Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 8

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of automobiles that were commercial failures

This is basically the result of the deletion of the List of successful automobiles - see nomination/Afd page here. The reasoning/rationale is the same (see the above AfD), as those are corresponding articles, and I believe since the last decision was unusually unanimous and widely-supported, I think this should go smoothly too, so that everything remains logical and just. Bravada, talk - 08:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The article was previously nominated for deletion as List of automotive flops - the result of the previous discussion was "keep". I invite all interested users to acquaint themselves with it here. Please note that the mentioned reasons for keeping do not contradict the valid reasons for deletion raised here, and the reasons for deletion listed the last time have not been addressed by the edits made since that time (chiefly because they can't). The procedure is quite similar as with the corresponding List of successful automobiles, which was also deleted following the second nomination, when the discussion became more focused on specific deletion reasons. Bravada, talk - 23:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. list inherently subject and difficult to maintain. Ohconfucius 09:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is still not MotorWeek, and the list is mostly unsourced (WP:V, WP:OR). The only sourced items don't seem to fall under the reliable sources guideline. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per sucessful automobiles...Mdcollins1984 10:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "comercial failures" is a very subjective term. Viridae^Talk 10:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although to my own surprise I found myself initially leaning to "Keep", at least in theory. As long as the criteria for inclusion are as strict as the title suggests (i.e., if it ended up losing money), then it's as deserving of survival as its polar opposite, which I managed to turn into an encyclopedic entry by tracking down verifiable sources. However, the problem is that in the real world, manufacturers' reticence to publicise their cock-ups will render this article inherently unverifiable, which obviously will violate WP:VERIFY. If someone wants to tackle this page, providing a reliable source for each so-called failure ~ and a reliable source means providing numbers, not a link to an automotive journalist using the word "flop" in his weekly column ~ then I'll reconsider my vote, but only if I can see evidence that verifiable info exists. --DeLarge 10:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There are books on "the world's worst cars", though. [1] [2] [3] WP 11:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • They are unfortunately as inherently POV as magazine columns, so they wouldn't serve too well as references. Bravada, talk - 11:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that's becuase the words: "failure" and "worst" are pretty much by definition POV. That is why I would like to raise the possibility of a name change for this article-to something that can be referenced. Signature^brendel 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the style of the introduction sets a poor tone which continues through all the entries. As just a bland list I would have let it be.GraemeLeggett 11:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pn. It is POV in most cases to say something is a failure, even if sourced. It would not be true to say that all the cars are failures, just seen by a specific person, group etc... as a failure. Localzuk ^(talk) 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Indeed it is non-neutral to say that some car is a failure, but it is perfectly neutral to say that a certain car has been called a failure. We can and should have "facts about opinions." But we need to indicate who, exactly, called them failures. And of course the editors would need to hash out which sources fairly represent a substantial body of opinion. Surely we would all agree that, whether or not the Edsel "was" a failure, many people certainly called it a failure... and it shouldn't be hard to cite someone who has called it that. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - i still think it should be deleted. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - and this just falls short of any encyclopedic value as well as being very hard to keep NPOV.-Localzuk ^(talk) 00:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, 'commercial failure' is hard to define precisely and enters into dangerous terriotirty. Many cars should have sold better than they did but were still commerically somewhat successful. To ambigious for me, I'm happy to see it gone. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Updating Comment Thank you for informing of the previous AfD results. Having read and considered them I still feel the article is ambigious (e.g. what qualifies a car as a commerical success?) and therefore leading onto dangerous territory. It is not for wikipedia to inform consumers as to what cars not to buy. Whilst that isn't the aim of the article it is a byproduct. Sorry, I still need a very good reason to change my vote. But thanks for brining that to my attention, I'm slightly worried I didn't notice it had an earlier AfD nomination... Must be tired. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Again to clarify my vote per the talk page: Firstly my basis for deletion is as follows: There are no set criteria that qualify a car as a commerical failure. It is an ambigious description to give a car. Some vehicles have terrible safety records, sold less than expected but still made profit...are they commerical failures? Is it sales profit alone that qualifies a car as a commercial failure? is it the safety record? is it how well it sold in the USA or how well it did globally? is it how the first models sold, how well subsequent designs sold or how the entire design as a whole sold. For example, some cars like the ford fiesta have gone through nearly 20 years of development, to the extent that the current fiestas are totally different (and incompatable) with the original design. Is it the technical performance specifications i.e how fast it can go?...the list is absolutely endless. Well, the answer is its probably all or most of those above things that qualify a car as a commercial failure. But where we draw the line is a totally subjective choice made by the editor, it can never be anything but that. Therefore the article is inherantly a POV farm. So in accordance with my above explanation it qualifies for deletion by breaching:

• WP:NOT Because wikipedia "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" As described above classifying a car as a commercial failure is inhertantly the editors own POV and so this article is effectively a list of bad car reviews. WP is NOT an online vehicular review database. If you want a car review - go to autotrader.com. The thing which really kills this article is - who would find it useful? Well its of no encyclpopedic use to anybody because its entirely subjective. I'm getting somewhat offput now of the jumping through hoops for this AfD. It seems pretty clear the consensus is for a delete. Please, there is no more need to change the voting criteria. (and I say that totally unbiased by that being my vote.)WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 13:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful automobiles. --Gray Porpoise 13:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I meant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful automobiles (second nomination). --Gray Porpoise 14:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have read the arguments from the article's previous AfD. I'm not changing my vote to delete, but another alternative would be to move the page to a title that states more specific guidelines (e.g. "List of automobiles that caused their manufacturer to lose money", "List of automobiles that sold less than x units", etc.).
    • Comment - it would require much more than moving, it would require effectively recreating the article according to a newly-set standard. As concerns your first proposition, it was already mentioned that it is very hard to establish what financial result the production of a given model had for the manufacturer. Even assuming we would in some mysterious way get hold of such information, a financial result of such a project can be presented differently depending on the accounting procedure employed (e.g. Chrysler in the 1970s did not account for development costs when appraising individual models' profitability)
      As concerns your other proposition, the list would be unbelievably long and very hard to keep completed, as an inexplicable number of automobiles were and are manufactured as one-offs or in short-series. Besides, it does not always equal a failure, many successful exclusive models are sold in small quantities, which are on the other hand sometimes even exceeding manufacturers' expectations. Bravada, talk - 01:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Cassavau 13:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because of lack of any sources at all. Alternatively, move the unsourced entries to Talk—that is, all of them—effectively blanking the article, and require that new entries cite a source that describes the automobile using the word "failure." We could have a neutral, verifiable list of "automobiles that have been called failures," but due to failure to cite sources this isn't a useful beginning to such an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article has no coherent thesis. It contains only abstruse and arbitrary POV selections of undefinedly "unsuccessful" automobiles, consisting of one individual's subjective opinions, guesses and preferences—straight POV, as it seems. It might be marginally appropriate as a "top ten" blog même, but it is most unencyclopædic. As has been agreed, Wikipedia is not Motorweek. --Scheinwerfermann 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop 15:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep From what I can see, this article presents a NPOV list of cars which could be considered unsuccessful, and the reason as to why that is. Note that all brands are represented, as per all brands having had flops. Someone above has said that 'commercial failures' is a subjective term. I would disagree with this. Something is a commercial failure if it has not made enough money - this seems like a simple enough thing to determine. Nevertheless, I would suggest that this article be changed to something like, "List of automobiles which are considered unsuccessful" or something along those lines. The article has also been described as difficult to maintain - I would disagree with that also. It seems to have a fairly comprehensive list of flops already, and they are not that common an occurence that more would need to be added on a regular basis. This sort of unusual article is the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia great, but it needs to have sources added to it, rather than being deleted wholesale. Drett 16:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I wholeheartedly disagree. First of all, not all brands are represented, only a small fraction of them, and this list is perhaps "fairly comprehensive" only with regard to some automobiles sold in the United States in recent years. It is a "list of automobiles considered unsuccessful by somebody that the editors could think of" and it will inherently be one. Almost any vehicle can be considered unsuccessful in some aspect, and you would find the strangest arguments for that. For example, the original Ford Mustang could be labelled a success, but then some subsequent versions can be argued "not to have lived to expectations" and there you go, Ford Mustang is an unsuccessful vehicle. We do not (at least I hope) maintain a List of politicians described as fraud or stupid, which could be similarly pointless and infinite by definition. Such expressions of somebody else's POV do not belong in an encyclopedia either. Bravada, talk - 16:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Although I voted delete on the similar list of successful automobiles a day or two ago, I think this list has some potential. It looks like WP:OR right now; but if sources could be added, I would be willing to change to keep. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 16:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Completely POV article with original research. dposse 16:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This list has already survived AFD, why do another? Many people clearly like and support this page, and it harms no one. Many articles have been given sourced refernces by myself an others, but I have abanonded it for fear of deltetion by authors such the nominator here, who has not made it to my good guy list. Deletion guidelines don't even support any of the delete votes above, administrators please take note. --matador300 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - for the deletion guideline applicable, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may be needed - the first bullet, WP:NOT. Apart from the fact that the article is inherently POV in this form and would have to be rebuilt from the ground up not to be, which is equal with it being deleted. It also serves as a bad precedent an example for other potential WP:NOT and WP:NPOV violating articles. Bravada, talk - 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, unlike the former list this one is verifiable and NPOV if we stick to widely publicized failures, e.g. the Edsel, the Tucker. Gazpacho 17:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  To make the point, I went in and removed everything except the entries that have some significance outside the hobby (e.g. led to a publicized lawsuit, caused a whole company to fail, butt of comedy jokes) Gazpacho 18:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Again, the name should then be changed to "List of automobiles that had a publicized lawsuit, caused a whole company to fail, or became the butt of comedy jokes." Signature^brendel 18:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing that in such an illustrative way :D Is there anything more left to say? Bravada, talk - 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• "List of famous automobile failures" is a bit more manageable, don't you think? Gazpacho 18:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't. Give a good, objective and indisputable definition of "famous" and "failure". Bravada, talk - 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Although somewhat illustrative I agree with brendels assessment. One wouldn't for example write an essay about the domestic cat and call it "An essay on mammals", although that title is not essentially wrong as domestic cats are mammals, it is equally not correct as the essay is only about cats, not directly about mammals. 'A list of automotive commercial failures' isn't what the list shows. It cannot show a list of automotive commercial failures because there are no set criteria that qualify a car as a commerical failure. Therefore what it shows is "A list of cars deemed by various random sources to be considered commercial failures". Consider as well some cars are hugely successful in the States but utter failures in Europe and vise versa. This is way too ambigious for me, it represents a level of information wikipedia shouldn't be hosting as wikipedia is not a vehicular review website. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I'm sorry-event though this article was created by respectable editors, the article currently does not cite sources and fails to deliver an at least somewhat objective definition of what a "commerical failure" is. This could hurt WP's credibility and I have put in too much effort into my article's here to let that happen. While, yes, for some cars such as the Yugo or Edsel it is clear that they were failures. It is not nearly as clear with others such as the Toyota T100 (which I think was a failure, but...). The name, "failure" also provides a problem as there is no definition for "failure." If, however, the article starts featuring sources and perhaps a name change would be initiated, I will change my vote to keep. Regards, Signature^brendel 18:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Quick question? What do you define as a failed automobile? I'm sorry, what? You don't have one? Goodbye.  Cdcon  19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, how cute. Do people just come to AfD to flame and score internet points now? Gazpacho 20:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No, but seriously, what's the objective criterion?  Cdcon  20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a notable failure if some impact outside the automotive hobby can be shown. Nader's activism with respect to the Corvair made his career. The Edsel has been mocked in television and film. The Tucker failure is the subject of a feature film. The Dymaxion is of interest not just to auto hobbyists, but to Fuller fans as well. Gazpacho 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • As I said above how do you define a "notable impact oustide the automotive hobby?" Would need to find an objective criteria and rename the article correspondignly. Signature^brendel 20:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't say "notable impact", I said "can be shown." Gazpacho 21:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Gazpacho, you have shot yourself in the foot actually - don't you see how laughable your argument for the Dymaxion looks like compared to the others? I, for one, never heard of the Dymaxion or Mr. Fuller (though I will gladly read about them when I finish writing this), so it is by no means famous by my standards. On the other hand, you probably never heard of the Talbot Tagora or Autobianchi Stellina, did you? This is all too subjective. Bravada, talk - 20:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I deliberately write comments that I know to be "laughable" all the time. Thanks for noticing. I looked through the Tagora and Stellina articles and didn't see any claim of significance outside the hobby. Gazpacho 21:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, it's quite obvious that the Dymaxion would attract interest of Mr. Fuller's fans. If Paris Hilton somehow made a car and tried to sell it unsuccessfully, it would obviously be of notice to her fans, even if it wouldn't attract too much attention anyhow else. The Dymaxion just had the luck of being promoted by a person known for something else, but this is a rather poor claim to failure fame. And if you'd ask ME, I'd say that the Tagora was a much more spectacular and important fialure, and I believe we will never be able to convince each other on that. Which is why the article is incurable. Bravada, talk - 00:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment ~ rather ironically, now that I know the Corvair's production numbers, its 1.8 million sales qualifies it for a place on the List of bestselling vehicle nameplates. Quite the failure it must have been to have sold so many... --DeLarge 20:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it's unusual that a line that sold so well for many years would suddenly tank, but it did and there are bodies to prove it. Gazpacho 21:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Too subjective, and apparently success in one market but failure in another still counts. Worst of all, the article doesn't even define what a "commercial failure" is, exactly. "Flop" doesn't cut it. Leave the successes/failures to the individual car articles. Come to think of it, some of the other articles in the "Commercial failures" category could stand to be removed for the same reasons. --Vossanova ^o< 20:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gazpacho makes some good points. And it certainly is less inherently POV than the other article (mentioned above). But to take the Yugo as an example, and as Vossanova says, was it a commercial failure in all of it's markets? (For all I know it was a big seller in Yugoslavia - where I assume it was made). If the article is market specific to the USA, then at the very least it needs to be renamed as such. Marcus22 21:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and for consistency between two correlating articles. I am also concerned with the issues regarding verification and POV noted above. Agent 86 21:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Significant changes have been made to this article since it was listed (i.e. a massive chunk has been gouged out of it) Please take another look at it and reconsider your vote. Drett 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that significant, just a huge chunk was thrown away. This doesn't pertain to the fundamental issues which are being discussed here, if it was that easy, there would be no reason for an AfD nomination in the first place, just for an extensive edit. Reasons for AfD in general cannot be remedied by simply editing the article. Bravada, talk - 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete This is a very biased article and only based on one persons point of view.Vr55

• NB: This user has 4 edits including 3 to the article in question and 1 to this AfD. Drett 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and did not even bother to sign. Suspicious, ain't it? Bravada, talk - 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, they're probably just a new user. Drett 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I battled extensively to have this article kept in its last AfD, and it's very disheartening to see that the nominator did not mention it was nominated less than a month ago under the name "List of Automotive flops". But, without full disclosure the masses have voted delete, and this article shall perish. However if there were ever a time for a mistrial on Wikipedia, this is it. AdamBiswanger1 23:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: There is a process whereby deleted articles can be brought back, isn't there? Drett 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Once gone, it's nearly impossible to get back, but these guys dont' care, they want it all erased, forever and ever, no matter who they hurt. This delete business sucks big time, and there are plenty of WP who will second deleting articles they don't care about while the other people who care can't drum up support. Also a great way to torpedo editors they don't like as another wikipedia tactic. --matador300 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment matador, please take a look at WP:OWN. You will see that no-one owns the article and as such people cannot be hurt by its deletion. You should not take the deletion or proposed deletion of an article personally.-Localzuk ^(talk) 00:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment By the way, there is a lot of good information here that was never put on the main car articles, I would recommend going into the history and moving over everthing into the main articles before these good people succeed in erasing all the useful information in here so no one else will be able to enjoy it again. This may have started with an editor who found TWO entries I wrote in a "worst of list" of airplanes among other things. and suceeded in deleting the whole kit and kaboodle just to hurt me. I tried to document this on the main WP article, but got knocked out, likewise leave a comment on the process, also kicked out by someone that also does a lot of deletion. I found it almost impossible to stop an AfD once started because it's appears on a list that thousands of users look at and routinely add delete votes to. Most articles do not have enough users to counter these people who vote delete who have never even looked at the article before, but very popular similar list that can survive are all over WP, and there is no rule against such lists. It depends completely on the people who want to kick down such sandcastles, and there are lots of them on the automobile project.

This suspiciously was followed by a very similar assasination attempt on this article, and the companion successful automobile article which also suffered an undeserved death when a similar editor nominated his own edits for execution just to get at mine. He withdrew his nomination, but was renominated by another one of the auto project gang, and it's dead too. They also want to remove every toy, every car review, every mention of any TV show or movie appearance of car and anything else they can figure out how to delete within the WP rules, not to mentionally massively uncivil behavior to enforce these rules. But I'm the bad guy. --matador300 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments Whilst I concur there is additional information here to other car articles. I do not feel that it is encyclopedic. This article fails because it is impossible to make an unambigious version of it. What qualifies a car as a commercial failure or success?, can a car fall into neither category? Is it's failure or sucess based on sales? safety? politics (i.e. where it was manufactured)? or a combination of these things? As a result this article is dangerous, it seeks to inform readers (themselves potential consumers) of cars which might/may have been worth avoiding. Wikipedia is not a vehicular review site. For car reviews try Autotrader.com. This article by nature is too biased and ambigious to possibly ever be of any encyclopedic value to anyone. Finally I want to say I really am sorry to those who have put a lot of effort into it, but I think looking over the AfD's the reoccuring nomination isn't a sinister attempt to destroy your efforts, but rather a genuine concern over the underlying nature of this article. Thanks for reading my 2 pence. ta. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 01:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• And a comment Here is the AfD from less than a month ago: [4] Drett 23:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If it was remade as "automobiles that made less than 'x'", i'd be ok with that, but "commercial failures" seems rather subjective. Attic Owl 23:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And thus the degree to which the automobile is to be considered a failure is described beside each entry. Very subjective =bad. A bit subjective = OK AdamBiswanger1 00:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As requested I have looked at the previous AfD and again at the article. I can see no reason to change my vote. Sorry. (And I am neither one of the 'masses' nor part of some obscure plot!) So it's still 'Delete'. Marcus22 12:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This will need to be maintained, and has not been; but the examples given are notorious commercial failures - so it doesn;t seem to be that difficult. Septentrionalis 13:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredsat. Angus McLellan 16:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  Lack of sources is not a valid reason for deletion. It is a valid reason for a {{unreferenced}} tag, but not for deletion. AdamBiswanger1 16:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, but original research is a valid reason for deletion. dposse 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Horrible car sales is original research? Has no one else laughed at the demise of the Delorean or reported terrible sales figures for other cars? Is anything on the page not true, or not able to be referenced? I'm not sure what you mean by that. AdamBiswanger1 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I see you have also just added an OR tag. I must most emphatically disagree. AdamBiswanger1 16:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• "This Yugoslavian car was sold in the United States from 1986 to 1990, and quickly gained a reputation for being as unreliable as it was cheap" That's a "unverified claim". dposse 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• That just seems like stylistic writing gone wrong. I changed it to say that it was unreliable and cheap, and added a ref to indicate the "cheap" part of it. When I get more time I'll find more. See how finding sources and editing is better than deleting? AdamBiswanger1 17:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Man, have you ever heard of NPOV? Your concept for this article is a huge POV-fest. No wonder, actually, because this is more or less the only thing this article may become and ever was. Citing somebody else's POV is still POV. Saying that a vehicle is "cheap and unreliable" bacause somebody somewhere said it is not the same as saying that it has a wheelbase of 2100 mm. This is an encyclopedia! Bravada, talk - 19:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, ok, I know what you are saying, but it is not POV to say that the Yugo is unreliable and cheap. It's true! Who would disagree? Are we to take all of the flavor out of the language and say "the Yugo experienced 8.2 times more structural damage per square foot than every other car in its class", or can we be so audacious as to say things like "unreliable"? I dislike value judgments, too, but only when they are likely to be contested by a reasonable person. AdamBiswanger1 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset) It's not about being true or not true. It's about creating a page where a group of subject would be deliberately bashed and labelled with judgements, using best possible resources. This IS wrong and does NOT belong in an encyclopedia, however true and fair you see it. One could probably find a rather large number of resources that say that the current US President is a moron or that a certain New York Senator is a fraud. I wouldn't like to see a listing of "stupid" or "fraud" politicans on Wikipedia though. Bravada, talk - 20:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Disclaimer - the above are not my views, and I do not intend to express my views of that kind in WP at all. Just giving examples to show how dramatically against the encyclopedic character of WP such listings are.

