Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 27

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (Talk) 13:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aarcover

Nominate for deletion This article consists of a whole two sentences and has nothing on the significance of this font. Seems not to meet notability requirements.Sumoeagle179 23:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It needs to be expanded, but this is a reasonably well-known typeface, and appears in most type sample books. —Chowbok ☠ 00:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. 24.169.255.232 01:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as far as I can tell, it is one of many type faces created out there. If it is widely used, then some form of documentation in the form of reliable sources would be in order. I was unable to google up any, but it's a tough slog through a huge list of links to font archives. Perhaps one of the above editors wo are more familiar with the typeface can assist. -- Whpq 02:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pending source to establish noteworthiness. Quadzilla99 04:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Chowbok. Ford MF 02:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Editors are basing their rationales on the fact that it "needs to be expanded", without showing that it is actually possible to expand this article from stub state. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, articles with no possibility for expansion and that will only ever be perpetual stubs may be deleted. Please cite sources to show that there is a possibility for expansion. Not a single source has been cited yet, either in the article or in this discussion. Uncle G 17:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• I've asked Chowbok to provide some sources in response to Uncle G, please give him a few (3?) days to respond. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable typeface; WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". "Wikipedia is not a directory".--Jeff 20:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, if expandable, per Mgm. And if it is expandable, please expand it, or add sources to prove notability. TheQuandry 21:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I held off on this one, but while this isn't an ideal article due to it being source-less and stubby. What I would like is an article on the Intecsas industry, and it seems like it has made a lot of fonts. That being said, it doesn't look like a company that is that well-known. I'm torn on the delete/keep thing. (Only 589 results for aarcover and under 1000 for Intecsas make me want to say delete, but I'm a keepist so it's hard for me to say it for some reason on this one). --Wizardman 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. No particularly valid reasons given to delete, does not look like original research. Do not bring your disputes here, please. Proto::► 10:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antihomosexual propaganda

• Delete. It is original research of user:Rombik. --Nikolay Kolpakov 21:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  Nikolay Kolpakov, can you please prove that it is an "original research"? Why do you call it "original research", if it explicitly cites so many sources? :) And more than that, I can easily prove that you regularly voted in Russian Wikipedia for deletion of just ANY LGBT-related article, calling any of it "original research", irrelevantly how many sources were there, about what was the article, etc. So I'm not surprised with your activity in deletion of this article there :) You also tried to remove LGBT flag from many articles, too. rombik 12:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  Rombik, what do you mean? Is Nikolay Kolpakov a homophobe? :-) --the wrong man 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  I mean exactly what I said. Not more not less. rombik 21:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  Hmm. References are just irrelevant. Term homophobic propaganda is only mentioned in first one. Some are about homosexual discrimination in nazist Germany, some about anti-discrimination (homosexual and common), but not about propaganda. — Vovanium 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  They ARE relevant. And the discrimination in Nazi Germany didn't came alone and suddenly, it was the result and culmination of organised Nazi anti-homosexual propaganda. And the anti-discrimination laws are also relevant there as they explicitly prohibit hate speechs, defamations and alike, which constitute anti-gay propaganda. rombik 21:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  No, they are relevant only to discrimination. Moreover, article is just reword anoter articles, like History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, so I have no idea, why sould exist another article. And... why article is not named Heterosexual propaganda? - Vovanium 21:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  No, they are relevant not only to discrimination, as the discrimination itself results and arises from prejudice and stereotypes, which are widely distributed and supported by this same propaganda. And there IS material about 1) propaganda; 2) its relation to institutionalised homophobia; 3) the connection between discrimination, homophobia and propaganda. And this article ISN'T "just reword of another articles", it's spectrum is MUCH broader than, say, just History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, so there is no need and no reason to merge these articles. And as to "heterosexual propaganda" - are you joking? :) It is NOT "heterosexual propaganda". At the very minimum, it is heterosexist (heterosexual supremacist, heterosexual chauvinist) propaganda. At the maximally radical end of this spectrum, it is homophobic hate speech. The article is NOT about "propaganda of heterosexual love" or what do you mean under the label of so-called "heterosexual propaganda". Nevertheless, heterosexual propaganda probably exists (not more not less than "homosexual propaganda", which is an usual accusation towards LGBT activists), but it is a distinct phenomenon from heterosexist propaganda. rombik 08:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Propaganda of illness (which is any phobia) is nonsence. — User:Vovanium

