in WP:FICT. Far too short and trivial for a seperate article. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (it's already tagged as speedy now) --Quarl 08:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Note that Borg already says 'The actor playing the role of "Voice of the Borg" in this film is Jeff Coopwood', although I don't think that's the right grammar - "Voice of the Borg" is not an actual character. Nothing to merge --Quarl 12:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Jeff Coopwood wrote this about himself. -- Perfecto 08:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Jcoop, who created this and Jeff Coopwood, left me a message saying he's not him, so please disregard the last claim (but not the vote, see below) as you see fit. -- Perfecto 17:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Star Trek: First Contact JoJan 09:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Hmm, this is interesting. On one hand the "voice" of something is definitely not deserving of an article. On the other, since the Borg is a hive mind, the "Voice of the Borg" is the closest anyone can get to describe the collective Borg consciousness... which is, I think, notable. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 10:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No. Borg describes the "collective Borg consciousness", not this. -- Perfecto 17:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: after delete, redirect to Borg --Quarl 10:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• There's an assertion of notability there (he's the Famous Voice of the Borg!), so I don't see how it can/should be speedied. A merge and redirect seems to me to be the most appropriate action here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied because it's a sub-stub: what else can be added to the article? Speedied because there is no such topic as "Voice of the Borg". Let's likewise create "Voice of Kermit" (saying it's Jim Henson), and "Voice of Bart Simpson" (saying it's Nancy Cartwright) since the two are more encyclopedic than this. I agree with Quarl, there's nothing to merge. -- Perfecto 17:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You may find it useful to re-read WP:CSD. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Mark, it's between A1, A3 and A7, unless I'm mistaken. -- Perfecto 00:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Essexmutant 12:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, anyone who performs the voice acting of a world-famous voice, like Borg or Dalek deserve to be covered somewhere, regardless of who wrote the entry. If it's merged, the fact it's a substub will be irrelevant. -- Mgm|^(talk) 23:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Quarl - the Borg article already contains all the info from this article, nothing to merge. Tufflaw 05:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nothing to merge. Renata3 15:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge it as suggested --TimPope 14:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. Incognito 05:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no concensus --Ichiro 07:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Childlove movement Pedophilia advocacy

moved to Pedophilia advocacy on the basis of consensus forming here. AfD template still directs here -- not trying to circumvent process. James James 10:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete or merge with pedophilia. Neologism. Euphemism for pedophilia coined by Lindsay Ashford. Google shows virtually all the hits for "childlove" are from dupes of the wikipedia article and from Lindsay Ashford's puellula.org website. The article is inherently POV, and largely written by Ashford (who is on wikipedia as User:Zanthalon). The title is non-neutral as it is a euphemism. Homey 19:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep This nom is in bad faith Comment There has been over a year's worth of work done to keep this article NPOV. The points you argue have already been gone through in the previous AfD and you haven't brought up anything new. Ashibaka tock 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You may disagree with the nomination but the accusation of "bad faith" is hot air. As for the previous nomination, I was unaware of it as there is no note about it at the top of the Talk:Childlove movement page as is required (why is the old page not in the AFD archives?). Homey 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, there is. I retract that it's in bad faith, since you didn't see it, but seriously-- what would you do with this article, merge it into pedophilia? You might as well merge... well I won't stir up anything by drawing comparisons, but they are both very long articles and a merge would shorten both considerably. Ashibaka tock 19:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      • No there isn't. Look at Talk:Star Trek and pedophilia to see what the required tag looks like. It's clearly not at the top of Talk:Childlove movement. Homey 19:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
        • That thingy is a template to make it easier to see old AfD discussions, but back in the old days we didn't use templates for any old thing. Also AfD used to be called VfD. Ashibaka tock 20:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Ah ok, I was looking for the template - I see there is a notation made as an ordinary post. Homey 20:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Because it itself was deleted. I've restored it. Uncle G 20:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, now that that's settled, I'm going to vote keep. The biggest problem with the article is the name, which I agree is a distasteful euphemism, but it's used by many pedophiles to refer to themselves, and it was already decided that the name should stay. Any other perceived problems can be cleaned up. Ashibaka tock 20:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "it was already decided that the name should stay". Decisions can be revisited and reversed. That we "already" decided it doesn't strike me as sufficient grounds to keep the name if not the article. Homey 20:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Feel free to revisit the page's name on the talk page... but you're taking this to AfD instead, right? Generally the only reason to exclude something from Wikipedia is lack of verifiability or notability, so let's get cracking on those. Ashibaka tock 21:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 19:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? // paroxysm (n) 21:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Movement is real. If anything is POV, NPOV it. Clayboy 19:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete title, merge contents with Pedophilia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? // paroxysm (n) 21:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This would shorten both articles considerably, why not keep them separate? Ashibaka tock 21:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete We shouldn't have a new article every time someone comes up with a new euphemism. This is a duplicate/fork. Choalbaton 20:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, but this is not a normal "euphemism." It has established usage, and, at any rate, we are not describing this alleged euphemism, but what it refers to -- activism for the acceptance of pedophilia and ephebophilia, a very real and notable phenomenon. // paroxysm (n) 21:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Added comment' I'd like to suggest that the salvagable parts of the article be moved to the "Advocacy of pedophilia" section of pedophilia. I'm wary of simply renaming the article Advocacy of pedophilia as, unless we include an equal amount of information against pedophilia advocacy the article will be unbalanced and POV while including said information will likely end up in a duplication of pedophilia. Homey 20:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The "childlove movement" is not simply advocacy of pedophilia. The title childlove movement is inclusive and accurate, as that is what they refer to themselves as. // paroxysm (n) 21:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. What a ridiculous proposition. "Childlove" was not coined by Ashford, it is derivative of boylove and girllove, more specific terms designating a type of pedophilic or ephebophilic attraction. Even if you don't want to believe it, or the thought of pedophilia makes you squirm, that is not relevant here, so I would ask anyone to consider the notability of this subject carefully before kneejerking with delete. To say that this was "largely written by Ashford" is false in itself; it's been edited extensively to keep POV out since its last kneejerk nomination, which, as is apparent, resulted in a keep. Merging this with pedophilia is not a good idea, as the childlove movement is not at all completely composed of pedophiles, but also ephebophiles, and as jd420 tells me at least, normophilic people as well. The "childlove movement" article is already long enough. Moving on... if you're the type of person who judges notability by a quick tap into Google, please note that "childlove" is a rarely used term. "Boylove" and "girllove" are used much more often, so as to segregate the sexual attractions. "Girllove" gets 18,700 hits, if we exclude all pages containing the keywords "wikipedia" and "encyclopedia." "Boylove," seemingly more popular, receives 332,000 hits. These are only pages Google has spidered. There are thousands of websites dedicated to this crusade, several organizations (everyone's heard of NAMBLA or MARTIJN at least). The movement is notable: it has thousands of members, usually well-masked behind a shield of anonymity. Activism happens, whether the public likes it or not; ranging from promoting what they see as the correct use of the word "pedophile," to advocating the abolishment of age of consent laws. To say that "childlove" is a euphemism is POV itself. It is a term invented by the movement to describe themselves (in fact, it's basically just using the root Greek meaning of "pedophilia"). We have articles on organizations within the movement itself. I find it almost obscene that someone would propose deleting this article and not NAMBLA. The FBI has even acknowledged the existence of a large movement working to "legalize child molestion" in a newspeice on Ashford I seen recently. // paroxysm (n) 21:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • First of all, by definition, the term ephebophile (attraction to post-pubescent youth) excludes those we commonly refer to as "children" (ie pre-pubescents) so I don't accept your claim that "childlove" is not a synonym for pedophilia and that therefore "childlove movement" is not a euphemism for "pedophilia advocacy" as we don't generally refer to teenagers as "children". The primary definition of child is a prepubescent human hence ephebophiles are not attracted to children and the term "childlove" does not accurately describe their feelings or behaviour. I don't deny that there are those who wish to legalise pedophilia. My problem is in using a POV term to describe that movement. Homey 21:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - there's far too much good content here to simply trash all of it because of a few paragraphs or sections people don't like. I don't think this article is particularly POV, it outlines arguments the movement makes, it doesn't make those arguments FOR them. -Drdisque 21:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork for it's violation of NPOV core policy. --Rob 21:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please explain how this is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. //paroxysm (n) 21:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The title is inherently POV (per Homey's comment below). The opening sentence is POV (you confuse claims with facts). Also, this is clearly a POV fork. It's a way you can put in stuff, that might not get as much attention elsewhere. This whole article is written with the basic, and false, assumption the groups seeks what it claims to seek. That of course is rubbish. I would also vote to delete an equally POV title Childhurter movement, even though it would be more accurate in its description than the current title. Be happy Wikipedia (unlike 99% of society) will let you freely and fully particpate and contribute to articles in an NPOV manner, but don't think for a second you'll be allowed your own little POV fork to promote a movement. --Rob 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
      • If there's a problem with the article, fix it. If the name is wrong, now's your chance to get consensus to move it to Pedophilia advocacy. But you can't delete something from Wikipedia and make it go away. If that were true I would nominate Islamist terrorism for deletion, or merge it into Terrorism, because its activist claims are questionable. Ashibaka tock 22:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Are you changing your vote to rename?Homey 22:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
          • I would like to rename it, yes (that would be a nice step towards NPOV-ifying), but you have nominated it for deletion/merging. First things first. Ashibaka tock 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
            • A rename doesn't change the fact it's a POV fork. Many other POV forks have been made for various causes, but removed. Pedophilia is the one NPOV word (as it's advocates and opponents use the same word). We don't have a pro-topicX and anti-topicX article. We have a topicX article. By forcing everybody to edit the TopicX, we ensure people from all sides will work together, counter-acting any one groups bias. The purpose of this article, is to advocate a particular cause. It will never do anything beyond that. --Rob 22:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
              • I understand you're saying that "boylove"/"girllove" is a useless excercise in euphemisms. Assuming that to be so, I think the fact that pedophiles campaign for political issues is a notable thing which deserves an article, and Pedophilia is very long-- the whole thing won't fit. The "childlove movement" (especially NAMBLA) has a long history tangled up with the gay rights movement etc. There needs to be a general article to describe this, so take this one, NPOV it, and move it to your favourite title. Ashibaka tock 23:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment on euphemisms and "what a group calls itself". Holocaust deniers prefer the euphemism "Holocaust revisionist" or "historical revisionist". Wikipedia, as a rule, uses the term "Holocaust denial" rather than the euphemism. Similiarly, white supremacists prefer the term "white nationalists" but we use the former term rather than the euphemism. If we simply have a default where we use whatever euphemism a group prefers to use for itself that would open a whole POV can of worms. Homey 21:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per the reasons given above 80.177.152.156 21:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: anonymous votes do not count. Log in to your user if you want to be counted. Clayboy 23:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The above Strong Keep vote was by me, JCUK. I hereby reiterate it, and attach my name to it. Jcuk 18:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Jesus H. Christ. That's all I have to say. That's my vote. Jesus H. Christ. Herostratus 22:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Jesus H. Christ I second that vote. --DanielCD 01:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Largely written by me? Rubbish. I have not edited on this article for almost a year. And no, I did not coin the word 'childlove'. It was around long before I became an activist. Zanthalon , 23:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Whether we agree with the movement's views or not, this is what the movement is most commonly known as - not just within the movement but outside it - and as such, it is the correct title. And the article itself is definitely encyclopaedic, although some sections may be construed as POV and may need a bit of work. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"is what the movement is most commonly known as - not just within the movement but outside it " Really? I've never heard of non-pedophiles refer to this movement as "childlove". Please provide some mainstream citations. Homey 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's normal to break out subarticles. I'd have no problem with a move to paedophilia advocacy if the antis really insisted, but adding it back into pedophilia serves no purpose except to allow outspoken conservatives to direct our editorial policy. James James 02:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on excellent arguments above. I'm not convinced the nom has really thought this through. -- JJay 03:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ZERO Lexis/Nexis hits, which means ZERO media coverage employing the term "childlove". NONE of the references use the word "childlove" in the title. This seems to be a POV fork. At the very least a title change is in order. Gamaliel 04:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Zero hits on all common news sources? Then it obviously should be a sub topic on pedophilia. The article in it's entirity is based on the idea that same childlove movement that isn't covered in that sense by the news. prove it to me otherwise. Lotusduck 04:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If you would support it as a subtopic, then vote to rename and rewrite rather than just to delete the information. Ashibaka tock 05:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If there isn't any press coverage under the movements prefered name, then it doesn't need it's own article. Lotusduck 05:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There is press coverage on the childlove movement; it's just not referred to as the childlove movement in their reports because media can apparently not stand to use the word "love" when describing pedophilic or ephebophilic attractions. As I said above, even the FBI has acknowledged the childlove movement. It has thousands of anonymous members and several organizations dedicated to forwording the childlove agenda. There is even a boylove charity. Come on, what kind of notability are you looking for? // paroxysm (n) 05:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• the kind of notability/verifiability of at least the name childlove is per wikipedia standards: it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a third-party reputable publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. So if newspapers have articles but no third party publisher calls the movement what the movement calls itself, then we don't have some verifiable source calling it that, then wikipedia can't call it the childlove movement either, because we can't verify how widespread the term is, or it should be left to publishers of original thought to determine the occurance of the term "childlove" not original research on wikipedia. Lotusduck 07:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  So why not just move it to pedophilia advocacy? Tell you what, I'll do exactly that. Surely you accept that some people do advocate for paedophiles? James James 09:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, I've moved the page to pedophilia advocacy. Would those who voted to delete on the basis that the term does not exist be willing to reconsider? I think there is clearly a reasonably sized group of people that does advocate for social acceptance of pedophilia, and covering them, and detractors of them, would be legitimate in my view. Lotusduck, you've been fairly outspoken here, and I accept your view that it is pretty much only those within this movement who call it the "childlove movement", but will you accept my counterargument that whatever it's called, the advocacy does exist and is a legitimate subject for the encyclopaedia. The argument whether it should be broken out from pedophilia is quite separate, but would merging such a long article back into its parent be a really good idea? James James 09:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a term in wide currency. - SimonP 07:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but merge some of the important content into pedophilia (movement exists, apprently, but it's not notable enough for it's own article.--Sean|Black 08:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Rob, Gamaliel and SimonP. Like Sean above, I think whatever useful content there is within the article should be merged into pædophilia. --cj | talk 09:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- The Childlove nee Pedophlia movement is a culturally and socially significant phenomenon. I would not merge the article, Pedophilia and the actual pedophilia movement, as pedophlia has a long history, most of which does not include the modern pedophlia movement. The two subjects are related, but not the same, and should be kept separate, but link to one another. MSTCrow 09:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, move or delete - The title is unacceptably euphemistic. No comment on the content, but the title can't stay. Kosebamse 09:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  I've moved article to pedophilia advocacy. Does that work better for you? James James 09:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, dispicable yes, but it's what they are commonly referred to. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Also per paroxysm's reasoning who cited external sources. It is also in line with the naming of NAMBLA it's the NAtional Men Boy Love Association. If pedophilia advocacy was at all used (and not a neologism) it would've been named NAMBPA (National Men Boy Pedophile Association). It is covered by outside sources, but gauging notability by google or Lexis Nexis hits makes no sense, when you know there's a lot of censorship going on about the subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Sorry for the repeated comments, but I've done some Google searches:
  • "Childlove" gets 12900 Google hits [14]
  • "childlove movement" gets 390 Google hits [15]
  • "paedophile advocacy" gets 20 Google hits [16]
  • "paedophilia advocacy" gets 145 google hits [17]
  • "pedophilia advocacy" gets 316 hits [18]