Oh come on. Do you not see the difference between saying that the Yugo is unreliable and saying Bush is a moron? Is it opinion that the Yugo is unreliable, or is it true? There is such thing as a gray area, and bringing an extreme example does nothing to argue my point. AdamBiswanger1 20:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also One would not find any reliable sources calling Bush a "moron", or anything of the like. AdamBiswanger1 20:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So list Yugo under "automobiles that were unreliable", previously setting indisputable, tangible and objective criteria for inclusion. You are trying to successfully agree that Yugos were cheap and unreliable, but you forget to notice how this does not automatically label them as flops. Think it over.

Also Find some reliable sources calling Yugo a flop indisputably. Bravada, talk - 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You may be quite right that being unreliable and cheap does not label a car as a flop, but that does not concern me. Strike it from the list.I'm arguing a much broader point. Simply because "flop" holds no specific definition does not mean that there should be no list at all-- the collective common sense of the editors supercedes the need for mathematical criteria. AdamBiswanger1 20:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a place where it doesn't. It is where we worship specific definitions and "mathematical criteria" ad absurdum. That's the quirky charm and indespensable characteristic of an encyclopedia. Sorry to disappoint you. Bravada, talk - 20:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Define Peninsula. Florida is a peninsula, Denmark is a peninsula, and India is a peninsula, right? What about the little strip of land in my creek surrounded by water on 3 sides? Is that a peninsula? Certainly not. Or is it? In that it's too ambiguous, maybe we should not have a list of Peninsulas? Or maybe the collective common sense of the editors will overpower my decision to put my creek in the article. AdamBiswanger1 20:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous tangential discussion. It doesn't matter how many bad reviews the Yugo received, or how many times it broke down. If it made more money than it cost to design and build, it wasn't a commercial failure. The ONLY information to be verified is cumulative revenues and development/manufacturing costs. --DeLarge 20:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that, DeLarge. Adam, for the definition of a peninsula, see peninsula. A list of peninsulas would be fairly redundant, a category serves the purpose just as well. Besides, peninsula is not a judgemental term. Calling a strip of land a peninsula does not contain any positive or negative charge in general. Bravada, talk - 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Before you try to make me look like an idiot, tell me where in the "peninsula" article it clears up any ambiguity. It does not, and my point remains. Also, calling Mussolini a dictator may have a negative charge amongst supporters, but that does not mean it is not true. Saying the Delorean is a flop will not have such a "charge" in anyone with common sense, and if it does, the controversy is to be explained next to the entry. Your reply is negated. AdamBiswanger1 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to do anything personal, don't ake my replies as such. I am only trying to fend off your arguments. Again, applying the quality of being a peninsula to a strip of land is quite NPOV, so that's not that much of a problem. As concerns dictators, if there is a list of them, I hope the criteria are well-defined. Bravada, talk - 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, while the article is POV-ish at the moment, failure is far more easy to quantify than success (I voted to delete the successful cars article). To some success is breaking even, to others, making a million. The article could be re-written to be quantifiable and is therefore worthy of survival in my opinion. Mallanox 20:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh is it? Please quantify failure. Bravada, talk - 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. Pick a benchmark: Failure to sell projected number of units, failure to recoup research and development costs, failure to attatin X amount of profit. Success depends on how greedy you are, failure is much more cut and dried. Mallanox 23:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The criteria you mentioned are practically impossible to test against, as they are based on data manufacturers do not publish. Bravada, talk - 23:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In the UK every public limited company is obliged to provide its accounting information for scrutiny by anyone willing to pay Companies House for the priviledge. I would imagine that at least the US, Japan and most EU countries would have similar legislation to be compliant with FATF. Research is the key, I just think that this article deserves to be given the chance to be improved. Mallanox 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can make out the profitability of a product or project with absolute certainty from publicized accounting statements, I congratulate you. This is actually more or less my specializatio nand I assure you it's somewhere between extremely hard to impossible, and I would rate individual automobile models closer to the latter end of that scale. Bravada, talk - 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You will not convince me to change my stance on this article without coming up with a new argument. I realise that must be annoying, especially as you invited me to participate in the first place. I believe this to be worthy subject matter and I stand by my claim that profitability can be proved. Mallanox 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I know I won't, it is the inherent flaw in this whole AfD thing. I am waiting for an explanation how are you going to prove individual model profitability based on company accounting statements (excuse me for being impudent here). Responding to your arguments, I do not say that the subject isn't "worthy" - but do consider whether it is a good thing to start a list on that, or rather an article discussing it? What is annoying is only the girth of this discussion and how responding to comments became a nightmare - can't we have sections or something? Bravada, talk - 00:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Any car that can be verified to be called a failure by a notable source. Simple as that. Wall Street Journal. Motor Trend. Business Week. Ralph Nader. Now withdraw this silly, destructive AFD, or I'll keep you on my has-not-been-nice to me list.. --matador300 23:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep just like the first time --rogerd 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment can any of those voting keep address the utterly subjective nature of calling a car or manufacturer a failure? Viridae^Talk 00:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I hate to sound blunt, but I've gone over it 1000 times here and here. AdamBiswanger1 00:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • I don't believe it has actually been addressed. For a small car company making half a dozen might be ok, the same for GM would be diastrous. Consensus among wikipedians doesn't really get around the POV problem either, it is always going to be POV as to wether a car is a failure. Similarly you can't really rely on the manufacturer to be honest about something like this. Viridae^Talk 00:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Look at it this way: is "Automobile that was a commercial failure" a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia article? Of course not. I think that a list of them is, likewise, not a legitimate encyclopedia article. The Literate Engineer 17:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What about "Commercial failures in the auto industry"? See the second note at WP:LGR, which deals with this type of subject to list relationship. AdamBiswanger1 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just that it would be clear - Adam is actually the author of the essay he linked to. Bravada, talk - 18:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You can be assured that I was not trying to hide that--even though the authorship irrelevant. The cited section of that essay explains a logical connection between "List of automobiles that were commercial failures" and "Commercial failures in the auto industry. It was far from an attempt at imposing the proposal on anyone else, or presenting it as authoritative. But The Literate Engineer presented the same exact idea which is the centerpiece of my essay, so I see no reason for conflict. AdamBiswanger1 18:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

However, I don't think "obviously and self-evidently related" cuts it. When dealing with a list, I see it as a double question: 1, Does the topic merit a regular article to begin with? 2, Does the topic merit a list in addition to a regular article? And in the case of "Commercial failures in the auto industry", I answer question 1 with "no", which makes question 2 irrelevant. However, just because a topic merits an article, it does not necessarily follow that the identical topic merits a list. A mere "logical connection", then, is far from sufficient. My opinion regarding the final disposition of the entry remains unchanged. The Literate Engineer 03:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Many of these failures are notable and encylopedic. The fact that a list is not being maintained is not listed as a reason to delete anything. Also, I'm not sure that there have been that many notable failures of late. We as a community have decided that we support lists like this with Category:Commercial failure lists. Vegaswikian 19:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - of course some failures were notable and encyclopedic, but how do you define notability, not to mention failure (which we already discussed above)? If an automobile is said to have failed in the marketplace for this reason or another, and it is notable, it should go into its article with appropriate references. A list should have very specific criteria for inclusion, otherwise it is going to be unstable. Moreover, including an item in such a list applies a negative quality to it, which is a fantastic decoy for all POV-lovers. Bravada, talk - 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (User apparently believes he's entitled to multiple votes) Hey, Bravada, there's another wikipage for you to delete! It's all my fault, I admit it. I wrote an entry on the F-111 tha Mmx1 didn't like and a mirror page of successful scientific projects, and he found out how easy it is to delete these things unless you have a base large enough to beat the traffic of people more than happy to 2nd a nomination for deletion, the contribution history of many of these people consists largely of deletions, instead of editors like myself that contribute heavily, despite the heavy efforts of delete-happy editors who I shall not name here, but many of them have signed here. It seems suspicious that so many copycat deletions have since taken place. The ONLY valid reason for deletion is if NOTHING can be salvaged, no matter how many so-called votes have been cast. You cannot vote on the value of PI, as my math teacher said, and it only takes one person to be right (I just made that up) The good guys need to fight exclusionists like Bravada that currently dominate and bully other editors in the Automobile project. Just try to put upa picture or mere mention a model of a car or say that it was on Adam-12 and try to make it stick without gettting disembowled, tarred, feathered, drawn and quartered. I did (and actualy suceeded in getting pictures of model cars and mentions of cars on Adam-12, and lived to tell about it) Wikipeople should concentrate on building this baby up instead of tearing down each other's work! (patriotic music playing in the background) Remember, the good guys always win in the end. See my talk page for my dream speech. --matador300 21:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Even though you believe the world revolves around you, this AfD has nothing to do with you or any other specific editors. By definition, it should be and is impersonal. Bravada, talk - 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Answer me this. Were you or were you not inspired by the AfD described by Mmx's dossier on our interactions, since you seem to have famiarised yourself with this history? I would certainly describe your tactics as very similar to those employed by that editor.--matador300 22:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The only thing I know about Mmx is that this is some user you have clashes with regarding some aircraft. I don't know of any dossier and I am not interested with your aircraft business at all. This AfD was inspired by a parallel AfD regarding a parallel list, as said in the introduction - if we deleted one, it would be totally inconsistent if we didn't delete the other. Itnerestingly, some people voted differently in the two AfDs! Bravada, talk - 22:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic and POV article aim. What a bloody mess of comments. A list of problems warranting deletion is not exclusionary - it does not mean there are no other criteria for deletion. --Mmx1 22:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV, trivial and a waste of time. I strongly object to the user's attempt to make it too much effort for people to participate and suggest that all his complaints are completely invalid and should be totally ignored. Piccadilly 22:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep conditional on an objective definition of commercial failure. The deLorean and Edsel were unquestionably failures, by common ocnsent. The subject of cars which failed commercially is encyclopaedic. As long as the judgment of commercial failure can be attributed to named and authoritative sources, there should be no problem. Just zis Guy you know? 11:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

O RLY? Please see the above discussion - all objective definitions of commercial failure proposed proved either impossible to apply or not applicable (did not equal commercial failure). How in the world are you going to OBJECTIVELY name "authoritative" sources? Again, if there is "common consent" that something was a failure, it's a reason to mention that in the article, but one cannot start a list based on that! Bravada, talk - 12:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Listed in a book of automotive failures, for one thing. Like I said, the underlying topic is encyclopaedic, and with care and sourcing the list can be too. Just zis Guy you know? 12:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can write a book of automotive failures and argue that DeLorean was a great success that was ahead of its time and moved the automotive industry forward by aeons, while at the same time arguing why the Toyota Corolla is an utter failure. And if you think this is irrelevant, I assure you people write such things. So, does every car mentioned as a failure in a source have a place here? Bravada, talk - 13:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find a publisher. People will laugh in your face, of course... To describe the deLorean and Edsel as failures is entirely uncontroversial, there is broad agreement in a large number of sources. We can debate the appropriateness of individual models one by one, but the subject is encyclopaedic and the list is capable of being referenced to reliable sources. Just zis Guy you know? 15:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Go and browse some stuff that gets published. Start with reading what Jerry Flint writes, he sometimes even claims an existing model does not exist, not to mention that you can reference contradictory statements from his different "works", as he changes his mind quite often. Anyway, do you realize you have just expressed POV? Referencing to POV is still POV, it is just finding somebody's POV good, and thus it is POV :D What are your precise criteria for "broad agreement in a large number of sources"? Bravada, talk - 16:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Go back and read the policies and guidelines. As long as we can attribute to a known identified authority such as a motoring journalist or team of journalist (as would be the case with a book published by a car magazine) then it's not POV and it's not OR. If there is significant informed dissent, or the issue is complex (as with the Corvair and Nader) we can cover it by reference to both sides. But there are cars which are identified by multiple sources as duds, and there ios nothing wrong with listing them - either as a separate article or if there are only a few after the fact-checking then in an article on automotive duds. Sure, some people love their Edsels, but in the end there is no significant informed dissent from "the wrong car for the wrong market at the wrong time" analysis. Just zis Guy you know? 16:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

POV aside for 5 seconds, It still qualifies for deletion as it violates the WP:NOT policy. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information such as reviews. Because this is so subjective its basically a list of bad car reviews. If you want to read car review go to autotrader.com, Wikipedia is not the correct place for this information. It should be removed as quickly as possible, I'm amazed the article has made it this far. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 00:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset) OK, we can argue about that forever, but tell me why do you want to keep a "List of automobiles some sources users considered 'identfied authorities' declared to be 'duds' (even though it does not equal being a commercial failure, as a commercial failure is a product that did to live up to sales/financial projections)" in an encyclopedia, especially that the corresponding list of successful automobiles (for which all the raised arguments apply) was unanimously deleted? I believe a list should be an expection in WP, used in cases when it can add valuable information that cannot be presented in any other form - like List of largest suspension bridges. Please do not reply at once, think it over and perhaps reply tommorrow. Thanks, Bravada, talk - 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Completely unencyclopedic, biased, vanal and totally clueless regarding the Yugo. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 12:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete concur with DeLarge. —ptk✰fgs 12:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 18:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Paint

This page has been proded twice by two independent editors; the webpage described doesn't come close to reaching WP:WEB and is completely non-notable. Prosfilaes 00:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - given that it's not by google, the use of the trademarked name is inappropriate. The subject of the article itself is almost useless. - Richardcavell 00:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It's just someones toy code. Artw 00:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Kchase T 00:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; full disclosure: I'm the original {{prod}}der. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Trademark violation of google. Non notable website anyway. --Ageo020 01:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The bulk of this article is about how Google Paint doesn't work very well. Non notable anyway. --Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs} 02:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Michael 06:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 08:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom, Danielrocks123, and Richardcavell. --S-man 08:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable website and a trademark infringement of Google. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Completely non-notable. Trademark misuse Localzuk ^(talk) 13:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article pretty much admits it's not notable. JIP | Talk 15:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--DINOMAN 15:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom or redirect to Google Page Creator. --Gray Porpoise 21:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No need for it since it's not even Google's. --Nishkid64 23:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB and what's more its not part of Google. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 06:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom or Redirect to Google or a related page. — Wackymacs 13:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Certainly no reason for a speedy delete as it harms no one. A google search turns up quite a few hits, that makes it notable if somebody else is talking about it --matador300 21:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. Sango123 18:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asad TV

Delete as a hoax. This is a disputed prod; removed by an anon user. There are no relevant Google hits [5] so even if this is not fake, there are no reliable sources provided. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC) - Agree with the addition of the 6 people listed below.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as it fails WP:V and there is nothing on google. If an Urdu speaking editor can confirm this is legit, I would reconsider.--Kchase T 00:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all the additional articles as well. Created by the same bad actor.--Kchase T 01:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It certainly looks like a hoax. Jim Jones, cult leader who died 30 years ago, was an actor on the channel? --Xyzzyplugh 00:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per all of the above --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete obvious hoax: 1. the contributor's name, 2. "There's an Asad TV in every country", 3. contributor's editing history. Nuke it and ban the perpetrator. Danny Lilithborne 00:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Delete Asad Tv looks like a hoax to me.No google hits to validate it. No mention of it in Pakistani media. Only mention of it in google is in wikipedia. I would also like to nominate asad tv actors for deletion
  • Jack Popat - claims to be the son of Martha Jones and Simon Jones (actor)
  • Edwin Popat- as above.
  • Harsh Khanna- Non existent actor.
  • Ahmed Khanna- claims to be a famous hunter and hunted in Delhi. Hunting is illegal in India and there are no forests in Delhi.
  • Mohammad Qasim Tariq and Qasim Tariq- 12 years old and he is a retired wrestler already.
  • Asad TV Kushti Maza (AKM) No existent Tv show of a non existent channel.

--Ageo020 01:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — per all above. Kalani ^[talk] 01:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Michael 06:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for apparent hoaxery. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per all comments above. Unverifiable, possible hoax Localzuk ^(talk) 13:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Evidence strongly supports this is a hoax. It presently seems more verifiable as a hoax than as a real thing. Hence I support rapid deletion of all of the above. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - All of the above, as they are apparently all part of the same hoax. Badbilltucker 15:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, a bunch of 12-year-olds. Apparently Mohammad Qasim Tariq was in a video game two years before he was born. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Themindset 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverified, and though a Google search returns many pages relating to "Asad" and "TV," it does not return anything about the channel. --Gray Porpoise 21:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator as an unverifiable topic and probable hoax. Yamaguchi先生 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Asad Aleem is creator of article on AsadTV, and scored precisely 118 Ghits, majority of which are for a development banker. Hit it with WP:AUTO, WP:NN, WP:NOT (soapbox) or WP:HOAX, and it falls without question. Delete all the others per Ageo020, WP:NN, WP:NOT (soapbox) or WP:HOAX as Writer of article has no credibility. Ohconfucius 05:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All Asad Aleem got speedied when it showed up as new; but a bunch of others apparently got through. Carlossuarez46 21:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily kept, bad-faith nomination. --Golbez 03:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shutokou Battle

Another user started but did not complete the AfD nomination process for this article. A second editor later proposed it for speedy deletion as the creation of a banned user, but it appears to be thecreation of several editors over a period of time. The article seems harmless to me, so I take no poistion on it. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

i think it should be deleted as this article is actually part of a multiple article deletion action against a permanent banned editor and his multiple sockpuppets EnthusiastFRANCE/EnthusiastFR). you can follow the discussion here (Kinkeshi). JP Belmondo 00:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep typical game article, unless there's reason to think this is a hoax or something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Tokyo Xtreme Racer (American title of the game). Seems like a perfectly good article to me, so don't delete. -- Koffieyahoo 02:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sockpuppets are not welcome here and the article is not that good.Magic PablofromMexico 03:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete why keeping some banned articles and removing others? personally i would keep 'em all or remove them all. As some articles are already deleted, i think the whole batch (Enthuthing) shoudd be deleted. SuzyQQ 03:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was All are being speedily kept, and all pro voters are being for being meatpuppets and disrupting WP to make a point. --Golbez 03:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sega Touring Car Championship

