Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 13

< December 12	December 14 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Discussion on the current notability guidelines Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 as useful disambig page. A Train ^{take the} 20:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dawn patrol

I don't think anyone knows what this is. It is unencyclopedic and it may qualify for "speedy deletion", but I can't "speedy delete" by my values. And I don't know if it's a disruptive article from a user or not, but that page has to go, unless an author improves this article. Gh87 18:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete No references noted, and lack of purpose. I don't regard it as being encyclopedic, hence Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Bungle44 19:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Edison 19:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There actually is a reference of sorts, but it's still not the sort of thing an encyclopedia article should be. Coemg e nus 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per CDS A1 ({{db-nocontext}}). Agent 86 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Now I replaced {{afd}} with what it is suggested above. --Gh87 20:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Close WP:SNOW. Just H 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete and Close extremely short of context and no references cited.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have changed it into a disambiguation page as there are an awful lot of things called "Dawn patrol". The disambiguation page no longer qualifies for speedy and should be Kept. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:31, 13 December 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.--Hús ö nd 01:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fleming Way

Fails WP:LOCAL utterly. No notability, no verification. Diez2 00:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete I agree, no notability whatsoever. TSO1D 00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, no sign of notability (but why did you de-prod?) Pan Dan 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I de-prodded because prodded articles can always be brought back from the grave, but articles deleted per AfD cannot. Diez2 01:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Pan Dan 01:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Totally fails WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 01:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, seriously, no notability at all. --Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 04:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, & it's already in the main article. SkierRMH,06:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Already in Harold Fleming article, on it's own does not meet WP:NN. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 12:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Deleteper nom --Fabio 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Unnotable road. Herostratus 03:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - the footballer for which the road is named may be notable, but the road is not -- Whpq 14:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per commenters above, no evidence of verifiable notability or anything close to it. Yamaguchi先生 03:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Eurogamer. Agent 86 22:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GamesIndustry.biz

This fails WP:CORP. All I can get from the article is that there is a company out there named GamesIndustry.biz who is owned by Eurogamer Network. Diez2 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Eurogamer ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Eurogamer. Riana 07:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Eurogamer --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Eurogamer and create a redirect. FirefoxMan 16:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of this was Speedy Keep (nomination withdrawn) Diez2 14:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copper(II) fluoride

No information in the article. All this gives is the melting point and boiling point of the compound, and nothing else. Diez2 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete The topic has the possibility of being notable, but the article in its current form does not have any value. TSO1D 00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep No sense in deletion, article should probably be expanded, but AfD is not the place to do that. It's a real chemical compound, and as such, meets verifiability, notability, and anything else you might name. I'd actually need some reason why it shouldn't have an article, not just complaints about the article's current state. FrozenPurpleCube 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a guideline for the notability of chemical compounds? Diez2 01:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't know, try asking at WP:Chem. FrozenPurpleCube 02:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep and expand; alternative, redirect to ... someplace. There must be a broader article about copper or fluorine compounds though I don't know the chem pages well enough to find it. Newyorkbrad 00:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand if possible. The compound exists, and mustbtherefore be encyclopedic.--Anthony.bradbury 01:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Just because the article is not currently a "spiffy" article, that doesn't necessarily call for a delete. We may possibly rename it Copper fluoride, too. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't recommend that since based on what I recall of Chemistry, the II has a meaningful value, so I would prefer keeping it at the proper name unless someone expert in chemistry can say it won't cause a problem. FrozenPurpleCube 03:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Copper(I) fluoride would be an entirely different chemical. One or the other may trivially be called "copper fluoride" but the roman numerical is part of the technical name and required for being unambiguous. DMacks 03:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Simple binary chemical compounds are sufficiently rare and elemental to chemistry to be inherently encyclopedic. -Toptomcat 04:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment The problem I have with this article is that it doesn't appear to me to have any special significance. There are some binary compounds that are important, but are all important enough on their own to warrant a separate article? Then why arbitrarily draw the line there, why not include tertiary compounds as well or go even higher? What I am trying to say is that certain compounds are important through the properties they possess or their history but we shouldn't generalize notability criteria for an entire class. Can anyone who voted to keep the article please explain why this specific compound is of special interest? TSO1D 04:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is a 'notability criteria' for chemicals. Keep, and please don't rename :) Copper(II) fluoride is very different to copper(I) fluoride! I'll see if I can expand the article a little. Riana 07:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Added a proper chembox, but I can't find much information on it. I'll drop a line over at WikiProject Chemicals. Riana 07:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, this is a chemical which is used in polymerisation chemistry (at least two scientific references), and has been studied in relation to dental plaque/caries (also at least 2 scientific references). Also, a google search on "Copper(II) fluoride) results in 388 results (december 13, 2006), and I guess that numerous of the 22,300 hits on "copper fluoride" also pertain copper(II) fluoride. Enough to tell about this chemical. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep, the substance is used in organic synthesis and has a bunch of references even to a science paper! (added very recent, :-))--Stone 10:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep In general, I think chemical compounds should have some unusual property or a notable use to be included in Wikipedia. With the information Stone and others added, this article meets that requirement. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep at this point, the article should not be eligible for AfD anymore. --Rifleman 82 12:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep The article has been improved could do with a bit more but needs an expand not a delete tag. Also as there is no Copper(I) Fluoride, should Copper Fluoride redirect here and comment on other forms be made?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate1481 (talk • contribs)

Withdrawn After having seen major improvements, I withdraw this nomination. Diez2 14:18, 13 December 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.--Hús ö nd 01:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Espinosa

Contested speedy. Article concerns a nineteen year old amateur wrestler with an unspectacular record and no notable achievements. There are no outside sources, mentions of media coverage or professional bouts. This is clearly a vanity page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete only 333 Google hits and otherwise doesn't satisfy notability criteria. TSO1D 00:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is a vanity page. Fails WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 01:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no assertion of notability. Stilgar135 01:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 04:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, nn, v@nity piece... SkierRMH,06:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Per above FirefoxMan 16:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom; vanity page. Doc Tropics 18:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Vanity. Coemg e nus 19:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity page. 86.42.192.105 23:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete please wait until he's in a major promotion (e.g. WWE).-- danntm ^T _C 02:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:BIO -- Whpq 14:59, 14 December 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. Will salt if recreated.--Hús ö nd 01:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GeMagic

Contested 'db-advert' speedy delete. Non-notable product with no media references cited by article author, unlike article for comparable product Bedazzler. Delete. StoptheDatabaseState 00:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete camp value does not equal notability ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable and doesn't satisfy WP:CORP. TSO1D 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy. -- Chris is me 01:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete The statement in the article that it is not advertising does not make it so. Verging on {{db-spam}}--Anthony.bradbury 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I removed the disclaimer that it's not advertising from the page, as it appeared to be a pre-emptive AfD comment, and instead I'm posting it here. While it was in the original edit, I felt that it violated the general practice of not posting content disclaimers. If it is truely not advertising, then it's Neutrality should be apparent from the article itself. The disclaimer read (for information purposes) as follows: "There are pages for the Bedazzler and Magic Bullet appliance with the same general information and they are not deleted. This is an article that provides information on the product. It is not a form of advertising" To me this is an AfD comment made before the fact, and not appropriate for a mainspace article, as they attempt to cite comparisons in the introduction to the article itself. Wintermut3 02:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

These comments were left over from when the original author put on the {{hangon}} tag, before I resorted to AfD. StoptheDatabaseState 09:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. MER-C 03:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and this isn't an ad... or is it? SkierRMH,06:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 08:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as obvious advertising for a non-notable product. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete This should have been speedied as Advert. If it wants to stay, we need to fix the NPOV issues FirefoxMan 16:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I thought it was a computer graphics card from Taiwan before I actually read the thing. Clearly fails WP:CORP Orderinchaos78 17:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services. Product has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." -- Satori Son 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advert. I would have Speedied it as spam. Doc Tropics 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. nn notable.--Dakota 22:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and salt bad penny. twice has been this spam been erased. Keep it away from wikiedia for good. Ohconfucius 10:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - article reads as a advertisement. -- Whpq 15:04, 14 December 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.

[edit] Hoang Thi Loan

The result of the debate was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). -- Chris is me 01:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(1st AFD) Not verifiable? Can't find info about Hoang Thi Loan, or whoever Ho Chi Minh's mother was, anywhere in the refs given in Ho Chi Minh, or on Google. Pan Dan 00:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep notable historical figure. I added some info about her life from several reliable sources. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Withdraw nomination. I see what I did wrong on my Google search. Thanks, and sorry. Pan Dan 01:16, 13 December 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, possible rename. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examination of Holocaust denial

Sorry, but I can only see this as a soapbox. Holocaust denial is a vile thing, but we are not here to rebut it, only to report that it exists and is rejected by anybody with an ethical bone in their body. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete and Merge any useful info into Holocaust Denial. TSO1D 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Holocaust denial covers the topic perfectly well. An article on Examination of Holocaust denial can serve no purpose but as a focus for OR and POV pushing.-WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep I know that I am going to lose this one, but I really feel that any article which provides sensible arguments against Holocaust denial, as this one does, should be retained. As one who has stood on the ground at Auschwitz-Birkenau, I may be biased; but if so, it is a bias I am proud of.--

Anthony.bradbury 01:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not going to lose it. I hope not.--Anthony.bradbury 23:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This article was first expanded from the original Holocaust Denial article because the article itself was focusing too much on the arguments against denial, and not on the aspect of holocaust denial itself (its history, repercussions, etc.). It has existed on Wikipedia for over two years, and since that time its POV has not seriously challenged until now, with this AfD. As the edit history of the article itself shows, nearly all of the disputes involving the articles POV have been from anonymous (or short-lived) users who popped up to declare the article biased -- because it supposedly didn't present detailed equal time "questioning the Holocaust." The issue here is that this article is inherently biased against Holocaust deniers -- which is as it should be. Why? Not because of POV or my own or anyone's despising of Holocaust deniers (deserved or not); rather, because Holocaust denial is itself a hate-spawned, primarily anti-Semitic belief based on wild conspiracy theories. This is not a statement of bias, but rather a statement of fact -- one that has been proven again and again over the years. It is NPOV to state this, because it is a proven fact, backed up by considerable arguments against denial that vastly outweigh the feeble arguments presented by deniers. Consequently, I believe the article is NPOV, because debunking of Holocaust denial as a lunatic fringe belief is a historical fact. --Modemac 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the article history as illuminated by Modemac. While I can see how this article could be mischaracterized as a soapbox, its inclusion is essential in order to maintain neutral coverage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, though possibly re-title - Criticism of Holocaust Denial (as suggested elsewhere) sounds good to me. The content definitely belongs in Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC) vote edited Argyriou (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, this is a useful and interesting article and looks well on its way to being well referenced. The holocaust denial article focuses on the movement, personalities involved and the history, this article is about the claims made by the movement and the evidence rebutting them. Seems a significant enough movement that one article isn't enough to cover it. NPOV is good but does not mean giving equal time to fringe theories while leaving them unrebutted. Dragomiloff 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Holocaust denial. Though remnants of the holocaust are touching, Wikipedia is not a place to posit evidence for and against this subject. Remember to stay neutral. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Good point!KarlXII 12:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Rename, rewrite to something else, because as it stands "Examination of" makes it original research and essay. Criticisms of Holocaust denial or something like that, perhaps? It is also inherently POV, which must be changed to be an encyclopedia article. It needs to be rewritten such that it includes the "evidence" of the deniers, or at least links to it on the Holocaust denial page, rather than a single statement followed by paragraphs refuting it. Koweja 03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC) I agree!KarlXII 12:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Too large to merge with Holocaust Denial. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, Rename - crz crztalk 03:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 03:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, extensively edit, and rename to 'Criticisms of Holocast denial' or similar -Toptomcat 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename - examination insinuates OR. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - This article is Original Research and POV. The nature of this article wishes to argue something, and is mostly argument with some sparse quotes. According to WP:OR, "an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" is Original Research and is not encyclopedic, thus must be removed. So must POV. Even if there is POV on other related cites, that doesnt justify creating more POV to balance it out. Rather, introduce the relevant information in the relevant objective article and change the prose so that it reflects a neutral view point that wishes to present all the facts. Xlegiofalco 06:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep with indifference to renaming. Although a decision for or against merging here wouldn't be binding, I'll opine that merging doesn't seem viable due to the length of the two articles. I read the nomination as being that the article is too detailed for an encyclopedia. Maybe... However, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which gives us the opportunity to have more depth of coverage on important topics, not just more topics of marginal importance. This much content is not too much in my opinion. (And I note that to the best of my knowledge we don't have any community standards for what constitutes "too much information" on a topic of agreed importance.) I also don't see the original research concern as being real; my read of the article is that the refutations are generally cited to a prior source that used them the same way, which makes the analysis not original. Could more be quoted and cited - sure, but the article wouldn't need to change significantly. GRBerry 06:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. This article is better written than 90% of the articles on Wikipedia, and contains vast amounts of valuable information. While it doesn't make use of proper Wikipedia inline citations, that is easily remedied. I noticed that it uses Lipstadt's book on Holocaust denial as a reference, a book that I happen to own. If the consensus is to keep, I will gladly spend a few days properly wikifying the article. As to the claims above of WP:OR, I must respectfully disagree. I know a lot about this subject, and everything I read in this article I have also heard or read elsewhere. In closing, I would like to add that Holocaust denial is a longstanding concern of mine. I think it is vitally important for this project to provide articles that debunk this movement. Jeffpw 08:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Modemac. metaspheres 10:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Too large to merge. Too good to delete. Rename to Criticisms of....Hornplease 10:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Rename. Fascinating and well-written. — brighterorange (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
delete Tuohirulla puhu 14:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a vote, it is a discussion. Care to offer a reason for your opinion? GRBerry 14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
MERGE and DELETE - Very well written and researched. Fascinating! However, the article does have quite a bit of overlap with the Holocaust denial article and covers most of the same issues. As the Holocaust denial article is most likely the more commonly read of the two it would be a shame for readers to miss the material contained in this one. Therefore I recommend merging it with the Holocaust denial article and then deleting it.KarlXII 15:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
As per various above comments, keep and retitle. I like Criticisms of Holocaust denial, personally. Natalie 15:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and Merge Do NOT redirect! FirefoxMan 16:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The article appears to be appropriately written. Possibly merge based on some of the comments above. I note in particular Jeffpw's offer to improve the article if it is maintained. Orderinchaos78 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Rename. The article is sound, although it is in desperate need of inline references to clearly demonstrate that it is not OR, e.g. that it is a summation of arguments made in other contexts to refute the claims of Holocaust deniers. To that end, it should also be renamed. Examination of Holocause denial suggests that this is an article that will examine and refute certain claims; it would be more neutral to call it Criticisms or Refutations instead. - Eron ^Talk 17:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Rename. In light of recent comments I am changing my opinion to one of keep and supporting a rename to Criticisms of Holocaust denial. But it should be stressed that the article needs considerable work to reference the content and avoid POV and OR criticism. Contrary to what has been said above, Wikipedia should not set out to rebut notable theories, however objectionable- that sets editors up as critics, something to be avoided. However I accept criticisms of Holocaust denial are widespread and well founded and do deserve to be covered neutrally by Wikipedia. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 17:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As a somewhat regular contributor to the article in question (and having already voted above), I'll state that I fully accept the statements that the article does need more revision to be truly NPOV, and I will not object to or impede any genuine efforts to make it more NPOV. --Modemac 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep and rename as "Criticisms of...." Too much useful content to merge. Doc Tropics 18:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP - if you get rid of this article, you'll have to get rid of Single bullet theory, and basically every other article that tries to explain or examine something that happened in history. And what is and is not encyclopedic is always up for debate because Wikipedia is not paper. Just because the word 'encyclopedia' was defined over a century ago does not mean the definition must stick today. The pursuit of knowldege and clarity is our main goal. This article certainly helps in the clarity department.Mk623SC20K 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename to Criticism of holocaust denial or edit Holocaust denial down to a reasonable length and incorporate arguments for and against, or edit down further and incorporate in Holocaust, which is where it belongs. Strong feelings have created verbose sprawling and not very encyclopedic articles. The reference style is poor; convert to inline references linked to a reference section. Edison 19:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Edison, the Holocaust article is already 166 KB, and Holocaust denial is 67 KB. To merge the three together would be an impossible task, without sacrificing important content. It has already been agreed that the referencing needs work; I have said earlier I am happy to undertake the referencing as a project if this article is kept. It seems logical and important to me that this article remains distinct from the denial article, since they, though related, are on decidedly different facets of the subject. To make an analogy, the articles on Halloween, Halloween 2 and Halloween 3 are all featured articles, yet some people could easily say to save space they should be merged into one article about the series. This subject is at least as deserving of bandwidth as a series of articles about teen slasher flicks.

Keep and rename to Criticism of Holocaust denial or similar to make the focus of the article clearer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and de-tag POV. Of course it will be POV - the issue of Holocaust denial is one-sided, and so is refuting it. I don't mean to sound like a Holocaust denier, but one cannot deny the facts either. AgentFade2Black 22:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - both the article and the issue too large for a merge. Also, I don't find "Examination" to be POV, but if there is a consensus that "Criticism" is less so, so be it. BTW, POV is not a valid reason for AFD and I hope no one is advocating a complete removal. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Seeing as there's the whole Iranian International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, maybe if they see it, they'll come to their senses. And, it's a really important topic. I mean like, yeah. Gaterion 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki if at all possible, probably to Wikibooks, with a link from Holocaust denial. The article is valuable, but not encyclopedic. If there's no place for it in Wikibooks, reluctant Keep. Change vote to Keep, per WP:SNOWBALL and WP:IAR. Exceptions can be made. Haikupoet 01:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename - It would be ideal to have all the information in one article but there's just so much of it and the Holocaust denial article is already 67 kilobytes long.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lairor (talk • contribs)
Rename to Proof of the Holocaust or Criticism of Holocaust denial, perhaps?--Greasysteve13 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename to Criticisms of Holocaust denial per above. JChap2007 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
keep with some name. Important subject. Hmains 04:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and rename to Criticism of Holocaust denial - the current title is POV; because the other Holocaust pages are so large already this makes sense to be a separate page. Perel 05:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge I don't think there's too much to be merged back into Holocaust denial. Some of the material is duplicated there. I generally don't like articles with titles like "Allegations of..." or "Criticism of..." even when perfectly written the title doesn't seem NPOV. Calling an article an "Examination of..." something sounds like OR. If we have to rename it I would suggest Methodology of Holocaust denial or even Holocaust denial (methodology)GabrielF 06:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Extensive information and sufficient for its own article. CuriousGiselle 19:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Another possible name History of Holocaust denialDGG 01:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Rename to Criticism of Holocaust denial —Dylan Lake 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge or Rename in a sense that it lends no credence to the study. frummer 08:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Freedom of expression must be maintained, even if some misguided individuals feel the need to expouse ridiculous theories. Any right-minded person knows the Holocaust happened (with all its tragic consequences) and that State laws against Holocaust Denial only serve to make martyrs of those who rant against the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.5.17 (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
Keep because it is a topic that Wikipedia should cover. However, in its present state it is one of the worst offenders against WP:OR that I have seen. Nearly all of it consists of unsourced editorial. Everything here has to be referred to some some verifiable source, not just asserted as true. --Zero^talk 12:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

comment: I disagree that it is OR. It does cite the cources used, and I have read one of the books used. It does not make use of wiki referencing format, but that is a minor quibble that can be easily fixed. Jeffpw 12:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Things that are clearly opinions need to be presented as opinions of someone. This requires changes in wording and not just a citation. --Zero^talk 04:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep and clarify. Merging isn't an option, as both this and Holocaust Denial are quite long already. There will be some natural overlap too, but it should be clear which bit of content should go where, and that doesn't seem to be as clear to the casual editor as it should be. (Maybe an infobox or notice on the top of the page?) Cantankrus 16:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and change the name to 'criticism of...' It should not be merged into Holocaust denial because that is about a political movement, and the 'Examination of Holocaust denial' page is an analysis of pseudo-historical claims. Not the same thing at all - they belong in separate articles. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and Merge any useful info into Holocaust Denial, per TSO1D. Dahn 17:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The topic is encyclopaedic and should be covered. Alithien 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, afrer, of course, we copy the content off to a page where the arguements will be useful. The current article goes far beyond appropriate encyclopedic content into the realm of a propaganda piece (however justified the opinions/defense might be). The Holocaust Denial page has the relevant factual information. And before you ask, yes, I'm Jewish. Jberkus 08:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete A lot of content, few sources. The sources included are not associated with the statements they represent. I suggest delete based on 2 out of 3 wikipedia pillars, Verifiability and No Original Research. Alan.ca 10:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Modemac, rename to Criticism of Holocaust Denial or similar, clean out unsourced cruft and generally improve. TH 11:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I've already made my decision to merge if possible, but still, criticism is still POV. We strive to make things neutral, and to show both sides, not to make an argument for one like a thesis. For example, I could write up a whole article against Pastafarianism, and since it most obviously isn't real, could be included into Wikipedia. A few sections in the main article in the Holocaust article would suffice to show what others think. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
merge any sourced, usable content(or delete if there isn't any) to the main article per the nom's logic and WJB. JoshuaZ 03:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, too much material to be merged. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:11, 18 December 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 Copyvio Speedy. Tawker 04:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jubilee Hospital Radio

A hospital radio station. Not notable outside the hospital, and the first-person plural prose doesn't help matters. Prod tg added, but removed without comment by article creator. Calton | Talk 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--Dakota 00:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete However worthy the project, it fails on WP:NN. I do not see the attack claimed by the above editor.--Anthony.bradbury 01:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This comment re attack has now been removed, not by me.--Anthony.bradbury 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete most of the article is ripped straight from [1]. The article makes no claims about wide listenership. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio. So tagged. -- Chris is me 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as copyvio. MER-C 03:42, 13 December 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 Transwiki'd to WikiBooks. Tawker 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deal or No Deal game strategy

This belongs on a gameshow Wiki, not here. Encyclopedia: not a guide on strategy to a recent hit game show. I see no other strategy guides like this for Wheel of Fortune or Price is Right and so on, for good reason: it's cruft and not needed. Or video game guides as a similar example: not here because Wikipedia isn't a game guide. This recent hit show shouldn't be any exception. RobJ1981 01:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep I think its notable enough for inclusion based on the connection to game theory and utility theory. JPotter 01:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. _editconflict It might not be too encyclopedic, but damn it's interesting! -- Chris is me 01:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. My idea of a strategy guide is something whose purpose is to tell you how to win. I don't see that here; instead, I see an unbiased examination of the game and an explanation of how various people have analyzed the game. Stilgar135 01:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
comment It seems to me that this would be best merged into Deal or No Deal. Why does this aspect of the show need its own article?--Dmz5 02:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete most of this article is original research (at least until better sourcing is provided for the modeling section and comparison to the monty hall problem) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unencyclopedic with original research problems (the very limited academic references cited relate to a study of the gameshow in "Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands", but the bulk of the article relates to the US version of the gameshow, suggesting OR speculation or analysis based on unreliable/non-authoritative sources (the forum/geocities links in external links section). Media coverage (the WSJ carries at least one "human interest" or "funny-strange science" story on its front page every day) of limited academic studies is not sufficient to prove encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a webhost for every single research paper out there, be it original research or published work. In contrast, the Monty Hall problem has many more authoritative sources and references, indicating a far greater degree of circulation Bwithh 02:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Those two links you complained about were left overs from the far inferior "how should one play Deal or Deal" article that this once was. However, the article has evolved past that, and has been much improved. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The format is international; Postet al's papers explicitly state that the same formal structure is used in each version. Eludium-q36 21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Analysis of how the game is played has attracted both scholarly and press attraction, as noted and referenced in the article. It may not have the volume of scholarly attention that Monty Hall has received, but that is due to the facts that it hasn't been around as long and it involved more complicated mathematics than the simple Monty Hall problem. This article is still in need of improvement, but it is a far cry from what it once was, which was more like a guide to playing the game. The modeling section is in need of being improved, preferably by someone who is very familiar with utility theory and thus well suited to integrating the appropriate external references into the article. The comparison with Monty Hall is about as good as its going to get, and it limits itself to explaining how the two problems differ with a straightforward comparison of the mathematics behind the two problems. It's not advancing any new theories or the like, and as it serves as a comparison to the other major mathematical problem to have received scholarly attention, I think it belongs in the article. Even if don't belong, that problem could best be solved by deleting the Monty Hall section, not deleting the entire article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's great, but Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing/promoting academic research Bwithh 03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'll abstain from voting because I think it's almost all original research and I can't vote to keep, but I really don't want to see this stuff merged back to Deal or No Deal. Since there is quite a bit of interest in just this sort of information (see Talk:Deal or No Deal), it's going to come back somewhere unless someone plans on babysitting every Deal or No Deal article. – Anþony talk 03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as an excellent and illuminating example of the application of game theory. -Toptomcat 04:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I agree. This can be pretty helpful, I see no reason to delete it. --Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 04:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So are there external sources for the bulk of this article or are you guys just liking the gist of the OR? Bwithh 04:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep This article is one of the things that is an *advantage* to wikipedia. It's not like the math is incorrect, and is applied in a new way. Xenocide85 10:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this article is largely unsourced original research (and where it is not it is redundant with Game Theory) and it is a game guide to boot. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid reason for retention.--Isotope23 14:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete For once, WP:NOT a game guide actually applies. Can be merged as a short section into Deal or No Deal. — brighterorange (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- A short section in Deal or No Deal containing verifiable material attributed to reliable sources already exists. What's the point of deleting the article if the content just goes somewhere else? – Anþony talk 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep helpful--Slogankid 15:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, it's just a game guide/technical manual. Contains reams of OR and would set a poor precedent for similar Gameshow X strategy articles. Note that most of the 'Keep' comments are simply saying 'I like it'. --Nydas^(Talk) 15:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete it may be interesting, but at best it is a summary of an academic paper, and if not that, it is a game guide. Either way, it is not suitable to Wikipedia.-- danntm ^T _C 16:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Looks like OR to me. --MECU≈talk 16:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Tone it down a bit, but don't get rid of it! FirefoxMan 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this is not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. Put it on Wikia or something. Recury 18:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Delete or No Delete? I'll take delete. The nom, Bwithh and Isotope23 pretty much sum it up. Agent 86 19:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep or Merge to parent article. Is it just me, or wasn't there another Deal or No Deal article up for deletion lately? Just H 20:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete As per Brighterorange, WP:NOT a game guide definitely applies here. - fchd 21:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete per nom, per Bwithh, per Nydas. per WP:NOT a game guide, and per WP:NOR. There might be some tiny bits that are worth salvaging, but if so, those should be rewritten (from scratch, don't merge) in the article about the show (if they're not already there). From my brief read-through, I suspect there's very few such bits in any case. Xtifr _tälk 21:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Merge Chess, Texas hold 'em, Contract bridge, all have strategy subsections. TonyTheTiger 22:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and those three articles are all extensively sourced. Sadly, the one source cited here does not cover game strategy, but only a particular aspect of human economic behavior studied in relation to one scenario one the show. See my comment below. Xoloz 22:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep and merge only the sourced portion This article is really about two different things: 1) a large, unsourced, original research essay on playing strategy, which is very interesting but must be deleted until it can be sourced; and 2) a verifiable, notable portion about a news-making study by economists, using the show as a vehicle for the examination of situational risk aversion. The latter may be merged, or kept outright in its own re-named article -- but it should most definitely be kept in any case; the former must go, for now. Xoloz 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- That already exists. See Deal or No Deal#Game Strategy. Once again, if this article is deleted, its contents must not be merged into Deal or No Deal. – Anþony talk 23:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  - The merge already have been performed (or this article having arisen from the show), a redirect would be a perfectly acceptable compromise, should consensus so suggest by favoring a general keep outcome. Xoloz 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    - No, that was summary-style section I added to Deal or No Deal after Deal or No Deal game strategy got split off. – Anþony talk 19:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Fascinating article. One that should be featured and praised, not deleted. This is the type of entries that rewards people who hit "Random article". 75.213.29.188 09:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - despite it being interesting, it is still original research. -- Whpq 15:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I simply can't find any support for the idea that this is anything but pure original research. --TheOther Bob 19:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep sourced material and merge comparison with Monty Hall problem. The Deal or No Deal article covers it pretty much, and the comparison would help in the explanation in the "Monty Hall problem." If there is no further sourcing, then.... ZONK! B.Wind 21:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Mounty Hall section has no more sources than the rest of it. Playing musical chairs with unsourcable original research solves nothing. – Anþony talk 22:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge sourced portion into Deal or No Deal article, then redirect. Papers of Post et al are sourced and notable. Monty Hall section may fit better in the variants on Monty Hall problem. There is a good article to be written on this topic; this is not it, and a redirect is appropriate in the interim. Eludium-q36 21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Post paper is already in Deal or No Deal. No merging is necessary. If this page goes, the content should go with it. – Anþony talk 22:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge sourced portion into Deal or No Deal article, then redirect, per last nom. Any OR here needs to be deleted, but the connections to probability and game theory in the "Deal or no Deal" model mean that it deserves a more comprehensive treatment than a simple "it was mentioned on the WSJ once". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quack 688 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
Keep BrenDJ 02:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is definately not a game guide. Its also very informative about how the banker's thinking during the game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.247.128.79 (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
Delete OR. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual on how to win a game show....or grow a creepy soul patch. 205.157.110.11 15:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki: wikibooks or wikihow This article belongs in wikibooks or wikihow as it is a HOWTO article. See WP:NOT#IINFO. Alan.ca 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete It doesn't matter how interesting original research is, if it's OR it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --G Rutter 09:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete OR, pure and simple. Eusebeus 11:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - existing section in DOND article already contains the part that is worth keeping.--Kubigula (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - this is useful academically as an application of game theory Iffykid 03:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki - not fit for WP mainspace, is interesting topic, I'm thinking WikiBooks but I'm sure there's a wikia wiki on Deal or No Deal that could take this -- Tawker 22:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Now Transwikied -- Imported to wikibooks, to improve this article-come module, please see b:Transwiki:Deal or No Deal game strategy. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 23:10, 19 December 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 Opabinia regalis 04:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Balle

Original nomination attempt in April 2006 had this reasoning: Unsourced, vanity, unencyclopaedic, author's history. and was left by User:SteveO. Article should probably be at Simon Balle School or something similar if kept, but the suitability of an article should probably be determined first. Finishing procedure, with no personal opinion on suitability of an article, since I know zilch about London schools. -- nae'blis 17:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This was the state of the article when SteveO placed the AfD notice, (which bears no relationship to its current state). He did not however complete the process, and so no AfD discussion took place. About a month later I found the article, did some cleanup, contacted SteveO and informed him that he might want to take the article through AfD again; he demurred. Point of fact: it's not a London school, but is in the county of Hertfordshire. --BillC 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep as it seems to be a specialty school for years 7-11, in other words part middle school and part high school, but something more akin to the New York arts schools. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete granted it is a specialty school, but what's the notariety about it? Lots of them around...SkierRMH,06:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable, and no assertion thereof, like most schools around here Akihabara 13:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: looks like a large and good school, but has no assertion of notability, and I couldn't find any in a (admittedly short) search. Fram 15:49, 13 December 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.--Hús ö nd 01:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Flash Corner

I prodded this because it looks like its purpose is to promote a NN photographer. The tag was deleted without further edits or explanation. Therefore I'm bringing it to AFD. My apologies if this is indeed an established and documented photography technique. ccwaters 17:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the photographer, Michael David Murphy, does seem to be notable. I'll keep the article up for debate (if this is said photographer's signature style, then maybe a MERGE is more appropriate?). ccwaters 17:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC) The photographer's article is autobiographical and any media references mentioned are only quick blurbs about his blog (about missed photographic opportunities). I nominate his article as well. ccwaters 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete I don't think this term is widely used among photographers, the article reads more like a dictionary entry, and would probably best merit mention on a more general photography page. SteveHopson 03:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - seems to be nn jargon, 339 ghits. MER-C 05:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I saw this earlier in relation to his article, but you beat me to the afd... nn person - both this & his bio article should go. SkierRMH,06:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable term, no evidence of wide use, article promotes photographer's own site. JIP | Talk 08:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete No neologisms. FirefoxMan 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN jargon, neologism, possibly exists only for the vanity link. Doc Tropics 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn notable term possibly for self promotion because I don't think it's a common term used by photogs. Delete on the nn bio too.--John Lake 16:28, 14 December 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.

[edit] McFall

The result was speedy keep as useful disambig page in current state. A Train ^{take the} 20:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Non notable surname; unlikely to become more than a stub Kathy A. 17:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep This article is not a stub, it is a very informative disambiguation page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I've converted it to an actual diambiguation page rather than an article on the surname. There are plenty of references to McFalls on Wikipedia alone [2]. Koweja 03:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Koweja -Toptomcat 04:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep As the name of a place and a ship, this is a likely search term and therefore a useful disambiguation page. However, the unverified etymology needs to go. There is no evidence that it is relevant to the people listed and Wikipedia is not a genealogical guide. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. MER-C 05:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep although the pronunciation guide is misleading, as the pronunciation between the Irish & the Scottish is somewhat different - and very different from the common US/UK non-celtic pronunciation. SkierRMH,07:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep no need to delete the disambig page. TSO1D 12:45, 13 December 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. --Core desat 03:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metromint

Not noteable, mentioned once in a made-for-TV movie, nothing links here, only 24 400 hits on google WLU 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn plus incredibly dull Josh Parris#: 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. MER-C 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - verges on spam, and CORP; and makes me want to have a metro mint (mmmm, mints). SkierRMH,07:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete My brain is slowly dying from the dullness of the artice FirefoxMan 16:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - WP:NN a non-notable brand of a non-notable company that once employed a non-notable fictional character in a non-notable movie. TonyTheTiger 21:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable. Pathlessdesert 23:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn notable, fails WP:CORP--John Lake 16:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
Delete - for all reasons noted above (Liveforever22 03:00, 15 December 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.--Kchase T 06:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 20th Century Theatre

Non-notable building in Juneau, AK; references do not support notability; it once housed a possibly notable organ that isn't even there anymore. ~1800 Google hits are trivial. Dmz5 19:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If a source could be found that demonstrated the building's historical or local importance I'd be all for keeping it, but just because it was built a long time ago doesn't make it inherently notable, especially given the apparent architectural changes it's gone through.--Dmz5 19:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I don't believe it's notable enough. TSO1D 05:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Every town has a few old theatres about, I don't see much to make this one special. --Brianyoumans 05:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, if the organ was still there and it wasn't renovated, maybe, but as it stands... nope. SkierRMH,07:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Having spent some time in Alaska, I can honestly say that a movie house built in 1940 and before statehood is considered "historic" in that state. I can understand why an editor thought it worthy to create an article about it. --Oakshade 02:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, but it seems to me that we still need to find references - I was unsuccessful. That "many Alaksans" might consider the building historic simply because of its age is not exactly a reason to keep it here, unless we can locate a newspaper article or something that says just that. Otherwise, it's just another building, and probably not the only one in Juneau that is 60 years old.--Dmz5 21:24, 14 December 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 result was merge and redirect to Brandeis University. I'm also closing the similar AfD on "The Hoot" with the same result and redirecting The Blowfish and The Louis Lunatic on the same reasoning. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Justice

I placed a redirect from this namespace to Judge per WP:BOLD and per consensus that student journals (with few exceptions) are not notable. I have been challenged on the lack of transparency of my act by User:EarthPerson, and am bringing this here to AfD per his/her request. My contention is that while this journal may be known and well established within Brandeis University, it remains a non-notable student journal as far as the world at large is concerned per plenty of consensus here; sister Brandeis journal The Hoot appears to be headed that way too. I do not believe the university itself has any real claims on the word "Justice", which is universally synonymous with judges. If I named my organisation's journal The George W. Bush, that act in itself would not make my paper notable. Nor, assuming said article existed, would I be justified in claiming a redirect to the page of my organisation upon its deletion. Delete Ohconfucius 01:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Merge into Brandeis University Josh Parris#: 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete a mention on the Brandeis page is all this needs - not a complete masthead.--Dmz5 02:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 05:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Brandeis University. SkierRMH,07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Most college newspapers do have a mention. Just because "the Justice" happens to be a common name doesn't mean the newspaper should lose its site. futhermore, it's not like people type in "the Justice" if they are looking for information about a justice or judge. It seems like whoever wants to delete this is making a problem out of nothing. What if you just are linked to a page that tells you can either go to the newspaper version or the entry about a judge.--129.64.147.52 08:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep What if you rename it to The Brandeis Justice and redirect The Justice to judge or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 December 2006
Merge into Brandeis University. --EarthPerson 16:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Abstain, as it is my school's newspaper. However, if I may be a smidge opinionated- which, of course, I always am- The Justice sucks. It's a craptacular paper. It's no worse (in fact, it is marginally better) than Brandeis's other paper, but it sucks nonetheless. -- Kicking222 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Brandeis University. Not in and of itself notable. A Train ^{take the} 21:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Brandeis University. It's significant to the University Community, but not on a larger scale.-- danntm ^T _C 03:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge as per all the other merges. -- Whpq 15:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep If you merge or delete this, then you'll have to do the same to every other campus newspaper page on this site. That is, unless you're a hypocrite. And also, for those of you who say "the Justice sucks," you clearly don't know how much time and effort goes into creating it. Maybe it doesn't live up to your high standards, but do the Justice a favor and do one of the following: 1) shut up, and don't share your opinion until you have a valid one based on tangible facts, 2) join the Justice and help make it better, since you seem to know so much about journalism, and 3) shut up, because you probably don't know a thing about journalism. Don't insult the people who take the Justice seriously by writing "the Justice sucks" because it only makes you look bad. Anyway, keep the page as is, because there are people in the community who read the Justice on a regular basis, and it will save you the time of deleting or merging every other campus newspaper listed on the site.
- Seriously, who said this article should be deleted because the Justice sucks? I think that person abstained. But to answer your 1, 2 and 3 (just so you know I'm in favor of keeping it)...1) Just because a lot of effort goes into making it, doesn't mean it doesn't suck. How do you know this person doesn't base his/her opinion on facts...he does go to Brandeis and does read the paper. 2) Easier said than done. It's one thing to write articles...which not even everyone can do, but to actually be in a position to help make it better...well that a) takes time b) requires getting past many other editor's egos who think they are the Gods of journalism. 3) speaking of tangible facts...which tangible facts to you base this assertion from? "Don't insult the people who take the Justice seriously by writing "the Justice sucks" because it only makes you look bad" It's not an insult if it's true. "keep the page as is, because there are people in the community who read the Justice on a regular basis" doesn't address the assertion that no one outside of the community knows or cares about it (not saying it's true). Anyway...you probably should have thought a little before posting what you did since it made you sound childish and defensive.