  1. The term homophobia is NOT related to phobias, and you should read first what it does mean. Homophobia is NOT an "illness", and this term means negative, intolerant attitude towards homosexuality. And anyway, your argument is void now, because the article is renamed to antihomosexual propaganda. And also, the term "homophobic propaganda" really exists (and antihomosexual propaganda, anti-gay propaganda too) - just look in Google. More than that, the term "homophobic propaganda" was used in scientific works, for example, in the work of historician Stefan Micheler. And also, there are people who at the same time consider that "homosexuality is an illness" and consider that "homosexual propaganda" exists :) So how is it compatible with your words? :) rombik 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  In any case there's no noticeable difference with any other propaganda or specifics (just like we will not write articles, named red cars, blue cars etc.) Article consist mainly of common words, which aplly to any propaganda though, like this template: «* propaganda — organised social and political activity (public speech, public behavior, meetings and actions), based on negative and intolerant attitude towards *** ...». Some specific facts is not enough to article, so I now vote to join material with homosexuality, homophobia and propaganda. — Vovanium 20:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  Again, there is a LOT of material, which just waits to come into the English article. Your own language is Russian, so you can easily check how much material is there in ru:Пропаганда гомофобии. So there's no reason to "join" any material with any of these aforementioned articles. Article does not "consist mainly of common words", it cites many sources and will cite more. And there are not just "some specific facts", there are a lot of facts, really. And there IS a difference and specifics. Religious propaganda or Communist propaganda, for example, CAN be different articles, while blue car and red car - not. rombik 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and merge any relevant cited material into propaganda. CyberAnth 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  This idea sounds strange for me. If the article about a distinct form of propaganda should be merged with the article propaganda, does it mean that the article about homosexuality, a distinct form of human sexuality, should also be merged with an article about sexuality? :) rombik 12:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. per CyberAnth. Quadzilla99 04:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  See my answer to CyberAnth. rombik 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as likely original research.-- danntm ^T _C 05:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  Can you say why do you think that it is an original research? rombik 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as likely original research. Vlad2000Plus 06:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  Can you say why do you think that it is an original research? And I should say that I'm not surprised with your vote. rombik 12:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Vovanium. Edward Chernenko 07:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  The "argument" of Vovanium became void for now, as the article was renamed. And also, see my answer to Vovanium, see sources, which use the term "homophobic propaganda". And I should say that I'm not surprised with your vote. rombik 12:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it is NOT "original research", and there will be translated much more material. The article has many sources. Many users who now try to delete it, are well known in Russian Wikipedia for their very strong anti-homosexual bias and their regular gay-bashing plus their regular voting for deletion of just ANY LGBT-related article. So their motivation is not encyclopaedical in nature. rombik 08:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this term is used SO frequently: [1], so there should be the article about it in Wiki. --AndyVolykhov 08:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Rombik and AndyVolykhov. OckhamTheFox 09:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Homophobic wars from russian wikipedia should not be transferred to english part! --Varnav 10:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  See my answer to the nominator, Nikolay Kolpakov. rombik 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Homophobic wars from russian wikipedia. --Barnaul 10:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Can somebody check it for originality? I have glanced over it and now there is too many material there for merging with propaganda (if only the half of it wasn't invented by author). In this case I would advise to create in propaganda a subsection with a brief description and {{main|Antihomosexual propaganda}} --D.R 11:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, sourced and verifiable, also please note huge amount of links mentioned by AndyVolykhov. Plainly bad-faith nomination. MaxSem 13:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs some work but otherwise is a valid and timely topic. Haiduc 15:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is Homosexual propaganda. Wikipedia is not tribune. Belomoeff 16:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  Can you argument why the article which is well-sourced, verifiable and based on facts, is called "homosexual propaganda" by you? :) And also, again, I'm not surprised with your vote. And you should remember that it is English Wikipedia, not Russian Wikipedia, and unsourced ideological statements like "it is homosexual proparanda" are NOT valid arguments there. You and your ideological friends from so-called "APE" regularly make such statements about just ANY LGBT-related article in Russian Wikipedia. rombik 17:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  Roman Bekker told me by ICQ about this article's advantage. I vote to keep this article. Belomoeff 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think the article is well writed. But it must be expand and correct, but not to delete. Homophobia is illness of our days and someone must write about it, to do people more loyal and tolerant --Gavriil 19:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This user has not edits in articles, he may be meatpuppet of User:Rombik [2].--Nikolay Kolpakov 19:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that this is English Wikipedia, not Russian Wikipedia, and there only arguments count, not votes. And as to convicted "meatpuppetry", I can very easily prove that most of these Russian-speaking users, who voted to delete this article, are actually YOUR meatpuppets, because YOU directly called Alexey Belomoeff and instructed him to vote to delete this article :) And he doesn't know English so well, and didn't have any better arguments than just a gold standard for ruwiki discussions - an accusation of "homosexual propaganda" :)) So... what? Wanna me to prove that? I can. And also, most of them are from so-called APE, to which you belong.. :) rombik 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep as the reason for nomination seems, well, let's be charitable, seems suspect. Otto4711 17:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bad faith nom; however, the article itself raises some serious and legitimate POV concerns, so relist under appropriate designation. -Toptomcat 17:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  Any POV concern means that the article should be improved, made more neutral, more balanced (and it WILL be, I've just started to work on it), it does not mean that the article should be relisted for deletion. rombik 17:48, 28 * December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Vovanium. Serebr 19:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  The "argument" of Vovanium is already void, as the article is renamed. See also my answer to him. And also, I'm not surprised with your vote :) rombik 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is an original research (see Google Scholar). --the wrong man 20:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  By the way, this user, as like as User:Evgen2 is also placed under half a year probation under ruling of our Arbitration Committee: ru:ВП:ГОМО due to his very strong anti-gay POV-pushing, regular gay-bashing, edit-warring, harassment of certain users (mostly me, User:Barnaul and ru:User:ID Burn), personal attacks and incivility. rombik 11:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  Anti-gay POV-pushing, gay-bashing, harassment? Are you kidding? You're liar, rombik. According to ru:ВП:ГОМО,