Another user started but did not complete the AfD nomination process for this article. A second editor later proposed it for speedy deletion as the creation of a banned user, but it appears to be thecreation of several editors over a period of time. The article seems harmless to me, so I take no poistion on it. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Should be deleted as remaining article created by a permanent banned editor sockpuppetmaster (see discussion here (deletion has already started with Kinkeshi). JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep All as WP:V and the fact that an editor working on this article is permanently banned in not a valid reason for deletion. Even CSD:G5 seems a bit draconian since these are actually fully formed articles that others worked on...--Isotope23 01:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin Pschemp as already deleted very long and supported Kinkeshi article created by this editor by herself (supporters being abusively charged of being sockpuppets) and she has also reverted this editor's work on Man Bites Dog (film). It seems like being abusive is not a matter on this site. JP Belmondo 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Wow, this multiple nom is rather hosed up? Assuming nominator is unfamilar with formatting...--Isotope23 01:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per Isotope23. It is a legitmate article and I believe this was not what CSD:G5 was meant to deal with. Too much work has been put into the article to delete it now. Also can someone please format the related articles into one. It would be a lot easier for comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgelord (talk • contribs)
• Speedy Keep per above. Eventhough this was apparently created by a now banned user the actual nominator (not TruthbringerToronto) seems to assume bad faith here. Even now banned users can have created reasonable articles in the past. -- Koffieyahoo 02:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete banned editor's work are usually deleted. Xi Qu 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete abusive use of copyrighted material (pictures) and sockpuppet work. There is no reason to keep a banned user's dirty work. MarryMorrison 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Kinkeshi was deleted the others articles have to be deleted too, sounds logical to me. Alezvousfaireenculer 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The fact that a banned user made the page, does not signify a reason for deletion. Furthermore the entire page will just have to be recreated as its a popular notable title that deserves a mention. Completely bad faith. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keshi

Remainng article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination and the article looks perfectly fine to me. -- Koffieyahoo 02:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete banned editor's work are usually deleted. Xi Qu 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete abusive use of copyrighted material (pictures) and sockpuppet work. There is no reason to keep a banned user's dirty work. MarryMorrison 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Kinkeshi was deleted the others articles have to be deleted too, sounds logical to me. Alezvousfaireenculer 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berserk Forces (single)

Remainng article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination and the article looks perfectly fine to me. -- Koffieyahoo 02:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete banned editor's work are usually deleted. Xi Qu 02:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete abusive use of copyrighted material (pictures) and sockpuppet work. There is no reason to keep a banned user's dirty work. MarryMorrison 02:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Kinkeshi was deleted the others articles have to be deleted too, sounds logical to me. Alezvousfaireenculer 02:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sockpuppets are not welcome here and the article is not that good. (theory:over supporting Koffieyahoo is maybe an EnthusiastFRANCE sockpuppet?) Magic PablofromMexico 03:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berserk anime soundtrack

Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination and the article looks perfectly fine to me. -- Koffieyahoo 02:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete banned editor's work are usually deleted. Xi Qu 02:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete abusive use of copyrighted material (pictures) and sockpuppet work. There is no reason to keep a banned user's dirty work. MarryMorrison 02:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Kinkeshi was deleted the others articles have to be deleted too, sounds logical to me. Alezvousfaireenculer 02:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sockpuppets are not welcome here and the article is not that good. (theory:over supporting Koffieyahoo is maybe an EnthusiastFRANCE sockpuppet?) Magic PablofromMexico 03:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sword of the Berserk (soundtrack)

Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination and the article looks perfectly fine to me. -- Koffieyahoo 02:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete banned editor's work are usually deleted. Xi Qu 02:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete abusive use of copyrighted material (pictures) and sockpuppet work. There is no reason to keep a banned user's dirty work. MarryMorrison 02:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Kinkeshi was deleted the others articles have to be deleted too, sounds logical to me. Alezvousfaireenculer 02:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berserk PS2 Soundtrack

Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination and the article looks perfectly fine to me. -- Koffieyahoo 02:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete banned editor's work are usually deleted. Xi Qu 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete abusive use of copyrighted material (pictures) and sockpuppet work. There is no reason to keep a banned user's dirty work. MarryMorrison 02:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Kinkeshi was deleted the others articles have to be deleted too, sounds logical to me. Alezvousfaireenculer 02:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tourist Trophy (video game)

Remaining permanent banned Sockpuppet article for deletion (see discussion here (Kinkeshi). I'm for it as the multi article deletion has already started. JP Belmondo 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Game is WP:V and the fact that an editor working on this article is permanently banned in not a valid reason for deletion.--Isotope23 01:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination and the article looks perfectly fine to me. -- Koffieyahoo 02:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete banned editor's work are usually deleted. Xi Qu 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Close this whole set down and ban both the sockpuppets involved. Fan-1967 02:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete abusive use of copyrighted material (pictures) and sockpuppet work. There is no reason to keep a banned user's dirty work. MarryMorrison 02:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since Kinkeshi was deleted the others articles have to be deleted too, sounds logical to me. Alezvousfaireenculer 02:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Keep arguments, in the main, focus on the fact that this fetish exists, so we should have a page on it even though the page can't contain an article verified by reliable sources. Please remember the first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis as written). The fact that it exists to some extent isn't the question; its verifiability or lack of it is the key to whether we can write an article on it. Some also point out that we have other unsourcable articles on fetishes, to which WP:POKEMON has a very good response - as did your mother when she told you that "two wrongs don't make a right". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bellypunching

Note: have made some significant changes to try and justify the article further. They are basic but hopefully satisfy enough to let the article continue existing, while being improved.--Brokethebank 07:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your changes added a bunch of links, but they consist of yahoo groups, personal websites, and a couple porn sites which themselves are non-notable. None of these are reliable sources, none of them help with the fact that this article still violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. Unverifiable content can't stay on wikipedia, no matter how much some people might like said content. --Xyzzyplugh 15:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Points to consider - It's not about liking (or in your case, disliking) this entry, but about showing dilligence in mapping out within Wikipedia all these various concepts that exist in the world.

1. Some concepts are better cited than others, it's true.

2. However that doesn't mean that some things, which are perhaps more ephemeral, or which came into their own with the rise of the internet, can't be listed.

3. Granted one can't list everything, but I suggest that if one can prove that a lot of people are involved in a concept, and that this concept exists as such, then the concept must surely merit some inclusion, even if that inclusion is limited only to what one can source.

4. As for your grandmother throwing spoons at cats (I haven't met her but I'm sure she's a nice lady), I would think that her eccentricity is too isolated to be reasonably compared with this fetish at hand. I have shown that thousands of people have taken it upon themselves to join public groups around this fetish; and found any number of websites, most which have been around for years, creating a sort of community.

5. It would be a mistake to make an article called bellypunching videos on the basis of the fact of such videos existing, because that would ignore the evident existence of the concept of the fetish.

6. Granted that if one starts a blog on any obscure fetish, it can't be included here; but if 30 or 40 different organizations and people start websites, both personal websites and business websites, combined with free public groups that require membership (membership to which groups as I've stated reaches the thousands) I suggest that a certain minimum has been reached to make it a bonafide concept that some people hold.

7. If you really believe that only things that show up in journals are worthy of existence in WIkipedia, I think Wikipedia will be much the poorer for it. It seems unreasonable to ignore the existence of something that is obvious and evident, from the links I've found (which were incidentally only a small percentage). To wit:

[W]here an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge,

[as the existence of a fetish called "bellypunching" may be deduced]

and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims,

[as this article does not,]

a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources [...] [from WP:NOR]--Brokethebank 14:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re your item 7, I think you are not in tune with the spirit of WP:NOR there. The idea is that we can write (eg) "an apple pie is a pastry crust with an apple filling"; finding a reliable source for that sentence might not be easy, but no-one would try to strike out (as OR) what a huge number of people already know. As it says, such examples are exceptional; extending that principle to an activity like bellypunching is not on. Mr Stephen 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is original research, and doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability as there are no reliable sources on this. Xyzzyplugh 00:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment gastergastrizophilia gets no non-Wikipedia hits. -- Scientizzle 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While links may prove this fetish exists, they do not serve as reliable sources with which to verify the factual claims of the article. That something is a sexual fetish does not indicate an inherent notability that would supercede inadequate sourcing. -- Scientizzle 04:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article title gets 864 G-hits. Hoax and neologism. Morgan Wick 00:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'm still concenred about reliable sources, but 864 only fails my personal thresh-hold, not Wikipedia's. Morgan Wick 00:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. References are cited, and the references cited are evidence that a market exists for this type of pornography, which in turn is evidence for the existence of the fetish. On that basis, the article is not a WP:HOAX. I have not been able to find the term gastergastrizophilia used outside Wikipedia. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  The references cited are a personal web page and a website that sells porn movies. The porn site does not discuss the issue at all, but simply has some movies for sale. Neither of these are even remotely reliable sources. Do you believe we should keep articles which don't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, or do you have some reliable sources you haven't mentioned? --Xyzzyplugh 00:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep -- obscure and weird, but real. It's been mentioned on alt.sex.stories, so someone must have this fetish. Haikupoet 00:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  alt.sex.stories is not a reliable source. Please explain how this article meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Xyzzyplugh 00:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I beg to differ. If it's on alt.sex.stories, someone got off on it enough to write about it. And there does appear to be a market for bellypunching porn as well. God only knows why, but if people are producing it someone's probably buying it. Haikupoet 00:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    I think you may have a misunderstanding as to what reliable sources are. From Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet, "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking". And the first line of Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If something exists, but it has never been covered in any reliable sources, then we can't have an article on it, because we can neither rely on unreliable sources, nor use original research. --Xyzzyplugh 01:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    • • comment while you are correct about alt.sex.stories, your understanding of policy toward primary sources seems to be off. Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia...In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions. A porn site selling 'bellypunching' videos is "easily verifiable without specialist knowledge." We do not need a credible third party to tell us such exists when we see it with our own eyes.
        • Yes, we could consider these porn sites, or the videos themselves, as primary sources, verifying the existence of videos of women being punched in the stomach. However, where does that get us in relation to this article? That leaves an article called Bellypunching, consisting entirely of "Videos of women being punched in the stomach exist", which would mean we'd need to rename the article "bellypunching videos" or something similar, which would violate Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and need to be deleted, as the article would simply be a rephrasing/definition of the title. And, look, you can't water down WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources to the point where ANYTHING becomes reliable. Suppose my grandmother enjoys throwing spoons at her cat, and writes about it on her myspace account and makes a video of it which she posts online. Can we have a wikipedia article called Cat spooning or Grandmother spoon throwing or Spoon thrown at cat hobby? No. Attempting to grab bits from parts of policies and put them together to suggest that everything in the world is a primary source and therefore we can have an article about everything, simply won't work. --Xyzzyplugh 15:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR... not verifiable and apparent original research.--Isotope23 01:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete It definitely does exist, I remember a whole website of anime pictures of various video game females getting socked in the gut, often puking as a result. I think it was a SomethingAwful Awful Link of the Day a couple years back. That said, damn near everything is some kind of fetish to someone out there (window cleaning fetish! omelette-making fetish! hard-drive-defragmenting fetish!) and that doesn't mean we need an article for everything that gives folks their jollies. I think this one in particular is probably hard to back up with reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom: though this fetish may exist, and may be documented on a website selling pornography and may be document on alt.sex.stories, those are not reliable sources, and thus it is unverified by any reliable sources. --Iamunknown 02:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral What - no pointlessly gratuitous obscure Simpsons reference? Bwithh 02:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to domestic violence (f*&%ing sickos) --Xrblsnggt 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR Æon ^{Insane Ward} 05:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep even though there's no way I could source it myself while at work. MLA 09:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  What's your reason for choosing Keep? --Xyzzyplugh 12:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment my reason for recommending keep is that I believe it's a notable practice and I know that it is not a hoax and that it does exist. MLA 14:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete we don't need an article on every obscure sexual fetish. (I have no doubt that if you can think up something really obscure someone will practice it) Viridae^Talk 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Although it currently has no reliable sources, it should be kept and improved. Reliable sources need to be found. If we deleted all unreferenced information from wikipedia we wouldn't have that much left... Localzuk ^(talk) 13:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment but what we would have left would be a quality site that could be counted on for accuracy. Wikipedia would be alot more like an encyclopedia.--Isotope23 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I'm concerned about this article. Whilst it seems hard to verify and highly unusual bordering on unlikely, that doesn't nessessarily warrant its deletion or label it a hoax. I'd say as Andrew Lenahan has heard of this fetish before that warrants a weak keep. Although it needs considerable improvement. Many of the sexual articles are like this though, I don't think deletion is the answer to it. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Neither the author of the piece, nor any of us in this discussion, know of any proper sources to verify the information in the piece, though all of it seems plausible, even likely. I think thats an indication that the piece needs fixing, not elimination. Our inability to find gastergastrizophilia on the net neither proves nor disproves anything -- detailed texts on sexual paraphilia aren't left around laying open on the net, and a mild amount of googling for "erotic punching," "belly punishment" or "rough body play" (thats what they call the workshops where they teach you how to take an 'erotic punch') will show that the practice is meither "unlikely" nor even uncommon. Some of it is obviously sex play with a consenting partner; some is not so consensual, and there is a shaded continuum -- but, even in this supposedly liberated age, nobody has any real nummbers -- in part because the participants themselves don't know where the line actually divides consent and abuse. I think it's an important topic, and a research failure isn't a good reason to have no article in this instance. Mark it up for needed citations^{[citation needed]}, and leave it be. Bustter 14:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable Marcus22 15:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, existence is not notability, fails WP:V and WP:RS. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Question For those voting keep while ackowledging that this fails WP:V, a question: why is this worth keeping if no proper sources can be found? Sure, it likely exists and some have heard of the practice, but why should a sexual fetish with a small audience have an article when, say, a webcomic with a small, but clearly existent, following and no relaible third-party media coverage is readily deleted? Why should an article about a sexual fetish garner apparent AfD bonus points?-- Scientizzle 18:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Is this fake? If so, to what extent? Who cares? If Dr. Credible comes along and vets it, fine. If noone does, that's fine too, because you can't expect any better from a poorly known and defined subject. It's still interesting enough to exist.  Cdcon  19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "interesting enough to exist" isn't policy... WP:V is. If nobody comes along to vet this, it is not "fine". Any article that is not verifiable should go. If you can't expect better sources to be produced, then we shouldn't be writing articles about the subject. Not that it necessarily matters, but at least on this topic, it appears that Jimbo agrees with me: "We should continue to turn our attention away from growth and towards quality." As a community, condoning poorly or unsourced articles runs counter to that goal.--Isotope23 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• You're right in the broader sense of making Wikipedia a quality, fully verifiable site. But if you think AfD is going to solve that problem, dream on. For the time being, until we develop a robust system to filter out the unverifiable material, I believe it is more important to maintain consistency in what we accept and what we don't. You can argue there are rules in place for that, but how appropriate are they and how well are they enforced? I believe that articles like this tend to be mostly harmless to Wikipedia.  Cdcon  20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I guess harmless is a matter of opinion. This is a much wider discussion that goes well beyond this topic, so to be brief, consistency is a problem and we should consistently be removing anything that isn't verifiable. Leaving it here just creates the perception that unsourced and poorly sourced articles are acceptible fare on Wikipedia.--Isotope23 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• That perception already exists, but I see your point.  Cdcon  20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• AfD, and Prod, ARE part of our robust system of filtering out unverifiable material. This, right here, is how we delete articles on unverifiable topics. We're doing it right now. Welcome to the system. --Xyzzyplugh 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I take it you've never seen a robust system before?  Cdcon  20:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Something like 250 articles a day are being currently deleted through Prod and AfD. That's 7500 a month, 90,000 a year. Seems robust to me. --Xyzzyplugh 21:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice to re-creating if verifiable sources can be found. AFAICT, unverifiable by any reliable source. TheronJ 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: Since this page has gone through a bunch of edits, let me reaffirm my delete. No offense, but the existence of videos and webpages doesn't establish that the alleged fetish is notable. I'm also very doubtful that using exclusively online sources can meet the reliable source criteria. TheronJ 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No journals or articles mention this, using LexisNexis as a search tool. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete strongly suspected hoax. If it ain't on L& O Svu, it ain't real!205.157.110.11 00:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per 205.157.110.11, the best deletion reason I've seen for any of these fetish articles that have gotten AFDed lately. (Seriously, for lack of sources.)--Kchase T 01:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Those voting keep may be best to actually read the WP:V policy once again (please delete - to be honest I'm still shocked that Donkey punch remains) - Glen 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:V, unreferenced, never heard of such a term, very likely to be a hoax. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 06:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- while it is a weird business, it is something that exists, and while it may not be well known I don't think it's so wildly obscure that it falls into NOR. As said above, references should be found. A lot of internet things are uncited in journals, and most of them should be ignored, but sometimes I think a compendium of citations is enough to warrant a keep: google brings back 900 hits for bellypunching, and over 20,000 for "belly punching". (Also, I understand that for instance this forms a sizeable part of Japanese sexual culture; but my japanese isn't too great) --Brokethebank 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment BTW, I made up the word gastergastrizophilia, since I've studied classical languages a lot (in this case Greek) and it seemed like the appropriate move to put this article in the list of sexual paraphilias on such a page. Maybe I should have not done that; in any case bellypunching still is a known term. --Brokethebank 14:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Maybe I should have not done that"; you are right, read WP:NOR Mr Stephen 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment You also introduced "abspunching" as a term for 'the male to male' form, yet the only reasonable ghit for this is a female 'catfight' site in russia. Seems the bulk of the info here is you 'winging it.'

• Delete -- twisted, perverted, unsourced, original research. Also WP:BEANS and WP:BALLS. Goodbye cruft! Morton devonshire 14:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete However, *not* based on subject matter, simply for failing policy. Any one editors/collective editors' tastes don't account for anything... just V, RS, and notability (since so many are making jokes and judgement calls above). There's some nasty, nasty stuff detailed in some articles here that I think are just... well, wrong, but that obviously shall never nor should be grounds for deletion. Closing admin: base merit solely based on policy, nothing else, and discount all the humor/judgemental stuff please. rootology (T) 15:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Scientizzle. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Rootology and [[[User:Isotope23]]. No cited, verifiable sources. I see none such in "keep" arguments. I "saw in in a newsgroup" or "heard about it somewhere" don't count. Might I add that the external link to sex videos causes me to question the purpose of the article. Contains word someone made up? Good grief and WP:NOT. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 19:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep fairly extensive fetish it seems like. There aren't many scholory articles on furries but that seems to be able to be sourced, I imagine anyone putting some work into it can find sources for this. -M^ask 00:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  We put work into it, we found no sources. --Xyzzyplugh 13:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There is extensive intrest in this phenomena. It's a well-followed fetish (as evidenced by it's popularity at FetishCon). It's part of our realilty, why deny it by deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.247.75 (talk • contribs)

  Because of Wikipedia:Verifiablity. --Xyzzyplugh 13:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Has anyone visited an academic library to see what might be written about this in a scholarly book or journal? Sometimes information that's not readily available on the net can be found in traditional print sources. In fact, this point may be worth raising whenever it's suggested that a point in an article is unverifiable. Books are good. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  I think you just volunteered for the job. Let us know what you find. --Xyzzyplugh 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hits for "bellypunching" (or "gastergastrizophilia") in: Journal of Sexual Aggression - none; Archives of sexual behaviour - none; Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment - none. Not a major grant-farming subject, it seems. Mr Stephen 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. As it stands, the article fails WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. Mr Stephen 22:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Google will confirm for you that "erotic punching," "belly punishment" and "rough body play" all exist, at least enouh that some are trying to make money with them. primary sources are permitted, see WP: NOR, In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources... Few here seem to have read this. The article, however, is stinky, and needs to be fixed. Bustter 00:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If you're suggesting that we make an article called Google hits on "belly punishment", consisting of the results of a google search, I have to say I'm rather sure it would violate WP:NOT. Seriously, though, you're looking for a loophole in WP:V and WP:NOR which doesn't exist. The fact that a phrase can be found in a google search on a number of webpages, combined with the fact that this phrase is used in the title of some porn videos, does not justify a wikipedia article. You just can't make a wikipedia article by combining "some webpages have the term 'bellypunching' in them" and "Some videos of women being punched in the stomach exist, and some of these videos have the term 'bellypunching' in the title". This does not equal an article, this yields a dictionary definition, and a questionable one at best. It's not an accident or a coincidence that WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT when combined disallow wikipedia articles based on nothing but message board postings and porn videos, this was done on purpose and there is no loophole. --Xyzzyplugh 15:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable information that is worth including in an encyclopedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable through reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 04:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, this type of porn does appear to exist. (But then, what type of porn does not? The Internet is to porn what the proverbial typewriter monkeys are to literature.) What matters here is that there are no reliable sources for any of the statements the article makes about bellypunching - as Xyzzyplugh said above, we'd have to stub it to "Bellypunching porn exists". And that's even assuming every flavour of Internet porn is also notable, which I submit is not the case. Sandstein 19:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lazy Acres