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 05:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kdice

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- Non-notable game. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment It could be classified as non-notable web content(a7), although they've cleaned it up enough that I'd say AfD over speedy. I'm going to clean up some grammar that hurts me. Cantras 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yes I did consider that, but I figured that the AfD is the best course of action. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment The game which the article deals with has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the creator of the game. The article itself provides proof via in-line citations. I don't think it should be deleted.--OriginalJunglist 23:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 03:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per OriginalJungList -Toptomcat 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dice Wars. This game is a multiplayer near-clone of Dice Wars. --Dhartung | Talk 05:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep The independent web sites listed in the 'Critical Acclaim' section felt the game notable enough to comment on. Therefore in accordance with WP:N, the article should stay. ccscott 14:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Seems popular, has 69,700 ghits. FirefoxMan 16:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Popular game, several citations, decent article.JudahH 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. Needs cleanup, see WP:CVG for content and style help. --MegaBurn 09:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Whilst none of the 'critical acclaim' links in the article are what I'd describe as acceptable, with the game out for a mere two weeks it's going to take a little longer for some proper reviews to appear. Suggest keeping the article for now and looking for good citations from sites like GameTunnel. QuagmireDog 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the commenters above, appears to be a notable game. Yamaguchi先生 03:06, 15 December 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. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashley Velissariou

WP:BIO, vanity (created by subject), a 17you who won a non-notable triathlon. Perhaps once she's won at least a couple of international events, but until then... BALEETED! Josh Parris#: 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO, unsourced autobiography. You know you want to click this link... MER-C 05:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, events are really non-notable. SkierRMH,07:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. TSO1D 12:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity page. Pathlessdesert 23:55, 13 December 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.

[edit] Mermaid art

The result was Merge. We've actually got an article on Dorothy Dinnerstein, mostly referring to her Mermaid book, so that part, symbolism, seems a useful thing to include in the Mermaid article. The rest is, as stated, uncited research. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centaur art. More of the same Myth Art cruft. Twredfish 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also Lamia art per same. Note that "Media" section is copypaste among all three articles. Twredfish 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge the bits which actually relate to both mermaids and art to Mermaid#Artwork; not nearly a wide enough topic to merit its own article. --Sneftel 02:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's great, however the only 'bits which actually relate to both mermaids and art' is the second paragraph under "Appearance", which is 100% unsourced original research and therefore not worthy of merge. What else is salvagable from this? Twredfish 18:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph might be salvaged with appropriate references (though I'm not holding my breath), but I was more looking at the "Symbolic Significance" paragraph. --Sneftel 18:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Though none of that is even related to art, rather only to Mermaids themselves. Twredfish 22:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge per Snefty -Toptomcat 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merege per Sneftel - elsewise we'd have a bizillion grade school kids' pictures of unicorns and mermaids as articles! SkierRMH,07:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete though anything relevent could be merged to Mermaid per Sneftel if an interested party wants to undertake it and not leave it for the closing admin to take care of (this goes for Lamia as well). Mermaid art is art illustrating mermaids? I'm glad we had this article to explain that...--Isotope23 14:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Most of this looks like informations about mermaids themselves or original research. —ShadowHalo 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above FirefoxMan 16:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Isotope23. If there is any useful content here it could be merged, but I didn't see much worth keeping. Doc Tropics 18:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I suppose I didn't explain my reasons for nominating this very well, figuring people would link-follow to the same discussion from yesterday on Centaur art. Justification there was: 'Origial Resarch about artwork depicting centaurs. Unverifiable. Largely unsourced. 3 rambling pages from a previous seeming problem user, no links to this article, and no other (non-bot) edits.' Mermaid and Lamia are not substantially better articles than Centaur, which so far has nothing but delete suggested. In fact, Mermaid and Lamia cite fewer 'references' than even Centaur, which consists only of links to online art galleries from NN amateur artists. All three of these articles are 100% OR. Twredfish 18:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Eusebeus 11:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
KEEP BUT ORGANIZE - Mermaid as a topic, clearly has many subcategories worth of their own pages and/or lists. Consider:

Mermaid

Mermaid Art & Artists

Mermaid Tattoos

Mermaid's in Fiction

Mermaid's in Mythology

SweetGodiva 22:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge — You make the case that it should remain, but as a section in the mermaid article. After that, if it grows large enough, it can be split off again. Val42 00:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete absolutely outright - nothing worth merging. This is just a compendium of OR and unreferenced - no sources at all, and no reliable ones - gobbledegook. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Can't see anything worth salvaging. I think all the valuable info is already in the main Mermaid article. --Folantin 10:58, 19 December 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. --Core desat 03:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoang Thi Loan (3 nomination)

This article was nominated earlier today, but the nom was quickly withdrawn. However, for the life of me, I cannot see what is notable about this person other than the fact her son was famous. Verifiability isn't the issue; notability is. Being the mother of a notable person does not confer notability in the absence of any other reason. Agent 86 01:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Her son was not just famous, he was one of the most influential historic figures of the twentieth century. Her humble origins and tragic early death have been referenced for decades in Vietnamese propaganda. So great is her value as a (albeit manufactured) cultural icon that the Communist Party of Vietnam has spent millions of dollars to renovate her tomb. Including an article about this woman is, to me, a no-brainer as it helps battle the Wikipedia's systemic bias toward coverage of Eastern culture. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the linked news article says that they're spending about US$20mm (their conversion rate is wrong) over 4 years to renovate an entire historic site which includes the mother's tomb but also includes 3 or more villages of historic importance (so multiple buildings across multiple locations), at least one temple, a monument, other family tombs/graves plus there's plans to create 4 or 5 new museum houses. (the wikipedia article says that this four year project was completed in 2005 but references the news article which says the 4yr project began in 2004). Oh I don't think there's blanket system bias in WP against "Eastern culture" (whateva da heck that is), given the key role that Pokemon/Yugioh/Sailor Moon/Nintendo etc etc etc has in wikipedia content Bwithh 03:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

But the examples you cite are also hugely popular in the States and other countries.--Dmz5 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to make a semi-humourous point about "Eastern Culture" or whatever being not really much of a Wikipedia backwater. Vietnam and other small countries (including say, those in Western Europe) - yes, Wikipedia backwaters. Japan, China, India - no. Bwithh 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's coverage of eastern anime/videogame culture is far more comprehensive than its coverage of Vietnamese traditional culture or political history. If a status of notability is granted to each one of the 400+ fictional pokemon simply to appease a few geeks, denying such coverage to a real historic figure seems obscene by comparison. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree completely--Dmz5 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

- Comment Please assume good faith. This nomination has nothing to do with "eastern culture". I don't care what part of the world someone is from, we don't need articles on the mother (or father) of every famous person unless that person has done something notabile in his or her own right. If the tomb is the big deal, then an article on the tomb might be encyclopedic. The article itself continues to lack or denote any notability. As for Ho Chi Mihn being "one of the most influential historic figures of the twentieth century", that's a matter of opinion. I suggest he's much further back in the queue. Agent 86 02:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  - There is a clear double standard here. Consider the well-written article on Virginia Clinton Kelley, whose only notable achievement was giving birth to Bill Clinton. By the way, asserting that being the mother of a notable historic figure does not confer notability is also a matter of opinion, many biographers would staunchly disagree with such dismissal. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    - I gotta agree on this one.--Dmz5 02:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      - No double standard here. I was unaware of the Kelley article, and if it were up for nomination I'd be saying delete it, too. Two non-notable persons do not make a notable one. As for what most biographers have to say, argument ad nauseum does not prove anything, but to be more to the point, if you're writing a biography, the mother is relevant (not necessarily notable) to the subject matter of the biography. In that case, anything that can be said for any of these non-notable mothers can be said in their children's articles. Agent 86 08:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        Too many details about family members would bog down the main article. However if there is enough well-sourced information to create a succinct biography of an immediate family member of a historic figure, then creating a short supplemental article will improve the overall coverage of that figure. In any case it seems clear that we are looking at this issue from two completely different vantage points, so I'll just say that I don't agree with your reasoning. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Merge I'm just not seeing sufficient notability for her own article here. An article on these historic villages is certainly in order, and mention of the mother could be merged in that and into her son's article. I very much sympathize with WP:BIAS, but in this case, that just means that I'd support merges for the silly article on Bill Clinton's mother too (are we to have separate article on every single historically significant person's mother and father?) Bwithh 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a thought about all these relatives-of-historic-persons articles - they should be rolled up as subsections of one article, say Close family members of Bill Clinton or Close family members of Ho Chi Minh. I mean there's really not that much to say about most of these characters. Bwithh 03:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. There is no way can a person get a government memorial without being notable. I am assuming good faith, but I definitely see a bias in the nomination because subject is an obscure topic in the west. "Done something notable" is not the issue, being notable is. There is no merit involved. hateless 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep seems pretty clearly notable to me. As per Hateless, one needs not have done something notable to be notable. Her tomb is mentioned in numerous tourist guides, and there seems to be plenty of indication that she is quite highly revered in Vietnam. --Canley 03:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep to avoid the danger of systemic bias -Toptomcat 04:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Hateless. Number of sources indicates notability in Vietnamese culture. --Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Verifiability is close enough to implying notability that it should usually be treated as such. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Verfiable and notable RaveenS 13:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I'm not a proponent of meeting WP:BIO per birthing someone who meets WP:BIO, but the fact she has a tomb dedicated to her suggests she is fairly notable in her own right as hateless suggests.--Isotope23 14:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Notability is not subjective. This article meets the primary notability criterion; it is referenced in multiple, independent sources and should therefore stay. ccscott 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep Clearly famous. — brighterorange (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep Notable figure, even if only because of the Communist Party mythology that has grown up around her. Agree with most of the comments by Anetode. Orderinchaos78 17:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand Clearly notable per her role in CP propaganda; article really needs more on that, her tomb, etc. Perel 05:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge Notability yes, notability outside her familial connections no. Even the two reliable sources are really about Ho Chi Minh. Maybe the article can be branched out again if it actually gains some substance outside her role as mother. (And on the supposed cultural bias, we don't even have an article on Vernon Presley.) ~ trialsanderrors 10:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand per Perel. it's her status as icon/propaganda (tho needs proper sourcing etc.) that is important, not simply her being ho's mother per se. application of WP:CSB is also so obvious it shouldn't need pointing out (& users insistence on reading reminders about WP:CSB as accusations is a breach of agf, quite apart from being irrelevant) ⇒ bsnowball 12:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand Rough 16:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
strong keep We do not need mothers of every famous person. We do need mothers of very famous people whose influence upon their famous daughter or son is itself notable, and discussed by verifiable reference sources. This is an instance of what we do want.DGG 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the commenters above and please stop relisting this for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not giving an opinion in this AFD, but I have to respond to your comment "please stop relisting this for deletion." There's nothing procedurally wrong with this AFD -- it raises a valid notability concern that has not been discussed in almost a year. Note that the first AFD was in January and resulted in no consensus, and the 2nd AFD didn't address notability (it addressed verifiability due to my stupid mistake and was quickly and trivially resolved). Pan Dan 03:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep extremely strong keep per statements above, and a simple google result check. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with comments about cultural bias while not accusing proposer of that motivation. A quick check shows that most US presidents' mothers have articles whether or not they were especially notable by themselves, eg Nancy Hanks, Jane Randolph Jefferson, Martha Bulloch, Mary Ball Washington, Ida Elizabeth Stover, etc etc. Hoang Thi Loan is more famous in Vietnam than most of these are in the US. --Zero^talk 12:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - for refence to her son. SweetGodiva 22:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as substantially similar to material deleted per Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Multiplayer in Halo: Combat Evolved. Technically, the closing admin in that debate moved the article to project space, but warned that any article-space material with similar lack-of-sourcing issues would be treated as a speedily deletable repost. As such, I've followed suit. — TKD::Talk 04:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chill Out (map)

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Non-notable game map. Contested prod. MER-C 01:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multiplayer maps in Halo 2 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 03:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as inappropriate game guide. Koweja 03:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: doesn't Wikibooks have appropriate places for game guides? If so, merge there. -Toptomcat 04:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually, a lot of guides are getting removed. StrategyWiki is a better place for these things. Koweja 04:14, 13 December 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.--Kchase T 06:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AcoUstiKats

This a cappella group makes no claims to notability. The page seems to be geared more toward publicity than providing encyclopedic content -- the list of upcoming gigs, for instance, makes this seem entirely promotional in nature. Delete as a non-notable musical ensemble.

Delete, no sources. Nominator is right about this being a promotional page. Ned Wilbury 03:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC with no sources or assertions of notability. Possibly an A7 speedy candidate. Crystallina 03:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 05:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete falls between MUSIC & SPAM (and I reverted nomination to the original, not the attack - grow up people; Anon Vandal warning on isp page). SkierRMH,07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. A Train ^{take the} 21:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - why hasn't this been speedied already? Clearly fails A7. Perel 05:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - college a capella shouldnt get a pass on WP:MUSIC. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 10:18, 15 December 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 transwiki and redirect to potato salad. I did the redirect; the transwiki can be done from the history. Sandstein 17:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German Potato Salad

A recipe - above all in jpg format o_o 790 02:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - now that's new. Wikipedia is not a recipe book. The image needs to disappear for the same reason. It's most likely a copyvio too. MER-C 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to potato salad which already covers this subject effectively. FrozenPurpleCube 02:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to wikibooks, which does have a cookbook. Koweja 03:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki per above. --Sable232 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki per above - with a note to double check copyvio - but it's so generic & doesn't appear to be a cut&paste. SkierRMH,07:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 07:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to potato salad. The image is useless. JIP | Talk 08:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge the non image portion to Potato salad. German Potato Salad is notable enough to at least have a mention under potato salad, German Potato Salad (canned or fresh) is a fairly common supermarket and deli item. Also, I don't think this is an actual German dish, any more than German chocolate cake is German. Tubezone 09:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikibooks... you never know when you'll have to make German Potato Salad for 100 people.--Isotope23 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Per Uncle G this is not a candidate for Transwikificaton, so Redirect to Potato Salad where this is already briefly mentioned and could be expanded upon.--Isotope23 17:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki the text to b:Cookbook. --Howrealisreal 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as stands. Text contained within images is invisible to many search functions and therefore should not be accepted. If converted to standard text Transwiki to wikibooks seems appropriate. ccscott 15:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The Cookbook won't take this, for the simple reason that there's no actual recipe in the article text, which is 1 sentence long. Transwikification won't transfer the image, which is where the recipe is. Uncle G 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice. Probably does deserve some mention in the current potato salad article, and the dish may well be noteworthy enough to support an individual article. If someone wants to retype the recipe, transwiki that. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to potato salid FirefoxMan 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as above - see here for the image deletion discussion. Agathoclea 19:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete There should be no cases of an image of text posing as an article, whatever the subject. The text cannot be readily edited, without taking the image to Photoshop and pasting new text over the old. Stifle it. Edison 20:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Convert the text that's in the jpg file into ascii text and then Transwiki. Fg2 00:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I texified the jpg and anglified the quantities in the recipe, though it'll probably get deleted anyway. Tubezone 07:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge: per Tubezone SweetGodiva 22:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to potato salad as said above. Not necessarily a non-notable subject, but certainly can't be an article in its current state. Dar-Ape 02:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to b:Cookbook—there is a recipe there now. —Encephalon 09:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Leave it Alone & Get a Life: Kevin Murray
SPEEDY KEEP as revised and for the humor and the opportunity to learn a new W word! Wehrmacht ~~ I'm marching into my kitchen now! - BMcCJ 01:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki then redirect or delete - WP:NOT FOR RECIPES, yada yada. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:27, 20 December 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. Sandstein 17:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kory Sheets

Delete college footballer per WP:BIO Ohconfucius 02:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom - nn college player, low ghits. SkierRMH,07:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Borderline, but still Keep. Starting running back of a NCAA Division I-A college football team. I interpret WP:BIO as allowing this. I concede the article needs some work to be brought up to date involving the 2006 season which will make it more clear to be keep worthy. If not a starter or major position player (ie, heavy stat producing position like RB, QB, WR, etc) then no. --MECU≈talk 15:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been mentioned in the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football discussions.. --MECU≈talk 15:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - starting running back for a Division IA program, and a program in a major BCS conference (The Big Ten) no less. Has definitely garnered mentions in the national press and is therefore verifiable. Needs some clean-up and more references. Johntex\^talk 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I've seen several notes agreeing with the nom that says "delete college footballer per WP:BIO". But the only thing that WP:BIO states about college sports is that its subjects are generally notable: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played...at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States.". If we're going to delete him, could I hear a specific passage of WP:BIO say why? Patstuart^talk|edits 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Johntex\^talk, who will probably add significant content and cites during the next half-time break. Doc Tropics 18:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:BIO. It is a misreading of the criteria to argue that having a starting position on a college team and garnering run-of-the-mill press attention as a result equates to notability of the subject. Greater distinction within this context is required. Eusebeus 11:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- So a key running back in a key sport doesn't pass WP:BIO? The point is, that it does pass WP:BIO, and if you'd like to propose a change to WP:BIO, feel free, but as it stands, he clearly passes. -146.186.44.191 12:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I simply disagree. the relevant section here is :Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. That is a weasel guideline if ever there was one and represents a non-compromise compromise between people like myself who consider r-o-t-m college athletes unnotable and those who argue otherwise. To argue notability through the simple fact of playing on a college team as a starter and garnering media attention as a result is gaming the system wrt various guidelines (BIO, V), the spirit of which to assert a greater notability. Eusebeus 13:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Eusebeus. —Encephalon 11:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - OK, so let's just put it out in the air now, that everyone who is asking for delete is doing so full well admitting that this is contrary to WP:BIO, because WP:BIO was worded differently than they wanted it to be back when it was created. -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability was presented, and the nomination concern was not addressed. --Core desat 03:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kristina Howells

Supply teacher who brought the teaching profession and her school into ill repute by being one of 14 women who showed her tits on Cosmo article " are your breasts normal?". Some papers decided to carry the story of her sacking 15 hits on Google news archives over the one incident, which hardly puts her on the road to WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 02:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, simply because her story is so unusual. Perhaps not conventionally notable per WP BIO, but still, I think, worthy of inclusion. -Toptomcat 04:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless there is evidence of more than an "unusual news story of the day" angle, e.g. some sort of pushback activism. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete don't see anything that outside of that incident ghit wise. SkierRMH,07:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Akihabara 12:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, subject doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines.--Isotope23 14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Certainly borderline notability, but the details are unusual enough to warrant inclusion. Doc Tropics 18:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not much article there without a good illustration of why she was in the news. Edison 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I agree with Edison's reasoning on this. There have also been many reported cases of college co-eds being expelled from college for showing up in porno mags/movies or even just men's mag, so I don't see how her firing is any more worthy a wikipedia article than these women being expelled from college --23:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I also want to note that her showing her breasts in a magazine does not 'bring the teaching profession into ill repute'. Sleeping with underage students? Yes! Show your breasts in a woman's magazine (not even a porno mag)? No.

Delete One day's news story in multiple publications counts as one source of coverage for WP:BIO, so she doesn't meet it on the evidence available to me. (And what is a supply teacher anyway? The talk page gave more info than the article, but not enough that I know.) GRBerry 05:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, not so much for the toplessness episode as for her authorship of multiple published books. JamesMLane t c 08:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete another example of conflating media coverage with larger notability. Eusebeus 11:39, 18 December 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 G4. Tawker 03:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11_Mysteries

I tagged this as db-spam, but removed by another editor (not the author) after author made promises to source. There are 4 external links, none to reliable sources. This can be kept if reliable sources are found, but until they are not a vehicle for advertising, and this should be deleted Aagtbdfoua 03:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Should read "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising" - Aagtbdfoua 03:05, 13 December 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.

[edit] Railway mission

The result was Keep. An excellent example of Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard at work. Will someone please include some of those references in the article? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I speedied this before in a less cogent form, and it's back, this time with a marginal assertion of notability. ~~Does not meet WP:CORP in my opinion. Chick Bowen 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)~~ Thanks to WCJohnston for providing sources. Though the AfD cannot be withdrawn altogether with delete votes outstanding, I withdraw my nomination. Chick Bowen 05:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete not much out there except their own page & references to it. SkierRMH,07:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete not very noteable FirefoxMan 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete NN group, probable vanity entry, fails to meet criteria for inclusion. Doc Tropics 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Railway Mission has not been good at promoting itself over the years. But has begun to do so. Individual chaplains are often sited but this has not always highlighted the Railway Mission. See Links and read below and what they are about. Thanks. I wanted to add more about the mission but have been trying to work out how to add pictures. I hope that rather than just deleteing this you could help put things right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/selby/story/0,,659625,00.html Selby Great Heck report on the dedication of the memorial garden by Mission Chaplain

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1845979.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/selby/story/0,,446503,00.html British Transport police chaplain Miles Mitson (actually Railway Mission Chaplain, British Transport police are only a part of the Mission’s role)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1603754.stm Hatfield Service marks Hatfield anniversary with photo of Miles at leading the service.

http://www.railway-mission.eu/index.html International Mission with nine countries having pages about their Railway Mission in their own language.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/4010831.stm Ufton Nervet Humphrey Gillott from the Railway Mission prayed for those in the rescue who had seen "difficult scenes".

http://www.harboroughtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=760&ArticleID=1084970 July 7th Report featuring Liam Johnston Exec Director of Railway Mission

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4665395.stm July 7th Report featuring Liam Johnston Exec Director of Railway Mission

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/09/nafter209.xml July 7th Report featuring Liam Johnston Exec Director of Railway Mission

http://www.railwaypeople.com/rail-news-articles/new-chaplains-for-the-north-3.html New Railway Mission Chaplain

http://www.visitsalisbury.com/html/newsmain.asp?metatitle=News%20and%20Events The Salisbury Train Disaster 1906-2006 Memorial Service, Maxine Morgan Railway Mission Chaplain

http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/features/journalfeatures/display.var.810918.0.scene_of_unparalleled_catastrophe.php The Salisbury Train Disaster 1906-2006 Memorial Service

http://www.railwaychildren.org.uk/current_news.html Rev Miles Mitson Retirement

http://www.samscam.co.uk/blog.php?category=Random Joke page, featuring Miles Mitson!

http://www.durness.org/Events%20Hall.htm David Lynch Chaplain in North Scotland —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WCJohnston (talk • contribs).

Thanks for those links, but as you say they only mention individual chaplains; information about the organization is still unverified. Chick Bowen 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If mention of the chaplains and organisation they work for by the internationally recognised media does not verify the organisation what would. The Archive for the Railway Mission is held in the National Rail Museum in York, England. The Mission is also linked to from the National Rail Enquiries web site [3]. (although at this time the Railway Mission Home site is not much Cop) How else can I verify the organisation? Even their calendars that are given away free are sold on ebay! And thanks for puting in the logo, I could only get it onto a seporate page as you know. I also want, if the page remains and I can get it right, pictures from ufton nervet train crash and 7-7, but who knows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.106.160.184 (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Ok I am trying, for history 1900 http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east/series9/week_six.shtml BBC report on Tin tabernacles. and I will keep trying. 88.106.160.184 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/community/getchurch.php?id=517

http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/springburn/spring045.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.106.160.184 (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

work of the Mission up to today http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ms.draper/FNRM_SoE/Talks_Reports/sp0205.html

Railway Mission, Doncaster: records incl minutes, letter books, publications, journals, branch records 1878-1996 (2004-8112) http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/accessions/2004/04returns/04ac756.htm

In recognition of the work of the Railway Mission EWS loco 90040 [4] and Metrolink 1005 have both been called the raialway mission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Metrolink [5] 88.106.160.184 00:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I hope this really helps - ATOC (Association of Train Operating Companies) Approved Code of Practice - Joint Industry Provision of Customer Care Following a Major Passenger Rail Accident- Pdf Document, search for Railway Mission and see what the police say, thanks. http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/docushare/dsweb/Get/Rail-30447/acop011.pdf

Sorry for not Loging in, I am still new to this. On the last point it is page 16 and point 3.4.3 and page 39 point 10. Sorry If I am being a pain. I will stop now :-)WCJohnston 01:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Convinced me. Keep. Note also that it may have been even more notable in the Victorian era: [6]; [7]; [8]. Hornplease 10:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Note also that the South African branch of the CofE's Railway Mission seems to have been particularly influential in the past. Hornplease

Keep Notable now and very notable in the past. Should have been sourced properly in the first place, of course.DGG 01:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I'm convinced. --Oakshade 05:24, 17 December 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.

[edit] List of three-letter English words

The result was Delete. Per |. Too bad - was fun. Can not top AfD num one, tho' one can but try. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how this page was not deleted. It (seems to me to) clearly fall under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and past votes seem to have confirmed that the majority of individuals did not want this page. There was a debate as of April 2006 which arrived at no consensus, so I would respectfully request to open this back up for inquiry. Djma12 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - I simply do not see the utility of this list. BlueValour 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep or send to wiktionary. Lists of real English 2- and 3-letter words are useful for Scrabble players, and are standard components of most scrabble dictionaries. So it's a topic that has a reason for existing other than as trivia or for the mental exercise of making a list. Remember that AfD is not a vote, so what "the majority of individuals" had wanted is somewhat irrelevant. DMacks 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - this list is of no practical use to Scrabble players who would use Official Scrabble Words. BlueValour 19:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary. It doesn't belong here. MER-C 05:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete or transwiki if applicable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki (if needed), then delete. Although DMacks suggested "Keep" above, the provided justifications are precisely why we should not keep this list. Such as list is an important part of Scrabble (and other) dictionaries, but that is one of the canon things that Wikipedia is not. Serpent's Choice 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki assuming Wiktionary has lists of words. --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- A list of words on Wikipedia is a category of words on Wiktionary, and Wiktionary has many categories of words. Uncle G 17:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Convert to category? Maybe this could be a viable Category:Three-letter English words (thanks for the idea, WP:Listcruft) either here or on wiktionary. The list could be considered encyclopediac content as an outgrowth/subpage of the clearly WP-worthy Three letter rule page, but too long to include in that main page. But even if only kept as a category, having something linkable would allow logical research from Three letter rule to the actual words described by that page. DMacks 07:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wiktionary is "the lexical companion to Wikipedia", and the way to do this is to link from the encyclopaedia article to a category of words on Wiktionary, such as wikt:Category:English three letter words. There's even a template, {{wiktionarycat}} for this very thing. A category of words is unworkable on Wikipedia, because on Wikipedia individual words don't get individual articles. On Wiktionary, however, they do, and a category of words is quite natural. Uncle G 17:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete Keeping this would lay the groundwork for having lists with the potential of covering every single work in the English language. If we keep this then we make it a lot harder to argue against a list of four-letter English words, five-letter, ect. A scary precedent. --The Way 06:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment DMacks deleted my above 'vote' and replaced it with his. I will assume good faith and view this as an accident, I have reposted my voted. --The Way 07:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Majorly sorry about that. DMacks 07:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    - No worries. We all make mistakes (well, 'we' meaning everyone other than myself, since I'm perfect ;) --The Way 07:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Del bad! 'tis zip. too bad, not sad. SkierRMH,07:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to help you win Scrabble. Go to WikiHelpYouWinScrabble.org. Danny Lilithborne 09:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious to see how quickly some person with more money than sense goes off to register that domain after reading this AfD. :) Orderinchaos78 17:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom and throw in List of one-letter English words and List of two-letter English words. Pure scrabble cruft. MartinDK 10:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This article has no use, not even on wiktionary. TSO1D 12:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete not use ful.-- danntm ^T _C 16:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Pointless. FirefoxMan 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This article is useless and blatantly ridiculous, except maybe as an aid in speech therapy. I'm positively certain that speech therapists have far better practice exercises anyway than a random collection of words that happen to have a certain number of letters (and several of which I'm not even sure are actual words). Orderinchaos78 17:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete As per above. I don't believe this could serve useful to anyone in an encyclopedia. Seems pointless to me. Might also motivate others to create similar types of listings which may clog up wikipedia with useless material if it were to stay. Bungle44 18:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Useful for crossword puzzles and Scrabble, but better suited for an almanac than an encyclopedia.Coemg e nus 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wholly pointless. Incidentally, the rules of Scrabble forbid the use of any source to find words, only to confirm their existence, for which a dictionary is the preferred text. If we retain this article then we get List Of One letter Words (admittedly short) List Of Two Letter Words, List Of Words Beginning With A, and so forth, and then we turn into a dictionary. We already have a dictionary. --Anthony.bradbury 00:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Linguistics-related encyclopedic article. Scrabble use is irrelevant. The article is legitimate and does not violate WP:NOT#IINFO. --Gabi S. 16:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary is also official policy. Uncle G 15:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  - The article is in line with the quoted policy. It begins with a good definition of the topic, and proceeds to list all the three-letter English words, without defining them (because, yes, Wikipedia is not a dictionary...) There is a difference between a dictionary definition of a word and a useful list of words. --Gabi S. 07:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    - There is, but neither having the style of a good encyclopedic article, nor being "useful", will make it good. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki then Delete unlike the one-letter words article, this one has legitimate English words. That said it doesn't belong here so move it to the wiktionary. Koweja 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I have also proposed similar, but even less useful, 3-letter lists at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:TLAs from AA0 to DZ9. Most of these are not proper words. BlueValour 03:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT an aid to cheating at Scrabble... - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 03:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete- which is what I voted last time. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --G Rutter 09:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete under various criteria of WP:NOT. As Uncle G has pointed out, Scrabble players looking for a resource are appropriately served by Wiktionary, specifically wikt:Category:English three letter words. -- Satori Son 16:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as this already exists on Wiktionary, as the category posted above. Orpheus 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - ditto SweetGodiva 22:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I (also) agree with Uncle G. —Encephalon 08:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. Mikeeilbache r 23:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. -- Steel 13:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JudoJoe Productions

Man I wish I'd just speedied this one. I put up a prod that read

Page obviously created with a bad conflict of interest. No reliable third-party coverage whatsoever. Fails WP:CORP, WP:WEB.

It was removed by an anon with the edit summary "give them time to cough up sources". I believe that will be hard since JudoJoe (talk · contribs) edits every 6 months and since... there are no sources. 51 unique Ghits, mostly bulletin boards...Pascal.Tesson 03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V. --Sable232 04:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Kill Kill Kill per common sense -Toptomcat 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —EdGl 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - corporate vanity. So tagged. MER-C 04:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - Forget about corporate vanity. It seems to simply BE vanity. -WarthogDemon 05:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Fails everything test SkierRMH,07:32, 13 December 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.