  В месте с этим Арбитражный комитет не умаляет вины участника The Wrong Man, систематически допускавшего в сторону других участников хамские реплики, личные выпады, а также прибегавшего к оскорблениям и двусмысленным намёкам, иногда лежащим на грани угроз. И признаёт допущенные участником действия нарушающими принцип недопустимости оскорблений и агрессии и не способствующими созданию дружелюбной психологически благоприятной обстановки в сообществе. Несмотря на то, что подобное поведение в ряде случаев было спровоцировано действиями других ответчиков. Арбитражный комитет особо подчёркивает, что оскорбления и личные выпады, какие позволял себе участник The Wrong Man, в Википедии недопустимы.

  So I were found guilty of Wikipedia:No personal attacks violations only. --the wrong man 11:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  If you want, I can easily prove any word I previously said (about POV-pushing, about edit wars, about harassment on certain users). I also can translate the whole ru:ВП:ГОМО ruling :) rombik 11:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  No, you can't, little liar. :-) --the wrong man 12:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  About edit wars: anyone can just look into your block log - just recently you were blocked twice for edit warring. About POV-pushing: anyone who knows Russian can just dig into your edits in ru:Шепард, Мэтью Уэйн or ru:Сексуальные меньшинства в Третьем рейхе и холокост to check them for neutrality :) About harassment on certain users: anyone can ask Obersachse (member of previous ArbCom) or Vladimir Volokhonsky (current member of our ArbCom) to prove my words. rombik 12:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  It is NOT an "original research", because Google Scholar is not the only relevant source for any article. There are published books which use exactly such term. Also, I'm not surprised with your vote :) rombik 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  This is your private opinion. As you can see, there is the only one scientific article in which the term "homophobic propaganda" was used. I mean "Homophobic Propaganda and the Denunciation of Same-Sex-Desiring Men under National Socialism" by Stefan Micheler. His article concerns the Nazi period in German history, so you can add this information to the History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. --the wrong man 20:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  I also can say that "this is your private opinion" that it is an "original research". And there is NOT "only one" scientific article in which such terms are used. And the topic of the article is MUCH broader than just History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, so this article shouldn't be just merged to the mentioned article. EOD. rombik 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Not an encyclopaedic reasons for moving off. --Azh7 22:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Тhis user has two edits in articles [3]--Nikolay Kolpakov 19:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that this is English Wikipedia, not Russian Wikipedia, and there only arguments count, not votes. rombik 21:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There are no convincing arguments for removal. S.L. 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The convincing argument for deletion is that the article is all over the place, and more a mish-mash of anti-gay and hate-speech laws than about anything that could plausibly be termed "propaganda" (e.g. the promotional material of certain Christian denominations asserting that homosexuality is "curable" through prayer). Propaganda is by definition legal in its source country, so if there are laws against it, it's hate speech, not propaganda. Ford MF 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• You have a very narrow definition of propaganda, but according to Webster it is:

  pro·pa·gan·da: 1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions; 2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; 3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

  From this definition, it's absolutely obvious that propaganda includes hate speech as spreading negative stereotypes against LGBT people.--Antanta 17:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This article has been put to delete in Russian wikipedia on 26 Nov 2006 and has been kept later on. The same persons from Ru-wiki voted here to delete it. Also, it should be renamed back to Homophobic propaganda, because the term is much more widely used than Antihomosexual propaganda (792 000 vs 31 500 search results).--Antanta 17:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  Puppet-show? By the way, your search results are incorrect, mr. Soularis. A search in Google gives 2360 results for "homophobic propaganda" and 240 results for "anti-homosexual propaganda". --the wrong man 22:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  What show? I don't have time for shows. Your search results still don't prove that the term antihomosexual propaganda is more widely used. You better think harder of other reasons besides this and "Original research".--Antanta 07:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

User without contributions in articles [4]--Nikolay Kolpakov 19:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that it is English Wikipedia, not Russian Wikipedia, and there on AfD only arguments count, not votes. So it doesn't matter if he has contributions on en-wiki or not - he can even be an anonymous user, but with arguments. rombik 21:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. And dare I point out that the reasoning of many who wish to delete this article seems to smack strongly of "Antihomosexual propaganda"? CyntWorkStuff 03:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, good use of sources. The article is interesting and adds to wikipedia. --Duke of Duchess Street 04:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, worthwhile article which should be given time to expand. Title disputes aren't the purview of AFD. Bearcat 08:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep En-wiki is not place for ru-wiki`s "homophobic war"Ergil 08:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep reasonable article, seen worse than this on Wikipedia. PatGallacher 09:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete do you want 100k long article as it is now in Russian that is really AntiPro-homosexual propaganda ? --Evgen2 09:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  This user is well known in Ru-Wiki for his very strong anti-homosexual bias, regular POV-pushing, gay-bashing and accusations of "homosexual propaganda", "homosexual lobby" etc, was regularly blocked by administrators for personal attacks, incivility and finally was placed under half a year probation under ruling of our Arbitration Committee: ru:ВП:ГОМО. rombik 10:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  well, rombik is well known in Ru-Wiki for his very strong homosexual bias, regular POV-pushing, etc. As well as Rombik is well known liar and cause and/or member of almost all conflicts in Ru-Wiki --Evgen2 10:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  Hehehe. No comments. rombik 10:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: rombik-related ru-requests for arbitration: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] --Evgen2 23:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, for those who don't know Russian: only one is ruling which issued "warning" against me (and this ruling was issued by very "objective" ArbCom, two of its members were openly calling us words like "fags"). Two are MY requests for arbitration for severe and systematic violations of en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry by some of your friends ;-) And one is my appeal to the new, more objective, ArbCom about this old "warning". And one "request for arbitration" against me is refused by ArbCom, because the user who wanted so, was a sockpuppet :)) rombik 08:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  As well, your main purpose is to use wikipedia as tribune as clearly can be se in your words: "I have put interwiki and have started to translate this article to English to beat out last trump from hands of the certain misters." --Evgen2 15:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  Hehehe, hahaha. Yes, yes. Wikipedia is not a tribune for unsourced antihomosexual bias. Sorry for that. And yes, I ascertain that I am regularly beating out last trumps from hands of certain misters who would like to delete just ANY LGBT-related article or to prevent them from becoming GAs (excluding offensive ones or POV-forks made by themselves) :) If you have better arguments, you have to tell me them. Now "there's no interwiki" became a void argument :) rombik 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete because it's POV fork and original research. Track83 13:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  Can you please prove your words? :) rombik 13:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  Also, a nice newly registered suspected meatpuppet of well-known Nikolay Kolpakov: [11] :) rombik 14:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  The article is a POV Fork and stems from POV Pushing. Even the very term "homophobic" and "anti-homosexual" is utterly POV. I think homosexuality is grossly deviant behavior that is bad for those who do the action and societies, and I do not want openly homosexual people around my kids. And I openly say all this to homosexuals. Is my view POV? Of course, just like this article. Yet now we have an article that says that when I tell people this it is "propaganda" and I am being "homophobic" or "anti-homosexual". Pure nonsense! I am being intelligent. The very premise of this article is POV and is not a truly encyclopedic article. It needs to be merged into articles without POV premises and titles, such as propoganda and/or Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. CyberAnth 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  According to this, the article named Homophobia needs to be deleted immediately. The title is also "utterly POV".--Antanta 06:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  No, because right in Homophobia's Intro it clearly sates, "The word homophobic, when when used to describe someone prejudiced against homosexual people, can be a pejorative term, and the identification of a group or person as homophobic is nearly always controversial." This asserts right from the get-go that the term is POV. CyberAnth 09:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  We can add the same sentence in Homophobic propaganda, however this needs to be proved by relevant sources - and I haven't seen any of those yet. So there's no real need to delete the article only because of absence of one statement.--Antanta 10:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - no adequate reasons demonstrated for deletion (and I can't be the only one now seriously fed up with Eastern European feuds spilling onto this Wikipedia).HeartofaDog 15:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important notice