I think that makes it clear the suggested rename is the POV neologism here. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • "pedophile" isn't a neologism. It's a well established term. "advocacy" is also a well established term and joining them in a phrase is simply done for descriptive purposes. the word "childlove" however does not exist in any credible dictionary. Homey 18:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In the search "childlove movement" on Google.com of the 146 uniques, the top hit is Wikipedia, the wiki mirrors domininate the other results (this article itself, plus all the others they've worked the term in). There is little non-wiki serious usage of the term in the results, with much of it being the usual "scraper sights" (e.g. search for anything and you get something on their sight). This actually proves that Wikipedia itself is the biggest promoter of the term. Now, sadly, others will likely follow. This shows the movement had great success with Wikipedia, as we forget how influential we are. Other people doing similiar "Google tests" will now make similiar judgements, to accept this term. Also, I would note, in your first search "Childlove" by itself, obviously has meaningings unrelated to the perverted one being discussed here. Even combined with other words, I expect there are people who use the term in the more literal non-perverted sense it's been used in the old article name (e.g. as in "childlove" means "child love" not sexual abuse of innocent children by people who are mad that I called it abuse). Finally, in all Google tests, keep in mind shorter simpler words, that are easier to spell, always get bigger results, and that doesn't tell you which is the proper term. --Rob 13:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

As a patron of the online boylove community for almost ten years now, I had never heard the term "childlove" until Wikipedia renamed its "boylove" article into "Childlove movement" (if I remember correctly). I remember it as a conjured-up term to merge articles on "boylove" and "girllove". I have since noticed "childlove" being used quite often, when wanting to denote the collective boy- and girllove communities (and I've also noted many in the boylove community shunning the term "childlove"). So either I was ignorant of the term before the Wikipedia rename, or Wikipedia itself has contributed significantly to the usage of the term. Clayboy 18:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, or move to something like Advocacy of pedophilia. — Matt Crypto 12:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep With the original name, it's the name of it. See Mgm's comments. Garion96 (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) I did some more googling. This time with all different spellings, paedo pedo etc. Pedophilia advocacy is used in the media more than childlove. So still keep but with the new name. Garion96 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If neither is used, what does the news media call it? Just because pedophilia advocacy isn't a good term doesn't mean childlove movement is an established part of human knowledge. Paroxysm- in the news articles you read what do they call it? Lotusduck 18:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not a term in wide use, hence neoligism. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 17:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Point of view fork. Cyberevil 17:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, neutral, true, encyclopedic ➥the Epopt 18:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: For those interested in media coverage of this movement, try http://kctv.com/Global/category.asp?C=73283. Check the videos. Here's the description of one story: "Pedophilia as a political movement? It sounds not just far-fetched but perverse. However, a KCTV5 News Investigation has uncovered such a movement and it’s captured the attention of Kansas ’ top law enforcement official." And a quote from the November 22 "investigation," by Phill Kline, Kansas Attorney General: "There is an effort, a sophisticated effort ... that is funded by [pedophiles] who forword such arguments." // paroxysm (n) 18:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

And does KCTV ever refer to the movement as the "childlove movement"?Homey 19:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I am strongly swayed by the Lexis/Nexis result and the fact that no reliable authoritative sources seem to use the term 'childlove movement'. I think that, therefore, talking in detail about the childlove movement breaks Wikipedia's commitment to No Original Research. If there were media coverage or academic discussion on this topic then I'd be saying Keep all the way (and be much less fussed about the name). Yes, it means we miss out on the description of this phenomenon. No, this discussion wouldn't be happening the same way if the topic were Fluffy Bunny Rabbits. However, some reputable source needs to cover this ground before we can. The Land 19:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• I think more voters should be involved editors of this topic like paroxy and land. While the article is largely written in a similar voice to encyclopedic articles, the lions share of the article is original research. We would lose basically nothing sourced accurately by deleting this article and starting a fresh pedophilia advocacy section in the pedophilia article. I think so, and anyone who thinks this article just needs a little work should consider working on the article before being sure they want a keep. Lotusduck 20:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment-original research If we remove the parts of the article that constitute original research (more than half the article as far as I can tell) sections 2.1 and 2.2 in particular, the remainder should be short enough to fit into pedophilia. I think there remains a strong argument to merge. Homey 20:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV fork, with string suspicions of original research. --Pjacobi 00:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  I agree that it needs some NPOVing, but I'm not sure exactly what it's thought it's forking? Articles are often broken out of their parent subjects, but they're not considered to be forks. This is not an article about paedophilia itself but about advocacy for it. James James 01:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The nomination appears to be an attempt to silence highly unpopular political or social views by refusing to allow them to be described on Wikipedia. No matter how nasty a view may seem to us, we are not in the business of refusing to cover it because we don't like it. --FOo 00:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You can make that allegation if you can demonstrate that somebody voted to keep an opposing POV fork, while voting to delete this POV fork. However, that's not the case. Also, you fail to address the serious lack of *reliable* verifiable information to back up this article. Also, we actually do try to "silence" any POV soap-box pusher on *any* side. If somebody wishes to push an agenda, they're free to do so elsewhere, but Wikipedia is not the place. You're partly right though. Their views are highly unpopular, and argueable "suppressed". Hence, they're rarely published. However, Wikipedia does not champion the rights of the unpublished. In fact, we're quite hostile to the unpublished. We don't (or shouldn't) write anything about anyone unless it's been published by reliable sources elsewhere. Is that fair? No. But that's the price of verifiability. --Rob 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Shorten and Merge with pedophilia per User:Thivierr. Seems like a POV fork to me. Jessamyn 02:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A real movement. Denni ☯ 02:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• comment Many of us can agree that this article is filled with nonverifiable information. This article could be uniquely about the activism, but information is continually being added that subtly or not describes pedophilia from an unpublished viewpoint. If this article is not deleted it can be weeded down to its' verifiable components. If the verifiable and scholarly parts of this article don't amount to more than a stub, then Pedophilia Advocacy can be redirected to Pedophilia and the content moved there. People who vote either way should help edit this article, although of course delete voters may have more ideas of what to edit. Lotusduck 04:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  It clearly would amount to more than a stub. There is advocacy, and it's perfectly sourceable. I agree that it should be uniquely about activism, and responses to that activism, and should it survive this AfD, I'm going to work on making it only about that. As I noted on the talkpage, I hope you'll join me in doing so. James James 05:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a real subject, and a real movement so should have it's article, provided content can be verified. if nessacary, remove the unverified sections, but keep the article. Silent War 06:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but fix I'm not sure I like either title but there has to be something about this group of people. I really think the pedophilia article needs to stick to medically defined pedophilia. Please don't merge. --Gbleem 08:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that there probably nees to be separate articles for those who want to support people who have medically defined pedophilia and those who advocate sex with children. --Gbleem 08:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment The dividing of the articles should be along subject lines, not along lines of POV. "Pedophilia" should be about the medical and scientific ends, with perhaps a mention of any alternate POVs. Childlove...I think "Ped. Advocacy" or something along those lines might work. But I'm not so convinced "Childlove" is so POV as people seem to make it out, or even want it to be. --DanielCD 16:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• I think separate articles is a little much, although this article mixes those two issues and several others together rather badly. But I'm unaware of any sources that specifically call for helping people who have medically defined pedophilia in the strictest sense. There are articles proposing possible revisions to how to treat pedophiles in psychology, which is hardly the issue of pedophilia advocacy. I think what you're describing is "Debate over pedophilia treatment" and really there isn't that much of that in the article. Personally, I haven't got the strength. If it is created, I will do my best to read over the peer reviewed journal references and make things as informative as they can be, but it would be better if an article like that was started by someone with the professional expertise to begin with. I mean, it's acceptable to make an article from reliable sources without having the professional expertise, but it's exhausting too. Part of the reason people only read a fourth of most of these journal articles and then make up their own conclusions is because the things are so long. Lotusduck 14:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  What do you consider unreferenced? It doesn't look like "original research" to me, and even if some was removed, there is far too much referenced text to merge into pedophilia. // paroxysm (n) 20:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The mixing of issues and definitions is exactly why I don't want it merged with pedophilia. Pedophilia is a condition identified by a process that is standardized by a group people with fancy degrees while the childlove movement as described is more of a political/social movement.--Gbleem 22:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I will give an example: In democtatic contries one can find Nazi and Communsit parties. The reasons for they existance are many, including the right of political freedom and the fact that these parties are indicators of the general political state in a given country (i.e. if their popularity start going up, it means that the mainstream politicians do something wrong). A similar argument can be put in the present case. First, if there are peple paying attention to the childlove movement, it is an indicator that it has a political basis, regardless how small it can be. Second, if the arguments of the "movement" are weak, then it will be easy for everyone to refute them again and again. -User:Nllsq (moved from talk page. first edit)

• Keep, no valid reason to delete has been set forth. --Angr (t·c) 10:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep encyclopedic topic.  Grue  15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It never ceases to amaze me how people want to delete articles simply because the content it distasteful. I had a similar debate at the Erik Beckjord article deletion; the man is an obnoxious ass, but that's no reason to delete the article. Perhaps it can use a bit of renaming/defining. To try and delete this as if it is not an issue in its own right...that is simply crass and POV to the point of absurdity. Even if it is deleted, it will just reappear, as the subject carries a great deal of importance to some people, no matter what their intentions are. --DanielCD 16:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Childlove movement was nominated for deletion on 2004-08-03. The result of the discussion was "no consensus" with a default result of "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childlove movement/2004-08-03.

