Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 26

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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; editorial decision taken to redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 09:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Detroit People Mover stations

I don't know what the purpose of this article is, given that the same material is also found at the Detroit People Mover article. Therefore, I believe this article redundant. Pentawing 20:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Meets speedy criteria Renata3 21:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant data from DPM HackJandy 06:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Detroit People Mover. Several transit systems have a "list of stations" article, so a redirect here might be useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect for the reasons cited by Sjakkalle. -Colin Kimbrell 20:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Sjakkalle. Stifle 23:23, 28 November 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coalition for a Humanistic Euro British Canada

Poorly-written profile of a racist nut group based off of a Tripod website (britishcanada.tripod.com). Firebug 01:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Update The creator of the article has now removed the AFD notice twice and accused me of 'vandalism' for placing it. Firebug 01:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• For God's sake, the group has been in existence since the late 90s and it has recently stirred controversy by advertising on Windsor's main Can-West newspaper Windsor Star. How is it just a "Tripod website"?? It has exerted influence throughout Ontario for years and you want to delete anything that brings public awareness to this nut group? I consider your ulterior motive laiden edits vandalism. Please just stop. Wikipedia has no place for people like you, who only destroy articles without making any positive contribution. Bestlyriccollection
• Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not for transforming non-notable "nut groups" into household names. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 01:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a minor nut group. It seems like the closest thing they have to a claim of notability is buying a one-time ad in the Vancouver Sun, calling for a return to "traditional British values." I'd be willing to change my vote if someone could show that they have some actual influence in Ontario. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it had stirred anything greater than a tempest in a teapot then we'd see the evidence on Google. Durova 05:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. the wub "?!" 16:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. I would avoid phrases like "nut group" because it's not the content (no matter how distasteful) we vote on but whether the topic belongs in an encyclopedia. Ifnord 16:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• No vote This link [1] describes the organisation as 'fictitious'. However it is also possible that this is the organisation (or person) which caused a nationwide news stir by placing an openly racist advert in the Windsor Star today. DJ Clayworth 01:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep: Fellow wikipedians, to delete an entry that explains what has been currently making headline in SW Ontario on the basis that it's a "tempest in a teapot" simply shows your dismissal of things of interest to Ontarians as trivial. Michael Chessman is definitely NOT a fictitious individual. Being one of East Indian heritage growing up in several British Commonwealth countries, his identifying with Anglo-centric racial and cultural prejudice could be a reaction to, or internalization/reproduction of the discrimination he has received. This coalition could also well be Chessman's ingenious parody of the all too common conservative cultural norm of SW Ontario. However, the Coalition is officially included within a list of several minor federal political parties. For no reason is it justified to delete a Wikipedia entry on even a minor mock Canadian political party like the Rhinoceros Party, likewise this one. Those who vote to delete this article are simply too Americanocentric to care about Canada, or are too patriotically Canadian to admit to anything that contradicts the official image of Canada as cosmopolitan, multicultural, liberal and progressive. First of all, lose your biases, and then judge your fellow wikipedians. Again, wikipedia is no place for people who destroy articles without well informed deliberation. Bestlyriccollection

• • It was only in the news because Michael Chessman took out newspaper advertisements for an "organization" that he later admitted was fictitious. He failed to pay for the newspaper advertisements. Durova 09:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Instead of tearing the whole article down, would you mind just including this piece of information into the newsworthy wiki article? Thanks.

[2]

• • • • I considered changing my vote. If this had been an actual organization with a small coterie of members, paid newspaper advertisements, and its own domain name then I'd vote differently. Am leaving the delete because it's an admitted self-promoting fraud by one individual. Durova 23:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or at least Redirect to Michael E. Chessman as he is the sole member of the "party". Homey 01:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• I'd support an article about the individual (I did have an "oh, gawd, that guy!" reaction as I read this), but not about the "group". Same reasoning as Homey. And since Homey and I are both residents of Toronto, our friend upthread can stow the allegations of anti-Canadian bias. Rewrite at Michael E. Chessman as a biographical profile. Bearcat 10:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if for no other reason than the creator removed the AFD notice. (and real reasons per Durova) Stifle 23:24, 28 November 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fanson

Neologism, and not a particularly innovative one. Perhaps merge with Hanson? --202.156.6.54 00:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't think enough content could be squeezed out for a merge. Barneyboo 00:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Perhaps a redirect only, but this is pretty weak. Every group has a cute name for its fans, and its fans inevitably come up with a cute name for themselves. It's barely worth a sentence in the article on the band, in most cases. Geogre 14:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn neologism. the wub "?!" 16:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nothing there of note.--MONGO 09:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into Hanson. Stifle 23:24, 28 November 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. I am so not into Pokémon I'm having a hard time understanding all of this, but it seems clear that the consensus is to merge all of the glitch articles ('M, Missingno. and 3trainerpoké, plus any others that I may not be aware of) into a single new article called something like Glitch Pokémon. All the individual article names should remain as redirects to that new article. I'll leave it to User:A Man In Black to do the actual merging, and just monitor the situation to make sure it happens, since I don't understand the subject well enough to perform the merge myself. --RoySmith 01:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'M

A mere glitch in the form of only 2 characters does not merit it's own article!

• Delete, or merge to a Nintendo-related article if prudent. Glitchcruft! --Nintendude 00:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• merge with either the Missingno article or merge both with a broader glitch-related article.--||bass 19:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Missingno., as it's actually the same glitch. This has been on my list of stuff to merge for a while now; I just haven't gotten around to it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If consensus holds that it is, in fact, the same glitch (and I'm not so sure), go ahead and merge with Missingno.. Don't delete, by any means, as the "glitch pokémon" are more notable than at least a third of the real ones. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 02:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Ouchy at the title, that is one horrible title for an article, but I say merge per A Man In Black. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per A Man In Black. -LichYoshi 09:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per A Man in Black. Failing that, keep it but cut it way down. Jacqui^★ 14:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Missingno, and get rid of all those stupid images every time its name is mentioned. Just refer to it as 'M for goodness sake. the wub "?!" 16:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Missingno.. Keep in mind that they aren't the same glitch. 'M evolves into Kangaskhan, whereas Missingno. doesn't. 'M also produces slightly different effects, while in transfer to other games, to Missingno. --Apostrophe 00:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Missingno. as suggested. I think the glitch Pokémons aren't really notable enough to have individual articles, while the topic itself is definitely valid; perhaps it would be just neat to merge them all into one big article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 02:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• It is highly unencyclopedic to have an article solely devoted to a single specific bug in a videogame. It screams of gamecruft. --||bass 03:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep
  1. If this "mere glitch" doesn't warrant its own article, then how come Missingno. and 3trainerpoké aren't nominated for deletion?
  • • A good question indeed. Consider them nominated for merger as well. Giving a distinct article to a single glitch in a single game is gamecruft at its worst. --||bass 05:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  1. There are differences between 'M, Missingno. and 3trainerpoké, per Apostrophe.
• However, if it should come to it, then merge the three into one single article, say, Glitch Pokémon. --JB Adder | Talk 05:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The above two points were made by the same author. --JB Adder | Talk 05:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I actually like the idea of the merger of all three into a single "Glitch Pokemon" article. Leaving the pages for any specific glitch pokemon as redirects to the general glitch pokemon page. --||bass 17:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - If the consensus is to close this article as merge, someone drop me a line and I'll take care of the merger (which will include 3trainerpoké). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Every Pokémon has an article, this is more notable than Wurmple, Spinda, and Cacnea put together. Keep. Stifle 23:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe that says more about every pokemon having an article then it does about giving an article to a relatively minor bug in a peice of game software. --||bass 16:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per A Man in Black. --InShaneee 21:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep very interesting. Zordrac 13:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• A Man in Black (an admin if some if you didn't know) is already planning to merge this and the other glitch articles into a single page.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arcane design group

Advertising spam for a non-notable web design group. Delete. See the version before I edited it. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-26 00:25:30Z

Note that the AfD notice was removed, and then the article was expanded. I initially just reverted the article, but I have now taken it back to the expanded version and just restored the notice. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-26 01:37:13Z

• Delete per nom. PJM 01:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Deltabeignet 01:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Deganom 02:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn advertising. - Pureblade | ^☼ 21:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete it already.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elix3r (talk • contribs)

• Speedy - author's vote is above Renata3 22:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete MONGO 09:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Stifle 23:30, 28 November 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 TRANSWIKI then DELETE. If anybody suggests transwiki, we might as well do it. -Splash^talk 23:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edumarketing

Neologism not in widespread use. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-26 00:36:49Z

• Delete per nom. PJM 01:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki: Actually, it is in widespread use (at least in the US and in US education), but this is a term that needs a definition, not an article topic that needs contextualizing, so transwiki to Wiktionary, if they don't have it. Geogre 14:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete MONGO 09:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki per Geogre. Stifle 23:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or at minimum Transwikify to wiktionary. I think its more than just a dic def tho. Zordrac 13:17, 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of international travel guides and web sites

Delete article which is almost entirely a list of external spamlinks. Mindmatrix 00:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per spam. JHMM13 08:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Inherently uncomprehensive. Wikipedia is not a web guide, and for this article to be comprehensive, it would have to be longer than our longest Featured Articles, and then it would be instantly out of date. Geogre 14:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Whether the second and means List of International web sites or List of web sites, this list is nonsense. -- Perfecto  01:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I thought Wikipedia is supposed to be about keeping useful information, and althrough this topic certainly could use more maintenance, such as organizing it by region, I have it on my watchlist and monitor it to make sure the links are valid and not spam. This information is useful to travellers who need information for planning their trips. Please do not delete it. --Gohiking 16:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Gohiking, the Open Directory Project is more suited to what you say you do for this topic. Wikispam is using a wiki to promote a site or product — that's what's in this page. Regards,  Perfecto  01:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a webdirectory. Stifle 23:31, 28 November 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Foxtail comics

Very unnoteworthy webcomic. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-26 00:53:54Z

• Delete per nom. PJM 01:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Pureblade | ^☼ 21:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Stifle 23:31, 28 November 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 delete --RoySmith 01:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tallywhacker

A slang dicdef. --218.212.99.216 00:54, 26 November 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× ☎ 23:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shanna Compton

I don't think one obscure publication of poems last month constitutes fame. --JHMM13 01:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup mainly Wikify. Published one book, edited another as well as a literary journal. Over 80,000 Google hits for Shanna Compton with first pages being about her see [3]. Three returns on Google books see [4].

Six Google scholar results as well see [5]. Capitalistroadster 01:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep, per Capitalistroadster. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've done a liitle tidying Dlyons493 Talk 12:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: A small press publication and local readings are all I see. The fact that she writes about gamez seems to be why she's getting an article. There are hundreds of poets who have no article on Wikipedia, and I don't see her as being among the ranks of notable poets yet. (I.e. a person can't just be a member of a class, but must be outstanding among that class, so the average professor is not notable, and the average poet isn't notable, and the average nuclear engineer isn't notable, etc.) Geogre 14:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. per Geogre. Logophile 14:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete per above. Renata3 22:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It's not true that "a person can't just be a member of a class, but must be outstanding among that class"; many classes of people admit all their members into Wikipedia. Presidents, for example. While published poets is not a class where all members of are automatically eligible, it's much more common than, say, the category of bums. "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" is the standard at WP:BIO, and I think she's probably passed that line.--Prosfilaes 09:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While they may be small presses, neither Winnow Press nor Soft Skull appear to be vanity presses. Her books are listed on both B&N and Amazon (though B&N has her poem collection as used only). She appears to meet the criteria of WP:BIO as best as can be determined without access to hard sells numbers. -- JLaTondre 17:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It looks like the majority of her work was within the last few years -- however that is more than the original AFD entry claims. Book entries on Google did it for me though. HackJandy 06:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Just notable enough for me. -Colin Kimbrell 20:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per Geogre. Stifle 23:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable. Zordrac 13:15, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snowflakes.exe

Hoax article, does not provide references and makes claims like 'no antivirus program can find it', an immediate red flag. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Google search shows a screensaver by this name but no virus. Looks like an attempt to promote a forum. Gimboid13 02:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Unencylopedic, bogus virus warning (mixed with spam). Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - definite adolescent hoax, slogan of site (spam) linked to simply reinforces fact that this is a load of bull. Fourohfour 13:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. the wub "?!" 16:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete childish. MONGO 09:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Stifle 23:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• It's not a hoax, it ran on my computer. There were no resources available to me to let me know that this was a malicious program, and I was hoping other people would be able to know that it is. I don't have any references because I myself am the only reference I could find. This is a knowledge base, and I'm providing new knowledge... the people who put the link to ytmnd in are not me. 10:18am November 30, 2005 (Previous unsigned comment from User: 192.216.228.178)
  • This isn't the place for original research. If your claim has been analysed and verified by a reputable source, it might warrant inclusion. Still think this is a blatant hoax though. :) Fourohfour 20:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well if you think it's a hoax download the file and run it on your computer. Some idiot put the link to the actual file on the page--you can find it in the history. What kind of source is more reputable than my own monitor blanking out in front of me? I've put up "new knowledge" on wikipedia in the past and nobody complained. brentonboy 8:36pm, 30 November 2005
    • Could you please refer us to specific examples of 'new knowledge' you've put into Wikipedia in the past? Any articles you can point us towards would be very helpful so we can go and perform the necessary edits. With your newfound understanding of WP:NOR, I know we can count on you to avoid more original research in the future. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless there's a virus warning out there with this name on it. Go to an anti-virus forum if you are worried, not to wikipedia. Zordrac 13:14, 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 redirect into College of Saint Elizabeth --RoySmith 01:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lizzy the Eagle

Non-notable Nv8200p talk 02:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with College of Saint Elizabeth. Gimboid13 02:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with College of Saint Elizabeth. CanadianCaesar 02:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with College of Saint Elizabeth in the Mascot section. Capitalistroadster 02:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - note consensus. Zordrac 13:12, 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: Speedily deleted by Fredrik. - Mike Rosoft 09:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Super Mario 64/Gallery

Wikipedia is not an image gallery. These are all fair-use images, being used without commentary. Most of them are already in Super Mario 64 (which has a dozen images as it is), so this gallery isn't even needed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedied. Was created because Super Mario 64 was (and remains) overloaded with images used for decorative rather than informative purposes, but the better solution is to delete the redundant images outright. Fredrik | tc 02:23, 26 November 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(^{watz sup}) 23:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Australian sentiment

No substantiative evidence that such a sentiment actually exists Jackk 02:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment this article survived this previous deletion debate.--cj | talk 03:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 03:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cleanup, verify and possibly NPOv. Definite sentiment with Osama Bin Laden having a long entrenched anti-Australian attitude as did Dr Mahathir Mohammed of Malaysia so verifiable. Capitalistroadster 04:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although Mahathir was more racist than specifically Anti-Australian.--cj | talk 04:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep IanBailey ^(talk) 09:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• I voted to keep this in its previous debate. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If Mahatir didn't speak anti-Australian sentiments, then I'll have to watch the aerial porcine formations. -LichYoshi 10:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Shouldn't have been renominated. CalJW 10:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Per the arguments I made last time. Nominator should pay more attention to foreign affairs. Ambi 13:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sarah Ewart 13:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I haven't checked to see if this article has changed much since nomination, but it looks like a great article. -- Chuq 08:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, on procedural grounds - I voted for deletion last time around, IIRC, but it survived that. No new reasons to delete and several of the old ones have been fixed, so this shouldn't have been renominated. --Calair 22:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Although it needs references - perhaps {{Unreferenced}}?. Agnte 16:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- plenty of evidence. - Longhair 22:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Here's what I get for "Anti-Australian" specifically excluding Wikipedia.[6]. It's certainly real in parts of the South Pacific and Indonesia. I'm not sure why sources aren't being used much.--T. Anthony 11:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - plenty of evidence, topical area. Zordrac 13:11, 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 Redirect to Metallica --RoySmith 02:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lloyd Grant

non-notable Nv8200p talk 02:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. per nom (Notorious4life 02:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC))

• Merge with Metallica CanadianCaesar 02:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Canadian Caesar. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's already merged. Renata3 22:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Renata3. Stifle 23:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Metallica. If already merged, Redirect. Simple. Zordrac 13:10, 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 'Speedy delete' . Owen× ☎ 23:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti golomitism

Hoax. Zero google hits. Perhaps this could be speedy as a patent nonsense? --202.156.6.54 02:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Google. CanadianCaesar 03:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a very entertaining hoax.... wish we had a page to save the funny ones!
  • You mean like WP:BJAODN? User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Not good enough for BJAODN, I don't think. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. The only Google hit is the wiki page. HackJandy 06:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, patent nonsense. Or delete original research, if you prefer. Stifle 23:37, 28 November 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 Delete by Zoe as copyvio. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse merz

found on CSD. Does assert notability, in a vane way (rather than copyvio of http://www.cgst.com/jesse.htm). Delete as vanity Henrygb 02:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup, move to Jesse Merz and wikify. While the article needs some work, he seems notable enough for mine with a long list of theatrical credits see [7]. Capitalistroadster 04:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as a copyvio from http://www.cgst.com/jesse.htm User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:12, 26 November 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× ☎ 23:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Trosh

The lead singer in a band that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, as far as I can tell. Joyous | Talk 02:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy A7. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• SpeedyJHMM13 08:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy CSD A7  RasputinAXP  T C 20:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet A7 because the article asserts he is famous. --RoySmith 22:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Doesn't manage to hit A7. Stifle 23:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if the band isn't notable then how is he notable? Zordrac 13:09, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Landore the game

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This game is not finished or released. Joyous | Talk 03:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I liked this line the best: Landore is not a copyrighted idea, but it will be soon, so trying to steal the ideas will end up in a federal suit. If he doesn't want people stealing an uncopyrighted idea, why would be put it on Wikipedia? JHMM13 08:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

'Comment Can't copyright an idea anyway. Better get that patent in the 365 days though. Peyna 06:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. And I've been in federal suit before- I think it looked pretty good, all told.--Sean|Black 08:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Users should be aware that the phrase "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" is misleading. The policy statements which follow it do not prohibit articles about future events, and Wikipedia contains a very large number of such articles. CalJW 10:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Quite correct. It's acceptable to have articles about future events when there's a good amount of verifiable information available. For example, Super Bowl XL or Football World Cup 2006. However, when there's very little verifiable information available, it's often better to hold off on writing an article. Carbonite | Talk 10:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Also, remember that some of us take a harder line than the "Crystal ball" statement. All that is verifiable about World Cup 2006 is that there are plans, and the plans are present tense. The future is unwritten, and articles about the future should be the same. An article about List of expected games in 2007 might have this title or another, but that article would be about the present, about the expectations now present, and not about anything in 2007. Geogre 14:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. Stifle 23:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as copyvio, at least according to the article's assertions. lol. Otherwise, there's so many other reasons to delete. Zordrac 13:08, 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 keep (no consensus). As vote count goes, we have something like 34 delete/23 keep. The argument has been over two different terms used in the title, "modern" and "dictator". Now, if "modern" is a concern, the page can be easily given an objective standard (dictators who ruled after 1900 for example). So it is the use of the term "dictator" that has caused trouble.

The argument for deletion here is that the title is inherently POV. Unlike list of Roman dictators, where "dictator" was a real official office, the term "modern day dictator" is not. It is a subjective term, and some people have called people such as George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin dictators. Some have said that Saddam Hussein was not a dictator because he was reelected in referendums where he got 90-100% of the vote. Who goes into such a list, who does not? Presidents like Robert Mugabe (elected and reelected in disputed elections) are certainly controversial.

The argument for "keep" is that the term is well defined. There is some merit to this, the term dictator certainly has a definition in all dictionaries. (Then again one might argue that "evil" has a clear definition, and that list of evil people will be difficult to work.) Things are not quite as severe with the term dictator since there are some standards which can be applied. Was the president elected in an election? Is there a peaceful mechanism for removing the president? Is there an opposition to the president which can operate without fear of persecution?

Personally, I am more convinced by the concerns of the "delete" voters here, but the "keep" side has enough merit to their arguments to not ignore the usual guideline of a two-thirds majority requirement for deletion. On this AFD discussion there is no consensus and, consequently, the article will not be deleted.

The article is in need of major work however, some of the presidents linked up on this page are not described as "dictators" in their articles, most likely because of POV concerns. Most importantly, some sort of definition for what will make a president a dictator which should be added to this list is needed. I am going to request comment on this at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

VfD threads do not have to be closed on a rigid deadline. Many stay up for much longer. I don't see why we can wait more time to allow a clearer consensus to be established, so that we don't have to deal with the prospect of a minority of users getting away with voting NPOV and other concepts away based on a technicality. As of now the deletes are at 60% instead of the needed 67% percent at the end of five days-- an arbitary little difference that does not offer much of a compelling reason to keep the article. 172 14:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of modern day dictators

I'm not ready to declare a consensus yet, but I did go through and attempt to weed out people's stated opinions from all the yelling and screaming. Basicly, I ignored everything except for things that looked like variations on Keep and Delete, and teased them out into a list. Everything was put into one of those two bins (i.e. if you added Weak or Strong or anything like that, it got lost to make it easier to process). I ended up with the list below (sorted in alphabetical order). If you expressed an opinion, please double-check the list below to make sure I haven't lost anybody, or accidentally counted somebody in the wrong group. --RoySmith 03:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

PS, I saw no evidence of sockpuppetry or anything else which would lead me to discount any opinions expressed --RoySmith 03:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Refactoring down, Roysmith counted roughly 31 deletes to 21 keeps, which means there's not going to be a consensus very soon. Kim Bruning 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is a spin-off of list of dictators, which has been redirected to dictator for nearly three years because, for reasons stated over and over again on Talk:List of dictators, compiling such a list is an inherent violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The spin-off was created in order to avoid engaging in the long series of problems associated with the creation of such a page presented by a variety of editors on the original page over the course of several years. The consensus against the creation of such lists was further cemented with the deletion of similar lists found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian dictators and Category:Totalitarian dictators

• Delete. 172 03:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• {{Please User:172 could you withdraw this claim of bad faith. It is entirely without foundation, I divided the list in two for clarity and elegance and notified you of this on the talk page. You did not contest my action in principle. It is unfair to accuse me of attempting to avoid debate with you - I have responded to every point you have made. Please withdraw.}}jucifer 05:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment and rejoinder I have been debating this article with User:172. I have engaged with him in endless discussion. A while ago, when he used to be an administrator, he was also doing this with others. At various times he has given four reasons for blanking the page (which I summarised for him and he did not dispute):
  • a) wikipedia cannot define "dictator".
  • b) even if it could, the topic would be lead to lots of conflict.
  • c) adding someone to a list of dictators constitutes "original research".
  • d) there are no sources for the list as a whole, since no-one has made such a list before.
• I provided the following rejoinders:
  • a) it can; it is a dictionary definition + the finer points (eg: absolute monarchs don't count) can be hashed out as usual on wiki
  • b) we must work for consensus on wiki - wiki does not shirk from controversial subjects
  • c) this is a misunderstanding of WP:NOR. Jimbo Wales explains what WP:NOR is about here and the exhaustive list of categories of things that can be excluded on the grounds of WP:NOR are listed here. Incidentally User:172 has made similar misuse of WP:NOR in the past (final comment on page) which contributed to the arbitration committees decision to remove his sysop status.
  • d) it is absurd to suggest that a list as a whole on wikipedia must be sourced elsewhere. What does need sourcing are the elements of a list, that is certainly no difficulty here.
• In no way can a list of dictators be compared to a list of totalitarian dictators; there is no parallel - the first is a phrase that is ill-defined and disputed while the latter isn't significantly controversial and is universally used. (See below.) jucifer 05:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete due to established POV issues. Gazpacho 03:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment-If it was retitled something like "List of contemporary leaders of nations classed as unfree by Freedomhouse" would that be acceptable?--T. Anthony 04:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