This article is mostly written by me in Russian wikipedia in the form of review which is not an original research according to the rules:

...research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

Now this article is in the process of translation and adaptation for English wiki with help of user Rombik and others. In particular, the need to translate most of the facts on homophobic hate speech from Russian politics is desputed.--Antanta 07:23, 31 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 - hahnchen 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PangYa

PangYa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

non-notable golf game. no reference to prove this game is notable. The Uber Ninja 14:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)— The Uber Ninja (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep At the very least, PangYa is the basis for the Nintendo Wii game, Super Swing Golf. Super Swing Golf is notable, and PangYa would be considered notable because of that. Furthermore, I find it unlikely that there are absolutely no references available to cite PangYa's notability. Just because the editors have not cited them doesn't mean they don't exist. I do know that PangYa is quite popular, but the references needed might not be in English. 206.213.251.31 20:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"'Correct'" me if im wrong but does the fact that Super Swing Golf was created, which in fact is an off-line version of albatross12 season 2, not mean that PangYa is itself notable. After reading this i did a quick google search and found quite a bit of infromation pretaining to this game considering it is the only game of its kind. Though most of the sites, as mentioned above are not in English.

Keep Pangya is a popular online multiplayer game, voted one of the most prolific downloads by Cnet in 2006. It clearly hurts no-one by having an article on wikipedia, nor is it irrelevant. Is this deletion discussion actually relevant in the least? Honestly.. --Unidiode

Weak Keep The game is relatively notable, but it's not proven in the article. Fix it, and I say the article stays. -Ryanbomber 01:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Do remember Wikipedia's policy is to provide a world view. Just because there's lack of english site, with plenty of Korean sites, it's still relevant. That, and the fact that Super Swing Golf is here, means it should stay. George Leung 03:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Cleanup It needs to have its notability established and a clean-up can easily do this. Kyaa the Catlord 13:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep I agree this is notable, especially if Nintendo is making a console spinoff. — brighterorange (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep This game is hugely popular yet there are few resources of information about it on the internet. A deletion of this article would eliminate one of the most useful and unbiased explanations of the game.

Keep The hell? This game is has thousands of people playing it, why wouldn't it deserve a page? It has even been translated and licensed in other countries. This deletion crap is retarded, seriously.