Non-notable grocery store, with only one location and doesn't need a page. --Caldorwards4 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Lazy Acres is a grocery store chain with one store is a contradiction in terms. Prod was a possibility. Nominator's previous attempt involved making it into a redirect to Albertsons, which isn't the company that, according to the article, owns this; it was promptly reverted, so doing so further would be pointless, but a talk page discussion could have been quicker unless User:Micheal21 stonewalled. I would vote delete, but I'm not sure whether to do that or redirect, and if the latter, to where. Morgan Wick 00:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. --Xyzzyplugh 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect — to parent company, Supervalu (United States) --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The store may be notable because it is trying to occupy a market niche separate from that of traditional supermarkets: "wholesome, natural, and organic foods and products" (which presumably means more expensive). The company most successful in this niche is Whole Foods Market, which holds position 479 in the [{Fortune 500]]. So Lazy Acres may have some notability as a trendsetter. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - One store is an experiment, not a chain. Merits at the most a footnote in the parent company's article. There are a lot of companies trying to get into the organic foods market. --Brianyoumans 01:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 13:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Xyzzyplugh. No one here seems to have heard of it and it seems unnoteable judging by the articles depth. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete currently insignificant store. article will be recreated if Lazy Acres becomes better known. Marcus22 15:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - one store without any references to assert what distinguishes it from other chains that occupy the organic sector. - Whpq 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Brian and Marcus. Joe 03:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. -M^ask 00:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nourhanne

This article manages to simultaneously violate WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V in nearly every sentence. As was written on the talk page, it has not a single saving grace sans that the topic is, in principle, notable. Nysin 23:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. This is an unencyclopaedic, fawning essay. Nysin 23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support per hilarity of the entry. Bibigon 05:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose pending verification of claim of artist's significance, then needs removal of POV and wikification.Richardjames444 12:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - there does not appear to be any salvageable content after removal of all the POV content. If somebody can rewrite and cite sources, I'd change to a keep. -- Whpq 13:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Subject seems notable, but article needs massive cleanup and wikification. Serious WP:NPOV problems and better verifiable sources need to be addressed. In principle, subject is notable though. But article needs a complete rewrite. Scorpiondollprincess 14:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep although there may not be much more than the birth date left after the POV content has been removed. --DrTorstenHenning 15:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless NPOV'd Dlyons493 Talk 16:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Lack of neutrallity in the article, not wikipedia wurthy to say the least Nourhanne 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke it per my comment on the talk page.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 23:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Normally I would say "Keep", but I personally attempted to encourage someone, anyone, from Lebanese music, Lebanese culture and Lebanon to take an interest in improving and saving this article, and no one did. If even the Lebanese on Wikipedia don't care about Nourhanne, then I guess no one does. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless excised of the neutrality issues mentioned above. --TheParanoidOne 20:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have severely stubbed the article. I am relisting it solely on the underdiscussed issue of notability. Thank you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the prior content was a copyvio from [6], which comes up on the first page of Google hits and shows what a poor job of looking into this y'all did. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - In applying WP:MUSIC, the only one she seems to come close to is the "Has won a major music award" depending on the predominance of the "2005...Oscar video clip festival" win. As it stands there are no sources and the history above shows little interest in the article to get a reliable source. Willing to re-consider if advised of a change.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem that I see if that we're searching in English, and should be searching in Arabic. Here's a scan of an article (?) from Al-balad magazine (however reputable that is) [7]. Any arabic speakers here? - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There not much text in that scan. If the article is to operate as a useful source, it should have more than that (unless Arabic is remarkably denser than English). Nysin 01:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Right. I thought it was a front page, given the size of the picture, though of course I do not know. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (and quick before she escapes from those beads) - if nobody can provide reliable sources then it fails WP:OR so we don't have to worry about whether she meets WP:MUSIC. I have no problem with it being recreated with proper references once CrazyRussian has learnt Arabic. Yomangani 01:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just needs some references Localzuk ^(talk) 13:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Her notability is better researched by using her Arabic name, نورهان (which I've just added to the entry). About 90k ghits, and I doubt her Lebanese fans are all that active on the web. I found a report in the "al bawaba" online newspaper confirming that she won an Oscar for ‘best young Arab female artist’s voice’ at the ‘Oscar Video Clip Festival’ in Cairo for her song "men zaman" (Long Ago). I'll add the reference. I'm a bit disappointed that, in this extended AfD, nobody bothered with a lil bit of very easy research. Bustter 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the rewritten version, it's now a legitimate singer article. JIP | Talk 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Article as it now exists does seem to indicate significance. Badbilltucker 16:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That's gratifying, guys, but now I have to write an entry for Nadia Lutfi :( ... Anyway, I jus would like to recommend to those who found the original "hilarious"...I'd like to see what you've written for the Arab Wiki.

• Keep. It's fine as it is now. Maybe it was worse at the time of nomination?  Cdcon  19:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. See this version, the last before I added the AfD notice. Nysin 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The only statements that I see that are remotely POV are referring to one song as her best known, and the mention of pan-Arab stardom. I think that if some sources can be brought in, this article could be greatly improved. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment Stubbly, I've been up all night, first getting Nourhanne in decent shape, and now working on a Nadia Lutfi entry so as not to leave a stub...Nourhonne is in much better shape than when I found it. If you think it needs improvement, though, you are welcome to start grinding Arabic text through Google Language Tools, as I've been doing all night. Bustter 19:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• See my response to Cdcon. Nysin 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I just did, and now that I've seen the walking, breathing, living, tapdancing, craps-playing, snorkeling version I no longer feel like I did all the work.:) Bustter 21:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus on whether these clearly public figures are sufficiently notable for their own articles. Some may choose to pursue a merge, which doesn't require AfD. Copyvio should be removed on sight without waiting for AfDs to close, incidentally. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dawn Angelique Richard

Also: Wanita "D. Woods" Woodgette, Shannon Bex, Wanita Woodgett, Dawn Angelique Richard, Aubrey O'Day, Aundrea Fimbres... did I miss any? Not much to suggest these are anything other than nn vanity articles. Googling "Dawn Richards"+ "Danity Kane" returns 42 hits. As for Woodgette, half the article is copyvio, the rest says that the band's first album won't be released for two months. There is a claim of notoriety notability, however, with the P.Diddy connection. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge what seems useful and not a copyvio in the Danity Kane article, delete all the rest. -- Koffieyahoo 04:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Each member of the group has a history and each member of the group will do things outside of the group in the future. Just because some of the articles are short now doesn't mean they won't expand in the upcoming weeks/months; most of them were just recently created because the group has just began to gain notoriety.
• Keep per above post. She is part of a group that was famous for months on television and is about to release it's first album in late August. This article and the other members will subsequently expand. Squadoosh 07:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom WP:BIO not notable, or mergeto 'Making the band3'. In defense of deletion, their past seems not so notable. 68.84.243.47 states they may go on and do other notable things. With respect, most of the Wanita Woodgett and Aundrea Fimbres articles appear to be about 'making the band', with personal details are stubs about non-notables, so it would make sense to merge into Danity Kane or Making The Band or "list of people in making the band". WP:NOT wiki is not a crystal ball, and individual articles can be created as and when/if these people DO become notable in their own right. Ohconfucius 08:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notability slowly being established, they even get a mention on Fox FM (United Kingdom). Article could be expanded. --TheM62Manchester 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the band article. If more information about individuals comes about in future, I have nothing against recreation of the articles Localzuk ^(talk) 13:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Appears to me to be a set of vanity articles. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as not (yet) notable Marcus22 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --P199 17:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- Alias Flood 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The only people who would ever stumble upon these articles would have a rather different opinion on their notability. That's right, notability is an opinion, despite whatever arbitrary NN rules are in place.  Cdcon  19:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: notability is not "an opinion". It is, by definition, an objective matter and - in cases such as this - it is a thing to be established by reference to reputable sources. Those sources are insufficient in this case at this point in time. Marcus22 12:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Valrith 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Generally, I don't think winning a reality show makes someone notable unless they become notable on their own. If the album makes it big, then we need an article on the BAND, and that is it. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V - what else is there? WilyD 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the Danity Kane article. No need for individual articles on each band member at this time; perhaps with greater notability later in their careers. Fairsing 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as there have been two seasons of a television show, a making the video, and now an album released by these artists, there are enough resources available to be collated and archived here. If one disagrees that there is enough notaraity now, what is the point in deleting if there is great likelihood that notaraity will be achieved at a later date? Pvodenski 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP. They are now a part of America Pop Culture and media. They are musicians with TV time, video time and concert time. They have an album arriving in a week. Expansion will most definitely occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.220.5 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 11 August 2006
• Keep. The article may require cleanup, but each member of the group has been involved in other endeavors before the creation of the band. Also, the group is gaining more and more notoriety as of late, and people will want to read about the members of the band as well as the band itself. CTVampSlayer August 12, 2006. (UTC)
• Keep It gives a look into the fans favorite member of the group like Destiny's Child and TLC's pages even if they're not that popular yet. AJ Blakeney
• Keep If individual members of the Pussycat Dolls and Eden's Crush get their own wikipedia pages, I don't see why these girls can't. They all seem to somewhat fall in the same category. Plus, the girls of Danity Kane are slowly gaining even more notability as their album release draws nearer (Aug 22) and they are appearing in more magazines. Their individual official web sites are also getting more hits and becoming more fleshed out, so there should be more information available for use by the wikipedia community (in terms of WP:V and giving each girl their own individual entry). logsmein 23:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This group is becoming very popular, being constantly featured on Yahoo Buzz, being the Number 1 Music Artist on Myspace, and being on the top of MTV Artist pages. Their album will be released Aug 22, and the girls are starting to get a lot of publicity. Therefore, it would be unfair to close this page down strictly for the reason that this band is not popular. Also, if other bands have sites for their individual artists, it makes sense to allow these individual members to have their own parts as well. each girl will have their own fanbases who will want to read about the particular members. Jennayy 23:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all, hoaxes, WP:SNOW.  RasputinAXP  c 01:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4 Comics

Part of a rather elaborate hoax perpetrated by User:Bret John, among other user accounts. The article claims that 4 Comics is a popular Pakistani comic publisher that uses characters from Marvel Comics and Art of Fighting, among other places. This AfD covers all articles associated with 4 Comics.

Also covered in this AfD:

• 4 Comics Swordsman
• The New Swordsmen (comics)
• The Swordsmen
• A Man Named Hest (comics)
• Super Planet (comics)
• The 4 Comics Adventures (2006 video game)
• Toby Serpent (added 23:11, 8 August 2006)

Danny Lilithborne 00:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all as hoax unless shown to be otherwise. Seems unlikely, as "4 Comics" +Pakistan brings nothing relevant. It seems to me that a major comic company anywhere in the world (which is partnered with both Marvel and DC comics!) would score at least a hit or two on Google. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete User:Asadaleem12@hotmail.com is the creator of this article who has done nothing but create nonsense article.--Ageo020 01:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Chris Griswold 03:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Affirm author of these articles has created numerous nonsense articles. FelineAvenger 05:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Michael 06:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as hoaxes. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. --Bigtop 17:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment AfD notices are being removed by anon. Danny Lilithborne 23:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment New related article Toby Serpent was created on 20:35, 8 August 2006, added above. Danny Lilithborne 23:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nominator, authored by someone known to be churning out nonsense articles. Yamaguchi先生 23:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All per above. You might also be interested to know that 4 Gamers has just been created. sigh... Pascal.Tesson 22:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was we have consensus to keep this article, I reckon. Further, there is not nor ever was a valid claim for speedying this article — from the re-creation, we can just consider that PROD contested ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernardo Sorj

This is a re-creation of a previously deleted article re-created by the original author and subject of the article. Mallanox 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)*Comment — Just to note: 778 google hits, and 785 Yahoo hits. Article is well written. I leave it to others to detirmine the state of this in Wikipedia policy. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • How is the article well-written? It looks very ugly. Speedy delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment on what speedy critera are we deleting by? I don't see one. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment G4 (recreation of previously deleted material). Danny Lilithborne 02:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. The previous deletion[8] was from an uncontested prod rather than an AfD. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if the claim of having written 20 books is accurate, I'd say he's easily worth an article. Amazon seems to back up his claim of having published several books. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Possible copyright violation, appears to be copied directly from the bio on his website. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 03:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Recreated Previously Deleted Material --Xrblsnggt 03:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - he's published 20 books (21 are listed in the references) and more than 100 articles on a legitimate area of academic research, and he's been a professor. Pass. - Richardcavell 06:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A notable scholar and author. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep seems kosher and notable enough. 10 published books on Amazon Ohconfucius 06:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC) delete per Mallanox. violates WP:BIO unsourced and WP:AUTO. I have preempted the deletion and moved the contents to User:Bernardo Sorj. Ohconfucius 08:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - is no one worried that an article written by the subject is going to be biased? Objectivity is the key to wikipedia. I don't question the notability, it's the subjectivity. Mallanox 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I recognize the possibility for bias, but the article is essentially the recitation of a professor's CV. I don't see any evidence of opinion creeping in there that might distort the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I can find several of his books in Swedish libraries. Seems perfectly legitimate. WP:AUTO is not an absolute policy that requires deletion (and it can never be policed in any case, as people can take usernames different from their real names). up+l+and 10:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 13:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Andrew Lenahan with the added comment that someone has moved this article into userspace while this deletion discussion was taking place, which is not helpful to do until this debate closes. Yamaguchi先生 21:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - he really did write all those books, just check Amazon.com. Notable.--Aguerriero (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:AUTO violation is a contributing factor, not an automatic deletion. Oh confucius, you've been too bold. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

slap-wrist noted Ohconfucius 06:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per most of the above comment concerning keep. --HResearcher 16:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2003-04 NHL transactions

Fails WP:NOT, namely its policy against Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics and indiscriminate collection of information. Most of the transactions are non-notable and share no characteristics besides taking place during the same NHL season. Also violates WP:FUP with the inclusion of team logos for each player.

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the violation described above:

• 2005-06 NHL transactions
• 2006-07 NHL transactions

Madchester 01:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Frankly, I don't think this nomination has a good grounding in either section of the policy, since the loosely associated topics doesn't list similar examples and the indicsriminate collections of information lists seven things that consensus has established qualifies as such, and this is none of these. I'm not a sportsperson, so if arguments sway me, I may change my vote. Do people think this is useful information? I hear my friends commenting on player trades all the time...--Kchase T 02:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep all. Factual, verifiable, and not indiscriminate as it pertains to important events during the course of each season. Logos can and should be edited out to satisfy FUP. (WP:HOCKEY caught most of the logo-ed up pages but there are still probably a few out there.) BoojiBoy 02:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is the trade of Tom Koivisto for future considerations notable? Important trades should be included in the respective NHL season articles instead. The trades are factual and verifiable but they fail WP:NOT. --Madchester 02:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is, as he is obviously notable enough to warrant an article. And the reason they're not in the season articles is for size constraints. BoojiBoy 02:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I personally disagree with the nom. This article does not fail WP:NOT in my opinion. Also, notability is in the eye of the beholder -- despite what some may think. DMighton 02:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The transactions are neither loosely associated nor indiscriminate. There was a bit of discussion on WP:HOCKEY when these pages were created. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive3#NHL Transactions. -- JamesTeterenko 02:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very useful information for fans of the game. As a long time veteran of message boards, you would be surprised how much the topic of "when was player x traded, and for whom?" comes up. Articles like these can answer that question. The list is verifiable, factually accurate and it serves a purpose. Resolute 03:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

CommentThough I do agree with the argument of a violation of WP:FUP. However, the logos can very easily be removed. Resolute 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Don't bring up the messageboards bit per WP:NOT - not a discussion forum. I'm on many sports forums at Fanhome, RFD, etc. and understand how trade rumours are always discussed, but the articles still fail WP:NOT for the reasons given. The articles are no different than similarly deleted tennis articles recently. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Federer's winning streak on grass) Actually, I'm curiously to see the opinion of editors who are not affiliated with WikiProject Ice Hockey. --Madchester 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. As BoojiBoy stated, you are misreading what WP:NOT is. I mentioned message boards to show that hockey fans find this information useful. As it is, it does not appear to me that you have justified that these lists violate WP:NOT. Given how broad your argument appears, I could use your logic to justify the deletion of every single list on Wikipedia. This clearly is not a list of loosely based topics, nor is it indiscriminant information. It is a list of one single topic: Players that have moved from one team to another. Resolute 18:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment You are completely misreading WP:NOT. It says that wikipedia is not a message board and it says that message boards are not relevant sources, but you can't use that to argue about the usefulness of an article, just because some people on a board find that article useful. I am sure that people on a Jessica Simpson message board find Jessica Simpson useful; that doesn't mean we should delete that article. BoojiBoy 12:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Along that line of logic, Roger Federer messageboard users will find his article useful; however, the list Roger Federer's winning streak on grass is not, since it contains a series of indiscrminate information; voted for deletion for that reason here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Federer's winning streak on grass. A list of trades that took place during an NHL season is no more distinguishable than the 30+ victories on Federer's recent grass winning streak. --Madchester 18:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually, it's much more akin to this. And as mentioned, the reason these deals aren't in the season articles is for size constraints. BoojiBoy 19:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable league, information is very useful and presented in a good way. Does not seem to fail WP:NOT--Coasttocoast 05:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Masterhatch 17:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Hockey fans would find this useful and interesting.  Cdcon  20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The FUP violation is simple, albeit time-consuming, to fix, and it's no less notable a list of transactions as you'll find anywhere else on WP. Doogie2K (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. Sports history has a rightful place here. Additionally, per WP:LOGOS this does not seem to be a violation of fair use. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pabble

Year-old unsourced neologism with one relevant Google hit: [9] to, as usual, the supposed inventor's blog. Opabinia regalis 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFT. --Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs} 02:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NN. Michael 06:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 13:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop 17:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -M^ask 00:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. Sango123 18:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Popat

I am nominating all these article for deletion for the following given reasons.