  The Freedom House article already includes their ratings. Gazpacho 04:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep looking over the discussion on the List of Dictators page, which has now been split into two, for clarity, I noted that the REDIRECT was entirely inappropriate. Furthermore, this list was useful. I could see no POV, and even if there is (there may be) that is not a reason to delete an article - it is a reason to improve it. I noted that the other arguments against the list were equally without foundation, based on inexplicable misinterpretation of wikipedia policies, and refusal to even discus the possibility of there being a definition of the word "dictator" on the part of two users.
  • Dictator is a word with a clear definition, it is widely and uncontroversially used by historians, the media, the public, dictators themselves on occasion, and as can be seen here has similar definitions in eight different dictionaries.
  • A large number of individuals are universally accepted to be dictators. There is no doubt that there can be a valid, NPOV, list of dictators - therefore there is no justification to delete it - only to improve it until it is perfect like all articles on wiki.
  • The word "dictator" (-Roman) is used 27,700 times in english wikipedia alone and results in over 10m Google results. It is used to describe many people in wikipedia. The use of a word so often (and 8 similar dictionary definitions) implies some definition. To argue that this is a word that cannot be defined at all is simple obscurantism.
  • There is demand for such an article - it is in the top few percent of wikipedia article rated by most hits. jucifer 05:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, inherently POV. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you mean by this that it is POV to call anyone a dictator? If not - there should be a list even in your opinion, just one with fewer names. This needs debating, but POV issues are no reason to delete a page - they are reasons to improve a page. jucifer 06:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I mean exactly that. We don't need to "call" anybody a dictator, make an NPOV article which shows they're a dictator. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • So Hitler, Staln, Mussolini, Tito, Amin, Pol Pot, Assad, Hussein, Kim Jong Il - POV to call them dictators is it? jucifer 06:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Exactly. To some people, they're heroes. The highlight precept of Wikipedia is NPOV. Learn it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
          • • Equally important Zoe is WP:CIVIL. I respectfully suggest that you read and learn how to comply with that particular policy. --84.68.28.185 08:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Breathtaking - Hitler - POV to call him a dictator. Wow. Gosh.
          • And your reason! - Because to some he is a hero. Spledid, quite splendid. That is a classic. jucifer 07:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • "Dictator" is POV not because of the obvious cases like Hitler, but because of murkier cases. Is Mugabe a dictator? Is Putin? What about every leader of China since Mao? what about the white-minority heads of South Africa? Don't oversimplify the question. Gazpacho 08:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • "Dictator" is a descriptive and cannot be POV. What I assume you mean is that adding names incorrectly to the list is POV, you seem to accept that there are some people who can be so described (unlike Zoe). So let's be clear: when you say you want to delete the article because of POV, what you mean is you want to delete it beause POV can be added? Have I understood you correctly? jucifer 13:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I want it deleted because we cannot define the list should contain, despite trying. "Dictator" is descriptive but determining whom it describes is POV. Gazpacho 20:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Unless you deny the existance of any dictators, you have no valid grounds for calling for the deletion of this list - you must call for it's improvment in some way. Clearly, if there are dictators they can be listed. Co you think threre are no dictators? jucifer 20:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Two points emerge from this.
  • POV in an article is no ground for deletion. This is made explicit in a policy statement here.
  • "Dictator" as discussed above is an objective not a subjective term, unlike evil/stupid and is applied universally to many people with only an extreme fan-base rejecting it in most cases. It is clearly defined in every dictionary, and encyclopedia (including here) and is used to describe people 27,700 times in wikipedia, and is used often in uncategorical terms in Britannica and elsewhere. Since (unless you with to take Zoe's position) there are certainly some dictators, there can be listed together. jucifer 07:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • POV is a very frequently used ground for deleting lists. Gazpacho 08:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't doubt that but could you point me in the direction of some examples and what is the difference, the policy seems clear. Thanks. jucifer 08:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't point you to any examples that aren't already deleted. The difference is that a list either includes an entry or it doesn't; you cannot reword a list entry for NPOV. Gazpacho 09:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Why? There are records of all deletion debates right? And yes, with list the NPOV question is about whether the item is listed or not. jucifer 13:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Keep Although I like this page for purely intellectual reasons, I realize it's quite subjective. Perhaps we could throw some of this information onto Dictator? I agree with the arguments of jucifer. I also agree that this topic should have a permanent neutrality warning and I think the rest of you are going to be reverting vandalism on this page for the rest of your days :-). JHMM13 09:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with a permanent neutrality warning. This is certainly a topic which should be covered. CalJW 10:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dictator means whatever a WP contributor wants it to mean, usually inclusive of personal Bete noirs. See also the vote on Totalitarian dictators Wizzy…☎ 11:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC) (UTC)
  • As I feel I have shown, "dictator" only means whatever a WP contributor wants it to mean (as you put it) if that "WP contributor" desposes of (a) the english language, (b) NPOV, and (c) WP:NOR. jucifer 16:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete inherently POV. An article on 'modern day dictators' can discuss a variety of definitions and interpretations, but a list will have to choose one definition and judge who meets it - that is POV. 'Consensus' is about agreeing on how to express verifiable facts, not about agreing which POV should triumph. Shall we have a List of non-existent deities on the basis that we can strive for a consensus on what should be included? --Doc ^ask? 12:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No, the word is well undestood, its meaning is not disputed by any mainstream writer. This is refleced in it's extensive use throughout Wiki, britanicca, and everywhere esle. I have yet to see any eveidence of major dispute about the meaning of the word. You argue that Consensus is about agreeing on how to express verifiable facts, not about agreing which POV should triumph - if you notice, agreeing on how to express verifiable facts and agreing which POV should triumph are the same thing here since there is no mainstream dissent about the meaning of this word. Indeed it has such a clear meaning that many supporters of dictators concede that their leaders are dictators - added the qualification "benevolent". jucifer 14:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• (You will excuse me removing your bolding, which I find sore on the eyes.) Right OK, so we can decide, in an NPOV way, whether Mugabe is to be included? P.W. Botha? Gorbachov? Putin? No, I didn't think so. And actually, definitions of dictator are not identical, see the ones on the talk page. --Doc ^ask? 14:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no need to use straw-man arguements or be agressive or alter others posts. I do not excuse you for editing my post, please change it back. The definitions all have the same intent, and use similar language - the meaning of the word is as clear as any other and is not disputed by any source.
  • To find out what is the NPOV way, these need to be discussed in terms of a definition - then a consensus can be reached as allways. These are not especially difficult cases in the light of the various dictionary definition. The only thing that is in question here can be "the facts on the ground". Sometimes the answer will be "wait and see" (i.e. Putin/Mugabe) and "if in doubt leave it out". Gorbachov wasn't one, he didn't have absolute power (rule by committee) and Botha was appauling man but was restrained by the "rule of law" and did not wield wield absolute power. You see, if you have a definition it can be discussed, debated and a NPOV consensus reached.
    • If "absolute power" is a requirement then Mussolini is not a dictator; he answered to the king and the king finally dismissed him. Gazpacho
  • You assert (mistakenly IMHO) that there is no clear definition, argue that therefore no consensus could be reached on a number of borderline cases, then you imply that because of these cases no consensus could be reached so there can be no clear definition. That it a full circle by my reckoning.
  • Do you accept that there are some people who are objectivly dictators? If so why don't you campaign for this list to be kept, but pared down consentually? jucifer 15:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if you could have an objective definition (and I'm not sure you can), it would still be subjective as to who met the definition. To take my staw-man List of non-existent deities: we could agree an objective criteria ('supposed gods that don't actually exist'), and we might mostly agree on certain examples that could be included (Zeus, Bacchus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster), so should we have such a list? Your arguement would seem to say 'yes', and let's discuss Allah and Jehovah on the talk page. I say such lists infringe NPOV.--Doc ^ask? 19:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, your comparison is not valid because while it is true that both "dictators" and "list of Gods that don't exist" have objective definitions, one is defined in every dictionary, encyclopedia, is used here 27,700 times, is used by historians without controversy many many times. The other one (geuss which) was made up today by a Doc and is in any case unpopulatable since you can never prove non-existence. I'm sure you think of a better fatuous comparison than this one. You see what you are looking for is not only a objective definition, but also a term widely accepted and discussed even though it may seem pejorative - maybe a list like this one or this one?

• Strong Keep. Notable, encyclopedic. Many people would want to research the topic, and this list would make the research much easier. It is not inherently POV, as a defintion can allow editors to determine who should or should not be on the list. If some items are deemed POV, that is no reason to delete the list. I think people are mistakenly thinking that "dictator" is a subjective and perjorative term. It is commonly used that way, but it also has a pretty standard defintion as jucifer has demonstrated. For example, Hitler is not labeled a dictator because most of us dislike him but because he held unilateral control of his country. The list is not original research either; it is based on historical fact. Logophile 15:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup; certainly, the title could use some work, and the criteria of what a dictator is should be consistent with dictator. The word "dictator" is not inherently POV, but it's probably not appropriate as an article title. --Merovingian 16:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it's quite easy to see who's dictator and who is not.  Grue  17:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The definition of dictator is too ambiguous. Does it refer to method of taking power, their usage of power, media perception, abuse of power? Is it measured by western political standards? Standards within their continent? Standards within their country? For example, by western standards the last Shah of Iran was dictatorial. But by his country's standards how different was he? If a country has a long list of seizures of power, is method of coming to power relevant to definition of a dictator? If a country has a long history of 'strong' leadership and abuse of power, and someone else does the same, are they a dictator or just part of a pattern in that country? Leaders always base their leadership roles on what is the cultural traditions in their state and regions. 'Dictator' is a POV term. Some would say Mugabe is, others that he isn't. Ditto with the Shah and numerous others. Very few, like Hitler and Mussolini, are univerally defined as dictators. For that reason I think this list is too potentially POV to stay. There is no adequate definitions and context to avoid it containing POV opinions, even though in many cases my POV would also define most of the persons on the list as 'dictators'. FearÉIREANN 19:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup The word dictator isn't inherently POV, but who is deemed a dictator *may* be. Hence, I think we should keep the list, but limit it to people who are nearly unanimously deemed a dictator (Hitler, for example). Also, determining who is a dictator is definitely not original research. More importantly, I think some of you are being a little harsh to jucifer. Don't let the debate degenerate into incivility. To jucifer: you're kind of borderline Kilobyte Point of View, so try to slim it down.the1physicist 19:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is the English language Wikipedia and, as Jucifer has pointed out, the term is well defined. Check the articles for each of the "members" on the list. If their entry makes reference to dictatorial practices and this article is deleted, then WP has some serious problems. This about ensuring NPOV which is not a valid reason for deletion, but for ensuring the list itself is NPOV. --Meiers Twins 20:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why is there an OR warning? It's a list. Where is the research? If there are disputes put a disputed message next to whatever little dictator is disputed. Use the talk page. Start by hashing out an adequate definition for dictator. -- JJay 21:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No matter how well defined one can render the term, the problem is not so much the concept itself but applying it. Professional historians who spend their entire lives studying any of the regimes listed on this page disagree among themselves on important questions of state power and authority. The work of one historian may suggest that the historical record confirms the placement of a particular leader in such a list; the work of another historian may present a very different picture. The process of writing this list is one of arbitrating between professional historians who themselves disagree on the questions salient in making this classification, and is thus an exercise of original research of the clearest kind. 172 21:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Wrong. Not OR. Otherwise, you are implying that nothing can be defined at Wikipedia. And spare me The process of writing this list. You haven't started the process. Start by defining some standards for inclusion. Put some quotes to justify why people are listed. If needed, add bags of quotes. Use footnotes- lots of them. Show opposing viewpoints. In fact, insist on opposing viewpoints. Why do you believe this has to be a neat little compendium, like a shopping list to be handed to a grocery clerk (1.Evil Dictator 2.Son of Evil Dictator 3. Mean bastard). Aim for a list that actually means something. -- JJay 22:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I second that. What you argue here User:172 is an excellent justification for improving the list, weeding out those borderline cases which may not fit the definition. Similarly I agree, that where there is evidence of a significant minority of historians disputing the characterization dictator it would be consistent with a NPOV not to list them as such. We are as one on this matter. There is no justification - from the indisputable fact that the article may contain POV, like every article on wiki - to delete it; the idea must be to improve it. Since you accept the existence of people who are objectively dictators, I do not understand how you can then argue that said dictators cannot be collated in a list. If there are dictators they can be listed - you are entitled to argue about which ones count, but there can be no justification for deleting the article on this ground. jucifer 22:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I am not implying that nothing can be defined on Wikipedia. Earlier, on Talk:List of dictators, Jucifer attempted to make my argument into a reductio ad absurdum, stating that if dictators cannot be identified on Wikipedia on the grounds of NOR, on the same grounds we cannot identify a father on Wikipedia. However, just because some forms of categorization are not original research, that does not mean that no forms of categorization are original research. Regarding Jucifer's earlier father example, unless there is a paternity dispute, there is one and only one correct answer when it comes to the question about whether or not someone can be described as a father. However, for dictators, with the exception of the most readily obvious leaders who fit any reasonable definition of the term applied in any reasonable way (Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, etc.), reasonable editors, even when they are all agreeing on a single standard definition, can be left with legitimate room for disagreement on whether or not a particular leader gets included in the list as they are applying the definition, or in other words as they are doing what social scientists call "operationalizing" the definition. In that sense, making the classification boils entirely down to what we observe in the past and on a broader level the perspective from which we understand and interpret the past. Historians often disagree on the nature and scope of the power of individual leaders, especially in authoritarian regimes where leadership is opaque, under-institutionalized, and not accountable. Sometimes historians do not even agree on the question of who even ruled; for example, a timeless theme in political historiography has been the phenomenon of the power behind the throne, arguing that certain leaders widely regarded as dictators were much more constrained than had been realized. Similarly, the lines are blurred when you have the disagreement between those who regard all nondemocratic or constitutional monarchial leaders as dictators, and those who reject the term when there is an element of collective leadership in either military regimes or single-party regimes. Earlier on this VfD, FearÉIREANN brought up examples of such ambiguous cases, just making a very brief statement of how and why this list is so problematic. 172 22:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • with the exception of the most readily obvious leaders who fit any reasonable definition of the term applied in any reasonable way (Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, etc.)- That's a good list right there, why don't we start with it? All your other points can be dealt with in the introduction or through footnotes. I would add it all verbatim. But since you have admitted that a reasonable definition can be achieved and applied, why don't you also withdraw your nom or switch to Keep? -- JJay 22:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • The problem is that the process of making the judgment call is the original research. When the classifications are obvious, such as the cases that I mentioned, the problems of original research are not clear. But for an even far greater number of examples, the judgment concerning whether or not to include a particular leader winds with Wikipedia editors themselves arbitrating between professional historians. Depending on how they understand the definition of the term "dictator" itself, historians will disagree based on their own disagreements among themselves on the political development of power in a regime; in that sense, there is no clear method for determing with bias and original research whether or not figures like Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Konstatin Chernenko, Mikhail Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao are dictators. 172 23:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but that seems like a pathetic cop out to me. I have already offered a perfectly viable method for dealing with POV and the subtleties of history. Historians disagree on most things. If they always agreed, there would not be much need for historians at all, because the story would have already been told. You talk as if they were Homeric gods, arguing amongst themselves, while we, the mere mortal editors of Wikipedia, are hopelessly unqualified to understand their actions, or, god forgive, arbitrate. Luckily, of course, we have certain elite members, such as yourself, who can determine that Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, etc. can be reasonably labelled dictators. I wonder what method you used to allow this judgement call? I wonder why Mao is on one side of the equation, but these other Chinese dictators, party apparatchiks, reformers, political figures are not. I will never know, though, because you do not believe this info should be shared with the rest of the world as it would inevitably demonstrate some type of bias and meets your definition of OR. This attitude, taken to its logical extreme, essentially precludes any discussion of any historical topic within the Wikipedia domain. Wikipedia would have to stamp a warning on every page- Do not discuss history. Articles on Britney Spears, the Simpsons, and Baseball Statistics preferred. This shows considerable contempt for the Wikipedia project. -- JJay 00:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
        • As I explained earlier, while some forms of classification are not original research, that does not mean that some forms are not. I am not calling the process of classification itself inherent original research; so my comments cannot be taken to the extreme, as you suggest. However, efforts at making classifications are inherent original research when they are based on inductive inferences premised on unstated and unsourced assumptions about the political regime on which historians themselves disagree. In contrast, lists classifying other subjects are just reporting on society and culture. For example, the list of supermodels and the list of skyscrapers are fine. (The authors of the lists are not consciously constructing, operationalizing, their own classification. Instead, particularly in the case of supermodels, they are dealing with self-defining subjects recognized as such by their peers and the businesses in the fashion industry.) Re: Luckily, of course, we have certain elite members, such as yourself, who can determine that Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, etc. can be reasonably labelled dictators. Thanks for the complement, as a historian, my areas of expertise and specialization only extend to a very tiny number of the leaders listed on the page, as will be the case for any historian. At any rate, no Wikipedia editor is above WP:NOR just because of what kind of credentials the person who knows the password to a particular Wikipedia user account may or may not have. 172 01:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: I’m glad you appreciated my complement. I also feel enormous relief for the editors of List of supermodels and List of Skyscrapers that their process of classification meets your approval. They can now join Britney, Bart and Baseball on the Wikipedia list of acceptable list topics. Of course, if a supermodel became a dictator, that might cause real problems, particularly if said dictator was featured on the Simpsons or owned a baseball team, as is so often the case. Yup, the world might crumble at that point, what with the colliding of society, culture and history and all...as if society and culture have any meaning without history. Or what if whole schools of supermodel dictators appeared, all recognized as such by their industry peers, craftily catwalking their way to world domination? Our readers would certainly be lost, given their lack of frame of reference due to the endless arguments of pesky historians, such as yourself, although wikipedians may have absorbed some knowledge owing to the inexplicable historical propensity of dictators to live in skyscrapers. I assume, at that point, you would approve the construction and operationalization of Wikipedia classifications for those of the dictator persuasion, although I may be poorly deconstructing the thrust of your argument, I admit, because I sometimes get lost in the endless swirls of circular logic I learned in grad school and I apologize to anyone who has had difficulty following said logic. Please note that my expertise and credentials permit me to speak on these matters and Wikipedia policy in general, as I have specialized in a small number of Supermodels, my research conducted late at night in darkened rooms, perhaps not unlike many professional historians, few of whom are also Supermodels. -- JJay 03:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Hum, leaving it at that, on your last note it sounds as if you've made out better after grad school that most anyone I know... Anyway, thank you for the reply. To further clarify the distinction that I was making on the basis of the example comparing the list of supermodels and list of dictatos, supermodels are listed on the basis of their affiliation with the huge industry that has manufactured the very notion of "supermodel"; that is clearly reporting, not original research. When listing dictators, however, we constructing consciously our own categorical scheme predicating relevant questions on which historians often disagree (e.g., the extent of the power of a general secretary in a Communist regime with a collective leadership), and at that an understanding of what is a dictator that is almost certainly culturally and historically specific to our own society. 172 06:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Well, 172, I’ll give you high marks for good cheer. Not for logic or sincerity, though, because the holes in your thinking are so great, that this discussion could join the Titanic at any minute. While you cling to the sides of the sinking ship, refusing the lifeline I’ve repeatedly thrown you, screaming Captain oh Captain, I’ve been busy trying to develop a list of dictators not constructed on a categorical scheme predicating relevant questions on which historians often disagree. Unlike you, I'm interested in information dissemination for the benefit of wikipedians and the greater world, rather than supression. As instructed, I have avoided historians altogether. This facilitated my task given that historians spend most of their time: (i) arguing in a language incomprehensible for those not ordained in their sacred order, such as yourself ; (ii) plagiarizing other historians (you fully know how much professional historians hate to sully themselves in dingy little archives); (iii) trying to pick-up their students or back stab other historians as they desperately claw their way to tenure.

Considering my area of expertise, I have long been fascinated with the innumerable similarities between Supermodels and Dictators (obsession with self image, unbridled ego, numerous flunkies at their beck and call, many fans and detractors, rich through industry/national dominance, media fascination/manipulation, etc. etc, etc.). Since you recognize the validity of List of supermodels, based on their affiliation with the huge industry that has manufactured the very notion of "supermodel"- a definition, I would note, that ignores their zeitgeist and degrades their very real achievements- and deny that List of supermodels is culturally and historically specific to our own society, I have applied your thinking and engaged the classification process from the standpoint of reporting, not original research.

I have chosen not to focus my data gathering methodology on sources strongly affiliated with the Dictator industry, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the OHCHR, etc, since their stuff is all pretty boring, and way over the heads of most Supermodels and Dictators. Instead, I have used sources that are known to appeal to both Supermodels and Dictators, such as Parade Magazine, which proudly publishes a List of The World's 10 Worst Dictators [[8]], Wave Magazine, which gives us The World’s Weirdest Dictators, [[9]], and the numerous polls carried out by www.bestandworst.com, such as Who Is the Sexiest Dictator?. The answer, of course, being Hitler [[10]]. I have cross checked validity with mentions on the Simpsons, Forbes magazine’s list of the 400 richest people (every good dictator needs to hit this list at least once) [[11]], Amazon book rank (Dictators, like historians, check this every day), and sales at the Dictators of the Twentieth Century Store- now featuring Hitler [[12]].