Comment Everyone says it's notable but do u have any source to prove it? The Uber Ninja 02:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I've saved a copy at Wikiasite:gameinfo:PangYa in case it is deleted from here. Angela. 19:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep This is a game that is quite popular, and has been growing in popularity over time. Some internet Cafes in english speaking countries are even starting to hold PangYa events. Enigmar 21:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Nom fails to assert why the game is not notable. Research either way by the nom would provide a conclusion. If the article is lacking, tag it as such or fix it. AfD is not cleanup.Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Cleanup: I am inclined to believe that TUN has never touched the game itself before when making this seemingly ridiculous (but otherwise quite reasonable) assertion. As thus far there had been no clear explanation to its popularity, that much is noted and is something most of us would concede to. However, that said, it does not mean that this article is entirely worthless and should thus be deleted. As CyberSkull says, cleanup and deletion are two entirely different things. However, the article itself still requires more cleanup than what has already been done, the main thing being that it sounds more like a source article than an encyclopaedic one. Pasonia 11:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is just full of funcraft and what not. there's not even a single reference. I'd say this is a advertisement more then a article. The Uber Ninja 20:12, 31 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 Reality Trip. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 03:50Z

[edit] School's Out, Ghoul's Out

School's Out, Ghoul's Out (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Nomination for deletion Kidstvcruft. This article is about a special "event" on a children's channel to promote the premiere of a cartoon film made for the children's channel. i.e. it's not about the film itself, but about the promotional event. Wikipedia is not the archives of TV Guide. Bwithh 20:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect Make a brief mention of this on the Reality Trip page and redirect this article to it. —ShadowHalo 22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Danny Phantom as the program is not notable on its own. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per ShadowHalo --Wildnox(talk) 00:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect per nom. --andrew|ellipsed...^Speak 01:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge + Redirect per ShadowHalo; a one-time TV event needs to be a lot bigger before it is notable on its own. Mentioning it on the show's main article would be sufficient coverage. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per ShadowHalo. Certainly doesn't merit its own article. ← ANAS ^Talk? 01:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per nom. TSO1D 04:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per ShadowHalo. Jyothisingh 13:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per above--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect as suggested.-- danntm ^T _C 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per above --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 08:20, 28 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. --Coredesat 22:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 the Ranting Gryphon

2 the Ranting Gryphon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

While the article is certainly notable inside the sci-fi and furry fandoms, I think therein lies the problem as well - he is notable only within that arena. Further, the text in the article is direct copy from the same article on WikiFur. Note, this has been deleted before and is accordingly eligible for a db-repost, but perhaps it's best kept in here. I must abstain, but I highly recommend a clean-up if it's to stay. Dennisthe2 20:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

For reference: previous AFD. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• DELETING ADMIN, PLEASE NOTE - there may be additional material. Please keep this open a little longer, I think it may have a chance. See below. --Dennisthe2 01:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Relisted, meaning this will run for at least another 5 days as of writing. See below. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:29, 27 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}}