• Here are some organizations. I think only NAMBLA still exists. --Gbleem 08:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There is another one that advocates sex between women and young girls. --Gbleem 08:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Paedophile Information Exchange
• JORis
• Danish Pedophile Association
• North American Man/Boy Love Association

There is also MARTIJN. I believe the women/girl organization you're referring to is Butterfly Kisses. // paroxysm (n) 19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but I might add that this article should be the focus of every decent Wikipedian to crush the POV of sick child molesting bastards. DTC 00:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, you should get right on this article eh? I think that this article is about as non-point of veiw as if the Ex-Gay article was composed completely of information found through Ex-gay organizations. That article isn't, and that article is fine. I think a lot of people are confusing neutral point of view with being positive. Lotusduck 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh. To be considered a "child molesting bastard" you usually have to, you know, molest children. Not just advocate its legalization. Maybe you should read the article.

I would also encourage you to stay away from the article if you're going to let your emotions cloud up your neutrality. All POVs need to be presented, but without endorsement. // paroxysm (n) 02:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess that means you, not being a decent Wikipedian as far as I can see, should probably avoid the article altogether, per your own advice. --DanielCD 02:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are you replying to..? // paroxysm (n) 02:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I was talking to Mr. "I'm gonna get my fucking way or else" DTC up there. --DanielCD 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Per some of the above arguments, changing my vote from Jesus H. Christ to O... M... G!!!!
Carry on! Herostratus 06:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect. --Ichiro 04:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Of Pop

My first AFD of 2006. Nonencyclopedic, totally POV ... really could have speedied this somehow but the author would learn better what should go on Wikipedia if I put it here. Daniel Case 07:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It needs a MAJOR rewrite, but it's a phrase which is commonly used, and not only in reference to Michael Jackson (ie. in Australia, some call John Farnham the king of Australian pop). Cnwb 07:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Michael Jackson. Kelvin Martinez removed the AfD tag and another Wikipedian redirected the article to Michael Jackson. I have restored the article to the original version with the AfD tag. I have also placed a warning on Kelvin Martinez talk page. Movementarian 08:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as before, no need to bother with afd. Gazpacho 08:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Michael Jackson. Yes, the media is responsible for starting to call him that which makes it verifiable and now it's a phrase commonly used to describe Jackson. If there's an Australian King of Pop it can be added or made into a dab, but there's no reason to delete it. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Michael Jackson, who is widely acknowledged as such. --Thephotoman 13:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Micheal Jackson Sceptre ^(Talk) 18:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. After MJ, there could well be another self-declared King (or a TV show by that name) and redirecting would trap the title. 18:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. AT the moment MJ is the King of Pop. Should the need to disambiguate ever arise, the redirect could be easily undone. There could be another King of Rock and Roll, but it is unlikely that someone will ever get the title from Elvis. Movementarian 18:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Michael Crapson. No useful content to merge. — JIP | Talk 20:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Michael Jackson, per all the above comments. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 07:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Will probably wind up as a dab at some point. Vegaswikian 05:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties of the 2004 March 11 Madrid bombings

Tragic, but being killed in this violent way does make the individuals notable. -- RHaworth 08:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. I recall 9/11 deaths getting deleted, too; that should serve as precedent. ' 09:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Bombings are not unusual, and certainly not usually notable.→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings, as a whole, are non notable? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A link to an external memorial could be placed on the Madrid bombings page, if required. A WP memorial page is not a useful reference item. -- (aeropagitica)  09:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia not a memorial, and BTW the 9/11 Memorial Wikipedia should be taken down, or at least renamed so it's not called a Wikipedia. Blackcats 10:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's called the 9/11 memorial wiki. And since it is a wiki, its name is fine. It is not called Wikipedia to begin with. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite true. The url is sep11.wikipedia.org, and at the upper left corner it has the "Wikipedia the free encyclopedia" logo. Blackcats 20:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it, I'd say it is most definitely a part of Wikipedia. Qarnos 22:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not memorial. Pavel Vozenilek 11:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per 9/11 precedent. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Whats 9/11 got to do with it? Why does the European event have to bow down to an american one? Jcuk 17:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with 9/11 happening in America. It just happened to be a very well-known and larger terrorist attack. If we have a separate wiki for those victims (all 2000-3000 of them), I don't see why we should mention the victims of the Madrid bombings in Wikipedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, as above. Ajwebb 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I found it useful when checking to see if any if my Spanish aquaintances had died
• Keep; I am the person who made this article. I just want to explain why I think the English Wikipedia should have such an article. However, of course, if you think that this page should be deleted, go on. (Interested people can check this information in the Spanish version, if they understand Spanish.)
  • 1) Most people argues that "Wikipedia is not a memorial". Well, this article should not be considered as a memorial page, but as a page with additional information about the Madrid bombings. If you consider that the names of the people who died in Madrid are not relevant for Wikipedia, you can delete these names, but at least keep the information about the victims (for instance, why does usually appear the name of Francisco Javier Torrenteras between the people who died, although he did not die in the bombings; or why at first officially the media spoke about 202 casualties, instead of the real number, 190; or the fact that died people of 17 nationalities... etc). If this page is deleted, I think that this information should be added to the Madrid bombings article, but, in order not to excede the amount of information that appears there, I think that the better solution is a page about the persons who dead there.

    I understand that, as the names of the victims takes up most of the article, many people could think that it is a memorial, but if you read it, you will see that there is more information (that has to be emproved and expanded, I know).

  • 2) Before I made this article, I saw that someone (I don't know who), added in the Madrid bombings article, in the "See also" section, this hidden line:

    <!-- * [[Casualties of the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings]] -->

    (as you can see in this edition of an old version of the article), claiming for such an article.
  • 3) P.MacUidhir argues that "Bombings are not unusual, and certainly not usually notable". I agree, bombings are not notable. But not all bombings are the same! Sadly, ETA is responsible for most bombings in Spain, but the Madrid March 11 bombings were not at all usual. It was the worse Al-Qaida attack in Europe. There died almost four times more people than in the 7 July London bombings. Millions of persons took part in the demonstrations against terrorism the day after (more or less the 28% of the Spanish population). Many poeple think that there was a political change in Spain because of these bombings (they happened three days before the March 14 general elections), and that the authors aimed this change; other people think that the former goverment lied supporting that ETA was the author of the attacks until the last moment, as they could lose the elections because of their support to the Bush' invasion of Iraq (it is still a very hot subject, and I don't want to give my opinion here, I just speak about the opinion of many people). I only want to say that obviously the Madrid bombings are, sadly, once again, a historical event, not only in Spain, but worldwide, such as the London bombings, the 9/11 or the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. I am not speaking in this point about the number of persons who died, but just about the importance and consequences of the event.
  • 4) I saw that there was an article about the casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, with the names of all the victims, and I thought that there should be an equivalent article with the Madrid victims. I don't want to think that nationalism should be so important in Wikipedia (when we speak about worldwide events), and the terrorism victims in England should not be more or less important than those who died in Spain. I saw too that there is an article about the London victims in the Spanish wikipedia, without the names (in my opinion this article lacks those names). Nevertheless, in the 9/11 died thousands of men and women, and I think that it is better there an external link, not because those persons were less important, but just because it would be too large; but maybe some persons who died in the 9/11 should appear in wikipedia (the many firefighters who died there? People who saved other people? For instance, William Rodríguez became famous, but he didn't die there). I think that the queston is not as simple as "there should appear all victims of terrorist attacks or none of them".
  • 5) I made the article, as every article, thinking about it as a starting point. So, it should be extended and improved by other wikipedians. For example (as in the July London attacks), who died in each place (the Atocha Station, or El Pozo, or Santa Eugenia, or the Téllez Street)? How many? Where were first carried? What does Pilar Manjón (president of the Association for the victims of 11-M) think about the political reactions? These questions maybe could be too much for the principal article, but not for an article about victims, and it could contain interesting information for wikipedia. I think that there should be a page of the same quality as that one about the London attacks, and I hope that it will be so. I only contribute with my knowledge. I don't know many things about the London attacks, so I can't speak about them.

Well, thank you, principally if you had enough patience to read till here! Eynar Oxartum 03:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Are there first-class and second-class victims? Does it depend on the language the victims spoke? If Casualties_of_the_7_July_2005_London_bombings was not deleted (see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Casualties_of_the_7_July_2005_London_bombings), I can't see any valid reason to delete this one. --Ecemaml 16:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, for Ecemaml and Eynar's well stated reasons. GRuban 19:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. TestPilot 04:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks notable enough to me. I wouldn't expect to find this in a printed encyclopaedia, but that would be more down to space restrictions than anything imo. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. This has nothing to do with memorials. -- JJay 09:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, even for an event as tragic as this. Sliggy 11:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, part of a major event. I'm not sure how useful the list of the names is, but deleting that wouldn't require deleting the whole article. And it doesn't provide redlinks for each of the names which is a plus. - Bobet 12:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Primarily a list of non-notable dead people (which sounds a lot like a memorial to me) and some information which, unlike with the similar London bombings article, we already have in other articles related to the Madrid bombings (if I missed something and we don't, merge it).--Last Malthusian 13:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • On re-reading the article's actual content, keep the article but the list/memorial/whatever you want to call it should be deleted. Keeping it would lead us to assume that you can't have a list of victims if the death toll is too small to be 'notable', and you can't have it if it's too big to include without disrupting the article. That would be bizarre logic to say the least. --Last Malthusian 17:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the precedent cited by Ecemaml, however I strongly recommend that a policy be developed to create a criteria for this sort of thing otherwise anytime an event like this happens -- major or minor -- someone will want to do a list article. IMO this type of list should only be created for the most major of these events (and Madrid qualifies). But it could get out of hand if someone wants to create an article everytime a car bomb blows up in Baghdad. 23skidoo 15:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article isn't about the individuals. It is an excellent part of the coverage of the event. Bhoeble 16:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - useful information --File Éireann 18:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep as per Eynal and Ecemaml. Cchan199206 20:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per 3 comments immediately above. --kingboyk 17:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Eynar Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 07:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 02:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ehud Segev

"largely unsubstantiated or unverified content" (User:Tiksustoo). bumped from speedy. No vote. r3m0t ^talk 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry this article was nominated incorrectly. Next time, I'll use {{afdx}} - honest! :) r3m0t ^talk 02:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Week delete. The google hits are borderline. But I can't seem to find much coverage in mainstream media, and the article is atrociously written. Blackcats 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep the guy has played 'off broadway' whatever that means, and has made it into the New York Times [19] Jcuk 10:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Chazz88 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• This was nominated before Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_21#Ehud_Segev. I remember checking up on his name. Please give me the time to look up the discussion I had about him in the magic (illusion) article (or help me find it). I also contacted a magic magazine during that time, please let me dig up that email as well. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Segev's show has been written up in New York theater magazines and he's apparently performed at city functions. I have edited out the nonverifiable promotional buzz (which, unsurprisingly, was most of the article) and added a source for the rest. Tim Pierce 15:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with thanks to Tim for the work. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I just saw his new play ANOMAL in the American Theater of Actors in Times Square in the heart of the theater district. If that's not enough to keep his bio on wiki then he has a schedule of TV appearances in the box office - Kristen Shaughnessy from NY1 interviewed Segev and it'll run during the first weekend of January, Montel Williams booked Segev for his national TV show on January 19th. Also, google ANOMAL, his new show to find articles at PLAYBILL, BROADWAYWORLD, New York Times, and many others. I heard him live in GOOD NEWS BROADCAST where the interviewer mentions he saw Segev performs around the world and loved his performance, he also mentioned Segev's new written musical Legend that Segev recently wrote... and I also found ALL references to his press in his MEDIA>PRESS page at mentalizer.com with original scans of the articles! Just click on VIEW CLIPPING at the bottom of each article The New York Press, New York Magazine, PAGE SIX in the POST, a full item with a picture in 'WHAT'S HOT THIS WEEK' in the post, Daily News, and so many more from around the world (Not only US based newspapers, many from Asia and Israel). Didn't you see it BEFORE you edited his bio?