If you attempt to challenge these sources, I would submit that your historian school has failed in its duties to inform you that dictators, like supermodels, have long been concerned about where they fit in the scheme of things, and frequently consult these types of lists as proof that they are correctly recognized for their achievements. I also needn't remind you that these are all perfectly valid sources for Wikipedia editors reporters. Since dictators already have lists and a store, shouldn't we out of a concept of fairness, give them a list, like we have done for Supermodels and Skyscrapers? Or does not our List of supermodels actually represent a flagrant application of our historical and cultural specificities, as you have so strongly denied?. If you find the time, I would very much appreciate your professional historian point of view on these issues. -- JJay 23:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there's Parade Magazine, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the blurring between history and entertainment. I recommend Eric Foner's collection of essays in his Who Owns History?, which offers a critical look at histories offered to the mass public for entertainment. Historians get a lot of negative feedback from the public from so many different directions; Foner's defense, though, is pretty effective. At any rate, I admit, if an arbitratary line is going to be drawn, drawing one rendering the work of professional historians (here in the U.S. esp. members of the American Historical Association) hegemonic in the production of content on history in encyclopedias is one I feel comfortable drawing. 172 00:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you for your response 172 and the suggestion regarding Eric Foner. As he is apparently a tenured historian at an elite institution, and also a political figure of some renown, I doubt I would be qualified to examine his essays or interpret his criticism. And while I struggle to understand your remarks, I will interpret them as a concession that a Modern Dictator List is acceptable given its coverage by the popular press. I thank you warmly and am also frequently both uncomfortable and comfortable as logic is frequently discomforting. -- JJay 01:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The Parade lists can be reproduced in Parade-magazine related articles. But to think of them as a possible main source for a list of dictators on Wikipedia just serves to lower the standards of NPOV and sources used in our articles on history and politics. If Parade is the best source with which we can work on list of dictators, Wikipedia is better off not even bothering with the attempt to write the list. John Kenney said it best earlier: "This list is going to be inherently problematic, and it's best not to try." 172 02:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Well, I had you rattled, but am happy you have regained your comfort level. Since you have precluded every other source, sagacious 172, I will use the sources you allow. It will be my main source, along with the others I cited. Will seek comparable lists from other countries to give it some international flavour. Hopefully, Dictator lists are published in countries like North Korea. Wouldn't that be gleeful. See Blender Magazine's 50 Worst Songs Ever! for what I have in mind. If we can do it for songs, we can do it for dictators, pardon my French. I might even cite Eric Foner, unless the revolution happens first. -- JJay 02:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Assuming modern day is > 1990 , and that the list is maintained to conform with the encyclopedic definition at dictator. Keep. Kim Bruning 21:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The term "modern day" goes along with no clear temporal boundaries. If you take a list, it appears to be making attempts to categroize just about any "dictator" after classical antiquity. 172 22:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The term "modern day" is simply do distinguish this article from a list of roman dictators. When this is resolved I will suport the renaming the article to something more exacting - e.g. "modern age" "20th and 21st century" "1900-" or maybe even "List of Dictators (modern usage)". Hmmm...that last one is my preference. jucifer 22:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Historians don't even agree on what "modern" means. original research is hard, isn't it? 172 22:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I asume you are joking. Ironically, this is much funnier is you are being serious. jucifer 23:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Far too subjective. G-Man 21:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you think there are no dictators? jucifer 22:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • No, but there are far too many borderline cases, where it comes down to opinion. G-Man 23:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • So if there are dictators, why can they not be collated in a list? jucifer 23:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Lists of this type need to have a clear criteria for inclusion, which this list does not have. I note that many of the people listed are not called "dictators" in their WP biographies (Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, Gerardo Machado, Laurent-Désiré Kabila, Georgi Dimitrov, etc). -Willmcw 22:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The criteria could not be clearer - it is a universally accepted objective definition. I totally agree that there may be names on the list that should not be there (I didn't compose it) but, this is no criterion for deletion of the article. Since there are certainly some dictators there can be no reason not to have them listed. jucifer 22:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If there is a universal accepted objective definition, what is it? and what is the authority behind it? Gazpacho 22:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Regardless of whether or not there is such a "universally accepted objective definition," assuming there even is one, there is no 'universally accepted' way of interpreting and applying the definitions that you are finding in dictionaries. In the end, the problem of applying the definition has the most bearing on the status of lists along these lines in an encyclopedia that eschews original research. For example, core figures of the collective leadership of a single-party state (e.g., Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Mikhail Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, etc.) do or do not meet the definition of "dictator" depending not on the basis of which definition is being employed, but rather on the basis of the implications of the competing interpretive schemes employed by historians and political scientists in order to understand the internal dynamics of the regime itself (e.g., the contention between Russian and Soviet scholars following the model of bureaucratic pluralism on one hand, and totalitarianism on the other). In this sense, a couple of political scientists who spent their entire lives studying the PRC can accept the same definition of the term "dictator" but at the same time disagree on whether or not Jiang Zemin was one. 172 22:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • In responce to Gazpacho, I say the definition is universally accepted as objective because I'm not aware of any mainstream dispute of its use at least to describe some people. It is in every dictionairy with very similar definitions, it is used in every encylopedia, by every historian. No, authority has been cited that disputes this (at the very least I can say that an overwhelming body of evidence backs this up) - the meaning of the word according to the dictioanries is "absolute power" with no "rule of law" or words to that extent. 8 definitions are listed on the talk page. They are all fine.
  • 172, this again I quite agree with, but this is relevent when discussing Jiang Zemin's place on the list, (FYI I dont think he should be) you would like to delete the entire list and this arguement provides no justification. You also argue above that threre are some leaders who ruled as part of a colective where it is difficult to determine. That may be and again as always in life and wiki, "if in doubt leave it out". All these points do is question whether people should be on the list - they in no way justify the deletion of the list. This debate is becoming more and more obscure.

You yourself accept that there are some dictators - why can they not be collated in a list? That is the crucial question you must answer here. Yours, jucifer 23:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course there have been dicators. However, that point is moot. Original research is not necessarily wrong. It is not necessarily POV. Original research is original research because of the process by which classifications are made and information is determined, not because of the outcomes. For the purposes of Wikipedia editors, on what basis can the claim that Jiang Zemin was not a dictator be stated in Wikipedia? It cannot be on the basis of anything that you or I can state on Wikipedia, no matter how valid the kinds of inductive inferences that we make are on their own merits. In order not to be original research, the answer would have to be 'another reference source has generated the same kind of list, and it doesn't have Jiang on it.' If another sourcebook or encyclopedia that does not have a policy against original research (as it is professionally written by recognized experts in their respective fields) carried out the kind of research project that you are now attempted and published its own 'list of dictators,' only then would we be able to reproduce their research and avoid the problem of NOR inherent in generating this list, with the source being duly noted in the references section of the article. In other words, Wikipeidia editors can report the findings of research projects conducted by professionals and published outside Wikipedia; but they can not engage in their own research projects on Wikipedia, even if they can manage to reach some painfully obvious correct conclusions (e.g., Stalin was a dictator). 172 00:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as it stands now. The criteria for inclusion are not specific enough, in both a factual and a citational sense. Regarding the former, the reference to the dictator is totally worthless, as that article gives only a vague factual definition itself. Regarding the latter, the list should make clear as to by whom precisely one must be called a dictator for inclusion. Also, especially problematic is the question of dictators who claim to be something else, and no mention is made of these cases on the list. Dsol 00:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Since the page Dictator give a pretty clear definition of what a dictator is, it possible to create a list of figures. The "totalitarian dictators" cat was mostly flawed because of the first word. But an individual invested essentially autonomous legislative authority is a decidable legal/historical question; it does require some careful treading, but it is not inherently original research or POV. A list (versus a category) has an advantage in that it can be annotated and structured. So some particular individual might have an annotation "Was declared a dictator by UN resolution NNN" or "According to Amnesty International..." And the list could also have sections and descriptions that contextualize the names listed per section. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Have the UN or Amnesty ever declared someone to be a dictator? --Doc ^ask? 00:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is on the mark in figuring out the way to draft this article with reference to WP:NOR. I would agree with his conclusion, but stuff like UN resolutions or Amnesty classifications are no where to be found. The term is just used loosely by those who intend for it to be pejorative, or who do not mind the pejorative implications of the usage. As a historian dealing with these kinds of matters for decades, I am drawing a blank when it comes to trying to think of someone or some group in contrast applying the term "dictator" systematically and with some rigor. I would be astonished if I were to find out that I'd overlooked such work for so long. 172 00:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

An AfD vote shouldn't be on the worth of a page as it exists right now, but on whether there could ever be an encyclopedic article with the topic in the title. I'm not at all endorsing the quality of the page as of the current edit, but rather that it has the potential of being a good article. I dunno exactly what evidence for a particular claim would be found for any given inclusion, but I can see sources might make statements... not necessarily using the word "dictator", but indicating a leader has personal legislative authority. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You make a good point and I understand where you are coming from. I respect your position. Based on your criterion for voting, I see an argument to be made for keeping but redirecting until we find a professionally published list drafted systematically with some rigor, as I keep mentioning. I suppose that my orientation on Wikipedia is more "deletionist" in that I consider not only whether there could ever be an encyclopedic article with such a title but also community-related concerns, i.e. the likelihood that things will not work out as they should on Wikipedia. Based on my own stance regarding AfDs, my position is delete until such a source is found, but recreate the article when and if such a source is found. 172 03:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the redirecting thing. Someone else's "professionally published" list has no reason to be any better, nor any more or less POV, than one WP creates collectively. We editors are just as good as whoever Encyclopedia Brittianica might hire, or that Amnesty International might create (at least in the long run). I tend to take whatever exists as a starting point (assuming you can ineed imagine a possible good article under the title): the first thing is to start annotating names with information on the sense in which they are "dictators", and who says this of them. It's not even necessarily a pejorative to include names: "benign dictators" are discussed in the dictator article... you or I might not endorse the "benign" part, but some supporters of a given political leader might. Obviously, sources who make claims should be a bit reputable: I'm not inclined to list someone because the John Birch Society called them a dictator. But if a reputable political scientist described a political figure as being a dictator (or something else close to the definition), that's citable, and enough to include the name, with such annotation. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It is standard procedure for topics which seem subjective to be thoroughly explained rather than ignored. Why is this case different? Just make sections for the various definitions of "dictator", and list those who fit that definition. If List of Roman dictators is allowed, then obviously this should be also. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-27 00:29
  • There is a clear difference. The Roman dictators held an office called "dictator" in the same sense that someone like George W. Bush holds the legal title of president. They were dictators in the sense that they themselves used the term to refer to the posts, not in the sense that we today are calling them "dictators" based on our own conscious construction of what the term "dictator" means to us. 172 00:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nominator and helpful long-standing consensus. Ambi 01:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

User:172 could you plese respond to the cenrtal question I posed above and also respond to JayJ's critique of your "original" take on WP:NOR on which you justify this nomination.jucifer 01:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This list is going to be inherently problematic, and it's best not to try. The claim that the term is clearly defined in the dictator article is also not true. It is defined loosely in the dictator article, because it is not a term with a precise meaning. Is the head of a military junta a dictator? Is the communist general secretary in a situation where leadership is essentially collective? Is a leader who maintains himself in power by moderately corrupt, but quite possibly genuinely won, elections? Is a monarch who retains considerable personal power? john k 01:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete So why exactly was Mao classified as dicatator and Deng and Jiang wasn't? Was it because Deng was more favored in the west? During the Cultural Revolution, absolute power rested with the hands of the Gang of Four, as well as Lin Biao. Mao really couldn't do much in terms of policy without these peoples' support. Between 1966-1968, however, Mao held absolute power, and in my opinion, only in those three years could Mao fit the "definition" of a dictator. Through one country's example, one could see the case for "Keep" is flawed. Colipon+(T) 01:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• The word has well accepted definition. See the talk page, see above. Indeed it must do since there are certain people who are universally accepted as dictators. Since there are some dictators, why can they not be listed? jucifer 01:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You have it mixed up. Scholars do not affirm methods of conducting research based on whether it works in the easiest cases, but instead on the basis of the harder cases. Also, the cases that I called obvious (based on my own original research) are problematic because the process of reaching the conclusion was the original research; and the findings of original research are kept out of Wikipedia not because they are necessarily wrong or POV but rahter because the process of original research is not allowed under Wikipedia policy. 172 01:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The problem with an article of this type is that there is no way to produce a non-POV comprehensive list. Even if we created the requirement that every dictator listed had to be sourced, there's the problem of whether or not the sources cited are authoritative (as opposed to polemical or rhetorical in their usage of 'dictator'). If the list included only those that were universally agreed to (or who self-defined as a dictator) it would be so short as to be virtually useless. If the list was "comprehensive," it would include nearly every modern leader, and thus be useless to our readers.—thames 02:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment There are problems with the list. So what? There are problems with most articles on Wikipedia, as you can note on any Talk Page. Having problems does not warrant a vote of "delete." It warrants careful editing and sincere attempts by the editors to solve the problems. I would also like to ask 172 to actually give an answer to the question, "If you admit that there are dictators, then why can't they be listed?" If he refuses to answer that question, then I think he is not acting in good faith. Logophile 02:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Cut me some slack here. If I'm not answering a question, I just haven't noticed it yet or haven't gotten around to replying. The volume of discussion here is now so large that even if I were to devote an entire day to working on Wikipedia (I'm having to work on multiple things not related to Wikipedia at once while I'm online!), I may not be able to respond to everything to which I want to respond right away. At any rate, in response to the above, while I believe that there are some leaders for whom there are no reasonable objections to describing as dictators (e.g., Stalin), on what basis does such a list include or exclude the borderline cases pointed out by John Kenney, Jtdirl, Colipon, some other editors, and me? Either way, the list will always be POV if leaders like Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin or excluded or included. In the end, all the problems of POV and ambiguous cases boil down to who is making the description. If the list is a reproduction of one drafted by a professionally written sourcebook or encyclopedia, who is making the description can be duly cited (in such a case Wikipedia itself is only asserting that x said y, which can never be POV-- with readers capable of making up their own mind on the POV of x). If not, if the descriptions are the judgments of Wikipedia editors such as myself, the list is original research because the listing was original research. Since I am not aware of a professionally written list of "modern day dictators" drafted systematically with some rigor that we can find, reproduce, and cite for use in the page here, the subject of dictatorships cannot be configured into a list on Wikipeidia. Nevertheless, we can and already do address the subject in the dictator and dictatorship articles, which already deals with the subjects of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and other historical figures as dictators in their proper contexts. 172 02:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I glad you have answered my question. I asked you that since You yourself accept that there are some dictators - why can they not be collated in a list? You replied that because the process of reaching the conclusion was the original research; and the findings of original research are kept out of Wikipedia not because they are necessarily wrong or POV but rahter because the process of original research is not allowed under Wikipedia policy. The important thing you have said has thrown your simply ludicrous intepretation of WP:NOR into sharp relief. I'm glad you aresuddendly being straightforward. You are arguing that we cannot have a list of dictators because WP:NOR precludes us from describing anyone as a dictator. Since you are well aware, that you can't argue for the deletion of this list completely on the grounds of WP:NPOV (since some dictators are universally held to be so). You are asking poeple to accept that Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin and others, cannot be described as dictators - because doing so would constitute original research.

• That is simply the most breathtaking, most fatuous arguement I have seen on wikipedia - and I say this in exasperation since I have repeatetly asked you to clarify how you read your novella into the WP:NOR policy, and you have you yet to even make an attempt. I think you need to take a step back and get some perspective, because this is unseemly. After a few days of logical dead ends, you have ended up in this corner. jucifer 03:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No, I am not stating that no one can be described as dictators on Wikipedia. I am stating that the basis for describing them as such cannot be because you and I think so, but because Wikipedia can cite x saying y. Admittedly, the problems with POV are not so obvious in the cases of leaders whom everyone on Wikipedia finds very repellant (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and a handful of others). Nevertheless, the critical test that your list has to pass is whether or not it can deal with the far greater number of leaders who meet your definition of the term not because it is so "obvious" but depending on which historian or social scientist you read. The title of the article, after all, is list of modern day dictators, not list of people who were obviously dictators. Your list fails way too many tests; John Kenney, Jtdirl, Colipon, and I have pointed out only a small sampling. 172 04:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete inherently pov - determining whether someone is a dictator is subjective.--Jiang 04:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete. The term "modern dictator" has two inherent problems: what is "modern" and what is "dictator". Someone above says something along the lines that the article "dictator" gives a precise defintion. Well, it doesn't. It speaks as vaguely as the notion is. mikka (t) 04:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• 172, you still seem to be operating under the assumption that the term "dictator" is subjective, like the word "evil". That's why their could never be a list of "evil politicians". In this case it is simple--apply the definition. That's not OR; it's historical fact. For example, Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana dismissed his administration and ruled by dictating. That makes him a dictator. If somebody meets one or more of the criteria in the definition, then he is a dictator. It's not different from saying that somebody is a vegetarian because he will not eat meat or that somebody is a philanthropist because he gives large sums of money away. Just apply the definition. If somebody disputes an item on the list then the editors can hash it out: Did the person suspend the legislature? Did he or she continue in office by prohibiting opposition parties? Did he or she write laws unilaterally? (And so on. . .) It's simple. Logophile 08:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

  You seem to miss the main point: the definition itself is vague. While some rulers fit, others are disputable. USA President has an ultimate power during military emergency, but we are not going to list Roosevelt among dictators. Lukashenko did not suspend legislature, did not prohibit opposition parties, does not write laws unilaterally. Still he is considered dictator. Examples abound. mikka (t) 08:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

  I have not been making the argument that the term cannot be applied because it is too value-laden. My concerns relate to the problems Mikka clearly noted above. Whether or not some leaders fit a particular defition is often quite ambigious, even if the term can be used in a non-loaded, value-neutral sense. A good recent example is the debate among China specialists following the 16th CPC Party Congress in 2002, when no one was really even sure Hu Jintao was actually in charge; some thought that Jiang Zemin would continue to rule the country from behind the scenes from "retirement," as Deng Xiaoping did before him. 172 09:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and rename While I agree that the term dictator is somewhat POV, the fact, as mentioned by another editor, that this is the English language wiki and that the vast majority of those whose native tongue is English would agree that most of the persons on the list do indeed fall into the definition of a dictator, makes the list accurate. The words "modern day" don't really apply to Hitler since he has been dead for 60 years...so that may need some work.--MONGO 10:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictator has too many interpretations, borderline cases too difficult, would be better as category if it has to exist (ensuring that each case is fully discussed at the appropriate place, i.e. the article on the person in question). If we must have lists of this kind (and with every example I come across, I dislike them a little more, doubt their usefulness a little more), they must be based on clear and unambiguous and well-defined criteria, and not mix up things that are too dissimilar. So if necessary - List of Roman dictators (or better, Category:Roman dictators), List of political leaders who took or sustained power by military means (1900-2000), List of Communist Party heads of government, etc. (These would have their own definitional issues, but at least the range would be narrowed.) "Dictator" aside, "modern-day" also has definitional issues, and its insertion seems designed primarily to sidestep the List of dictators debate (for which Gazpacho's recent solution seems reasonable, though in that form it might better be a subsection of Dictator). Rd232 ^talk 10:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not that it matters, these list of dictators AFDs are a farce. I'm almost glad that this time, politically conservative tendencies are strong enough to keep it, thereby saving everyone from expending energy in the very near future with yet another new "list of dictators" article (that is, if there was still a measure of half-sanity to the wiki and it was deleted). Down we go. El_C 10:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hopelessly POV. If someone added George W. Bush would it stand? Many people feel he should be on the list, clearly some POVs will be represented and others not. More over there are plenty of leaders who have very broad powers who gained them by election, but are still considered dictators by large factions of their population - for example Hugo Chavez. Stirling Newberry 15:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It's fine, of course, for Stirling Newberry to vote "delete". But he has been editing the page itself in ways that seem basically intended to "make it bad enough it deserves deletions". That's a really dishonest approach. Specifically, I believe the list could be worth keeping if names were annotated to provide good context for their inclusion. But every time I try to annotate a name, Stirling Newberry either deletes the name altogether or removes the annotation, hence assuring no motion towards "worth keeping". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Dictator is such a loaded term that applying it to anyone is POV. I'm not saying dictators don't exist, just that the term has no place in a Wikipedia title (aside from the article dictator). If someone is described as a dictator, that needs to be footnoted and phrased to say "So-and-so considers Person X to be a dictator" or somesuch. You might salvage this from deletion if you moved it to List of modern-day individuals who have been called dictators or something (note the hyphen). Then each and every entry would need to be sourced explicitly to say who had referred to that individual as a dictator. BrianSmithson 17:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I can imagine an NPOV, well-cited article on this topic, but this isn't it. Both "modern day" and "dictator" are subject to contention as to their meaning. I would suggest a cut-off date of 1900 and a list of objectively verifiable criteria for calling someone a dictator. For example, we could come up with a list of sources (or of classes of sources) that we consider relevant, and that for each person on the list we would indicate which of these sources so describe them. Also, we could probably say that certain criteria absolutely remove someone from consideration for the list: a freely functioning parliament (even one on a narrow franchise) that occasionally overrides vetoes, an independent judiciary that often rules against the government, possibly even a free press and freedom of movement. I also think that, because gray areas are inevitable, this list should be annotated. In particular, someone may not be a dictator when he takes office, but may become one. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too inherently subjective. I'm not worried about calling Hitler and Stalin dictators. I am worried about borderline cases (Hugo Chavez, Alberto Fujimori, and so on). And if anybody has particular issues with my latter examples, that just furthers my point. --Bletch 22:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

  For what its worth, I have zero issues with the term "modern" - all that means is that we have to pick a specific year and go with that. And thus, everything else that applies to this article also applies to "List of dictators". --Bletch 01:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  Err, appies to how List of dictators used to be. --Bletch 02:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I've been busy at List of dictators. Lists on Wikipedia are important for organizing information and we should seek to have them, rather than removing them, so long as they are NPOV. An original list cannot constitute original research, or we'd have to delete nearly every list. Gazpacho 22:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The issue isn't a list per se, but that this one has no definable criteria and so is inherently POV. At least the gay and lesbian list needs sources in the main article. But this list used an ambiguous term with no independent sources. FearÉIREANN 23:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you look at List of dictators before commenting? Gazpacho 08:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for the same reason as Bletch. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete "Modern" probably isn't the best moniker for this. There might be a better word than dictator also. The list itself is quite extensive. HackJandy 06:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I can longer keep debating here as I am going on vacation for a few days. I have no doubt that when I return User:172 will have had this list will deleted since he will continue his spamming campaign - I certainly hope not. If it is this will mean a precedent for 172's willful manipulation of the WP:NOR policy to suit his own prejudices. It will also be an extreme POV action as it will be an endorsement of ultra-relativism as NPOV. Any thinking person reading this list will understand the his grounds for deletion have been refuted.

I say this regretfully, but his behaviour has been - "eccentric" - let us say. He has deleted a large number of comments on the talk page of List of dictators without justification and providing a misleading edit summary. He has accused me of bad faith, and refused to withdraw. He has spammed around 25 users with no prior interest in this page - often complimenting them and then asking for them to vote; portraying me as some kind of "barbarian" trying to defy a "consensus" about his risible adaption of WP:NOR. But not only did he spam profusely, he also vainly tried to hide the fact that he was doing this by instead of going to the "add comment" tab and adding a comment (see how that works?), he went out of his way to scroll to the bottom of every users talk page - open up the last comment and add a new header. You see, when you do that you don't have a long list of "user contributions" saying "Please vote", since the header you edited was on some random subject. He has deleted someone else's comment on a the List of dictators talk page and mislabeled the edit, and failed to replace it despite requests. When the1physicist politely questioned him on his general take on NOR on his own talk page recently - not only did he delete the comment (see here) but he falsified the "edit summary". When the1physicist questioned about this he again deleted the comment (see here). He is merely repeating a pattern of behavour that ultimatly lead to him joining the select club of "former administrators".

• As I have have oft' pointed out without dispute, there is no fundamental POV with this page: if there are some dictators they can be listed.
• To those who say that the presence/likelihood of POV on a page is a ground for deletion, I refer you to wiki policy and Talk:Daniel Brandt on this matter.
• As for the reason for this nomination, User:172's "interpretation" of the WP:NOR policy, I merely point out that this is without foundation - and 172 has (despite requests) failed to show how this fits in with any of the potential categories of OR listed. Ironically, as Jimbo Wales explains(here) the WP:NOR policy exists to stop exactly this kind of personal crusade (of three years standing, by the way), and the kind of crack-pot interpretation the User:172 is himself using to justify the deletion of this article.

jucifer 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I have been more than willing to clarify my reasoning on this AfD thread and pages like Talk:List of dictators. But I do not respond to accusations posted on my talk page or long ad hominem diatribes, such as what we see above. Diverting the focus to attacking me personally just serves to illustrate the fact that little of substance can be said in response to the comments of many editors in addition to me who have been bringing up many examples of leaders who fall into the gray area, and thus can only be included in the list on the basis of the judgment calls of individual Wikipedia editors themselves. I do not feel the need to respond to any of the number of spurious allegations against me found above at the moment; but I will be happy to reply to good faith questions concerning issues brought up by Jucifer above on the talk page of this AfD. 172 01:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

jucifer's comments are both unfair and unworthy. 172 did not spam me, for example, he sought my opinion, as he knows I am a long time contributor to WP and someone from an academic background who applies NPOV standards rigidly. He also knows that I am independent-minded and will not simply vote a particular way because it would suit him. If I thought he was wrong and you were right I would have voted to keep. Users regularly inform me of debates if it is in a topic they think is in my area of expertise because I will offer my analysis, not theirs. I have never considered, and never will consider, being contacted by someone I know, or someone who is participating in a debate on an topic of interest to me, to inform me about a debate on a topic I have already discussed before (even if not in that instance) as spamming.

The fact is that I cannot find any justification for a list that is based solely on subjective criteria with no objective verification added. Nor can I, as a political scientist and historian, stand over a list that fails to meet the standard academic requirement of context.