• My apologies to the concerned gryphon, but as it stands the article is sorely lacking in reliable sources. While the WikiFur article established him pretty solidly as notable within the fandom, that doesn't translate into notability in the world at large - hence, it doesn't really work very well in Wikipedia. Delete again (without prejudice against a recreation) unless someone can do a full rewrite, citing sources to show why he's notable outside the furry fandom. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hey, thanks for tweaking the post. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No problem. Yet another WikiGnome at your service. Zetawoof^(ζ) 02:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant Weak Delete. The test is WP:BIO, and the phrase is "Widely recognized entertainment personalities"; and precedent shows that "througout the fandom" isn't sufficiently "wide". Evidence is needed - let's hope someone finds it. Tevildo 22:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Not withstanding the current article status, which is somewhat promotional and would need a vicious copyediting regardless, this comes down largely to how we read the "widely recognized" clauses of WP:BIO (to wit: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" / "Widely recognized entertainment personalities...."). He has been a featured guest (or equivalent) at nearly every convention in the genre and listed as a participant at one (apparently -- I don't know enough about furry to be certain) general-purpose science fiction convention.[12] Those sources are clearly independent of him but not of his subculture. As for wider references, I give up; the amount of Google to search through far outweighs the effort I'm willing to invest in an article that I have a "hunch" might have a source out there. For the hopeful: "2" is of course a worthless search term, and wider media would cite him by his name anyway (Matthew Davis), which he shares with at least two unrelated actors, an unrelated rant-style comedian (so much for using "rant" or "ranting" to narrow), an unrelated semi-professional journalist, an unrelated research scientist, and an unrelated university professor. I'm not convinced that the references available are enough to encourage a keep vote, but I am worried that the (generally justified) desire to purge the largely unverifiable content ported from Wikifur is resulting in a tightening of WP:BIO. For better or worse, we may lose quite a few (non-furry) biographies if we require a citation from outside the field of influence. Serpent's Choice 09:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, he's more or less a fixture at major furry conventions, including Anthrocon and Further Confusion (to cite some larger, better-known ones), and a popular one at that, often filling large rooms with onlookers. However, I'm still not sure that this translates into notability, and I haven't cited any verifiable sources yet. A large part of the problem, in fact, is likely to be that most of the discussion is in uncitable forms - LJ entries, forum posts, and IMs. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I was present at ConClave 31, which has indeed been a general SciFi convention, and during his appearance there he asked for those people who didn't know about furry fandom to stick their hands up. About three people at the back did so. Now, there's a difference between "know" and "be a member of", but my opinion is that a majority of those attending his show (I estimate about 75-100, the room was full) were in the fandom, or at least knew 2 from there. His presence was part of an attempt to attract the furry contingent (and goths) to a convention which was faltering in terms of numbers. It should be noted that it was successful in doing so, with a 1/4 to 1/3 rise in attendance and part of this could be attributed to 2's presence. I can confirm that whenever 2 appears at a furry convention to present a show, it is something that people mention on the schedule. He is, in my opinion, the most notable dedicated comedian in the fandom, although I think he'd be in stiff competition with Uncle Kage for the title of "most notable entertainer at conventions" (at least, he would be if they weren't good friends). He has made attempts to break out of this niche into more general comedy but I am not aware of any evidence that he has been successful so far. GreenReaper 17:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I find myself unable to conclusively resolve whether the available material meets the notability criteria. To my mind, that suggests that the guideline may need to be revisited, and so I've outlined the issue at the WP:BIO talk page. Serpent's Choice 06:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am the individual this article is written about. Perhaps I can clear up what it is that I do. I am a stand up comic who performs internationally within many specialized and main stream groups, not only the Sci Fi communities. I have performed main stream comedy clubs, universities, conventions, cruise ships and private parties since 1998. The main issue seems to be if my work is too confined within a specific sub-culture to be noted on Wikipedia. However, I am unsure of why this is an issue since there are literally hundreds of personalities noted here who work within one specific sub-culture. My work is certainly no less noted than any of the myriad of artists from the furry, sci fi or fantasy communities which are listed within Wikipedia. Of course, this does nothing to "prove" my notability. However, if you'll put the single word "ranting" into Google, you'll see my site is on the top of the list.

2 Gryphon 10:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• • 2, you raise good points, and thanks for chiming in on this. I personally will do what I can on this - but frankly, your article needs a good cleaning up into something other than an exact copy of what's on Wikifur. =^_^= See the original statement I give in the AFD post. --Dennisthe2 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I just checked around on google. The one article I can find that might make notability standards is this article, but you only get a fleeting mention in here that briefly describes you. I hate to say it, 2, but as much as I like you, at this time Wikipedia isn't going to hold an article on you - and if it's not me, then it's going to be somebody else putting this article up here. --Dennisthe2 00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Though I did not start this article (either time it was put up), I'm very happy to be recognized here on Wikipedia and I'd like to do what I can to help keep the article around. I've looked, but I cannot find a description of the notability standards you've mentioned. However, I can say that I've been a guest character in the webcomic "Jack", which has an entry here. I've performed multiple times for 11, been the Guest of Honor at 5, and am on staff at 2 of the conventions which have entries here. I've been interviewed in Vanity Fair magazine, which has an entry here. I've written fiction for publications that are listed here. I've produced 4 full length motion pictures and 2 CDs which are distributed by a company that is listed here. There is even a number of references to me in Wikipedia from other entries. I do admit to ignorance of these notability standards, but seeing the effort Wikipedia dedicates to quality, shouldn't it consider itself a notable source? There are many people listed on Wikipedia who have few online references at all, and they may be entries that will also eventually be noticed and deleted. But doesn't the fact that my entry has been discussed for deletion twice while others have gone ignored indicate that it IS notable? What exactly qualifies a person as "notable" on Wikipedia?