• • Jack Popat - claims to be the son of Martha Jones and Simon Jones (actor)
  • Edwin Popat- as above.
  • Harsh Khanna- Non existent actor.
  • Ahmed Khanna- claims to be a famous hunter and hunted in Delhi. Hunting is illegal in India and there are no forests in Delhi.
  • Mohammad Qasim Tariq and Qasim Tariq- 12 years old and he is a retired wrestler already.
  • Asad TV Kushti Maza (AKM) No existent Tv show of a non existent channel. Ageo020 01:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per well-researched nom. Some might even be speediable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. I also voted to delete these in the Asad TV AfD above, but whatever. They're clearly going to go.--Kchase T 01:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I pickled the figs, I mean prod'ded all these myself :) Danny Lilithborne 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Based on the username for the editor of Asad TV Kushti Maza (AKM), it appears to also be a vanity article. On top of the nominator's reasonings, I see no reason at all for these articles to stay. —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Michael 06:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as either non-notable per WP:BIO, unverifiable, or hoaxes. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, WP:AGF, but all evidence points to a hoax being perpetrated.--Isotope23 13:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 13:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• DElete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. nn hoax/nonsense. --Madchester 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grizzlardolphoctopus

Joke article, only source is one Slashdot post. —Keenan Pepper 02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom. --Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Email} 02:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, patent nonsense, so tagged. NawlinWiki 02:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke it from orbit The stupid is strong with this one. Danny Lilithborne 02:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but just for completeness sake I added an elephant ref. Gazpacho 03:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Xoloz removed the speedy tag. This is a neologism, an obvious joke and doesn't belong here. - Richardcavell 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "huh huh huh, I think I'll put a joke article up on wikipedia. No one has ever thought of that." --Xrblsnggt 03:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Severed Hand

Nonnotable heavy metal band. NawlinWiki 02:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Update adding Keep Your Wives Inside (band's only album) to listing. NawlinWiki 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• What do you want to do with the song? Kappa 02:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "It is rumored that the song will be released as the third single from the album." -- delete the song too without anything more concrete. NawlinWiki 02:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "They obviously influenced Seattle Rockers Pearl Jam to add to their extensive library of music.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.241.30 (talk • contribs)
• delete per nom. fails WP:MUS not notable. one self-released album. 145,000 ghits, most of which for Pearl Jam song Ohconfucius 06:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pn - non-notable Localzuk ^(talk) 13:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• The band was featured on a VH1 show. I Married...Sebastian Bach. That should imply some notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Severedhand (talk • contribs) (article author)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUS. Fairsing 16:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex_changer

There are no pages that link to this disambiguation page except for the page that links to disambiguation pages. It's also not a term I think comes up very often or needs to be disambiguated. "Sex Changer" also sounds like a derogatory term for transgendered people. kian 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to gender changer, the second definition doesn't appear to be verifiable with reliable sources. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete delete, as it has no value. That term isn't used, gender changer is Localzuk ^(talk) 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -NinjaCharlie 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredesat. --Celithemis 07:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Euclidean natural units

original research. i never heard of "Euclidian natural units". article creator cannot answer necessary fundamental questions about it on the Talk:Natural units page. r b-j 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. When Googled with quotes, 352/354 results are all links to the same article on a math&science forum under two filenames. The original research seems to make sense (though it is without any sources), but it is original research, and, as per WP:OR, should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamunknown (talk • contribs) 19:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

i dunno what sense you can make of it. it cannot be a complete set of Natural units unless it normalizes or fixes 3 universal physical constants (to get natural units for length, time, and mass). or 4 if you include a natural unit of charge or 5 if you include temperature. r b-j 02:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I should have clarified what I made of the .pdf file. I briefly scanned over the .pdf and thought it did not look like patent nonsense. I am unqualified to determine if it makes sense mathematically or physically, however, as I am ignorant of natural units and much of the math used in the .pdf file. --Iamunknown 02:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

it's okay. patent nonesense is unreadable gobbledegook that is pretty obvious to anyone. i could find no hits whatsoever when i Google either "Euclidean natural units" or "Euclidian natural units" with quotes. but the page, along with two others (that i listed below), are nonsense from a science or physics POV. r b-j 02:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; uncited, and as a mathematician, it strikes me as nonsense. There is no such thing as time or light in Euclidean geometery.--Prosfilaes 04:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 06:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; patent or not, this is utter nonsense, and OR. --Lambiam^Talk 08:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsensical original research. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 14:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, perhaps salt. The link is this, and it is even more nonsensical (although not patent nonsense) than the article. Septentrionalis 01:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generic wavelength

"original research" at best, but more accurately labelled pseudoscience. article creator cannot answer necessary fundamental questions on Talk:Natural units. r b-j 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OR. The following sentence in the article gives it away: "Generic wavelength has minimal use in technical literature and is not used consistently." -- Koffieyahoo 04:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR. Michael 06:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. OR, and unsalvageable gibberish. --Lambiam^Talk 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generic frequency

"original research" at best, but more accurately labelled pseudoscience. article creator cannot answer necessary fundamental questions at Talk:Natural units. r b-j 02:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per my suggestion on the generic wavelength AfD and the dependence of generic frequency on generic wavelength. -- Koffieyahoo 04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 06:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. OR, and unsalvageable gibberish. --Lambiam^Talk 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, yet more original research. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. JIP | Talk 09:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freecycle (software)

Page is a software ad, and software is of no special interest RainbowCrane 02:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Spammity spam... --Xrblsnggt 03:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPAM. Michael 06:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:SPAM Localzuk ^(talk) 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Needs cleanup, but this is Linux GPL freeware, and an application genre that's notable for it's rarity on that platform. Ace of Risk 14:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is borderline (lots of Google hits but no media coverage that I could find); on the other hand, it does have a niche audience. It is free software and the site it is hosted at has no ads. I don't know of any other free software that does what it does. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inertia (laziness)

Hardly a potential article. Currently presents just a single quotation. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete it is a potential article... on wiktionary. - Richardcavell 03:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:NOT. Michael 06:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Richardcavell. Viridae^Talk 08:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Do not transwiki, as this definition is already on Wiktionary. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Richardcavell and Cordesat above. Localzuk ^(talk) 14:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without transwikiing per User:Coredesat. JIP | Talk 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. fails WP:WEB --Madchester 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full magazine

Non-notable online magazine. Zero Google hits. Vanity article (created by magazine's creator). It's not clear what an "underground" website is. eaolson 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. nn-advertisement. --Madchester 02:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless substantial content and evidence of notability is forthcoming. Richardjames444 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clearly a vanity article. --Edgelord 03:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• dont delete give a boy a chance he clearly loves this website —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicklink (talk • contribs) 22:31, 7 August 2006.

Comment Sorry, but you are going to need a better reason than that for this article to be kept. --Edgelord 04:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Michael 06:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete an "online magazine" should have some Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Localzuk ^(talk) 14:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• A MANS VALIDITY CANNOT BE MEASURED WITH GOOGLE HITS PLEASE RECONSIDER —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicklink (talk • contribs) 11:55, 8 August 2006.

• A man's validity cannot be measured with a Wikipedia article. nn, vanity. Delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and removal of the AFD from the article. Ryūlóng 21:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This should remain, I found it to be interesting... and no one should be deprived of an opportunity to see this on wikipedia, the Free encyclopedia... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.141.255.88 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 9 August 2006.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony (Nickel Creek song)

Prodded as a non-notable song and recreated, which equates to a contested prod. Song is still non-notable: no chart appearance, not even released as a single, and no other assertion of notability in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Michael 06:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 14:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP. JIP | Talk 09:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Cruelty of Really Teaching Computer Science

Not encyclopedic. This article has a long and sad history of trying to be cleaned up, and I think the reason they have all failed is that it just isn't a good candidate for an encyclopedia entry. It reads more like a review or critical analysis essay. There is only one reference, and that reference really has little to do with the subject of the article itself. Nearly every sentence is marked with {{fact}}, but I don't see how there could even be a source that validates any of these statements. Let us end the madness and delete this article, merging any meager scraps of verfiable fact (if there are any to be found) into E. W. Dijkstra. -- Rangek 02:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, the ideas discussed in this article appear in numerous Dijkstra papers and could even be considered his life's work. They should be covered at his article or a spinoff thereof. Gazpacho 03:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the subject of the article is notable. It's a bit of an orphan but that's not enough reason to delete. - Richardcavell 03:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete academic snobbery soapbox --Xrblsnggt 03:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  The "academic snobbery" merely reflects the style of Dijkstra, whose significance is not in doubt. Gazpacho

  No, the "academic snobbery" in this case belongs strictly to the article. Articles about "academic snobbery" don't have to be so.... snobby. Rangek 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as an essay. Probably merge the observation in first paragraph into E. W. Dijkstra, if it isn't already there. -- Koffieyahoo 04:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. Michael 06:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Dijkstra is important and the article of his that this WP article is about is important. I agree in part with Gazpacho that it could be described in E. W. Dijkstra but I would have thought that this is already a spin-off of that so I do not understand that alternative. It also looks to me as if the {{fact}} tags are not correct because the point they address appears to be covered in the Dijkstra article that is the subject of this WP article. --Bduke 08:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Dijkstra's views are notable even if controversial. The article started off as a rant, but that has largely been cleaned up. Leibniz 10:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the article has obviously been significantly cleaned up since the above author's argued for deletion. It's now actually pretty decent and is a subject of extreme encyclopaedic importance written with good style. WilyD 12:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How do you figure that? The article hasn't been touched since I nominated it. Rangek 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Uh, it was the only way I could account for the discrepency between the comments above and the appearence of the article. WilyD 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep needs sources and tidying but it should be of value when this is done Localzuk ^(talk) 14:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • My question is, "How?". I believe verifiable sources do not exist for any of the statements in the article. Rangek 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, looks like a valid article. JIP | Talk 15:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Localzuk's comments. Most of the statements flagged {{fact}} are verifiable -- they should lack sources. Article is clearly in need of improvement, but I fail to see how it is non-encyclopedic. Scorpiondollprincess 18:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean, "should" lack sources? JIP | Talk 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well-known essay by a very notable (in his field) individual. Should be possible to verify enough information from reliable sources (just delete any that can't be). Article lacking in sources but seems OK otherwise. - makomk 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  I agree it is a well known essay by a very well known person. But what does the article SAY about the essay? What (useful things) CAN it say? Rangek 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  Roughly what it says now (only properly referenced). The article seems to be an accurate summary of the essay and its actual impact, it's severely just lacking in sources. (Unfortunately, I have no idea where to look for them...) - makomk 17:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, quite notable. —Nightstallion (?) 12:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - an article paraphrasing a single paper is hardly encyclopaedic. If it summarised and referenced critiques then fine. But it doesn't. BlueValour 03:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Both sides make good points ... and ties go to the runner. If anyone feels particularly strongly about this fellow not getting an article, they can feel free to merge him at their leisure. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Izhar Hunzai

Fails WP:BIO - no evidence of notable achievement presented - Delete. BlueValour 03:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As an official of the Aga Khan Development Network, he seems to be doing particularly useful things. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - 479 exact name matches on Google. Michael 06:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails notability test. Eusebeus 11:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for his involvement with Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (cultural services side). Dlyons493 Talk 12:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Deleted Non-Notable and Fails WP:BIO. I suggest people look at those 479 exact name matches on Google and reconcider their notability claims. --Bschott 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable in the field, plenty of exact name matches in google Localzuk ^(talk) 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Barely 35 Google hits here and many do not refer to him. No tangible achievements - General manager of such a programme is a most worthwhile job but no different from very, many other people doing such responsible functions. BlueValour 14:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment probably better to search on Izhar Ali Hunzai Dlyons493 Talk 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment and why would anyone have used the middle name 'Ali' when searching? Nothing is said about it in the article nor is it part of the title. --Bschott 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Using the middle name brings it down to 23 hits here. Face it; this guy ain't notable. BlueValour 00:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment He's general manager of a humanitarian organisation that has doubled the income of the rural poor in their area of interest. Has a 6m$ annual budget. Ghits isn't the best criterion here. Dlyons493 Talk 00:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I have managed a £3 million UKP budget in a human resources field but I am not notable :-) I have no doubt that this is a remarkable achievement but for encyclopaedic purposes we need to meet WP:CITE and WP:LIVING. BlueValour 02:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Further comment - For determination of notability or including in the encyclopaedia what is needed is independent sourcing for example as to what (and how it) was achieved, some figures as to the numbers benefitting, the other influences etc BlueValour 07:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Looks like the Emmy nomination argument was pretty well refuted; you're free to disagree, though: DRV is that way ----->. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Hely

Delete: Non-notable television writer. Not every television staff writer is notable This is it, make no mistake anymore 03:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Reasonably important writer according to the credentials listed in the article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominated for an Emmy for Letterman. Sounds notable to me. Rangek 04:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  Delete. This is it, make no mistake anymore has convinced me of the error of my previosu opinion. Rangek 03:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Michael 06:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Emmy nominated = notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this really so clear cut? Large shows like Letterman will have quite large staffs of writers. When the show is nominated, the entire staff gets nominated. Making emmy nomination the bar, then, could lead to articles about thousands of minor television writers. I say we draw the line of notability at lead writers (or somewhere like that) to prevent this onslought of borderline-vanity articles. This is it, make no mistake anymore 12:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. It's pretty well established that a major award, or nomination thereof, in any field (Emmys, Oscars, Pulitzar, Nobel Prizes, etc) are reason for inclusion. As for whether this leads to inclusion of "minor" people, I would say that those winning or nominated for such an award can no longer be considered "minor" in their field. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • • It's pretty well established that a major award, or nomination thereof, in any field (Emmys, Oscars, Pulitzar, Nobel Prizes, etc) are reason for inclusion. Except for the inconvenient fact that he WASN'T nominated -- a group of 15 staff writers was nominated. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. I just followed the link provided on Hely's article and found that approximately 95 people were nominated for Emmys in 2003 for writing alone. I imagine, according to your logic, I am justified in going ahead and creating 95 stubs stating that these folks won emmys? maybe then I should proceed to other emmy categories, then to daytime emmys, then to other years, etc? Just want to make sure I have your go-ahead to create thousands of stubs about otherwise non-notable individuals. This is it, make no mistake anymore 14:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • If you're willing to do the work, go for it. As far as Emmy noms are concerned, I'd imagine our coverage of actors is far more comprehensive than our coverage of writers, so effort in closing the gap would be appreciated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Very well then. I have already started. See Steve Bodow, Tamara Koubov and Frederica Iacoponi. This should be fun; thank you for giving me something to do for the next year. I trust that, should any of these be suggested for deletion you will intervene on their behalf. This is it, make no mistake anymore 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • While you're at it, also check out Sandra Masone, a boom oprator for General Hospital whois notable according to your standards.This is it, make no mistake anymore 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
          • In keeping with your notability guidelines, I also created Philip Teodorski who was nominated for the fine work he did creating the opeing credits for a local newscast. This is it, make no mistake anymore 02:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per emmy nomination Localzuk ^(talk) 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per nom. I remain unconvinced that an Emmy nomination confers automatic notability. Where's the articles for people who have been Emmy-nominated for lighting? editing? casting? gaffer? single-camera picture editing? multi-camera picture editing? key grip? and how about the Emmy nominees for hairstyling? Aside from actors, most people who have been Emmy-nominated are people that no one has ever heard of and no one ever will. wikipediatrix 14:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Emmy nomination for major role on very famous show. Drett 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, being Emmy-nominated suggests serious notability. Yamaguchi先生 19:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Being Emmy-nominated here suggests nothing, since he's one of a group of 15 writers being nominated for one show. It's not a nomination for his work, it's for being part of a group of 15. And, more to the point, that group didn't even win. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think merely being nominated is a guarentee of nobility at all, such people can still be quite easily "minor" in a field, especially if 95 people are nominated. I mean look at the articles someone created here, a Boom Operator nominated for an emmy guarentees they are no longer minor? I just don't buy it. Homestarmy 01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Could the nominator of this article please explain why they have nominated something for deletion which they have edited quite a bit - it seems like there has been quite a revert war between This is it, make no mistake anymore and This is it, make no mistake anymore. Have a look at the history. Drett 01:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am a relatively new user. As I have learned more about wikipedia guidelines, I have come to realize more that this article is about a non-notable topic. I feel that I have provided legitimate wikipedia arguments for this position (eg large teams of people nominated, the boom operator example,etc.). However, I have noted that according to the majority here(consensus) so far, the standard for notability is mere nomination and, as such, I have contributed to the wikipedia according to these notability guidelines. This is it, make no mistake anymore 02:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Not creator, director or main actor, just a staff writer. There's usually dozens of these guys and they get hired and fired every week. This guy just happened to be on the staf when the large writing team at one show he worked for was nominated for an Emmy. Unless it can be shown that he is a significant and important figure in the show he's non-notable. This is it, make no mistake anymore 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• strong delete Assertion of notability is grossly exaggerated or has been falsified. article implies Hely was personally nominated for Emmy for Letterman. Seems not to be the case, as per above, so the subject's most serious claim to notability is scratch for WP:NPOV. Ohconfucius 04:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment To be fair, Hely was mentioned by name in the nomination. This is it, make no mistake anymore 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - notability should hinge on demonstrable achievement not just an Emmy nom that can be something or nothing. BlueValour 04:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Declaration of Salsafication

Nonnotable excerpt from one restaurant chain's training materials. NawlinWiki 03:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Daniel Case 03:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Holy crap, no wonder the one near me went out of business. --Xrblsnggt 03:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carson 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chi-Chi's. -- Gogo Dodo 05:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, extremely unlikely search term. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Localzuk ^(talk) 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, quite spectacularly non-notable. JIP | Talk 15:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dumb and slightly offensive, but not dumb enough or offensive enough to be interesting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 20:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect — to Chi-Chi's as this is relevent only to the restraunt chain. Move relevent content to Chi-Chi's as well. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naked Robber

Party game that was partly developed by "Pantsless Mike" and is only claimed to exist at one school.

• Delete, something made up in school one day. A cartoon show is not a reliable source. Gazpacho 03:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no references, definite NFT. Daniel Case 03:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, something made up in school one day, certainly a non notable game.--Joe Jklin (T C) 03:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Hey everybody, we're streaking the quad." --Xrblsnggt 03:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. -- Gogo Dodo 05:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)It's like any other college game and college tradition, non verifiable and only briefly mentioned in media. No harm.

Note, this comment has in fact been altered (from delete to keep and had the final sentence appended) by the article's creator. The real poster has informed me of that, since I didn't even think of checking the edit history. BigHaz 07:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The original author of the article altered my vote. [10]. See original vote [11]. -- Gogo Dodo 08:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - sounds like a drunken game which was later rationalised, rather than the other way around. I'm not sure about what Gogo Dodo means by citing the reasons to delete as being reasons to keep... BigHaz 06:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 06:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo 08:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete simply not notable. Viridae^Talk 08:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While wasted, we all do stupid stuff. Besides being a complete made-up-in-a-school-day(or night for that matter), delete it to save them the anguish of an article about what they did to get arrested one night, naked, in the street. Kevin_b_er 08:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up after a few drinks with your friends one night. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per gazpacho Localzuk ^(talk) 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Argument about verifiability has been refuted; argument about health hazard has been binned; argument about being silly has been taken under advisement and should undoubtedly be kept in mind next time someone invents a drinking game. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bouncing coins

Bouncing coins was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-03. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bouncing coins (relist nomination).