Your attack on 172 was grossly unfair and undermined the credibility which I presumed you brought to the debate. I thought we were debating the issue of this page's existence, not your personal annoyance at 172. FearÉIREANN 01:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• I have not been unfair to him - he is free to respond I am no final judge. If I have been unfair, he can easily refute what I have said. I don't think he can, because this is all a matter of record and it shows up in your history pages. If my assertions are grossly unfair - I will certainly apologise - that is a promise. I always apologise when I'm wrong. (Sending you a message is not spamming this is true - spamming is when you send that same message to 25 othetr people to pack a AfD deabte.) jucifer 02:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Quite the contrary User:172, you have obfuscated endlessly, refused compromise and refused to answer questions. As if to prove this point beyond doubt, you again falsify the nature of the actions. This is the post on your talk page you describe as "accusations":

"Hello, there. I was reading through the AFD on List of Dictators, and I noticed your definition of Original Research seems a bit flawed. You claim the process of determining who is a dictator is original research. That seems like quite a stretch. You have to keep in mind the *historical* origins of NOR. It was originally developed because people were posting crackpot physics theories on wikipedia. NOR has since been expanded beyond physics theories, but in general, simple classification is NOT original research. In the case of classifying dictators, you would be using pre-existing material in your decision making process (relevant quotes, polls, media coverage, etc), hence it is not original research. Also, you REALLY need to archive your talk page.the1physicist 20:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)"

And as is obvious I not only am not trying to change the subject, but after I detail you patern of malpractice, I return to the main issue and again refute your justification for deleting this page, age again (as you did to the1physicist I note no explaination of your policy. jucifer 02:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This is of absolutely no relevance to this debate. We are discussing whether to delete List of modern day dictators, not users on Wikipedia. Take your complaints about individual voters elsewhere. FearÉIREANN 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: FearÉIREANN, applies NPOV standards rigidly...independent-minded. Are you being serious? I mean based on your user page, and comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidential gaffes, some might have their doubts. -- JJay 02:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

My page reflects my views. Articles don't represent my views but NPOV (which why though I think Bush is a bozo I still revert attacks on him!). As to presidential gaffes (obviously you are sore that you didn't get your way there) either a person said something and it was regarded as a gaffe in public reaction, or they didn't. It boils down to facts. Whether someone is a dictator or not cannot be measured by something they said, but involves using subjective criteria on what you think of them. It is fundamentally different. FearÉIREANN 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I didn't get my way? facts? Well, I withdraw and apologise for my previous comment. No point starting an additional flame war on this page. Ta -- JJay 02:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Again Jtdirl, so you are saying that no-one can be objectivly described as a dictator?jucifer 02:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This list includes Vladimir Putin. Shall we add him to your list? Why aren't the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait on the list? We have a former Pakistani ruler, but not Pervez Musharraf? Why is that? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering the amount of discussion on this page, don't you think an explanation of your vote is warranted? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: wait a minute My vote is the way it stands, I used my discretion and I voted keep. Why that is a problem, I do not know. I am not going to ask you questions, I voted keep because I thought it was the approriate choice. I didn't ask you any questions on your decision (not to say that I would care about them). You want to delete it, fine...I chose to keep You want an explanation? Here, I think it should be kept, Here, I think it should be kept, Here, I think it should be kept, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Thus I have no response, I see why some people call him a dictator, I used my discretion to vote keep and that should be enough. I hate to be rude, but the reason I am having such a combative attitude towards Zoe is because I know when I start debating, he'll keep shoving moot points down my throat, and will continue until the thing is kept or deleted or whatever. He's the type that has to win. I don't have time for this, and I don't like it when my discretion is questioned. I know that sounds like a little thing to get angry over: but it is not. The amiount of discussion on the page only fortifys my lone keep. Surely, reasons why it should be kept have been exhausted by now. There is no reason for me to add any argument so I can get bombarded by Zoe's. Hell, he is going to argue with me when I haven't even created a debate! I didn't come here for that, I cam here to cast a single vote, and if that is not enough explanation/implication that I thought it should be kept, I am sorry. Again, my argument in Lorem Ipsum.. Thanks, please do not leave me comments disagreeing with me on this, as I will replace that with the text from Lorum Ipsum as well. Thanks. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • You contend that it is POV to describe anyone as a dictator? Please educate me as to how this falls foul of WP:NPOV? jucifer 03:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Pragmatic observation - the list is loaded with errors - often listing the date of legitimate election of people who later became dictators, people wh are not dictators within any meaning of the term, confusing dicators with the unelected heads of oligarchies - who are not dictators because they can't rule by decree and so on. The list, even on its own terms is a morass of factually inaccurate assertions. Stirling Newberry 02:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • • How many times do I have to say this? Calling someone a "dictator" is just your opinion. I think George W. Bush is a dictator. Does that mean I can list him on this page? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh lets please. After all he lost the 2000 election and only got power because Daddy's friends on the Supreme Court gave it to him. And what about Blair — ignoring parliament, ignoring the cabinet, etc, he's been called dictator in The Independent. And of course critics called the late Pope John Paul II "dictatorial" so I guess that makes him a dictator too. And FDR was re-elected four times even though the convention said that you should only be elected twice. They had to write it into the constitution to stop anyone else doing it. And Australia's Gough Whitlam tried to stay in government when he lost supply, so that makes him a dictator. And Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed Whitlam, so I guess he too was a dictator. This list could be fun. Maybe even Jimbo, for all his powers here, should go on it as a dictator. FearÉIREANN 03:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually, Zoe, you've been called "dictatorial". Wanna join the list too? lol FearÉIREANN 03:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Why not? I've been called worse. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Unfortunatly, despite some valiant Irish effort to show cases where it is POV to describe someone as a dictator, the question is if it is neccesarily POV - i.e. allways - not if it can be. jucifer 04:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I really am sorry to keep repeating this question Zoe (and JTDirl), but I would really like to know. I asked you educate me on how it is nessesarily POV to describe someone as a dictator. You ask How many times do I have to say this? only once. All I am asking you to do is provide a quote to back up you repeated assertion that it is POV to call Hitler and Stalin dictator. You need only do it once. jucifer 04:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • According to this article, 17% of India's university students feel that Hitler is the kind of person an Indian government should model themselves after. Wouldn't that indicate that they think of Hitler as a hero? "Adolf Hitler is a hero, because he ruled his people strongly, and conquered other countries." " when Hitler marched into Austria and some other surrounding countries, he was greeted with throngs of people filling the streets, cheering for the Third Reich" User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Given the appalling standard of history knowledge that exists out there, unfortunately that article is all too typical. A recent study I saw showed that 10% of people in secondary school thought Winston Churchill was a fictional character from a Lord of the Rings/Harry Potter-type book, and a third thought he was prime minister in the 1960s!!! And a large number of students didn't know when the Second World War was! What sort of dumbed down education system have we got these days??? FearÉIREANN 04:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• A lot of people like Hitler, but as I asked you above, can you show me a policy statement of wikipedia that would lead youi do this conclusion? jucifer 04:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ruy Lopez 05:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Why don't you complian about this guys one word edit too Zoe? HaHa jucifer 07:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyhow guys its been fun but I gotta go down to St. Moritz for some white powder - if you catch my drift, and I hope we can all be freinds. I hope the right descision is made, but if not, there will still be lots of work to do on this subject. Cordially yours, User:Jucifer|^(talk)
• Keep Dictator is an established word that has a very definite meaning. Well sourced examples of what are ordinarily considered dictators would make an excellent encyclopedia entry. As an electronic, infinitely changeable reference work, the Wikipedia has the potential to be so much more then any other encyclopedia that has preceded it. We have lists of good movies, bad movies, people generally considered to be terrorists, etc. etc. etc. The process of vetting these entries to make sure that names do not arbitrarily get added is what makes the Wikipedia so great. If your favorite benevolent, head of a one-party state, gets included, cite your sources why he or she shouldn’t be on the list and let the process work. It might not work as fast as you like, but it’s a process. And if that really cheeses you off, then there are plenty of other websites that could use your attention just as well. --Easter Monkey 08:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

One of the difficulties is that only those interested in lists will bother to maintain these lists. This is centralised and unwiki. If we must have this thing, it would be better to use a Category approach, which would ensure that (a) everyone interested in person X sees that X is declared to be a Dictator (b) discussion about this takes place where it should, on the talk page of the article about person X. Rd232 ^talk 14:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, both over categories and ..if we must... See also the vote on the Category Totalitarian dictators Wizzy…☎ 14:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I have some serious problems with the article, and I can think more clearly if I try to articulate them rather than jump into Keep or Delete. First of all, I should say that I have a problem with the whole nature of lists on Wikipedia as well as in popular culture generally, where they often scarcely count as knowledge or even information but more as sound bites, and I don't think I've seen a good argument for them except when they are indisputable historical facts, e.g. list of British kings, Nobel Prize winners, and so on. I notice that in the breakdown of Wikipedia articles with the most hits, one of the top ones is List of French people. I won't even comment on such an absurd idea. Be that as it may (and clearly I differ on the value of lists from others on this page, for me the main issue with the dictators list isn't even whether it constitutes original research or not or is NPOV. It's rather that, even though the term "dictator" is meaningful in a general, everyday sort of way, in reality it means rather different things in different historical contexts, and lumping all of these dictators together without explaining those contexts and the reasons for including each one distorts the political and social reality and tends to encourage simple-minded thinking, which isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be doing. It seems clear that there is a huge difference between dictators who simply grew into or inherited a dictatorial position in some authoritarian state structure, dictators who usurped power from a constitutional republic or democracy, totalitarian dictators, and dictators who created a totalitarian dictatorship in the first place -- I'm sure that there are several other categories -- and, similarly, what it means to live in different dictatorships is quite different, depending on the nature of state power, the extent of countervailing powers, and various other factors. And it means something quite different to be a dictator as absolute ruler who by sheer will have thousands of people slaughtered and to be a dictator as the top dog in a bureaucratic dictatorship without such power. At different times in my life I have visited three different countries that legitimately count as dictatorships and had dictators -- one a Communist society, one a fascist dictatorship, and one an authoritarian constitutional monarchy -- but they operated quite differently from one another, and even though there is a sense in which the boss of each country was a dictator, the term obscures as much as it reveals, and putting them together on a list would really be distorting of the political reality. Furthermore, one could contest whether by definition the king in the constitutional monarchy was a dictator, even though if you knew anything about the society you would have to agree that he was. One way to think about this would be to ask ourselves, would be want to have a list of "rulers"? In that case we'd have to add George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and Jacques Chirac to that list. But to have them on the same list with Stalin and Hitler would be kind of silly. There are lists of "national leaders" and "heads of state", but those can be defined objectively and bureaucratically. So it seems to me that, to keep a list of dictators on Wikipedia, there needs to be a stronger and clearer argument not only as to why, but as to what it actually means (which I guess is similar to those who say that it's inherently POV). It also seems to me that there would need to be a prior discussion as to the subcategories of dictators (e.g. those I mentioned above and some others) and what the criteria would be for allocating individuals to those subcategories. Jeremy J. Shapiro 14:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment this is daft, look at these precedents: "Category:Terrorists by nationality" and List of terrorists which have been around for years. Or List of films that have been considered the worst ever, or List of pop culture references to the 69 sex position or List of movie clichés by genre, and to be honest I can't see a material deifference between List of White supremacists and this one here. This article is top notch by comparison, much clearer definitions, this is just twisted apologia. Juicifer (I can't sign in here.)

White supremacists are proud of being called so, therefore the list is verifiable. 69 is silly but well-defined. "worst ever" is a documented thing. "Terrorist" is a militant acting deliberately against civilians, a clear cut def, regardless he is "liberator" or mentally ill. All these lists are sound, and why "dictator" is "top notch" compared to them beats me. mikka (t) 19:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This type of list only leads to endless debate, while adding almost nothing to the project. There's no inclusion criteria and there's far too much ambiguity. Carbonite | Talk 19:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Wizzy. Stifle 23:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per 172.--nixie 03:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, we are fully capable of making sourced distinctions. If we can list neocons and christian religions, and make fine distinctions between which occupations are the bourgoise and which are the proletariat, we can handle this category. We have even managed to handle the controversial definition of human life in the abortion article.--Silverback 11:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No, we cannot draft the kinds of list that you are giving as examples. No one here is saying that we can list "neocons?" Although there are some self-declared "neocons" who can thus be described as such, there are too few self-proclaimed "neocons" to justify drafting such a list. Show me such a list, and I will put it on VfD myself. No one here is advocating the use of the categories of "bourgeois" and "proletariat" states. (BTW, I have a strong aversion to the crude, instrumental Marxian notion of the state as the 'executive committee for managing the common affairs of the ruling class' in my work off Wikipedia.) Again, show me such a list, and I will put it on VfD myself. If indeed some misguided editor has started listing "bourgeois" and "proletariat" states, disregard for NPOV and NOR in one article does not make it right in another aritcle. 172 04:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Try List of people described as neoconservatives. In regards to bourgeois and proletariat, I was thinking of occupations rather than states. The distinctions drawn can get rather fine, when it comes to professionals, such as MDs, corporate managers and lawyers. I'm not aware of any lists in this area however. We cover controversial distinctions all the time. While the neocon list includes "described" in the title, I think that is understood in all such lists, since citations should be required, although perhaps those should be in the article specific to the figure, rather than in the list article. If individuals want to contest entries in the list, and there are citations and consensus for the mention in the individual entry, then that his where it should be contested and not in the list article. Of course, some entries may not have individual articles or have not been discussed in some other other, and it is appropriate to request sources on this list page.--Silverback 09:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I will put dipute headings on list of neocons article. Thanks for pointing it out. I don't have the time to make the case for two VfDs at the same time; but in the next few days, I'll nominate it for deletion myself, unless someone beats me to it. I just found out that Mackensen addressed the same issues when he nominated List of conservatives for deletion, where the grounds for deletion are the same. As for "bourgeois occupations," any such reference in any article, let alone a list, should be deleted. I'm not aware of a Marxist literature on "bourgeois occupations." (The term sounds like a neologism-- and nonsense, as a reference to an "occpation" is not make to make sense not matter what definition of "bourgeoisie" one is working with.) 172 23:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
      • perhaps those should be in the article specific to the figure, rather than in the list article - Would a category not serve better than the List - the List being a hangover from when Wikipedia did not yet have Categories ? Wizzy…☎ 09:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Grue and Silverback Zeq 15:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- no reason for deletion has been offered. The article is not inherently POV, it is merely inherently controversial; discussing examples of dictatorship is also crucial to our coverage of the topic. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No reason has been offered? Regarding whether or not the list is crucial to coverage of the topic, see Jeremmy Shapiro's comments explaining how the list probably serves more to give a misleading picture of political reality than it reveals. Further, Jtdirl, Wizzy, Colipon, John Kenney and I, along with a handful of other editors here, I have provided a plethora of examples of leaders who fall into a gray area, and thus either way their inclusion or exclusion here is on the basis of the POV judgment calls of individual Wikipedia editors. If you do not remember a reason for deletion being stated, you need to take another look at the discussion threads. On a personal note, I have come across your work on articles related to the Federalist Papers; so, I know that you are quite a bright student of political science and political thought. Given your level of sophistication, I expect that you will be able to understand some of our concerns. 172 04:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or else move to user name space. — Instantnood 09:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per 172, John Kenney, and Zoe (ah, such company to keep). See also my deletion nomination for List of conservatives, in which a number of the same issues were addressed. Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete You could have List of people described as dictators I suppose, but then you'd have to qualify each one and I think you'd end up with nearly every 'leader' on the planet ;) Besides, it would probably still be original research. - FrancisTyers 23:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-But limit to leaders who are currently in office, or were in office after 2000 in least, and have a source for each name.(Or can I not vote as I commented earlier?)--T. Anthony 04:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, if you mean that you've stated "keep" in bold twice, remove one, so as your vote is not accidentally counted twice. 172 06:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah thanks for making me check. I didn't really think I had, but I wouldn't have checked if you hadn't said anything. (I checked, all I'd said before was comment so you must be seeing things)--T. Anthony 07:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for checking. Now, regarding the substance of your comments earlier, first, this list shows no sign of becoming a list of contemporary leaders. The author of the list appears to have included the 16th century in the domain of his research project; and 16th century entries are still listed. Second, you are mistaken in assuming that the removal of leaders who are not currently in power will mask the huge POV and NOR problems that got this article on AfD. The classification of contemporary leaders is just as often a murky POV judgment call as it is for less recent historical figures. Third, you seem to be basing your comments on the common misunderstanding conflating the term "modern" with "contemporary." Modern does not mean recent. On no non-arbitrary and NPOV basis can one make the case for the removal of removal of 16th century historical figures from the list of "modern day dictators," as the term "modern" arguably refers to historical figures going as far back in time as the 16th century. If the list is kept, there will be no basis to stop users from uploading their original research on leaders dating from as long ago as the Italian Renaissance, as there long-established arguments that begin the "modern " era in the 16th century or even in the late 15th century. Among historians, the term "modern" is one of the most debated, contested, controversial in their lexicon. No consensus has been established on the meaning of modern, just as no consensus has been established on the meaning of the term dictator. Some historians begin the modern era with the events following Bartholomew Diaz's rounding of cape in the late 15th century. Others begin the modern era with the Italian Renaissance. I know some historians who are among the smaller group of scholars who argue that the modern era begins with the Protestant Reformation. More often, historians argue that the modern era begins with the French Revolution. Meanwhile, many medievalists have long rejected the term modern, arguing that it is a construction based on horribly simplistic understanding of the period regarded as "medieval"—another term that many of them reject. More recently, historians associated with the currents of poststructuralism, postmodernism, and postcolonailism since the 1970s have often questioned the meaningfulness of the concept of the modern era, rather than arguing about when the modern era began. The questions of what the modern era is and when it began still lead to many heated and even emotional polemics between historians and scholars in other fields, especially as some members of the growing area studies departments in U.S. universities (particularly Islamic and East Asian studies) argue that established Western understandings of the "modern" era in historiography are loaded with ethnocentrism-- and may even be tinged with old assumptions that are "orientalist" or even racist. (I do not go so far myself, but I note their concerns. I generally fall into the group associating the modern era with the period following the French Revolution.) Given these many contentions in the historiography, even the periodization of the list is going to be inherently POV, based on an arbitrary POV judgment call regarding exactly which leaders were "modern.") 172 07:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I doubt you would fight a revert war because a well sourced entry happened to be a century or two too early to be considered modern by your definition. If dates are included, the reader could make his own judgement, and consider only those as modern as suits his purposes or interests. I can see valid arguments for dating it to the spread of the printing press, or too the time of the steam power, or whatever. Just because there isn't one right answer for every purpose, doesn't mean this article would not be useful.--Silverback 08:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, you are correct; I would not fight a revert war because an entry happened to be too early to be considered modern by my understanding. I have just as little business pushing my POV and orginal research in articles as you or any other editor. If the only choice is between one editor's POV original research and another editor's POV original research, the article itself is the problem, not the editors, meaning that the only workable solution to the problem is putting up dispute headings and listing the article on VfD-- hence the fact that I have been working on the AfD as opposed to editing the list so that it conforms to my POV instead of another user's POV. (Unlike other editors, I understand that POV and original research must be weeded out because it is outside the scope of writing encyclopedic material on Wikipedia, even if I believe it to be correct. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR mean that what could be one's best written work off Wikipeida is insidious POV and original research on Wikipedia.) At any rate, your standard for allowing the reader to "make his own judgment" is hopelessly unencyclpedic. One could argue that we can allow anyone to upload his or her personal opinions in the articles, allowing the readers to evaluate them critically on their own-- a great principle we all should follow off Wikipedia. However, this is not going to fly in an encyclopedia based on Wikipedia's three core content policies of NPOV, NOR, and verfibility. On a final note, the dating is hardly the major problem with this list. It's just one of the many inherent problems here noted over and over again by many editors on this page. 172 09:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• There are no 15th century enries. There are no 16th century entries. There are no 17th century entries. There are no 18th century entries. There are 5 19th century entries. All the rest are 20/21st century. (Just for the record User:172). Change the to name to "List of dictators (modern usage)" or even better just "List of dictators" with a sub-heading type redirect to Roman dictators if you like.
• As you yourself conceded there are some people at least who can be described as dictators without violating NPOV or WP:V. You further concede above that (even with you strange take on NOR) there are some people at least who can be described as dictators without violating NOR. You dual grounds for deleting this article have evaporated - you yourself concede that NPOV NOR and WP:V are no impediment to making a "list of dictators" - you appear to want the list deleted on grounds the posiblilty of OR/POV (which you dare not express - since you know that is no ground. You have ignored by rebuttals so far leaving your miinions to try haplessly on your

behalf.