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. JeremyA 03:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Essany

Autobiography. Subject is only 23 or 24, username is "messany" - identical to subject of article. Anabanana459 04:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• subject of article has some notability, an E! talk show, but seems that is only possible reason to keep the article, delete per WP:BIO  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    04:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

per disscussion below week keep  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    15:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, he has an IMDb entry (added link), has his own show, and appeared on Late Night with Jay Leno. Gilliamjf 05:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, it's bad form to write an article about yourself, but he's got his own TV show and an IMDB entry, which make him notable, clearly. Also, his age is irrelevant. I've seen notable 11-year-olds. -- Mgm|^(talk) 13:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as above. Evil Eye 14:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep:at first glance I though I was going to vote for delete. I'm a little dissapointed. Though it is bad faith to have your own autobiography I don't really see anything wrong with this article. According to WP:BIO#Alternative tests there is however a question of what is notable. He does past the google test. however I am hesitant on the 100 year test -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful? Another key element to look at is the WP:BIO#People still alive:

• Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
  • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
  • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
  • An independent biography
  • Name recognition
  • Commercial endorsements

These elements should be discused in the article. I believe it is possible for this to be included. I also believe that this is an example of failing to discuss the issue on the appropriate talk page for the article. (one of the first steps for resolving a bad article) --CylePat 15:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Essany is notable for having a successful cable talk show before he had graduated from college. It's not well discussed in the article but I'll look for references. Agreed that it's bad form to write or edit an article about yourself, but he is notable nonetheless. Tim Pierce 16:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If written in a neutral tone, I see nothing wrong with starting your own autobiographical article, given that it meets our established criteria for notability and verifiability. Even Jimmy Wales has tailored his own article on Wikipedia several times over. As for this article, it appears to be notable enough for inclusion based upon WP:BIO. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI and DELETE. -Splash^talk 20:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paper chromatography of amino acids

Unsourced, not encyclopedic, unlikely to be expanded, not a likely search term, not required as a redirect. I reccomend delete. brenneman^(t)(c) 04:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, or merge anything salvageable into paper chromatography. Edgar181 18:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD nomination did not gather enough votes for consensus, relisting. — JIP | Talk 09:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. From what I can comprehend of the article (chromatography not being my strongest field...), this seems to be more of a "how-to" article than an encyclopedia entry. – Seancdaug 10:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing recommendation to transwiki to Wikibooks. – Seancdaug 17:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiBooks Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Howto's belong on wikibooks (and I say that as a chemistry student). =- Mgm|^(talk) 13:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Change recommedation to transwiki. Edgar181 15:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to freemasonry since there's no consensus to delete, it has been merged and a redirect is the simplest means of GFDLing it. -Splash^talk 23:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Masonic organizations

• Delete. No content whatsoever: list of links. Contents have also been merged to, & so appear at, Freemasonry's page Grye 02:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Complete the merge with Freemasonry, there is no point in retaining this page. -- (aeropagitica)  02:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per reasons above --Phanton 04:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion to finish the merge and retain attribution of the info to the contributors of the list (and not just the one person who copy-pasted it into freemasonry). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as merge has already occured.Gateman1997 20:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand with short descriptions of these organizations. Listing on freemasonry page, which is already too long, is no help whatsoever. -- JJay 22:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, merging and deleting is not allowed under the GFDL. - ulayiti (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Eee... that's not 100% correct. There are a several options. The simplest would be to copy paste the history into the talk of the target page, but that one's a bit of a grey area. The next easiest would be for someone to validate all the information themselves and type it in themselves, which would have the added advantage of double checking WP:V and would be on solid ground. The hardest would be a history merge which I have seen done before but don't know how difficult it is. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Mostly correct though. You can't retain an edit history if it's been deleted. It needs to be retained in some form when merged and redirecting provides the least work as it doesn't involve admin intervention. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  I know it shows the history of the page, etc, & serves as reference should the page come back, etc. I do not see that talk page as increadibly valuable. A lot of the content of said page is mine, & I would not miss it. Grye 15:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• keep. this information is useful. although it might need some work. Kingturtle 06:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, with a subst: into the article. -Splash^talk 23:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: this had in fact already been 'subst:'ed, so I've just redirected it. -Splash^talk 23:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of Empires III/Civilizations Chart

Game guide - fancruft. Orphaned page, not really used. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 10:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom.Obina 11:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nome Zunaid 11:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC) see below
• Keep. "Orphaned page, not really used" is not true: article is transcluded into main Age of Empires III article. It fits well in the main article. It's formatted well and looks complete. Also I'm not sure if it needs to be discussed here since it is only part of an article which was factored for editability of the main article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-04 12:43Z
• Merge and redirect to retain attribution per GFDL requirements, why the heck is it transcluded in the first place? Transclusion is discouraged in the article space. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Quarl. A large number of computer game articles follow this format. --Mareino 14:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. -- JJay 03:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment page has already been merged (back?) into the main Age of Empires III article, where it looks quite okay. On that basis I'm changing my vote to redirect per GFDL requirements. Zunaid 08:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• It has not been merged back. It's transcluded there. Merge and redirect; we don't split articles for editing convenience. —Cryptic (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as already merged in the main article. --Neigel von Teighen 15:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If material is merged it either needs to be redirected or undergo a history merge to retain attribution per GFDL. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge — Items not merged, was fixed by somebody. Civilizations list can be placed in Age of Empires III article, as it is not too big. Kareeser|^Talk! 16:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above: transclusions are not ideal. Turnstep 04:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Also, is this just a direct copy of something that comes with the game? --Ajdz 05:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. The information should not be removed, though it doesn't need its own article. - MB (Talk) 11:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, Babajobu 11:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GWYF

Delete non-notable group of kids Drdisque 00:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't quite meet speedy criteria, but nn definately. - FrancisTyers 00:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Austin 00:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)SirAus Sorry, but I beleive it entirely depends on what one defines by non-notable. This group is one of the most widely known reenacting groups in Virginia. I'm new here, so I don't really understand the criteria for deletion or non-deletion. Is it because this group isn't known outside of the reenacting arena or what?

• Delete as non-notable biography. Why doesn't it qualify for speedy? I don't see any assertions of importance in this article about a group of people. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-10 00:48Z
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination, nn. *\o/* Dustimagic *\o/* 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• If there is an article about Historical reenactment I'd vote merge with that rather than lose the page entirely.Jcuk 08:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Having just come across Comparison_of_historical_reenactment_groups I vote Keep as there seems to be a precedent already Jcuk 08:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 08:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Tentative keep, according to the article Jcuk mentioned we've got several articles reenactment groups. I'm not sure what would make them notable, so I'll go hunt for mentions in local newspapers, but age alone is a bad indicator for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no independent sources on which to base an article. Apart from their own websites, found nothing on Google but directory entries, listing in a local paper (which confirms their existence but nothing else), and the blog of someone who joined them. Notability is comparable to school/college clubs and garage bands, which are almost always deleted. --Malthusian (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment school/college clubs and garage bands are ten a penny - can we say the same about historical re-enactment groups? - FrancisTyers 20:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-significant, Vanity article—LeFlyman 15:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, someone who knows how PLEASE fix the picture. (Yes, I know I could try and go learn how...) --Samuel J. Howard 16:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not exactly sure what you wanted done, but I've cleaned up the page and added a caption to the picture. Turnstep 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn per above. Eusebeus 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn per nom Mushin^talk 19:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because it has many entries on Google and is locally notable. -- Eddie 00:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio. --Terence Ong ^Talk 13:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{T | C} 17:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as this article is non-notable. Sycthos^Talk 02:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Japanese artists

Nearly blank list that is devalued in comparison to its category. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 01:37Z
• Weak Delete (added after post AFD edits see comments below) or Redirect to Japanese artists Category -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 05:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and protest. It is impossible to measure the merits of a redirected page. This action preempts discussion. Durova 07:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Lists can communicate information that categories cannot. At the risk of self-promotion I'll make my own most recent list an example: take a look at List of notable brain tumor patients. A researcher of Japanese art may want information on eighteenth century ivory netsuke artists. An expanded list could make them easier to locate. Durova 08:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Protest I agree with, but why keep? This is a useless, forgotten, nearly empty list, and we have a bright shiny category! I mean, c'mon! I hardly ever nominate things for deletion(I think this is my third) and constantly infuriate people by voting to keep, but this one should be easy, really... -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not everyone is in the camp that lists must always be ended if there is a category. This list is pretty tepid, but maybe someone can find something to make it as expansive as List of Chinese painters. Although on that there is a List of Japanese painters. Possibly this should be merged with that, or the painters list should be merged with this as artists is a broader term. Anyway point being the Japanese are surprisingly poorly covered at Wikipedia compared to how many of them there are. (I checked this) So if someone can make this a long list of important, but poorly covered, Japanese artists that'd be good. In fact I might do that now.--T. Anthony 08:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not exactly in that camp either, just against the keeping of unattended lists. If you're willing to tend it, that would be great. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I added a bunch of names from Artcyclopedia. Many of them are red, but that's good because it allows for expansion in this area. I tried to avoid painters as we have a Japanese painters list.--T. Anthony 08:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this list could be much more useful than the category if it gets annotated. Still a bit reddish, but could easily work. Let's see if it can get attention before deleting it. Cleanup or expansion tag first? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment T.Anthony's actions on the List of Japanese artists page have made me reconsider my redirect suggestion. [20]-> [21] Attempts to influence the course of a AFD by retroactively editing looks bad in my opinion. The redirect, the AFD could have continued without a problem even with the redirect in place. To view the context on a redirected page you simply click at the top where it says "redirected from" then click on page history, nice and simple.

Lists of people are generally duplicative in nature, un-used lists are a misuse of database space. This list was created in october and was dead until the AFD. Which begs the question, Why this sudden interest in editing on this page now. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 13:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Retroactive editing? Isn't so-called retroactive editing a good thing? It tries to address issues brought up here. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that part of the point of AfD? So that when articles come up for deletion, people improve them? Ofcourse it would be a good idea to leave a not on the AfD voting page when it's done. 132.205.45.110 22:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This list was not in a category so I was essentially unaware of it until now. I am interested in expanding coverage of East Asian topics, moreso than African ones as East Asia is my interest, and if lists help that I'm positive for that. Granted I could simply create 20 or so articles based on bios I find, but this would eat up more time then I want at present.--T. Anthony 13:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and it might get improved. As wikipedia grows being less complete can actually be a merit of a list, providing the most important people are included. CalJW 14:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Has potential, and the redlinks indicate articles that might need to be written. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I did not nominate this article for deletion. I stumbled across it via the recent changes. That being said I think it should be clear exactly how this matter should be looked at from. Until the article was nominated for deletion there was absolutely no interest in the it for the 4 months since it was created. The edits only occured because it was nominated for deletion. I suspect that the interest will go away rapidly once the AFD is completed.

The purpose of article for deletion is to decide on deletion or not. It is not something to warn people that an article may be deleted so they better rush off and throw some quickie edits on it. I see the actions after the AFD as an attempt to subvert/circumvent the AfD process. In the process this violates the principle that process is important

Before these edits the list contained exactly one name.[22] Subsquent edits should be ignored for the duration of the consideration of this deletion request. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 15:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your view and actions were in many ways justified as the list was just one name and no interest before AfD. I think you're worried my changes cloud that and make you look somehow bad. My intent is not to make you look foolish. No one should believe your view was invalid. No one should believe it is invalid now. I'm sorry you think my efforts to improve this list are cheating, but I think this is a valid topic and once aware of it I did what I did. Further last ditch save efforts often fail and there is a chance this one still might.--T. Anthony 23:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's absurd. Editing during an AfD is allowed, and even encouraged, if it addresses some of the concerns brought up in the AfD. Why should we vote for a static snapshot of the page at a point in time? Would you truly vote to delete this article on principle if in its current form it warranted a keep vote from yourself? What would be the purpose of that? Turnstep 20:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this is what categories are for. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 16:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the above is a case for {{expand}}, not VFD. Lists have an important role that categories do not, they serve as reference for missing articles. Articles that don't yet exist (no stub, even) can't be in a category. They contribute references and red links that count towards Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a useful,verifiable list which cannot be replaced by a category. Categories and lists are complementary, not exclusive. Turnstep 20:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: the nominator should have brought this list to the attention of other editors by adding a flag to expand, cleanup, or verify. There are more harmonious and productive ways to proceed than preemptive AfD nomination. Durova 21:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment You have to weigh the value of what was in the article when it was nominated for AfD, and one name a list does not make. So the Nomination for deletion was ultimately correct see CSD-A1. The issue is he used Article for Deletion instead of speedying it. The people with the sudden interest in the fate of this article have no history of editing oriental art articles, or for the most part art at all. I checked their contributions. They are all however regular contributers to other list articles. I sincerely believe that they are letting their personal opinion of the value of these types of articles, to come between the removal of an article which has limited value, and in this case can be best served with an existing category. The use of Categories is the proper way to go for things of this nature, especially where there is little interest in developing, maintaining, and promoting the list. Several people have mentioned that the lists best indicate articles which need creation. This is true however the process is better served by the request for article process. Non-existent articles links in article content are of a limited benefit to the Wikipedia and indeed can run off newbie visitors. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's wrong of Durova to say this was invalid. As stood it wasn't a list, but possibly an ad for one guy. That said I'm a bit irritated on the rest. I do have a history on List of Chinese painters. Some of that won't show up because what I did was turn red names blue, but some should. Check the edits from October 1 to November 12 2005[23] at the Chinese painters list. Also check List of Japanese painters[24] for January 1, 2006.