[edit] American-Filipino

The result was Keep. Chris S. is right that the term doesn't seem to be used for the topic (Google search) but that's a case for renaming, not deletion. Clearly the concept is notable. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another neologism for a mixed ethnic group. Yes, there are people in the Philippines with American ancestors but there appears to be no consensus on the meaning of this particular term. American-Filipino, as far as I know, is not a mainstream term like Filipino-American is. And it seems like people use American-Filipino in the sense of Filipino-American; i.e. Filipinos in the US. I vote to delete or merge the info with Americans in the Philippines, Amerasian, or even Filipino-American if need be. Chris S. 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, the article is clear that the subject is Filipino people of American descent, and not an article about a neologism. The issue of the article's name or if it should be merged with an another article can be solved elsewhere. hateless 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Filipino-American since that one is more detailed than this. The article can be moved to userspace should anyone feel like merging anything. We do not keep several articles on the same topic. One is enough. Weak keep per the below I realize my mistake. MartinDK 10:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep as I see no reason to delete. Filipino-American is about people of Filipino ancestry in the United States while this article is about people of American ancestry in the Phillipines, so a redirect or merge would really not work. Dragomiloff 11:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the fact of the matter is, "American-Filipino" was just coined to fit this definition. It is a definition that has not even been heard of in the Philippines or even among Filipinos in the United States. I mean, I myself have never heard of the term before seeing it on Wikipedia. FWIW, my own mother fits the definition of "American-Filipino" and she's never heard of the term. The term used is Amerasian and that's where the contents of the article should go until a more commonly accepted term comes into existence. A Google search of the term "American-Filipinos" garners only 21 results on Philippine sites and none of these are used in the way that the article defines the term. On the other hand, there are over 116 hits for Amerasians on Philippine sites. And as one can see, that is term used by the Philippine press. Another place for this subject is Filipino mestizo. My point is that there are already a number of articles that address this topic and another one isn't needed especially under a concocted and obscure name. Thanks. --Chris S. 15:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep no reason to delete. It's about people of American ancestry in the Philippines, and a re-direct/merge to Filipino-American wouldn't really work as Filipino-Americans are the other way round from this subject. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I don't see how this can be a neologism and the topic is important enough. TSO1D 12:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep See Jewish American and American Jewish. Arguments are similarRaveenS 13:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Neologism FirefoxMan 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Albanian-American, Montenegrin-American, etc. are neologisms just as much as this one is. It is only natural and logical to prefix one’s distinct cultural and/or ethnic identity to the term that denotes one’s citizenship. These people are not only American, but citizens of the Philippines, and they differ from Filipino-Americans specifically in that the latter possess U.S. citizenship. —Lagalag 19:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Albanian-American is most certainly not a neologism. On the other hand, Montenegro has barely been an independent country for a year and in my view, I'd probably vote to delete its page. You also have to realize, that there are no droves of US immigrants to the Philippines just as there have been droves of Filipino immigrants to the United States. Very few if any of these so-called "American-Filipino" identifies themselves as such (you and I had this discussion before as far as other ethnicities were concerned). Do we seriously have to have an ad nauseam amount of American-XXXXX articles just because some American servicemen went to that country and impregnated the women there? American-French, American-British, and American-Mexican anyone? --Chris S. 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Response In many cases, as I have come to realize since our discussion, you do not willfully choose to identify as a member of an ethnic group. You simply are. And even if you were to choose not to identify with your own people, well, put a Han Chinese man who speaks Filipino in a room filled with other Filipinos and he is automatically labeled “Chinese-Filipino”. —Lagalag 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Follow-up Given that there seem to be no American-XXXXX articles, as you have pointed out, I would just then probably propose a merge into Americans in the Philippines and having Category:American-Filipinos deleted. —Lagalag 23:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Comment: That sounds more sensible, thanks. Going off-topic... As for my ethnic group, it's situational. In the end, I am a Filipino American and I'm a part of the long-established Filipino-American community. In certain situations, I simply say Filipino especially when saying American is redundant. With foreigners, I usually say I'm American. I'm all three, really. But, I don't say that I am a Cornish-Swiss-Tagalog-Bicolano-American or whatever especially since whatever culture that my Cornish great-great-grandfather or Bicolana grandmothers brought over to the US is largely unknown to me and thus not a part of my identity. --Chris S. 23:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep be consistent. TonyTheTiger 22:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
keep as with all articles for immigrants from one country to another. How else are these people to be named? Hmains 04:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: It's not up to Wikipedia to name them. --Chris S. 05:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Americans in the Philippines. --Howard the Duck 10:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep comment to nominator: there is a dividing line between American-Filipinos and Filipino-Americans. They are NOT interchangeable. The first word is an adjective (American) and the second a noun (Filipino) - there goes the difference. comment to redirect or merger proponents: American-Filipinos does not necessarily live in the Philippines so a merge or a redirect can be misleading. --RebSkii 18:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
KEEP per discussion SweetGodiva 23:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NEO - neologisms are allowed if they're notable, and this one is quite notable. Otherwise, we'll have to get rid of Godwin's Law, Chewbacca Defense, and a bunch of other notable goodies. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:31, 20 December 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of cities that no longer have trolleybuses

This article obviously has had a great deal of work and has sources, but I just don't feel it's maintainable enough. Plenty of cities, I imagine, had trolleybuses at one point but no longer do; it could easily get unmanageable. (Contested prod, if the talk page is correct.) Crystallina 03:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete unmaintainbale, a bad idea. - crz crztalk 04:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I don't understand the logic: because this list is historical, it cannot be outdated--records don't change. Unless you have cities that can't make up their mind about trolleybuses (highly unlikely in my mind, due to the infrastructure needed to run a system), this page is not going to fall into inaccuracy (it may be inaccurate to begin with, but that's not the issue). Now you can have cities that tossed their trolleybuses and not make it into the list, but the list already looks useful even if it is a incomplete list. hateless 04:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- comment: My main concern here is that there will be so many cities that once had trolleybuses but no longer do that the list will become large and unmanageable. Crystallina 04:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Then the list becomes outdated and in need of expansion, which merit cleanup tags. Worse case scenario is that the list becomes incomplete; It won't accrue WP:V issues by aging. In any case, if this hasn't happened yet, why worry about it? hateless 18:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not only is it lage and unmaintainable, there's going to be a lot of gray areas and even problem with sourcing. -WarthogDemon 05:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unmaintainable listcruft of an arbitrarily chosen, single-aspect characteristic of cities. Why does a cities once having had trolley buses have to do with anything of encyclopedic note? It's a random way of organizing cities and would create a precedent for other "List of cities that no longer have..." articles. Wouldn't that be fun? --The Way 06:46, 13 December 2006
- This list is primarily relevant to the history of trolley busses, and as such it is very much encyclopaedic. The "random way of organising cities" would be a valid criticism if this were a category, but it isn't organising the cities at all. Thryduulf 02:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not needed. Culv e rin ? ^Talk 07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(UTC)

Delete utter listcruft, no possibility of getting an accurate or maintainable list. And if there was... so what? SkierRMH,07:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- There are no problems with getting an accurate list, nor with maintaining it. A city either had a trolley bus system that it got rid of or it didn't. Trolley bus systems require significant investment of time (years) and money (£ millions) to construct and significant (although less) of both to remove. This means that very little, if any, maintenance is needed because the entries on the list do not change. The major change to infrastructure means that finding sources is not difficult. 02:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 09:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is list a list of significant trolleybus history without cluttering up the main trolleybus page. Useful to anyone who wants to research this mode of transportation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Really not needed. TSO1D 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge with list of cities with trolleybuses. I have been told that Wikipedia is "timeless" - in other words, we should cover historical subjects as well as current subjects. A list of anything should therefore include former examples as well as current ones. It may be suitable to split a list of current examples from the list of all examples, but the historic list should continue to include the current examples. See list of Amtrak routes for a list that I believe to be laid out in a good way (except for the corridor services). --NE2 15:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- It could also be split by country, continent, or other region, like list of town tramway (urban tramway, streetcar) systems (which could use a new title). --NE2 18:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge to List of cities with trolleybuses per User:NE2, failing that then maybe delete, as list looks unmaintable. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, painfully unmaintainable list. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- How is it "unmaintainable"? The only part that might be is that it lists only cities that no longer have them, which a redefinition of its scope would fix. The list itself is "maintainable"; there are many books listed that deal with the subject. --NE2 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Which is my point. What maintenance? This article needs as much care as a chia pet. Uncontroversial historical archives do not need maintenance (via editing), it's like archiving back issues of newspapers. hateless 17:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per NE2. I live in one of the cities that no longer have trolleybuses and can actually see a relevance to the information, although it should be linked back to specific articles on the history of trolleybuses in various cities. I must admit for no particular reason the title of this article made me laugh - it did seem ridiculous until further examination (I think I read it more as "do not" have - which would be just about any city anywhere). Orderinchaos78 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Interesting list. Edison 20:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Helpful encylopedic list. It's no less maintainable than all the airport airline/destinations listings that we're all accustumed to. --Oakshade 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep or Merge per NE2. This is a valid, sourced list that is maintainable. Thryduulf 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep It contains useful historical information. Its size, 48 kB, is not a problem. It is not unmaintainable. Valuable organizing tool that helps readers find related information in an encyclopedia of 1.5 million articles. Fg2 01:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. Looks well-maintained and size is not too bad. Interesting and potentially useful. Certainly far easier to keep track of WRT completeness and validity than many other lists on WP. Grutness...wha? 06:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
weak keep cld argue it's of some use in context of debates about &/or history of public transport, climate change etc. maybe? ⇒ bsnowball 12:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I feel that the fear that it could become unmanageable is not enough to delete an otherwise useful list with a definitive scope and sourcing. If it gets to long, it could be spun off into respective continents (e.g. North American Cities that one had Trolleybuses).-- danntm ^T _C 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep The decisions to discontinue such systems are relevant in the history of mass transportation, and this page is a good place to look to see where such might exist. Useful for all the relevant local history pages. Verifiable, too.DGG 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Heaps of use full information and if it does become to large then just split it into separate sections L blue l 12:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, deleting this perfectly good article would be vandalism. --Zero^talk 12:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. 47kb but no useful information. Some cities have trolleybuses, some don't but it makes little difference to their identity as cities. A list of notable trolleybus systems (if there is such a thing) might be encyclopedic but this list is trivia at its worst. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 03:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Utterly useless to most, useful to a tiny few. Always favor the few who find an article useful over the few who are irritated by the existence of any article they don't personally find useful. The vast majority won't care and wont be affected either way. Whyaduck 06:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete trivial listcruft. Eusebeus 11:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per hateless.doco (☏) 15:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP - per Whyaduck - very useful and hard to find data for those who need it. Where is the list of "Cities that Still Have Trolleybuses" ??? Also, great side piece to trolleybuses, where it came from originally. SweetGodiva

Comment. I think you'll find it at: List of cities with trolleybuses. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 21:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
ThanksSweetGodiva 22:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy KEEP per discussion 69.19.14.31 03:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I agree that this page is useful to the small audience that needs it. It also appears to have taken quite a bit of time. It may, though, be helpful to Merge per discussion. Mikeeilbache r 23:57, 19 December 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. --Core desat 03:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Risk and capital management in non-life insurance

Unsourced essay. Wikipedia is not a place for essays / original research. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete Blatant OR. --Sable232 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is not OR but it completely lacks sources and most importantly it doesn't contain anything not covered elsewhere. MartinDK 04:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 04:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - nothing new in this article, included in several other similar articles. SkierRMH,07:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete FirefoxMan 16:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Orderinchaos78 17:26, 13 December 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. --Core desat 03:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orion globe

Gamecruft. More precisely, Wikipedia is not a game guide. I originally proded the article. Removed by deprod specialist 193.217.242.140 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) who said "Not gamecruft, rather an interesting article about an aspect of a game. Needs to be merged though." which to me sounds like "hey, it's not in line with policy but what the heck". Note also that it's original research inspired by [9]. So deletion won't stop humanity from learning all the great stuff they always wanted to learn about Orion Globe. Humanity will just turn to a game guide. Pascal.Tesson 03:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki? Doesn't Wikibooks have room for game guides? -Toptomcat 04:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd shove it off to a more specialised gaming wiki. MER-C 04:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said it's not on a gaming-wiki per se, but it's out there on the web already. It's not our job to make sure that whatever we delete ends up on something that uses wiki-software. Pascal.Tesson 05:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 04:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - if it walks like a duck rule - it's gamecruft/game guide stuff. SkierRMH,07:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 14:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, maybe mention this specific topic in the game's article. Koweja 14:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Mastro of Orion 2 is notable. One particular ship configuration out of the thousands available in that game is not. The Kinslayer 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - While interesting, this is something for GameFaqs, not Wikipedia. - SecondTalon 17:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - a game guide for real this time. — brighterorange (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --MegaBurn 09:07, 14 December 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. --Core desat 03:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drawball

Previously nominated, but most of the keep arguments were along the lines of "I like it" or "This is interesting". This is generally a bad idea. (Note: I know that the linked essay is just an essay but I agree with most of what it says.)

Now then. Onto the article itself. As stated before, it fails WP:WEB. Its Alexa ranking is currently around 90,000 - rather poor for an Internet meme. It has no external coverage that I found in news sources. There are no reliable sources cited, and the content given is mostly unverifiable. I can't personally think of any arguments for keeping it, at least not rooted in policy. Crystallina 03:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

comment never before have I so wished that "it's interesting" was a valid argument. This is a pretty damn interesting website. But, yeah, probably not keepable...WP is not here to educate the world about every internet meme in existence--Dmz5 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Looked for any non-trivial mention of this, but all I could find is blogs and Wikipedia mirrors. No indication why this would pass WP:WEB. Seraphimblade 04:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. It's in {{db-web}} territory but because of it's history I don't want to speedy it. MER-C 05:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I'd expect much more ntoability for a net game - and there's little independent coverage. SkierRMH,07:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete interesting, not notable. Viridae ^Talk 11:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Very reluctant delete What an interesting site (which I'd never heard of before). I almost wish I could invoke WP:ILIKEIT as a keep rationale. -- Kicking222 16:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete It looks awsome, but awsomnessness is not noteworthynessness. FirefoxMan 16:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Is there a section on art-related websites or anything similar where this would be better categorized if it doesn't deserve its own article?--BigCow 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Really very reluctant delete Isn't terribly notable, unfortunately. Perhaps a mention on the internet memes page, and possibly mention the South Korean flag incident on individual websites which participated? Shas 21:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete same reasons as last time, and still unreferenced after 9 months. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete — We tried to clean it up and give it a chance because so many people seemed to want it, but the regrettable truth is that there is no verifiability here. This article is an adorable little puppy that I'd like to keep around, but there's no one to take care of it and it pees in the house. It has to go. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 05:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. User:Booyabazooka has summed up my feelings on this all too well. Fails WP:V and WP:WEB. Axem Titanium 05:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Drawball sucked after the vandals killed the LUEshimeister :( --- RockMFR 22:22, 18 December 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.

[edit] Whip Jones

The result was Relist. Between an additional article being added to this nomination partway through, then removed partway later, then the article being rewritten (after which half the participants changed their opinions to neutral yes, that really helps a closing admin determine consensus), not to mention the discussion going on for four pages, this AfD clearly needs to be redone. No sane person can figure out at a glance what went on here, and I'm beginning to meep and gibber a bit myself. Hang on, and I will relist the nomination on today's section, afresh. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whip Jones (second nomination). AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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}}

[edit] Discussions Started Before Article Rewrite

:also consider Robert P. McCulloch (Withdrawn by nominator)--Isotope23 20:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
A lot of detail, but I don't see anything notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal opinion and the article has been drastically changed since you wrote that. -BMcCJ

Delete as NN - and reads close to a G11. - crz crztalk 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

question: what's a G11? - BMcCJ 01:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Code for spam. Sorry. See WP:CSD under general, item 11. - crz crztalk 19:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Nope, not SPAM and not a FAKE biography as indicated by User_talk:Arthur_Rubin, just trying to move the biography from Aspen Highlands where it was clouding that entry see changes there. For open discussion, Whip is, in fact, a notable relative of mine, and I am not associated with either company mentioned Aspen Highlands or Aspen Skiing Company. This is not advertising or self promotion... just trying to make Wikipedia more encyclopedic, by moving the Jones biography information out of from where it was in the Highlands entry and expanding it with the US SUPREME COURT CASE that doesn't belong in either companies article. Guys, this is an easy KEEP. (bold removed) - BMcCJ 20:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

To just address one small point - to the extent that the concern is that information about the Supreme Court case needs to be "housed" somewhere other than in the companies' articles, might I suggest that the case have its own article? That's pretty standard practice - see, e.g., List of United States Supreme Court cases from the Hughes Court through the Burger Court. If it also turns out that Whip Jones is only notable as part of that case, he should just be mentioned in that article. --TheOther Bob 04:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bob, addressing your comment here and the one below. Whip Jones, the individual, is the one who started the legal action against ASC in 1979. There would be no case without him. He is the one who had the gumption to accuse the ASC of violating the Sherman act. In the Supreme court, it is an appeal, and the ASC is listed first. Whip was still running the company during the action and the appeal. Even without the supreme court case, I do not think it makes sense to delete this bio, and I do not think it makes sense to cram it back into the AH article, as Whip stopped any involvement in the AH in 1993. He founded, ran it, and fought off his rivals for 35 years. I only wish the bio wasn't so impersonal now that we've pruned it and pruned it.-BMcCJ

Comment; contested speedy, and part of a family of relatives, probably of the article creator. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, yep, you caught me, I'm related. But, I really didn't create this, it started inside a different article Aspen Highlands and I knew it didn't belong in there. Whip Jones is the first article I've tried to create in wikipedia, and this is my first 'article for deletion discussion.' Good thing I have a thick skin and a sense of humor... ;) I've learned at least four things: a)complete your pages before you post them. b)sign your work even when you are unable to log on because of firewalls. c)be upfront about being related. and d) things I know are important may be meaningless to others. :) Perhap the author of the bio page:Arthur Rubin can help me get this page to be passable. ;) BMcCJ

Delete per above. MER-C 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - verging on speedy, really nn. SkierRMH,07:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

~~::I'd like to join Robert P. McCulloch to this, as another bio by the same author, but can't figure out how to do it- directions or help would be appreciated!SkierRMH 07:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)~~

~~:::I've bundled this. You can see how I did it if you look at Robert P. McCulloch.--Isotope23 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)~~

Delete Whip Jones as subject doesn't meet WP:BIO and move back Whip Jones III (Bold and the Beautiful) to this namespace. Consider getting rid of Whip Jones (disambiguation) at the same time because it isn't necessary if this article gets deleted.

Do you really still think this? - BMcCJ

Redirect Robert P. McCulloch to London Bridge. McCulloch did purchase the original London Bridge and move it to Lake Havasu, AZ... but to me that isn't enough to meet WP:BIO and that fact is mentioned at London Bridge. Everything else in the article on McCulloch is inconsequential and it would be redundant to just grab the paragraph from London Bridge and post it at the Robert P. McCulloch namespace.--Isotope23 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC) *(Second vote on added person). Keep Robert P. McCulloch, but move back to Robert McCulloch. I think a "city founder" (if that's correct) is adequately notable. Much of the article still needs to be trimmed, but I think there's enough there for retention. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC) ~~:*How did I miss that he founded the city? stuck opinion above. I've cleaned the article up a bit, though it could use more cleanup...--Isotope23 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)~~ *Keep Robert P. McCulloch, highly notable as an entrepreur, businessman and developer. Founded namesake company famous for power tools such as chainsaws. Founded Lake Havasu City, Arizona and upscale Phoenix suburb of Fountain Hills. Non-trivial references mainly in the Arizona Republic and possibly other written materials that can help Robert P. McCulloch satisfy WP:BIO can be found with further research.--Msr69er 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Whip Jones per nom, Keep McCulloch per Rubin and Msr69er. Xtifr _tälk 22:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Change to neutral on Jones. Still pretty marginal, and I think an article on the lawsuit would be more appropriate than an article on the person, but it's closer than I want to call at this point. Xtifr _tälk 20:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete I would have voted speedy! FirefoxMan 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Was this for Jones or McCulloch or both of them? -BMcCJ

STRONG KEEP Whip Jones Notable per WP:BIO criteria! Legend and Hall of Famer in the Entertainment Industry: Skiing. Founder, Developer and Record Holder (Longest Family Run Ski Business - Aspen Highlands). Largest Contributor (second only to Bill Gates) to Harvard. Test of Time: His contribution the Aspen Highlands ski resort will last longer than 100 years. MUCH more important than a fictional soap opera character Whip Jones III (B&B) that only lasted seven months on the Bold and the Beautiful. His name was in the news recently when the Economic Chair at Harvard (with his name) lost the position in a well publicized controversy. I agree it needs to be cleaned up, but it is certainly notable.-BMcCJ

Comment I don't see how any of that meets the WP:BIO criteria. I think it is a stretch to consider skiing part of the entertainment industry. Being the builder/owner of Aspen Highlands isn't enough in my opinion, likewise with being a contributor to Harvard. The "test of time" is an alternate test and to me isn't very valid because it is crystalballism; nobody can say with any certainty if he or his contributions will be notable in 100 years. I just don't see a case per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless it stops snowing in North America, the Ski Resort Town of Aspen and Aspen Highlands will still have skiiers on the many many slopes Whip cleared, named and operated. -BMcCJ

* STRONG KEEP Robert P. McCulloch or Robert Paxton McCulloch Notable per WP:BIO criteria! City Founder and Founder of the Paxton Supercharger, McCulloch Chainsaws, McCulloch Oil. Two Time Guiness Book - Record Holder (Largest Antique - London Bridge, and Tallest Fountain). His industry contributions and the city he designed and built will also stand the Wikipedia Test of Time - 100 years. Because there are other notable Robert McCulloch's -- my newbie opinion is that his entry should be Robert P. McCulloch or Robert Paxton McCulloch. BMcCJ ~~:*Comment Agreed, this article should stay. Needs furter editing though.--Isotope23 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)~~ * STRONG KEEP Edison Pioneers and John I. Beggs - both notable per WP:BIO criteria. I hope all of these entries grow to meet the Wikipedia standards... all four of them are notable. And yes they are related. John I. Beggs was a peer to Thomas Edison and the grandfather of Robert P. McCulloch. Whip Jones was McCulloch's brother-in-law. Its an incredible family and notable American History that needs to be properly presented. BMcCJ :*Comment Neither of these are part of this deletion discussion (Beggs AfD was retracted by nominator and EP was a speedy candidate but this was rescinded) so there is really nothing to discuss here though to note that Whip Jones relation to McCulloch and Beggs isn't relevent because he is either notable for his own actions or not notable. Family relations don't establish notability unless you are royalty.--Isotope23 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

QUESTION I'm a newbie, Why is it we immortalize short term fictional soap opera characters and then debate whether or not to keep entries for real people that made lasting contributions??? I realize that Wikipedia isn't a geneology site, but clearly the contributions are huge!, lasting and notable ~ whether or not you've ever heard of these people, or whether or not the original author is related. Isn't that the hope with Wikipedia that we work together to create the timely encyclopedia with balanced, verifiable - neutral viewpoints? Let's not be so hasty to delete. BMcCJ
- (edit conflict, not replying to Isotope23
  
  Comment (explaining to the article creator):

**: Robert McCulloch (not his ancestor) should be kept; I think it might be a speedy keep, as the person who added it to this nomination then attempted to withdraw it.**

Whip Jones appears not to be notable. Nothing you've said in the article or above justifies his notability.

Arthur, do you have a reason you want this deleted. I just don't get it. I'm baffled. BMcCJ

**: and, although not relevant to this nomination. **: Edison Pioneers probably should be kept, but there really isn't enough there at the moment to be worthy of being kept. If it's not expanded within a few days, I'll propose deletion again. **: John I. Beggs should be kept only as an Edison Pioneers member or associate. Nothing else you've said about him is notable. **: and the half-dozen or so others were speedily deleted as no evidence of notability being presented.

Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, you keep bringing up notability, I'm using your autobiography as an example, because you wrote it and you put it there for us to read:Arthur Rubin or Whip Jones, whose slopes will kids be learning on in 50 or 100 years? Perhaps BOTH your math curves and the trails that Whip cleared. I don't understand why a seven month soap opera character stays Whip Jones III (B&B) and a man with who helped build one of the most recognizable resort names in skiing in the last 50 years is less notable. We are deciding what (if anything) belongs at the wiki entry for "Whip Jones" is it the founder of AH or short term soap opera character?

Whip Jones seems to be the only entry we are discussing now. Perhaps the bio needs to be shortened and less colorful. But there are two important reasons to keep it, and I'm not sure what deleting it accomplishes. Maybe its less notability (although I think if you checked with anyone in the ski industry Jones would be considered notable) and more for referential value that I strongly feel its important to keep. -BMcCJ.
- First, Aspen Highlands the Ski Mountain will not be going anywhere in the next 100 years, creating this is a lasting contribution for which Jones was inducted into the Colorado Ski Hall of Fame. Wikipedia will have an entry for Aspen Highlands (one of only four ski areas in the famous Aspen resort for longer than the next 100 years. The first sentence of the Highlands entry references founder Whip Jones so I would aggue that the Whip Jones entry completes and gives detail and background to the Aspen Highlands one. Originally the Jones BIO was stuck into the Highlands entry and I thought I was helping by moving it out and making it separate as it makes the Highlands entry cleaner.
- Second, there is a competing entry for a Whip Jones III (B&B) - a seven month soap opera character. By deleting this Whip Jones then it looks like the ski resort was founded by a Soap Opera character. FYI: The Ski industry is clearly an entertainment (as well as recreation) industy.
- This Whip Jones article is important to other articles: Aspen Highlands, Andrei Shleifer, Aspen Skiing Company
- As a newbie, I'm not sure of the technical reason to keep this page, but IMHO it is equally relevant and important to other Wikipedia pages.
- Art, some of the other ones you speedily deleted were fair deletions for now. But, this one should stay.BMcCJ

***Please only say "keep" or "delete" once per discussion.--Isotope23 20:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC) fixed BMcCJ

Delete Neutral Who are we discussing in this AfD? If it's Whip Jones, I say delete - I found the story interesting, but can't identify a reason for notability. Interestingly, the company he founded was part of the Aspen Skiing case, which established some pretty interesting (i.e. wrong) antitrust law in the Supreme Court. But that's too attenuated a connection with notability for me. If someone can point out why he's notable, I might reconsider, but I'm not seeing it. --TheOther Bob 19:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is for Whip Jones. ~~I'm going to withdraw the Robert P. McCulloch nom because it's just confusing the situation and it is pretty clear that he meets WP:BIO.~~--Isotope23 20:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed my vote to neutral - although he's an impressive guy, and although the article is looking much better, I'm not sure that anything he's done is notable enough to say keep. Still, I'm on the fence, so I'm just going to be neutral.--TheOther Bob 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions Started After Major Editing, Revamping and Concise Article

PLEASE RE-READ ACTUAL WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE BMcCJ
Comment: Based on feedback, I have revamped this article to bring the significant and relevant information to the top. This AfD is confusing as it is based on the original article and tried to address AfDing two people at once. As the Whip Jones article under debate has been 'revamped' with significant information about the groundbreaking antitrust law and the US Supreme Court Case added. Also the personal, family background color information has been moved to the bottom (and could be deleted, if necessary, to keep the article).-BMcCJ
Questions: How many people have founded and run an independent Ski Resort in Aspen for 35 years? Created a world famous resort that has lasted 50 years (so far)?, Fought the competition in the US Supreme Court and won? Set long standing antitrust law? Been inducted to the Colorado Skiing Hall of Fame? Made the second largest donation (handing over a a Ski Resort) ever to Harvard??? How many people in the world have done all those things? Seriously? -BMcCJ
Revote? Because the article has been totally revamped, sourced and revised for relevance and NPOV, I'd like to propose cancelling the AfD or start a revote. I'd love help making the article better. I think the Whip Jones article is a great addition to Wikipedia and adds to other entries: Aspen, Aspen Skiing Company, Aspen Highlands, US Supreme Court, Harvard, Colorado Skiing, Pitkin County, Economist Andrei Shleifer -BMcCJ 06:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
RE-EXAMINE I have now further edited and cut down to an appropriate size, with only appropriate links, even though this removed a good deal of what had just been added-- perhaps because I am not associated with the family :). I urge the original editor to examine and learn from other similar articles when working on future articles.
- WJ is clearly a prominent businessperson and sports executive, having been a pioneering founder of major ski areas in Aspen. There is adequate documentation, including a US Supreme Court case. I urge those previously voting to re-examine the article and perhaps change their vote.DGG 07:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Changed to neutral. Notability concerns have been fixed, but WP:COI creeps into the picture. MER-C 07:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Please see the discussion page Talk:Whip Jones I've cut/pasted three articles there (with source links) for easy access and readability. Perhaps there is some information there that the fine Wikipedians could use to improve the Article in question.

Also updated the Discussion Page with Google search links and ghit counts.

- BMcCJ 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

??? Quoting the WP:BIO Criteria: The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field Jones's two widely recognized contributions in Colorado Skiing: Aspen Highlands and the US Supreme Court Case - BMcCJ 01:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but...the WP:Bio excerpt you cite has its limitations. There are three moving parts here: A widely recognized contribution, that is part of the enduring historical record, in a specific field. Here the concern is that the field may be too specific; the contribution not widely enough recognized. Is this person notable outside of the local Colorado skiing industry?

Yes and the achievement is as well. The Colorado Ski Industry is huge (in customers, narrow in terms of owner/operators) and internationally recognized. I suspect that none of the people favoring a delete are members of the ski industry. But, we have evidence that in his field he was recognized twice and inducted into two industry halls of fame. His industry recognized his lifetime achievments and lasting contributions ~ TWICE. And I don't know of anything more enduring than a mountain. -BMcCJ

I agree that a mountain is enduring - and please don't take this the wrong way, but, come on - he didn't build the mountain. "God" did. Forget to oil the gears on the chair lift for a few years, and it would be back to God's Mountain rather than Whip Jones's. (Sorry - I know that's rhetorical.) So you're right that the industry considers him a hall of famer. The problem comes if the industry is too narrowly defined to have "wide recognition." An inductee into the Kansas Electricians Hall of Fame would probably not be notable, for example, if no one in Missouri had heard of him. So although I hear your point about the Colorado ski industry, it's not open and shut. --TheOther Bob 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, so I definitely see the argument that this fails WP:Bio. I think the Supreme Court case is a red-herring because the importance of that case has nothing to do with the personalities underlying it - it was something the Court did, not something notable that Jones did. I don't see any reason to think that a person, who founds a company, that becomes a party to a case, that makes it to the Supreme Court, which then creates interesting law, is therefore notable (sorry - that was a lot of extraneous commas).

ok, I get your point. It isn't that he founded a company that later went on and became party to a case. He was the party that initiated the case, through his company. big difference.-BMcCJ

Not really. First off, he didn't change the law - the Court did. Still, if he had been the named party, there might be some minimal value to having an article so that someone could look him up for more information. (Just as someone might, for example, look up who that "Brown" or "Roe" or "Lochner" person was.) But he wasn't - and involvement in a case that goes to the Court does not seem to me to create notability in itself. --TheOther Bob 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, thousands of pages of legal commentary have been written about the Aspen Skiing case - but I've never seen one that discussed Whip Jones.

When a case is presented from one company sueing another AH vs ASC and then again an appeal ASC vs. AH. The AH is Whip Jones. It was a small front office, with only one owner. From 1956 through to 1993 Whip personally signed every paycheck, and ran the place, skiing nearly every day, meeting for photos with nearly every celeb from 1956 through to 1993. They wanted their picture with him hanging on the wall in the Merry-go-round lounge midmountain. He was the man, in separable from the company and the mountain. Again, 'he was the man with the gumption to start the action. I can tell you from spending time with him, that he really didn't publicize himself very much. It was all about the mountain.-BMcCJ

The AH wasn't Whip Jones for the purposes of the case, as above. As a result it is the case, and sometimes the company, rather than the man that has been discussed in outside sources. If we were weighing his value as a person, it wouldn't matter whether it was the mountain or the man that got the press. He is most definitely impressive. But we're discussing notability - and notability requires outside sources. And while having gumption is impressive, that's not the same as notable. If he sat quietly back in the shadows, always making it about the mountain rather than him...then he probably let the mountain become notable without becoming notable himself. (Though, just to reiterate, I'm not sure that this is the case - he may have become independently notable. I'm neutral on how all this weighs out.) --TheOther Bob 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So while I'm neutral, I can see the WP:Bio concern. --TheOther Bob 04:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Jones per DGG and MER-C: notability, WP:COI, sourcing and WP:BIO concerns have all been addressed in DGG edits. Alternatively, the Jones biography might be better merged back into the one for Aspen Highlands - where it came from, but it may not make NPOV sense to put the US Supreme Court case on the Ski Resort's page because it seems more relevant here separately with Jones. SweetGodiva 18:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment — SweetGodiva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI: The result of the AfD for seven month the soap opera character Whip Jones III (B&B) was a KEEP. (bold removed) I think this biography and the long lasting contributions made by the subject, stand on their own merit as compared to other less notable biographies and autobiographies currently online. I encourage those reading and deciding to actually read the revised article and comment and discuss and vote based on the current article -- as opposed to what was voted above about the original article. What do you think about the current article??? Also, your feedback, input and help with the articles: Edison Pioneers, John I. Beggs photo added, and Robert P. McCulloch would be greatly appreciated. - BMcCJ 01:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ask Yourself: In the fifty years, between now and when Aspen Highlands has its centennial celebration, will this article be useful to persons in school doing research. I think the answer is YES, for reports like "The History of Skiing in America", "Places I'd like to visit: Aspen", "The history of Aspen and its Ski resorts". This is a useful article for those reports. Thank you for your patient consideration! User:BMcCJ
Comment I haven't seen more socks since I did my laundry last week. Note that User:SavageGecko, User:BMcCJ, and many of the IP's (who have edited the user pages of those individuals), are undoubtable the same user. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, I've only voted once, and yes have moved from my original user ID: SavageGecko to one I prefer to develop in the future: BMcCJ. I am open about it on my User page and have the old one redirecting there. And I've taken my "Soapbox" thoughts and my personal opinions about you and your own supposed "notability" there as well. Feel free to take the personal discussion to my page, where I'll be glad to talk to you there. Let's stick to the merits of this biographical entry and whether or not it stands on its own or should go back into the Aspen Highlands entry where it came from. I didn't create this content, I moved it from an existing Wikipedia page. You know this is a legit article, stop roasting the newbie. I get the feeling you would rather win the debate than do what is right. This should be a KEEP (bold removed), period. Look at the article, is it ok or not. This whole discussion and the vote got messed up when you wiki professionals started trying to bundle the articles. - BMcCJ 02:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - You did vote more than once, though all in the same two additions. I know you're a newbie, but it is really really bad form to cast more than one "vote". While afd is a discussion, not a vote, is has vote-like properties, only in that you may not "vote" more than once. A vote is placing anything in bold and then commenting after it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. a) I'm sorry, how would I have known? b) should I undo it? c) do you have any thoughts on the actual subject article? d) is there a way to take out all the discussion that is not related to the Whip Jones article- BMcCJ 02:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would help if you could be much more precise. As it is, anybody that wants to know anything about the man will have to comb through 4 pages of discussion. Conciseness helps a lot. :) -Patstuart^talk|edits 03:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The article in question Whip Jones is concise. - BMcCJ 03:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean your reasoning on this page. -Patstuart^talk|edits 03:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about the merits of the article, is it a delete or a keep. - BMcCJ

Removed my errant use of BOLD, fixed my user ID/IP address problem, striking all comments regarding other BIOs for McCulloch, Beggs or Edison Pioneeers. I believe my changes are fair to the spirit and accuracy of the discussion. Just wanted to make it easier to read. With a smile and newbie appologies to all. Fingers crossed that I don't do this the wrong way (again!).-BMcCJ

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 nomination withdrawn. MER-C 02:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John I. Beggs

I don't seem him as notable, except possibly in regard Edison Pioneers. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment; contested speedy, and part of a family, probably of the article creator. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep A minor robber baron nationwide, but he appears to have been fairly significant in Wisconsin business history. With that and the Edison connection, I think he is a keeper. --Brianyoumans 06:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep in addition to being significant in Wisconsin history [10] and moderately significant in electricity/railway history, he developed modern depreciation accounting. Numerous Google Books/Scholar hits. --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - there are additional references that could be added from ghits that would fill out the article, specficially in re connections with WI dealings. SkierRMH,07:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Withdraw nomination. I'm convinced, although the article creator may not have known adequate evidence of notability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:54, 13 December 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. --Core desat 03:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Spilsbury

Contested speedy. The man's claim to notability, besides being a fan of Swindon Town F.C., appears to be that that he is some sort of a functionary at Doctor Who Magazine - which, not to put too fine a point on it, ain't the Economist or the New Yorker. It appears to be some sort of fanzine for a TV show. You know when they have to pad out your short article with achievements such as "...writing to the Doctor Who Magazine letters page at the time to say it {Deep Space Nine] was better than Doctor Who" that we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Ridiculous, but at least two editors believe the article should exist, so here we are. Herostratus 03:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to Doctor Who Magazine. Apparently a notable figure within Doctor Who fandom; appeared very briefly on BBC News[11] and was quoted in The Guardian[12] as a notable source of opinions on Doctor Who. --Muchness 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

They're only trivial mentions so they don't count towards meeting WP:BIO. MER-C 05:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT COMPATIBLE. IT MUST BE DELETED. MER-C 05:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, plenty of Doctor Who fans, but what makes this one notable? --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
EX-TER-MI-NATE, nn, even within Dr. Who fandom. SkierRMH,07:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above, with relevant Doctor Who clichés as applicable ;) --Chrisd87 11:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete main claim to fame is being a "deputy editor" for a Doctor Who magazine, and the article is mostly trivia: a list of other TV shows he likes, etc. This is bordering on Speedy Delete territory IMHO, but regular delete is okay too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Note that the Fleming Way article on this very AfD page also relates to Swindon. This article even tells us he's a fan of Neighbours. Orderinchaos78 17:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- non-notable; I agree with earlier editors that this might well have been a "speedy" candidate, the article is so unencyclopaedic -- Simon Cursitor 07:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I hope Herostratus isn't including me in the two editors who believe the article should exist - I just suggested it shouldn't be speedily deleted is all - most of the trivia is obviously unencyclopaedic, but he has edited two reasonably well-known magazines Stephenb (Talk) 11:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per commenters above, does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 03:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Awaited Truth

Contested PROD. No evidence of passing the criteria set out at WP:MUSIC—JeremyA 04:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - Only mention of this band (at least on Google, I know, Google isn't a measure of notability, blah blah) is their MySpace page. All the info here is from that MySpace account. A7 this. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 04:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and no assertion of notability whatsoever. —ShadowHalo 05:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - {{db-band}}. So tagged. MER-C 05:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete passes the Glorified garage band test. SkierRMH,08:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Skier. TSO1D 12:54, 13 December 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, strength of argument is ruling over this one. Yanksox 05:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BoyChat