This needs to be referenced and verified and, if it is legit, probably merged with Quarters as the lede suggests. If not, delete as nn. Has been AFD'ed previously in bulk, nomination was withdrawn due to difficulty gaining consensus. Daniel Case 03:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Public health hazard. I am all for the sport of drinking, but while they were inventing this game, did the thought occur that drinking out of a community glass and tossing filthy coins into it that have bounced off an equally filthy bar table could spread some diseases? --Xrblsnggt 03:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a silly idea to have thought it was notable enough for wikipedia in the first place Viridae^Talk 11:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a silly renomination. It was consensus keep, it was verifiable before (s "bounce 'em") and still is. The AfDs were done individiually, and nearly all kept. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Three, the blame for this remonimation lies squarely with the editor who not only didn't cite the source in the article the last time this came to AFD, hasn't done so this time either. The prior AFD discussion wasn't in the usual place, and wasn't linked to from the notice on the article's talk page. Please learn to cite sources. Citing sources is the way to avoid AFD, and a complaint that articles come to AFD when one has failed to cite any sources and no sources can be found (without knowing a different name for the subject that isn't even mentioned in the article) doesn't really have much foundation, especially when it has happened once already. Uncle G 13:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Usually it happens. Considering that I spent two hours voting in 30-something drinking game AfDs the last time it came around, I'm not shocked that a few missed the boat. While articles should be cited if need be, the large amount of nominations also asks the question as to whether any effort to verify was made by the nominee, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • ("Nominator", not "nominee".) There have only been four nominations of drinking games in this group, and Daniel Case has made it clear that xe has tried to find sources on these games under the (only) names given in their articles. Uncle G 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Only four this time, yes, thankfully. I'll keep my mouth shut concerning the rest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Because you dislike something, or consider it dangerous, doesn't make it unencyclopedic. --Gau 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • While pertinent, that comment is not a reason to keep. Do you have one? Daniel Case 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What possible relevance is there to a discussion of whether to delete an article that someone thinks it is a public health hazard? Isn't that opinion itself OR? Is that a basis for having no mention in Wikipedia of say promiscuity or the eating of raw fish in Sushi, since those might also spread disease? You should only post Keep or Delete based on valid criteria. Is the article OR? POV? about something Notable? Does it have Verifiable Sources? Edison 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Unsourced and it is the editor's responsibility to source. I gather there is a book reference - has the text been checked against the book for possible copyvio? As it stands it is OR. BlueValour 04:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As the book doesn't list it under this name - and the article should be moved there - it doesn't appear to, no. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BlueValour, not verifiable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it is verifiable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--There is absolutely nothing wrong with this page, though it might make sense to merge it with Quarters -- Trnj2000 17:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - what is absolutely wrong with this page is that it breaches WP policy by being totally unsourced. BlueValour 18:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• {{sofixit}}. Sources have been presented. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• The sources need to be included in the article so any reader can verify the contents. If, you have been presented with the sources, why not include them? BlueValour 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I was planning to after the AfD concluded. If it's bothering you right now, it can't hurt to fix that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bottle polka

Another unverified drinking game, thanks to the supporters of Rod Allen Drinking Game pointing to other similarcruft (?) articles as a reason to keep. 763 Google hits, only a few seem relevant and they're all either us or our mirrors. HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME. Daniel Case 02:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Heresy. I object to the passing around of my drink to others at the table. Also the risk of spilling valuable alcohol is just too great. --Xrblsnggt 03:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - drinking games don't belong on wikipedia unless they're well known - Richardcavell 03:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a listing of people's favorite drinking games. Michael 06:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete untill wikipedia changes into the ultimate bar guide, delete. Viridae^Talk 08:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a waste of beer. Oh, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• There is no reason that Wikipedia should not be an encyclopaedia of drinking games. The problem with the article is its verifiability, not any violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Uncle G 14:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V --Wafulz 18:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We've already lost the Rod Allen Drinking Game; we cannot lose another because of some over-zealous deletionists :( X96lee15 12:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross the River

Cross the River was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-03. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross the River (relist nomination).

The current drinking game purge continues. I can find one independent reference to this game at gameosis.com. I cannot find these rules anywhere. NN in my book. Daniel Case 03:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT - we are not a listing of drinking games. Michael 06:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no reason that Wikipedia should not be an encyclopaedia of drinking games. The problem with the article, both here and in the prior AFD discussion, is its verifiability, not any violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Uncle G 14:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced it is OR. BlueValour 04:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikki Park

Article as it stands right now does not make a valid argument for Nikki to be considered notable as per WP:BIO guidelines and the WP:PORN BIO proposed guidelines. Tabercil 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There is also some junk in there too, like, "Looks like the site hasn't been updated in several years... however to fool people they are just changing the dates to make it appear like the pictures are real." Rangek 04:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 06:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. also unsourced bio and arguably WP:NPOV Ohconfucius 06:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete DVD-R = NN. ~ trialsanderrors 09:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not even close to WP:PORN BIO or WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, as far as I can tell this fails WP:PORN BIO and other biographical guidelines for inclusion. Yamaguchi先生 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jug Game

All significant Google hits are here, mirrors and a blog that links here. Daniel Case 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete If you add the word "beer" to your Google search, hits go from over 400 to 39 - including wiki mirrors. If beer isn't mentioned, it's not this game. Bustter 09:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a list of drinking games unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no reason that Wikipedia should not be an encyclopaedia of drinking games. The problem with the article is its verifiability, not any violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Uncle G 14:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Not for AfD, redirected.. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garage parking

It is a double of the article Parking Garage. There isn't even enough there to merge anything into Parking Garage.

• Delete as nominator. -Royalguard11^Talk 03:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Parking garage to avoid this duplication in future. - Richardcavell 05:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Michael 06:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of H manga

List better served as a cat. All blue links have been added to List of manga (except one that doesn't appear to be a manga. SeizureDog 03:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - it duplicates a category. Perhaps there could be a subcategory of hentai manga, but until then the list serves no purpose. - Richardcavell 05:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant to category, and the category is more comprehensive at this time. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. wikipediatrix 14:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment if there are red entries, it doesn't duplicate a category, especially if you don't want an article for every H-manga. 132.205.93.19 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a catalogue. There is no reason to list things we do not have articles about, and particularly not in a contextless list like this one that provides no information whatsoever about the redlinked manga. — Haeleth Talk 16:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 03:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment First, it should be renamed to List of hentai manga, but just how do you differentiate between hentai manga and hentai dōjinshi? --TheFarix (Talk) 03:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete With all the doujinshi manga of varying levels of notability, there are way too many of these to list and maintain, so what's the criterion for inclusion? I say forget red links and let each article be subject to AfD. Merging should take place on other factors, by series, by artist, by publisher, etc. - Wickning1 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; useless as it stands, and not particularly useful as a starting-point for anything else. — Haeleth Talk 16:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Neier 22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, although I suggest Jeff pull his finger out on these articles. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Three

Mr. Three was nominated for deletion on 2006-05-03. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Three (relist nomination).

I didn't know we had so many mirrors. But no independent source. Daniel Case 03:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't find this to be worthy of deletion at all. --Yath 04:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I cannot find this information on any page that isn't a Wikipedia mirror. We don't keep that sort of thing. Daniel Case 04:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Michael 06:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete doesn;t appear to be at all notable (and it has too much maths to be a good drinking game :)) Viridae^Talk 08:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, another unverifiable drinking game. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Please note the prior AFD discussion, where the game was found documented under another name. (This renomination is an example of why it is always best to add sources to the article in AFD discussions.) Uncle G 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In that case, I would readily change my argument to keep if sources are added. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Then here you are, it was listed as Three Man in The Best Drinking Games Book. I thought we had moved it to its verifiable title, but apparently not. Also, keep, bad renomination considering the evidence cited at the last AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Considering that the prior AFD discussion was not in the usual place or linked to from the notice on the article's talk page, and that even the second time around you haven't actually cited the source in the article, it's somewhat unfair to characterize the renomination as bad. The root cause of the problem here is failure to cite sources in the article. You're not citing sources in the article, either. Please learn to cite sources in articles. Articles that cite sources are rarely brought to AFD in the first place, let alone deleted. This one certainly wouldn't have be renominated if you had actually added to the article the source that you found when the article came to AFD before. Uncle G 12:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Easily verifiable articles brought to AfD are bad nominations. I stand by that. As I said in the other discussion, when 30+ articles are brought up last time around, and you spend hours doing research to find the verifiability for them, you're gonna miss a couple. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
          • This was not an easily verifiable article, as explained above. And the last time around this article was nominated individually, not as part of a collective nomination of 30 articles. In the prior AFD discussion, you failed to cite the source that you found, in the article. The cited source was hidden away on a hard-to-find AFD page, rather than in the article. As I said before, the blame here does not lie with the nominator, but with the editor who found a non-obvious source last time around, but didn't cite it in the article. Accusing the nominator of making bad nominations is poor form, given the circumstances. Uncle G 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Then we disagree. It's not hard to look up drinking games at Amazon or Google Books, and if a source is missed here and there when you're trying to save 30 articles from deletion, it happens. The blame, by design, cannot lie with the nominator, as there's no requirement for the nominator to do anything other than spend the time doing the AfD. Considering the situation, we disagree on what's poor form here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:V. Sandstein 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to weak keep. Sandstein 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Article meets WP:V. Please explain further? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Er, yes, glad to: There are as of this moment zero sources of any kind in this article, let alone reliable published ones. It even has a tag that says so. As such, it appears to me that the article does not meet WP:V in a rather textbook manner. Sandstein 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC) -- Update: Ah, I get it now, you mean to refer to the sources cited in this and in the previous AfD. Well, the article itself still fails WP:V. And, sorry, it supposedly being mentioned under another name in a book of drinking games could meet WP:V, but I don't see any indication of even minimal notability. Sandstein 17:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • So your position is, in fact, that it's not notable, not that it's not verifiable. Given that the game is detailed in a published book, could you explain how it's non-notable? I, for the record, have no problem moving the article to the proper name, but to say it's not notable seems weird. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm in the telephone book. I even wrote a (non-self-published) book and co-authored another. I'm still not notable. Put differently, not everything that's in a book is necessarily notable just for being in a book. It might well be, but if it were, shouldn't we have, say, some media mentions or some Google hits? Come to think of it ... it does have many Google hits. So a case for verifiability and notability can probably (barely) be made, and it appears that more than five people in the world play this game, although you still wouldn't know this from the article itself (as per Uncle G above). Switching to weak keep. Sandstein 18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, the article being poor at the moment (and I'll do some work on it again later tonihgt) isn't an automatic reason, but I'm glad you changed your mind. For the record, I think that if you've written a non-vanity press book, you *are* notable enough, but that's a different discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Coredsat; two AFDs to focus the attention of those who want it kept and all we have in the way of verifiabiliy is The Best Drinking Games Book Ever. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What else are you looking for? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • What else ? I'd like the article deleted, thanks very much, as it should have been the first time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Why should it be deleted? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Because the only source you can find is a published list of drinking games of uncertain provenance (how do you know the compilers didn't add some to make up the numbers ?). Do you think there was any sort of editorial oversight, or a review committee, that scrutinised the contents ? There's a reason why WP:RS and WP:V are joined at the hip, and this is it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
          • How do we know some weren't added? Because we can do a search for the games and see if they're discussed elsewhere, which this one is. I see nothing to suggest that this isn't reliable, and it's absolutely verifiable, so i'm not sure what your protest is at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Craig (reality television contestant)

delete per WP:BIO. Subject not notable. TV contestant who was 2nd to be evicted. no other claim to fame.

• Delete as per nom. Rangek 04:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Big Brother (USA season 4). --Satori Son 17:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Satori Son. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect. Xoloz 02:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amy Crews

delete per WP:BIO non notable subject. evicted game show contestant with no other claim to fame Ohconfucius 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Rangek 04:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). Fabricationary 05:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Redirect as per following is OK too. Dlyons493 Talk 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect into BB3 US article. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per The JPS. Plausible search term, but no real need for an article. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per The JPS. --Wingsandsword 16:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Geoking66 02:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. Redirects and Merges can be undone by any editor the next day. BlueValour 04:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Howard (American webcomic artist)

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}}

Delete this article on a living person which is unverifiable by reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Searching through my library, I find no such reliable third party sources for any information in this article. As such, the article can't help but run counter to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as well, where our official verifiability policies must be strictly enforced. Dragonfiend 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dragonfiend 04:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:BIO trumps previous discussion; NPOV articles cannot be written without good sources, and good sources are in short supply here. Nifboy 05:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Multiple interviews from online publications and the artist's own site are sufficient to support the content of the article. If the standard for Wikipedia is to wait for information on a topic to show up in a library it will make it much more difficult to build up and revise content on a topic. If the consensus is to delete, the middle section describing the end of the comics should be merged with the article on A Modest Destiny. For comparison, the article on Dan Piraro offers up his personal website as a source, and a brief bio from the national cartoonists society.--BigCow 05:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• But I have already voiced my dislike for Wikipedia, so anything under which I am the sole documentation could not be taken seriously. It can be assumed that I can, have, and will again pass off lies as the truth just to see it documented here in the very real hopes that I can one day make a public fool of Wikipedia and it's practices. Any page you quote as a reference here on Wikipedia could easily be changed into something wildly different. My website could only be considered a source if I weren't willing to modify it just to manipulate and mock Wikipedia. See, I told you my dislike of Wikipedia was relevant to the article...--SeanHoward 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• While that may be true, you're really just attacking Wikipedia, not this article. Just because you believe that Wikipedia shouldn't exist, doesn't mean that you're allowed to falsify articles on yourself. If you do anyway, than you should be treated the same as any other vandal and denied the ability to edit or create articles. If you have a problem with Wikipedia, there are many, many outlets that you can use to express that- deliberately sabotaging Wikipedia for others serves no purpose but to be petty.--Wtstar 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think you understand. I wouldn't have to touch Wikipedia. About 90% of that article is quoted directly from me or consists of information only I could verify. You'd have a hard time finding enough reliable third party sources to say anything significant about me, and I'm telling you right now - I'm not just an unreliable source, I'm down right hostile. --SeanHoward 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• If you are indeed as much of a source on this article as you claim to be, then I suggest you remove your contributions and let the rest of us, with our NPOV and third-party sources fill in the gaps. I'm sure that it's very possible for us to find the information without your help, regardless of whether or not you want this article to exist.--Wtstar 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article doesn't give any information not found in the comic's pages, and Sean Howard himself has expressed a disire to take the article down. No reason for it to be there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elbow.

The section on the end of the comics collects information from a few sources not easily available in one place, and the opinions of the subject of the article do not determine its inclusion.--BigCow 06:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Without me as a compliant and willful resource, the contents of this article would be undocumentable and inaccurate. I am anything but compliant and willful. My accomplishments have their own articles. There is no need for there to be one on my person as well. --SeanHoward 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The previous deletion nominations were pre-WP:BLP, so the arguments for keeping from those discussions don't carry much weight. The article doesn't meet WP:BIO, so just delete it. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 11:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO, WP:WEB, whichever you prefer. No truly reliable sources, and the official site has Alexa ranking 283,594 currently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is more or less a biography and biography of important people should not be deleted. And biograhpy in nation does not have many citations or sources. {{subst:Zhanster|zhanster}} 11:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It should be noted that the subject's desire to not have an article on Wikipedia is irrelevant as are his views on the project and his willingness to be a resource for an article (his own statements would constitute original research). The sources provided in the article don't qualify as reliable sources, but I imagine one could find verifiable information to base an article on. It's not there right now, so this probably be deleted under WP:BIO, but with no predjudice against recreation at a later date if sources are found.--Isotope23 13:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article has value as a reference for the multiple viewpoints, and public exploits of a major internet celebrity. Vash293 07:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As much as I loathe Sean's apparent personal vendetta against Wikipedia, this does fail BIO and WEB, not to speak of V. —Nightstallion (?) 06:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Personally, I'm not sure Sean Howard would be considered major enough to warrent a biographical article, especially if he doesn't want one. The only reason Mr. Howard even has his own article is because of the flame war that he accidently prompted, and a couple of (very amusing) web-comics. There are a variety of equally prominant web artists with no mention whatsoever on wikipedia, such as AIMO, Crimson Jassic or Nemain Ravenwood. Also, the only source of information available on this guy is what you can pull out of various forums, many of which seem to have a tendancy to bash him, and are therefore not reliable. To sum it up, what we have is a minor contemporary cartoonist, on whom we can get little to no reliable information.--Ostermana 06:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, not verifiable = delete. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 07:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep complete article, not in violation, clear sources Zaver
• Delete. Rebecca 09:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Oh boy, this man is sometimes more trouble then he's worth. The thing with Sean Howard's problem with Wikipedia is that it criticizes him. Well DUH! He's a jerk. I know it, you know, heck, even HE knows it! He's admitted it. He likes to cause trouble and call people incompetent, but he can't stand it when there is even a LITTLE bit of bad things said to him! If people who alter this article can't find sorces, then the reason is because there are no sources to find. Howard deleates anything that gets pissed on by other people and show him as being wrong (he's even deleated comics because people threw them back in his face). The thing is, pretty much all this information is true, and I'm sure some searching through the webarchives will prove that. KevinTRod —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KevinTRod (talk • contribs) 09:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC.

• He may or may not be a jerk, but he's also a logged-in user, so NPA, fool! --220.237.67.125 15:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There are not enough sources except what he says of himself, which is strictly against NPOV. Lack of information coupled with a lack of importance makes this article something unneeded.--Hawkaris 10:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete insufficient reliable sources for verifiably neutral coverage, significant evidence that past coverage has been anything but neutral as a result. WP:BLP says we must take a conservative approach, in this case the prudent thing to do is give up and wait until he is more famous. The more articles like this I see the more persuaded I am by the "no first biographies" proposal. That proposal is not yet policy, but this article goes a good way to arguing why it should be. Just zis Guy you know? 14:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ora 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• I know anonymous opinions aren't worth much, but delete anyways, for the above reasons. --220.237.67.125 15:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm reversing my original opinion from the last time this was brought up for deletion, given the things I've since learned about WP notability, et cetera. Sean's only really known for getting in an argument with actually notable people; he should probably just be referenced in his comics' articles, though I wonder if they're even notable enough.--Spinn 15:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteTheres no real information here. Just people on both sides using Wikipedia for a vendetta. I say delete and let's move on with our lives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.158.177.29 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
• Delete. Let the baby have its bottle. If nothing else, it will cease his whining. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doenherleven (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
• Keep but allow sean to add his disclaimer. if not then delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.25.53 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
• Delete Remove this page and keep the page for his sprite comics to reference his site and other works in passing. Delusional != notable. --Leth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leth (talk • contribs) 21:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
• Keep- Sean Howard has created more of a stir on the internet community (through incidents with Penny Arcade, his blog, his rampages, his tantrums, and his attacks on people) than his comic ever did. If AMD necessitates an article, then the author himself does, too. Sean Howard, though I may not like him that much, is an internet figure and a webcomic author of note- if not, then why else would he have been called to participate in a panel discussion? However, information should be updated to talk more about the person and not just the comics. --Wtstar 23:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This person does not want to be on Wikipedia and you are infringing on his rights by forcefuly putting him on it. If he says he dosn't want it, delte it already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.105.100.112 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC).
• Keep If you were to delete the article it would undermine many of the principles that make wikipedia what it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.46.212.98 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC).
• Keep There are no rules being breached, just a webcomic artist who is again trying to gain infamy through yet another controversial action. Leave it with no disclaimer as well, succumbing to his petty desires goes against the principle of objectivity of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.68.224 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