• • • Not invalid, hasty. The usual procedure is to bring such a list to the attention of the community before nominating it. This list in particular was less than three months old. It is very odd that anyone would introduce a reference to patent nonsense in this discussion. With so much actual nonsense at Wikipedia it seems strange to single this out. I have already addressed the matter of lists and categories in a much fuller manner than SusanLarson's rebuttal suggests. Durova 23:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

comment CSD-A1 is short articles: Articles #1 "Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion. A search engine may help in determining context and allow for the article's expansion." One name lists would qualify under that section. As for no history I was primarily speaking of T. Anthony who initially stepped up proclaiming an active interest handling this article. At the time I posted that I did not know others had shown an interest in or stepped up to edit on that article. At this point I am flexible on keeping the article or not. I would suggest that a list should be more than a list and include actual text on the arts in Japan. New question is why can this not be added to the Japanese Art article? -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 00:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm more flexible on lists then you might think. If this information could be merged to the article on Japanese art without losing any information that could be okay. I'm not for that in some cases as it ends ups distracting from the article, but it's worth thinking about. Likewise merging List of Japanese painters, with the proviso of putting the new names in the format used here, I think should be considered. Have I even voted on this?--T. Anthony 01:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

On second thought the Japanese art article is already fairly long. However this could be made a link at the bottom of it acting as a kind of addendum of sorts.(And I'm going to put a merge notice on the painters list)--T. Anthony 01:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• 'keep please it can be expanded japanese artists are notable too Yuckfoo 22:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This list is a stub. Keep and expand stubs. They cannot grow if they're deleted. Wikipedia does not have a policy stating that articles must be in their complete and final form before being posted. Such a policy would be contrary to the nature of a wiki. Wikipedia actively encourages people to post new articles, and actively encourages editors to add new factual content. Fg2 01:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and I would have voted the same even if I'd seen it with just one name. Fg2 explains it perfectly. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Fg2, also agree with OpenToppedBus. Dsmdgold 15:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Valuabe - lists have a use that categories alone cannot fulfill. Look at those artists waiting to have good, high quality articles written (subject to notability, obviously) Cactus.man ✍ 16:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong ^Talk 13:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Norwegian photographers

Unnecessary list, and it only has one bluelink anyway. Category:Norwegian photographers is perfectly satisfactory as a repository. Stifle 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--MONGO 05:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The list was started only yesterday. Give it enough time to populate before putting it up for deletion. Durova 07:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As per Durova. DaGizza ^Chat 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, useful list with redlinks. Why? Because people might come along and create those articles. Punkmorten 09:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, "stifle" is a good name. Punkmorten gets it.--Leifern 10:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As per Punkmorten, it's useful enough on it's own anyway. Jamorama 11:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, redlinks with promote the creation of articles. They'd be lost in a category. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Okay, this is going to end up in a keep. I can't request a speedy keep because MONGO has voted to delete. Instead I'm going to come back next month and if it's still full of redlinks and/or pretty much empty, expect to see it back on AFD. Stifle 13:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It looks like Leifern has been adding to the list pretty consistently. Durova 20:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Has plenty of red links and also has some dates, which can't be shown in the category. CalJW 14:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral default keep and wait a bit to see what happens. If those redlinks turn out to be non-notable then I will probably support a second nomination. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because bluelinks + redlinks is a good thing. The blue validates the list, and the red shows the possibility (and need) for expansion. Turnstep 20:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• keep please this can be expanded not erased Yuckfoo 22:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I know this is going to end up as a "keep" anyway, but it makes much more sense as a category, not a list. If we keep the list, do we delete the category, or just have two redundant lists of the same articles? Kafziel 23:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete better as a category. --Revolución (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Leifern has created seven new supporting articles overnight. Pretty nearly all lists look like categories in their infancy. Let's give this a fair opportunity and support a productive editor. Durova 06:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As Japanese artists above, lists have a use that categories alone cannot fulfill. Look at those photographers waiting to have good, high quality articles written (subject to notability, obviously) Cactus.man ✍ 16:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep encyclopedic list. --Terence Ong ^Talk 13:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy_is_a_unifying_concept

Delete. Original Research. Eugman 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think it's original research; but WP:NOT a how-to guide for basic physics. Merge anything relevant to Energy, then transwiki this to either wikibooks or wikisource -- I'm not sure which would be the best place. bikeable (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I can assure you that it is definitely not new research. It is an attempt to talk physics in very-lay terms to the average person. It reads more like an edu-tainment presentation. Blnguyen 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The underlying concept here is really calculus. Original Research. --Pfafrich 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Another Comment - Well, energy in this case he is considering potential energy, can be related to a force causing it, (this is valid and meaningful only when the force is conservative so that the integral of F in the coordinate space is path-independent) so that F_x = - dU/dx, x being the coordinate and U the potential energy, to give the force in that direction. This means that when dU/dx = 0, there is no force, which occurs when U is at a max/min or a saddle point, which means it can be in unstable, stable, or stable and unstable in various directions respectively. Find any 1st yr universtiy physics book, or a 2ndyr+ classical mechanics book, and this will be verified to be well-founded knowledge, which the author is trying to convey in an informal way for non-physicists. I have no previous experience with the policy of wikipedia towards the suitability of informal pedagogical presentations. Blnguyen 05:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I doubt there's much information to merge to Energy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 01:34Z
• Transwiki to Simple English and Delete. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm new at this whole thing so any advice to helping out would be appreciated Eugman 02:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm torn. On the one hand, this doesn't cite references and isn't very well formatted. On the other hand, it's entirely true, and a VERY useful technique I was taught in Physics. He's absolutely right; if energy is conserved you can simply calculate everything based on energy equations and the solution is a lot easier to get. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a mini-essay about two very loosely related ideas. Someone who wants to write about potential-based analysis should build on the potential and potential energy articles. Gazpacho 07:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Energy then Delete DaGizza ^Chat 07:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge and delete is not a valid choice. To make the merge compliant with the GFDL the edit history of the article would need to be retained either by a history merge, or more easily by redirecting. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, this content is already covered well. Salsb 12:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Authors Comment. Thanks for the discussion. I am fully in agreement that this page should be deleted and the contents moved to a new section in Energy. I started it as a seperate page to provoke the discussion, without messing with the main energy page too much, it seems that strategy worked (forgive a noob his sins). This section was not intended to talk about potential energy, nor finding the force on a capacitor. I felt having read the Energy section that were I an intelligent non-physicist, say a government legislator or a bright 14 year-old, I would still not understand why the concept of Energy was so very useful, rather like a treatise on complex numbers that does not mention that they unify solutions of polynomial equations and simplify electrical calculations. This section is intended ultimately to convey WHY people should take the time to bother to use the concept, rather than HOW to use the concept. Does it belong in wikipedia? I've read "what wikipedia is not", and it's not clear about what I'm trying to do. In part, that's why the article is so short and ill-drafted. The intention is ultimately to have one well-chosen succintly described example from each main useful branch of energy calculations (bounds on conversion, force finding, equilibrium finding etc). Where to put the section is a problem. If it grows to lots of examples, it should go at the end for risk of hijacking the main article. However, if it is to fulfil its purpose, that of getting people to spend the time reading the rest of the article, then it should really go up front. I could have spent a lot of time putting together a well-polished section only to be told that it was not wiki policy anyway. So in the spirit of "you can't break wiki, give it a try", I offer the aim of this section up for consideration. If thought appropriate, then I can work on better examples without touching the how part of the article, and referencing them out to the other articles that cover them in more depth. I guess I am really wanting the wiki to be more accessible in this article. We are all familiar with the so-called help screen, which only makes sense if we have enough background to understand its terminology. I feel that the assumed level of knowledge to be able to appreciate the information on the energy section is too high for many of the visitors that may be turning to that page for information. Expanding the breadth of the target audience is not easy. I do not advocate "dumbing-down" of the existing information, but do suggest an additional section which "reaches down" to hook people in, starting with why we should bother with the concept at all. The comment about edutainment is quite near to what was intended. It is possible that in attempting to present or sell physics, it is possible to stray away from strict NPOV, but are there really any other majority concensus ways of viewing the world? Could I go further? In teaching my children about energy, I have used the currency analogy, Joules is capital, energy is rate of spend, friction and other losses is taxes and exchange rate levys, levers and transformers get you between a few high value bills and many low value coins, it's an analogy that can pushed a surprisingly long way before it fails to inform. That's what I want to do, inform on the "would understand physics with just a little more help" level. My apologies if this is the wrong forum for that.NeilUK 09:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR and redundant per other articles. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Move to user space. Everybody wins. Kafziel 23:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; transfer any relevant information to the energy article. -MegamanZero|Talk 02:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Redirects are cheap, and we need to retain the page history. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Landscape (disambiguation)

There were two Landscape disambiguation pages, Landscape and Landscape (disambiguation). With the creation of Landscape art (which was Landscape painting), making Landscaping into a disambiguation page, and redirecting all the redirects, this page is now unnecessary. Sparkit 04:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge the remaining meanings in Landscape (disambiguation) that aren't in the other page, then delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 07:19Z
• Move content then delete per Quarl. -- Saberwyn 07:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. We need to retain the edit history of the page when merging content to abide the GFDL (and to be able to attribute edits to individual editors). That could be done with either a history merge or a redirect. Redirecting is easier. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Boldly Merged into Landscape and redirected there :: Supergolden 17:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete following boldness. Could be done speedily, I'd say. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment why bother deleting it now its just a redirect? :: Supergolden 09:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Because unlike most redirects, which direct an alternate or misspelled name to the correct topic, I would find it highly unlikely someone is going to type "Landscape (disambiguation)" into the searchbox. -- Saberwyn 09:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mgm makes some good points for keeping, but many of the keep arguments have been refuted, and I find it persuasive that most of the users favouring a keep have changed their minds. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Stacey Cochran

Delete, Autobiographical vanity page Will 02:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite Published author [25]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• A reluctant Keep. Although this is a POV vanity article complete with photos from the family album, Stacey does have a claim to notability, so I say we give him 30 days to rewrite - if not, we delete. Madman 04:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Delete due to this being a vanity page. He certainly seems to know how to spread his name around, but has done nothing notable in my book. Madman 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. He is, unfortunately, notable. Crunch 05:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with tags - possibly inappropriate tone. How do we deal with vanity of someone who is notable? -- Astrokey44|talk</ small> 05:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable author but contents of page require rewrite to bring the tone of the language in-line with encyclopædic standards. -- (aeropagitica)  07:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, published author with several titles on his name. If you think it needs a rewrite, either tag it for cleanup or do it yourself. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And while not enough to make someone notable in itself, I think being a finalist for an Isaac Asimov Award makes it a more than average author. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Also wrote reviews for Plots with guns (major ezine). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Alexa rank 3,694,914.--Samuel J. Howard 12:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't help it that Alexa users aren't reading magazines. - 131.211.210.17 08:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If he's self-published with a PoD publisher, which do show up on Amazon, does it really count as "published?" -Will 04:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. He hasn't won any of those awards, and he's only sort of a published author: it's a vanity press[26] (yes, I know notable work can be published this way, but publishing this way does not make one notable--Samuel J. Howard 12:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

No it's a POD printer. Vanity presses cheat you out of loads of money before printing, Lulu doesn't. Besides, publishing with "a vanity press" doesn't automatically make your book non-notable either. -- Mgm|^(talk) 12:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

either way, the point is the same it's an author mill and publication there says nothing about notability.--Samuel J. Howard 12:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• delete per Samuel J. Howard. Durova 14:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with SJH. We are too lenient on these self-authored vanity projects when a vague case for notability can be made. If the subject is notable, let someone else recreate a less noxious entry later on, but in the interim kill this. Eusebeus 14:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Isaac Asimov award makes him notable. Fight bias against SF writers on Wikipedia! Cyde Weys _vote^talk 15:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • He did not win the award, he was merely a finalist. Shoehorn 00:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am a science fiction reader and I voted to delete. I would also delete any other self-published non-award-winning writer. Durova
  • He won an honorable mention for one story in 1998 in a contest for college undergrads. [27] That hardly makes him notable. -Will 05:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I won four awards in graduate school and was a finalist for others. That doesn't make me notable. Durova 08:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to Neutral per comments on this page (especially the NaNoWriMo spamming). --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, sufficiently notable. I see enough copies of his books on used sites to extrapolate a reasonable print run. -Colin Kimbrell 22:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. (1) Notability - One can either believe the claim (made on the talk page) of having several times exceeded the limit of 5,000 copies sold, or ask for proof. I believe the claim as per Colin Kimbrell's and my own observations. (2) Autobiographical - this is discouraged but not forbidden. We always have WP:NOR, WP:CITE, etc. so anyone who does not believe what is stated in the article can ask for references from reputable sources. There is a reason why posting an autobiography is discouraged, but it is not impossible to do an acceptable job. And remember, it's just the start - like all editors, Stacey should be prepared for his edits to be mercilessly edited by others. AvB ÷ talk 00:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You say it's "just a start". On the contrary, the record shows he had edited his autobiography of an article over 30 times starting back in September. He shows up on the History page as 12.214.7.234. Madman 06:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, if only because Stacey achieved minor notoriety in 2004 for spamming thousands of NaNoWriMo participants. In spite of his unremarkable writing, he is notable for his relentless self-promotion, which should be reflected in the article. Shoehorn 00:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Let's not encourage authors of dubious notability to spam their way to the pages of Wikipedia. It's my belief that any vanity pages should be speedy deletions. If you build it, they will come-- and if you truly are notable, surely a reader will create an NPOV page for you. Ipsenaut 16:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