Verifiability and notability. Lack of multiple non-trivial published works about this site. - crz crztalk 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete - I'd consider the fact people have been jailed from this site, the FBI monitoring it, and PJ making a mention of it notability-making, however, no reliable sources. Withdrawn per below. Changing to Keep. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 04:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No assertion of notability and too few reliable sources. -Will Beback · † · 05:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn, both conditions have changed. -Will Beback · † · 07:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete No evidence that this had been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself or that it meets any of the other criteria of WP:WEB. Providing links to the site itself is not the same as citing reliable sources. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 05:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete P4k 06:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I've added news paper article links to the article which show that journalists have been talking about BoyChat since 1998. With all the articles posted (4 or more at the time of this comment) this article easily meets WP:RS, there needs to be some integration to be truly verifiable but the shear number of media mentions allows the article to meet WP:V. Since WP:RS and WP:V are met via multiple real-world non-trivial publications which are secondary sources this article meets WP:WEB. The article still needs a lot of a work and seems to skirt around the issue that all the reliable sources say that BoyChat is chat for pedophiles. This article seems to avoid stating verifiable facts about the website. Then on a non-policy note I'd like to say that having an article on BoyChat on Wikipedia allows people to read about it without actually going there. Hopefully wikipedia can give people unbiased information (they are pedophiles) about BoyChat rather than users having to interpret their FAQ. In Summary please re-read the article, please view ALL of the references and external links, you'll the article passes WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEB. --Quirex 06:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That said perhaps this should be generalized into a freespirits, boywiki, boychat article or information about those sites can integrated here. --Quirex 06:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. With new references is now compatible with WP:N. ccscott 16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per notability, verifiability, lack of reliable independent sources and WP:WEB. Most of the "references and external links" relate to or belong to the site itself, and much of the information in the article is sourced directly from the site. Numerous other web forums, even ones that have made the news, have failed these parameters and been deleted in the past. The "external links" section generally fails neutral point of view. Orderinchaos78 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

comment Please go through the news references and links (there are more than 4 of them and tell me why each fails. When you say generally you are not dealing fairly with the links that pass WP:RS. There are many news mentions and you can't ignore them. --Quirex 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh c'mon, quirex. Biggest claim to fame is a brief mention in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch story? - crz crztalk 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The williamette Week is directly about them, the st louis dispatch article you have to pay for, the CNSNEWS article is about them, the xtra article is about freespirits, the toronto sun article is about them, freespirits, epifora and verizon. They have multiple media references and multiple secondary sources about just them. Then there is the christian news one which is about them but less reliable. This isn't just one. You can't ignore the other references. --Quirex 18:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep per notability, verifiability, reliable independent sources and WP:WEB. Jillium 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- This Wikipedian is a member of BoyChat and associated FreeSpirits websites. XavierVE 01:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep but improve citations. Notable due to Net Neutrality/Free Speech implications. When no longer notable, MERGE with Pedophile Activism. User:dfpc 22:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:SPA - crz crztalk 02:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I'm newly registered, I forgot the timestamp. I've since added it. User:dfpc 05:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC). All my previous Wikipedia edits were ages ago and without a registered user account.
Delete The article itself was created by BoyChat members in order to try to give themselves some sense of legitimacy. Little about the article is encyclopedic. This article falls into the category of non-notability, especially considering the origins of why the article was created and the open calls on BoyChat itself for the article to be edited against criticism by their members. Just another case study in how pedophiles try to subvert Wikipedia and it's "encyclopedic" status in order to promote themselves via mass campaigns of directed editing. XavierVE 10:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- This was sorta my idea as well. Is there any proof for this? - crzcrztalk 11:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Multiple threads on their message board, including the original thread started by Clayboy where he asks for the communities help in editing the article regarding the community itself. Now there is a thread on their forum complaining about this deletion attempt. XavierVE 01:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:SPA - BLueRibbon 00:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmmm. On the one hand, the article has been sourced. I mean, realistically, granted that BoyChat is just another internet forum and and a small fringe one at that, the nature of the board is such that it's not surprising that it would attract a small amount of notice, if only for the shock value. There's more citation here than for a lot of other small fringe entities that have articles, I guess. On the other hand... it is true that the article was created by BoyChat members to promote BoyChat. That also is why the net has been combed so thoroughly to provide references. That in itself is not reason for deletion, though. The article is hardly a paean to BoyChat, after all. But... we know that Wikipedia is a target for many types of people to promote their fringe ideologies. Simply getting an article in, even if it's not especially positive, is a "win" for these fringe ideologists, conferring a certain level of legitimacy. My experience with what I'll call the sex-with-children-normalization ideology is that this is no exception, and indeed exponents of this ideology have shown considerable determination to get this ideology certified by inclusion in the Wikipedia in various ways. This has been a problem, and the Wikipedia has been criticized with some cause as "Wikipedophilia" in the past, which is not a good thing, and could become a Very Bad Thing if a lid is not kept on it. Per WP:IAR commentors are permitted to transcend policy if doing so to prevent the Wikipedia from being hijacked for use in a way that is detrimental to the overall long-term public perception of the Wikipedia (and per WP:NOT EVIL, to prevent the Wikipedia from being hijacked to promote any evil end regardless of direct harm to the project). Is this such a case? I don't know. But I for one don't have a problem with requiring a higher standard of notability for inclusion than I would for, er, other subjects. (FWIW GirlChat was deleted earlier this year.) Herostratus 14:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I agree that is pretty obvious that pedos have combined forces to prove this article (they say so on the talk page) and topic meets WP:RS and WP:V but I don't appreciate the accusation that anyone arguing for this article or adding references to this article must be a pedo. The fact is they have already been given "legitimacy" by the news media and various govt research groups. I'm just annoyed that you're suggesting this rather than putting your foot down and pointing out that a majority of WP:NPOV edits on behalf of pedos are not WP:NPOV and only represent a minority opinion. If you want to be a good admin you should go through and apply WP:NPOV to the article and the edits which people suggest they revert for WP:NPOV. The first thing to be done is make sure all the pedo language is inline with the wikipedia pedo watch group that Herostratus is part of. Then second to make sure and watch the article when it gets edited that language isn't weakened and WP:NPOV isn't abused to promote a fringe minority opinion. This is not a case of pro and anti-abortion this is a case of a case of FRINGE opinion, this means labels like pedophile will stick because all but the very fringe agree. Please don't use weasel non-policies, please apply the real policies of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV, the 3 cornerstones of wikipedia. --Quirex 16:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I didn't at all mean to leave the impression that anyone working on sourcing the article or arguing for its retention is anything, sorry! if I did. (I would differentiate between pedophile, a person with an affliction, and sex-with-children normalization advocate, an ideologue. The two populations overlap no doubt but each group contains many members not in the other.) As to the rest, I'm not sure exactly sure what you're on about... editors are free to comment or vote as they please according to the wisdom given them, of course. And I edit plenty of related articles as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and I am watching this one but not actively editing it at this time. Herostratus 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The very thing that makes BoyChat notable to the general public is the attempts to shut it down. But for the Network Neutrality implications it could merged into Pedophile activism. Ironically, XavierVE and his group Perverted-Justice are responsible for the recent and ongoing shutdown actions. As I said above, KEEP as long as it is notable then MERGE with PA. Dfpc 21:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per XavierVE and others. --Gabi S. 16:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as Quirex and others. It is not unexpected that even a small activist group gets minor mentions; but, included citations do not convince me that notability criteria are met. — ERcheck (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Though there are citations, they do not meet the standards of WP:Verify. For example, the claimed Slashdot "article" is a letter from an anonymous reader. — ERcheck (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT EVIL, with thanks to Herostratus for pointing it out. I realize it's an essay and not policy, but it concisely describes why this article doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. Powers ^T 20:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The article has been improved, due to the threat of deletion. The article now contains many verifiable cited sources. XavierVE, Gabi S and LtPowers appear to be more concerned about the topic than the relevant guidelines regarding articles on Wikipedia. BLueRibbon 00:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:SPA - crz crztalk 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- BLueribbon is a member of BoyChat, the subject of the article itself. XavierVE 01:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I think that's obvious, but why is it more relevant than the fact that you post here when you are the self-admitted "leader" of the largest group which opposes BoyChat? Why is it more biased than you being a major contributor to discussion regarding Wikipedia's Perverted Justice article, your company? Anyway, this is not a pissing contest, but you're being rather hypocrtical. ~ BLueRibbon 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    - I've edited the PeeJ article twice since the end of March, both edits were shown to be keeping in good faith in regards to the article itself. As for why it's relevant that you're a member of the group, this is a AfD motion. Of course a member of an organization profiled by Wikipedia would vote to keep the article itself in Wikipedia. Just as you alleged that I'm an SPA, I'm simply pointing out that your vote isn't NPOV and keeping in the spirit of Wikipedia. XavierVE 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      - I'd rather speak for myself, in reply to your claim that I'm more concerned about the topic than the relevant guidelines regarding articles on Wikipedia. I think that the site is not notable enough, despite the references. The given references are few and not from sources that I trust (for example, if there was a big article in the Wall Street Journal I would react differently). This is also true for many other web sites that have articles on Wikipedia, and they should also be deleted, in my opinion. If I had time, I would list them all (yes, I am a bit of a deletionist). On the other hand, many such sites (including BoyChat) deserve some mentioning in a relevant "parent" article, and the main entry can be a redirect to that article. So just Delete and go on. --Gabi S. 06:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        Perhaps someone who has the information handy could add a reference entry for Kurt Eichenwald's piece in the New York Times. --Foo of boychat 11:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yer darn right I'm concerned about the topic. This forum only gained the references it did because the subject of the forum is so reprehensible. Wikipedia's purpose is to provide a service to its readers. I believe this article provides a disservice to its readers. We don't need it here. Powers ^T 13:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  - The right for an article to exist is to be judged by its notability alone. Wikipedia is not censored, and will not refrain from covering topics people find "reprehensible" or immoral. If BoyChat is verifiably notable (which I'm not saying it is or is not), the article should live. All this moral outrage has no place in an AfD. (Disclosure of bias; I am an occasional BoyChat poster) Clayboy 17:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Speedy delete because the Wikipedia is not censored section explicitly says that articles may include objectionable text only if they do not violate the law of the U.S. state of Florida. Having the BoyChat article on Wikipedia can be seen as a form of advertising its services (for instance, it becomes available on many search engines), and I'm pretty sure that the law of the U.S. state of Florida has some clause prohibiting advertising of such services. This is in addition to the not-notable-enough claim that I made above. --Gabi S. 18:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      - This is silly. It would not be illegal to host BoyChat in Florida, so why would "advertising" it be? I'm sorry, but this article is going to get deleted as soon as the AfD period ends, so there is no need to come up with policy loopholes and weak conjecture about laws you are pretty sure exist. Clayboy 20:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      - BoyChat is not illegal. The FBI have been monitoring it for years and it still exists. BLueRibbon 22:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        I've seen no third-party sources stating that the FBI monitors BoyChat. As well, a quick check of BoyChat's DNS shows that it is currently having to flee to Russia due to it's content being kicked off of Canadian, Swedish and American webhosts. If it were not illegal to host BoyChat in a state like Florida, why is the site currently being hosted in Russia? XavierVE 12:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        It's being hosted in Russia because US/Canadian/Swedish hosts are more likely to be bullied by vigilante groups. Perverted Justice threatened previous ISPs (Verizon/MCI) with negative publicity and you've used tactics which have been described as harassment and spam, even by non-paedosexuals. (read the e-mail responses posted at your forum) ~ BLueRibbon 17:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        RE: monitoring, good point. Re: not illegal: With the exception of certain regulated industries, most businesses are free to do business with who they want to. Many businesses do not want to associate even marginally with pedophile-related, pedophile-run web sites, either out of personal moral conviction or because they fear for their business's reputation should their client list become public knowledge. At least one host in the United States took on BoyChat but later removed for reasons the leaders of BoyChat have not announced or do not know. The removal came after pressure from third parties who claim similar goals to Xavier's group. I'm not saying Xavier's group had any hand in this disconnection, but I am saying Xavier's actions with MCI/Verizon inspired the third-party pressure on this American hosting service. Dfpc 13:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        RE: not illegal: As of 2003, the FBI said BoyChat was "totally legal" [ news article from 2003 quoting FBI spokesman Barry Maddox ]. Dfpc 14:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    - "The right for an article to exist is to be judged by its notability alone." Um, no. "George Bush's homosexual relationship with Kim Jong-Il" is a notable topic, but it's completely unverifiable and thus inappropriate for Wikipedia. "The complete shooting script of Superman Returns" is notable and verifiable but still inappropriate for Wikipedia. This article may be notable (although it's certainly debatable), and it may be verifiable, and it's certainly not a copyright violation, but it's still inappropriate for Wikipedia because it does a disservice to Wikipedia's readers. It legitimizes a topic that rightfully belongs on the fringes of decent society (if even there); to claim it meets notability guidelines because of multiple third-party sources is to give its controversial nature too much influence over its notability. Powers ^T 15:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
      - I see your point but I think you picked a bad example with the movie script. The circumstances which might make it notable enough to be in Wikipedia, for example, if a copy marked up by the director sold at auction for a record price, or if it were in a noteworthy court case, would IMHO make it worthy of an entry here. Perhaps a better example would be a movie script with no notability outside of the movie industry or fan clubs. But IMHO that wouldn't meet the notability requirement so we are back to square one: looking for a notable, verifiable event that does not belong in Wikipedia. Remember, since October, BoyChat/Free Spirits is notable for reasons outside of pedophilia, namely, attempted suppression of legal speech online and Net Neutrality. Such suppression is NOT a fringe issue. Even within the pedophilia arena, BoyChat has some minor notability/notoriety in scholarly and legal circles. Whether that rises to a "general interest" level common in Wikipedia is a matter for continued discussion. Dfpc 16:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        My intention with the example was simply to show that notability and verifiability, while necessary conditions, were not sufficient conditions for inclusion. We have many other criteria that also need to be met. If "BoyChat/Free Spirits is notable for ... attempted suppression of legal speech online and Net Neutrality", then the article needs to be about that suppression; BoyChat is hardly the only service affected by those attempts. Powers ^T 16:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - We are 3 days into the AfD discussion. Take a look at the current content. Now, why Delete or Keep the article? What Would Change Your Mind? To those who propose deletion: What specific items need to change? More/better citations? More notability/notoriety? Is the topic completely unsalvageable? Other? To those who propose keeping: How do you respond? Whether this deletion goes through or not, these answers will prove useful should there be another call for deletion, or should the article be deleted and it or a similar article be created a year or two from now. I do hope the administrators keep this discussion. Dfpc 02:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I favor KEEP or MERGE with Pedophile Activism and/or Net Neutrality. So far, I've seen calls for verifyability, notability, and WP:WEB. The article is vastly improved on both counts since its first version, but can always use more improvement. As long as the Net Neutrality factor exists, the notability standard is met and the WP:WEB is less of a factor. After that dies down, merging may be in order. In an article on a topic like this, NPOV is a risk with every edit, but the community will take care of this. I've also seen a few comments that this article violates WP:NO_EVIL. In part, this can be addressed by expanding it to Free Spirits and including material about how Law Enforcement and others use Free Spirits as an example in training and policy materials. I started this process by adding a "BoyChat and Free Spirits citations in the press, academia, and policy-making" section. I think Xavier might have a few useful things to add to that section. As for GirlChat, at the time, neither it nor BoyChat met the notability criteria. I missed the GirlChat content, but I hope some of it was salvaged for related topics. Dfpc 02:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- In addition to the NOT EVIL concerns I mention above, the article also does not in any way assert the notability of its subject. It's not enough to simply cite third-party references; an explanation of why this topic is notable is necessary. Reading this article, my biggest question is "So what? Why is this important enough for an encyclopedia article?" Powers ^T 15:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Question for long-time Wikipedians: What is the proper way to start an article for the now-mostly-online phenomenon of "Pedophile Peer Support" as distinct from "Pedophile Activism" or "Pedophile Peer Therapy." This article encompasses the non-activism aspects of NAMbLA, such as their prisoner-letter-writing program, pure support online resources such as Christian Boylove Forum, and real-world and online-world ways and means that pedophiles use to support each other. In this context I include ephebophiles in countries where they are not socially tolerated, which is most of the world. Such an article would encompass BoyChat's and GirlChat's peer-support roles, but would not necessarily encompass their place in the Net Neutrality debate, the use of BoyChat as a law-enforcement or pedophile-awareness educational tool, or any other role. For the most part, BoyChat could be merged into this topic. Dfpc 03:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dfpc is a long-time member of BoyChat, the subject of the Wikipedia article in question. XavierVE 12:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  - True enough. However, that does mean I do not try to look at things objectively. On the Talk page you mentioned you planned to enrich this article if it passes the deletion vote. Assuming the fact you are adding are verifiable from public sources and in keeping with Wikipedia content policies, they should improve the article overall. Go ahead and add a few now and give those here a chance to see what this article can become. Dfpc 13:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Having waded through most of the things that looked like news articles from reliable sources (one had technical difficulties), I didn't find that the forum was the primary subject of those articles. Without being the primary subject of independent coverage, I don't believe that it meets WP:WEB. GRBerry 05:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom ("Lack of multiple non-trivial published works about this site.") Note: I will not respond to anyone regarding my 2cents here. Bye! ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to pedophilia or nambla (read the article to see why these are appropriate redirects. First sentence is, "BoyChat, operated by Free Spirits, is an Internet forum for individuals who are attracted to underage boys." Anomo 22:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. As long as it is kept objective, such an article's deletion would not look too good alongside the encyclopedia's coverage of far more banal and irrelevent subjects. In fact, it would represent plain hostility against a group, because of their position in society. --Jim Burton 23:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Another WP:SPA (just for the record). --Gabi S. 20:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Are you saying Jim Burton is a single-purpose account? I checked his Contribs history, he's been around since September '06. True, he's focused on pedophile issues, with less than a handful of edits on other subjects, but if he is an SPA it's pedophilia-related material in general not BoyChat in particular. It could just be that Mr. Burton has a strong interest in editing this material. His page calls himself "Neutrality Editor on Wikipedia." Calling an established account a "SPA" without explaining why hurts ones credibility. Dfpc 21:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    - You just explained it clearly :-) --Gabi S. 21:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Consensus not reached, article is new and deserves a chance Scanning through the above it looks like there is a strong majory, somewhere in the 60-80% range, who favor deletion. Some of the votes both ways appear to be okay with some form of merge or redirect. However, there are enough Keep's around who haven't agreed to a merge or deletion that it's fair to say there is no consensus. My personal recommendation: keep the article for a few months, if necessary revisit the keep/delete/merge/redirect issue and refer back to this archived discussion in the next go-around, if there is one. It is likely that over the next few months, the issues that prompted this AfD will change. Notably, pardon the pun, BoyChat's relatively low notability outside its own community, particularly with respect to Net Neutrality is likely to either go up if the case gains publicity or down if it fades into the history books, making it either clearly notable or not notable. The other reasons for notability, such as use in law-enforcement training, are also relatively low but are not likely to change quickly. The issues with Neutral Point of View and Verifiability are VERY likey to be improved given a few months' time. To quote from Articles for Deletion: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape." Dfpc 03:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as per CSD:A7. This one is uncontested and a clear speedy. A Train ^{take the} 21:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swing (musical group)

Apparently non-notable music duo from Hong Kong that only existed from 2000-2002; article has been in bad shape for a while and seems unlikely to improve. Dmz5 04:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - {{db-band}}. So tagged. MER-C 05:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm reluctant to use tags like that unless the article is very new or apparent vanity, but it is probably warranted in this case.--Dmz5 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - not much in English out there for this group, no hope of making it worthwile. SkierRMH,08:02, 13 December 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. --Core desat 03:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koiko

Subject does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 04:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Checked for RS, found none. Only sources seem to be a blog and the artist's site. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 04:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 04:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. Plus, seems like the only things Koiko has done have been singles. Notability isn't possible if one only has singles, is it? -WarthogDemon 05:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - It is if the single charted. Neier 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 05:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - and it does appear that there are no albums. SkierRMH,08:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete for now; no evidence of her one (year old) single being charted, and not close to meeting WP:MUSIC otherwise. Neier 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Looks like the promoter wrote it.SweetGodiva 22:16, 18 December 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.--Kchase T 06:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chibchombia

Term used on short-lived Columbian cartoon show "El Siguiente Programa" (The Following Show). I doubt whether the show itself is notable; made-up joke terms from it are not. Herostratus 18:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ---J.S ^(T/C) 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as unreferenced protologism. --Muchness 04:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - nn neologism, 932 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 05:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete verging on speedy - neologism, non referenced, even en espanol. SkierRMH,08:03, 13 December 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. --Core desat 03:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom as a major power

In March, emerging superpower (then potential superpower) was nominated for deletion, along with a whole bunch of other articles on potential superpowers. No consensus was reached, although there was a small contingent of users who supported keeping the articles on China and the European Union and deleting the rest. In a second AfD in July, the articles on Russia, Brazil, and Japan were deleted as largely original research, leaving China, India, and the European Union, which consensus seems to be should be kept for now.

I hereby nominate United Kingdom as a major power based on its similarity to those articles deleted in July. It suffers from much the same OR problems, and is in the same boat as Russia, Brazil, and Japan as not a large-consensus emerging superpower. theProject 04:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete This is an essay that draws it own conclusions, not an encyclopaedia article. Unverified and POV. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above; unsourced original research. --Muchness 04:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 05:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete — Unsourced, and it seems to be someone's own opinion on how powerful Great Britain is today. No sources as well. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 05:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete OR- essay; unverified. SkierRMH,08:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unsourced and OR. TSO1D 12:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete One-sided soapbox article that covers subjects better dealt with elsewhere.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 16:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- 1) the "United Kingdom" is anything but; 2) it ceased to be a great power many decades ago, and has now become the fifty-n-th State of the USA; 3) it ceased to have any right to be called a major power long before it ascribed to the title because of its adherence to policies of racial and religious intolerance, and its exploitation of undeveloped countries and their peoples. -- Simon Cursitor 07:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia is not a soapbox, I'd suggest citing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, rather than your personal politics, in this discussion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete OR POV essay, better suited to a personal blog.-- danntm ^T _C 17:38, 14 December 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. --Core desat 04:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oak Park Shuttle

Prod removed by 193.217.242.140 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) whose contributions seem to be centered on removing prods that I put up. (see JudoJoe Productions, Orion globe). In any case, this is an article about a bus route. The supporting source is... the bus schedule. The rationale for the removal of the prod was "This is not a schedule, but an article about a bus service. Removed the part about passengers complaining to drivers for being hard to verify." In fact, it's not your everyday bus route, it's a shuttle that takes six passengers. Even the Yellow Pages wouldn't have this info... Pascal.Tesson 04:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, I love Oak Park, but this is not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 05:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom... no notability whatsoever. SkierRMH,08:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete trivial 6 passenger vehicle. Edison 20:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- I can't see how a six-passenger shuttle van (van!) route in the very populous metro Chicago area could possibly be notable. When it gets up to the level of, say, Boston's Silver Line, then maybe. Haikupoet 01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's a van that loops around a business district. Hey, bus routes would be more notable then this, and bus routes are rarely kept.-- danntm ^T _C 03:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- perhaps move one sentence to Oak Park, IL, Frank Lloyd Wright or to Chicago Tours, but not an entry by itself. SweetGodiva 22:11, 18 December 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. Will be recreated as a redirect to Jenny Morris (musician). --Core desat 04:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenny Morris (singer)

Sort of a procedural nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenny Morris (singer). Long story short, was a WP:POINT nomination, but consensus was to delete, therefore, putting it up again. Per WP:MUSIC. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 04:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect or delete - Redirect might be clean in this case because of another musician named Jenny Morris. The band page itself could then have a notice at the top mentioning the difference between teh two. (See Con Air for an example.) -WarthogDemon 04:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC) This user is a major contributer of the article.

Comment Er, sorry if it's poor form to vote on an article that one has created themself. I merely wanted to point out how a redirect would be cleaner with this one page. -WarthogDemon 05:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per the points made in the previous AFD. MER-C 04:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Jenny Morris (musician) unless this singer is shown to meet WP:MUSIC. When I looked at the article, I was expecting to see an article on New Zealand singer/musician Jenny Morris.Capitalistroadster 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Should the musician page then have the heading I suggested? Just wondering what people think. -WarthogDemon 05:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be appropriate/acceptable to have a dab in the page saying For the American singer, see Innosense. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect per Capitalistroadster. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per Capitalroadster... SkierRMH,01:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
redirect. I thought exactly the same thing Cap did - at least it prompted me to add a little more info to the page on the A/NZ Jenny Morris. Grutness...wha? 06:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, redir. Can't agree with the early closure of AfD#1 here, no matter the faith of the nomination. Deizio talk 17:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Extraneous garbage. Systemex 04:18, 18 December 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. --Core desat 04:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crown Tranceiver

The band does not meet WP:MUSIC and information about it is unverifiable. About three Google hits, all myspace. Prod removed with the notice Removed Deletion request: unique accomplishments of this band demonstrate the need for an article Wafulz 04:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also nominating:
- Avante Garden
- Progsperimental EP
- Post-Experimental Progressive --Wafulz 02:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4360/independentyj3.jpg
Magazine Articles Hey I've got some magazine clips and stuff about these guys and what they've done if that will help the debate? 13 December 2006
- Depends what magazine and what the subject is. --Wafulz 19:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  - This falls more into the realm of 15 minutes of fame than an encyclopedia topic. If they have other substantial third party articles at different periods of time (to demonstrate that they're not just a blip on the radar), then having an article would be more likely. --Wafulz 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    - I have a bunch of other stuff, I don't think I understand what you need exactly but I'll scan stuff tomorrow
Delete per nom. --Muchness 04:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete I'm really not seeing any notable accomplishments, but the article states that the band "was questioned and released with a nominal amount of tabloid publicity". If this can be backed up with one or more sources, then keep. Though based on the lack of Google hits, I'm guessing that this won't be happening. —ShadowHalo 05:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 05:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Glorified garage band]. SkierRMH,08:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Without further verifyable sources, the article does not meet WP:N or MP:MUSIC. ccscott 16:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Do Not Delete I belive that even though a band is not commercially successful that it is still important to share their story. CT has never had their own website because none of the members desired to have one. they keep an extremely low profile and just recently launched a myspace page. 13 December 2006

Wikipedia is not a substitute myspace page.--Dmz5 17:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is saying this? 13 December 2006

The implication of the comment above is that even though the band is not notable (and therefore does not meet explicit wikipedia guidelines), it is important to "share their story somewhere" because they don't have a website. In other words, the user wants to use the wikipedia entry as a website or "substitute myspace page" rather than as an objective, third-party-generated article about something that is notable. Many editors mistakenly believe that wikipedia is an appropriate venue to promote new acts or generate attention/buzz about something that is not yet notable. This is not the case. Also, please note that it is considered good form to end each post with four tildas (this thing ~) to add a signature, even if you are unregistered.--Dmz5 00:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

He never said this once, I think he meant because of CT's strange performance style it's important to have these exploits as a resource. There are far more trivial things on Wikipedia. If the band were very concerned about internet publicity I suspect they would have got to work on that years ago. Fans such as myself don't expect any further publicity from a wikipedia article and frankly just think the weird shit they do should be accounted for for documentation's sake at least, which again, doesn't hurt anything. The idea of commercial success equaling notability falls short to categorize things that could be considered art or conceptual exploration. Please note that this band does not sell records, does not have any label affiliation and has only produced profit for the sake of charity: the WP:MUSIC guidelines certainly seem applicable to the majority of music acts but here I feel that they fail to define importance or noteriety. 68.58.153.227 08:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as the argument that there are more trivial things, you may want to read Wikipedia:Pokémon test. Commercial success is not required for a band to have a page on Wikipedia. If they go on a national tour, release two albums on a notable indie label, or are the most prominent representative of a notable style or city, they pass WP:MUSIC. But the article fails to assert any of this. —ShadowHalo 00:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Could they be categorized elsewhere, and not under music, possibly? 68.58.153.227 01:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per SkierRMH. Daniel Case 16:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Per above. Lack of sources and lack of accomplishments.
Delete: Per above, non-notable. The editor has also linkspammed a bunch of vaguely related pages. (edit: and just plain vandalised others in the last few minutes) --Kaini 02:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Same as above..

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

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

The result was delete, no notability asserted even now. There is no sourced content to be merged. Sandstein 17:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heil Environmental Industries Ltd

This article appears to be advertisement. It contains little to no useful or encyclopedia information. --Adam Riley ^Talk 05:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - {{db-corp}}. So tagged. MER-C 05:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I was going to say keep as a notable company, but I was thinking of the HVAC manufacturer that's apparently unrelated. delete. BCoates 12:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep with cleanup to make it more than an advertisement. The thing that I think makes the company notable is the shock value of the name. Often, we see trucks with the Heil logo (esp. on their mudflaps) on the road in New England, and people frequently notice and wonder why such a charged word is appearing on the vehicles.146.243.4.157 14:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- What sources do you propose be used for the cleanup? You haven't cited any. The article doesn't cite any. Please cite sources to show that the cleanup is possible and that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as promotion for a non notable business. Yes, I thought the name was Hell Environmental Industries too when it first scrolled by; an industry making the environment more hellish may well be notable. But this isn't enough to make this minor business notable. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Lots of businesses and people are named Heil. Even if it were the "Heil Hitler! Exterminating" company it would need multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources to show its notability. Edison 20:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I can't say "delete" right off; this is a major player in the environmental vehicle industry and is over a century old, but I know that because I work with that industry regularly. Unfortunately, I can't find anything outside of B2B publications that reference it, so sourcing is problematic. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Dover Corporation. Heil's web site identifies Dover as its parent company. The article on Dover Corporation should include substantive information on its subsidiaries. Fg2 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge into parent company - this division doesn't have much independent notariety. Und ich nicht bin ein Berliner. SkierRMH,01:34, 14 December 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 by admin as per author request. Agent 86 02:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gladin'

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}}

Total nonsense. Unable to find any credible source to back article edits or claims. I already forgot 05:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - seems to be a sport which was made up one day.... MER-C 06:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per MER-C. --Dhartung | Talk 06:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom... WP:NFT SkierRMH,08:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I was going to be generous and give it a little while to assert notability, but since it's here, delete for having no such assertion. Looking over it again, I doubt I'd have been so generous if I'd taken a closer look in the first place. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 08:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy it? The creator of the article left this comment on my talk page. I'm not sure if this counts as G7 for speedy deletion, because there have been a couple other editors (even not counting vandals), but I thought I'd mention it here. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 20:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I'm new at this and still trying to understand the policies and what not. As for the "complete nonsense" and WP:NFT, thats not the case. Even elsewhere in the Wiki is gladin', or the effects there-of, mentioned. Big Cypress National Preserve (under Controversy Over Off-Road Vehicles). I'm trying to locate additional proof that we're not crazy, please bear with me. Jnonnemaker 09:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- The "Controversy" section of that article makes no references to "Gladin'." What we need are reliable sources showing that this is a notable activity, not just a group of kids destroying rental cars (presumably in direct violation of their rental contracts) and then bragging about it online. If it's not a case of WP:NFT, then the article needs to demonstrate that enough so that it doesn't look that way to someone unfamiliar with the subject. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 10:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight. You rent a car, practically trash it, then expect the rental agency to take it back (with the damage covered by the CDW, presumably), and not one insurance or rental agent or rental car company lawyer calls you out on this obvious violation of contract? Many rental cars are equipped with GPS tracking and you'll get nailed with fees if you take a car off road. Rental car companies are somewhat noted for nailing people for fees on even minor contract infractions, let alone nearly trashing a vehicle. to acheive this form of gladin you must drive down the Alaskan Highway at high speeds (100+MPH) Yeah, right. I might buy that story if you were Brock Yates, but until you come up with reliable sources that document 100 MPH speeds on the Alaska Highway, the story belongs on a blog, not WP. The pictures only show dirty vehicles, not ones that have been trashed. Delete. Tubezone 11:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Dellin' like a Felon because it's so not gellin'. Danny Lilithborne 09:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
DELETE' These idiots are why real off-roaders get their land shut down. Jackasses. I'm going to make sure and plaster your pictures all over real off roader websites, hopefully they will find you. I should also send your pictures to Hertz, Enterprise, etc. Mtxchevy 13:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Entire article promotes illegal activity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.68.196.38 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Delete. There would be a certain degree of irony in applying the WP:SNOW principle here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - The last thing legal off-roaders need is moronic idiots such as these from giving fuel to the eco-nazi end of the spectrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.101 (talk • contribs) 2006-12-13 16:12:23
Please note that arguments that "these people are criminals/idiots/jackasses" are not arguments based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Please base your arguments upon our policies and guidelines. Your personal opinions of these people are irrelevant to whether or not they warrant an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 17:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and all of the above. Doc Tropics 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Does anyone know what template creates that message at the top of an AfD to tell people that if they were told to come here by a friend or on some online message board or whatever that we generally don't count votes (for lack of a better word – I know it's a dicussion, not a vote) from anonymous or single-purpose accounts? There's a forum on a 4x4 website encouraging people to come here, which is probably what caused all of the vandalism that made it so the article had to be semi-protected. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- {{afd-anons}}--Wafulz 20:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Edison 20:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per MER-C FirefoxMan 01:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - As hoax. "Butt-Gladin: Very experimental. Normally done while on heavily potholed roads. James removes his pants, and slowly sits down on Josh (the driver) Once fully inserted, they drive over 55 mph down an extremely bumpy road. The trick is to see who comes to a climax faster. James usually does, because he is already out of the closet." - hard to describe this as anything but trash. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 03:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That part was apparently vandalism that didn't get caught. There was an insane amount of vandalism before it became semi-protected, and I just reverted more that happened afterward. It's really a shame that people are stooping to that level, especially when it's clearly going to be deleted soon anyway. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Extremely Strong Delete!, this article violates WP:NFT,WP:NOT,WP:DUMB,WP:BOLLOCKS, and everything else. Storm05 14:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- It cannot possibly violate an essay. And consider yourself warned for incivility. – Ch acor 15:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - This is not a sport or even a good idea for a responsible person to do. The wiki should not promote illegal off-roading and/or damaging of others vehicles. It appears to be some kids seeking out their 15min of fame in a pretty poor way. 4x4support.com 17:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete under WP:NFT and WP:V.-- danntm ^T _C 18:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - This is not only not a sport and destructive of our vanishing natural resources, not to mention destructive of private rental property, it is damaging to the people who do offroad responsibly and follow the "Tread Lightly" offroading philosophy that encourages the protection of wild areas for future enjoyment. It damages the reputation of offroad clubs and groups that go out and clear trails, pick up trash and take good care of the wild areas of our country. Another thing including this article does is damage Wikipedia. When young, bored and incompetent people can come on Wikipedia and post up their irresponsible behavior then a precident is set and Wikipedia becomes a version of MySpace or YouTube to post up ever escalating versions of destructive "one-upsmanship." Wikipedia needs to be cautious about its reputation as it will soon be facing competition. Wikipedia is already suffering slights to its credibility and doesn't need spoiled grown children to further trash its intellectual stock. Should this article stand, I will cease to use Wikipedia. I can't in conscience use a website that promotes wantonly destructive behavior while promoting itself as an intellectual resource. Oh, and hope some kids don't find this article, commit the same acts and the parents hire a lawyer. Must watch what you put on the net these days. Qwiksilver 20:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You have come to the wrong place for a rant. Wikipedia does not and has not endorsed any activity whatsoever. Adding an article to wikipedia, whether its illegal or not, has nothing to do with endorsement. Nonsense articles up for deletion such as this one only verifies its credibility. --I already forgot 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - based off of WP:NFT,WP:NOT,WP:DUMB and possibly more. Apeters89 01:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Thoroughly unencyclopedic, and beyond cleanup, in my opinion. Grand master ka 22:19, 16 December 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. --Core desat 04:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyupyoung

This article on an obscure South Korean manufacturer does not appear to meet WP:CORP. It is one of a very large number of articles created by a single user in what appears to have been a semi-bot autocreation of machine-translated corporate spam articles. I have not found any record of third-party coverage or any other tokens of notability, in either Korean or English. 'Hyupyoung -wikipedia' gets 170 Google hits; the Korean name "협영" gets 980. No reliable sources are evident in either set of results. Prod tag was removed, although I'm not sure why; therefore listing here. Visviva 05:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable at all. This is the kind of thing that makes me wish prod removals could be reverted if done with no explanation. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- In fairness, there was an explanation, i.e. "Seems notable." I'm just not quite sure what made the article topic even seem notable. :-) -- Visviva 10:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  - You're right. Still, just saying "notable" isn't much better than nothing. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 06:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom - unless someone with a working knoledge of Korean can translate the ghtis in that language and show the notablity. SkierRMH,01:35, 14 December 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. --Core desat 04:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spatial Doppler effect