• The fact that you have not even attempted to justify your take on NOR in terms of a wikipedia policy statement implies that you are well aware that it holds no water. Since you have conceded points which show that there can be grounds for deletions here on the basis of your nomination - your only proper course of action would be to change your vote to keep. This is what a man of principle would do - so I have no doubt what you now do. jucifer 10:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The list remains fatally flawed in concept, potential entrants, definition, etc as so many users have testified to. The sooner this page is binned the better. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 11:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rhetorical Questions Isn't it POV to remove the list? Some people are pushing the point of view that there are no dictators or that it is impossible to apply the definition of dictator to anyone. That's a POV, isn't it? Logophile 12:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No. They are saying that it is impossible to create a list because too many people (eg, Mugabe, the Shah of Iran, etc) are regarded by some people as dictators but not by others. It is better to discuss the allegations of dictatorship on their own page, not make a list where only a handful would be unchallenged but vast numbers would be subject of POV edit wars. Even the name is unworkable: is 'modern day' being defined in the way historians describe it, or the way it is commonly understood. With guaranted edit wars ad infinitum over content, confusion over title, etc the list idea here is unworkable. Bizarrely, as Zoe shows below, even some sane people actually think Hitler wasn't a dictator (they are nuts in my view). Categorising someone as a dictator is inherently POV. It involves making a value judgment about someone's leadership, and balancing issues like context, cultural traditions, methodology of coming to power, usage of power, etc. (eg, if a state has a long standing tradition of military seizures of power and abuses of power, and a new military leader seizes power but doesn't abuse it as much as his precedessors and creates some form of weak democracy, does one compare him to western standards, by which he was a dictator, or his own state's standards, against which he might not be seen as a dictator?) In Chile, for example, some people on the right called Allende a dictator. Most people categorise Pinochet as a dictator. Put either in and you are guaranteed an eternal edit war here on those names alone. It makes more sense to describe people's rule on their own pages, or the pages of their country, rather than hang tags around their neck that rely on personal POV and put them, out of context, in a list. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 13:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree it is definitely better to discuss the allegations of dictatorship on their own pages. This page should result in little discussion at all. If someone wants to challenge a name on this pages list, they should go to the specific page for the entry and challenge there where the editors have more specific knowledge and probably have already decided the issue. This page should rely upon the specific articles for all figures major enough to have their own articles. This page could also minor entries that don't have articles, but those should be sourced here, or on the page where they might have been mentioned as part of some percieved group. So for the most part this page should be a rather uncontroversial accumulation of the collective work of wikipedia on the various dictators.--Silverback 18:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - keep flags for WP:POV and factual accuracy, but otherwise keep it. The fact that some people dispute whether or not they are actually dictators is irrelevant. After all, we have Al Qaeda, which in fact means "the base" and is not a terrorist organisation at all, yet it is described as such, with enormous factual inaccuracies that are primarily being spouted by US government sources to try to justify the war. But things like that are still useful sources of information. If we get rid of this, then we are obviously using our own POV to decide that we can't have something like this. The number of comments and such in itself asserts notoriety. Why not just clean it up a little? Controversial topic, yes, but they are sometimes the best ones. Zordrac 13:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - The problem is that any list of dictators would imply that dictatorship is a black and white issue: one is either a dictator or not a dictator. In practice, however, there is a huge grey area of leaders who have some dictatorial powers or have done some things which may be considered dictatorial, but otherwise respect a certain degree of democracy and rule of law. If you place such leaders on the list, you are entering the realm of POV. And if you don't place them on the list, you are supporting the opposite POV that they are not dictators. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Add header to ease editing

Sorry if I'm going against some sort of a Wikipedia policy. I move that we move this to an immediate vote. Colipon+(T) 07:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That's what's going on as we write. Those people who put votes of keep or delete up above are... well, voting. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Voting is what we're doing. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So Zoe, have you revised your view that to call Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Pol Pot dictators is POV because "to some people, they're heros"?jucifer 01:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Change it to Robert Mugabe, Mswati III, George W. Bush and Zoe's point becomes clear. You picked the names, Zoe replied on principle. Wizzy…☎ 06:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ha Ha Ha! Suberb rebuttal - you actually impliciltly concede my point (that there are some dictators, therefore they can be listed) so yes, that really is a knock-out arguement. Pow! jucifer 09:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

jucifer, You and I might be able to agree some names. Zoe (for example) might not agree to our list. You re-iterate your point. I re-iterate my reply (please check the talk page of the subject article). Wizzy…☎ 09:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wizzy please! My point was simply that there are some dictators that can be so described without violating NPOV (check the policy - it very minor opinions can be+should be completly ignored under NPOV)! As I have pointed out, if this is true, there can be a list. The fact that Mugabe Mswati and Bush can't be added without violating NPOV only means that they can't be added to the list. For you own benefit, I think you should state here (in a scentence + without diversionary examples) your ground for the deletion of the list: jucifer 10:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

See my delete entry above. If there is any disagreement on any entry by some people, does that mean that they also cannot be added to the list ? Or is it just our list of favourites ? Wizzy…☎ 10:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wizzy, the NPOV policy means that all mainstrem views are given eaqual airtime, minor views are mentioned, and far-out views are not. Even User:172 has admitted that there can be a list of NPOV "dictators". Are you still arguing that it is POV to say that Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot etc are dictators? jucifer 10:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

jucifer, I think the best place to battle out Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot is on their respective pages. Interested editors are watching, some historians are present. I might even be persuaded to shift from Delete to Weak Delete if this page became a Category instead. But my problem is not with Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot. It is with Mugabe, Mswati and Bush - that is where the POV pitches in. You and I agree to leave out Mswati. Did we ask Zoe ? Must we ask her as well ? Wizzy…☎ 10:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I imfer that you now understand why it isn't POV to call Hitler a dictator. Ah the progress! If you don't wan't Mugabe on the list - you can remove him - no need to delete the list. This is far better than a category since it is visible in the "what links here page" for anyone who cares and is capable of nuance and annotation. Why not have both? I they can be categorised they can be listed. Give it some thought anyhoo, I gotta go. Keep well. jucifer 10:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Superb rebuttal, Wiz. FearÉIREANN 16:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not voting, it's a directed consensus finding discussion. It's pretty similar to voting, and has similar objectives, but is not quite the same thing. (voting is also a consensus finding method, but one that is not used on wikipedia as such, much to the confusion of many) :-) Kim Bruning 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually voting is regularly used and specific votes (called "votes") have been called numerous times on numerous pages. FearÉIREANN 16:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

And these were against policy, failed, or both. Kim Bruning 05:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - note that this is not really a matter for voting, as one cannot vote away NPOV, and one cannot do this list in a NPOV way. Phil Sandifer 22:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 22:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete this inflammatory list. We don't need spawning grounds for endless revert wars. --Ghirlandajo 08:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this article: it is inherently POV and invites original research and as such will never comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. — mark ✎ 09:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Everyking 09:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Hmm, is there a more general and neutral word than dictator? I'm looking for the meaning that says a person who "rules alone". Autocrat? Maybe. Any idea? Kim Bruning 05:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The word is rather uniquely useful for its brevity. If it is to be softened, perhaps it is with another word such as "alleged", although that would appear too wishywashy for the likes of Castro, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot. I notice that for some reason this term arouses accusations of being too POV to deal with, while many of the articles openly discuss the seeming similarly POV distinguishing assessment of personality cults, without much conflict. --Silverback 06:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup. Since the page Dictator give a pretty clear definition of what a dictator is, it's possible to create a list of figures. wikipediatrix 06:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Then try classifying the following leaders who have been mentioned on this page: Pervez Musharraf, Vladimir Putin, the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Alberto Fujimori, Hugo Chavez, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Mikhail Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, Robert Mugabe, and Mswati III. Each of the said leaders has been described as a dictator. Others, however, argue otherwise. Regardless of whether or not they are included in the list, the list is POV. To include them in the list is POV. To not include them in the list means that Wikipedia is implying that they are not dictators. There is no way this list can be kept up in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 172 06:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If the there are credible sources that make the case, even though controversial, they can be included, although perhaps they should be qualified per the contrary views. The list of dictators could have a separate section for those leading authoritarian, non-democratic one party states, and another section for majoritarian elected leaders who are much criticised for their authoritarian populist violation of rights, and destructive mismanagement of their economies. The distinctions would be informative. I'd rather have a proliferation of distinctions or sections on the one page, where they can be seen in contrast and comparison rather than on replicating figures on multiple lists on different pages. Musharraf is a military dictator who came to power in a coup. He may lack the state to violate the rights and impose the control that a Xiaoping or Castro does. But when one acts as these people have, it is only natural that some authoritative sources will make an argument that they are dictators. No harm and possibly a lot of good has been done by catagorizing them as dictators. Perhaps some of these figures will even be motivated to earn their way off the list.--Silverback 08:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The list of dictators could have a separate section for those leading authoritarian, non-democratic one party states, and another section for majoritarian elected leaders who are much criticised for their authoritarian populist violation of rights, and destructive mismanagement of their economies. Your cure is worse than the disease. Coming up with a taxonomy for different kinds of regimes (majoritarian, authoritarian, single-party, etc.) adds an even more problematic layer of POV, as there is a lot more disagreement over taxonomies for different kinds of regimes than there is on the definition of dictator. 172 08:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

More categories and distinctions are time tested way of dealing with complexity, which is the real issue here, not POV. People working together in good faith can agree on the what definitions are being used at any given time. Since our reliance on sources means that material will be coming from places using different definitions of dictator, or whatever terms we are dealing with in wikipedia, it means that we have to qualify things. If some source is to call Mugabe as a dictator and have any credibility and informative content beyond mere name calling, then they will have to have justified and qualified their assertion, i.e., "I call Mugabe a dictator because he has these characteristics that are dictatorial such as acknowledging few moral or legal restraints on his power, etc...". Now, maybe you still don't think Mugabe should be called a dictator by your definition of the word, but at least you know what was meant by the person who did use it, and perhaps even agree that the other person, has in good faith, properly applied their definition of dictator to the facts, even if you still don't like or agree with their definition.--Silverback 08:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Why can't it be renamed List of individuals that are generally considered to have been dictators or some such wording? We have a List of films that have been considered the worst ever, a list of video games considered the worst ever, and even a List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever and that one just survived a VfD. Can someone please explain to me why someone would want to defend Adolf Hitler more vehemently then Gigli?!? --Easter Monkey 07:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Establishing what "generally" means is POV in and of itself. If we draft a list of leaders "considered by some to be dictators," the criterion for inclusion is so loose and vague that just about any leader can be included. 172 07:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then get rid of the "generally". It seems to be working on the movies listing, there are a number of editors over there that rigorously apply the caveat that I now see on my edit screen: Please make sure your changes do not violate any copyright and are based on verifiable sources. Each movie gets a blurb about why it's on the list and each entry is thoroughly vetted and verified so that the standards of credible, verifiable sources have been used. Sure, it'll take work, but looking through the history of this page, there seems to be more then enough folks interested in making sure that the standard of not pushing pov are met? Right? --Easter Monkey 07:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I perfer to look at things on a more case-by-case basis. What may be workable on articles on movies may not work with history and politics. The problem here is the possibility of users creating bias through the selection of certain verifiable sources over others, possibly based on whether or not they conform to their own POV. There also the huge liklihood of bias in that sources that disagree with classification of certain leaders are much harder to cite. They often just don't use the term; and it's impossible to cite what a source may be implying but not stating explicitly. 172 08:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That can be avoided by detailing what sources can be used. For example List of purported cults, although permanently in POV dispute, does that. The word dictator can be misused, but I see little evidence that's ever stopped anything. Neo-conservative is often misused but there is a List of people described as neoconservatives. Fascist is routinely misused, but there is a List of fascists. I'm not sure why dictator is any more debatable then things like "worst", "best", "Fascist", "cult", etc that already exist in list forms.--T. Anthony 10:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There have been self-describing fascists and neoconservatives, so matters are not quite the same. To describe some people as fascists and neoconservatives is not POV, so long as the classification is based on their professed affiliations. Nevertheless, there has been a lack of vigilance on those articles, with many POV classifications slipping in that are not based on self-definitions, thus making the difference between those two articles and an inherently POV entry like list of modern day dictators somewhat unclear at first glance. The list of neoconservatives, in particular, has been broadened to such a great extent beyond those who use the term to refer to themselves (such as Irving Kristol and his associates) that I favor redirecting the article until it is cleaned up. Unfortunately, other articles may have problems similar to the ones found in this list; but we cannot allow deteriorating standards on those other others to serve as an excuse to lower the standards when creating new entries. Regarding the List of purported cults, I have not looked at the article, but judging from the title, it may not warrant deletion for the reasons emphasized on this VfD thread. While a comparisons may not be too helpful, as it is probably best to decide these matters on a case-by-case basis anyway, the description of a "cult" is easier to work with because there is always a large volume of literature on whether or not a certain organization is a cult coming from both sides of the debate. In the West there are large communities of experts regularly publishing large volumes of work monitoring and classifying cults. The term "dictator," however, is mostly used loosely as a pejorative, and never with anywhere the kind of rigor that some attempt to bring to bear in the classification of cults. 172 11:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm uncertain where you live that "dictator" is used in a looser fashion then "cult." To me dictator is pretty much just "a single ruler with absolute authority and lacking legal or constitutional restraints." A cult is often "any religion I personally dislike" or "any religion that fits one sociologists check off list." I can find just as many research groups willing to call a leader a dictator as I could ones willing to call a group a cult. More, probably, because the term has been Less misused then cult.--T. Anthony 11:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not referring to usage in informal conversations. I'm referring to the specialized professional publications. There are groups that try to use the term cult with some rigor, such as the Cultic Studies Review and ICSA's Cult Information Service. This is way outside my area of expertise, as I am not a social psychologist. But I was quickly able to find a list of links on cultic studies on a University of Calgary website. [13] The term "dictator," however, is not subject to the same kind of academic debate because it is not used as an ideal-type by scholars, as it has little value as an ideal-type. The reason is that the usage of the term dictator is often not going to be too revealing in the end-- a matter that only Jeremy Shapiro has really touched on so far. (I suggest that you take a look at his comment as well.) 172 11:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well in the dictionary, after the Roman version, it states: "b : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively."[14] From Scholar Google there is the following on dictatorships and dictators.[15],[16],[17],[18], [19]--T. Anthony 12:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Before wading through this debate I would have thought that the reason that the term dictator hasn't been subjected to the same kind of academic debate as some other terms is that it is well enough defined such that a native english speaker would understand what it means. Additionally, I would have thought that it would be a matter of common sense when coming up with a list of folks that have been/are considered dictators. That a number of world leaders have been dictators is a matter of historical fact, it says so on the individual pages dedicated to each (well, most of them anyway), what's wrong with listing them all together for a single point of reference? --Easter Monkey 11:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's one thing to claim that the usage is a "matter of common sense"; it's another thing to look at the specific histories in question. Many leaders called "dictators" by their oppoents defy easy classification: among the countless examples of such leaders are the ones that have been brought up on this page: Pervez Musharraf, Vladimir Putin, the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Alberto Fujimori, Hugo Chavez, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Mikhail Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, Robert Mugabe, and Mswati III. 172 12:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The word dictator is used in the scholarly pages linked to on your own page.Paul Hensel,ICPSR, Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign relations, Eldis, The Brookings Institute, and others.--T. Anthony 12:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is, mostly in passing, with the usage not being discussed in much detail. If anyone looks hard enough, he will be able to dig up some article calling a leader he dislikes described a dictator. Meanwhile, the less broad usage of the term will be lost because writers who don't regard certain leaders regarded by others as dictors aren't addressing the issue of why they don't use the term. Giving users a green light to push POV, so long as they try hard enough to bias the selection of the sources so that the citations fit their POV, is not the way to raise encyclopedic standards on Wikipedia. 172 13:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

So....why not keep the list, and then take each of the entries on a case by case basis? (I perfer to look at things on a more case-by-case basis. Your words...) I've not taken the time to go to each of these individual pages to check for sure, but I would think that there would be (I would hope that there would be) a healthy discussion as to the validity of applying the term dictator to each one of those in turn. Thus, by virtue of the fact that each is under consideration for the application of the term dictator on their own pages, why can't we then list them all in one place? --Easter Monkey 12:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

POV judgment calls are not supposed to be determined by "healthy discussion as to the validity of applying the term dictator" among Wikipedia editors-- original research in no uncertain terms. I recommend considering the leaders other users and I keep on mentioning as examples (Pervez Musharraf, Vladimir Putin, the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Alberto Fujimori, Hugo Chavez, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Mikhail Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, Robert Mugabe, and Mswati III) in order to understand how murky the classification can be-- allowing any Wikipedia editor to exclude or include just about any leader of he is clever enough with the craft and rhetoric involved in the construction of the classification. In the end Wikipedia is best served by faithfully and rigidly following NPOV and NOR policies, not circumventing them creatively because certain Wikipedia editors just happen to enjoy drafting politically oriented lists. 172 13:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That said what if this were changed to "modern day rulers for life." There are several rulers who do self-describe as presidents or rulers for life.--T. Anthony 11:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I wrote a pretty long post on the problems associated with using the term "modern." Please take a look at it... Yes, there are presidents-for-life, such as Saparmurat Niyazov. No new list needs to be created because there already is one in the president for life article. 172 11:27, 2 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 Weekend. Owen× ☎ 23:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weekend off

Non-encyclopedic. Could *possibly* be a wiktionary entry. Cmdrjameson 03:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Encyclopedic. 24.141.78.171 03:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Weekend. There is nothing in this article that isn't better covered in Weekend. Capitalistroadster 04:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Stifle 23:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as commonly used neologism. Zordrac 13:02, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chancery (Cornell University)

del student secret society. No sources, verifiability problem. mikka (t) 03:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• A source added. now it is original research. How in the world I can verify these "Rare Archives"? there should be a publication is publicly acessible source by a reputable author, which may weigh credibility of these "rare archives". At the moment you cannot convince me that it is not a hoax, one of hundreds here. mikka (t) 03:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all non-referenced secret societies. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: If they manage to be secret, they're unverifiable. If they get verifiable, the claim that they're a secret society is false. This is just another one of Those Articles. Geogre 14:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This will come to be known as “Geogre Paradox.” I’ll vote delete on the basis of that unassailable reasoning! •DanMS 07:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm keeping my reasons secret. Ifnord 16:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete on the down-low, secret side.  RasputinAXP  T C 20:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless more information can be added to this article. As a person who considers himself to be very knowledgable of Cornelliana, I am dubious of the factuality of this article lest more information/sources are added.
• Do Not Delete This society is documented in "The Cornellian." These Senior Books beginning with the 1860s are available in the Rare Manuscript Collection of Cornell's Kroch Library. http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/. Chancery is first listed in the 1890 edition, with a founding date as 1889. Ezra Cornell's grandson, Ezra Cornell Blair, is listed as one of the early members -- and his membership is also listed in his university registration card, which is held separately in the archives. Moreover, under the circular logic of Geogre's claim that secret societies are "unverifiable," then the entire section is moot. Secrecy in most "secret societies" pertains not to their existence, but to their missions, membership, and actvities. —preceding unsigned comment by V1889 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 27 November 2005 who is the author the article.
  • 1-If they're documented, it's not a secret society. If the documentation is only in a rare books collection that none of us has access to, you'll need to Xerox a page, scan it in, and post it somewhere, or, for all intents and purposes, there is no documentation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. Stifle 23:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - wasn't this the society mentioned in Dead Poet's Society? If so, then merge with Dead Poet's Society. Need some references of it. Zordrac 13:01, 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 speedily redirected to old age. BD2412 T 15:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old people

This article appears to be a dictionary definition. Unless this article is useful and can be expanded, I'd say delete. Foogol 04:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Currently a Redirect to Old age and this seems a sensible arrangement. Capitalistroadster 04:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the redirect. Jacqui^★ 14:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Aye, I agree with Jacqui. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 22:04, 26 November 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Impaled Northern Moonforest

NN band, possible hoax, recommend delete Pete.Hurd 04:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

No AMG entry, top google hits all fairly rediculous user reviews submitted to obscure websites. Everything associated with this band seems to be a joke. Pete.Hurd 04:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep this is a side project of the notable band Anal Cunt, with notable musician Seth Putnam. Therefore it meets WP:Music imo. This is not a hoax for sure. Spearhead 15:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment Seems to me that Putnam is notable for being in so many non-notable vanity joke black metal/white power bands unknown to AMG with wikipedia entries. Or notable for having so many contradictory (& unverifyable) wikipedia articles covering overdose induced comas, or improbable spatz with notable musicians which generate lots of name dropping wikilinks in his large catalog of wikipedia pages. Sure, AC is a valid band, making Putnam something like a lesser modern Tesco Vee or Billy Milano, but the entries relating to him -and his notable activities- reek of fiction. Pete.Hurd 18:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps merging it to Seth Putnam is an option than. Spearhead 22:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. One self-issued record? Band is defunct but planning to release another single? Bah. Ifnord 16:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Renata3 22:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Ifnord. Stifle 23:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable, and side project of notable band Anal Cunt. Simple. Zordrac 12:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 02:53, 2 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 Spedy Delete --RoySmith 23:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony R. Woodard

Hoax. I can find no verification of this. Joyous | Talk 04:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete hoax and if real nn A7. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:34, 26 November 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× ☎ 23:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Justin P. Calvin

Author of a "well-known" but seemingly non-existent book. Joyous | Talk 04:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete hoax, if real, nn A7 NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I find no evidence in google or bn.com that this person or book exists. Unfortunately, CSD A7 says an assertion of significance, even if disputed, is enough to make it not qualify. --RoySmith 23:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete -- hoax. "Master of Pundits" yeilds nothing on Amazon or Google. HackJandy 07:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Joy Stovall. Stifle 23:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as hoax. Not funny enough for BJAODN. I suspect "Master of Pundits" is a play on Metallica's Master of Puppets. Zordrac 12:58, 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 DELETE by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smokeeter

• Advertisement. Delete Owen× ☎ 04:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Advertisment from serial linkspammer Delete AntiVan 07:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• (speedy) Delete Adv. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't see any way it meets CSD, which is a pity because this article really sucks. --RoySmith 23:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• If it's a commercial product then delete, otherwise transwiki to Wiktionary. Stifle 23:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nuff said. ad. Zordrac 12:57, 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 KEEP. Owen× ☎ 23:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The List of Channel 4 programames moved to List of Channel 4 television programmes

I would hope the reasons for this nomination would be obvious. However, I'll spell them out: 1)Violation of WP:NOT section 1.7, that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, 2)Utterly useless. Even if it specified where this Channel 4 is (since there's one in every TV jurisdiction) and a time frame for "recently", there would be no legitimate situation in which that information would need to be compiled, let alone put on Wikipedia. We shouldn't keep ridiculous lists like this simply because "it could be useful to some hypothetical researcher". Delete this. The Literate Engineer 04:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment I now realize that Channel 4 is a major network in the UK. However, as for these lists being standard practice, I have no respect for that practice. I found this article thorugh the random article link, thought it was an isolated problem, and nominated it. I would like to see the "several dozen more" which SimonP mentions deleted along with this one, but I recognize their nomination would be a futile effort. And, as I said, I disagree that this sort of list is sufficiently useful for its utility to be a positive attribute (and thus, to be relevant). The Literate Engineer 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, and please do some research before nominating articles. Channel 4, which is linked to in the article, is a major network in the UK. Lists of episodes by network are standard Wikipedia practice. We have a List of programs broadcast by NBC, List of programs broadcast by CBS, List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network, List of programs broadcast by TV 3 in Norway, and several dozen more. The article does, of course, badly need to be renamed. - SimonP 05:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as per standard format ie List of programs broadcast by Channel 4. Channel 4 is a major British broadcaster so this information is definitely notable. Capitalistroadster 05:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm actually tempted to vote delete on this because these list articles are woefully incomplete compared to the categories that cover the same thing. I know that I personally have added network show categories to at least a couple hundred shows and I really don't want to have to repeat myself and list these shows again in a list article. I will wait to see how other people vote and comment before casting my ballot. (PS I'm aware that at least some of the network list articles have additional information such as current programming grids, so I'm not saying they aren't worthy of having articles.) 23skidoo 06:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• We of course appreciate your work categorizing articles. Yes, this is messy and it needs cleanup. However, it does do something that categories won't; it lists programmes for which there are no articles yet. This list can also be annotated. It isn't now, but I hope it will be soon in the future as it is cleaned up. See WP:CLS for more info. Jacqui^★ 14:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

That's fair and certainly I wasn't intending to suggest categorizing is somehow better - it's just a matter of keeping the lists more or less the same. But in some respects I rendered my objection (such as it was) moot by mentioning that other network lists articles include additional info such as the program grids. Long story short, a keep vote (as if it needed it) with the suggestion the article be expanded like the others. 23skidoo 16:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, useful. Rename. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It isn't "indiscriminate" (most articles which are accused of this here aren't). This is one of the major channels in the UK. It already has a category, but it can't be enhanced with additional information as a list can be. CalJW 10:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful as I would want to know programmes that have been on Channel 4, and not all yet exist so Category is insufficient. --TimPope 12:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep renamed list. Verifiable, notable, useful. Jacqui^★ 14:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep as above. the wub "?!" 16:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Although not in the state it's in at the moment. It needs to be tidied up somehow. I'll help if I can, but I'm not sure where to start... 9cds 18:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot believe people are voting to keep this. First, the information will quickly pass its 'best before' date. Second, it's a sea of red links. Third, the first four blue links I clicked led to articles that were other than a description of the program. Fourth, this is utterly irrelevant to anyone outside the broadcast reach of this channel. Denni ☯ 21:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there are like 60 million people in broadcast reach of this channel. Once a program has been broadcast, the fact will remain true in perpetuity, and never need to be updated. Red links to notable topics encourage people to fill them in. AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 23:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - nothing wrong with a list. Zordrac 12:56, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Culture of Brittany/Temp

Why is this article in existence? What's wrong with Culture of Brittany? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Rename and Rework. I suppose it's a valid subject, but right now it's just a definition and a list. JHMM13 08:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• The temp page was probably a draft. Culture of Brittany was previously deleted for lack of content. Delete temp page as redundant. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete - I made both pages. --Wonderfool t(c) 19:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per author Zordrac 12:55, 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 Speedy deleted as vandalism by Wonderfool (see discussion on WP:ANI. -Doc ^ask? 13:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Home-churching

A joke article based on this satirical Onion article [20]. See User:Wonderfool's comments in Talk:Nihilartikel for an attempt to penetrate the veil of mystery regarding why a good editor would do such a thing. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete – It's cute, but it's time to do away with it. – ClockworkSoul 06:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as another of Wonderfool's hoaxes. --Carnildo 08:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete from the main space then BJAODN. Capitalistroadster 08:27, 26 November 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. I counted Zoe, Quentin, D Monack, Renata3, HackJandy and Peyna arguing for deletion and Michan, RoySmith and Zordrac arguing against, which makes it pure numerically a borderline case. Proceeding to look at the arguments. I note that Zoe's nomination is very weak and Michan created the article as her/his first contribution. RoySmith almost convinced me to keep it, but in the end, the lack of credible references was fatal. If there had been a references to a national newspaper or magazine or something like that, I would have kept it, but blogs just don't cut it, I'm afraid. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sholom Keller

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

nn "agitator and theoretician" User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• No. While not a celebrity this man is a participant of both a hugely important current event as well as a pathblazer in Iraq veteran military resistance. Imagine saying in the 70's that John Kerry (then only a member of Vietnam Veterans Against War) was unimportant. --Michan 07:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with the above poster, this article should not be deleted. --65.96.10.143, 2005-11-26
• Delete, just some random non-notable bugger. Also can IP's even vote? Quentin Pierce 06:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • THey can vote (it's acutally "discuss") but the closing admin can discount them. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • And probably will discount them as Meatpuppets. Peyna 00:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy A7. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - completely lacking in unbiased source material. --דוד ♣ D Monack 10:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete - just because the article looks pretty neat Renata3 22:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A cursory google search comes up with plenty of references, so this guy clearly exists and most of the basic information in the article appears verifiable. Controversal? Yes. Biased? Yes. POV? Yes. But that just means the article needs work, not that it should be deleted. --RoySmith 23:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete. He's a locally well known veteran standing up for a cause he believes in. He's been on the news and has hundreds of google search results. The bandwidth/serverspace taken up by this guy is minimal and is defenitely worth the information. Anyways, this article looks like it has potentially. Also, the quote section is pretty funny. --FluteyFlakes88 23:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • User's only edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually I've worked on quite a few pages before but never bothered to use a username until now. I was prompted to register one becuase of your comment above about how ip's can't vote. For a two paragraph article you seem to care quite a bit that this gets deleted. --24.60.246.181 02:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Just done some research and I think Zoe has a personal bias against this article. Seeing as this guy is anti-war and a self proclaimed anarchist, and Zoe declared that Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mussolini are "heroes"... Decide for yourself though what his motivations are. --24.60.246.181 02:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Your "research" is highly flawed. I never said any such thing. I said that some people consider them heroes. My motive has solely to do with the lack of notability of this person, whose views I personally support. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • If that's really the case then fair enough. --24.60.246.181 03:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - blogger with fairly weak Google hits. Also the sock puppet voting isn't helping my opinion either. HackJandy 07:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - has interviews, is notable (P.S. I changed the 3 above "don't deletes" and "no" votes to "keep" to aid in counting). Its important for the sake of balance to include people like this. So that the encyclopaedia overall conforms with WP:POV. Zordrac 12:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - no more notable than any other rank-and-file member of those organizations. Peyna 00:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes the Google test. His name is often mispelled by the media as "Shalom Keller" Could use a whole lot of editing though; there's definitely a lefty bias here. And I'm not so sure that anarchist organizations even have a "rank-and-file". 65.96.220.2 01:09, 3 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 by community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kyle and Evan Do The Movies

NN amateur video series.