He's relentlessly defending his notability on the article's Talk page, too. What happened with NaNoWriMo? -Will 04:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Stacey incurred the wrath of many NaNo users, but I don't recall any official administrative action. I've pasted his spam on the talk page. The best part of the story is his reply to one of his spam victims: "I was just trying to make friends, you jerk." Shoehorn 08:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Changing to Delete -- He continues to revert changes to the page which refer to his notorious spam episode. Since he is unwilling to acknowledge this episode, he doesn't even deserve this much notoriety. Shoehorn 09:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete. Author is not published in the traditional sense; his books are available only via a print-on-demand publisher, and there is no verification that he meets the minimum audience standards for author notability. The Asimov award sounds notable, but it's given only to college students who have never published professionally. In fact, it's not clear that he's ever been published professionally -- his almost-prize-winning mystery novel seems to have been turned down by the publisher that sponsored the prize. (His magazine appearances seem to be mostly in semi-professional magazines.) There are thousands of local bands around the US that have bigger followings than this guy does, but they don't get articles. Monicasdude 05:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's okay to argue his notability on the number of books he sold, but not being published in a traditional sense doesn't make one non-notable by default. If I had enough info about them, I would write an article on the top 10 Lulu authors. - 131.211.210.17 08:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No real disagreement; I was responding to the argument that being a "published" author was notable in and of itself. I don't think being "published" through Lulu is evidence of notability because anybody who wants to can be "published" through Lulu. Monicasdude 14:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'd argue four things at this point.

1.) Cochran hasn't stated that his books have sold 5,000 copies per WP:BIO.

From the article's Talk page: "With regard to the validity of the article, Wikipedia is clear on this: Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more. I have met this criteria several times over the past fifteen years as a writer". We cannot vote away articles per WP:BIO if they pass one or more "inclusion criteria" (though other arguments can be brought forward to delete an article).  AvB ÷ talk 13:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

2.) small-magazines are for writers more like what journals are for academics (see: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics) than like the journals envisioned in WP:BIO

It's probably me, but I keep reading this as an argument for Keep voters :-O  AvB ÷ talk 13:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion of academics, it's suggested that publication in academic journals, and I think so-called small magazines are similar, is NOT evidence of notability, because of the publish or perish neccesity mutatis mutandis publishing in small magazines is important for "being a real writer" and getting the creative-writing equivalents of professorships (sometimes actually professorships). So more than just the publication in journals, the argument is that professors should be more than the average professor and not just published in a,b,c.--Samuel J. Howard 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains it. We simply have somewhat different expectations of the outcome of the discussion of this proposed guideline. But I think your point will be difficult to defend as long as the guideline has not reached consensus and I'm also not sure it is consistent with the 5,000 cutoff point (WP:BIO). AvB ÷ talk 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

4.)The previous finalists who seem to have articles in wikipedia have other claims for notability Frank Wu's article says he won a Hugo award, Sean Williams is a New York Times Bestseller List author, Mary Turzillo won a Nebula Award, and Dave Wolverton's case is less clear, but it seems he's won and now judges the Writers of the Future award and his article alleges he holds a (minor) world record.

--Samuel J. Howard 06:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wolverton's had novels published by Tor Books, a major mass market publisher. Clear-cut notability. Monicasdude 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that just wasn't clear to me from a quick examination of the article. Note that this would, IMO, militate against the notability of Cochran, since Wolverton's notability is established apart from this contest finalist status--Samuel J. Howard 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Some great edits have been made, but I think the case for notability is weaker than it was when this was first listed. We can't find a precedent for award finalists and he's self-published. This all came up after the original listing on AfD, and some of the original Keep votes were made under the assumption he won those awards and he was truly 'published.' If any are still paying attention to this, coming in and reevaluating might be helpful in getting this wrapped up. -Will 23:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I detect a pattern here: [28] He is anonymously editing himself spuriously into other articles where his own relevance is dubious at best. Cleaning up that mess now. Will 00:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Seen it too. He placed himself above Pulitzer winners on the list of alumni of his alma mater as an 'award-winning novelist' (we have established he hasn't actually won any awards). He has gone so far as to denigrate esteemed authors (e.g. Philip K. Dick) with completely unfounded comparisons to himself. Ipsenaut 00:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• He[29] is deleting the spam paragraph:

In November 2004, Cochran won the ire of writers worldwide when he sent private messages to thousands of NaNoWriMo participants, on the NaNoWriMo forum, pleading to place spurious reservations for his books at booksellers so he would be assured a sum of money per reservation. [30]

He produced a new justification for each time he reverted it. I'm not going to push myself over 3RR with this, but if he feels there's a problem, he needs to put up a factual accuracy boilerplate instead of deleting arbitrary paragraphs. Will 00:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. At this point, I see nothing left in the entry that is questionable, and his short fiction publications meet the eligibility criteria regardless of whether or not his novels are self-published. I am a new user on Wikipedia and wondered how information was monitored. Now I know, and I'm glad to see that the article has been cleaned up. I believe he is notable, however, and the article should remain. --jlgssk 09:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have reason to believe the above is a sock puppet account created by the estimable Mr. Cochran, or else someone affiliated with him. Is it typical for new users-- who coincedentally teach writing and research in a college-- to start off their Wikipedia careers with obscure AfD discussion pages, and make no other edits? Ipsenaut 16:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

jlgssk, see WP:AFD: "Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)."  AvB ÷ talk 16:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for me, I am actually a real user, not Mr. Cochran. I'm obviously not very good at this. I've followed this discussion for awhile (and the discussion on NaNoWriMo in Nov. 2004 because my students sometimes participate in it). The constant NaNoWriMo references seem to violate NPOV, and the article with the bare facts simply didn't seem inappropriate anymore. And AvB, thanks for the link. I'm learning the rules as quickly as I can, but there's a big learning curve. I'll keep my comments to a minimum. --Susan,jlgssk 17:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Something is rotten in the state of Wikipedia: All of jlgssk's contributions show up under 'recent contributions' for 12.214.7.234 [31], the IP address that Cochran has been using to edit himself into other articles, as well as create the Stacey Cochran article. (S?)he is lying; this user is not a separate one from Mr. Cochran. If an admin can sort this mess out, I would be much obliged. -Will 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is getting absurd. He changed his name in the above post from 'John G' to 'Susan.' [32] We all forget things occasionally, but I think this is adequate evidence of shenanigans. -Will 20:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Well spotted Will. Sock puppet hadn't signed in so got caught red-handed. Can be added to the article as another example of "harebrained schemes". jlgssk's Keep vote should be disregarded. AvB ÷ talk 23:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Susan's my wife. Her vote should be disregarded. You can't imagine how much trouble this has caused her and I today. Please delete the article. Stacey12.214.7.234 00:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe you and retract the "sock puppet" designation. Most other Wikipedians will, however, view Susan as your straw man now... Anyway, the AfD now has to run its course and outright deletion is not possible. But even Adam Curry's article isn't as harsh about his faux pas - it may well serve as the template for moderating the language about your perceived misdeeds later on, should the article be kept. AvB ÷ talk 11:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, seems notable enough, despite hairbrained schemes. --King of All the Franks 17:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure vanity: vanity article, vanity edits, and vanity publications. --Calton | Talk 07:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Note that he never actually won any of the awards cited, he was only a finalist. All of his books are published by a 'vanity press' publisher. The subtext here is that he couldn't find a regular publisher to take him on. Atrian 04:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goyle Sr.

An incoherent vanity page?

• comment it's a page about a character from the harry potter series. lord Voldemort is the main bad guy in the series. The question is whether characters from HP are notable.--Bachrach44 02:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Death Eater and possibly to Minor Dark wizards in Harry Potter. There is no reason to have this as a standalone article.-Mr Adequate 02:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to "Death Eater". No content to merge to "Minor Dark Wizards", and if more content comes to light, the redirect can be altered or undone completely at a later date. -- Saberwyn 05:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Death Eater. He's a deatheater first and formemost. Yes, Harry Potter characters can be notable, but there's extremely little to tell about this one, so he belongs in a list of minor characters of some sort. Like a list of Death eaters. Even the Harry Potter lexicon has no first name and just two lines of info on the guy. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• fictional stubs should be Merged -- Astrokey44|talk 23:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to G-man (slang). Mailer Diablo 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G-Men(Slang)

was on CSD, thought AFD would suit better-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. Rory096 01:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep . This phrase has not been a neologism since the 1920s. There is enough intrinsic value in this term for it to not be a redirect. Just watch any gangster movie, like The Untouchables. If anything, this article should be tagged with expansion. Given time, this could develop into a decent article that isn't a stub. It should be moved, however, to G-Men or G-men (mob slang).Youngamerican 02:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known term as shown by the 1930's film of the same name. Capitalistroadster 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to G-Man (or vice versa). Crypticfirefly 05:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to G-Man. Royboycrashfan 05:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to G-Man. Ikkyu2 05:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

*Redirect to G-men.  (aeropagitica)  06:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to G-man (slang) as per Mgm comments.  (aeropagitica)  15:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to G-man (slang). This title needs to follow naming conventions. The redirect target suggested above is a disambiguation page which should refer to other pages, not include large sections of info. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to G-Man (slang) per Mgm. Crypticfirefly 13:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to G-Man. Very common term in the U.S. Raggaga 12:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to G-Man (slang) per Mgm. Royboycrashfan 16:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Slang. No useful content. JFW | T@lk 17:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef, already exists on Wiktionary. ←Hob 21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to G-Man (Half-Life) cause it's all about the G-man. Or whatever the others wanted redirecting to if we're gonna be all serious. Cyde Weys 05:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix 14:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of illbient musicians

Appears to be a list created just for the sake of having such a list, and/or of interest to very few people. In other words, it is listcruft. Stifle 11:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. If we're going to delete this one then we'd have to delete every single list in List of musicians because this list is no more or less significant than the others. Feel free to raise this as a general discussion, but let's not just delete one randomly selected item out of many. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 15:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Much better served by a category. This is hardly a "random selection", George, considering this list has about three items. (Though I do support transforming all the musician lists into categories. What better place to start?) StarryEyes 16:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, textbook category situation. Although I have to admit having to vote on this article taught me what 'illbient' meant. Thanks, article! Lord Bob 17:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, musicians (and everybody else) can be categorised using categories (its what they're for). Lists are not needed. ::Supergolden:: 17:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with category. Royboycrashfan 19:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Lists and Categories are both useful in different ways. Jcuk 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Lists are extremely useful because they indicate which musicians do and don't have articles yet (presuming they meet WP:NMG of course). Capitalistroadster 00:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've added a handful more. Some of them are redlinks, so they can't be part of the suggested category. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Illbient which seems to be a pretty small article and maybe a list would give a better sense of what kind of music it means.--T. Anthony 04:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep , I guess. I've never heard of "illbient" music before but I guess it sounds like something I'd like. Cyde Weys 06:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. Lists and categories are NOT mutually exclusive and lists can contain info categories can't. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Illbient as per T. Anthony. Several of the musicians listed don't really belong here anyway. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of schools in Thailand

Apart from being redundant since categories already exist, this list will never be complete, and gives a false impression of noted Thai schools. Paul C 17:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Not redundant as it contains a red link. Can be annotated. Can be organised differently from the category. Expand and make any comments you think are necessary for context. Merchbow 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Merchbow. Kusonaga 21:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above Jcuk 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in China -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That was speedy deleted for containing just one entry which has no bearing on this particular list. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep categories do NOT make lists obsolete as lists can be organized in several ways while categories are always alphabetical. Lists can be annotated, categories can't. Lists and categories serve similar, but different functions. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mgm. Kappa 22:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The China discussion (which I voted to delete) is of little relevance here. Silensor 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -ase

Is a dictionary definition Meandmyself 17:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Any argument that applies to -ase should apply equally to -ane, -ene, -oic acid, -ol, -one, -yl, and -yne. (See Category:Chemical nomenclature) --M@rēino 17:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Useful chemistry content. bikeable (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or else we'll have to delete these. Bhumiya 19:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Bhumiya Jcuk 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, fatten up. BD2412 T 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per precedent from the category cited by Mareino. I'm a layman, and -ase is the bio-chem suffix I know best, except maybe -ose. If not expanded to show how important this is in biochemistry, then maybe just make it a redirect to Enzyme, as it's a quite plausible search term. Is a leading hyphen considered inappropriate for an article-space title? I note that it was a working article link. Barno 00:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to their appropriate chemical articles. -ane to alkane, -ol to alcohol, etc. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • E.g. if I redirect -ane to alkane, the information about what "-ane" means will be buried among a mass of other matter, since it is impossible to make a redirect go to a specific paragraph. Anthony Appleyard 07:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, following re-write. BD2412 T 19:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of UML tools