This article is original research. While some of the material is accurate, a lot of it is an original amalgamation of various ideas from special relativity and redshifts. --ScienceApologist 05:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:V with 23 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 06:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and MER-C. Guettarda 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unless the author adds some sources, bye! FirefoxMan 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-verifiable original research. SkierRMH,01:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete under this lemma, possibly merging salvageable parts at relativistic aberration. The title is pure OR, but the effects described are of some interest. Since the implementations of ray tracing programs incorporating the laws of special or general relativity 4D ray tracing quite a lot has been done on this topic, e.g. for teaching relativity. We are already using CC images from http://www.spacetimetravel.org/galerie/galerie.html (english translation of the site is still very much lacking, perhaps they should set it up as a Wiki, so have a look at german main page: http://www.tempolimit-lichtgeschwindigkeit.de/ --Pjacobi 09:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, MER-C and Pjacobi. Anville 21:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Maybe I just do not understand the article, but this seems to describe nothing more than length contraction. It is not needed, Dr. Submillimeter 13:52, 15 December 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. --Core desat 04:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leon Pieket

There is no indication of how the subject passes WP:MUSIC. Suspected conflict of interest: authored by Special:Contributions/Leonpieket. Ohconfucius 05:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - unsourced autobiography. MER-C 06:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as AUTO or BIO or COI, MUSIC, etc. SkierRMH,08:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Also, only 798 Google hits (121 unique). Prolog 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As stands does not meet WP:MUSIC. ccscott 16:35, 13 December 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. --Core desat 04:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standard office document formats debate

Even with all the POV and crystal ball speculation removed, this could never amount to more than an unencyclopedic essay. Zarquon 05:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 06:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete , the article is mostly full of rubbish anyways. hAl 08:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. As eciting as the topic is, I don't believe it's encyclopedic. TSO1D 12:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. While it's an interesting topic, and while I am an OpenOffice.org user myself, it doesn't belong here. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, with some regrets. Portions of this text, heavily edited, would indeed make valuable additions to the document file format article, which is brief and stubly. It would need thorough editing for NPOV and encyclopedic style, and I'd encourage the author to work on that one. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete WP:SNOW FirefoxMan 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete - agree with Smerdis, needs culling & better resources, but there is a core of an article in there. SkierRMH,01:38, 14 December 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. --Core desat 04:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BuMbLePuPpIe

Article was CSD'd for A7 reasons. Article creator contested the speedy, and another editor claimed specific sources (not just "sources are somewhere out there", see talk page), so I'm moving this to AfD to let it run its course. Neutral. ColourBurst 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like a poorly written vanity article. Contains stuff like this: As if that wasn't enough to make them the best band in the universe....they host all the music for downloading free.of.charge. Doesn't cite sources, either. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, changing my vote to Speedy delete. :) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, fails CSD. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, passes the Glorified garage band test - unless the 'members' link to Ethan Smith is legit and this member is an 18th century Mormon author! That would, in and of itself, be qutie notable :) SkierRMH,01:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment for the closing admin. Looks like there may be a bunch of images that need to be marked as orphans when you close this. GRBerry 05:26, 16 December 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 11:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberty Ball

Just another pyramid selling scheme, this time in Ireland. All sufficient details are already in the pyramid selling scheme article. Delete Ohconfucius 06:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 06:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom... no need to merge into pyramid selling scheme. SkierRMH,08:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and add mention into pyramid scheme article, so if people look it up, they get directed to that article. Leaving this in as an article just artificially raises ghits total for the phrase, which benefits no one but the scammers. Tubezone 09:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete not a particularly significant pyramid scheme.-- danntm ^T _C 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Yanksox 05:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Mattuck

From speedy. If he is really a full professor in MIT, I bet he is somehow notable Alex Bakharev 06:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Notability not asserted Akihabara 13:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Simply being a professor at XYZ university doesn't mean that they're notable. Notablity not present here. SkierRMH,01:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Wonderful teacher, good with freshmen, but notable I'd say mainly as a teacher rather than as a researcher. He's taught MIT's very influential intro linear algebra course for decades, IIRC; Proftest doesnt take into account people who have influenced a vast number of undergraduates like that. I would think he's encyclopaediac in that practically everybody who's been to MIT has been influenced by him, but others may not. Hornplease 10:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Deciding to vote Strong Keep: following GRBerry's intervention below. WP:PROF clearly states that if the author has published a notable work that is "prescribed as a textbook, a reference work, or required reading in an undergraduate- or graduate- level course; which is not taught, designed, or otherwise overseen by the author; at several independent accredited universities", then the individual is notable. Mattuck's introduction to Analysis is a standard textbook for (difficult-ish) first courses in undergrad analysis. In particular, [13], [14], [15], [16], and literally dozens of others. I cant believe I didnt think of this earlier. This explains why most academics notable as good teachers do eventually meet wp:prof - they tend to write good textbooks that are prescribed. I'd urge the closing admin to note that this realisation comes a little late in the deletion process. Hornplease 04:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor nitpicks: I don't know how often that really happens that good teachers end up writing textbooks. Often I don't think they do. Also, your first link shows that Mattuck's book is actually used for the easy analysis class (311), not the "difficult-ish" one, which is 413. --C S (Talk) 05:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Akihabrara FirefoxMan 12:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep this is a candidate for expansion, a quick sweep of google scholar demonstrates passing wp:prof. however, it's a stub now, so expand and cite.--Buridan 13:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless further information is forthcoming. I don't see anything on Google Scholar establishing notability (Buridan, please be more specific in your claims). He has written 15 papers or so, almost all of them more than 30 years ago but unless any of them is important that's nothing special. As it stands, the article is worthless. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless expanded, as is not worth keeping Alf photoman 17:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I suspect that he does meet WP:PROF, but can't see the evidence on Google Scholar. His primary work would be in the pre-Web era, so I don't know how much would be on line. (I remember a line from one of my fellow students - in Math, if you haven't done anything particularly noticable by age 25, you won't, and he was a tenured professor when there were only 100 web servers in the world.) I never had him as a professor, taking the theoretical variants of calculus, while he was a teacher for the applied variant. I thought the book with 256 cites would put him over the top, but that one is by his brother and his name appears as a thank you in the intro. His textbook does appear in 74 libraries, so it may meet the textbook test of WP:PROF, but I can't prove it. [17]. GRBerry 05:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: He has done high-quality research early on in his career, much better than many of the mediocre mathematicians put on Wikipedia simply because of some bias like nationality. Unfortunately, if this time around, people are going to apply some kind of stringent requirement to him, he probably fails, as his interests have switched a long time ago to educaation and service rather than purely research. And that kind of thing is harder to document notability in, unless he has won some teaching awards or the like. --C S (Talk) 11:36, 16 December 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 11:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lichtenberg Transmitter

Just another small mast of 135m, with no indication as to its importance. Delete per precedents already well established at KCHZ Tower, TBN Tower, KEXL FM and GBC LP DBA Tower Ohconfucius 06:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 06:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per precedents. SkierRMH,08:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Edison 20:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per precedents FirefoxMan 12:05, 14 December 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 again. Sandstein 17:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backdraft (drink)

Non-notable cocktail, no references. Previous AFD discussion closed with no consensus. Promised "documentation" has not been forthcoming, and the article is almost entirely statements that are likely to be impossible to verify using reliable sources. Quale 06:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. -- Samir धर्म 07:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP - I agree that this article needs work. That is why the WikiProject Cocktails has it flagged for improvement. As it clearly states on the articles talk page, the Project members are currently working on cleaning up and improving a large number of articles. This one certainly qualifies as one worthy of keeping, and improving. Despite the fact that some may not have heard of this particularly showy drink, and despite the tone of the article (which I personally find highly irritating), the drink is very notable and rather unique. It could be argued that 50% or more of the various cocktail-related articles could be condensed down to a recipe. This is one cocktail that certainly could not qualify for that. First, the method of preparation is quite complicated and potentially dangerous. Second, the physics of the drink is included, making it remarkably interesting (despite the tone) compared to the hundreds of other drink articles I've been reading through. We have requested that everyone relax and let the Project members do their work on these articles without deleting them until we have had a chance to do whatever it is we need to do with them to make Wikipedia better. In many cases, that will be requesting deletion AFTER we merge the useful information into other articles (and figuruing out the best place to move it to is partly why it takes time). This is one article that I doubt would ever be considered for deletion due to the wonderful uniqueness of the drink AND its notability. Just because few people order one and suffer the effects of such a hideous drink does not mean it is not notable. Verifiability should be easy to do, but again, it takes time to sift through several hundred articles with a small team of people working on it. Instead of deleting clearly tagged WikiProject Cocktails articles while we are actively in this Cleanup Project, consider pitching in and helping us improve them. Thank you. --Willscrlt 07:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google search returns:

Flaming Dr. Peppers - Check out those flames! (pretty much unrelated, but it mentioned Backdraft and flaming cocktails)

So, it would appear that after a quick 3-page search of google, there is definitely a drink (and fairly popular according to 1001 Cocktails) called a Backdraft. The ingredients, manner of preparation and presentation vary, and I could not find the exact methods mentioned in this article. However, it is still a fairly interesting cocktail, and with work (that I will be happy to do between now and February 28, 2007, which is the deadline for completing the Cleanup Project), it could be a good article. So spare the article (again) and let the Project members (probably that will be me) have a chance to fix the article. Thanks. --Willscrlt 08:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete we are not a repository for either food or drink recipes. Beyond that, you don't have very much except an entirely unreferenced article. I don't see how this is paticuarly notable either. Viridae ^Talk 11:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Previous AfD was only 1 month ago; Wikiproject Cocktails has set itself a deadline to clean up/merge/delete the various articles under their scope. This article is already being taken care of, there's no good reason to step on their toes. BCoates 12:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Cocktails project should be given a chance to fix. If no progress after several months; let's review. Akihabara 13:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to b:Bartending. --Howrealisreal 15:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki-ing is one of the options we do consider in the WikiProject Cocktails Cleanup Project, especially for detailed recipes. Many wonderful people have done that before, and it has really been a benefit. However, there is more to this drink than a simple recipe. One thing I am considering is merging several smaller articles into one larger one discussing flaming cocktails and using specific examples. This article (with work) would fit that bill, but we need the extra time to complete this process. --Willscrlt 15:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That would work. I tend to think that a cocktail needs to have something notable about it to be listed in Wikipedia. All else that can be verified can go to Wikibooks. If a case can be made that this cocktail is part of a larger notable method, then by all means keep in Wikipedia somewhere. Cheers. --Howrealisreal 15:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Admittedly, the majority of people researching drinks are doing so specifically to find a recipe. That's great. We can easily point them to the complete recipe archive in Wikibooks. However, a brief very listing of ingredients is actually helpful for distinguishing between the various drinks, much as the mollecular weight and other identifying aspects of a chemical compound or the characters in a film. Yes, Wikipedia is not a cookbook, but that does not mean it must exclude all references to the component ingredients that identify a particular beverage. What is important is that the article must be more than just a recipe or process by which to make the drink. The article should focus on the cultural and historical nature of the drink, for that is what exerts the notability of the drink. This particular drink is notable, I'm fairly sure, but the article is poorly written and does a lousy job of explaining or proving that. If it cannot be proved within a reasonable time, then deletion is one logical decision. I am not arguing with the deletion process; I am just concerned about the timing of this (and other) deletions in cocktail-related articles. Thanks. --Willscrlt 01:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep until 2007-02-28 and revaluate. The arguments presented above and the first AfD have convinced me that the drink in question is unique enough from other cocktails that it may merit an article. If by the deadline the article is just a recipe, it should go. ccscott 16:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The existence of a wikiproject does not cause any given article within its scope to gain any sort of inherent encyclopedic value, which this article does not have. Agent 86 20:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I never meant to claim that the Project should have any impact on the perceived value of an article. The article must be able to stand on its own just as any other article in the Wikipedia. I'm sorry if anything I said appeared to indicate otherwise. All I am requesting is a little time (and a definite time at that) in which to complete the research and improvement of this and the other articles on which the Project members are working. At the completion of the WikiProject Cocktails Cleanup Project, if it turns out that this article is still substandard, the Project will nominate the article (along with many other articles) for deletion and will offer no objection to deletion at that time. --Willscrlt 01:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The quality of an article is not really a basis for deletion or retention. It is all about encyclopedic value. A well-written and well researched article can still fail the policies and guidelines for inclusion, while a poorly drafted article can still meet the criteria for inclusion. Agent 86 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. An article that requires three pages to print, is witty, provocative, titilating, and enjoyable to read about my right foot still does not belong in the Wikipedia no matter how important that appendage might be to me personally nor how well I write the article. The Backdraft (drink) is a fairly notable drink (not in the same league as a Martini or a Long Island Iced Tea, but then few drinks are. As long as the notability, popularity, and relevance of the drink can be established, and hopefully the tone quality of the written article is improved, I think the article deserves to be saved. Again, all I am asking is the time to figure out if that can be done through research (no, not "original research", but researching what's already out there). Come February 28th, if the article does not meet standards, I will be happy to nominate its deletion myself, because by then I will have had the opportunity to do the research necessary to make that determination and update the article or salvage any useful bits if that is more appropriate. It is not the deletion of the article for which I am objecting, but the haste in which the decision is being made. Just give the WikiProject Cocktails members the time to complete their work and help improve Wikipedia overall within our area of concentration. It is not an open-ended request, but one with a fixed deadline to complete the improvements. Is that too much to ask? --Willscrlt 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - The world needs more variety! and a complete list of fun drinks sounds like a great place to start! SweetGodiva 22:27, 18 December 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. Agent 86 02:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best of KMD

From speedy. Apparently was already speedy deleted twice but never been to AfD Alex Bakharev 06:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Unless there's something in WP:MUSIC I missed. -WarthogDemon 07:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep The criteria for including albums as listed in WP:MUSIC reads "if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." KMD appears to satisfy this requirement and consequently so does the album. TSO1D 12:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep WP:MUSIC does seem to suggest that the KMD article would need to be non-notable as a prerequisite. Akihabara 13:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per TSO1D. Albums by notable artists are considered notable. Prolog 15:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 08:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Animes

Attempts to recreate previously deleted List of anime. Squilibob 06:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as recreation (G4). So tagged. Shimeru 06:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as repost. MER-C 07:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, G4. Even if it weren't a repost it's a horrid idea. Incomplete, unmanageably long if filled, and the category does a better job. --tjstrf talk 07:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per tjstrf. If it's categorized, it shouldn't need a list. -WarthogDemon 08:15, 13 December 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.--Kchase T 06:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Context Connect

Company whose article doesn't claim notability. No independent sources listed as references; my search turns up mentions, but they're mostly either directories or press releases. Probable COI. Reads like an ad. Prod was removed by author without comment. Don't believe this meets WP:WEB. Shimeru 06:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 07:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as spam --WP:CORP SkierRMH,08:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, Article is confusing, not too useful. FirefoxMan 16:42, 14 December 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 Jimfbleak. MER-C 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sneath

Non-notable neologism. Riana 07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - nonsense neologism. So tagged. MER-C 07:20, 13 December 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, default to keep. Sandstein 17:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everafter

Contested speedy Alex Bakharev 07:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep for now. Tribunal Records seems to be starting (via a different user). If that page can be expanded in the near future, I should think it would help this page comply with WP:MUSIC. -WarthogDemon 07:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep. User Cazzolla asserts on the Discussion page of the article that the band went on several tours of the US. If true, this would satisfy WP:MUSIC, specifically criteria #4, but this should be properly referenced. I do understand the difficulty in securing such a reference for a band that has be defunct for 3 years now, but an appropriate reference would go a long way in establishing the notability of the band. ccscott 17:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete FOr the same reason as Cazzolla - I don't see anything referencing these tours. Even then, would still put in the non-notable category. SkierRMH,01:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. As the article currently stands, there are no sufficient assertions of notability that are verified by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 16:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I have added a few references to tour dates/locations as well as to a 'Editor's Pick' article in Smother magazine (all cited). I am still trying to track down more (citable) dates/locations, but it is difficult as the dates will all be a couple of years old. Cazzolla 07:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete don't clearly meet WP:MUSIC. Eluchil404 08:01, 20 December 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.--Kchase T 05:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kushan Mitra

NN journalist. Prod removed, presumably because he won an award, in its first year of inception. Doubt that confers notability per WP:Bio. I implore people to consider that if this goes through, every minor journalist will be considered wp-worthy. Note WP:Bio also calls for multiple independent awards. Hornplease 07:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete NN person, nn award, not much else... SkierRMH,08:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 09:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't quite meet WP:BIO. -- Satori Son 15:33, 19 December 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. Sandstein 18:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dnyaneshwar Vidyapeeth

NN unrecognised 'university'. Reads like an ad. Was tagged for notability since June. Prod removed without useful comment. Hornplease 07:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - yes, you too can not only get your degree online, but can be a prof too! And, if this is what passes as English at the "university"... SkierRMH,08:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 08:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 09:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - "without useful comment" - bad faith trolling on part of nominator. Baka man 14:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to be a fairly accurate description of the edit summary given on this edit. Uncle G 17:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Spammy and no assertion of notability. Prolog 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment It has been reported by the Times of India as a "fake university"[18] and yet there's at least some evidence (like a government website[19] - see end of that page) that its training products are accepted in the job market. Either way, I don't see solid evidence of notability. Can Bakasuprman provide anything to help with that? Mereda 17:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I have no opinion on this particular article, but as for the nominator's comment that "Prod removed without useful comment", I need to point out that Hornplease yesterday prodded a significant number of articles (including this one) without giving any prod reason in the template where it belongs, and for the most part with only "prod" as his edit summary (the instructions say "Use an informative edit summary"). I find it annoying when browsing WP:PRODSUM not to be given any substantial reason, or, as in these cases, any reason whatsoever why something is proposed to be deleted. Upp◦land 17:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for inconveniencing you. Please note that all the articles I prodded, as a glance at any of them would have confirmed, had notability templates on them since June. I thought no further comment was required; I never use the bot myself. Hornplease 17:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --Gabi S. 16:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the person with the script handrwriting FirefoxMan 16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
DELETE per the first external link in the article - its under investigation as a fake university. Yet the POV (and rough English) in the article trys to sell it as a bonafide university. and who will type in the search window:Dnyaneshwar Vidyapeeth ~ yikes SweetGodiva 22:47, 18 December 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. Sandstein 18:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Mubayi

From speedy. Seems to be marginaly notable. Alex Bakharev 08:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete - about 100ghits, covering several languages; however, it looks like a lot of these are copies/translations of one another. SkierRMH,08:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:BIO, only 37 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 09:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the above. 37 hits is not enough, especially since no sources of this guy being mentioned in independent news sources have been provided. MartinDK 11:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Article makes no assertion of notability. Just being an artist confers no notability. What has this guy done? Caknuck 22:34, 13 December 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. 1ne 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sara Albert

Contested prod, in a manner of speaking: article was deleted on Dec 6, and made a hasty return on Dec 10. ANTM6 contestant who was the 3rd runner-up (ie came 4th). She appears to have scored a few minor gigs since the show. Delete Ohconfucius 08:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, most ghits are references to Top Model Gig, others are nn jobs. SkierRMH,08:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge and redirect externally verifiable content to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 6 or a subarticle dealing with a list of contestants (if such a list or article exists... I don;t suggest creating it). Even if there is nothing to merge, a plain redirect to one of the above two targets. Coming 4th on a reality television show does not make encyclopedic notability in my eyes, but there are going to be people looking for her name here. We may as well send them in the right generic direction. If and only if she becomes the next Elle McPherson or Cindy Crawford; undirect and recreate the article with the new, externally verifiable, third-party factchecked sourced info. -- saberwyn 08:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, nn losing reality TV contestant. MER-C 09:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, subject meets WP:BIO. Reality contestants are inherently notable, as they're known by millions and get plenty of attention. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete couldn't disagree more with the above. Reality contestants are certainly not inherently notable. Passive viewing by lots of people is irrelevant. By that horribly weak standard, anyone who ever showed up on television would be notable, which is a ridiculous assertion. Eusebeus 11:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Reality show viewing is decidedly less passive than other shows. See the criteria for television people at WP:BIO for a better explanation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    - I simply disagree, and thanks for citing WP:BIO; I would advise the same: Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Reality show contestants don't meet that standard. Eusebeus 13:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      - As they're quite notable, reaching the standard that WP:BIO requests for "notable...television personalities," it absolutely qualifies. You can disagree, but you're disagreeing with the guideline. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      - No they certainly do not and insisting that your reading is indisputably correct in the face of clear disagreement from a number of editors is silly. Anyway, whatever - we disagree and that's fine. I think others would side with my reading of the BIO guideline though. Eusebeus 14:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, i think she's sucessful enough to have her own article. And her career is now exploding.--Thelastnigth 06:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Very weak keep or Redirect. Elcda0 00:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete reality show contestants. 15 minutes of fame doesn't cut it. Redirect to the page on the show. (Radiant) 14:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I cannot agree more with Eusebeus. Most so-called "reality" shows are nothing but prime-time overblown game shows. While the pool of contestants might be smaller, unless the person has won really big or done other things beyond being on the game show, reality show losers are really no more notable than the person who didn't win the Showcase Showdown. The person in this article really hasn't done anything other than lose at a gameshow, and can be mentioned on the main article about the show itself. Agent 86 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I would like to clarify something. I said weak keep because I believe Sara meets the criteria for WP:BIO, but just barely. It says that notability can be established through multiple non-trivial works, which Sara has done. I also believe Sara meets the criteria for "notable actors and personalities in well-known films and televison productions," which says that notability can be established through a large fan base and name recognition (which are both something Sara would meet). The comparison of reality contestants to contestants on Jeopardy! or The Price is Right would seem logical for some reality contestants, but in Sara's case, it's not. Elcda0 15:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I think it should stay.--Imthso 06:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete not notable on her own. Maybe if she won. Just H 20:34, 20 December 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. 1ne 20:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Involuntary celibacy

This article should be considered an attack article. It is very prejudicial and should be deleted immediately! User:Ard7c5 — Ard7c5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I'm striking the nomination as bad faith and pointless. Discussion may proceed on T. Anthony's point below.--Kchase T 09:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Not an attack article. SWAdair 08:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep - bad faith nomination. MER-C 08:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete It's mostly just a collection of unverified notions as to why there are people who want sex, but don't seem to get it. It states it "is not recognised by most experts in psychology, virtually no research has been published, and no statistics are available." Also this is likely just a dicdef at best.--T. Anthony 09:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- There's a bit to it after all, but I'm not convinced it's enough. I'll leave it at that.--T. Anthony 11:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment -- The deletion rationale has changed so I'm responding now to the new rationale. Although most web-based mentions of this phrase mean simply "I'm not getting any," there are several reputable references that suggest the subject is the focus of serious study. It has been researched for eight years. "The study was initiated in 1998, when a member of an online discussion group for involuntary celibates approached Donnelly about current research on the subject."[20] The initial study was published in a professional scientific publication [21], has been mentioned in news reports[22] and was included in an anthology of scholarly literature.[23] The subject is included on university syllabi.[24][25] and was the catalyst for events that lead to the publishing of the book Confessions, by Arthur Pekar.[26] The article is not original research, not a neologism and much more than a dicdef. I see no reason to delete the article. SWAdair 11:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of that doesn't strike me as convincing on its own, but combined it might be a something. Still this comes close to just a group of people saying "hey prof write about this" and the prof thinking it'll be amusing for his or her colleagues. Still I switched to weak delete.--T. Anthony 11:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep 12.217.36.123 made only one contribution, making this RFD in bad faith. Nonetheless, although the article does need a little work, what it describes is real. Anarchist42 18:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, real term that needs an explanation, but clean up Alf photoman 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per SWAdair. The references cited should be integrated into the article and not merely cited here. Edison 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. SWAdair 07:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete As the article states, "Involuntary celibacy is not recognised by most experts in psychology", it's use is extremely limited, not widely accepted as being accurate/worthwhile in the psychological world - and there are better, more widely accpeted categories for much of what is in the article. Would like to see all of the citations above included to reflect that. SkierRMH,01:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep -- bordering on OR, but a fairly well known pop psych/pop cultural concept, even if there isn't much mention of it in the literature. Haikupoet 01:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep, bad faith nom of article with thousands of google hits. Mathmo ^Talk 06:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep very important concept. Anomo 22:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep It could use some more referencing to avoid POV/OR, but deleting it isn't necessary. —ShadowHalo 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Keep and clean up...shorten— SweetGodiva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Its an important subject, I never knew it had a term.SweetGodiva 22:24, 18 December 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 as speculation. The sources upon which the substance of the article is based are not concrete, with everyone except for Sony sidestepping the official confirmation of the next-gen console. Even the Sony quote is given in the context of management changes rather than a confirmation of the development of future technology. The Sony quote from Eurogamer; "...I think it would be rather short-sighted for anyone to predict there might not be a next generation of PlayStation product." Is not a press release endorsing future product development; the same goes for the X-Box 720 - "In reference to the 'Xbox 720', Bach told SJ Mercury News "you know how these things work. The engineering team is always thinking about the future," adding that, "right now we are thinking about how to cost reduce the Xbox 360. That seems to be the first order of business.". The Melbourne Age article on Apple is op-ed, referring to burnt fingers from previous failed ventures and their current revenue streams rather than future products. Occam's Razor now applies to this summary of the article sources. (aeropagitica) 23:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of video game consoles (eighth generation)

No console of this generation is even in development yet, leaving the page nothing but speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This page was deleted once before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of video game consoles (eighth generation) Indrian 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep That section of NOT begins "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation" and verifiability was also lacking in the previous AFD. It has sources now and other than a bit of original research at the bottom that I'm removing, the article is well-written and well-sourced.--Kchase T 09:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, most of the article is unverified speculation. The dates given for the generation are unverified speculation, the sources on the camera technology has to do with speculation related to the 360 only and is therefore no source at all, making the camera information unverified speculation, and the timing of any attempt by Apple to enter the market and therefore what generation a console by the company would belong to is not known, making that unverified speculation. This bascally leaves the article with the only verified information that a PS4 will exist and that a next-gen Nintendo console will include high definition. That is not much of an article. Indrian 09:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I've just added a source for the year 2010 release. Jecowa
Keep i don't know if i'm allowed to vote since i'm the article’s creator, but not a single thing in that article is not located in one of the sources i've sited. With the exeption of Apple each of the companies in question have made some announcements or statements concerning their eighth gen console. i waited to post this article until that was the case. The Wii 2 will have HD capabilities, the 720 is on the backburner at the moment, and the PS4 is going to be released after 2010. o, and thanks for the complement Kchase. J.L.Main 09:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

comment i went back and looked and i must admit i did have some original research. i've removed it and can now say what i've already said and be telling the truth.J.L.Main 09:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

- You're welcome to contribute to the AfD. It's suggested that people disclose if they are editing an article, which you've done. Thanks for removing that bit of OR. I'm sure you'll find a source if you need to.--Kchase T 09:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and possibly Rename? Seems to me that "history of..." is the wrong way to describe it. I think the material has merit though as per above. --Chrisd87 11:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

comment the name is so that the artical is in line with the articals on the past seven generations. if we change the nae to this one we would kind of need to change the names for all the others.J.L.Main 11:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 14:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete this is pure Crystal Balling. The seventh generation just got fully started less than a month ago. We have no idea what companies will be involved in the next one. Koweja 14:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete - This is article is pure self-indulgent fan specualtion. The Kinslayer 14:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - It's not fan specualtion. It's well-sourced speculation and allowable per WP:Crystal Ball. Jecowa 23:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This is far too early. Thunderbrand 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, verifiable and sourced information. —Nightst a llion (?) 16:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete While i am a fan of video game consoles, i agree with the points stating that it is far to early to create an article on a generation of consoles that haven't even been released yet, and will not be until the distant future. Given the article is based on History of gaming consoles, it seems to me ridiculous to classify yet-to-be released consoles within a history-based article. When we reach that generation, of course, but now isn't that time. Bungle44 19:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - per Kchase T. While this article is speculation, it is verifiable speculation with confirmation from the director and manager of Nintendo, the president of Microsoft's entertainment and devices division, and the vice president of technology at Sony. Consoles are planned years before they are released. Jecowa 19:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep - I initially thought this page was a bit pointless - I thought it was just ropey speculation about stuff that doesn't exist yet - but it's got sourced statements and there definitely is some useful content. The gaming companies are already planning ahead to the next-gen and as time goes on more and more solid facts will arise. Cut out or source the more ropey speculation about names and particularly speculation about Apple - there's barely any evidence at all for an Apple console. Sum0 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The problem is that the solid facts won't arise for a few years, and even if companies are currently planning on releasing sequels (which the no doubt are since none of them are going to leave the business without reason) that might change depending on how well each console sells. There was lots of speculation about the Dreamcast 2 afterall. Koweja 20:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete - Just because it was hinted at doesn't mean it's confirmed. This page means nothing. Lemmy12 20:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dionyseus 23:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a non-user of these things, this was really 'nocontext' to me - and it smacked of crystalballin' as well. SkierRMH,01:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Well sourced, and part of the series. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong neutral There's no doubt that there will be another generation of consoles, so this article will eventually have content and importance. Unfortunately, although the text in the article is sourced and verifiable, it is so intensely speculative that it is of little value. What's the use of keeping such an article? But what's the use of deleting it, only to have to recreate it when more information arrives? — brighterorange (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment because it will be years before this page needs to be recreated and none of the information on it will be valid or will be so trivial that it won't be included anyway. Not even the names of the systems, except the PS4. The other two are just names made up by fans. I'd be willing to be money that the next Nintendo system will not be called the Wii 2. Koweja 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Gaming companies plan their next system many years in advance. By having this article readers will know what information is available. We will not know everything for sure until these systems are released, but we can mention they companies have planned. I don't think the article was trying to say that the successor to the Wii will be named "Wii 2." This is just what the console is referred to at this time. Jecowa 04:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that this page is not needed to get that information. There is nothing wrong with the pages on Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft including what little information is known about next-gen systems. This page, however, will never consist of more than idle speculation for several years and therefore goes against the crystal ball policy. Besides, I think a member of the general public looking for this information has no idea what "generation" of systems we are currently in and is more likely to look on the company pages anyway. When the generation exists, or at the very least has taken a concrete form, then we can have this page. An enclyclopedia is about facts, not rumormongering. Indrian 04:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, future events should only be included if the event is notable, is almost certain to take place, is verifiable, and is not original research. The eighth generation of video game consoles is notable, and it is almost certain to come about, so we just have to make sure to include verifiable sources and exclude original research from this article.

I don't think an article being hard to find is grounds to remove it, but we can make redirects from "Xbox 720," "Xbox 3," "PS4," "PlayStation 4" Playstation 4," and "Wii 2" to this article until there is enough information available on the individual systems to warrant separate pages. Also, if we let this article remain Google will index it, allowing this article to show up in Google searches for the queries "Xbox 720," "Playstation 4," and "Wii 2." Many users of the internet use Wikipedia as a primary source for information as it is much easier to find information on Wikipedia than it is to search through a bunch of web pages for it. Jecowa 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not advocating it be removed on grounds of being hard to find. Even with the sources provided, most of the article is unverifiable speculation. It runs afoul of the crystal ball policy. Indrian 09:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep, per Jecowa. The article complies with WP policies and theres no doubt more details will trickle in over time - not years, more like scraps per month. Just watch the hardware claims, anything short of a hardware R&D contract or concept demo is probably speculation, regardless of the source. --MegaBurn 08:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In which case, wouldn't an article of this sort be better suited in a Future of video games consoles? The current title and significant quantities of the information are, as stated in above arguements, speculated, and are of little or no use to someone reading it, given the information could completely change when we reach closer to this generation. When we have some concrete information about this generation, i would support such an article, but again along the lines of Future of video game consoles. I may have even supported a rename of the article if there was less speculation and more concrete information. Bungle44 09:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, accurate information about upcoming consoles is extremly hard if not impossible to get, for example in the current generation accurate information about the consoles didn't appear until months before the consoles themselves were released. It is entirely plausible that final specs for the first 8th generation console won't be released until 2011. Dionyseus 09:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to Future of video game consoles or something similar. Article is fine, but it's not really history. The next consoles are in early development (or at least planning) due to the fast nature of the industry. As covered before, this article doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL so I don't see anything wrong with it. Just make sure all the information is cited. Also, an article being deleted before is not grounds for deleting it again. People can fix problems, just like they have. This isn't raw speculation, it's reporting official ideas for the future. -Ryanbomber 12:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I would support a movement of the current article to a title which doesn't portray the information as past tense (e.g: Future of..). However, speculated information (such as some console names and dates) should be removed, even if that leaves only a stub of information which is at least verifyable and can be confirmed. As for those who say changing the name of the article would disrupt the sequence, I would much rather support an article with a name that reflects the information contained within it, as opposed to an article name which is misleading (History of), with content which is of the complete opposite. Bungle44 13:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment i'm fine with renaming the article. i would like to point out however that if you go back an look at the first entry of just about any video game article you will find that the one i've crated is infinity superior and yet they were allowed to remain while mine is being considered for deletion.J.L.Main 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm all for trimming all the unsourced speculation. -Ryanbomber 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Yeah, I see how the word "History" in the title would confuse people. Maybe we should move it to "Future of video game consoles" like Bungle44 suggested. It would make the History of videogame consoles infobox more clear to have generations of the past labeled "History" while the generation of the future is labeled "Future." Maybe along those lines we should also move "History of video game consoles (seventh generation)" to "Presence of video game consoles (seventh generation)"

Seriously Strong Keep, because the article concerns something of cultural and economic importance, that is indeed being planned by console makers and gamers alike, and barring the apocalypse will come about. Best and thanks for creating this fascinating article! Sincerely, --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 21:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- However it is completely speculation. Wikipedia is WP:not a crystal ball, and we're still at least 4 or 5 years away from when we would first get verifiable non-speculative information on the next generation consoles. Dionyseus 21:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I still support a delete or possibly a weak rename/move on the above suggestions, but certainly not keeping it in it's current state. There have been too many valid points raised in opposition for it to stay, but with the same respect, a few valid points for support. I still support deletion of the article, but maybe a rename with unverifyable information removed might be a fair outcome. If the latter however, chances are it would remain a relatively small stub for quite some time yet, and may just be worth deleting the article, until such a time comes when there is sufficient official information that will suffice reasons for the article's existance. Bungle44 21:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Its not all speculation, its not even half speculation. with the exception of the names, the entry on the Wii 2 is pure fact along with the one on the PS4. the speculation that is included is backed up with 2 or more sources. the names aren't speculation as no one is saying they will be called by these names. all the article says is that these are names that are being used for the systems at present. If i were to include all the speculation you guys seem to think is in this thing it would be longer than the one on the Wii.J.L.Main 22:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    - "The eighth generation in the history of video game consoles will begin at the end of the seventh generation, probably somewhere between 2010 and 2014." If that's not a crystal ball situation then I don't know what is. The entire article is pure speculation, no one knows what can happen a year from now, much less 7 years from now. I remember when Nintendo said the Gamecube would be their last console, and now we have the Wii. I remember when Sega said Dreamcast would not be their last console, but that certainly changed when the PS2 launched. Dionyseus 22:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      - first, i have moved the article to "Future of..." and i checked all of the pages that link to it. if i broke some rule than i'm sorry and will be happy to put it back if i did. second, Dionysius, you just dislike me, it has nothing to do with the article, but i will humor you anyway. it has already been agreed by every user on here but you that this is not crystal balling. it is well sourced and verifiable. And when a company says that they will do something it is not speculation for you or me to then turn around and tell someone what the company said it would do. also, speculation can not be done on fact. that is to say, i would not be speculating if i said the sun is going to rise to marrow. It wouldn't be specializing because we all know the sun is going to rise tomorrow. The statement "the Eighth Generation will start at the completion of the Seventh" is a fact, not crystal balling. if you don't believe me than go read the article on it.J.L.Main 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. To hell with that. Even 7th Gen has only just started. SYSS Mouse 23:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't believe the age of related articles affects whether or not policy allows this article. Furthermore, the History of video game consoles (seventh generation) article was started in early 2004. Jecowa 23:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  - 2004 is 5 years after the release of the 6th generation console Dreamcast, 4 years after the release of the 6th generation console Playstation 2. Here we are discussing whether we should have an article about the 8th generation consoles when the 7th generation has just started! Dionyseus 23:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    - I would now more so drop my possible weak movement of the article and fully stand by my deletion decision given that statement above. Far too many things can change in what we currently have many years until we can at least expect concrete information as to whether these consoles are going to be developed, and who by. Maybe in a year or so time, we can review what information there is, and if decided there is enough solid concrete information, then under a name other than referring to it as it's history. Bungle44 08:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Then this is a good place to update said changes. Just put a {{currentevent}} or {{futureevent}} and it's all good.-Ryanbomber 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. J.L.Main posted on my talk board asking me to reconsider my vote because "the PS4 has been confirmed, not just hinted at and i never claimed any of the others were confirmed". My two problems with this statement are that not only is there no citation on the PS4 claim, but things like this NEED CONFIRMATION. You can't just post speculation. Lemmy12 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- but there is a source, that has had a source since this article was created. go to the section on PS4 and look. its source number 4, "There will be a PS4 - Sony." also, here are some other links that support my claim, in addition to the one i sited in the article,

http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/04/dont-bother-picking-up-a-ps3-ps4-is-right-around-the-corner/

http://gamesnews.virgin.net/Virgin/Lifestyle/Games/virginGamesNewsDetail/0,13470,1757938_playbetandwin,00.html

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=150418&skip=yes

thanks for coming back. i do appreciate it. i don't mind if my article is deleted. i have a copy on my user page and if it is deleted i can wait till more information is announced and then re-post it when it is more likely to be kept. what i don't want is for it to be deleted for being something its not. this article is well sourced, and strives to present as little speculation as possible. if you vote to delete it please do so on either the grounds that it still needs more information or that it is too soon. it is not crystal balling and it is not pure speculation.J.L.Main 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm going to trim some unsourced things for the time being. A lot of things are unsourced, but at the same time a lot of things ARE sourced. Keep that in mind. -Ryanbomber 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I just checked it again, nevermind, IT'S ALL SOURCED TO SOME DEGREE. Why are we arguing about sources? -Ryanbomber 12:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much the fact that there are external sources citing parts of it's content, but that such cited information could very easily change, and indeed has done in the past, so it is near impossible for those sources to in fact accurately predict what will and what wont happen in the next gen of gaming consoles. As stated in previous comments, the article should remain non-existant until we are well into the current console generation, when there is more of a likely chance that external sources (and console creators for that matter), have a better idea of whether they are going to participate or not, and with which consoles. Bungle44 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's going to change a lot, and the information is almost certainally going to change, but I still don't see the problem with an article saying what the current plans are. Tons of Wiki articles document current/future events, what makes this one different (besides the fact that it's labeled "History of?") -Ryanbomber 17:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Current plans (even those quoted directly from official sources or console creators), are still speculated by the console makers to some extent. Dionyseus mentioned that Nintendo stated the Gamecube would be their last, yet, we have the Wii - not even the console makers really know at this point what will happen, hence it can easily put doubt on any external source, cited or not. Fact of the matter is, it is simply just too early. Bungle44 17:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The sources mentioned are not reliable (probably based on guesswork), and will most likely be false in the future. Shigeru Miyamoto does not decide Nintendo's future by himself, and neither does Paul Holman for Sony Computer Entertainment. Robbie Bach claims they are "thinking about" a successor to Xbox 360. All of this is just guesswork by members of the companies. There are no press releases, no official decisions, nothing. Until those exist, this article will violate WP:NOT. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Horrible crystal-balling. I see that it has references... how that is possible is beyond me... --- RockMFR 00:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Per WP:NOT... a crystal ball. When enough sourced content is available for an article on this generation, give it an appropriate title, please. Rockpocket 04:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment even though the companies have said they are going to release one, it is still speculation even if it on the part of the companies. It is like a movie industry announcing a movie is in development before filming has started - it quite possibly might be canceled. Another example would be a musician announcing that they are planning on releasing a new album when they are still writing the lyrics for the songs. Both of those types of articles are not appropriate for wikipedia until they are confirmed to be released. Koweja 04:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your analogy is flawed because in both the movie and music examples work on the project has already started. While console companies have begun talking about what they might develop in the future, actual development has not started yet. Indrian 05:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete and protect from recreation. 100% pure speculation. Andros 1337 22:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete and Salt The Earth; Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball, this is 100% speculation, and has no place here. --Mhking 22:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Regarding the crystal ball, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate." It's notable, certain to happen, and there is certainly preparation going on. Things such as th Wii successor having HD and the PS4 have been confirmed.

comment THIS ARTICAL IS NOT CRYSTAL BALLING!!!! the official wiki-definition of crystal balling is as follows,

"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." this article is not unverifiable speculation. it is not claiming that this is what’s going to happen, it is claiming that these are the current plans for the eighth generation. plans are verifiable even if in the end it doesn't happen that way.