• Keep; Anyone who has watched any or has followed all of these films would agree that this entry should definitely stay. While it is not very well known amongst those residing outside of California, "Kyle and Evan Do the Movies" is a serious amateur film project that will no doubt gain popularity as it progresses. I see no harm and only help in keeping this Wikipedia entry up for viewing. Perhaps those who believe it needs cleaning up should make specific points as to where and how it should be edited (more) so that it can be satisfactorily revised to meet those expectations. Thus far, only 2 out of the 5 who have voted for deletion have presented any reason as to why they think it should be done.--Xrockangelx 06:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; This amateaur film series enjoys mild fame in it's own underground way, and is an interesting student film series. The entry has been cleaned up substantially, as well. Kayle101 20:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sir_Rylee 19:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; Although this series does not have much of a presence on the internet, it is a popular film series in the San Francisco Bay Area. Dispite the fact that it is an amateur project, it is fairly well-known in underground culture. JaxShores 17:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Andrew_pmk | Talk 06:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Quentin Pierce 06:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --JHMM13 08:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; as a student of independent film I find this quite interesting and worthwhile of inclusion. Voyager640 21:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless somebody seriously cleans it up. Renata3 22:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; I believe it has been cleaned up sufficiently and is of interest to the online community. EarthSage14 17:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's a nice project, but from what I gather the entire content for the series is in the wiki itself. Wiki's entry ranks higher than the Google search... and the Google search only has 2 hits! HackJandy 07:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per EarthSafe14. Stifle 23:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, It's worth keeping, especially if the project continues and returns to the internet. Krou88 05:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral but I can be convinced to change my vote if it is cleaned up come more. – ClockworkSoul 07:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep highly notable. Zordrac 12:38, 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 with Idries Shah, not sufficiently strong consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Octagon Press - Idries Shah

It reads like an advertisement, can't work out whether it's about the publisher or the person, and smells heavily of copyvio (though I haven't found the source). We already have Idries Shah, so a redirect isn't out of the question, but would anyone search using this title? Grutness...wha? 06:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Idries Shah Dlyons493 Talk 12:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Renata3 22:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to be a vanity page. Stifle 23:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Idries Shah. lol shouldn't be delete and is definitely not vanity. Zordrac 12:37, 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 DELETE by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Melbtrip

Delete. Nothing but linkspam, with text straight from the website. I added the link to the Melbourne page. I don’t think a redirect is necessary. •DanMS 07:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Useful for planning a trip in Melbourne I'm sure but not encyclopedic. Capitalistroadster 08:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 09:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A textbook example of linkspam. --Roisterer 09:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Sarah Ewart 12:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The site's only notability lies in the Australian railfan community, where it is notorious for plagiarising nearly all its content and spamming. Apart from that, it's utterly non-notable. Ambi 13:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete linkspam IanBailey ^(talk) 01:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's a copyvio too. Stifle 23:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant advertising. Zordrac 12:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 21:38, 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 keep - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination) StabRule 07:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish American scientists

List of Jewish American artists, List of Jewish American musicians, List of Jewish American sport figures, List of Jewish American academics, List of Jewish American show business figures, List of Jewish American writers, List of Jewish American business figures --- these are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans -- having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched StabRule 08:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. StabRule 08:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Vulturell suggested that perhaps it may be better to delete the big List of Jewish Americans than these smaller lists - which is fine - if a vote is put on the large list I will get ride of the afds on these. StabRule 10:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the lot. Not useful breakdown. Abstain Still don't think these are useful but the circumstances of the nomination and particularly the canvassing for votes give me pause. Dlyons493 Talk 12:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep this is a clear bad WP:FAITH nomination, this user is almost certainly a sock puppet and their sole edits Special:Contributions/StabRule and that of one of their ips Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 have been devoted solely to placing afds on Jewish lists and spamming users, who they seem to choose on the basis of their acquaintance through another account. Arniep 15:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain. Although normally I'd grit my teeth and vote to delete this particular list against as a matter of consistency, Arniep's charge of a bad faith nomination holds weight. The nominator appears to be a sock puppet whose sole purpose is to rid Wikipedia of Jewish lists. The expansiveness of the rationale for nomination gives me pause. Surely there are enough show business figures (Woody Allen) and writers (Philip Roth) whose Jewish heritage influences their work in noteworthy ways. Sandy Koufax missed the opening game of the World Series because it fell on Yom Kippur. Durova 16:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• First of all, the WP:FAITH nominations are just set up as a distraction by User:Arniep who himself went on a rampage recently and nominated literally dozens of lists for deletion on the basis of a WP:POINT. I have been on wikipedia under an anonymous IP and finally decided to make a username because people were bitching about anonymous IPs on page deletions. For that reason, I am concentrating on deleting the lists that are the most numerous - among them happens to be a lot of jewish lists. A blatant call for anti-semitism on User:Arniep's part I expected, and he seems to be very immature. I already discussed with User:Vulturell that either these smaller lists need to go or the bigger list because they are virtual copies of eachother. There is no WP:POINT nomination here - this could even be considered speedy delete material. StabRule 21:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I did make a WP:POINT which I fully admitted, as a counter to mass deletion of Jewish lists by yourself under numerous sock puppet accounts. You seem to be remarkably au fait with wikipedia procedures for someone who has done just a few anon ip edits. Also, would you mind not deleting critical comments from your talk page (which were not from me by the way) as it is considered bad WP:FAITH. I never accused you of anti-semitism so please withdraw that insulting remark. Arniep 21:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the main problem here is this user leaping to nominate these lists without any prior discussion. It would have been the mature and polite thing to place discussions on the talk pages of these articles first. If the user had done that I might well have agreed.Arniep 22:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • comment The ip Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 nominated Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_18#List_of_Jewish_jurists and then another ip from BellSouth.net Inc.Atlanta placed a probable sock puppet vote on the same nomination (Special:Contributions/72.144.71.234) which was noticed by User:JJay in his comment Strong Keep. Changing my vote. Don't like anon noms here + 2nd anom vote, both out of Atlanta.-- JJay 05:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC). The ip which StabRule acknowledges on his user page Special:Contributions/65.9.143.76 is also a BellSouth.net Inc.Atlanta address. Arniep 00:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - the overall list is unwieldy; we should do what was done with the List of Jews and make it into a catalogue of lists. - Taxwoman 23:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I don't know what the answer is for all these lists. I don't even like lists. I do know that I'm fed up with the daily noms or renoms for Jewish, Catholic, Christian, name your religion lists. It is strange that people feel the need to join wikipedia for the sole purpose of seeing something deleted. It is reprehensible that they do this for sensitive content involving religion. The Afd process itself is being perverted. I am therefore going on the record that from now on I will exclusively vote Strong Keep for any positive list that has any religion in its title. I don't care if someone does a List of Amish Proctologists- if I see it on AfD it's a keeper. And yes I meant positive. If I think the list carries the slightest negative connotation for any religion I will vote Strong Delete. List of Quaker War Criminals- No thank you. Just so everyone knows where I stand. -- JJay 01:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — wikipedia is not paper: I see no problem with subdividing sufficiently long lists. Plus that "mass delete" comment is pure evil. — RJH 01:45, 27 November 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 - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination)

[edit] List of Jewish American academics

List of Jewish American artists, List of Jewish American musicians, List of Jewish American sport figures, List of Jewish American show business figures, List of Jewish American scientists, List of Jewish American writers, List of Jewish American business figures --- these are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans -- having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched StabRule 08:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. StabRule 08:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Vulturell suggested that perhaps it may be better to delete the big List of Jewish Americans than these smaller lists - which is fine - if a vote is put on the large list I will get ride of the afds on these. StabRule 10:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep this is a clear bad WP:FAITH nomination, this user is almost certainly a sock puppet and their sole edits Special:Contributions/StabRule and that of one of their ips Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 have been devoted solely to placing afds on Jewish lists and spamming users, who they seem to choose on the basis of their acquaintance through another account. Arniep 15:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and edit for relevance. Durova 16:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• First of all, the WP:FAITH nominations are just set up as a distraction by User:Arniep who himself went on a rampage recently and nominated literally dozens of lists for deletion on the basis of a WP:POINT. I have been on wikipedia under an anonymous IP and finally decided to make a username because people were bitching about anonymous IPs on page deletions. For that reason, I am concentrating on deleting the lists that are the most numerous - among them happens to be a lot of jewish lists. A blatant call for anti-semitism on User:Arniep's part I expected, and he seems to be very immature. I already discussed with User:Vulturell that either these smaller lists need to go or the bigger list because they are virtual copies of eachother. There is no WP:POINT nomination here - this could even be considered speedy delete material. StabRule 21:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The idea that you are not picking on Jewish lists is laughable, all one needs to do is look at your edits Special:Contributions/StabRule, Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73. Arniep 22:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - the overall list is unwieldy; we should do what was done with the List of Jews and make it into a catalogue of lists. - Taxwoman 23:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — wikipedia is not paper: I see no problem with subdividing sufficiently long lists. Plus that "mass delete" comment is pure evil. — RJH 01:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Same for all religion lists per openly stated policy and Martin Niemöller. -- JJay 01:52, 27 November 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 - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination) StabRule 07:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish American political figures

List of Jewish American artists, List of Jewish American musicians, List of Jewish American sport figures, List of Jewish American academics, List of Jewish American show business figures, List of Jewish American writers, List of Jewish American business figures --- these are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans -- having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched StabRule 08:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. StabRule 08:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Vulturell suggested that perhaps it may be better to delete the big List of Jewish Americans than these smaller lists - which is fine - if a vote is put on the large list I will get ride of the afds on these. StabRule 10:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep this is a clear bad WP:FAITH nomination, this user is almost certainly a sock puppet and their sole edits Special:Contributions/StabRule and that of one of their ips Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 have been devoted solely to placing afds on Jewish lists and spamming users, who they seem to choose on the basis of their acquaintance through another account. Arniep 15:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and edit for relevance. Deal with nominator per WP:Point. Durova 16:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• First of all, the WP:FAITH nominations are just set up as a distraction by User:Arniep who himself went on a rampage recently and nominated literally dozens of lists for deletion on the basis of a WP:POINT. I have been on wikipedia under an anonymous IP and finally decided to make a username because people were bitching about anonymous IPs on page deletions. For that reason, I am concentrating on deleting the lists that are the most numerous - among them happens to be a lot of jewish lists. A blatant call for anti-semitism on User:Arniep's part I expected, and he seems to be very immature. I already discussed with User:Vulturell that either these smaller lists need to go or the bigger list because they are virtual copies of eachother. There is no WP:POINT nomination here - this could even be considered speedy delete material. StabRule 21:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Why are you only concentrating on Jewish lists: Special:Contributions/StabRule, Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73? Arniep 22:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - the overall list is unwieldy; we should do what was done with the List of Jews and make it into a catalogue of lists. - Taxwoman 23:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — wikipedia is not paper: I see no problem with subdividing sufficiently long lists. — RJH 01:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Same for all religion lists per openly stated policy and Martin Niemöller. How about we mass delete stupidity and bigotry.-- JJay 01:53, 27 November 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 - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination) StabRule 07:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish American business figures

List of Jewish American artists, List of Jewish American musicians, List of Jewish American sport figures, List of Jewish American academics, List of Jewish American scientists, List of Jewish American writers, List of Jewish American showbusiness figures --- these are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans -- having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched StabRule 08:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. StabRule 08:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Vulturell suggested that perhaps it may be better to delete the big List of Jewish Americans than these smaller lists - which is fine - if a vote is put on the large list I will get ride of the afds on these. StabRule 10:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep this is a clear bad WP:FAITH nomination, this user is almost certainly a sock puppet and their sole edits Special:Contributions/StabRule and that of one of their ips Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 have been devoted solely to placing afds on Jewish lists and spamming users, who they seem to choose on the basis of their acquaintance through another account. Arniep 15:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and edit for relevance. Deal with nominator per WP:Point. Durova 16:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• First of all, the WP:FAITH nominations are just set up as a distraction by User:Arniep who himself went on a rampage recently and nominated literally dozens of lists for deletion on the basis of a WP:POINT. I have been on wikipedia under an anonymous IP and finally decided to make a username because people were bitching about anonymous IPs on page deletions. For that reason, I am concentrating on deleting the lists that are the most numerous - among them happens to be a lot of jewish lists. A blatant call for anti-semitism on User:Arniep's part I expected, and he seems to be very immature. I already discussed with User:Vulturell that either these smaller lists need to go or the bigger list because they are virtual copies of eachother. There is no WP:POINT nomination here - this could even be considered speedy delete material. StabRule 21:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please check out Mr "StabRule"'s edits: Special:Contributions/StabRule, Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73. Arniep 22:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - the overall list is unwieldy; we should do what was done with the List of Jews and make it into a catalogue of lists. - Taxwoman 23:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — wikipedia is not paper: I see no problem with subdividing sufficiently long lists. — RJH 01:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Same for all religion lists per openly stated policy and Martin Niemöller. How about we mass delete stupidity and bigotry.-- JJay 01:54, 27 November 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 - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination) StabRule 07:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish American show business figures

List of Jewish American artists, List of Jewish American musicians, List of Jewish American sport figures, List of Jewish American academics, List of Jewish American scientists, List of Jewish American writers, List of Jewish American business figures --- these are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans -- having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched StabRule 08:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. StabRule 08:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep Why don't we delete the main "Jewish Americans" list instead? It's a lot harder to read than this one because it's so big.Vulturell 08:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I figured these would get more votes to delete than the main one - but if you think the main one will go down easier then fine by me. The point is one of these have to go. StabRule 10:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Vulturell suggested that perhaps it may be better to delete the big List of Jewish Americans than these smaller lists - which is fine - if a vote is put on the large list I will get ride of the afds on these. StabRule 10:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep this is a clear bad WP:FAITH nomination, this user is almost certainly a sock puppet and their sole edits Special:Contributions/StabRule and that of one of their ips Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 have been devoted solely to placing afds on Jewish lists and spamming users, who they seem to choose on the basis of their acquaintance through another account. Arniep 15:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and edit for relevance. Deal with nominator per WP:Point. Durova 16:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• First of all, the WP:FAITH nominations are just set up as a distraction by User:Arniep who himself went on a rampage recently and nominated literally dozens of lists for deletion on the basis of a WP:POINT. I have been on wikipedia under an anonymous IP and finally decided to make a username because people were bitching about anonymous IPs on page deletions. For that reason, I am concentrating on deleting the lists that are the most numerous - among them happens to be a lot of jewish lists. A blatant call for anti-semitism on User:Arniep's part I expected, and he seems to be very immature. I already discussed with User:Vulturell that either these smaller lists need to go or the bigger list because they are virtual copies of eachother. There is no WP:POINT nomination here - this could even be considered speedy delete material. StabRule 21:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Why are you only concentrating on Jewish lists out of all the thousands of lists on Wikipedia, is there a lack of space? Please see StabRule's edits for confirmation of his obsession Special:Contributions/StabRule, Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73? Arniep 22:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - the overall list is unwieldy; we should do what was done with the List of Jews and make it into a catalogue of lists. - Taxwoman 23:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — wikipedia is not paper: I see no problem with subdividing sufficiently long lists. — RJH 01:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Same for all religion lists per openly stated policy and Martin Niemöller. How about we mass delete stupidity and bigotry.-- JJay 01:55, 27 November 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 - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination) StabRule 07:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish American writers

List of Jewish American artists, List of Jewish American musicians, List of Jewish American sport figures, List of Jewish American academics, List of Jewish American scientists, List of Jewish American business figures, List of Jewish American showbusiness figures --- these are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans -- having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched StabRule 08:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. StabRule 08:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Vulturell suggested that perhaps it may be better to delete the big List of Jewish Americans than these smaller lists - which is fine - if a vote is put on the large list I will get ride of the afds on these. StabRule 10:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep this is a clear bad WP:FAITH nomination, this user is almost certainly a sock puppet and their sole edits Special:Contributions/StabRule and that of one of their ips Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 have been devoted solely to placing afds on Jewish lists and spamming users, who they seem to choose on the basis of their acquaintance through another account. Arniep 15:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and edit for relevance. Deal with nominator per WP:Point. Durova 16:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• First of all, the WP:FAITH nominations are just set up as a distraction by User:Arniep who himself went on a rampage recently and nominated literally dozens of lists for deletion on the basis of a WP:POINT. I have been on wikipedia under an anonymous IP and finally decided to make a username because people were bitching about anonymous IPs on page deletions. For that reason, I am concentrating on deleting the lists that are the most numerous - among them happens to be a lot of jewish lists. A blatant call for anti-semitism on User:Arniep's part I expected, and he seems to be very immature. I already discussed with User:Vulturell that either these smaller lists need to go or the bigger list because they are virtual copies of eachother. There is no WP:POINT nomination here - this could even be considered speedy delete material. StabRule 21:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Again, this user is unnaturally obsessed with deleting Jewish lists. This is getting incredibly boring, there is no lack of space on Wikipedia, all ethnicities should be allowed their own lists. Please see StabRule's contributions for evidence of his crazy obsession Special:Contributions/StabRule, Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73. Arniep 22:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - the overall list is unwieldy; we should do what was done with the List of Jews and make it into a catalogue of lists. - Taxwoman 23:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — wikipedia is not paper: I see no problem with subdividing sufficiently long lists. — RJH 01:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Same for all religion lists per openly stated policy and Martin Niemöller. How about we mass delete stupidity and bigotry.-- JJay 01:56, 27 November 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 - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination)

[edit] List of Jewish American artists

List of Jewish American sport figures, List of Jewish American show business figures, List of Jewish American scientists, List of Jewish American writers, List of Jewish American business figures, List of Jewish American musicians, List of Jewish American academics --- these are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans -- having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched StabRule 08:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. StabRule 08:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Vulturell suggested that perhaps it may be better to delete the big List of Jewish Americans than these smaller lists - which is fine - if a vote is put on the large list I will get ride of the afds on these. StabRule 10:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep this is a clear bad WP:FAITH nomination, this user is almost certainly a sock puppet and their sole edits Special:Contributions/StabRule and that of one of their ips Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 have been devoted solely to placing afds on Jewish lists and spamming users, who they seem to choose on the basis of their acquaintance through another account. Arniep 15:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and edit for relevance. Deal with nominator per WP:Point. Durova 16:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• First of all, the WP:FAITH nominations are just set up as a distraction by User:Arniep who himself went on a rampage recently and nominated literally dozens of lists for deletion on the basis of a WP:POINT. I have been on wikipedia under an anonymous IP and finally decided to make a username because people were bitching about anonymous IPs on page deletions. For that reason, I am concentrating on deleting the lists that are the most numerous - among them happens to be a lot of jewish lists. A blatant call for anti-semitism on User:Arniep's part I expected, and he seems to be very immature. I already discussed with User:Vulturell that either these smaller lists need to go or the bigger list because they are virtual copies of eachother. There is no WP:POINT nomination here - this could even be considered speedy delete material. StabRule 21:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What percentage of the lists on Wikipedia are Jewish lists? I'd say a very small percentage. You only have to look at your contributions Special:Contributions/StabRule, Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 to see you have singled out Jewish lists above all others for deletion, and the fact you keep removing critical comments on your talk page from User:Radiant! and User:A_Man_In_Black to give a false impression of your activities. Arniep 22:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - the overall list is unwieldy; we should do what was done with the List of Jews and make it into a catalogue of lists. - Taxwoman 23:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — wikipedia is not paper: I see no problem with subdividing sufficiently long lists. — RJH 01:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Same for all religion lists per openly stated policy and Martin Niemöller. How about we mass delete stupidity and bigotry.-- JJay 01:57, 27 November 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 null and void see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans. - StabRule 07:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC) StabRule rethought the close and reposted per this comment. The result of the debate was Keep - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination). - StabRule 07:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish American musicians

List of Jewish American musicians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

and

List of Jewish American academics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Jewish American artists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Jewish American business figures (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Jewish American scientists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Jewish American show business figures (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Jewish American sport figures (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Jewish American writers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans. Having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched. -- StabRule 08:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC) Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. -- StabRule 08:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Why don't we delete the main "Jewish Americans" list instead? It's a lot harder to read than this one because it's so big. -- Vulturell 08:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• User:Vulturell suggested that perhaps it may be better to delete the big List of Jewish Americans than these smaller lists - which is fine - if a vote is put on the large list I will get ride of the afds on these. -- StabRule 10:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep this is a clear bad WP:FAITH nomination, this user is almost certainly a sock puppet and their sole edits Special:Contributions/StabRule and that of one of their ips Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 have been devoted solely to placing afds on Jewish lists and spamming users, who they seem to choose on the basis of their acquaintance through another account. -- Arniep 15:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and edit for relevance. Deal with nominator per WP:Point. -- Durova 16:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• First of all, the WP:FAITH nominations are just set up as a distraction by User:Arniep who himself went on a rampage recently and nominated literally dozens of lists for deletion on the basis of a WP:POINT. I have been on Wikipedia under an anonymous IP and finally decided to make a username because people were bitching about anonymous IPs on page deletions. For that reason, I am concentrating on deleting the lists that are the most numerous - among them happens to be a lot of Jewish lists. A blatant call for anti-Semitism on User:Arniep's part I expected, and he seems to be very immature. I already discussed with User:Vulturell that either these smaller lists need to go or the bigger list because they are virtual copies of each other. There is no WP:POINT nomination here - this could even be considered speedy delete material. -- StabRule 21:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Please see my comments on above nominations. Arniep 22:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep - the overall list is unwieldy; we should do what was done with the List of Jews and make it into a catalogue of lists. - Taxwoman 23:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — wikipedia is not paper: I see no problem with subdividing sufficiently long lists. — RJH 01:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Same for all religion lists per openly stated policy and Martin Niemöller. How about we mass delete stupidity and bigotry.-- JJay 01:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - These afds can be closed for List of Jewish Americans is what is under nomination now. -- StabRule 03:34, 27 November 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 - due to conditions presented - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans (2nd nomination) StabRule 07:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish American sport figures

List of Jewish American artists, List of Jewish American musicians, List of Jewish American business figures, List of Jewish American academics, List of Jewish American scientists, List of Jewish American writers, List of Jewish American showbusiness figures --- these are all compiled into the main article List of Jewish Americans -- having them as separate lists is utterly farfetched StabRule 08:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Solution: Mass delete all these lists, as they are virtual "copy and pastes" from the main article. StabRule 08:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Vulturell suggested that perhaps it may be better to delete the big List of Jewish Americans than these smaller lists - which is fine - if a vote is put on the large list I will get ride of the afds on these. StabRule 10:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep this is a clear bad WP:FAITH nomination, this user is almost certainly a sock puppet and their sole edits Special:Contributions/StabRule and that of one of their ips Special:Contributions/72.144.161.73 have been devoted solely to placing afds on Jewish lists and spamming users, who they seem to choose on the basis of their acquaintance through another account. Arniep 15:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and deal with the nominator per WP:Point. Durova 16:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• First of all, the WP:FAITH nominations are just set up as a distraction by User:Arniep who himself went on a rampage recently and nominated literally dozens of lists for deletion on the basis of a WP:POINT. I have been on wikipedia under an anonymous IP and finally decided to make a username because people were bitching about anonymous IPs on page deletions. For that reason, I am concentrating on deleting the lists that are the most numerous - among them happens to be a lot of jewish lists. A blatant call for anti-semitism on User:Arniep's part I expected, and he seems to be very immature. I already discussed with User:Vulturell that either these smaller lists need to go or the bigger list because they are virtual copies of eachother. There is no WP:POINT nomination here - this could even be considered speedy delete material. StabRule 21:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • please see my comments on above nominations. Arniep 22:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - the overall list is unwieldy; we should do what was done with the List of Jews and make it into a catalogue of lists. - Taxwoman 23:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment It also a bad call to say we should somehow split this into smaller specific lists, we have just been arguing against having a category Jewish baseball players on cfd. Arniep 23:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — wikipedia is not paper: I see no problem with subdividing sufficiently long lists. — RJH 01:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Same for all religion lists per openly stated policy and Martin Niemöller. How about we mass delete stupidity and bigotry.-- JJay 01:58, 27 November 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish Americans

This AFD can be closed on Speedy Keep basis now that it was reformed.