Delete Redundant to Category:UML tools; WP is not a list of links Karnesky 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have tried to clean up the list by slashing & burning non-notable links. I'm a little more happy with it--enough to withdraw my Delete vote. Not so happy to actually vote keep, though (I think it should just be a cat, but it is no longer the least maintained software list). --Karnesky 16:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per all above.Keep after removal of external links, per arguments below that the category and list would serve different purposes; i.e., the list would point to relevant articles that have yet to be created. --Kinu 00:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)); updated Kinu 18:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Royboycrashfan 00:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Keep, but remove external links. Royboycrashfan 09:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

* Delete per nom. Avi 01:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep if linkspam can be removed. -- Avi 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete linkspam Ruby 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ruby, the above can be parsed two different ways: 1) "Delete the article because it is linkspam", or 2) "Delete that portion of the article which is linkspam". I'm guessing you intended the first, but could you please clarify your intentions? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep If you delete this, the content will appear inside UML Tool. This also adds more information that the category as it allow for a brief description of the tool. It's also somethign that is useful. Mjchonoles 05:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as linkspam.Blnguyen 05:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Blnguyen 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but eliminate the external links. There's nothing wrong with list articles. Melchoir 08:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree, Keep but eliminate the external links. JIP | Talk 09:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, list has added explanation which cannot be included in a category. Lists and categories serve different purposes and therefore cannot make one another redundant. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. If you delete this, there will be a great pressure to create a separate article for every entry. If you delete this and this gets through, please consider deleting all articles in Category:Lists of software too (for example List of wiki software). As per the "link spam": If it helps to overturn the delete request, I would propose to remove the external links on those entries that do have an article. But please note that then that should be done on all articles in Category:Lists of software as well (please note that on several software articles there has been no consensus to do so in the past). Please also note that these kinds of lists previously resided in their respective article (For example I split off List of Petri net tools from Petri net. The question is, will this be moved to Petri net back then?). This here will be a precedent. So I would recommend to take due care on this. Thank you for your careful consideration. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note There is sufficient debate not to have a "speedy" keep. I think that any notability should be prerequisite for list inclusion in lists such as this, so several stubs wouldn't be a bad outcome to this: they would provide an instant test over whether a product was useful or just more link spam. I have started cleaning up the lists that are in Category:Lists of software, including List of wiki software (partly by rming external links and non-notable products). But one list at a time! Some of the articles in the wiki list need to be stubbed. List of UML tools is my most controversial List AfD, but it also has:
  • one of the highest level of link spam
  • so many programs which are non-notable
  • very little effort to clean it up and keep it clean has been made (people have even thwarted past efforts to remove the external link cruft)
  • an unmaintainable (or at least unmaintained) breadth of focus (see discussion page on last question of AfD)
  • the category includes all of the programs in the list and some which aren't in the list
• List of Petri net tools does need a clean-up, but people have been making efforts to do so. I haven't yet touched it. Again: One list at a time. There's no reason to move these lists back to the original articles. But that's not an excuse to keep poor lists. Categories should be used when they can provide enough information. Lists should be kept to the same standard as if they were kept in the original article. This list hasn't been kept to that standard; the link spam is just terrible.

--Karnesky 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"one of the highest level of link spam" do you really talk about List of UML tools?? "an unmaintainable (or at least unmaintained) breadth of focus (see discussion page on last question of AfD)" there was nearly zero discussion about deleting List of UML tools. "very little effort to clean it up" - whoops?? how that. As you can see I have kept that list quite clean without much discourse among contributors. I'm really asking are you really talking about List of UML tools? Puzzled. --Adrian Buehlmann 15:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way: I've had that List of UML tools on my radar (watchlist) since ever. But I'havent read anything about your concerns on the talk there. --Adrian Buehlmann 16:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

46 external links when only 17 articles are in wikipedia. Even rming external links for blue links, this is 29 external links & 17 internal ones. Since notability should be a criteria for inclusion in the list, a list shouldn't have more external links than internal ones. If you can clean up the list & it is useful beyond the category, I'll gladly change my vote. Right now it is more spam than not. --Karnesky 16:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The elinks for softwares that have an article can be removed. No problem. What I see a problem is, with "non-notable". Who decides that? I can tell you: this is very slippery ground, especially for such a low edit traffic article as this is. If you remove a certain product, the contributor can be very upset if you have not a clear concept what goes on the list and what doesn't. They will quickly create articles. I don't think this is very helpful. --Adrian Buehlmann 16:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The external links for blue linked software should go. At least some of the external links in the External links section should go. Notability should be dictated by Wikipedia:Notability_(software). This is one reason why I'm in favor of a cat, rather than a list: the notability of every tool (article) would be tested through an established procedure, rather than turning to a spam-filled list. If a tool doesn't warrant a stub article, it doesn't warrant inclusion in a list. Contributors should not be upset by any bold removal--they can create stubs or argue notability. Without this figure of merit, my vote will stay delete--the list would be uncomprehensive and unmaintainable. -- Karnesky 17:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As you can imagine, I disagree with Wikipedia:Notability (software). BTW, it has only proposal status. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, not listcruft. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The list is valuable. The cat doesn't really replace the list; even the redlinks (which wouldn't show up in the cat) have value, since they point out tools which don't (yet) have wikipedia articles. The list is a valuable resource for people looking for UML tools, let's not destroy that in some quest for wiki-purity. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I look a little time and started looking closer as some of the redlink entries. Take GNU Ferret, for example. Looking at the Ferret web site, there's really nothing that deserves an article of its own. It's a work in progress, and statistically, most projects at Ferret's level of development are doomed to wither and die. It certainly doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (software), for whatever that's worth. But, as one example in a list surveying the field, it certainly deserves a mention. I could write a GNU Ferret stub, which would certainly improve the blue/red ratio, but it would be making a wp:point for no good reason. As time goes on, some of the red links will turn blue, and new entries (of one color or another) will get added. I don't see anything bad about that -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but prune. I agree with Karnesky, external links for which there is a wikilink should go. But I think accusations of linkspam are going too far: a good faith effort to maintain a useful list—even if you think it's not a useful list—is not spam. —rodii 03:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a list that is redundant to a category, an invitation to create a load more articles on nn software, and a list that is of interest to only a limited number of people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 11:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories don't make lists redundant. With lists we can do things we cannot do with categories, like adding annotations or sorting non-alphabetically to name just a few. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Lists and Categories absolutely do NOT make each other redundent, and who cares how many people its of interest to, I thought this was an encyclopaedia, not a popularity contest! Jcuk 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per above --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep great list Tim | meep in my general direction 23:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Ashman

Non-notable as written Avi 01:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Royboycrashfan 01:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, he's an international cricket umpire - notable enough. QazPlm 01:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ruby 01:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per QazPlm. Staffelde 01:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. International umpire and first-class cricketer see Cricinfo [33]. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per QazPlm. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 02:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Test umpire who did 14 tests. Dr Debug (Talk) 02:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Really pushing the boundaries of notability here chaps... IMO Test Umpires are not inherently notable, unless e.g. seriously prolific to the point of record breaking (like 100+ tests) or famed for their character / personality. No problem with an article about Dickie Bird, for example... I don't envisage a significant, seriously informative expansion to this in the future so I'm going with delete. ++Deiz 03:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Per others. Dead 40 years and still listed on several cricket web sites. Notable enough for a non-paper encyclopedia.
  — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]
• Keep. If he'd played 6 games for the Boston Braves, then become a baseball umpire this wouldn't be up for deletion. Monicasdude 04:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes it goddamn well would. Not all of us are monosyllabic Americans with beer helmets. Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 06:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please avoid ad hominem attacks and remain WP:CIVIL during AFD discussions. Hall Monitor 18:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Perhaps there is nothing particularly special about this umpire, but he is a lot more notable than other sporting figures.Blnguyen 05:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. At the least, he was a professional (test-level) athlete in his sport. --Kinu 06:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, he played cricket (professional sportsman) and he was an umpire in several international test cricket matches (major sporting event) which is similar to being an umpire during Wimbledon for tennis or the Superbowl for our American friends. Certainly notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since I am prepared to extend the definition of competing in top-level sport per WP:BLP to include umpiring test matches, even if he hadn't had a prior career at the top level; I'm not completely convinced that playing for Orange Free State qualifies there. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep sports geeks worldwide need information like this RatherConfused 11:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep International cricket umpire. --kingboyk 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Our job is not to decide whether we think umpires are notable, but whether this particular umpire is considered notable by third-party sources. The answer would seem to be yes, so keep. Turnstep 15:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments. Seems to be notable enough for a comprehensive non-paper encyclopedia. - N (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this international cricket umpire is worthy of note. Hall Monitor 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I have added reference from Cricinfo.com. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of accounting software

Delete Redundant to Category:Accounting software Karnesky 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: we also have a comparison of accounting software. (unsigned comment by JzG)

Redirect to comparison of accounting software. I've already merged the few unique programs from this list to the comparison. I don't see any reason to keep this list now!--Karnesky 21:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Change to keep per Nelson Ricardo's comment. Royboycrashfan 01:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Categories are inadequate. They cannot hold red links for future articles, for example. If the aerticle is voted for deletion, then the deleter must ensure the list is copied back to the main accounting software article. --Nelson Ricardo 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they can; include the red links in the commentary section of the category page. It just is not common. As for me, delete - Skysmith 12:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note There are no red links in this list. Furthermore, I've added the appropriate cat tag to all articles in the list. If, in the future, people want to request articles on accounting software, there are already mechanisms to do this without using this list. -- Karnesky 01:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Tricky, page has been around a while with plenty of activity but Wikipedia articles are not just lists of links, internal or external (WP:NOT 1.5.2). On that basis this is delete as (re: Karnesky) the info can and should be found elsewhere. ++Deiz 02:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Rather than having a red link in an obscure list, it would be better to simply create a stub article on any program to be added to the category and let it be fleshed out later. Stubs are much more encyclopedic than red links.
  — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ]
• Delete since that's what categories are here for. -- 9cds^(talk) 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As long as we're citing wp:not, "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." This list article has structure not reflected in the corresponding category. There is no policy or consensus against having a list and a category with the same scope. I don't understand the reasoning on this AfD at all.Melchoir 08:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note. I agree that lists can be fine. I made no complaints about lists of links in the AfD. However, the only "stucture" this list lends is in licensing. So why not create two subcats to the main category accounting software? The reason for this AfD is that the cats are more maintainable than this list & the list, itself, adds very little (licensing). --Karnesky 08:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be harmful to sub-split a category with only 34 articles. This list page is the only way to have all the items on one page, yet still sorted. Okay, so it currently sucks. It could use further breakdown by purpose, or maybe a short description of every item. It can be improved. Melchoir 08:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Why would it be harmful? I actually think having a cat of Free accounting software would be useful, as it could be cross-listed under the Free software cat. -- Karnesky 08:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Because there would no longer be a single place where you could see all the items. One of the purposes of a category is to guide the reader between its articles. Splitting it would make it less efficient. Melchoir 08:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The reason categories exist... ComputerJoe 08:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a harmless list article. JIP | Talk 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. (changed vote, see below) Categories don't make lists obsolete. Lists allow for organization which differs from alphabetical order and annotation which categories can't. Needs some explanatory info added, but otherwise okay list. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Can I interest Sir in a comparison of accounting software, one careful owner, only slightly shopsoiled? ;-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, merge and redirect to comparison of accounting software. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as written, redundant per category, will change to keep if some encyclopaedic information is added (e.g. modules available, whether it's tax accounting or small business book-keeping or whatever) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• MgM says merge and redirect - following a long tradition, I agree with mgm :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 16:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Yes, lists add information categories cannot. In this case, I do not think that a list is necessary. Lord Bob 18:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Ouuplas 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a list which provides information the category cannot, together with the category, is more beneficial than the category alone. --bainer (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Feel free to create one, then - this list does not contain anythign a category can't. I'd change my vote if it did (and by that I do not mean redlinks). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant to category. I do not see what information that a category doesn't provide. If you want to make the division between free and proprietary, use subcategories. There is no information on this page that couldn't be put on a category page. Stifle 11:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Lists and categories are complementary, not competitive. Seems like a useful, verifiable list with a well-defined criteria. Turnstep 15:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it seems like it until you compare it with comparison of accounting software which is massively more useful and contains encyclopaedic content as well as the links which would be provided by a category :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, that's a good point - the two lists are certainly competing, aren't they? Since one is a beefed-up version of the other, I'll switch to merge duplicated information (if any) and delete. Turnstep 12:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Good arguments on both sides. Currently, this list is more flexible than the comparison table, and (perhaps not a coincidence) there is now another red link on the page. However, the list is essentially duplicated by the comparison table. Suggest the comparison table article doubles as the list article. If necessary to have items which are not within the table, these can be in a separate section. Slowmover 17:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note that the redlink was for Peachtree Software, which did have an article. --Karnesky 18:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep this crap. Ifnord 21:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crap