"All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." everything in this article is referenced, many things by multiple sources. and as far as the wide interest goes, it was edited sixteen times in the last 24 hours. every day the number of daily edits has grown. it has even been vandalized twice, most unnoticeable articles don't get vandalized.

"It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." like i said, everything in this article is referenced, many things by multiple sources.J.L.Main 22:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, protect from recreation Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. Not notable, still speculative, regardless that it came from Kaz, Reggie, Miyamoto, etc. Zig 00:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please show me the place that says that speculation cannot come from people developing the product? -Ryanbomber 12:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. A single sentence at the end of the seventh generation console article would suffice, if any mention of this is warranted at all. -- The Anome 02:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. It's not known if any of the listed consoles will actually come to existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloud668 (talk • contribs)
Keep, FIFA World Cup 2014, FIFA World Cup 2018 --Ragnarok Addict 15:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- You cannot cite those articles as a reason to keep this one. For starters, no consensus has been made through AfD for them, and secondly, the circumstances are completely different. This article is not a widely publicized football tournament.--TheEmulatorGuy 22:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - The history of the eigth generation consoles is being made NOW, not just in the future, when actual products arrive at store shelves. The history of these consoles is like the history of any design; it starts long before things actually get built. The Freedom Tower isn't built yet. Do you really think there has been no history of the Freedom Tower until people walk through the doors? Of course not. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 22:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Another person using a faulty analogy. The design process of the Freedom Tower has been going on for a long time. The design process of the eighth generation of consoles has not begun yet. Indrian 23:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Except for the part where basic ideas have been thrown around. Which is, amazingly enough, what this article is cataloging. -Ryanbomber 12:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - The value of wikipedia lies in its ability to pool knowledge from a global community, cited or not, the information is valuable.
Comment From WP:CRYSTAL, because people keep citing it. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. -Ryanbomber 12:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Reply - It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. That last part is just as important Ryan. If there's no article to back any single sentence in an article like this, then it is OR. The Kinslayer 13:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Well darn. I can't defend that claim can I? -Ryanbomber 13:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I shall confine my putdown to the PS, since it;s the only I'm interested in to research. Oh, look. No PS4 according to my sources. And what's the this, MULTIPLE articles saying there is no PS4. I believe so. The Kinslayer 16:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, excellent. That would be the perfect thing to add to the article! Thanks for finding it. If you want, I can add it myself. -Ryanbomber 16:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

- One problem, although I'm sure you already thought of it. This article says it's about the history of the 8th Generation of video game consoles, not what analysts predict is going to happen. The Kinslayer 18:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Well referenced and meets the letter and spirit of WP:CRYSTAL for inclusion. Kinslayer's references also help rather than hurt the article. Even though they are just guesses by outsiders that are critisized in them.

Also I can't believe the people arguing for salting when this is clearly not a rehash of the original article. Dimitrii 18:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - per nom— SweetGodiva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep- Bly1993 22:07, 18 December 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. 1ne 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full moon cycle

Non-notable astronomical term. The entire article is an amazing example of original research. Tom Peters (talk · contribs) and Karl Palmen (talk · contribs) have been the main contributors. Not sure why this wasn't caught earlier... Gzkn 09:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note, I was looking at this version when I nominated. Jmax took out the most eggregious OR violations, but seeing as how Tom and Karl basically built the article from the start ([27]), I still think it's original research. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise... Gzkn 09:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep

As one of the main authors of the article I obviously think it should stay.

On the term: the cycle has been known "forever", but does not appear to have had a proper name. Karl Palmen needed a name to refer to this particular cycle so he invented one; mind that originally we called the article "fumocy" but that was changed to "full moon cycle" just because the term was not well known, even though the cycle is. A similar example: the term snowclone was recently minted on an on-line forum to describe an existing phenomenon, got an article on Wikipedia, which was submitted for deletion, but apparently prevailed. I propose to separate issues with using a neologism, from the subject and its Wikipedia article itself.
On original research: The variation in the apparent size of the Moon has been discussed in recent popular-astronomy publications as referenced in the article. The latter part of the "full moon cycle" article on using the cycle to more accurately predict the syzygies is recent "original" work (application or invention rather than "research"), but that happened among some people on a mailing list and not in the context of the Wikipedia. So I ask these questions: what is considered research (as distinct from other original work) and when does it stop to be "original" and becomes acceptable to each and every editor on Wikipedia?
On acceptance: googling shows many rip-offs from Wikipedia. Of potential relevance to this discussion is that the article has been translated into several other languages, so obviously several people found it of sufficient interest to bother doing a translation. The first non-wikipedia use of the term that I found was http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/suggest.htm ; admittedly that is on the website of a member of the same mailing list so he was familiar with the term; but again I think we should separate use of the neologism from the use of the cycle.

Tom Peters 12:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. Questions: were those calculations/tables in the article published elsewhere before they were put into this article? Do you know of any publication that discusses the Full moon cycle? Gzkn 00:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Some popular literature is listed as such under Literature in the article, and referred by author and year within the article; the cycle seems to have remained unnamed until Karl Palmen started using a descriptive one. The ideas of applying the cycle to calendars and syzygies have been developed on the CALNDR-L mailing list, and can be retrieved from its listserver: LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ECU.EDU . To get the most relevant posts, send this message to that list server: "GETPOST CALNDR-L 15949 15950 15958 16044 16322 17855 17944 18058". To search for "fumocy" send the message: "SEARCH fumocy IN CALNDR-L"; since that is >> 100 posts, better specify a date range, e.g. "SEARCH fumocy IN CALNDR-L FROM 20030201 TO 20030228". You will find more material on Victor's website at http://www.the-light.com/cal/ . We never bothered to try publish this in a paper journal: it is, as stated by a commentator, pretty obscure (the mailing list counts ~150 members), and electrons are so much cheaper than cellulose. Tom Peters 01:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

From this, it looks as if even calling it a "full moon cycle" seems to be original research, not just labeling it with the neologism fumocy. Are there any verifiable sources (books, astronomy publications/journals for example) that refer to this cycle? If so, what do they call it? I don't see the popular literature you refer to. Are you talking about the references section? If so, aren't those references just being used as sources for two or three sentences and a table, as the article seems to indicate? Gzkn 07:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the two Sky&Telescope articles. The old one from Meeus discusses the anomalistic month and its effects; the one from Sinnott notices the 413d = 14 lunation period in lunation lengths, but he does not name it. Already Kidinnu of 4th cy BC knew that 251 lunations form a more accurate cycle, I'll have to look up if older clay tablets containing the 14-month cycle have been preserved.

So can't we have an article about a cycle that is of some interest but has not (yet) received a commonly accepted name? The article actually was renamed from "fomocy" to the descriptive phrase "full moon cycle", and the Wikipdedia is full of such lemmata (which I deplore). Again, the use of this cycle to compute syzygies was original research, but took place outside of Wikipedia. So I think from a policy point of view the issues are: when does research stop to be original and is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia; and what is an acceptable reference? Incidentally, the chance that any editor will publish a paper on this is zero, because they will Google, find all the stuff has been on-line for years and translated into several languages, and will accuse us of ripping off from Wikipedia. Anyway, I believe the NOR policy exists to help maintain NPOV and verifiability: and the contents of this article are not controversial, and can be verified by anyone with moderate arithmetic skills and the interest to follow the steps. Tom Peters 09:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment — The topic is valid and encyclopedic, although obscure. At least some parts of the text appear original, although I have by no means checked all the details. Exact computation of the lunar orbit has a long history, so I'm leaning toward a keep unless it can be demonstrated that this is hogwash. — RJH (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Not hogwash; although "fumocy" is a neologism. The data here are correct as far as I can see; and useful, which is why the article is on my watchlist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is wether this is original research or not. Not whether this is correct and useful.Lunokhod 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see full moon and new moon as well. These have similar problems. Lunokhod 00:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove all original research, or delete. I do not have a problem with the content of this article, and I suspect that it is probably correct. Therein lies the problem, it is probably correct, but unverifiable unless one redoes the calculations himself. Nevertheless, it is wikipedia policy that encyclopedia entries should not contain original research, or even a synthesis of established facts (see Wikipedia:No_original_research). If this article was only a synthesis, I would not care, even though this goes against their policy. However, much what is written is describing new work, albeit, probably uncontroversial. Some of the work on lunar phase, new moon, and full moon has similar concerns. I propose (1) removing all original material or deleting, and (2) I propose that the authors publish this somewhere. Publishing does not have to be in a scolarly journal, and could be in a popular journal like Sky and Telescope (as one example among many). Publishing might also mean a web site describing the calculations in more detail, but this would be more gray. Lunokhod 00:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I take issue. First, AFAIK the Wiki policy on original "research" serves to maintain a NPOV on possibly divergent opinions. The policy exists to prevent what is essentially an encyclopedia to be mis-used as a forum for discussion or propagation of certain opinions. Therefore there is no ground to declare that policy applicable to just any article that just applies well-known concepts and data in a verifiable manner to obtain some possibly new results. However I would agree that Wikipedia ALSO should not be a place to develop or publish uncontroversial but original work. But second, that is not the case in this instance: stuff was done in some on-line forum. So I repeat my question: when does new stuff stop to be "original" and becomes acceptable for Wikipedia? Also, I find your requirement that it be published in a paper journal (refereed or not) ludicrous in this Internet age. Third, those other articles you mention are off-topic here, but I do remark that it shows that you take the concept of "original research" much too far: those articles have some numerical expressions that have been derived from published sources by simple arithmetic (and in one case even bothers to explain the steps in some detail to help verify the result). Since when is doing multiplication and addition "original research" that threatens the NPOV character of Wikipedia? Tom Peters 10:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No_original_research. There are three pillars to Wikipedia policy, No original research, neutral point of view, and verifiability. All material that could be questioned needs to be referenced. If you can not find a suitable reference, then this is a good indication that the first and third points are being violated. I also did not imply that material needs to be published in a scholarly journal: popular magazines or even a web site could be appropriate. The point is that the reader must be able to go to some form of "source" to find the details laid out in a coherent manner. As I said above, I suspect everything in this article is correct, it is just that it is the first time that it is being presented, and is therefore new. I quote from Wikipedia policy

“

Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position... the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

”

Lunokhod 16:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I read that, especially the that appears to advance a position. The policy is about NPOV. Also I am appalled that I need to point out here that an encyclopedia is all about synthesizing and summarizing information from various sources; you are not even allowed to (only) literally quote published material because of copyright. Tom Peters 11:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The article does present a position: it is presenting a method to calculate esoteric orbital cycles of the moon. Nonetheless, whether or not the article has a neutral point of view is irrelevant. Original research is not verified research. It cannot be published in Wikipedia. Dr. Submillimeter 13:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep - interesting, yes, but not written in an encyclopedic manner that would explain the charts & graphs to a non-expert. There does seem to be historical precedent, so a good re-write to get rid of OR would bring this up to snuff. SkierRMH,01:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised that no one before me has named the cycle. (unsigned)

Discovering and naming a phenomenon is original research. Lunokhod 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep but you may remove details of the specific method given of using the full moon cycle to reckon accurate moon phase, which is orginal research. --Karl Palmen 09:35, 14 December 2006 UT

Redirect to Lunar phase - The article as it is written represents original research. A Google search on " 'full moon cycle' -Wikipedia" shows that the term "full moon cycle" is more commonly used to refer to the 29.5 day lunar cycle. Since lunar cycle is currently a redirect to lunar phase, I suggest redirecting this article to lunar phase as well. Dr. Submillimeter 10:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Lunar phase is the hog wash, the calculation of the phases of the moon there is incorrect. A while back I took some data from Naval Observatory and plotted the amount of time between full moons. You get a nice pattern of composition of sinisodal curves documented in this article. You can see the graph at [28] which is what is reported here. --Salix alba (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that that link repeats what Sinnott published in Sky&Telescope in 1993, as quoted in the Full moon cycle article. Also note that the author finds a main frequency component with a period of about 413 days, which is the fumocy. Tom Peters 11:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep -- I participated in much of the original research starting in 2002. I have not participated much in crafting this wikipedia article, because I'm not very comfortable with the format. Furthermore, I consider Tom Peters to be eloquent and thorough. By the way, in response to why this wasn't caught before -- it was. The entire article was deleted once before as I recall, and then restored after some discussion. If there was consensus to restore it before, what has changed to merit removal once again?

Regarding the comment that "full moon cycle" more commonly refers to something else, my response would be that the appropriate action would be not to remove this page but to add a disambiguation page forking to both meanings. The meaning described here is a valid meaning. If "full moon cycle" is not the appropriate term, then I ask (as I did in 2002) what the appropriate term is. The concept is clearly valid, confirmed, sound, and useful. As to the original research objection, there is a large volume of original research off of wikipedia. This article is not a forum to advance the original research. Rather, the original research was conducted off-list. Tom Peters and I did most of the analysis to design the procedure, numbers used, etc. TP's techniques were different from mine. We used different epochs, methods, etc. yet arrived at similar results. In other words, we confirmed each others' research. Publicatio was to the CALNDR-L email list, whose archives are available to subscribers. I think publication elsewhere is a good idea, and I will work on doing so as I have time. I will also post an archive of relevant discussions on CALNDR-L, if for no other purpose than to provide a usable citation to web references to this topic. Further suggestions on this are welcome. Victor Engel 17:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not consider a list of emails on a listserver to be a publication; this material needs to be presented somewhere in a coherent manner. I think that a web site would be a first attempt, but this would not represent a consensus of the scientific community. For wikipedia, though, this might be ok: At least in this case one could honestly debate the issue. (The question of original research, which was the grounds for proposed deletion can not honestly be debated by anyone who has read wikipedia policy.) Lunokhod 17:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think my viewpoint is harsher than Lunokhod's. Engel and Peters have effectively self-published their own results in an email list. This is not at all comparable to publication in a scientific journal, where the journal needs to agree that a paper's analysis is valid before publishing the paper. Placing their derivations on a personal website is also inappropriate, as this is still self-publciation. (I could write an external web page that says "the Moon is made of brie" and cite it in Wikipedia, but my web page would not be a valid, reliable reference in that case.) Moreover, the research needs to be critically reviewed. Two individuals that discussed their own derivations with each other could have made identical key errors in their derivations. Their derivations need to be rigorously evaluated by an anonymous third party to check for errors (just as scientific journal articles are refereed by anonymous scientists that are uninvolved with the research but knowledgable enough to comment on it). Dr. Submillimeter 20:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine: Wikipedia is being peer-reviewed constantly, so why don't you just do that? As far as I am concerned, the whole project was to make the thing (finding the times of syzygies) "as simple as possible, but not simpler". It is not relativity theory. It is a simplification of well-established ephemeris procedures, all the details are there on the Wiki page, and earlier this year I elaborated on some of the (apparently non-obvious) steps in response to someone who studied the page and found it interesting enough to want to understand it. Tom Peters 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have mentioned that an implementation of this procedure has been online for some time. It is the new moon calculation for my 28/293 calendar at [29]. Unfortunately, I don't think all the code works properly in Firefox. Just click on a link on a new moon to see the calculations involved for that day. It uses a different epoc than Tom Peters' example, but that was just an example, as I see it, to help illustrate the discussion. Victor Engel 21:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not care about how long the implementation has been online. As long as it is a self-published website, it is not an appropriate scientific reference. Dr. Submillimeter 21:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

...which is why I haven't mentioned it until now, and only in the discussion page. I consider that calendar page just a pet project of mine.

Delete. Original research does not belong in Wikipedia. I also found the article rather incoherent. How does this information interface with conventional astronomy? The motion of the moon is a time-honored topic in celestial mechanics, and you would expect a lot of references for something in this area. EdJohnston 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep; userfy original research unless independent publication can be verified: I am in favor of this material being kept, as it is encyclopedic, but the WP:OR argument can't be simply wished away. I don't want this material deleted, though, so as a compromise perhaps the questionable OR-ish material can be moved to the relevant user(s)' page space until the question can be more thoroughly discussed? Alba 01:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep. It's referenced. You'd have to show that the references do not cover the contents to get this deleted. Otherwise, your word stands against theirs. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think the article makes it explicit where the references are used (three sentences in "Explanation" and some data for the table in "periodic corrections"). Tom, Karl, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the references cover the whole article. Gzkn 01:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Rewrite and remove all original research. Get original research published. Add back in original research and cite publication. --jaydj 06:24, 18 December 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 as non-notable fan-fiction. (aeropagitica) 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Park slash

There's no reason for this article whatsoever. If it needs to be on Wikipedia for whatever reason, then it should be in the South Park article. It seems like a page for fangirls to list reasons as to why South Park slash is "canon". It is highly pro-slash, and touting it as if it is true to the series. However popular it may be among DeviantArt and Fanfiction.net users, South Park slash is in no way popular or notable enough to garner its own Wiki article. cma 09:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete fanfic, the end. Danny Lilithborne 09:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No reliable sources = no notability = no article. But I smell something worse than fanfiction here, all the participants are minors... no slash fiction on, say Mr. Garrison and Big Gay Al? Or Kyle's dad and Stan's dad? Principal Victoria and Miss Chokesondik? Just the kids? Maybe I'm naive, but how many females get off on gay male kiddie porn stories? Hmmmm.... Tubezone 09:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no sources, no notability Riana 10:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Delete - not npov, no sources, doesn't warrant its own article anyway... --Mnem e son 10:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Fanfic, fancruft. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There is no need for this to be an article on its own. Lemmy12 20:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete fanfiction exists for just about every cartoon ever made. Wikipedia is not the place to document it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Beefcake! Beefcake!~~ sorry... As a SP fan, I'd heartily say Delete and Kill like Kenny. SkierRMH,01:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Lame, unencyclopaedic fanfic crap. If it's really as prominent as the article claims (which I strongly doubt) then it can have a section in a larger article on slash. --lbft (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Kill undefined FirefoxMan 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Kill FirefoxMan 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is fancruft: if someone wants it userfied, I'd move it to their userspace when this AFD is done if they really want to keep it, but otherwise delete. --SunStar Net^talk 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator and commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 03:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Close and list at Redirects for Deletion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] عمرو خالد

This is a redirect to Amr Khaled in Arabic. It should be deleted because redirects in other languages are generally not allowed.--Meno25 09:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A7 by User:Syrthiss --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Rodriguez (Entrepreneur)

Does not seem to pass WP:BIO Dweller 10:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - non notable, as I can't find anything reliable in the SE's, and no sources in the article to show any notability. Jayden54 10:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - There are no sources, the article has a poor format, the information is very vague... Why is the article there anyway? --Zouavman Le Zouave 10:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 12:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-sourced, non-notable. Riana 13:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 13:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ClearSpeed

I originally nominated the article for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7 (non-notability), but the nomination has been contested and there is now some assertion of notability of the subject. I'm not sure it's enough, but I would prefer input from others on this, so I'm moving this to AfD instead. At the moment I suggest deleting this for lack of a sufficient assertion of notability, but I'm willing to be swayed if the article improves. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep a simple search on Google returns several independent news sites discussing this company. Being a stub is not a criteria for deletion, needs better sources though and a general improvement and expansion. MartinDK 11:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per MartinDK. --Ixfd64 11:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per MartinDK. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and urge author ton include references to current "buzz" about this in the article. SkierRMH,01:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions and in the list of computers-related deletions. -- A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Per DK FirefoxMan 16:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - It's also part of the FTSE AIM All Share stock market index [30], another qualifier for WP:CORP.--Oakshade 05:44, 17 December 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 as unsourced listcruft with no claims as-to notability. (aeropagitica) 22:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of teams and cyclists in the Dauphiné Libéré 2006

Cruft: excessive to have a rider roster for ProTour races beyond the Grand Tours. This is the only example of such a roster. Mk3severo 12:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Just as in politics, we don't list the other 200 people that ran for the office and lost, why do we need a list of also-rans for every sporting event. SkierRMH,01:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. Eusebeus 11:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 13:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Action

Article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability, but doesn't qualify: the notability of the subject has been asserted. I'm moving this to AfD instead. No opinion, but inclined to keep. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions and in the list of politics-related deletions. -- A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable as an extremist politcal party and also for its involvement in violence. There are too many moves to delete extremist movements from Wikipedia these days. They may not win elections but are notable for their critique of modern democracies and should generally be kept in my opinion. Keresaspa 13:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Notable as a well-known neo-Nazi grouplet. Books have been written about them (I Was A Teenage Fascist, for example), veritable reams of newsprint, mentions in parliament. Drett 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you cite the books in the article you won't end up at AFD once again months from now. Uncle G 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's a bad idea to get rid of such parties' articles. They should be kept and expanded with citations of their histories of violence and anti-liberty rhetoric. Sunshine hurts. But this article should be properly cited and then cloesly monitored to prevent pro-NA POV-pushing and removal of criticism. — coelacan talk — 17:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep or delete all other parties that never have been in a parliament Alf photoman 19:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Needs improving with additional sources. I will attempt to wikif. But I don't have access to political reference material.Ga rr ie 00:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and source. A Google News Archive search for "National Action" Saleam comes up with six references [31]. Capitalistroadster 01:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep with better sourcing. SkierRMH,02:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep if it was a registered political party. --Canley 03:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Certainly a notable political party/action group. --Roisterer 00:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, more notorious than notable, but these guys were pretty well known for a bunch of far-right fruitcakes. Lankiveil 05:18, 16 December 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. Cbrown1023 23:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koufax Awards

I looked around, and there doesn't seem to be anything notable about this award. The site that hosts the awards pulls in a 1,376,468 on Alexa, and I have not found any non-trivial coverage of the award outside of the blogosphere. It fails WP:WEB and should be deleted. RWR8189 12:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 12:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's a part of the blogosphere -- and things in the blogosphere are NOT a priori non-notable -- that draws 134,000 Google hits. And I fail to see the relevance of the award's website to the significance of the award, since the website isn't what's under discussion. For example, traffic ranking for "pulitzer.org" (for the Pulitzer Prize) only hits 170,449, "themanbookerprize.com" (for the Man Booker Prize hits 283,803, and "mysterywriters.org/pages/awards" (for the Edgar Allan Poe Award) hits 830,450. Using the website as some sort of measuring stick to talk about the awards isn't comparing apples and orange, it's comparing apples and power tools. --Calton | Talk 14:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment, it only pulled in a little over 500 unique Google hits, and they were almost exclusively surrounding discussion within the blogosphere. I haven't seen a claim of notability made, it doesn't look as though the award has been subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, it doesn't seem to have won an award itself, and it doesn't seem to be distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. I just don't see it standing up to WP:WEB.--RWR8189 14:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Unique Google hits are only calculated on the first 1000 Gogle hits, and are thus a near worthless indicator of net existence for any search term that gets more than a 1,000 results (like this one clearly does). No opinion on the award otherwise, but don't dismiss it based on "unique google hits" please. Fram 16:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, per Calton. Guettarda 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to keep although I recognize (as a contributor/cleaner-upper) that sources are thin. I hoped that the 2007 round of voting would get some mainstream notice, but in the interim have found these:

Blog awards: Like blogs, they're diverse, global and freewheeling Annenberg Online Journalism Review
Academe September-October 2005 from the American Association of University Professors (side mention -- but print) direct link
CJR Daily (blog of the Columbia Journalism Review)
Rake Magazine blog
Guardian blog

Also note that the website for the awards has changed, affecting its Google rank, and there are at least three separate posts for each year's awards voting process. But I don't dispute that the blog is primarily known for being the host of the awards. --Dhartung | Talk 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I say keep. This is one of the Blogsphere's major awards and it has been won and touted by the most notable of blogs. KEEP KEEP KEEP! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.192.83.229 (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Delete. Lack of reliable sources indicates that the "award" has achieved no prominence in the real world beyond a handful of blogs. Reminds me of something made up in school that got magnified because of the hunger of no-name bloggers to put an award icon on their site. The founder of the blog does not have an article, his blog does not have an article, and the koufax award should certainly not get promoted here. --JJay 22:00, 20 December 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 as unsourced non-English literature without a claim as-to its notability. (aeropagitica) 22:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ku Cari Damai Abadi

Of dubious notability. At best merge it into the PM's article, but without an English translation I'm not convinced even that is worth it. Akihabara 12:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete without further explation why this poem is notable. ccscott 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Even if the fourth Prime minister is himself notable, which is a given, that does not make everything that he writes separately notable. --Anthony.bradbury 00:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete w/ a mention of this in Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Also delete all of James Madison's grocery lists lists you come across ;) SkierRMH,02:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. No non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 20:41, 18 December 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 as unsourced gamecruft, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. (aeropagitica) 22:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Run your boy

Non-notable gamecruft. Wikipedia is not a how-to site, not for things made up in school (or over the Internet) one day. Prod-warning added by Wafulz was removed by anon. Riana 13:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This is demonstrably a game-guide/how-to-guide. Wikipedia's not for those. Serpent's Choice 14:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a game guide—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koweja (talk • contribs) 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
Delete: I'm not sure whether run ur boy is made up in Internet one day or a widespread strategy in the game, but the topic is simply too specialised to warrant its inclusion. —Goh wz 14:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - WP:Complete Bollocks The Kinslayer 14:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete; not a game guide because it does not say how-to, but it also doesn't say anything worth keeping. — brighterorange (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's been considerably altered since I nominated it. riana_dzasta 18:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Doesn't make a difference, except now it sounds self-promotional as well. The Kinslayer 19:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I would say merge into the game's article, but it's so poorly done it's worth a delete. Lemmy12 20:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
im in ur wikipedia deletin ur articlez Danny Lilithborne 21:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete tactic in one very obscure internet game. WP:NOT a game guide applies nicely here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as prodder. No reliable sources=no article. --Wafulz 00:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Posted on talk page by Hawkki.
"Why delete!? This is almost as big a thing as All Your Base.. and it has a page in wiki !!! Why can not this get a page? Forget about deleting."
- To address this: AYB has numerous references in popular culture and citations- far more than this article. They key is verifiable material. --Wafulz 00:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Verifiable? So how widespread must the meme be before it is accepted? 10 users recognizing it? 100? 1000? 1000000? You cannot draw such "lines in the water". You must have something concrete. So many times have i seen people ask what someone meant with "run your boy", and thats why i initially created the wiki article. Fortunately, someone who actualy CAN write in english has reformatted it, so it looks professional. And meets all standards of a article in wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hawkki (talk • contribs) 01:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
- Verifiable means there are reliable sources written about it. It has exactly nothing to do with how many people have heard of it- like you said yourself, it has to be concrete. And it meets none of the standards of a Wikipedia article- it needs verifiability, no original research, and must have a neutral point of view. Since it has no independent publishings about it, it is effectively original research and inherently non-neutral. --Wafulz 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't even fall into game guide category as there's no "guide", so it passes the Fails everything test. SkierRMH,02:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete I'm a fan of Spring but this is silly. This isn't notable outside of a small group based around a game. If this was some huge internet fad that got started in Spring, maybe, but it simply fails a large number of notability and importance guidelines. Ryan Magley 05:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. --MegaBurn 08:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Sounds naughty. FirefoxMan 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Dont delete it, I vote not to delete it. It provides useful information, it just needs to be verified by sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.74.54 (talk • contribs)
- The claim here is that there are no reliable sources, meaning if they are not provided, the article will be deleted. --Wafulz 16:39, 17 December 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 as a non-notable competition, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tournament of Champions

Non-notable informal poker tournament involving a few people. Moved from speedy since it asserts some significance in its regional area, and it appears it wants to grow. Note that I have requested to move Tournament of Champions (disambiguation) to this page. Tinlinkin 13:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - not notable - NB. a note for others not to confuse this with World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions, which is notable. Carcharoth 13:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable, and looks like a complete vanity article by the creators of the event. "what blossomed from those weeks can never be forgotten and will be spoken of for generations to come" (but there were only 8 people involved...) --Maelwys 13:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Meets CSD A7, does not assert notability. – Anþony talk 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity and CSD A7. TonyTheTiger 22:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity and WP:V, and move Tournament of Champions (disambiguation) to this title. There should be something at Tournament of Champions, but what's there now isn't it. Dave6 01:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - there are thousands of groups that use this title, and this t'aint near the top of that list! SkierRMH 02:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and make way for something more notable. -- Beardo 17:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no reason to believe that anyone except the participants would want this information. JamesMLane t c 17:31, 18 December 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 as Unsourced original research. No reliable sources to back up any of the article in order to merge it with anything more appropriate. (aeropagitica) 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers in music

Unsourced original research. Contested prod. MER-C 13:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Bpmullins | Talk 19:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge anything salvagable into Music theory. Agent 86 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Per nominaion. No sources but if some found put into Music theory as per above Agent 86. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 23:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete' per nom -don't see much to merge into anything else. SkierRMH,02:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge per 86 FirefoxMan 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, not OR but unsourced. The topic has been discussed in musicology and IMHO deserves its own article.--Ioannes Pragensis 13:19, 18 December 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 as a non-notable vanity press publication. (aeropagitica) 22:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omega terror

Vanity press book, not even published when this article was created in October. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by an anon IP. Calton | Talk 13:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - see the the listing in [32], and the amazon.com listing of what looks like 0 sales of this vanity press book. SkierRMH,02:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as an unsourced and defamatory biography of a 17-year-old. Uncle G 18:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Hepler

This reads like a hoax. Searching for the particulars reveals nothing. Sander123 14:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Probably a hoax and if not; non-notable and completely unverifiable. Prolog 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesnt seem like anything worth deleting to me. Everything being written is either a legend, or factual information verified by the person himself. Last time I checked a few legends are something to delete an entire article over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.253.254 (talk • contribs) 2006-12-13 16:36:54
- Then you didn't check our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. Uncle G 18:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per G10 as attack page. RGTraynor 16:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. </div>

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desiresin

^{[Check Google hits]} Created, speedied, then re-created. Let's give it a full AfD this time. Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. No sources that prove notability, almost nothing but blogs in ghits. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:WEB and nothing in the article shows notability, so I see nothing special about this website that warrants an article. Jayden54 15:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Seventypercent 20:25, 18 December 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. Cbrown1023 23:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aquinas College Perth Academic Studies

User:Smbarnzy has not only heavily edited Aquinas College, Perth, but created a beautiful walled garden consisting of the sub-articles