Actually, the correct closing would be consensus Peyna 04:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

If that exists, then yes. StabRule 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Read before voting: Seeing as some people get confused by this nomination, I will attempt to explicate what this nomination is for. This afd is up in order to come to the consensus that this list should be cleared and made into an index for the duplicate lists that already exist. If everyone agrees it is fine to do that, then this afd can be closed. StabRule 21:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This should either be deleted or have links to the smaller categories (Jewish American Show Business figures, etc.). There's no point, that even I can see, to having this huge page and the bunch of separate pages that are essentially replicates of it.Vulturell 18:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I will attempt to explicate what this nomination is for - If the nomination is not for deletion, why is it here? Peyna 00:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Originally the idea WAS for it to be up for deletion - but as soon as the page is deleted it will be used as an index. This is a common occurence for pages of the like. If we agree to turn it into an index then there's no need to continue this vote though. StabRule 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Then I invite you to merge this with all of the other lists and turn this into an index. There was no need to bring this to an AfD vote before taking other more appropriate actions. Peyna 01:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Look, though I appreciate you compromising, I know that this would not turn out the same if I had put it in the TALK page. Plus my original intention was to keep this big list and just delete the smaller ones, which I had closed (albeit, I wasn't suppose to close my own AFD nominations or something like that). StabRule 02:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Notice Putting this up top since it is important; I have begun to split the list into smaller lists and so far have completely with the grouping for Academics. I think this should be enough to satisfy most of the people here. Peyna 02:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Update I have completed my work on subdividing the list; please review it; I think this should be good enough for the article to survive AfD and move remaining discussions on the topic to the talk page. Thanks. Peyna 02:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Delete content and Link to Smaller PagesVulturell 18:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Delete content and Link to Smaller Pages Exactly as Vulturell said StabRule 20:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC) (unknown anonymous editor)

• OK, there was somewhat of a confusion here as the afd was not listed correctly per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion which meant that this afd did not seem to exist, and the comments seemed to refer to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_26#List_of_Jewish_American_sport_figures. I have now added the header to this afd so it can be seen. However, this and the whole above list was an utter waste of time as if the user wanted List of Jewish Americans to act as a index to all the above Jewish American lists they should have either WP:BOLD and done it, or posted a message on the talk page. This has been a total pointless waste of everyones time, Keep above article and use as an index to all the other Jewish American lists as per List of Jews. Arniep 02:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Arniep, clearly you do not understand. You cannot vote "keep" on both this list and the smaller separate lists - for they are identical. You need to make up your mind on which to choose. If you feel that the smaller lists should be kept than please state so and STATE that you want this page cleared and only used as an index for the smaller lists. Otherwise people might not know where you stand. StabRule 03:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

comment Your own vote (Delete content and Link to Smaller Pages) means exactly the same as what I said, you can keep the current page and merely remove the list content if it is already duplicated and then add links to the appropriate pages. Arniep 03:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If we agree on that then fine - that is all I want to do - clear this page. StabRule 05:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per my longstanding policy and Martin Niemöller. Hey can we do Catholics again tomorrow? Can we vote on that? That was more fun than this Jew stuff and I miss them. -- JJay 03:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Catholics are masterful.Vulturell 05:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see what this vote is about before putting "keep" - Thanks. StabRule 05:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was about Jews. That was why I voted Strong Keep, or was it delete? So many of these damned Jew lists on Afd I can't remember. My brain hurts a lot. Please tell me what I must do StabRuler... -- JJay 05:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You voted keep on a list that already exists: See Category:Lists of Jewish Americans. The point of this afd is that this main page should be deleted and used as an index to the smaller lists. That's all. StabRule 06:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I voted keep on a list that already exists? How silly of me. Why did you nom for deletion if it already exists? Think about what you are doing please Stabieruler. If it didn't exist, I would vote delete. But it does exist, so it must be kept. Pleaaase only nom articles that don't exist. I thought we agreed on that-- JJay 16:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

comment Any reason this VFD isn't listed on any of the AFD pages? Peyna 05:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No idea. It should be. StabRule 06:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If we Delete content and Link to Smaller Pages, we must make sure that all of the content on List of Jewish Americans are on the respective specific pages. It is possible and likely that many users have worked on the former and may have not copied the entries onto the latter.

In that case, we'll move these portion into the specified smaller lists. StabRule 19:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Wikipedia has many lists of people by nationality and religious/ethnic heritage. The rationale for nominating this article appears to be that the list is well maintained, which is a nonsensical basis for nomination. Durova 09:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No the rationale for this nomination is ANOTHER LIST ALREADY EXISTS. I don't see why this is so difficult for everyone to understand. StabRule 19:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • StabRule has left me a message on my talk page. The existence of separate related subordinate lists may be reason to edit but is not a grounds for deletion. The precedent is well established throughout Wikipedia's religious and ethnic lists. Durova 19:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Exactly, this whole thing has been an utter waste of time. If User:StabRule wanted to use the main list as an index why didn't they just post a message on the talkpages in a polite way andsuggest that, instead of acting in the incredibly arrogant dishonest way that can be seen by their previous edits. Arniep 21:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is arrogant and dishonest about this? Absolutely nothing. You just take these lists too personally as clearly illustrated in your WP:POINT frenzy. By voting delete on this page you're saying you want to have this page cleared and made into an index - which we all CLEARLY stated above. If I was to go and clear this page myself and make it into an index I would be met with massive controversy. That is exactly why I had an AFD put up - because this way we can actually come to a consensus that this list will be made into an index. By voting strong keep, you're making it seem as if you want to keep the material in this list ------- which makes no sense.StabRule 21:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you didn't even have to bring this problem anywhere near deletion, you just needed to make the necessary edits yourself or post a note on the talk page. And regarding the point I made it was not because I care about these lists specifically, it is because I care about fairness and equal arguments being applied to all lists. Arniep 22:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep LazarKr 12:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Violation of WP:V and WP:NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment The people included in these lists are mentioned as being Jewish or having a Jewish forebear in published material, therefore they do not violate either WP:V and WP:NOR. Arniep 21:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and reform into an index. Antidote 21:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but merge with the categorical lists and make this article link to those lists. Peyna 22:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep due to suspected sockpuppetry of StabRule, nom and others. (See my comment here) Peyna 00:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I already mentioned the only IP I have used because I was expecting accusations like the one above. StabRule 01:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Based upon the huge mess this created and actions taken by the person that listed all of these lists (spamming for votes, juvenile responses here and on talk pages); I think the best course of action is to keep everything and then sort it out on those actual pages in the discussion pages. Changing a page into an index is not something that belongs on AFD. This whole mess could have been taken care of on the talk page for List of Jewish Americans. If that didn't work, then arbitration or something would be appropriate, but AFD is not where any of this discussion belongs. Peyna 22:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You can go ahead and throw immature insults at me; that's fine I'll take them -- but you and I both know that clearing a list of this size IS a big deal to people and an afd IS the best place to have a consensus. Discussion pages are often ignored and I guarantee nobody who monitors this list would agree to the deletion of this page and transformation of it into an index. StabRule 23:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well again, you are wrong. I would have agreed if you had posted a message on the talk page, but you didn't do that. Arniep 23:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do I seriously doubt that. StabRule 23:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Because you make false assumptions? Arniep 23:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that you unilateral went straight for AfD instead of bringing it up on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we don't just go around calling a vote on every issue. AfD is not for votes on this type of change, it is for deleting a page and to have it never to be created again. There are a lot of other actions that could and should be taken first. Peyna 00:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what is so hard to grasp. My original intention was the delete the smaller lists for they are excess - someone suggested to delete the bigger list. Therefore, I agreed. Here we are. If you wish to use this list as an index later. FINE BY ME. The overall point is that one of the lists need to go. That's all. StabRule 01:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and, in general, voting is evil (and stupid). Decisions should be made by consensus decision making rather than a strict majority rule. Peyna 00:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean voting it out on AfD, it means discussing what should take place on the talk page, then coming to a consensus on it. That could include some sort of compromise, but does not involve voting. I would prefer if someone speedy kept all of these AfDs and then it can be discussed on the talk pages first. If that does not get anywhere, then there can be a formal survey or vote. Peyna 00:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleting a page DOES NOT mean it can never be remade. This was and still is the best course of action - to hold and afd. If these are speedy kept then we can continue the discussion in the Talk Page. StabRule 01:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Let's keep this polite and productive. I've suggested to an administrator that Wikipedia open a discussion to establish consensus guidelines for religious/ethnic lists. Durova 23:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep no reason has been given for deletion. - orioneight (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It looks nicely refactored into pointers to reasonable sized lists. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: It's hard to decide whether it's more annoying to have this misuse of AfD procedures, or scurilous and gratuitious (albeit somewhat literate) backhanded accusations of anti-semitism by editors like JJay who references Martin Niemöller. On the first: if you want a page cleaned up, do that through the article talk page, or in the extreme, via RfC; AfD'ing as a euphemism for "change the content" is asinine. On the second, if you think deleting a few words from a website is the moral equivalent of murdering your family, you are in serious need of mental health intervention. Grow up! Get over it. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you for the kind words regarding my literacy. You are free to interpret my vote anyway you see fit. The same is true concerning my mental health, or lack thereof. But do not ever accuse me of playing tennis. I do not like little yellow balls, or white shorts. If you need to resort to that type of name calling, at least have the simple decency to do it on my talk page. -- JJay 18:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. WP:CIVIL; WP:NPA; that goes for both of you. Peyna 19:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Izehar 21:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It looks like the page has been cleaned up a lot. HackJandy 20:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if for no other reason than the length of this debate establishes notoriety. If it was useless, nobody would care enough to write all this junk. LOL. But seems meritable in itself. Zordrac 12:35, 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 delete. I believe the "merge" votes here were made in jest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Chauney Adams was a mispelling. Changed to the corrent Chauncey Adams.

[edit] Double action corn harvesting

Google found no hits for this or any references to a great farmer named Chauney Adams. --JHMM13 08:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. It doesn't even tell you what it actually is, only who invented it and that it was an improvement. COMING SOON! TRIPLE ACTION CORN HARVESTING WITH BLAST PROCESSING AND STAIN REMOVERS! --Indium 09:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rather pointless article as it doesn’t really tell the reader what is involved, nor any useful background on the subject. I don’t know whether the subject is real, but the article is useless. If it is real and someone can write a good article, it can be re-created. •DanMS 16:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with left-handed pipe wrench. Denni ☯ 21:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Elbonian toenail clippings. --RoySmith 23:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense MONGO 10:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per someone at random. Stifle 23:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with picking my nose with my tongue. Zordrac 12:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • i.e. BJAODN Zordrac 12:31, 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 DELETE by community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Falconist Party

A Google search of this party's name yields 2000+ hits. Most of them are forum discussions among politically interested curious at this unheard of party with an objectively fascist ideology. The party's actual presence doesn't extend beyond their tripod page. A further search of 1500+ global newspaper archives using the Newsbank service yields 0 articles containing the name of the party--so, no party leader or candidate (if there ever was one) has spoken to the media. delete because there is a strong possibility this is a web hoax party. Lotsofissues 09:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Renata3 22:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --User:Jeffmedkeff | Talk 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Stifle 23:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Revolución (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - political party should be kept. Surely there is a policy on this kind of thing? Note that most delete votes had no rationale at all. Zordrac 12:29, 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 no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Kurdistani

Hard to tell if this online paper is notable. Nominated for CSD, but I don't think it quite fits. I decided to nominate it for AfD to be fair to the CSD nominator (although I also left the CSD tag in place). My opinion: Very weak keep. --Nlu 09:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)After some additional thought, Delete. --Nlu 21:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I'm giving this one the benefit of doubt (bearing in mind systemic bias), even though the site was only set up in June this year, and there are other Kurdish media outlets going for 5 yrs, with better traffic figures, eg, www.kurdistanobserver.com. Squiddy 09:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just another "blog" advertised, non notable, was introduced by a User:Kurdnews... Someone is advertising to be popular. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 10:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No evidence of non-notability presented. All functioning news services should have articles as wikipedia is just about the only source that can comment neutrally on their status. CalJW 10:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep for the moment - maybe revisit next year. Dlyons493 Talk 12:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reason why this should be deleted. The site claims to be an online paper and it seems that it has regular daily contents with geniune traffic. I would say keep it for a year and if it went on the same pace keep, if not then delete. alllan 19:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (Note that this comment was made by a user whose only edit is this comment.) --Nlu 20:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • How about this, dlete, wait a year if there is notable traffic undelete. High schools are more notable for Christs sake! --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Check out 82.35.14.138's contributions. He or she is just advertising. --Hottentot 21:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Hottentot. Dbchip 23:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This is blatant advertising of a news aggregator. The entire front page has one single story credited to the editorial staff of this paper, and that's a summary of someone else's summary of a speech! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It may be a minor site, but a minor article is fine. — Davenbelle 02:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Why am I not suprised to see Davenbelle... Gee... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Most of the Google hits are in fact bots and indexes. Even if it is a real publication, this is way outside WP:WEB (Alexa) HackJandy 07:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete as non-notable. Stifle 23:49, 28 November 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× ☎ 03:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steve's backyard boxing

Website advertisement, original research, etc. Gamaliel 09:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Gimboid13 14:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Resurect when becomes notable Renata3 22:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this. The site was extremely popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.245.169 (talk • contribs)
• Delete who the heck is "Steve"?--MONGO 10:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Gamaliel. Stifle 23:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The idea was not to promote the website, but the website is an integral part of the event. No money is drawn from the website, and even the nominal fee for a DVD of the fights is really only to cover shipping, handling, and materials. Psyphics 05:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Site has been up for many years and doesn't need advertising.—Preceding unsigned comment added by William R Davis (talk • contribs)
• Keep. This article isn't about promoting a website. This article documents a local phenomenon that lasted for many years. -moralityplay, 29 November 2005
• Delete Izehar 21:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Jason Terrance
• Keep - People are giving reasons for keeping it, but no one has given a valid reason for deletion. Unless it is against any wikipedia standards/practices it shouldn't be deleted. --childishidealism
• I'm the webmaster of this somewhat languishing site(it's popularity has somewhat faded since 2001-2003 when it was most popular). That might leave me somewhat bias so I'll leave it to the community to decide whether this article should be deleted or not. I just want to address Gamaliel's first reason for deletion, website advertisement. I've seen some ext. weblinks on Wikipedia(and have nixed one link) that have been much more blatant website promotion than this article. More over, the article is more about the event(or it should be if not) than it is about the website, which isn't a commercial website. I have sold a handful of DVD's from the site, but I doubt that it has made me profit after all the expenses inccurred involving the website. That is all I wanted to say regarding this article.--Mitaphane 04:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for original research and not being notable.ParkerHiggins 04:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - per arguments put forward by web site owner and others. (PS I changed "Do not delete" votes to "keep" to avoid confusion in tallying. Zordrac 12:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - interesting and quirky local phenomenon, of interest to a significant amount of people, and website was not mentioned for commercial purposes. --Steve

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. – Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Board of Wikipedia editors

Very little content is provided as to what to this board actually does, this is just a proposal (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) and Wikipedia is not meant for articles about itself, and its procedures in all its varieties. For these three reasons, delete. -- SoothingR^(pour) 09:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't belong in the article namespace. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per all reasons listed above. Alternately, move to Wikipedia namespace and put through miscellany for deletion instead. Jacqui^★ 14:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Voyager640 21:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Why bother? Just delete Renata3 22:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this kind of thing belongs on MetaWiki, or at minimum in a Wikipedia area. Its not notable for a general encyclopaedia article. Zordrac 12:21, 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 KEEP. Owen× ☎ 03:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sant_Baljit_Singh

I received a communication from Sant Baljit Singh's organization that he feels this page or sources it links to violates his copyright. His organization wants it removed. I don't see any problems with the page but would like to respect his wishes in this regard. Please Delete. Sevadar 09:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - if there is copyright material, that should be removed. We shouldn't delete a whole page on a person or organization at their request, and this page is encyclopedic. Squiddy 10:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This reads mostly promotional and hagiographic anyway. Gamaliel 10:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep People aren't entitled to have their articles removed on request. If there is copyrighted material his organisation can remove it themselves. CalJW 10:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep – If he is notable enough, he can merit a place in WP. I don't see any copyright violations here unless the text/image was copied verbatim from the original site. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Copyvio issues, if any, may be taken care of. --Bhadani 12:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Squiddy et al. Ifnord 17:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as encyclopedic and notable. Dude looks an awful lot like I did about five years ago when I played the Ghost of Christmas Present in an elaborate local production of A Christmas Carol. Talk about a double take. I've since lost the beard (and some weight).  :) - Lucky 6.9 21:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but edit with a chain saw. Denni ☯ 21:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sant Baljit Singh's organization can use Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. Seano1 06:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Seano1. Stifle 23:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Squiddy, Ifnord, et al., but edit as per Denni. I am from Sant Baljit Singh's organization, and there must have been a misunderstanding, as we did not want to begin the "Articles for Deletion process", though I would personally like to edit the article heavily. I would have done so but for my respect for the author since it would have involved large scale changes/deletions. And of course, I am subject to higher scrutiny for NPOV as a volunteer in Sant Baljit Singh's organization. Given this article's current state on the "Articles for Deletion" list, and pending no objections from the original author or the Wikipedia community, I plan to make the following changes to the article:
  • The author's link to raw transcripts of talks by Sant Baljit Singh given in non-public settings is of questionable appropriateness and value in a public forum, and would be considered a Copyright violation.
  • The narrative description of blow-by-blow events of the "Succession" from Sant Thakar Singh to Sant Baljit Singh could easily be summed up concisely as to dates, places, and significant aspects and facts, without infringing upon Copyright of Sant Baljit Singh or Sant Thakar Singh. Or that of authors of reports who never intended their writings to be made available on a public forum.
  • Cleanup of opinion, e.g., "His message on these visits has been both blunt and direct" or "Sant Baljit Singh is very different in background, temperament, and in method, from Sant Thakar Singh."
  • Refrain from quoting anonymous sources.
  • Refrain from quoting non-expert sources who never meant their writings to be available on a public forum and indeed never published them outside of the organization. Apart from Copyright issues and respect for the privacy of these individuals, I feel the value to the public is questionable.