There is already an entry on Wiktionary for crap. This article has been and remains marked as Move to Wiktionary. If it is already on Wiktionary than it should be deleted from here in favor of the Wiktionary entry. Further, I do not see that this article is anymore than an elaborate dictdef as was purported when the prod tag was removed. James084 01:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Although some may be offended by this article, wikipedias goal is to have an article an anything useful. i used this to see if my my girlfriend loved me (dont ask)
• Keep. There is a section at the bottom that can be used as a dis-ambiguation page for the uses of the word. Georgia guy 01:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Royboycrashfan 01:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasonable article especially with dab aspects. Move to Wiktionary tag removed. Capitalistroadster 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete DicDef, not enough crap there for a full-up encyclopedia article Ruby 01:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, crap. (Sorry, I've always wanted to type that on AfD.) Change to disambiguation page, agreeing with Georgia guy. The rest is properly Wiktionary content, not Wikipedia. Barno 01:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This dicdef is a piece of... garbage. And don't you dare insult Thomas Crapper!!! --M@thwiz2020 02:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Change bottom section of article to disambiguation page and delete the rest of crap. --FloNight 02:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Disambig or redirect to feces. Peyna 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to feces. -Jetman123 02:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Disambig; its a dictionary def --Bletch 03:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per Flonight. Mike _{(T C)} 04:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it does not look just as a dictionary entry --Angelo 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is more than a dicDef. Particularly the information dispelling the myth that it derives from Thomas Crapper. Paul August ☎ 04:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Disambiguation possibilities are stretching (since none of them are actually the word "crap". Fagstein 04:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep interesting article. I learnt something new today! Jcuk 09:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I meant keep, of course, per the very good Paul August. ENCEPHALON 10:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Paul August. Not all the useful information is in Wiktionary, nor should it be. The Etymology and myth dispelling is encyclopedic Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's a common word and if deleted it will be recreated. Elfguy 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per above ComputerJoe 14:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this crap and have a disambig and link to wikt. instead. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. Neither wiktionary nor disambiguation are appropriate if either mean the loss of information. Smerdis of Tlön 16:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is an extended dictionary entry and WP:NOT and all that. Mikkerpikker ... 17:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is a very common word. If the article is deleted, it will likely be created again. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. Ibn Abihi 18:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this necessary crap. It is a very common word, likely to be recreated. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 19:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this is not a dictionary definition really Yuckfoo 19:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete disambig page would get absurd....per nom not an encylopedic entryAnlace 22:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Disambig this should be nothing more than a page linking to other approprate pages... all other content is in Wiktionary... Nick Catalano (Talk) 23:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Topic is encyclopedic, and article is more than a dicdef. --Allen 00:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep based on the precedent of Shit. If etymological discussions of dirty words is encyclopedic as retention of the cited article indicates, then certainly crap should stay as well. Carlossuarez46 00:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The discussion is encyclopedic, not lexicographic, in tone and scope. Ikkyu2 02:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Carlossuarez46. Forbsey 05:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Shamed keep - it is an encyclopedic topic too, and it can be expanded upon.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 14:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep there's encyclopedic information about the word too. Car salesman 14:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete per norm. 3H 05:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this article is way more than a dicdef. Turnstep 01:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep according to precedents with articles like fuck and shit. If they can exist, "crap" certainly can. - furrykef (Talk at me) 06:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 21:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King levitation

At Ellusionist.com you have to BUY this. You have to PAY money to know the secret. Its terrible that people can search this site for the secret, while others pay their hard earned money. CrazedNakedFooll 01:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep It may not be that encyclopedic but I think it can be improved to be of encyclopedic quality. The nominee's reason is invalid, though. --M@thwiz2020 02:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. For those who are interested, there is a very extensive discussion of the pros and cons of publishing the "secrets" to magic tricks at Talk:Out of This World (card trick). This is a minor twist on the so-called Balducci levitation, and might be comfortably merged there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• I would not call this a "minor twist" on the Balducci. I can understand how a layperson comparing the two methods in a few minutes might be led to that conclusion. But consider creating your own levitation illusion from scratch. It took Corey King more than a year to develop this "minor twist."Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Reason invalid. But, if you come up with a better reason, I'll change my vote.--Muchosucko 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete or merge two sentences to Balducci levitation, advertisement for commercial website. Google search shows this is real, but I question its notability (separate from the intellectual-property issue). Frankly, if I paid a dollar (let alone $19.95 or more as the website offers) and someone taught me this supposed "magic trick", I'd ask for my money back and contact the Federal Trade Commission. Barno 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Generally only magicians think that this trick is worth paying that much for. This is partly why magic tricks are SOLD. Magicians normally feel that only people who respect magic as an art form should know magic secrets. People who do respect magic will pay for an effect, where as a layperson won't, thereby restricting the secret to someone who truly has use for it.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Muchosucko. Royboycrashfan 02:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This has been done to death. Kuru 02:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Redirect back to where it was pointing before. It's obviously NOT a secret, or it wouldn't be so widely published. Peyna 03:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So should be publish all magic secrets, just because people can't keep their mouths should and share the secrets? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs).

WP should publish everything that is verifiable and encyclopedic. Peyna 13:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not verifiable without buying the product. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Many of the magic articles here on WP (including this one) seem to be used for the explicit purpose of exposing the secret of an effect. Exposing magic secrets is not encyclopedic. However, I believe that if the articles can be improved to reflect all aspects of the effect (author, effect, comparison, history, and method), it may justify keeping them.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Ardenn 04:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak weak Delete I have to think that somehow this could come back to haunt us. Despite how basic the trick seems, it was some magicans hard work/"trade secret", and we're basically stealing it by posting it here. Mike _{(T C)} 04:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to reiterate; something cannot be a "trade secret" if it is not a secret. This is not a secret, because it has been published. Peyna 04:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless. --Aaron 04:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete- I don't care about the fact that money is being charged for this, I just don't feel that it's worth an article. Reyk 06:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's delete-worthy but not with that rationale. Try again. --Agamemnon2 07:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• If you think it should be deleted, vote delete. Other rationale has been presented by other contributors, and there is no reason to let a bad article survive due to a technicality. Reyk 07:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, second choice: merge as Balducci variation if kept, just because someone puts it up on the net doesn't mean it was legal to do so. Maybe it's not a "trade secret", but it's certainly someone's interlectual property. In Dutch, this would be called "inkomstenderving", an action that prevents someone from getting paid for their product which, as far as I know, is illegal. Besides, it's not as widely known as the Balducci levitation, the cups and balls or the floating lady. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

IP rights are granted by the government in the forms of trade secret, patent and copyright (in the US, where Wikipedia is located and where ellusionist.com is located. Trade secret protection doesn't fly here, because it's not a secret. It hasn't been patented, so there's no rights there, and copyright only applies to a particular expression of an idea, which is not the case here. Wikipedia is under no threat of legal action for posting this page. Peyna 13:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as long as the secret is revealed, as it currently is, then it's worth keeping, and followed the "all information wants to be free" motto. Some people keep reverting it to try to hide the information and that shouldn't be allowed. Remember if we delete it we do these people a service since the secret will be lost. Elfguy 14:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand this reasoning. You're saying that this article only has value if the secret of the effect is revealed. This would suggest that nothing else related to the effect is important. Not the person who created the effect; not the facts of its development and history; not the place it is sold or the people who use it; and certainly nothing about how it fits into the history of magic levitations. Even if the page had all of that, if it didn't include the method it would be worthless? Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• keep. Good short article in the vein of our other magic articles. Knowing a secret is not hard work. Brighterorange 15:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong (�?喜�?�财) 15:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as scoring only 98 unique googles, but BJAODN the nomination :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The secrets of stage magicians, like the secrets of secret societies, are not anything Wikipedia should be censored to respect. Smerdis of Tlön 16:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Writing this article without respect for magicians makes the article biased (against magicians) and should not be allowed. I don't see any reason magic secrets should not be included on Wikipedia. However, I think there is a right way to give away secrets (with detailed information on other aspects of the effects), and a wrong way (with a brief introduction half the size of the explained secret).Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia is not censored for magicians. Dr Debug (Talk) 17:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What Agamemnon2 said --† Ðy§ep§ion † 19:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This trick was revealed on one of those "Secrets of Magic" shows on TV at least 3 years ago. I've been freaking kids out with it for years. I've never actually heard it called by this name, but David Blane and others have been doing it for years. I applaud Ellusionist.com's sense of capitalism, charging for a trick that is freely available online. Maybe people paying for it should take the time to do a little more research. Wikipedia isn't in the business of keeping illusionists' secrets, so the article should stay.--Isotope23 19:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A lot of companies make A LOT of money providing services to information which is freely available. Lexis Nexis and Westlaw have been very succesful at this. While we can't reprint their copyrighted contributions to that material, we certainly can publish all of the government works that are already public domain that they provide for a fee. It's the "other" services they offer that add the value (searching, ease of acces, support, indexing, etc). That said, I'm not sure what value Ellusionist.com adds to their products, other than neat packaging. Peyna 19:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, the product (variant trick) was there before people posted it to the net, so ellusionist isn't marking free information. The people posting it are ripping off a commericial product. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A ha! But, ideas are not copyrightable. Peyna 23:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note that this effect was not exposed years ago. The illusion Isotope23 referred to is called the Balducci levitation, which has in fact been exposed for much longer than 3 years. I learned the secret when I was a child from a children's television program over a decade ago (really). The King levitation however was developed just in the last few years, and has not be widely used or exposed. Whereas you can say the Balducci has been popularized by magicians like Blaine, you can say nothing of the sort about this levitation, which hasn't been around long enough to be widely publicized to the layperson.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Duly noted... Your latest rewrite makes clear the difference between Balducci and King's variant. Nice rewrite by the way.--Isotope23 21:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• 'keep please this is a important magic trick Yuckfoo 19:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep provided issues of verifiability are adequately resolved. The "money" issue is irrelevant; Amazon.com charges $4.95 for Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, while Project Gutenberg provides it free[34]. Encyclopedia Britannica charges money for information that can be obtained free in many places, notably Wikipedia. The local Blockbuster charges money for videos that can be checked out for free from our public library. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is certainly nothing secretive about this illusion. It's one of many ways to go about creating a levitation effect, and absolutely should included in the wikipedia. Stevemarks 00:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• All magic effects have an element of secrecy. They are not legally secrets, but they are known only by a limited number of people (mostly magicians). It is not a secret to any of you, simply because you all regularly read Wikipedia articles, and have read this article. Remember though that just because everyone in this community may know the secret to this effect doesn't mean that most people in the world know it. I doubt that even 1% of the population knows how this effect is done.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it seems notable and I agree with Peyna that the legal issue is phoney: want to know may square miles is Italy: buy an atlas for $20, subscribe to Britannica.com for whatever the price.... or...gosh, it's free on Wikipedia, and someone lost some money. Carlossuarez46 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as no valid reason for deletion provided. Stifle 09:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it can be improved upon, probably.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 14:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think I will take the initiative and improve it right know.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - The article lacks references, and the trick described is not noteworthy in the least. Kleg 01:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Remember that just because you don't have a particular interest in the effect doesn't mean no-one else does.Verdad 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - "you have to pay money to learn this somewhere else". Well then, I guess you'd have to delete almost the entire Wikipedia database, because you have to pay to get the same info from Encyclopedia Britannica. Free information is the whole point of this place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.100.60 (talk • contribs).
• Keep per DrDebug. Turnstep 01:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep Marskell 12:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gauri Shankar

Listed as non-notable person on CSD, but has article on chessbase and won national championships. Does need work though. Bringing it here, to see if I missed something. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable enough at all. -Jetman123 14:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Alright, after thinking about it, he's notable enough. I change my vote to keep. But can anyone verify these facts? -Jetman123

• I cleaned it up a bit, but I'm not sure about the subject's notability. No vote. ×Meegs 15:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A preteen who cracks the top 2000 in standard chess rankings is notable, especially given the British championship titles. Monicasdude 20:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough. Avi 21:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - winner of US speedchess for K-12 in 2003-04. This indicates that at age 11 or 12, he was competing at the level of the highest 16-18 yr olds in US.Blnguyen 00:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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