Aquinas College Perth Academic Studies
Aquinas College Perth Leadership Structure
Aquinas College Perth Boarding
Aquinas College Perth Infrastructure
Aquinas College Perth School System
Aquinas College Perth House System
Aquinas College, Perth Sport,

which I hereby all nominate for deletion. While I recognize the enormous effort Smbarnzy has made, the level of detail is both unprecedented and unencyclopedic. There are no external sources whatsoever given for any of these articles, and while the Aquinas College sources may be accurate enough, this lack of secondary sources may serve as a sign for the lack of notability of the information. As an extreme example, most of the Academic Studies article is a list of the subjects students may choose to take in grades 10-12. If there is anything extraordinary in this list (such as, say, "Religious Formation"), the article offers no information about it (while the main Aquinas College article does). Concerning a possible merge, I feel that for each of the topics the main article already contains an adequate summary. Huon 14:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge Back salvagable notable info Aquinas College, Perth article, provided it doesnt duplicate info already in main article. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Delete - I agree with Arnzy, the best course of action would be to merge all the useable information with the main article about the college and the delete these articles. Jayden54 15:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep while I recognise that User:Huon has acceptible/valid reasons for requesting deletion, some of these articles are expandable to encompass more than just Aquinas College. Merging back into Aquinas College isnt an option as these are the result of stripping Aquinas College down from this version diff only a couple of hours before they were nominated for deletion. I had just suggested User:Gnangarra/Aquinas as a way forward for the Aquinas article to those editors, that included making these daughter articles. In this case WP:BITE should also be considered and give the editors time to address WP:N and WP:V reqiurements. Gnangarra 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, no merge. The material in these articles is likely verifiable only at the school's website and other outlets associated with the school itself (e.g. the Hockey Club website). Information that can only be verified at primary sources should, in general, not be included at Wikipedia. External sources must take note of any information before we consider it notable enough for inclusion here. Pan Dan 23:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless verifiable sources can be found for this article such is who was Dux. Same with the associated articles. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep, Merge & Delete~~ - If you think the page should be deleted then merge it into the Aquinas College, Perth page. If you would like to keep the article then keep it. Smbarnzy 12:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)\
I am willing to accept that some of these articles may be deleted. But i think four of them must be kept; boarding, infrastructure, house system and most importantly sport. All others can be merged back into the main article. But to the person who put them up for deletion - "Doesnt the article look alot better with all of the daughter articles? it makes it look encyclopedic and well groomed. Please re-consider on those 4 i suggested, AT BARE MINIMUM. Thanks =) Smbarnzy 12:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- 'strong merge. Looking at the must keeps listed,keeping would require that these particular spects of A.C. be notable in their own right--for example, if their house system was a precdent for many other schools & this had been discussed by 3rd party sources. This is obviously not the case, and no such assertions are made. They are just lists of the names similar in organization to all similar places. Even the school's stength, sports,--it lists in detai every single team, giving the record year byt year, even those that have never made it beyond 5th place. This is absurd. WP has a separate article for Ohio State athletics, and I suggest that OSU is about what it would take to justify such an article. As a closer comparison, Rugby doesn't have one--it's just in the main article. DGG 01:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Although i thank you for recognising that i have made alot of effort here, i would like to clear up one point: i have added alot of content to the Aquinas College Page, i practically added all of it. Thanks =) Smbarnzy 12:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep These articles are essentially valuable, athough the academic one is too focused, i think the rest should be kept. They are a valuable resource and by deleting them you are not encouraging this new user to keep editing and making new pages. Keep them. And if the decision is to delete them, them atleast keep the sport page, that had been up for some time, and is quite extensive. If all get deleted, then merge back to Aquinas Page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smbarnzy (talk • contribs) 08:13, December 15, 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and merge where possible - agree strongly with Gnangarra's comments. Obviously not all of these areas requires an article, but that should be discussed on the talk pages of the articles concerned rather than sent straight to AfD. Orderinchaos78 08:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge wherever possible, there's way too much detail here, but also a lot of stuff that can probably be kept. Use all this info to make Aquinas College, Perth a featured article, or something. Lankiveil 05:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Keep. The more detail the better. If they can be merged into the parent fine. But the topic deserves an articles so these sub articles fall more into the realm of editorial discussion than deletion. --JJay 22:04, 20 December 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 now that the correct title has been given and sources provided. (aeropagitica) 21:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Postcards from the Grave

the article is about a little known book which appears to no longer be in print KarlXII 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - can't find a lot about it on Google or anywhere else, and nothing shows that this book is notable in any way. Jayden54 15:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- The book's actual title is Postcards from the Grave, note. Uncle G 18:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, and rename to Postcards from the Grave, over 3000 google hits if you use the right title. A little Wikifying would not hurt either. Alf photoman 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Moved the article. Found two sources that prove notability. This article just needed a Deletionist like me to fix it. :) --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 21:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 12:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Endicott

Not notable. DigitalEnthusiast 20:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep A Top 5 finish in arguably the world's most famous car race confers notability. Just because it happened 90 years ago doesn't cancel this out. Caknuck 16:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Caknuck. Readro 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Reading of Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that "competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in... activities that are themselves considered notable" satisfy WP:N. It would seem to me that the Indy 500 would qualify and thus the article should stay. ccscott 17:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Cacknuck and CcScott... though I tend to think that the most famous race would be the Monaco GP Alf photoman 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Which is why I stated "arguably". I knew someone would mention Monaco, the 24 Hours of Le Mans, the Daytona 500 or the Paris Dakar Rally. Can't cater to everybody ;) Caknuck 22:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep clearly notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:35, 13 December 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 Cholmes75. (aeropagitica) 18:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bluecoat school network

Quite frankly, it has no reedeming value, and doesn't make any sense except to perhaps a bunch of people. Doesn't belong anywhere, not even that dread Encyclopedia Dramat... "--Railcgun 13:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)"

Speedy delete. Quickly. The space for a hacking guide to Bluecoat School network is not here. 65.10.4.251 13:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thsi is NOT a hacking guide. Please consider this carefully. it also makes a lot of sense to more than a bunch of people.It is a very popular and well known school—Preceding unsigned comment added by 03jmason1 (talk • contribs) 2006-12-13 13:45:26
- Note that 03jmason1 (talk · contribs) changed the above hyperlink from pointing to the Liverpool Blue Coat School to pointing to the Nottingham Bluecoat school. Uncle G 18:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:11, 13 December 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. Looks like the nomination was in error. If someone wants this deleted, feel free to re-file a new AFD as soon as you want. ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caitlin Ramirez

DO NOT DELETE - Caitlin appeared for well over a year and is Hector's daughter, so she may return. Kogsquinge 08:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the reason for the nomination here? Wavy G 04:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Besides having no references and being written more like a journal entry? Also, "speculating for a possible return" is no reason to keep. Withholding recommendation until I am convinced one way or another: besides the sourcing issue, the key questions are "How notable is this character?" and "Is this article worth the effort to save it?" OK, people... convince me. B.Wind 21:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Okay, but I still don't understand the nomination. No reason for deletion was given, and I don't know anything about the subject, so I can't tell if this is supposed to be hoax, or a non-notable character, or what. If the article just needs cleanup and references added, there are tags that can be put up to take care of that. Wavy G 03:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete minor and non-notable fictional character, does not meet WP:FICT. Chondrite 17:45, 19 December 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 as an unsourced biography of a non-notable fictional character. (aeropagitica) 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claudia Cortez

STRONG delete: C. Cortez appeared on BB for less than a year; not notable.Yrgh 10:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)yrgh

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Withholding recommendation for now - this article is in dire need of sourcing. Regarding the notability issue: people, convince me. B.Wind 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Probably just notable enough, but I agree with the above comment that it needs sources. But just because of this doesn't mean it needs deletion, because it can always be improved. Insanephantom 09:02, 18 December 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 Merged and redirected to mural crown. This version lacked context, but was better referenced, if in a nonstandard format. I made the references easier to read and merged the two texts at the English title. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corona muralis

Delete I don't see the point in this poorly written article.Jeff503 12:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Existing military award from Ancient Rome. Just needs a rewrite - Skysmith 13:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect and merge with mural crown, an article on the same subject with an English language title. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:06, 13 December 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 as an unsourced biography of a non-notable fictional character. (aeropagitica) 21:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Christian Ramirez

STRONG delete: Dr. C.R. appeared on BB for a FEW months; less than a year. NOT notable per Wikipedia standards.Yrgh 09:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)yrgh

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete A non-notable minor character on a soap opera, with no sources. The level of detail for some of these minor soap opera characters is very unnecessary, and a bit disturbing in my opinion, and any important and notable information should be in the actual parent article. --The Way 05:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
No sources make me lean toward deletion, but if someone can convince me of the notability of this recurring character, I could possibly conclude otherwise. Abstain for now. B.Wind 21:33, 14 December 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 as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 21:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Efreeko

This company does not appear to show notability. --Alex 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Neither a search for efreeko.co.uk nor a search for efreeko returns any results. The website does, in fact, exist, but based on the results of my two google searches and WP:WEB (as it is a web-based nonprofit service) and WP:CORP, specifically The club, society, or organization has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the club, society, or organization itself, it doesn't even approach the required level of notability. Srose (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The site has been listed with Google and is awaiting the bot to visit. Waveseeker

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. As noble as this companies goals seem, the subject does not satisfy WP:CORP or WP:N. The article can be recreated if and when reliable sources (i.e. newspapers) take notice of the organization. ccscott 17:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not a company. We are two individuals webdesigners who have created this site.Waveseeker

Delete per humerous annon FirefoxMan 16:48, 14 December 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 as an unsourced biography of a non-notable fictional character. (aeropagitica) 21:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erica Lovejoy

STRONG delete: Lovejoy appeared on BB for less than a year. Not notable per Wikipedia standards.Yrgh 09:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE : Erica was in a MAJOR storyline in 2002 and is the daughter of Sheila Carter, who is one of the most well known soap villains ever. Kogsquinge 08:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:FICT. Minor fictional character in a soap opera. Fancruft with unencyclopedic level of detail. No sources listed. Parent article probably contains quite enough about this character, with no need to merge. Barno 19:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Parent article The Bold and the Beautiful contains thousands of words of excessive detail not needed for WP. Cleanup recommended per WP:FICT. Barno 19:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I agree with Barno, we don't need this kind of detail for minor soap opera characters. Anything that actually is important to the soap opera should be in the parent article. --The Way 05:32, 14 December 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. Cbrown1023 23:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formula One Podcasts

Just a listing of podcasts having to do with F1. Too specific a topic to ever have a decent article on. Recury 18:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Formula One. Verifiable topic but too minor for its own article. No sources listed except primary source material. Almost no encyclopedic content, mostly just a directory which Wikipedia is not. Barno 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"Just a listing of podcasts having to do with F1. Too specific a topic to ever have a decent article on." And other area's of Wiki are any different? Folk's are very eager to delete information, but why not try to increase the wiki by adding to it. This page is a legitimate page, has legitimate information, just not much of it. So why don't you add some instead of deleting it, right..??? maltadawes 22:00, 13 December 2006 (EST)

- Yes, other areas are different. I don't want to add to it because I don't think it's a good idea for an article but even if I did, there probably aren't many more F1 podcasts that exist, which is why I'm saying it's too specific. Recury 14:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Presently, podcasts are inherently not notable enough for inclusion per WP:WEB; on the other hand, adding to a section dealing with communication would not be a bad idea. Merge to Formula One. B.Wind 21:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OK... Makes sense, but you'd be surprised at how many F1 Podcasts there is out there (just only a few that are worth the time to listen to). Got to love the Internet, you know, like the way that anybody can setup shop and put out a podcast... maltadawes 19:58, 17 December 2006 (EST)

Merge to Formula One#External Links -- Chondrite 18:07, 19 December 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 as an unsourced biography of a non-notable fictional character. (aeropagitica) 21:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriela Moreno Forrester

DO NOT DELETE: Gaby was only on the show for a short time, but was in a front-burner storyline. Kogsquinge 08:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Then you should be able to cite sources that prove that. Currently, the article cites no sources at all. How can readers check that this soap opera character even existed, let alone did all of the things that the article says that she did? Uncle G 18:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Another unnecessary and excessively detailed article about a non-notable soap opera character. Any information that is vital to the series should be in the parent article. Wikipedia is not meant to offer plot summaries for each character of every show. --The Way 05:35, 14 December 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 and cleanup. Cbrown1023 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Evensky

Evensky's book "The Investment Think Tank" provides an important contribution to the field of investment theory and practice. So, I see no problem keeping this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertaSunwapta (talk • contribs) 22:00, 12 December 2006

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup. Many G-hits, including links to USAToday and WSJ articles. I agree that the article is a self-promoting mess, but the subject's certainly notable and the article's referenced to death. RGTraynor 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per nom. Articles needs some cleaning and scrubbing. --JJay 22:05, 20 December 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, so a default keep for now. Article requires reliable sources to demonstrate the subjects' notability. (aeropagitica) 21:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I-Am-Bored.com

Not notable website, little or no content to discuss. -Gdavidp 17:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete The site actually has a remarkably high Alexa rank (3,503), but I can't imagine what could possibly be said about it to fill out an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It-Is-Deleted per nom. No assertion of notability. RGTraynor 16:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. The site seems to be somewhat popular (Alexa rank of 3,503 [33] & ~~~579,000~~ 612,000 Ghits for "i-am-bored.com" [34]). --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep High Alexa rating, interesting site. Edison 21:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Akihabara 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep High alexa, plus, I know plenty of people who use it. FirefoxMan 16:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Subject meets WP:WEB with its traffic and Ghits, but this empty article with puffery isn't the way to do it. Scrape clean and start anew - it needs an encyclopedic article that actually explains what it is and what it does. B.Wind 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per multiple non-trivial published coverage - e.g. here and here. Does need major cleanup though.--Kubigula (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Alexa rank is unreliable and easily faked (like getting visitors to download the Alexa toolbar). Google searching the site itself [35] shows a way too low count for this rank, proving the Alexa rank is very inflated. Wikipedia policy says google hits and Alexa rank are not great enough indicators to keep sites per WP:WEB, only to exclude them and Wikipedia goes based on WP:V and WP:RS, not popularity. Article has no reliable sources or anything for verifiability. The only link is to its website. Anomo 22:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I agree with you that Alexa rank and google hits alone don't establish notability. However, I think the links I provided above comply with WP:V and WP:RS. --Kubigula (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment - They should have been already added to the article. Anomo 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I cleaned it up the article a little and added the references. It needs more, but this isn't really my area of expertise.--Kubigula (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Modern Pop Culture

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - this is on meta. Really, we WP:ASR no need to have multiple articles about scripts. AntiVandalBot doesn't need an article!!. Tawker 07:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pywikipedia

Pywikipedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Delete from namespace anyway. Perhaps this should be an article in WP space but I think it needs to prove notability to remain in namespace and I cannot currently find any sign of this? --BozMo talk 12:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to Wikipedia:Pywikipedia utcursch | talk 13:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to Wikipedia:Pywikipedia, I agree with BozMo about lack of notability for article namespace. Umeboshi 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to MediaWiki or even MetaWiki. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 21:38, 13 December 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 as a non-notable tour, lacking in sources. (aeropagitica) 21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rockstars 2006

Delete. Article contains non-notable event which did not occur anyway. Reads like an advertisement. Gamesmaster G-9 21:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Poorly-worded and reads like it's been ripped off froma press release. The Kinslayer 09:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Make a website, not a Wiki. Lemmy12 20:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. If most of the tour occured as it seems to have then keep as a group of notable people unless there is a precedent against actual rock tours of notable people. TonyTheTiger 22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'm pretty sure you wont find individual articles for each tour a group has done. The Kinslayer 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Based on Kinslayer comment. TonyTheTiger 20:57, 16 December 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 as an unsourced biography of a non-notable fictional character. (aeropagitica) 21:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steffy Forrester

Strong delete: Steffy only appeared on BB for a FEW months (less than a year); NOT notable!Yrgh 09:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)yrgh

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - no sourcing, no assertion of notability even within the soap opera setting. B.Wind 21:45, 14 December 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 redirect Tizio 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Lanier

This seems to be an honest effort to create an entry on the poet Sidney Lanier, for whom a wikipedia entry already exists, but the author has misspelled "Sidney" as "Sydney." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinson7 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 12 December 2006

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 13 December 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. Davnel03 21:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Decision upheld given votes and time elapsed, user instructed about non-admins closing debates, and any editor closing debates they have participated in. Deizio talk 22:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWE Tribute to the Troops

Delete: This is a normal RAW except it is either done in Iraq or Afghanistan. Davnel03 19:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Should only be a note on the Raw page. --James Duggan 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per previous deletions of similar articles. Croctotheface 00:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Recurring but not inherently notable by itself. A section in the raw article for certain though. NegroSuave 05:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Should be on a wrestling Wiki instead, and just a note on the Raw article here. RobJ1981 06:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Aaru Bui ^DII 09:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Soft Keep I don't really see anything wrong with this article. Infact over a period of time (a few years) it would get bigger and look a better article. I shall add a link to it on the WWE Raw page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Govvy (talk • contribs) 12:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Comment It doesn't matter how the article looks. It is a special event raw that doesn't deserve it's on page. It deserves mention on the RAW page.

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge with World Wrestling Entertainment's section on programming. This is not notable enough to stand alone, but there should be some mention somewhere, and the section on WWE programming is most appropriate. The "match results" should be discarded, however. B.Wind 21:49, 14 December 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dayton datlowe

This biography does not appear to meet notability standards and a large section at the end of the article, Relations, is mainly not biographical. If not deleted, it should at least be cleaned up and moved to a properly capitalized name. Regards, Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Already moved to Dayton Datlowe without prejudice. B.Wind 21:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Aside from the obvious problems, this unreferenced article does not satisfy WP:N and does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) in my opinion. ccscott 17:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Agreed. It has no significance save to the person who wrote it. -- Kerowren 18:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Not enough information to establish notability. SteveHopson 21:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The first two references establish WP:PROF directly (the third is an index to a journal that apparently has an article with Datlow as co-author); so he seems to merit a Wikipedia article if it is properly written. Unfortunately, this barely says anything at all besides the references. Close call: Stubify and keep. If the stub is unchanged in, say, three months, it should be deleted as WP:PROF establishes necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, conditions for keeping articles on faculty. B.Wind 21:58, 14 December 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kari Keegan

NN actress. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Subject's IMBd profile lists four film credits over 15 years, only two of which can be construed as notable. Unless I'm missing something, then her body of work fails WP:BIO per nom. Caknuck 16:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. When "Biker Girl" and "Former Girlfriend" are the hallmarks of her career, that pretty much defines insignificance. RGTraynor 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. She was apparently the female lead in Jason Goes To Hell: The Final Friday. I'm not voting here as I don't know the film and don't know how significant it is considered to be, but it is part of a pretty well-known series. Loganberry (Talk) 23:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The criteria given in WP:BIO for the notability of actresses are: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers, a large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following, an independent biography, name recognition, commercial endorsements." None apply to Keegan. RGTraynor 15:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as prodder. MER-C 02:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as reposted deleted material. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mick Love

An article on this individual has previously been deleted by AfD under the name "Michael Love", see here. However, based on comments on the creator's talk page, I believe the content may be significantly different. While his career as a member of the Old IRA and a soldier in the Irish Army seems to have been interesting, I don't seen any evidence of him being particularly notable. The biggest claim to fame is his involvement in the Easter Rising. A google search for "Michael Love" "Easter Rising"[36] only turns up two comments on message boards and there is no evidence given that he was a significant figure on the republican side in 1916. Anyway, fails WP:BIO. -- IslaySolomon | talk 15:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, violates WP:NOT#IINFO. The ONLY G-hit referencing this fellow is the Twelve Apostles Wikipedia article, and his name doesn't show up in the excellent and comprehensive history of the time written by Seumas MacManus. RGTraynor 16:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the content is pretty much identical to that of Michael Love (AfD discussion) and was created by the same editor. Uncle G 18:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah well, in that case I'll tag it {{db-repost}}. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:33, 14 December 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 as a non-notable band, WP:BAND refers. (aeropagitica) 17:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Royales

Are notable how, exactly? Article does not assert notability, and they do not actually seem to have done anything. Google only gives some Athenian band - wrong continent, I'm afraid. Moreschi 16:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Failure to assert notability. —ShadowHalo 16:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Less than 140 G-hits, most of which do not actually refer to this band, and most of which do are blog entries. Fails WP:MUSIC, no evidence of major tours, charted hits, gold albums, or any other element of WP:MUSIC. RGTraynor 16:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - RGTraynor pretty much sums it all up; fails WP:MUSIC and nothing that shows that this band is notable. Jayden54 17:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps you should add 5star Fallout to this nom. Very similar story; might be a walled garden. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:46, 13 December 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 as a non-notable biography and an unsourced article, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 17:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark David Brown

Non-notable biography, no Google hits, probably vanity autobiography. I also nominate his tuition system, Get Musical, also written by User:getmdb, which seems to be non-notable, no sources are provided. The ABRSM, to which it claims to be affilated, has no information on it. Huon 15:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete both No assertion of notability. Fails WP:V and WP:COI. Caknuck 16:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as per A7; no assertion of notability. Less than 20 unique G-hits on Google UK, most of which in fact do not refer to this fellow. The lead hit that does, ironically enough, is from a Missing Persons site. RGTraynor 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per RGTraynor. Danny Lilithborne 21:08, 13 December 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 as Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. (aeropagitica) 17:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warranty handling in the automotive industry

Student essay so far from being an encyclopedia article that the best thing is to delete and wait for a proper article. (Note that the author is a student at the Norwegian School of Management. It might be a good idea to check the work of the other students.) -- RHaworth 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete a How-to Akihabara 22:59, 13 December 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 - strange he never mentioned being described as 9-year-old Running God - which would have been a valid 3rd party ref! -- RHaworth 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jasper Waugh-Quasebarth

This prolific 16 year old artist has forgotten to provide any references to establish his notability. -- RHaworth 16:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedied. Apparently, he ran various races. -- Zanimum 17:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burnt By The Sun: Yet Another Russian Hamlet

Essay / original research. -- RHaworth 16:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedied. -- Zanimum 17:38, 13 December 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, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baxter's Bus Lines

Non-notable company, removed from the public transport network since article created. This article is effectively advertising. Joestella 17:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, as it "effectively" does not mention any of its current, nn services, only what it did when it was of note. If nothing else, move to a List of bus operators in Sydney, a to-be-existant spin-off of Buses_in_Sydney#List_of_current_bus_operators_in_Sydney. -- Zanimum 17:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The article amounts to advertising for a non-notable company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc Tropics (talk • contribs) 17:51, 13 December 2006
Keep. Once notable, always notable. The fact that this company in Australia has divested its commuter operations does not detract from the fact that it was clearly notable when it was a commuter operator. A factual, NPOV article is not an advertisement. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment The company used to operate public transport but now it doesn't. Does it meet WP:CORP? If it does the article should be improved. If not it should be deleted. ~~PS can someone who knows how add it to Australian Articles for Deletion watchlist?~~Ga rr ie 00:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Truthbringertoronto. Rebecca 00:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The article has some sourcing and the Google News Archive shows coverage of the sale see [37]. Borderline case but I will go with weak keep. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep per Truthbringertoronto. JROBBO 05:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand - article just hints at the notability of this historic Australian organization (and I'd hesitate to delete something not in North America without input from editors who live in the same country and the subject); it seems well sourced, but content (perhaps a history?) is definitely needed. B.Wind 22:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep; Wikipedia is supposed to be "timeless", without bias towards current events. Not deleting companies that were once notable helps with this aim. --NE2 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, and strongly so, per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 02:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep, same arguments as everyone else. John Dalton 04:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, g1, WP:SNOW; at best unknown homemade film, at worst juvenile hoax. Author keeps creating nonsense pages pertaining to this "film." NawlinWiki 16:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factory: The Musical

Prod removed without comment. Supposedly a film. I can find no indication it even exists. Certainly appears never to have been released. Based on 15-minute length, and the plot summary involving orphans, communists, and a Ninja overseer who turns out to be a wizard, I'm guessing amateur production by very young filmmakers. Not verifiable, no sources, not remotely notable. Fan-1967 17:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note Based on names used, and some deleted article history, it appears that This is the filmmaking crew. Fan-1967 17:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping this would have been made by people in a non-English speaking country, given the babelfish quality of the text, but apparently not....--Dmz5 19:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on the Talk page, they're 14. Junior high is kind of like a foreign country. Fan-1967 21:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please Do Not Delete This Is A Real Movie. It Will Be Released On Video & DVD In The Next Few Months. That Is Not The Film Making Crew. I For One Am A 30 Year Old Film Producer—Preceding unsigned comment added by Woomoobs57 (talk • contribs)
- In general, thirty-year-old film producers do not make movies about communist ninja wizards, set years before communism was invented. Fan-1967 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The coomusists in this film are luddites, a very early form of communism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Woomoobs57 (talk • contribs)
- If you believe that, you really need to study harder in history class. Fan-1967 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- If your done insulting my inteligence, sorry mr clever, were not as clever as you are. this is a real film, it would be an outrage to delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woomoobs57 (talk • contribs) 2006-12-13 18:12:33

Laughing, but strong delete - and salt - no assertion of notability, the reasons given by the nominator, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. Moreschi 18:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - and it appears that this comes awfully close to being patent nonsense.--Dmz5 19:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just the plot summary. I'm tempted to BJAODN that one. Fan-1967 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Not on IMDb. Lemmy12 20:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
And the ninjas come in and are all like "whack whack whack" and teh communists are all like "bang bang bang" and then the ninjas are all like "whoa, they got guns" so they go and get the pirates and the pirates like bring up their boat and are all "boom boom boom" at the communists, and they all get Deleted. Haikupoet 02:15, 14 December 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 as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (aeropagitica) 17:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ice helmet

I submitted this to proposed deletion, on the grounds that the article cited no sources, and there is no indication that the single movie prop mentioned was even called an ice helmet. The linked-to article doesn't even contain the word "helmet", and doesn't support this article at all. At the time, I also added a request for sources. The author, Salad Days (talk · contribs), who has recently given us earwig helmet, Beekeeping helmet (AfD discussion), and (deleted--Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)), removed both the {{prod}} and the request for sources without comment. It appears that not even the article's author has any sources that back this up. Uncle G 18:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreschi 19:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. joke. `'mikkanarxi 19:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I think this is pretty obvious. A prop worn in one scene from one movie is hardly notable. Article is one in a slew of joke/tantrum "helmet" submissions made one day. Wavy G 22:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. this is a joke. TSO1D 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Close WP:SNOW. Just H 23:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Did anyone else catch the irony in that? Wavy G 03:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  - haha, funny.~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 21:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not expandable nor notable enough to be an article of its own. --Czj 09:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 13:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Cheese Helmet. --DodgerOfZion 07:08, 17 December 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 16:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garry Newman

Minor computer game / software developer. Only references are own site, blog and forum. Deizio talk 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Vanity entry for non-notable individual. Doc Tropics 19:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Havin' a Wonderful Delete Danny Lilithborne 21:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Doesn't seem notable enough to have an article, although I did find a few minor press mentions (Google News) but doesn't pass WP:BIO Jayden54 21:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
De-1337 as per nom. Pete.Hurd 22:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Facepunch_Studios, Facepunch Studios has been deleted several times, this is more vanity advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete; also consider deletion of Garry's Mod. JDoorj a m Talk 00:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete; However the above suggestion of deleting the Garry's Mod entry is ludicrous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.219.57.126 (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Delete. Yanksox 04:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Buss

NN actor. Fails WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Non Notable actor. Obina 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as quickly as possible. Originator of the article is User:Adambuss! No sources at all to this. Sole external link is to the home page of his reperatory group. B.Wind 22:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. --Strothra 04:25, 15 December 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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 16:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Zirkle

Delete Non notable perennial losing primary candidate--LyonsTwp,IL. 18:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BIO you have to win to be notable for the political activity, and there is no other claim to notability Bill Boaks he ain't. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My comments - Tony Zirkle is mentioned on both the Wikipedia article about Representative Chris Chocola and appears to have been a topic of discussion within the Talk section. Within the talk section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Chocola#Tony_Zirkle), Bachs states "If someone wanted to link to a Tony Zirkle wiki entry that lists all of his known political views that is fine".

You do not have to win to be notable for a political activity. Cite Wikipedia's WP:BIO sub page on Candidates and Elections -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Candidates_and_elections -- "This is not a reason to delete candidate articles if the only problem is that the election article has yet to be written. Merger of the candidate articles into the election article may well improve Wikipedia."

Although the article is not as complete as I'd like it to be, it does provide preliminary documentation of Zirkle's views.

Also cite an "accepted" losing candidate page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Forchion ~~ jclayc ~~

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mingo ambient musician

I can find no indication of notability, and these websites hardly constitute reliable sources. The article does not assert notability, and Ghits are virtually non-existent. At any rate would seem to fail WP:MUSIC. Moreschi 18:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
keep Urbanaaron 01:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
When I do a google search for this article title, I find several pages of hits. In addition to the websites listed, there are reliable print publications cited. The New age reporter and Hearts of space websites are definitive sources on this subject.— Urbanaaron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You do? That's funny, since I don't. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 18:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.211.168.146 (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC). — 71.211.168.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Has charted in top 10 and top 40 on national music charts, including the US and other countries, Has been placed in rotation nationally by major radio network, in this case NPR, both syndicated programs and NPR affiliate programs of notability, eg. hos and starsend. Keep Passes WP:MUSIC. Jorgetribe 21:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC) — Jorgetribe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Very Weak Keep There IS no story at WCF Courier, according to their archives. Self-published albums are not notable and are specifically said to fail WP:MUSIC. I can't find any link to any national music chart that is a real music chart and not someone's website who's listing his favorite artists. Artist is in rotation at NPR, source here. Artist is listed at Billboard.com but has no top 10 or top 40 mentions that I can find. This needs more solid sourcing and his album label is skirting the thin rim of non-notability. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 18:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm on the fence. Ambient music has been around awhile, but it's still pretty obscure. It would be hard to prove even more well known musicians. Example, i just did a search for steve roach and it comes up with the same references cited in this article. But roach has been at it for 30 years and has several cd's. So, I'd say keep in maybe in a few years if this person is still around, but maybe not now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.211.247.112 (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Delete non-notable, self-published musician in a obscure subgenre of music that also fails WP:MUSIC. Junk. NeoFreak 13:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a bad argument to say the genre fails, because if that were true then there would be a lot of cleaning up to do. Examples ambient music hearts of space, steve roach, robert rich —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.211.165.114 (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
- Because a subject or genre is notable enough to have a page does not mean that anyone involved with that subject is notable. I am a Marine, the Marine Corps is notable, should I get a page as well? NeoFreak 21:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the article fails, but you stated the genre also fails. I don't agree with that. This should have nothing to do with the genre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.211.165.114 (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
- I said that it was an obscure subgenre, it didn't say it wasn't notable. As a matter of fact if anything I implied it was notable with my last post so please don't put words in my mouth. NeoFreak 22:15, 19 December 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. Cbrown1023 23:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative Halakha

Strong delete, Conservative Judaism and Jews rely on traditional Halacha when they seek a ruling, all Halacha books by and for conservaive Jews cite traditional Halacha sources. FrummerThanThou 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

comment I would like to rephrase my position. I go for Rename to Conservative view of Halakha. frummer 04:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Err Frummer, you can't come here six days after you have nominated this article for deletion and stake out a new "position" one day before the vote is about to be closed. Sorry, such antics are not appreciated. IZAK 07:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not one day before, if anything 5 days is just a minimum. frummer

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification what the nom means, apparently, is that this article is a WP:POVFORK of Halakha. ~~No opinion on that yet.~~ - crz crztalk 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Obvious merge to Halakha - crz crztalk 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Crz: Merging does not solve the problem here, either logically or ideologically, because this article was created to show how Conservative Judaism's Halakha has itself "forked" from Halakha and that it is now it's own brand of law just as Conservative Judaism is it's own brand of Judaism. Merging this with Halakha would be like asking that the Conservative Judaism article be merged into the Judaism article which would do neither justice. IZAK 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Crz. Unsure on spelling though. Just H 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep – from what I understand, Conservative Judaism does follow its own "halakha," which is partially derived from Orthodox halakha, but is definitely separate. --Eliyak T·C 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- So let's make it a section in Ortho halakha. (As far as I understand, it's essentially the same, anyway) - crz crztalk 20:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Rename to Conservative view of Halakha or something like that. I think the topic deserves its own article, but nom is correct (at least in theory - in practice is another story...) that they do not have their own fundamentally different halakhic corpus. --DLand ^TALK 20:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, and/or rename - too large to merge.--Sandy Scott 20:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Keep This should not be in an RfD. There isn't even a claim that the material doesn't meet the usual criteria of WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. The reason given for deletion -- that Conservative Jews do not have an approach to Halakha distinct from Orthodoxy -- represents a POV and is simply not a valid AfD criterion since it simply doesn't address the question of whether the content is encyclopedic (many reliable sources think the two don't approach things identically, but that's a separate issue.) The only question is where this content should be -- as a stand-alone or as part of another article, such as Conservative Judaism, Conservative responsa, Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, or Halakha. This question should be addressed in an AfM discussion, not an AfD. Finally, the Conservative movement made a very controversial decision last week about the issue of homosexuality. This article is the only place in Wikipedia that contains a detailed discussion of that decision. The AfD process should not be used to eliminate valid information about controversial (and notable) topics. Deletion is completely inappropriate. Speedy Keep. --Shirahadasha 22:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:POVFORK is a fine, if infrequently invoked, reason for deletion. You can't blame Frummer for not properly referring to it - he's a relative n00b - hence my insightful commentary immediately below the nom. Oppose speedy keep. - crz crztalk 01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Disagree that this is a genuine POV fork, any more than Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Judaism are POV forks of Judaism. They are separate denominations with separate decision-making bodies making different decisions based on different philosphies. They are legitimate distinct subjects. If we're not going to get rid of all the distinct Conservative Judaism articles -- Conservative responsa, Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, etc. -- why single this one out? It may be useful to merge for pragmatic reasons, but disagree that there is a need to on policy grounds. --Shirahadasha 02:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Good. You oppose the nomination. That's fine. But that's not grounds for a Speedy Keep - crz crztalk 02:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Exactly, and by the way these decision-making bodies don't happen to have an article of their own? They would qualify for an extra speedy delete. They have no such body, and are entirely dependant on Orthodox Jewish halachic decision-making bodies and rabbis for their ruling, when they seek one, which is not often since Halacha is not a concern in Conservative Judaism. FrummerThanThou 08:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        Comment The nominator has clarified that the AfD nomination is based, not on a POV fork, but on a personal religious disagreement witht the subject of the article. The nominator wants this article deleted because he believes that "Halakha is not a concern in Conservative Judaism," and has gone so far as to clarify that he believes that articles on "decision-making bodies", such as the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, also "qualify for an extra speedy delete", not because they fail to meet WP:N, WP:V, or other legitimate Wikipedia policy criteria, but because the nominator personally disagrees with them on religious grounds. This is not a proper basis for invoking the AfD process. The integrity of the process should be preserved. If someone has a legitimate basis for an AfD, let that person nominate and provide a legitimate ground. --Shirahadasha 15:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Nominator has re-clarified and I believe nomination reflects a misunderstanding about Conservative Judaism's approach. --Shirahadasha 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        Comment: User:FrummerThanThou's blanket statements, such as :"Conservative Judaism and Jews rely on traditional Halacha when they seek a ruling" and that they "are entirely dependant on Orthodox Jewish halachic decision-making bodies and rabbis for their ruling, when they seek one" reveal an utter lack of familiarity with the present-day Conservative movement and if anything only reveals the nominator's POV tilt (it's there if you know the issues well.) But it's all done by a kind of twisted faulty logic, which goes something like this: "Conservative Judaism uses Halakha like everyone else (meaning like the Orthodox, because the Reform don't use it at all) in that they 'rely' on the same (read: 'Orthodox') Halakhic books and rabbis in making decisions, which means that their 'Conservative Halakha' is really 'the same' as the standard (read: 'Orthodox') Halakha and should not be classed differently. Real-world issues and facts that the Conservatives dispute, such as accepting the Divine origins of the Torah, that it was given in its entirety by God to Moses at Sinai, the sanctity and observing the 613 mitzvot, and very up-to-date issues such as ordaining gay rabbis, are either not mentioned or overlooked, because, after all, the Conservatives do give official lip service to (read: 'Orthodox') "Halakha" even though as the Conservatives go about their lives in reality they neither respect nor practice any Halakha the way Orthodox Judaism does." The point here being, that one cannot at the same time do contrary functions: To claim absurdly that the Conservatives practice a Halakha that is also central to Orthodoxy at the same time that they (the Conservatives) openly and publicly break with the Halakah (as understood and practiced by Orthodoxy) and that is the very lifeblood Orthodoxy -- but not of Conservatism since they are not bound by the literal strictures of the Halakha and the Shulkhan Arukh (how many Conservatives even know what the Shulkhan Arukh is or means?) This is what is called a circular argument that underlies the faulty premise behind this nomination in the first place, and borders on a farce. IZAK 01:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Depends. It depends on what is on the Halakha page. On the one hand, it is a POV fork and violation of policy if the resulting Halakha page had only, or predominantly, the Orthodox POV and not all halakhic POVs represented equally and fairly. On the other hand, if the Halakha page described Halakha and fairly summarized Conservative, Orthodox, and any other points of view (with pointers to specific articles for more detail), then there certainly is enough material about Conservative Halakha to merit its own page, like Conservative Judaism and Conservative Responsa. EqualsMCSquared 23:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
How about this: Merge the section "Specific Jewish-law decisions" to Conservative responsa, merge "Jewish observance in the context of Conservative Halakha" into Conservative Judaism, merge "Differences from Orthodox theology" into Committee on Jewish Law and Standards or Halakha. The title Conservative responsa is better than Conservative Halakha for the bulk of the material since it only refers to responsa that are rejected by Orthodox Judaism. This avoids all of problems of the overlap between Conservative and Orthodox Halakha. Any objections? Jon513 12:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and then Rename this article Conservative Judaism religious practice and redirect Conservative Halakha to it. This was the solution for Messianic Halakha where it was voted to redirect it to Messianic religious practice. How do the Conservatives observe Halakha? How many keep the Shabbat? Or observe Kashrut strictly? And now the movement has voted to officially accept gay rabbis [38] [39] [40] and to accept the same standards of Reform Judaism for patrilineal descent [41] [42] [43] The Conservatives have openly broken with classical Halakha repeatedly (redefining it as the occassion suits them) and therefore User:FrummerThanThou's assertions and this entire nomination make absolutely no sense whatsoever.IZAK 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep It is obvious from the above discussion, and particularly IZAK's comments, that Conservative Halaka is a different code than Orthodox Halaka, and that most people outside the Conservative branch of Judaism probably do intend Orthodox Halaka when they use the word Halaka. This proves the need for 2 separate articles. (There is also Reform H, let others say what they will). The two traditions have diverged, and one of them denies the legitimacy of the other--IZAK is not eccentric in saying this. But while he is entitled to his POV that only OH is legitimate, it is clearly a POV, and he has no right to try to impose it on a neutral encyclopedia. The name here can be shown to be what the movement itself uses, and that makes it the standard name.