• Man, is it me or do a lot of these 'keep' blurbs take time out to personally attack me? If this is the quality of person who wants an article about me on Wikipedia, what does that say about how the article will be used? So far, the article has been real short on facts and real big on slander, insinuation, vandalism, gossip, and a few guys who want to use me to advertise their forum to my fans, even though it has nothing to do with me (you may recognize them above with the 'keep' votes - wonder why?). What I find amazing is that some of the people most responsible for using Wikipedia as a personal weapon of attack against me have all chimed in to 'keep' the article. Seriously... WTF? --SeanHoward 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• keep, Squidi comics are online once again, therefore people will want to know who Sean is and Wikipedia should be able to provide them with the information, if biographys of TV stars are to be kept, so should biographies of "internet stars" Demonblade 11:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Honestly I think a major difference thats going unconsidered here is that Squidi isn't exactly rich and famous. He's an internet personality to be sure, but I imagine he doesn't want to be swamped by people, or having his name, location, and picture THIS easily available. I know, I know, information is easy to find on the internet, but the point stands. I also agree with the Bio and infamy stuff. I ALSO also agree that Squidi is being childish and trying to use this as a way to get at Wikipedia, but that doesn't stop him from being right in that this article needs to be taken down--Juron Pilo 13:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete From what I understand of Howard's old website he neglected to post pictures or much amount of personal information about himself. Delete the article if he (the real Sean Howard) wants it so, or at least take out his personal information and picture and simply refer to his comics and works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.18.213.167 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC).
• Delete, per WP:BIO, WP:WEB, WP:V, etc., but this AfD is certainly a pain to wade through... — Rebelguys2 ^talk 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Whatever. If he wants this gone it's [more-or-less] his right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dejavood0o (talk • contribs) 01:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC).
• Delete Aside from the obvious fact that the subject has no desire to be in Wikipedia, the particular article currently posted is not substantial enough to warrent being in Wikipedia. How much non-AMD work is actually related to Sean Howard (and is eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia)? To the extend of my knowlege, AMD, TSD, AAA and other related works all fall under the category of "Squidi.net", do they not? If we really need an article that relates all the information, why not put it under an umbrella. We don't have enough information to really warrent a full article on Sean Howard, do we? I mean, does anyone even have something as simple as his date of birth? That's pretty standard information for a biography, isn't it? Yet, there is almost nothing actually relating to Sean Howard himself in this article. If there was enough material to write a full article, this would be a different subject. (George W. Bush, for instance, is well known enough that it would be wrong not to have an article for him.) I'm not saying DOB should be a qualifier, but look at the article in its current state. Judging by the content there alone, I would say Sean Howard is not noteworthy enough to have an article of his own. A few mentions in other articles, possibly, but not a full-fledged biographical article under his name. Figs 03:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The most notable part of the article, and what largely inspired its content in the first place was a section on the 'end of the comics', which detailed some events and controversies about copyright infringement in regards to pixel art, which is a large part of the reason Sean Howard is known outside of his own comic or worth looking up. An older version that has most of that section: [12]. It's been hard to have a stable version with the edit wars lately.--BigCow 18:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But that section is crap. The first paragraphi is misleading, factually incorrect, speculative, and unverifiable. The second paragraph has NOTHING to do with why the comic ended. The third paragraph is actually decent, but along with the "Return to Comics" section is now moot because the comic is indeed back. It's nothing more than a footnote in the history of squidi.net, and worthless in the grand scheme of a biography of my life. That section you are praising is little more than gossip, and I'm afraid that you're going to try to use it as some sort of justification for starting a new section on squidi.net, which would just circumvent the (poorly enforced) safeguards on verifibility in bios so that gossip and slander would be more easily introduced. --SeanHoward 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been mentioned in interviews with you, in material on your site available from archive.org, and on other comic related sites discussing your stances on copyright issues. A fair number of people have heard of you because of your stance on copyrights. Whether or not it belongs in the article is another debate, I was just trying to point out that there was more content to the article, even if it currently isn't agreed upon.--BigCow 21:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - insufficient sourcing to stand up notability. BlueValour 04:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Even though Sean is being less than polite about it, he has several points. When someone's major claim to fame is a controversy with another web comic (with sources composed entirely, so far as I know, of people who have taken one side or another), you cannot create an article anywhere near a neutral point of view and have verifyable sources. Okay, so if that's left out of the article, what's left? His personal life, his web comic, and his blog. Mr. Howard has made quite an effort to keep as much personal information about himself off of the internet, except for mentions on his own site. His web comics already have their own pages. And his blog? Well, if wikipedia starts making pages for everyone who happens to have a blog, then I guess this page should be kept. But last time I checked, there weren't 8 million articles about emo kids with live journals. Seans blog had a larger audience, but at the end of the day it was a blog (and aside from copies of the blog itself, there doesn't seem to be any mention of it by a news source). It it's a matter of making easy access for his web comics, a portal page would make more sense than a biography. If the individual being written about was willing to cooperate with (or even ignore) his own article, there might be other routes. But someone who is willing to vandalize his own web page to make sure there is no accurate information anywhere about his site (as Mr. Howard proposed above), then there is little cause to keep such an article. Elbow 05:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect/Merge. While there is clearly a consensus against this person having a standalone article, deletion arguments fail to address whether the content is merge-worthy. Since the show is clearly notable, mention of its winner appears appropriate, in the absense of arguments otherwise. Xoloz 03:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drew Daniel

ATTENTION! If you came here because you are a fan of the Big Brother series or someone asked you to, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks). You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

delete per WP:BIO Subject not notable. TV game show contestant with no other claim to fame Ohconfucius 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. He did win and then did some other stuff, but if he really does become notable we can always put it back. Rangek 04:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). Fabricationary 05:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Michael 06:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --P199 17:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect into BB5 US article. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete I hate to be the devil's advocate, but all the other BB winners have articles. --*kate speak 21:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Paris 13:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Smartperson Drew deserves a webpage on wikipedia because all the other BB winners have one. If you want to delete his page because he hasn't done any notable things, except Big Brother, then you would have to delete Eddie McGee's page, Lisa Donahue's page, Jun Song's page and Maggie Ausburn's page too!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.247.219 (talk • contribs)
• The Hummer If all those other people who won BB can have a page I think it's only right that Drew has one too. There will be pages for seasons 1-4 winners and season 6 winner and soon to be season 7 winner, but there will be no page for the season five winner??? Hello people! That's nuts. No one else who won did anything notable, except for mabe Will Kirby (Dr. 90210) but still there are 4 other winners who have a page and have done nothing but be on BB for a summer!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.247.219 (talk • contribs)
• You all are Crazy That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Is it really bothering you people that Drew has a page?? It's not taking up much space and if you don't want to read the article on him, then don't-- But everyone has the right to see the Big Brother season 5 winner's page if they want to, just like they can see any other Big Brother season's winner if they want too. This is an injustice and you all should be ashamed of yourselves. You sicken me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.247.219 (talk • contribs)
  • Please remember to be civil. Srose (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete As another poster stated, all of the other BB contestants have page, why delete a winner's??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaldridge86 (talk • contribs)
• Comment For all of you saying that other, less notable contestants have pages-- two (or more) wrongs don't make a right. If these people are truly notable the AFD process will bear that out. If not, they will be deleted. The notability of others should have no bearing on this AFD. Rangek 02:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: the question of whether this should be merged with one season or the other is made moot by the fact that the consensus is that being on a game/reality show twice isn't sufficient for a Wikipedia article. A redirect is not sorely needed as the search engine will pick the name up in the main articles anyway, and no merging has been done. Delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Dedmon

db WP:BIO game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Nominator seems to be unfamiliar with the show and the person (based on "game show" comment). This is a signficant person on a major hit show. This is not a like a typical "game show" contestant on shows like Jeopardy, or The Price Is Right. She appeared in Big Brother 5, and again in Big Brother: All Stars. In BB5 she received more attention than most contestants on the show. Normally, all BB contestants are either kept as a stand-alone article or merged to the relevant season. As this person is in more than one season, a merge is inappropriate. Instead this article should be better developed. --Rob 04:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete She appeared on a hit game show just doesn't cut it. What else could be added to "better develop" it? Rangek 04:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Her notability is closer to that of an actress then a game show contestant. An actress with a signficant role on a hit show, would almost always get an article. In the typical game show, nobody is concerned with the individual contestant. In the case of BB, there's substantial media coverage of them, and interest in their conduct, on, and off the show, and therefore material for expansion. --Rob 05:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If you take away her involvement in Big Brother, does her other work qualify her for a Wikipedia article per Wikipedia:Notability (people)? From a cursory look at her article, I get the impression that Big Brother is her claim to fame. If you can convince me that her work outside of Big Brother is notable, I'd be willing to change my vote to "keep as separate article." Fabricationary 05:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). (Ohconfucius, perhaps you should have nominated all of these articles in a group... ;) ) Fabricationary 05:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So, which of the two seasons would her name redirect to, in that case?
    • Probably All-Stars (Season 7), though in that mention, a link to her name in the other list could be given. Fabricationary 05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --P199 17:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete your 15 min of fame are over --Doc 18:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If her 15 minutes was up, how did she win a national viewers poll two years after her first appearance, which let her appear on the "All Stars" season? Apparently, quite a few people did remember her. --Rob 23:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. FireSpike 19:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• I suppose she's notable within the context of Big Brother as one of the more innovative competitors, but it's doubtful that she'll go on to anything of significant note. The obvious course, I think, is a merge with either Big Brother 5 or Big Brother 7. Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect into BB7 US article. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 'Famous for being famous'. BlueValour 04:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per JPS. - David Oberst 06:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Never in a million years speediable. I've discounted the vote-only comments, which leaves Bustter's "notable because of x ghits" versus Dlyons's "not notable because of y ghits". I did some Googling myself, and no matter how I narrowed it down, there were always several hundred thousand hits there (the 32m figure is optimistic; while the early results tend to be relevant, not all are). That gets rid of the "only 60 distinct ghits" ... which leaves ... fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ServiceMagic

advertising, link to commercial site, Wikipedia is not the Yellow pages, copyright issue for logo KenWalker | Talk 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete should have speedied. Rangek 04:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Michael 06:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Significant as it is its industry pioneer and leader, and a part of the internet's largest conglomerate IAC. To delete would create a pointless stub from the IAC page. DanKai 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete same as the housepaintingestimates.com site, but SM appears to be less of industry leader and more general. No real value other than advertisement Jrozsa 13:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep fyi, Companies are in discussion for speedy, not yet ratified. I see no policy whereby this should be deleted. The text is merely descriptive of the service, no hyperbole or sales talk that I can see, so not a "blatant" ad. The standard "smaall companies are not notable" doesn't apply here -- 32 million ghits. Google search is not itself an accepted measure, but the high numbers are due to this company's many locations. I can imagine someone finding the entry useful. I can't imagine any harm from its presence. so, keep. Bustter 10:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Logo can be used under fair use. Not valid reason to delete.
• Delete 60 Ghits suggests to me that it must miss WP:CORP. Dlyons493 Talk 12:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment 62 distinct Ghits does not suggest much in the way of notability. Closing admin might also note limited edit history of some contributors to the discussion. Dlyons493 Talk 11:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Dlyons493 BlueValour 04:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HousePaintingEstimates.com

Advertising, no links to this page, single link to commercial site, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages, logo copyright KenWalker | Talk 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete should have speedied. Rangek 04:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless shown to meet WP:WEB. Cedars 09:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete, seems to be a small, non-notable outfit Bustter 10:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per nom. wikipediatrix 14:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator this looks like an attempt to spam Wikipedia. Yamaguchi先生 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sango123 00:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alison Hammond

db WP:BIO game show contestant with no other claim to notability other than her early eviction on the show Ohconfucius 04:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. She seems to have gone on to do a bunch of other quasi-notable stuff. Rangek 04:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The person has gone on to do more than just the show. So, the nom's reasons (copy/pasted from other AFDs) is not relevant. --Rob 05:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). Fabricationary 05:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. she managed to get a presenting job on GMTV... godgoddingham333 09:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per godgoddingham333. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, she's been a television presenter for four years, appearing regularly on one of ITV1's most-watched morning TV shows, and also appearing on Celebrity Fit Club. Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 11:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per Rangek. The stuff she's done hasn't been that notable, but the sum means she scrapes through. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the multiple television appearances and role as a presenter meet WP:BIO guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 21:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She has now become known for more than just her Big Brother appearance, meaning therefore the article should be kept. Atlasvan 19:48 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 00:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There would be some argument to say that some of those who watch her on This Morning probably wouldn't even know she was on Big Brother. Darrenhusted 21:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Theftendo

Unreleased fan-clone of GTA III. Should be deleted as wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Koffieyahoo 04:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Rangek 04:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPAM. Michael 06:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete That looks really really really cool, and I will definitely play it when it arrives. However, as a minor fangame which isn't actually even released yet, it doesn't need a Wikipedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Videogame press has been all over this one: Among the 18,800 G-hits and 344 unique hits for "Grand Theftendo", here's a feature from 1UP.com on homemade GTA games, mentioning this one in the first paragraph; here's a mention on Boing Boing that links to an article in Forever Geek (and the same article is linked to by Slashdot); one hit states that the game was mentioned in Edge, but I can't verify this; here's a short mention in Electronic Gaming Monthly. I think there's been enough press (and interest) from reliable gaming sources, in addition to being included in the GTA template and having a "Grand Theftendo" WP article in another language, that the game could have its own article. -- Kicking222 13:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Being included in the template means nothing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • First of all, that was, like, my seventh point for why I think the article should be kept. Second, I disagree that it means nothing- it may mean very little, but not nothing. It means that there is a consensus among GTA fans that the topic is important enough to be linked to from every other major GTA-related page. -- Kicking222 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • No, it means someone added it and no one else bothered to delete it. Existence of anything on wikipedia is not considered evidence for notability in itself, because anyone can write anything. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, it has been in the template since December [13], so in those eight months, any of the dozen-plus editors who have altered the template could have deleted it if they had chosen to do so. But anyway, this is not the point. The mod/game is notable whether it's in the template or not. -- Kicking222 23:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 14:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Recreate the article if/when the game is actually released and has gotten some press coverage. Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball --Xyzzyplugh 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep (no consensus). Could perhaps be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Hrejsa

db WP:BIO eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Rangek 04:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). Fabricationary 05:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --P199 17:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIO "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" The term "game show contestant" is somewhat misleading. Her notability is comparable to that of an actor on a hit show. --Rob 23:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the listed articles on her page could be considered non-trivial. would you kindly cite these "multiple non-trivial published works" you are referring to, otherwise, notability does not appear to be asserted. Ohconfucius 02:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There are articles of contestants that spent less time in the Big Brother 6 house like Ashlea and Michael. Also Rob is right in his arguments. Comedy240 21:16 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect into BB7 US article. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She has done something that enough people know of her, so why not just keep it like it is. Danny 04:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 'Famous for being famous' does not confer notability. BlueValour 04:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sango123 00:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Lansky"

Never heard of it. Glans at the Google results; the internet is earily silent on the matter. ...and I can't think of a lame pun for "neologism". Opabinia regalis 04:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. ... WTF ... Rangek 04:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as obvious neolo-jism. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I knew someone could do it. Opabinia regalis 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete — nonsense Betacommand 05:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --FastDbz12 18:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Why hasn't it been deleted yet? FancyPants 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Think I heard it recently. --Nickjameson35 00:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — protologism; please ejectulate this --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and pass the Q tips. NawlinWiki 01:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I can't help but hope that the above (top) user's usage of the word "glans" (rather than "glance") was unintentional. If so, the pun seems even more delicious. --24.141.162.250 01:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tamara Paganini

db WP:BIO non-notable porn star who took part in reality contest Ohconfucius 04:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Not notable. Not really a porn star, just one of those half/naked secretaries jumping around in lame TV-shows. Mariano(t/c) 08:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Not in the least a porn star, though a former stripper. In passing, have to say I find the use of the word "secretary" as a putdown unpleasant/unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bustter (talk • contribs)

  That is the term used in those shows[14][15][16]. Mariano(t/c) 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep if others are being kept. She has had some TV and threatre work (as a chica "hot", to quote one Web site). Dlyons493 Talk 12:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Dlyons. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 14:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep She's also an actress, which help makes her notable. --Rob 23:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Rob, Mxcatania 15:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Rob. Note that these extra acting roles are pivotal to this keep vote. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MaNeMeBasat 14:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sango123 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brittany Petros

db WP:BIO early-eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep based on involvement on hit show (Big Brother) and other imdb credits. --Rob 04:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). Fabricationary 05:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as appears to be notable outside the game show. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep some notability beyond Big Brother, GIS page has entries as well 1001001 20:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge into the list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother seasons....

• Keep only because of other roles. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Xoloz 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternatehistory.com

Non notable forum site fails WP:WEB (alexa of 662,333, if you're interested). Article was de'proded. alphaChimp ^laudare 04:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Why don't we have a CSD for non-notable websites? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 05:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Exceptionally weak keep - hosting a large discussion forum (apparently the largest on the net about the topic, although I'm not volunteering to check that claim) seems relatively notable. BigHaz 05:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The site may be notable, but this entry is too slight. (even slighter, since I felt obligated to delete the "criticism" which was actually an editor's gripe supported only by links to the message board itself) Bustter 10:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If that's all it is, I could have a go at adding some more content later this week. I'd do it earlier, but I've got a busy week. BigHaz 11:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per BigHaz. 1ne 11:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alexa rank too low for me to believe this is a truly major forum for which we must have an article. Also unreferenced, WP:V, WP:WEB, the usual. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alexa rank is way too low, and I don't think you could build a significantly large article on this website anyway. As stated above, not a suitable choice according to WP:WEB. --Nishkid64 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Largest site on the internet for alternate history, but needs improvement. Those of you wishing to delete it on the grounds of non-notability or because you think you can't write alot about it need to take a look at the Cillit Bang article. Jombo 02:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete SHWI is verifiable (really !), this isn't and fails WP:WEB. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely it's at least verifiable BigHaz 22:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per Starblind. However, it seems a useful external link for Alternative history, which I've added. - David Oberst 20:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. Petros471 12:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Plencner

db WP:BIO 8th ranked eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). Fabricationary 05:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Why is this singled out? There are dozens of articles about these contestants, and this one is more notable and much more flushed out than most. (If every Big Brither contestant was merged into the season they appeared then the nomination would make sense but just picking this one out of the blue doesn't.) 2005 06:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• no reason for keeping based on existence of other undeserving articles. These all need to be dealt with individually. and they are Ohconfucius 07:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per above. Michael 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Rangek 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIO "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person" (current version of article doesn't show this, but such coverage is readily available, to be added). Also, having stand-alone articles, avoids excessively long "List of ..." articles, which have a dozen bios pasted together. --Rob 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

None of the listed articles on her page could be considered non-trivial in nature, although sources are less so. would you kindly cite these "multiple non-trivial published works" you are referring to, otherwise, notability does not appear to be asserted. Ohconfucius 02:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to the BB6 USA article. Plausible search term. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Same reasons as the other keeps. Comedy240 22:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect into BB6 US article. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because according to WP:BIGBRO, only people who have done notable things outside the house should have seperate articles. There is nothing new in this article not said on Big Brother (USA season 6) Geoking66 02:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Why are you opposed to a merge/redirect, when that's normally done when there isn't to be a standalone article? WP:BIGBRO says "While there's great debate about when to merge/redirect, rarely do contestants articles actually get deleted without a merge (in other words the content is retained). By policy, if the content of an article is merged, it can not be deleted, due to restrictions of GFDL.". Please point me to the part that mandates deletion, as you imply by your vote above. --Rob 05:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per the above rationales for a redirect. Sandstein 19:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Correct Japanese Names Of Pokémon

This page does not contain information on the names of Pokemon; contains a romanization "created by the author;" has a title which indicates it will contain the information shown at List of Pokémon by name. While my first instinct was to merge the page with the list, this article is not useful for pronouncing the Japanese names listed on List of Pokémon by name correctly. The factual information is covered at Japanese language and Japanese writing system. Dekimasu 04:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Among the numerous other problems this article has, the author is 100% wrong on Japanese pronunciation. Danny Lilithborne 04:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I find the article inoffensive. The statements about Japanese pronunciation are basically correct, though they could be touched up a little. I don't think that it helps to reinvent romaji, either. Romaji is itself a potential cause of incorrect pronunciation, and romaji has been refined over many decades with that fact in mind. - Richardcavell 05:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not true that "su" and "shi" are pronounced "s" and "sh". They are pronounced the way they read, just quickly enough for the average person not to notice. The claim that "n" is the only consonant is also false, because Japanese doesn't have consonants; "n" is merely its own syllable. Danny Lilithborne 05:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for being the groundwork for original research (anything "which I have created" automatically sets those sorts of warning bells off). BigHaz 05:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as blatantly obvious incorrect original research. -- Koffieyahoo 05:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Koffieyahoo. Viridae^Talk 08:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Correct solution would be to export the names from Japanese Wikipedia and then include them in the article that contains the name of the Pok%C3%A9mons. So, Delete this list. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 08:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, original research. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR unless it can be sourced WilyD 13:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it, chop it up into little pieces, and bury the pieces miles apart. Not only is it original research, it's completely false. wikipediatrix 14:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the article is more like someone's soapbox than an encyclopedia article. It isn't at all related to Pokémon, instead it's just a very brief guide to the Japanese language. JIP | Talk 15:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ...what on Earth is that thing? Once in a while, some people come up with stuff that leave me completely speechless. In a wrong way. Oh yeah, deletion per nom. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR (and of questionable accuracy too). Fairsing 16:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arturo Sisniega

db WP:BIO not notable - eliminated game show contestant Ohconfucius 04:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not even a claim to notability Bustter 11:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect if there's a relevant parent article. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect, with the option for someone to merge (info left in history) left open. Petros471 12:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lori Valenti

db WP:BIO early self-eliminated game show contestant with no other claim to notability Ohconfucius 04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). Fabricationary 05:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There's already one on her season's page. Geoking66 04:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Lori Valenti has citations, and Big Brother (USA season 5)#Lori Valenti does not (yet), it makes sense to do a merge, which brings in the citations. --Rob 04:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIO "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.". --Rob 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, none of the listed articles on her page could be considered non-trivial, as they refer only to the game show and the hype surrounding it, and the souces may show some commercial bias. would you kindly cite these "multiple non-trivial published works" you are referring to, otherwise, notability does not appear to be asserted. Being a 26 year old Yoga instructor just doesn't cut it per WP:NN. Ohconfucius 02:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect into BB7 US article. Reality TV contestants only get their own articles if they've done anything else notable. The redirect will deter newbies from recreating it. Most of the article is about Big Brother, and really is just elaborate fancruft. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect, with the option for someone to merge (info left in history) left open. Petros471 12:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Weintraub

db WP:BIO subject not notable - game show contestant with STD and being the first person in Big Brother IV Ohconfucius 04:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into a list briefly mentioning all contestants from that Big Brother season, a la List of Big Brother houseguests (USA season 7). Fabricationary 05:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Big Brother (USA season 4). --Satori Son 17:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge a couple sentences to Big Brother (USA season 4). TheronJ 21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• M & R per TheronJ. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 01:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Petros471 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragons: Lexicon Triumvirate