Kevin 06:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • It is not a "copyright violation" to link to or quote from sources of any particular type. Gamaliel 08:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Kevin 11:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Izehar 21:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - ask him to help to write the page if he is so worried. Zordrac 12:20, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Article was deleted by User:Bumm13; however, AfD was never closed. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stef de Bont

Non-notable; no articles link here; request to justify notability ignored for a month. BrainyBroad 10:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as A7 non-notable biography. I could find no assertion of notability in this article. Capitalistroadster 10:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. I agree. Punkmorten 12:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• I was almost ready to speedy it, when I found [21], but I don't read any Dutch, so can't tell if it's relevant or not. Perhaps somebody who speaks Dutch could take a look at it? --RoySmith 00:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Capitalistroadster. Stifle 23:52, 28 November 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pradeep Aggarwal

The article is just an exercise in promotion. It is taken straight from the subject's website. Georgeslegloupier 11:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- unless credibility can be independently ascertained. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, advertising. Gimboid13 14:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete - this guy is known, but that is because of his frequent ads in periodicals. The article does not deserve a keep vote in the current form. Tintin 17:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete if it's a copyvio (per nominator). Delete otherwise. Stifle 23:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - verification here: [22]. India's number 1 hypnotist deserves his own page. Highly notable. Zordrac 12:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• As said above, I am familiar with his name but I have seen so little outside self-improvement ads that I don't think it deserves a keep-vote. Tintin 13:32, 2 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× ☎ 03:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Owen

nn bio-- негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*)} 12:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete wife of a famous singer. Renata3 22:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Renata3. Stifle 23:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. ed g2s • talk 03:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - if nobody else noticed, she is the wife of the lead singer of Radiohead! For heaven's sakes guys! That's not notable enough for you? She just has a stub, that's all. I can bet she's famous because people like him wouldn't go off with just anyone. Zordrac 12:17, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shri Shyam Chalisa

This article contains lyrics for a Hindu bhajan. Since its hardly intelligible and anyways, WP does not document lyrics, this page should be deleted May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't belong on en.wiki Dlyons493 Talk 13:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete NE =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete - it's not english! (maybe could be moved to some wikisource or smth) Renata3 22:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Mark for translation Delete per Shreshth91. Transwiki to wikisource. Stifle 23:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC), updated 11:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not English. Transwikify to hindi wiki or whichever language is appropriate. Zordrac 12:15, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 03:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of political epithets

Delete. Take equal parts neologism and dic-def, stew in POV sauce and you have this page. It's a place holder for dubious, rarely used cruft from U.S. political wars (Democunt?!) an insufficient number of which are sourced and I think qualifies as an indiscriminate collection of info. And no, for the people who are concerned about POINT noms with lists, this isn't an effort at POINT. Specified, scaleable lists have a place. I don't believe this qualifies. And to forestall "but we need this page as a re-direct target," pages stay or go on their own merits. If you'd like a page on Communist epithets, OK--that would be specified and scaleable. Marskell 12:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. If some of the epithets listed are not notable, then remove them. Firebug 12:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to make one final point given the predictable rash of keeps. An entry: 1) Gets a para in which case it deserves a stub and isn't needed on the page (an appropriate category properly serving as its placeholder) 2) Gets only a sentence in which case its a dic-def 3) Is a neologism and doesn't belong to begin with. Marskell 13:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems ok.  Grue  12:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting article, but maybe requires a more NPOV, but keep
• Keep. This seems to have a balanced POV — that is, that there are around equal amounts of every political sentiment and every kind of epithet in here. If not, then please add the POVs that you think are missing. In the case of dic-defs, this article has plenty of room for expansion, and there's plenty to be said on the subject; add a sentence or two. Remove neologisms, of course. By the way: if you expect a "predictable rash of keeps," then why nominate it here anyway? It appears you already have an idea of what community consensus will be. Jacqui^★ 14:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Plenty of room for expansion at 70k? It actually makes more sense to break into five or six articles. Also, I can expect a keep consensus and still entertain the possibility of a delete and nom with a cogent reason. Marskell 15:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You can, but it clogs up the very busy AFD. And the 70k can be reduced by tightening the prose without removing much in the way of information. Jacqui^★ 15:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • There are a 186 sections. "Prose tightening"? No, spin-off articles where possible. I think logically it can be spun off to the point where a category can fulfil its functions--as I say, Communist epithets makes more sense than a List of political epithets. If we're going to keep listcruft we should at least make it precise. Marskell 15:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I can at least agree to spin-off articles, if you'd like, but I still believe this article should exist as a more comprehensive overview. Jacqui^★ 16:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but massive clean-up it needs a working definition, and a pruning of nn and not particularly political terms. References are lacking here - and I suspect some of the terms are no more than bloggers' neo-logisms. --Doc ^ask? 15:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Change to delete per Klonimus attempt to clean this up are being reverted by its 'owners'. --Doc ^ask? 13:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - very interesting. Needs tons of work, though. But IMO, it's worth it Renata3 22:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and trim. Gazpacho 23:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but update - to common/current terms 17:36 26 Novenber 2005
• Keep and edit. To be on the list, a term should be, I think, a significant part of public political discourse--things like "democunt", which due to its obscenity is absent from most places except for hard-core right-wing circles (as well as similar insults used by the left to slander the right) probably should be axed. --EngineerScotty 04:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I removed that term on the grounds that it was uncited and lacked notability. (I've participated in weblogs and political Usenet groups for quite some time, and never heard it once.) Firebug 18:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Overly long and ough to be busted out into a category and individual articles. This article also suffers from several major problems.
  1. "ownership" problem where a small clique of editors guards there prefered version.
  2. "political correctness" sloshes about all over the place.
  3. "lack of sources" for just about everything. Klonimus 05:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. In theory this should be kept, but in practice it suffers from two major problems - one is that it almost completely uncited original research, and the other is that it is being watchdogged by editors who don't appear to understand policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cleanup is needed on most, but if a problem with an article can be solved, deletion isn't the answer. If Islamofascism can be kept, this list certainly can as well. karmafist 15:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because I don't see a real encyclopedia article here. This is a mish-mash of catch-phrases and buzzwords, a few notable enough to have independent articles but most not. Many are unverified in even the most basic sense. This page is not a "structural list" which might help the reader to find relevant articles, nor do I see much possibility that it could become so. However, I would not be averse to a transwiki to Wiktionary since many of these are valid definitions. Rossami (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Doc. Needs clear criteria for factual and source requirements, until then this article has no right to exist on WP. Dsol 17:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Marskell. Inherently unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Invalid AfD. The only way to bring the article back is for it to pass at WP:DRV. Considering the article doesn't exist, this AFD is completely invalid. I recommend you all go to the deletion review. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 19:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, heh, Marskell's link from the judeofacism link threw me off, sorry. Anyways, delete. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 19:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not encyclopaedic, just a page full of American neologisms and POV, pretty stupid. --Chaosfeary 00:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Yuber^(talk) 00:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is one of the better articles. One change it could use is a rename to reflect the fact that it is really a list of American political epithets. Seano1 05:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This article is long, and needs to be broken up. Perhaps splitting it up by country would help. In addition, perhaps a note at the top should be added to encourage readers to simply use links to the relevant articles whenever possible, rather than expound on the terms whenever possible.Ngchen 06:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Del per Marskell & Klonimus. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but remove what is not notable. Then transfer whatever is notable to Wiktionary. IZAK 03:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Izehar 21:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just a random list of US political insults that neither educates nor informs. Over and above that is a lack of sources or verifying material - it's all but an invitation for neologisms. Sliggy 00:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - unbelievably interesting. Do some more verifications and get more contributors. Zordrac 12:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To the closing Admin

Can we please have a complete tally of the voting when this VfD is comepleted. Klonimus 00:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Current tally is 16 keeps, 9 deletes. Zordrac 12:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As of closing, I count 14 Keep, 10 Delete, and 1 anon discarded. Owen× ☎ 03:56, 2 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ratheesh

WP:NOT Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary Delete-- негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*)} 12:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, however please note that the page was already empty. But from the history I saw the original content, its just a definition. We can't define all names on wikipedia. Maltesedog 13:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- nn =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nonencyclopedic. mikka (t) 16:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete don't even bother to put it in to wiktionary. Zordrac 12:05, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dustin zammit

Non-notable, fails google test, pre-war football team and Sky Malta reference when it does not even exist. Further details on Malta-related_topics_notice_board Maltesedog 12:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. To expand, Valletta United preceded WWII but the player is listed as being born in 1989. © listed but not explained. Srl 18:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the whole mess Renata3 22:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Original author, 217.22.181.127 just blanked the article including the AfD notice. Is this agreement at some level with the afd? I have invited them again to comment here. (they also replaced my queries on their talk page with obscenity) Srl 18:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Stifle 23:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Verify - valid claims of notoriety. But is now talking about a 16 year old? Seems different to what discussion is about. So Delete unless proven otherwise. Zordrac 12:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, the article claims to be about a 16 year old who plays for a team that was before world war II. So, I suspect if it exists at all, maybe it is a student league? We haven't been able to verify it, nor the subject, nor the Sky Malta mentioned. Srl 16:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Being Maltese, I don't believe Valletta schools have their own league. There is no secondary school in Valletta!! It must be some amateur club if it really exist. Its also interesting the footballer wants to be on top of the world. This is just a wish obviously! 19:21, 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 keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Decade Nostalgia

I'm really not sure about this at all. Perhaps I shouldn't have put it in AfD; however.... as mentioned on Talk:Decade Nostalgia, it could be construed as a collection of "original research" or POV subject matter.

Before you assert that it's about "popular perception" and nostalgia, not reality, I'd like to say this. The article primarily reflects an American perspective of nostalgia, and as I mention here, this isn't necessarily the view held by other people; not even as *nostalgia*. Whilst the stereotypical 'nostalgia' view of the 1950s in many countries is undoubtedly that of post-war Americana, I believe that this applies less to other decades (e.g. 1970s, 1980s).

The article should reflect the (probably inaccurate) perception(s) to the extent that they are currently seen, but it should not add to a particular bias. To have a US-centric article would reinforce these views more than they currently exist, and would not be suited to Wikipedia.

Here's the problem; the article already has some potential issues with POV/bias to begin with, but I think it would be hard to accurately reflect 'common' stereotypes without bias towards one's own cultural perspective. And I can see the whole thing descending into a horrid list of country-specific and argumentative stuff, obscuring the inherent generality of the "decade nostalgia" being described.

At the same time, this is no excuse for keeping a US view alone, unless that reflects the view of the rest of the world.

So, I am not voting for or against at present; although if the vote is to retain, I certainly intend keeping it as universal as possible; not as a historical article, but as an accurate representation of 'nostalgia'. Fourohfour 13:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge any content not already covered with the articles about each decade - 1960s, 1970s, etc. The popular perception angle is already more than adequately covered in those. Gimboid13 14:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep after clean up. Very interes6ting topic, and nice to see everything in one place. Renata3 22:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Without sources, this is a personal POV and original research. Yes, there could be an article with this title (except for incorrect capitalization), but this isn't it. --A D Monroe III 01:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this page! Sure it's US-Centric, but that is now mentioned on the page. (Preceding unsigned comment was made by creator of original article, User:65.197.143.150, at 21:40, 28 November 2005)
  • As the person who already pointed this out in the article, I don't have a problem with "decade nostalgia" not reflecting reality; that's what nostalgia is! The reasons I nominated it for deletion are described above; that wasn't for that reason. Fourohfour 13:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the subject matter is inherently flawed because nostalgia is a personal perspective on a bygone era, and such a subjective view is impossible to describe in any one (or 6 billion) way(s). Barneyboo (Talk) 21:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I disagree with this; the decade-nostalgia concept (whatever it's called) encompasses the *commonly held* views within a society about what it was "about". My problem is that it still varies from country to country, and whilst (e.g.) the 1950s have a common image, others such as the 1970s and 1980s don't, and this shouldn't be a discussion page. Fourohfour 13:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is sources. Something that could be called decade nostalgia exists, and could be an article, or even several. But, without sources, this article is just personal ramblings, POV and OR. (BTW, all AfD pages are discussion pages. The goal is to reach a consensus, not just vote.) --A D Monroe III 14:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • No, no; I meant the article page itself. Of course we can discuss things here :) Actually, I have this problem with the 'decade' pages themselves too. Fourohfour 18:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay, I understand. I agree that all the decade pages are somewhat poor this way. This article just seems to pull all the unprofessional comments together; it's like crap squared. --A D Monroe III 19:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - big old keep on this one. Cleanup for WP:POV though, but worthwhile subject matter. Zordrac 12:02, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Deleted by User:Ingoolemo; however, AfD never closed. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Globalf1.net

Spam for a non-notable discussion board with 494 members. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Pure advertisment Ian13 13:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You might as well delete it. - Martin-1

• Speedy - author's vote above. Renata3 22:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see any criteria in wp:csd that it fits, so can't speedy. Also, original author's vote doesn't count any more than anybody else's. --RoySmith 00:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'd just like to say that after seeing articles about other websites (on hindsight, I reocgnise these are well-known), I thought it a good idea to do a article regarding my favourite website. However, after reviewing it, I nominate my article for deletion, as I feel it won't be of any use to anyone. I would dispute however, that it is "pure advertisement". --Martin-1

  That could have been a little harsh, sorry if it offended. Ian13 10:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Not to worry Ian13. In your defense I admit it does portray itself as that but, as a newer member/user of Wikipedia - I haven't really got a feel for it just yet. Thanks again everyone, I think the article should be deleted asap. --Martin-1

• Speedy delete requested by author. Stifle 00:00, 29 November 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 delete' . Owen× ☎ 04:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barney Can You Sing That Song

What is this even about? Nonsense in many ways, but I doubt it would pass as speedy Ian13 13:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos. Ditto for Barney's Colorful World Live. They're videos from the kids' TV show Barney and Friends. It's a very long list but I doubt if each episode or video deserves it's own article. Gimboid13 14:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio of http://www.hitshopusa.com/item/k/2852/ Kappa 21:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Nonsence & copyvio -> speedy Renata3 22:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Arniep 02:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ideally Speedy. Stifle 00:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Copyvio per kappa. Zordrac 12:03, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EthicalNetwork.org

Website spam, albeit that of an org Ian13 14:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

As an extra note, the website seems rather empty, and features the grand sum of 3 copied 'essays' from other sources. Also seems to lack the members they claim. Ian13 15:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep No less valid than Friendster or MySpace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.81.238 (talk • contribs)

  Comment But they have been around a little longer than 2 months. (The above comment is made by the article creator). Ian13 15:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable website. Ifnord 17:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Renata3 22:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Does not follow WP:WEB. Alexa here HackJandy 07:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as important alternative. Zordrac 12:00, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael William Foster

I believe that this is a non-notable graphic artist. His website is here. The section on news has several local articles, but nothing later than 2003. Joyous | Talk 14:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per NN. JHMM13 17:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Renata3 22:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Zordrac 11:59, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pair of One

This is a minor act in a local circus. Unencyclopedic. Joyous | Talk 14:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Google search didn't produce anything relevant. Gimboid13 15:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Renata3 22:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm convinced. Zordrac 11:58, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Safiullah Faqiri

Non-notable bio making a weak try at establishing notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Lynch. Joyous | Talk 15:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Gimboid13 15:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Not even slightly notable. JHMM13 17:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Bearcat 10:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not quite as bad as the Philip Lynch one, since he at least owns his own restaurant, but still pretty bad. Zordrac 11:43, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Lynch

Non-notable bio making a weak try at establishing notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safiullah Faqiri. Joyous | Talk 15:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn and unencyclopedic. Gimboid13 15:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. JHMM13 17:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as non-notable biography. There are no assertions of notability in this article. Capitalistroadster 17:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Capitalistroadster. Stifle 00:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - LOL. Sorry, hard to take this kind of thing seriously. Zordrac 11:42, 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 keep or merge with Mike Teavee. This one will need some formatting before it can be merged without making the Mike Teavee article look like a dump, so I will add a merge tag instead of merging this myself. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Teavee Song

• Delete. Nothing worth keeping in this article. It's practically dicdef.Dave 03:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment It's practically blanked because it used to be a big ol' copyvio of the song lyrics from Dahl's book. Joyous | Talk 15:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or delete Keep it or if no one edits it then delete it, try to redirect. —preceding unsigned comment by 69.118.130.88 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC) who is the author of the article]
• delete or expand If it can't be expanded with anything worth noting then delete it. Or maybe make a page for all of the childrens songs on one page- I don't know why you would want to, but it is an option.
  • comment Hmm, I do like the idea of creating one page for the bad childrens' songs.- JustPhil 13:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think now it is better since it does not have the long copyrighted lyrics, though it still needs some work.- JustPhil 17:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Mike Teavee. Now, I doubt it will get any better.- JustPhil 01:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to the movie page. Stifle 00:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - wonderful song, notable song, notable movie, notable book. What more do you want? Zordrac 11:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • A wonderful article would be nice. Mike Teavee is well on the way to becoming one. I think the current iteration of Mike Teavee Song has exhausted its potential. Merge. —Cryptic (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this page and put the lyrice to the song. 17.255.240.2 23:19, 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 to Delete the article. I have speedied it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sailesh Mishra

NN-bio, but not quite a speedy. Joyous | Talk 15:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and as vanity. Ifnord 16:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• It is a speedy Tintin 17:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete quite impressive vanity Renata3 22:44, 26 November 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 patent nonsense by GraemeL

[edit] Santosh style

"SantoshStyle cannot be taught or explained." If so, it probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Joyous | Talk 15:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Ifnord 16:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as vandalism, or whatever. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Added Speedy deletion to main page, so now do we delete the RFD? :) Sethie 20:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL! We sorta kinda keep it. Santosh, on the other hand, can't be taught or explained and must therefore go away. - Lucky 6.9 20:56, 26 November 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 The Apprentice. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You're fired

This appears to be no more than a dictionary definition of the phrase. Unless it can be expanded to include more detail (which I doubt) it should be deleted. Foosher 16:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup - I hate to vote this way, but I think it is worthy of a stub, between Trump's usage of it on The Apprentice, and the general meaning... Staxringold 16:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Donald Trump. As a television catchphrase it's worth mentioning in his article. It has no larger cultural significance. Durova 16:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It has the general meaning as well. 64.194.44.220 16:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The user above 64.194.44.220 was the author of the article. •DanMS 16:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Why does that matter? Who cares? 64.194.44.220 14:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Because the author's opinion about the article's worthiness to be in Wikipedia is most certainly going to biased in favor of it. Peyna 15:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Please read WP:AFD, section Afd etiquette: “If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, and clearly base your recommendations on the deletion policy.” •DanMS 17:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep provided it primarily sticks to its useage by Trump. As a notable early to mid-2000s catchphrase it's as worthy of an article as Where's the beef? and Wassup. 23skidoo 16:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Revert. This article was originally a redirect to The Apprentice but a contributor wrote the article as it stands now. This is nothing more than a dictionary definition of a phrase. •DanMS 16:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Revert; as it is now, it's a rephrasing of the title. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's just a dicdef and is already mentioned in The Apprentice. Gimboid13 20:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -Doc ^ask? 21:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Revert to redirect Renata3 22:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete including the prior redirect - this content is non-encyclopedic. Bwithh 23:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Dbchip 23:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Revert to redirect. The Apprentice usage can be mentioned there, and its broader usage is covered at termination of employment. HollyAm 00:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not redirect it to termination of employment and then mention there that it redirects there and information about the Apprentice version is explained at The Apprentice, since the term is more common in the sense of termination of employment. Foogol 04:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The phrase is also used by at least one pottery company as a trademark; perhaps a disambig is in order with links for the TV show, termination of employment and pottery companies or something. Peyna 18:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Revert per DanMS. Stifle 01:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Donald Trump. Firebug 04:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see any reason to have articles for various public figures catch phrases redirecting to them. Peyna 06:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to termination of employment. -Sean Curtin 04:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this is very popular phrase Yuckfoo 01:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to termination of employment (as per Sean Curtin) – ClockworkSoul 08:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Disambig to both suggested redirect targets. Youngamerican 16:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - as catch phrase from Donald Trump's show The Apprentice. Usage very common. Zordrac 11:39, 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 KEEP. Owen× ☎ 04:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ulf Kristersson

Non-notable, municipal politician. Ifnord 16:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I found a bunch of hits on Google, and although he's a low-level politician, he's still been elected a few times. Obscure, but notable. JHMM13 17:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Been elected to the Swedish parliament thereby meeting WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 17:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known Swedish politician. u p p l a n d 01:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough. there are hundreds of thousands of government officials of all countries which comparable to this guy but are not notable enough for wikipedia. Bwithh 20:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Izehar 21:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Not that there seems to be any risk that he will be deleted at this point, but, as Capitalistroadster points out above, it would actually be against the WP:BIO guidelines to do so. u p p l a n d 21:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He is famous in Sweden. He was predicted as a future leader before his loss in 1992. Now famous for setting up new family policy. User:JWT 00:40, 1 December 2005
• Keep as politician. What is the policy on politicians anyway? Zordrac 11:38, 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/redirect. I have merged the contents of Don Aoki into Keynote Systems and will be redirecting the article as suggested. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 21:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don Aoki

The only part of this article that might be notable is that this man is Vice-President of Keynote Systems, a fact that is already included on the company's page. The other details included in the article are definitely not notable. This article does not add any new information to Wikipedia, and therefore falls under the vanity guidelines. Delete. Sliggy 16:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Paste all info to the company article and then redirect/delete Renata3 22:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Keynote Systems, as with Patrick Quirk. Zordrac 11:37, 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/redirect. I have merged the content of Patrick Quirk into Keynote Systems, and will redirect the article. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 21:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Quirk

The only part of this article that might be notable is that this man is Vice-President of Keynote Systems, a fact that is already included on the company's page. The other details included in the article are not notable or encyclopedic, so it falls under the vanity guidelines. Delete. Sliggy 16:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Same as above. Put all info under new section (Key people?) in company article and then delete/redirect. Renata3 22:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Keynote Systems. If Keynote Systems was a bit more notable, *maybe* we could justify him having his own article, but with only 200 employees, they don't cut it. Zordrac 11:35, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Dynasty, Dynasty Records

I'm not sure this meets WP:MUSIC. Joyous | Talk 16:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I have added Dynasty records for the company Renata3 23:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as NN Renata3 23:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-noteable, does not follow WP:MUSIC or WP:CORP HackJandy 07:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete LOL. Not signed, no releases, no claims to notoriety, and as for the record company, well, same deal. No actual records. Delete them, and do it now. Zordrac 11:34, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ramses the Pigeon

Nonsense or hoax. Or both. A web comics with the same name exists [23], but I think it does not fit WP:WEB, and the article seems not even to be about the character of the comics. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Renata3 22:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete can't see any hope for it. Zordrac 11:32, 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 keep (no consensus). 4d-2k, but the reason that the article was a hoax has been addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sunken Giant

Hoax. External website shows publicity-seeking diver. Ifnord 17:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete - I don't think it qualifies for hoax, just some strange and yet unexplained thing on the bottom of the sea. It's very interesting, but unfortunately, not notable. Renata3 23:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Probably a hoax but non-noteable even if it wasn't. Google here. HackJandy 07:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Bad google. Real google here. (all 259 are relating to this topic). Zordrac 11:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like a verifiable and interesting article subject. --Gene_poole 00:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Encyclopaedia at its best. This is what Wikipedia is for. Similar kind of thing as the girl who conducted electricity. Wonderful stuff. Get rid of the factual accuracy tag tho. Add a stub to expand tho. Zordrac 11:30, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rare witch project

Not notable, advertisement, doesn't meet WP:Web, vanity Dbchip 17:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete looks like advertising to me, certainly nn. Gimboid13 20:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. But I removed the speedy tag because advertising is, alas, not a speedy criterion. --Angr (t·c) 21:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Renata3 23:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Better not delete or else they might hack wikipedia! LOL. Zordrac 11:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although I do like the "ahem this is not advertisment just info" at the bottom of the page. -Parallel or Together ? 11:33, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DYTE

Nonsense Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete "It does not appear to be in use widely yet, but is slowly spreading via IM conversations." yeah... get back to us on that. --W.marsh 18:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. If it is not “widely in use” it does not belong in the Wikipedia. •DanMS 18:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sounds cool. A bit like the evolution of TGIF instead of POETS day. But, as they say, not yet. Zordrac 11:27, 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 DELETE. Zordrac is correct that the advertising has been removed. However, there was also the neologism charge, which a quick Google confirms to be likely true, with only 50 useful hits. Now I would not normally Google myself during an AfD closure, but this time it's important to verify the Google count claims in the debate and to see whether the neologistic claims have the basis claimed in the debate. -Splash^talk 23:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biznik

Article describes a neologism related to some business motivation/networking type site, and then goes on to advertise for that site. Only contributing author to this article is User:Danmcccomb who runs the blog on the site advertised in the article [24]. --W.marsh 17:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism, advertising Gimboid13 20:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Renata3 23:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Surprised to see 19,000+ hits on google. --Gurubrahma 09:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah but not even on 50 unique domains total... the 19,000 number is considerably inflated. Anyway even assuming a high number of legitimate Google hits (which isn't the case), that doesn't change the fact that this is self promotion (the only person contributing any content is connected to the site) and Wikipedia WP:ISNOT self promotion. --W.marsh 15:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep looks fine to me. Maybe earlier versions were advertising, but not current version. Keep tags, and cleanup. Zordrac 11:25, 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 DELETE. Owen× ☎ 04:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Third Console Syndrome

Seems almost made up. Never heard of it myself and seems unencyclopedic. Google search just brings up this article. Thunderbrand 18:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Thunderbrand 18:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Original research kind of stuff, since this concept doesn't seem to be really discussed anywhere else. --W.marsh 18:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete conspiracy theory. Renata3 23:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What the article intends to refer to perhaps is the Second System Syndrome (which has an article) and I would propose that it be kept/merged with that one if this article wasn't the only hit on google for the term. Dbchip 23:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Izehar 21:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Impossible to get rid of the WP:POV issues with the article and still keep the title. Just not encyclopaedic. Zordrac 11:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)