I would use the name "Halaka" for the orthodox, traditional code. Not because it is necessarily the authentic code or tradition, for it is no business of WP to deny or affirm that. Rather, because when Halaka is used by itself outside Judaism, the traditional Halaka is what is intended and it is thus the standard name.

But two articles. It would otherwise be like discussing Australian and New Zealand Law in the same article. Considering the natureof this discussion, and the very intense religious meaning it has for many, I think i need to say that I haven't the least connection with any Jewish denomination. DGG 01:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi DGG: Well put :-} IZAK 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I will reinstate my position as somewhat more neutral then before but still for a stead fast delete as apposed to a merge or rename. Shirahadasha has made me aware of a conservative rabbinical body I was previously unaware the role of in the Halachic field, but I have examined the article and its sources and am not swayed. I obviously can't nom this "halachic body" for deletion, since they seriously think themselves to be a halachic authority and made plenty of press releases which the press payed attention to which makes them notable in a crazy world. I still dont think, how ever crazy the world is, this body have established a Halachic doctrine that can call itself "Conservative Halacha". They have only made some rulings, allowances and decisions to keep their own boat afloat. It would take allot more off their behalf to establish a "Conservative halacha" then with their current activity.

Here is the definition of halcha according to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

{often lowercase) the entire body of Jewish law and tradition comprising the laws of the Bible, the oral law as transcribed in the legal portion of the Talmud, and subsequent legal codes amending or modifying traditional precepts to conform to contemporary conditions.
A law or tradition established by the Halakhah.

What they would need to do in order to get their own Halacha is to reenact the revelation at Sinai. I don't need to rephrase my first claim when I nominated it, perhaps only to clarify which WP rule. respectfully, the comment above me is nonsense. frummer 06:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep per DGG we should have two separate articles and make it clear that "Orthdox Halachah" and "Conservative Halachah" are very different things. Now, one could argue that "Halachah" should maybe be renamed "Orthodox Halachah" however that would be a discussion issue on that page, not here. JoshuaZ 03:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per DGG. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
commentIn response to Frummer's revised posting, I comment:

It is a basic tenant of orthodox Judaism that there is only one Judaisim, and only one Halakah, and it is the one that they profess. Thus for them there can be no Conservative Halakah, or Conservative Judaism--the followers of these paths are heretics, though perhaps nearer to the true religion than Reform Halakah and Reform Judaism. The only people who believe this are Orthodox Jews. Whether or not they are in truth the only authentic tradition is a matter of faith. Conservative Judaism is quite clear that its traditions are equally old, are equally based on the same Revelation, and continue the tradition of earlier Jewish law--which, as Frummer knows very well and in more detail than I, has never been uniform.

His argument is a statement of purely religious point of view--and in what I fear is the most inappropriate form, within and without WP--not letting others have their say in their own words.

DGG 23:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

- Perhaps this is just an issue of semantics, but the reasoning that DGG is giving (i.e. "its traditions are equally old") is precisely why there is no such thing as "Conservative Halakha". Both the Orthodox and Conservative movements believe that they are following the same body of laws. The difference lies in each movement's respective interpretation of those laws. There is no such thing as Orthodox Halakha or Conservative Halakha -- only Halakha. This is a fundamental tenet of the Conservative movement. I stand by my original vote to rename. --DLand^TALK 23:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I second you DLand, also DGG claim that Conservative Judaism's traditions are "equally old" to Orthodox Judaism and "equally based on the same Revelation", and "continue the tradition of earlier Jewish law" are unfounded. The term "Conservative" in relation to Conservative Judaism has actualy nothing to do with "conserving", traditional Jewish beleif and Halakha. They are a secular denomination with no interest in forming their own Halakhic doctrine. frummer 04:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Err Frummer: Your above comments (such as "They are a secular denomination with no interest in forming their own Halakhic doctrine") are a violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms (By the way, it's also a lie to say things that are false.) Thanks. IZAK 07:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment My prior vote for Keep still stands, but given the general desire to merge or rename, if a merge is to be the outcome of this AfD, I believe the best place to merge would be Conservative responsa. The article title "Conservative responsa" acknowledges that the Conservative decision-making process is based on a different philosophy which in an important minority of cases results in different outcomes from the Orthodox approach, while sidestepping questions of the meaning of those differences. Whether Conservative Halakha is "the same" as Orthodox Halakha in some philoophical sense, Conservative responsa, the records and products of the decision-making process, are acknowledged as being different in a way that appears to be less controversial. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think merging it to Conservative view of Halakha or Conservative responsa would be more suitble then its current title, yes. frummer 03:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by an admin as CSD G11 - Advertising) . Agent 86 21:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CIDRA

~~Non-notable, fails WP:CORP. Author removed prod tag. Argyriou (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)~~ Discovered that article is copyvio, have placed speedy tag instead. Argyriou (talk) 20:21, 13 December 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 as a non-notable location, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 16:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Park at Burton-in-Kendal

Non-notable private house/guest house. I grew up a mile away from Burton and have never heard of it. Zero Google hits other than this article, its own website and a planning application or two. Blisco 20:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete pn Akihabara 23:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete (no citations or external links were added either). Cbrown1023 22:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahlam (band)

Delete Doesn't seem notable by WP:MUSIC. Just H 20:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep only if citations are found. Lemmy12 20:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep 3 albums out, worked with notable producer, fair number of mentions online in English... considering they are/were from Morocco, I would say keep 'em. --Brianyoumans 21:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep citations wold make me more comfortable.... Ccscott 22:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete does not meet WP:MUSIC. -- Chondrite 17:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't meet notability, no external links, etc. Would need a major cleanup for it to be kept. A-Thousand-Lies 19:35, 20 December 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.--Kchase T 06:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheryl Bridges Johns

Biographical article that provides no claim nor evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. Valrith 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete Why, she is 'noted for her contributions'. Whatever they are; the article is kind of close-mouthed about that. --Brianyoumans 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
After looking online and finding a bio, I changed my vote to a weak delete. She does seem to have some academic notability, but probably not quite enough. --Brianyoumans 21:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
delete fails wp:prof, not otherwise notable, unless someone does a bunch of research and writing to discover things not in google--Buridan 12:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirected to Poké Ball. (aeropagitica) 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The master ball

Main article Ball Revamped has been deleted Nethac DIU 20:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Poké Ball, dump current contents. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - no context without any reference to the main article. B.Wind 22:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was} speedy close. Start a real one, if you like, but this was started by an obvious troll. Luna Santin 21:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metroid Dread

I put this up due to the fact that there is no evidence that this even exists. So, go for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Everythin' But A Good Time (talk • contribs) 19:23, December 13, 2006.

User:Everythin' But A Good Time started this AFD shortly before he was indef blocked for vandalism, but I don't know enough about Metroid Dread to invalidate the debate offhand. Canderson7 ^(talk) 20:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - There hasn't been anything on this game in nearly a year, and the last substantiated reports said that it was cancelled...not that there was ever much substantial information on this game anyways. — Brother Flounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 20:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The last substantiated report was from a Nintendo fan site who did not cite their sources - which is false. Two reports afterwards - one from IGN, and another from the official Nintendo magazine of Europe. This magazine's statement that it is not cancelled kills any argument that it is.

And I want a speedy close of this AfD. If the filer looked at the references, he would have seen a link from IGN confirming that it is real. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, the reason behind this request to delete is factually incorrect since Nintendo themselves revealed the existence of Metroid Dread, furthered by Nintendo reps who said it did not show up at E3, and further proven to be in existence by IGN and Nintendo magazines that claim it to still be in development. Really, the facts are in the article you're trying to delete.

On March 23, 2006, the website N-Sider reported that the IGN editor Craig Harris was asked about Metroid Dread, and his response was that it was too early to show at E3 in 2005, but that it could be shown later this year.

Last reliable report on Metroid Dread, which suggests that it is still in development. Please try reading the articles before marking them for deletion next time.--Claude 21:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Speedy Close - user is a vandal who has literally done nothing to improve Wikipedia - in fact, has made a decent effort to do damage to it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:14, 14 December 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. Cbrown1023 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sustainable Fashion

This is unreferenced OR, and may be a copyvio. — Brother Flounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Unreferenced original research that is likely a made up term. The actual text in the article borders on being nonsensical as well. --The Way 06:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is unstood that the article may boarder nonsensical. This was a first time entry and will be revised more extensiveley with the inclusion of citations before being posted. Yet sustainable fashion is not a made-up term and work will continue on its entry into wikipedia. --Splitpe 04:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)splitpea

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Cbrown1023 22:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galactic (computer game)

a "rare" game for the Amiga, distributed only with a computer magazine in 1994. I shall dare the wrath of Amiga enthusiasts everywhere and say, "Non notable". Prod contested. Brianyoumans 20:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Stavros Fasoulas, who is somehat notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Galactic is already mentioned in the Fasoulas article. --Brianyoumans 23:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Well that's even easier then. Just redirect there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:58, 14 December 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 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (aeropagitica) 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of maps in Battlefield 2

Looking back at the first nomination, I have no idea how so many people could actually think of keeping this gamecruft. Aside from the fact that the text appears to be copyrighted, the article itself only documents an aspect of gameplay which can easily be discussed summary style in the main article: the very definition of a game guide. The original nomination also cited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of maps in Company of Heroes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multiplayer maps in Halo 2 as precedent for deletion. If that isn't enough to convince you, try to remember some of Wikipedia's major tenets: WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:NOR Axem Titanium 20:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per my original nomination. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 05:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V, WP:NOT - as it currently stands the tone of this article is all wrong and if even it was re-written from scratch, I don't see any real world or cultural impact that requires more than 3 or 4 lines on the main article. --Charlesknight 12:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 12:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Copy and paste from the game's documentation.--Zxcvbnm 23:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydw ee b (^chat/_review!) 08:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. The fact that the map summaries are a direct copy from the in-game loading screens would make this a copyvio page, I believe. Green451 03:06, 17 December 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. Cbrown1023 22:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sue Richards (artist)

This person is hardly notable. Superdix 20:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My experience has been that Richards has been using Wikipedia for personal promotion (especially of her blog). To me, "Breast of Canada" seems notable, but that might be because I am also from Guelph. Remaining ~~neutral~~ for now, though I would be willing to move to delete if convinced. Andy Saund e rs 21:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The references within the article have convinced me that Sue's work has been discussed on much more than a local level and that she is suitably notable within Wikipedia. Keep. Andy Saund e rs 18:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep I've added a few of the multiple references I could find for this subject. She has been discussed in multiple, non-trivial and independent sources thus making her notable as per WP:N. This meets the primary criterion for notability and therefore the article should stay. Ccscott 22:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
keep does seem to be promotional, so it needs cleanup. it does seem to be notable, but it needs citations. --Buridan 12:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point out some of the wordings of Wikipedia:Notability (people):

"Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"

"Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field"

Now, as an artist, I have a really hard time seeing how she qualifies for her own page. I could very well dig up a couple of articles on my little sister (she plays basketball on the local team) in the local newspaper, without it making her notable. Here's a question: what kind of notable personality is Sue Richards? Is she a publisher? A photographer? An event manager? She hardly seems notable in any of these fields. Superdix 16:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out WP:N. If multiple local papers have decided that your sister is notable enough to write an article with her as the main focus (i.e. non-trival mention), you probably have a strong case that she deserves her own article. Notability due to acheivement in a profession is only one criteria for a person to merit an article. Ccscott 17:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that that is only one of the criteria. However, let's try to look at this reasonably. If we set standards that high for people within scientific professions, and even government officials, then how come a person who has been the publisher of a breast calendar deserves their own page? I was just trying to put things in perspective here. Basically, her article is a CV, the only "notable" part being the breast calendar. If we're looking for multiple independent articles on the subject of Sue Richards, so far only one has turned up. The other one had the breast calendar itself as a subject. Which means that currently, the subject of Sue Richards is not notable by WP:N. Superdix 19:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Topics can be notable that don't meet the primary criterion, but articles that reference multiple and independent, non-trivial published works are notable almost by definition. In this case, she is notable becuase both local and national newspapers have published articles that focus on her and her projects. Of course, you as an editor are entitled to your opinion as to whether the cited references are non-trivial, independent and are published in an acceptable forum. However, none of this is to say she is notable as an artist; most of the articles I read focus on her and the calendar and not her art., or does this say that the article is "good"; it clearly needs work. If you feel that the article overemphasizes her artisit abilities or accomplishments, please change it. Ccscott 20:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

A primary contributor (repeatedly so) is User:Missfebruary, hardly a coincidence. On the other hand, if there is more on the accolades she has won for work besides the calendar, the problem with conflict of interest could be minimized. Until sourced information about her other work enters the article, I'd recommend a very weak delete as work with one calendar (albeit issued over six years) is in itself insufficient for WP:BIO - otherwise all those "anonymous" compilers of calendars for Hallmark Cards and Carlton Cards would also merit Wikipedia articles. B.Wind 22:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- All those "anonymous" compilers of calendars have not been discussed multiple times in various newspapers. Notability is not subjective. Ccscott 09:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I think you missed the point: Wikipedia:Notability (people) does put forth one important criteria: The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Read that once more. Sue Richards should have been the primary subject, not the breast calendar. See where I'm going with this? Consider a book on Monet or Rembrandt. These publications are written on the subject of the artist, not on a particular piece of art they created. The articles listed on Sue Richards have the breast calendar as their subject (but one, from the Guelph local paper). This does not warrant a biography for Sue Richards, it warrants an article on the breast calendar. Superdix 15:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    - I realize the content of some of the other newspaper articles listed in the references are not accessible online, but it is clear from reading them that Sue Richards the person is discussed as a primary focus of each of the articles (i.e. in a non-trivial way). In fact they talk more about her life than the calendar. If you do not have access to a library to read them I can post them for you to judge for yourself, but I have been hesitant to do so for fear of copyright issues. I have searched wikipedia but have been unable to find any indication on policy regarding posting newspaper articles in talk pages. In any case, from my reading of all the references I still believe this person easily meets the primary notability criterion (multiple, non-trivial media publications on the subject) and therefore I maintain the article should remain. Ccscott 16:22, 16 December 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 as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of infomration. (aeropagitica) 16:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ninja vs Samurai

one non-canonical user created map from a video game. Not verifiable, not notable, and includes primarily gameguide material. i kan reed 21:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. --Tarret 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I actually thought I'd tagged this for prodding yesterday, but I guess not. -- Kicking222 21:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom - definitely not notable Chovain 23:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep why should it be deleted? its not perfect, but its good enough —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mooseguy (talk • contribs) 01:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
Delete per nom. Delta Tango • Talk 04:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep There are other game guides on Wikipedia, and although this one is somewhat obscure, there is no real reason to delete 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 23:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derivations of conic sections

This article seems to fall under the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Instruction Manuals" section of the What Wikipedia is not guideline. It's essentially an instruction manual for how to derive the conic sections formulae from geometric definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DroEsperanto (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 December 2006

Delete. The basic information is already present in circle and parabola. I don't think the equations of circles and parabolas require further explanation, but even if we decide they do, that would only be a couple of lines. The detail in the nominated article is excessive for an encyclopaedia, and I don't see how it can be used as a basis. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Difficult to understand, doesn't provide any new insight. I don't see the point or utility of this. linas 15:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Abstain. Oh, I understand it now. The tables were confusing. recatting to category:Article proofs which is what this seems to be. linas 16:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge useful information with Conic section. The graphics don't help at all; in fact, one "proof" is without context as it was never stated what was to be proven. B.Wind 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm don't think it should be merged with Conic section, because the way the formulas are being derived is not in the context of their being intersections of planes and cones, which is what the conic sections article is about. DroEsperanto 19:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This doesn't look like any kind of mathematics I've ever seen. It's not the level of detail that's unencyclopedic so much as the contorted presentation. Melchoir 05:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep this looks exactly like the kind of mathematics I know from the high school :-) and it is too lenghty and too technical to be merged with the main article about conic sections, I think. --Ioannes Pragensis 13:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Transwiki to Wikibooks. Line-by-line proofs weren't helpful in high school, and they aren't useful to the encyclopedia; as the confusion on this page should show. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There are different types of high schools. And in the college, they are definitely useful. (OK the form of the article should be better.)--Ioannes Pragensis 07:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep not necessarily as value as proofs - but schematically useful as a reference. Exactly what one looks for in an encyclopaedia WilyD 18:27, 20 December 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 Transwiki. Cbrown1023 22:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baka (insult)

Article, while long, is little more than a dicdef with a lot of examples and therefore should be transwikied to Wiktionary and deleted here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge anything relevant to Otaku, if anything, and Delete Danny Lilithborne 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Question: Are you fine with it being transwikied? Your comments make this unclear. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment No prob. Danny Lilithborne 12:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Transwiki It has a lot of interesting etymological and dialectual information that's not contained in the wiktionary article. Move relevent bits over. --Kunzite 04:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki, but do not merge. Baka redirecting to Otaku is undue weight to the latter community. ColourBurst 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki As Kunzite says, plenty of interesting etymological speculation, but that's about it. I see no real reason to keep this. TomorrowTime 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki per above. Just H 20:58, 20 December 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 as an unsourced, non-notable biography. Pierre Joubert (illustrator) moved back. (aeropagitica) 16:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre Joubert

Bump from speedy. Suggest merging to a new article on the Joubert family, if relevant. Note: If deleted, Pierre Joubert (illustrator) should be moved back. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-13 22:19Z

As a person who speedied it twice, I wholeheartedly agree with either a delete or maybe a merge. How notable is this Joubert family, anyway?--Thomas.macmillan 22:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Joubert is already a dab page - if there is to be an article for the family, it should replace the dab page. But for this article, more context is needed to be saved. Start Joubert family article and merge Pierre Joubert and all other pertinent articles about Joubert family members with it. B.Wind 22:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete progenitor of "this branch" of the Joubert family. Which branch? Good question, but not one the article bothers to answer. No notability asserted. No children or other descendants mentioned. No sourcing. Since we are an encyclopedia, not wikigenealogy, no reason to keep this. GRBerry 06:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as nonsense. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil Tutorial

Obviously a pointless page. Shall I count the ways this fails WP tests? Fails WP:NOT and WP:NOR, as far as I can see. David Fuchs 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - sigh. Ccscott 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nonsense because that's what is is. Whisp e ring 01:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as nonsense per CSD G1. Agent 86 01:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete garbage, burn it. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete So tagged Akihabara 02:20, 14 December 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.--Kchase T 06:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book of marshall

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. JudahBlaze 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The page Book of marshall is tied with the traditions of Donald A. Wilson Secondary School. It is not just something randomly made up in school. It is, in fact, a very important part of the football team.

After the AfD notice was posted, I saw the link to the Donald A. Wilson school in the article. There is no mention of the Book of marshall on the website. --JudahBlaze 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: A google search for "book of marshall" and "david wilson" returns no results. Dylan Lake 23:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Whether made up today, last month, or last year, it's still an inside joke made up at school one day that lacks any sort of encyclopedic value. Agent 86 23:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - take your choice: no assertion of notability or something made up in school one day. B.Wind 22:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
garbage if anything - Wikipedia is not the place for stupid things like inside jokes to be put. im in grade 11 myself and know Marshall. get this off here it is a stupid inside joke of his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipmeister (talk • contribs)
Delete no need for this on wikipedia--TrulyUnited 22:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete not for made up in school one day --Slp1 03:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete just delete it already!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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) 16:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanian Swadesh list

Bump from speedy. The article is not patent nonsense; it is translation of the Swadesh list to Romanian. Probably not useful to have translations of this list to every language though. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-13 23:02Z

Delete per nom Subwayguy 23:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a translation guide/English to Romanian dictionary. --The Way 06:48, 14 December 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, note - this underlines how tricky a multiple listing can be. Unless subjects are identical (which does not describe a group of footballers from different clubs and countries) the results tend to be hard to read. This should not prejudice subsequent debates where single players from this nomination are relisted individually. For that reason I'll decline to place this result on the talk pages of all but the main nominee. Deizio talk 17:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eloka Asokuh

Also nominating Jonathan Minnock, Shane Bradley, David Bell (footballer), Anthony Gorman, Matthew Crossan, Tom Mohan, Marc Mukendi, Fergal Harkin. All of these are footballers who play or have played for Finn Harps F.C., a non-professional Irish club. None of them have played at professional level. Oldelpaso 22:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

- Comment - "a non-professional Irish club" There are plenty of SEMI PROFESSIONAL clubs who are deemed notable. For example Shamrock Rovers and many of the Irish teams. As the Wikiproject on football says, create articles on football clubs of all nations. These articles are helpful to those in Ireland. Ryannus 19:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 23:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. HornetMike 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Angelo 01:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete All per nom Akihabara 02:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Jonathan Minnock (debut against Derry City F.C. in 1995 proves top-flight appearance in the League of Ireland), keep David Bell (footballer) (played for St. Patrick's Athletic), keep Anthony Gorman (played for Linfield F.C., top-flight club in the Irish League) and keep Fergal Harkin (played for Leicester City FC). In fact, I am inclined to keep all because all have played in the first (before the club's relegation in 2005) or second tier in the League of Ireland, but if this fails, keep these players for the aforementioned reasons. --Pkchan 03:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep all as they have all played in or are currently playing in the national League of Ireland. They all appear regularly on Irish television (TV3 (Ireland)), Highland Radio and in the national and local press. Especially keep the following:

Marc Mukendi - is on loan from Derry City, who are a full-time club in the Premier Division. He has also represented Ireland at under-19 level.
Fergal Harkin- currently plays in the Premier Division with Bohemian FC and previously played for Leicester City FC, whilst later representing Finn Harps in the Premier Division.
Tom Mohan - played for both Finn Harps and Derry City FC in the Premier Division.
Jonathan Minnock - spent a season at Shelbourne FC (of the Premier Division) and has also represented Finn Harps in the same division.
Eloka Asokuh - represented his national team at youth level in the FIFA U-17 World Cup, which he also won, and played in the same side as Nwankwo Kanu.
David Bell (footballer) and Anthony Gorman - for reasons stated above, and the fact that Gorman was the team's manager until a few weeks ago.

These examples undoubtedly demonstrate notability if simply playing in the First Division of the League of Ireland does not suffice, which would astonish me if it didn't. There are numerous Irish GAA players with articles as they are of notable character, yet they have never played professionally for their counties as the GAA intentionally remains as an amateur organisation in order to maintain the spirit or idea of players playing for the love of the game rather than for money.--HarpsBoy 07:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep all Articles are verifiable, and I can recall Finn Harps playing in the UEFA Cup, and were until recently in the top flight in Ireland. Catchpole 07:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep

The Wikiproject on football states, write articles on all notable players in each country. These players are deemed notable. Living in Ireland and fervently following the football season I know personally that these players are actual players and certainly meet the notability requirments. Again, people who nominate such articles are, for me the scourge of this site, possibly more so than Trolls. Ryannus 19:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Overlooking the personal attack, I should probably expand on my reasons for nomination. WP:BIO regards as notable "Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league". As far as I am aware, the top division of the Football League of Ireland is not fully professional. Some of the bigger teams are professional, but the league as a whole is not fully professional. The notability of the clubs is not in question; this AfD is concerned solely with players. Media coverage regarding some of these players is mentioned above. If verifiable sources were cited within these articles to establish notability beyond doubt, then I would be happy to withdraw some or all of these nominations.

With regards to some points made by others above:

Finn Harps have played in the UEFA Cup, but in the 1970s. None of these players have played in European competition as far as I have been able to ascertain.
Fergal Harkin did not play make any appearances for the Leicester first team.
Comparisons to Gaelic football are irrelevant, the best Irish football (soccer) players play professionally. Besides, WP:BIO makes specific provision for mainly amateur sports. Oldelpaso 18:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep: Wikipedia's test for notability states:

"Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played ... at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable..."

Although the team of most of these players currently rests in the First Division, all of these players have been, or are, members of a team at the highest level of football in the Republic of Ireland - that is, the Premier Division of the League of Ireland (bar Anthony Gorman, who played for Linfield FC (Northern Irish football's biggest club) and Matthew Crossan as far as I'm aware). The activities are notable without a doubt. The players feature both on national Irish television and local radio regularly.

Furthermore:
Marc Mukendi, who is on loan at Finn Harps, is the member of Derry City F.C., a professional side in the Premier Division, and has representented Ireland at under-age level. He can be seen in the website of the FAI (ninth player from top).

It is hard to fathom how Eloka Asokuh's winning of the under-17 World Cup with Nigeria may be deemed non-notable.

I have a feeling that Fergal Harkin may have represented Bohemian FC in European competition, and possibly Tom Mohan a few seasons ago when he was with Derry City. Maybe somebody can confirm these as I'm not wholly sure.

Jonathan Minnock played with Shelbourne F.C., who are the top team in modern Irish football as far as achievements go. Possibly, he also represented them in Europe that season. This would need confirmation also.--Danny Invincible 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep as reasons given above ought to be sufficient. Regarding Fergal Harkin, he represented Bohemians in the UEFA Champions League qualifying stages gainst Rosenborg. See here for the Irish Examiner's report of that match.--Johnfullerton 00:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I would also like to highlight the fact that WikiProject Football states in its goals:

Write articles ... on all notable football players in every country.

The term, "every country", obviously includes the Republic of Ireland and seeing as the vast majority of these players have played at the highest standard possible in the League of Ireland, their articles surely have a part to play in achieving the stated goal.--Danny Invincible 01:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Update Anthony Gorman was appointed as part of the coaching staff of Derry City FC on 17 December.--Danny Invincible 23:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep all Finn Harps is a semi-professional club which only recently played in the top level of Irish football. Removing references like this will help give the impression that all Irish football is played in England. Fergal Harkin is an active member of the first team squad of Bohemian FC, and one of the foremost wingers in Ireland. Proposing his article for deletion in particular reveals an alarming level of ignorance of the game, and in my view this should inform any decision. To be honest, I don't understand the motivation of the proposal to delete. Bohsnews 14:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Bohsnews

Comment I think it's time to remove the nomination. This process is entering its seventh day. Shouldn't it have been wrapped up a day or two ago?--Danny Invincible 04:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete -Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Kelly (artist)

This article does not meet the notability guidelines for people as set out in WP:BIO (see User:Quirex's analysis) or WP:Notability. Jacj 23:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, since all of the sources are web pages affiliated with the entry's subject, it also violates WP:OR. --Jacj 23:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep -- notable (and prolific) webcomic artist, as well as a major contributor on SomethingAwful.com. Haikupoet 02:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Kelly's notability has not been verified so far (see response to Keolah below), and prolificacy is not a sufficient criterion for establishing notability. Being a major contributor to Something Awful simply means the he merits a mention within that entry, not an entire entry of his own. --Jacj 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  - The notability of Something Awful itself has still not been established conclusively. Most of its justifications don't hold up to careful scrutiny. It has survived several AFDs, but so did GNAA... --Afed 08:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Actually, the one AfD for Something Awful that's listed was an overwhelming Keep, so I don't really see your grounds for making that statement. And to Jacj: browbeating Keep votes is bad form. Please don't do it; it annoys people. Haikupoet 15:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Something Awful definately passes WP:WEB as there have been more than 2 non-trivial media mentions in the past. I don't think debating votes over policy issues is brow beating and I don't think it is good form to stifle debate by saying it is rude. --Quirex 16:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        If Something Awful indeed has non-trivial media mentions, they should be cited as sources in that article. It is woefully lacking of external citations, and should be cleaned up. --Afed 20:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      - If you believe it's "browbeating" and "bad form" to explain why wrong and misleading reasons for a decision are wrong and misleading, it would be prudent to avoid any discussions where people might have to explain why they disagree with each other.
        
        Since the AfD process is not, in fact, a democratic vote but more like a weighing-up of the reasons for and against deletion, it makes sense that only genuine reasons for keeping or deleting should be considered. --Jacj 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        How can I put this... it gives the impression that you're jumping on people, pigpiling. It seems to only happen in cases where someone is really dead set on there being a specific outcome to the AfD debate. I really only can say that it doesn't look good for your side that you're not willing to let your original arguments stand on their own merits. Haikupoet 07:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Entirely growing sick of seeing people nominating things as "non-notable" simply because they haven't heard of them. Notable webcomic artist sporting multiple well-known comics, some of which were on Keenspot, which alone should be enough even disregarding everything else he's been involved in. --Keolah 03:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- What makes you so certain that my judgement of Kelly as non-notable is based solely on not having heard of him? In fact I have heard of him from being a member of the Something Awful forums. Your claim to his notability rests on his comics being (1) well-known, and (2) an important feature of Keenspot.
  
  (1) doesn't really hold up. If Kelly's comics were sufficiently well known as to be notable, then there would be references to the comics from sources other than websites Kelly has a hand in running. As it is, the three citations given in the article are all links to sites Kelly runs. So his comics are apparently not well-known enough to be considered notable.
  
  Regarding (2): Kelly certainly does have a webcomic affiliated with Keenspot (or at least he did — the latest strip was uploaded six months ago), but that only justifies listing it on the Wikipedia entry for Keenspot; it does not, in itself, establish notability for the comic, nor for the creator, who is two degrees separate.
  
  Additionally, you haven't addressed the problem that the article consists of original research. --Jacj 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Does something not being recent make it not having been notable, or even notable in its time? Shakespeare hasn't been updated in hundreds of years, by that estimate. :P And you seem to claim that the only websites which ever mention him or his comics are his own. That's extremely not-true as well, as a quick google search would have indicated if you had bothered actually looking, as I was able to find numerous sites unrelated to him discussing such in under a minute. --Keolah 08:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As I went through checking each notability test I did search for reliable sources on Dave Kelly. I did not find any, I search google, google news, blogsearch, google news archives. I found nothing that wasn't a blog. Please read WP:BIO and my post, it is very clear by policy that there is no established notability. --Quirex 16:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Shakespeare is documented on media other than the WWW. And it is nonetheless true that the only citations in Kelly's entry refer to sites he runs. --Jacj 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete As proven by Jacj and Quirex this person is non-notable. 204.191.190.187 05:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. --incog 14:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per me and nom. No secondary sources, no awards, no specific second party articles about his work. Since the article doesn't rely on any secondary source it seems to be WP:OR. --Quirex 16:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete per anony. Danny Lilithborne 07:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete not because I've not heard of him, but because I see no evidence of passing the primary notability criterion. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 16 December 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/withdrawn —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-14 19:33Z

[edit] Daio Wasabi Farm

Bump from speedy. Time magazine says Daioh Wasabi Farm is one of the country's largets farms [44]. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-13 23:28Z

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as it certainly seems notable enough (either through being featured in Kurosawa's film or due to being a touristy spot). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've done a bit of cleanup on the article, added a couple more references, a link, and Fg2 and Neier have added a bit to it as well. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks excellent now, thanks Nihonjoe. If the original speedy tagger votes Keep or doesn't care any more then we can speedy close this. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-14 05:34Z
Keep, according to several sources it is the world's largest wasabi farm. I was there a few days ago during my visit to Japan, very famous tourist spot. Looks better now. Ter e nc e Ong 07:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep Works for me. Notability seemed questionable at first, but live and let live at this point, it looks much better. Just H 19:21, 14 December 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. Could have been speedied as {{db-author}}. (aeropagitica) 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chronological list of anime

This article is another attempt at creating List of anime, List of Animes, etc. While it does a better job than previous attempts, it is still redundant. Categories under Category:Anime by date of first release and Category:Anime series already list anime by release date and listing studio and directors outside of the articles is creating unneeded duplication. There are over 4000 anime articles. If even a quarter of these are Anime series, OVAs and movies then the list would have to be 1000 lines long to be complete and would be too difficult to maintain. Squilibob 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete As the original creator of this entry, I admit in hindsight it was a bad idea, and it should be removed. Quiddity99 00:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Quiddity99
Delete per nom. It's unmaintainable and is redundant to a category. --Kunzite 17:46, 17 December 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 as Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. (aeropagitica) 16:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Melbourne Cecil Street

A minor street in South Melbourne, not notable for anything out of the ordinary. -- Longhair\^talk 23:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 23:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
DeleteNo assertion of notability. Unless it is improved with some real assertion to being of historical interest. If the buildings on the street are of historic they deserve their own article. If there are enough articles relating to buildings on this street then recreate the article and link them together.Ga rr ie 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete has some historical buildings and people walk their dogs on the street? Seriously, someone thought this was notable? --Canley 03:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. A Google News Archive search comes up with some hits [45] regarding to meetings at the Southern Cross Hotel, a protest at the South Melbourne Centrelink and various businesses being located in the street. The article doesn't make a strong case for notability and I can't find any. Capitalistroadster 04:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, so what if there is historical buildings here?? Don't see any need for inclusion here. There is nothing to convince me that the article deserves to be kept. Ter e nc e Ong 07:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete non notable street - see Melway map - the Centrelink and the South Melbourne Market are the only notable things on it, and the latter could have its own article if notable. See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Orderinchaos78 08:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough - but South Melbourne Market should have its own article. I particularly liked "Popular dogs in this area include Pug, Shih Tzu, and Maltese Dog" though. JROBBO 11:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable street. However, can we make it compulsory for every geographic based article to mention which breed of dog you're most likely to see there? --Roisterer 00:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
"Popular dogs in this area include Pug, Shih Tzu, and Maltese Dog". Delete. Lankiveil 05:19, 16 December 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Dawn patrol

[edit] Fleming Way

[edit] GamesIndustry.biz

[edit] Copper(II) fluoride

[edit] Brandon Espinosa

[edit] GeMagic

[edit] Hoang Thi Loan

[edit] Examination of Holocaust denial

[edit] Jubilee Hospital Radio

[edit] Deal or No Deal game strategy

[edit] Simon Balle

[edit] No Flash Corner

[edit] McFall

[edit] Metromint

[edit] 20th Century Theatre

[edit] The Justice

[edit] Kdice

[edit] Ashley Velissariou

[edit] Mermaid art

[edit] Hoang Thi Loan (3 nomination)

[edit] Chill Out (map)

[edit] AcoUstiKats

[edit] German Potato Salad

[edit] Kory Sheets

[edit] Kristina Howells

[edit] 9/11_Mysteries

[edit] Railway mission

[edit] List of three-letter English words

[edit] JudoJoe Productions

[edit] American-Filipino

[edit] List of cities that no longer have trolleybuses

[edit] Risk and capital management in non-life insurance

[edit] Orion globe

[edit] Drawball

[edit] Whip Jones

[edit] Discussions Started Before Article Rewrite

[edit] Discussions Started After Major Editing, Revamping and Concise Article

[edit] John I. Beggs

[edit] Tom Spilsbury

[edit] The Awaited Truth

[edit] BoyChat

[edit] Swing (musical group)

[edit] Koiko

[edit] Chibchombia

[edit] United Kingdom as a major power

[edit] Oak Park Shuttle

[edit] Jenny Morris (singer)

[edit] Crown Tranceiver

[edit] Heil Environmental Industries Ltd

[edit] Gladin'

[edit] Hyupyoung

[edit] Spatial Doppler effect

[edit] Leon Pieket

[edit] Standard office document formats debate

[edit] BuMbLePuPpIe

[edit] Liberty Ball

[edit] Arthur Mattuck

[edit] Lichtenberg Transmitter

[edit] Backdraft (drink)

[edit] Best of KMD

[edit] List of Animes

[edit] Context Connect

[edit] Sneath

[edit] Everafter

[edit] Kushan Mitra

[edit] Dnyaneshwar Vidyapeeth

[edit] George Mubayi

[edit] Sara Albert

[edit] Involuntary celibacy

[edit] History of video game consoles (eighth generation)

[edit] Full moon cycle

[edit] South Park slash

[edit] عمرو خالد

[edit] Jonathan Rodriguez (Entrepreneur)

[edit] ClearSpeed

[edit] List of teams and cyclists in the Dauphiné Libéré 2006

[edit] National Action