This book is not notable in any way, is published by a vanity press, and is only ranked #1,379,403 on Amazon. Doinkies 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Scientizzle 05:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A long time ago we deleted a page on the writer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Che-Tew Eng Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per same logic as earlier. JoshuaZ 03:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per all above Martinp23 09:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not convinced that Dna Press is a vanity press though Dlyons493 Talk 12:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If the authors page was deleted, this must be nn, surely? J Milburn 13:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom will381796 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syed Ahmed

propose speedy delete, for article was deleted in May and has staged a comeback. fails WP:BIO. unsourced articles full of speculation about someone who appears to be a legend in his own mind Ohconfucius 05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. Michael 07:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I hate game show contestant entries, but if any are to be kept this one is. Check Google news search. It's the tabloids, but notable nonetheless. Bustter 11:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Rangek 13:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, numerous newspaper articles. --Darksun 16:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 00:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I didn't like the guy one bit, but of all the contestants on the show, he's easily among the three most famous (along with winner Michelle and runner-up Ruth Badger). It was a hit series that attracted high ratings - but most importantly, his private life has been featured in various newspapers on a number of occasions since the show ended. He's a known subject of the UK press, and for that reason I think he's notable enough. Seb Patrick 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is newsworthy - it's tabloid but then isn't most press these days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulobrad (talk • contribs)
• take to DRV with the old article which was arguarbly a higher quality, and then merge content together Benon 01:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleted and redirected to Music of Jamaica.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  21:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] baccra

no sources. 1 sentence long. doesnt link. sad excuse for an article Kennykane 05:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NN. Michael 07:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If it is unsourced, it needs sources, it certainly looks verifiable after a quick look through Google. If its a stub, tag it or expand it. If it doesn't link, make links. BTW: Music of Jamaica links there. WP:NN is an essay not a guideline or policy. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect Music of Jamaica has the same information and a bit more, and I just added the one link to its refs. I would have no objection to some baccra fan expanding this. But how likely is that? Also, I removed the Baccra link from MoJ -- why cause users to link over to see a rephrase of what they've just read??? Bustter 11:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is ofcourse a self fulfilling prophecy. Removing the only link to the article, making it an orphan article while the AfD just started, will cause even less people to visit the article and decrease the chance it will ever be expanded. We've got a lot of stubs here on Wikipedia and a stub makes it easier for the casual reader to add suitable information to Wikipedia. For now, I will replace the removed link. If the conclusion of the AfD is to delete, I will be the first to remove it again. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Rangek 13:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. --Hetar 04:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. Petros471 12:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katrina Campins

delete per WP:BIO -subject not notable. real estate agent who competed in the Apprentice Ohconfucius 07:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Michael 07:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO and Redirect to The Apprentice 1. --Satori Son 13:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calendar Men

• Delete as an unverifiable neogolism/protologism. --Hetar 05:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom I bet if they listed sources the content would be verifiable. They didn't. Unfortuantely, it reads like orginal research-- somebody's term paper. It feels like they coined the term. (I have some really mediocre essays on my webpage. If anyone wants to be bored. No neologisms, though.) :) Dlohcierekim 05:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN. Michael 07:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Flock (apparel)

Vanispamcruftisement. Danny Lilithborne 05:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. No doubts at all Ohconfucius 06:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 08:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete reads like an online brochure. At MySpace, they have 114 friends. I hate that @#$in' site and I have more friends there. Bustter 12:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge. Petros471 13:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bethenny Frankel

fails WP:BIO, the subject appeared as contestant on reality game show, but is not notable Ohconfucius 06:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Michael 07:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to The Apprentice: Martha Stewart Candidates] Might want to lose the catty bi about Koppelman, though Bustter 12:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge—not enough information for this woman to have her own article, even though I was the one who started this one — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 21:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to The Apprentice: Martha Stewart Candidates. Daniel.Bryant 04:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. Petros471 13:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Shaw

delete per WP:BIO budding entrepreneur not yet notable, 78,000Ghits, the majority of which are for Miami Dolphin footballerOhconfucius 06:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Redirect to The Apprentice 4. --Satori Son 17:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish. Petros471 13:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Troy McClain

per WP:BIO. not notable: Mortgage lender from Boise Idaho who was contestant on the ApprenticeOhconfucius 06:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge if possible. Michael 07:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to where? Viridae^Talk 08:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The Apprentice (US Season 1) presumably, although that article is already pretty long. Are we gonna AfD Omarosa too? ~ trialsanderrors 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I had considered Omarosa for deletion too, but then on balance thought perhaps she could stay. If there were to be a merged article, each person would have a section, then only the more notable ones would get listed. I reckon perhaps she has a slightly stronger case for staying than Troy, but would support deletion or ultimate merger. Ohconfucius 10:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Delete, though I probably remember him from such films as "The Revenge of Abe Lincoln" and "The Wackiest Covered Wagon in the West." Bustter 12:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P199 17:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the article about the show. --Elonka 23:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by William M. Connolley. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 09:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother (Australia series 7)

There's no information on the article, and it treats Wikipedia as an up-to-the-minute news board forum thing of some sort. Plus it violates that WP:NOT a crystal ball thing. JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 07:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - it'll almost certainly get made (sigh), but until then we're crystall balling. The user should perhaps be informed about posting these up-to-the-minute gazes in the crystal ball somewhere other than here. BigHaz 07:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flying Under the Influence

Non-notable web comic; prod tag removed without comment OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 07:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 240 google hits for "Flying Under the Influence" comic - NN. Viridae^Talk 07:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' per nom and Viridae; also, nearly all of the Google results are unrelated. - makomk 12:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• I understand that this is a non-notable webcomic to you so you feel it should immediately be deleted. However upon clicking on the 'Random Article' button I was brought to Gallo-Romance languages, which I have no idea what they are. So much of Wikipedia is unknown to most people, that is why it exists. The point of Wikipedia is to come to find information on little or unknown things. It is where many pieces of information can be brought together. Granted, not every yahoo should create an article, not all articles should be kept. However, I created this article to allow people to find unknown information for those who are unsure what this webcomic is. I did not create it for vanity purposes, only information. I will understand if you do decide to delete it but I felt it necessary to state my case and what I believe the basis of Wikipedia to be. ShadowDion 16:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Its a new webcomic... Die IRL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.101.40 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. Sango123 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oolong (rabbit)

• Keep; This article talks about an important and well known and loved internet meme. There is a link on the original site of Oolong to a photograph taken of the New York Times, clearly showing a picture of Oolong with a dorayaki. *Link to newspaper

Utterly unencyclopedic. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; this article describes one of the more notable internet phenomena, is written in an encyclopedic tone, and is sourced. Ryūlóng 07:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Well sourced, encyclopedic and Wikipedia is not paper. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it a conflict of interest to have Cpt. Morgan vote on Oolong? ;-) --Nlu (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious keep. Highly notable bunny, highly notable pancake on said bunny's head. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Article does not establish notability in any way. Even less notable than Limecat, which was recently deleted. wikipediatrix 14:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A mistake on Limecat does not mean we need to repeat it here. Besides, Oolong made it into the NYT (I believe it's linked through) , which even Limecat can't attest to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ryulong. Dekimasu 16:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; a well-known internet phenomena. El Juno 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ryūlóng this is a well known phenomena. Yamaguchi先生 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see how this article isn't encyclopedic. The subject may be academic anathema but it's done quite well. Danny Lilithborne 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ryulong. --ElTchanggo 03:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 03:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cpt. Morgan, Danny Lilithborne and Ryulong. Neier 22:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment We read: "Oolong has been noticed by the media, including the New York Times." Then let's have a link to the specific article. -- Hoary 07:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC) ...... Ah, it's linked above. Well then, weak keep. -- Hoary 09:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Cha-La, Keep Cha-La. Per Reinoutr. Ppk01 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and please explain how your definition of "encyclopedic" fails to cover this. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well referenced, well written, interesting articles are exactly what encyclopedias are supposed to provide.--SB | T 20:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ryulong and Danny Lilithborne. This is part of what makes WP great. --TurabianNights 20:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Oolong is a beloved internet phenomenon, and I feel this article is well-written. If we got rid of Oolong because he wouldn't be found in a conventional encyclopedia, we would by that token have to get rid of thousands of other non-academic articles. Re: the New York Times article, if you click on Oolong's official photojournal (maintained by the photographer who owned Oolong) the article is mentioned, in English. Kitty 02:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A modern Bugs Bunny. tmopkisn ^tlka 10:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Although not truely encyclopedia material, there are large entries on other internet curiosities (ASII art for example) and as this is a widely distributed image, I feel it's important to get the story behind it.

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

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

The result was delete. Petros471 21:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jackson-Via

The article is about an elementary school (one among millions in the world) that is undistinguished. Also, the article is based largely on unpublished information. Daphne A 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Utterly non-notable. wikipediatrix 14:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iqlog

Violates WP:WEB; this appears to refer to a single user's nonnotable blog. --Graham 08:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, blog appears to have started last week. Weregerbil 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising someone's blog. JIP | Talk 15:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. There was nearly a consensus to delete. Redirecting and keeping the history allows someone to carry out a merge (the other possible outcome of this debate) if they wish. Petros471 13:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promise the Children

Was tagged for speedy as nn-group, but as there is uncertainty if it qualifies, I am listing it here instead. Discussion on the talk page indicates some (but possibly insufficient) independent coverage. Delete unless better explanation of notability makes it into the article. Kusma (討論) 08:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. WP:NOT -article initiated by User:PromiseTheChildren - wiki is not a soapbox.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohconfucius (talk • contribs) 09:29, 8 August 2006
• Should all the other UU orgs be deleted? keep. UtherSRG (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • if not delete, perhaps they should all be merged into Unitarian Universalist. Not every fringe group under an umbrella organisation deserves an entry. WP:NOT wiki is not a directory Ohconfucius 10:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge As I explained on the talk page, unique google hits are very low, even for their old name. They seem to be mentioned in passing in a few places, but no obvious coverage.--Crossmr 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firth234

Apparently self-promotion for a new non-notable computer language. Prod first, which was removed, but I think it does not qualify for speedy. Delete anyway unless reliable independent sources are found. Kusma (討論) 08:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nomination. WP:NN 31Ghits, WP:SPAM posted by creator Aristo Tacoma
• Delete per above not notable as of yet anywhere I can see. DrunkenSmurf 18:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaysexual

Obvious neologism; short stub. Benwing 08:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. WP:NFT Ohconfucius 08:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO and WP:DICDEF. Scorpiondollprincess 16:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agree with nomination -- M0llusk 17:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Baleeted is a comic term used to describe deletionist like behavior. Danny Lilithborne 20:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-Gaycruft 205.157.110.11 20:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. ~ c. tales ^*talk* 04:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U-Haul (lesbian)

Neologism, not notable. Benwing 08:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. Ohconfucius 08:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a phenomenon, rather than just jargon. And since the term dates from the 1980s, it's not a neologism. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Iconic Gay term and real life concept. Agne 09:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now that it's sourced. I'm convinced now that this is not just a neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article is well referenced. WilyD 13:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The term does exist, yes, but is it notable enough for an article?? No way. wikipediatrix 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)Comment Extremly notable. It certainly needs to be expanded and I prodded it a little in the right direction with some additions. As I said before, the phrase "U-Haul Lesbian" is iconic in the GLBT term and you could make a solid case regarding systematic bias. The mention "U-haul lesbian" brings instant recognition in the community but due to systematic bias, many people in the straight dominated world may not grasp how iconic and relevant it really is--hence the reason a disussion such as this is even happening. That is a compelling reason to keep this article and flesh it out more because it truly is a notable context in understanding so many facets of Lesbian life. Agne 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per TruthbringerToronto's comments. Well referenced phenomenae. Scorpiondollprincess 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very well sourced now. Drett 17:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Isn't there a Move to List of gay slang words and phrases. or something like that where this could more appropriately live? -Smahoney 22:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect — to List of gay slang words and phrases -Glen 01:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Article has expanded somewhat - Keep - Glen 05:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification: do you mean to redirect and move the content there? -Smahoney 01:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - in the same form as current listings (i.e. a brief explanatory line or two) - Glen 04:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. My lesbian ex-gf told me this story ages ago...the systemic bias argument above probably has a point in this case. -- nae'blis 01:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a well known concept within Lesbian circles. I agree that WP:BIAS is possibly coming into play here. - The Bethling 03:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A common term in lesbian community that others may need explaining. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.108.141 (talk • contribs) 9 August 2006.
• Keep. Well-referenced and definitely notable. --Celithemis 07:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per systematic bias comments above. — OwenBlacker 10:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Celithemis. Carlossuarez46 22:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaymer

Neologism; seems to have no currency outside the gaming community and not much inside. Benwing 08:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, Google seems to turn up some third-party coverage ([17], [18], [19]), so this article could possibly stay if cleaned up. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Cordesat's comments, but needs tag for cleanup. Has some notability, but needs cleanup and better sources cited. Scorpiondollprincess 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per systematic bias. Relevant and notable term in the GLBT community. Agne 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Query there are two separate issues here. [1] is the term notable? [2] is the concept notable? even the links posted above by Coredesat don't show use of the term other than in a few website names, and WP:NEO has much more stringent requirements for when a neologism should be kept -- although it could be argued that WP:NEO is too strict. Agne, do you have any sources showing that this is a notable term? as for [2], i don't know. however, the article as it currently stands has very little info in it; mostly it just defines the term and links to two sites. in general, i'd assume that for any notable subcultures X and Y there's going to be a smaller subculture X*Y; but it's not clear wikipedia needs an article about all those X*Y's. Benwing 04:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Kingdante87, as a Gaymer myself I feel that this article should remain up. I do recognize that it needs content including links to and from other pages. The problem is that many heterosexual gamers do not recognize gaymers (or gayming) to be real. All that this article needs to be fixed is a little more content added and maybe bring up the topic of gayming in the gaming article. I am proud to see the gay culture slowly seeping into main stream culture. As an option the gayming article could be deleted if appended to an article about gay culture.
• Keep Seems fine to me Konman72 06:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Having written a good portion of the article (and bringing it out of stub statis from a single sentence entry) I have to say that I'm glad others have as much of an interest in this topic as I do. It is important for both the gaming and gay community to have articles such as this that promote homosexual terms like gaymer as positive identifiers, rather than insults, and to help spread the word that such a community of people does indeed exist. While it may not be as pertanent of an article as some, it is nonetheless important in garnering a supportive online community for those who classify themselves as homosexual gamers. I would love to see this article grow and prosper, but if it is decided to abandon it, I would heavily suggest that the world at least be alluded to in another article. (Nall 03:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC))
• Weak delete pending more evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources. And a correction: The term has been used for at least a decade for gay boardgamers, not just videogamers. WP:NOT a forum for advocacy or support groups. While gay people have notably been treated unjustly and game fans have been disparaged, I've never (in thirty years of postal and tournament boardgaming) seen discrimination or violence against gaymers per se, nor read media coverage nor academic papers about such things. The articles cited by Coredesat are the first mainstream coverage I've heard of. An accusation of "systemic bias" is not a sufficient argument to keep an article; when it's thrown around without supporting facts, it can be just another empty epithet. Barno 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with previous poster. expanding on my previous query, is there anything particularly notable about gaymers beyond e.g. subcultures composed of gay goths (nerds, bowlers, ravers, etc.) or black (native american, deaf, etc.) gamers? i assume that all groups that suffer discrimination or ill-treatment within mainstream society will form support groups devoted to particular activities or subcultures. but do we need to document every single one of these? it could even be argued that this article should be examined from the other side of the WP:BIAS issue: gay gamers (esp. of the video type) are likely to be of the same male, technically-savvy, 15-49-year-old, white-collar, industrialized-country-inhabitant type that is in general overrepresented in Wikipedia. (for example, i strongly suspect there is a vibrant deaf gay community, and arguably it's much more important than the gaymer community; and there's probably been a lot more scholarly research done on it than on gaymers. but wikipedia has no page on it, perhaps because the native language of most deaf people is asl (or some other signed language) rather than english, and they may not feel comfortable in english-dominated communities such as en.wikipedia.) Benwing 06:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A couple things that I would like to point out. On WP:NEO one of the criteria for inclusion is that "we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term" (emphasis mine) One of the sources in the article is the university study about Gaymers--as an entity, as a group of which this terms apply. This brings the focus beyond the gay community as an extension of how the world at large relates to this sub-culture of Gaymers. Second, the systematic bias comes into play in that the term is being viewed through limited worldview that systematically excludes those things which are notable and relevant beyond those looking glasses. The Gay Community is a sizable minority and Gaymers are a notable subculture that is within that minority. It's Wikipedia's desire (As laid out in WP:BIAS) to "to fill in the gaps left by this bias, consciously focusing on those subjects and perspectives neglected by the encyclopedia as a whole.". Does the article need to be expanded? I concur and will note that Wikiproject LGBT has this on their list of articles to work on and expand. Actions like this help to counter that systematic bias instead of creating more gaps and, as a whole, Wikipedia benefits.Agne 08:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queerspawn

Neologism; page is mostly original research. Benwing 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. WP:NFT Ohconfucius 08:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research on a non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 10:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Several of the sources "cited" just refer to Lynch's website "Queerspawn" rather than use the term as described in this article. Anything worthwhile here could be Merged with Adoption by same-sex couples or the page propsed there (Parenting by same-sex couples). Scorpiondollprincess 16:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As clarified in the original article the queerspawn.com url has been taken over by a new person, multiple references is due to multiple websites being hosted under the same url at different time periods. You're right that clarification in how the term is used would be good, but in several of the cases, the term is used in the title of the cited source. Additionally, the important distinction between queerpawn and parenting by same-sex couples is found in the second paragraph of the article. It is a term that identifies who the population in question is and focuses discussion and agency on their identity, not their parents.Nodesignation 22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gaycruft 205.157.110.11 20:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It needs editing and updated information, but most of the sources cited are legitimate secondary sources such as Newsweek, NYT, Gay and Lesbian Review Worldwide. The term also in use in several different non-internet communities, including the cited national advocacy organization. Note: I have a vested interest in this discussion as an activist and author speaking and writing on queerspawn issues for roughly 2-3 years. Nodesignation 22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)