2 Gryphon 21:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Happen to have the article information for the Vanity Fair interviews? Recognized print medium sources are generally looked upon favorably. Serpent's Choice 06:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
          • If we can get this, that alone will force me to withdraw the AfD.
      • Easiest way to answer the notability standard is to refer you to here. --Dennisthe2 06:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• here's my though, the reasons given to delete this article are weak. some one must be bored, because they came up with lame excuses to delete this article. as for that "one specific sub-culture" thing, that the dumbest reason of all. is wikipedia that stuck up? thats not a good reason to delete an article. its about a real eprson, with a real website and who's done REAL stand up. If you take this article off you might as well take off mr. bungle and "hell yeah"(which hasn't even made an album yet). thats my thoughts on this. thank you. have a nice day.Dedman-88 22:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You failed to read the entire AFD statement I gave, above. Read it again and be enlightened. Also read up on WP:ILIKEIT in its entirety, and if you feel that Mr. Bungle should be removed, then put it up for deletion. As for Hell Yeah, looks like user:Zetawoof just got that one for crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Yep, just nominated that. Thanks for the suggestion, Dedman. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Another note, you might read up on WP:AFD to understand the deletion procedures, and click around to understand deletion criteria. --Dennisthe2 00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weakish delete with no prejudice against possible future recreation, per Zetawoof (near the top of the page). Samuel Conway is a pretty good model of the sort of thing that would hold up, but as it stands 2's article is not enough. Verifiability is a tough policy ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"), but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I think it's right that there's some sort of bar to clear. Also, as pointed out by a couple of other editors above, the fact that a number of other people who don't meet the verifiability standards have articles on Wikipedia doesn't mean that they should have them; it just means nobody's got around to nominating them for deletion! The production of a couple of mainstream news articles discussing 2 more than very fleetingly would change things quite a bit and would probably lead me to vote keep. Loganberry (Talk) 03:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted partly due to Dennisthe2's request, partly due to the lack of editors arguing for a particular outcome (i.e. keep/delete) compared to the large amount of discussion. Note that an article can be deleted due to lack of reliable sources available and be recreated if/when they are found later. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no indication of any notability outside of fan videos, self-produced DVDs and appearances at fan conventions. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just that we can't build a verifiable encyclopaedia article out of these sources.) Demiurge 00:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Currently not verifiable. So delete, but possibility of recreation if more sources appear. --Wildnox(talk) 00:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete `'mikka 01:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources. I have no prejudice against recreation if sources can be found. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Demiurge. Some of this can be merged to Anthrocon. Caknuck 02:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Demiurge. Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in its present state. No prejudice against recreation with sources, especially if something from Vanity Fair actually emerges. Serpent's Choice 05:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Unlike the Samuel Conway article, which is very well sourced, this one is original research on a non-notable person (no offense 2). Best left in wikifur and protected from recreation so we don't have to keep deleting it. NeoFreak 13:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to absence of secondary sources Guy (Help!) 15:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:V -- RoySmith (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, can somebody give me a good reason why I should not just speedy this right now under WP:CSD G4 (recreation of previously deleted material) and protect it against re-creation? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If you go {{db-repost}} on this, I'd say don't protect unless 1) it's reposted yet again as a verbatim or near-verbatim recreation, 2) the repost is once again an exact copy of the article on WikiFur, or 3) it's reposted without assertion of notability. In short, delete without prejudice if you must. The article's subject, however, has noted that there's something of a possible saving grace - so I'd say give it the AFD period before nuking it. --Dennisthe2 20:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• delete per Demiurge. Montco 01:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there are no independent sources which allows the article, in this condition, to satisfy WP:V and WP:BIO.-- danntm ^T _C 03:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article is reasonably well written but there is nothing in it which establishes notability. Quadzilla99 04:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep Just because someone is well-known only in a sub-community doesn't make them non-notable. I'd conjecture fewer people know about Bremstrahlung radiation than know about Two, does that make it non-notable? I think he may well meet notability requirements based on the number of appearances at various conventions, being a guest of honor is certainly an establishment of notability especially within a subculture. Wintermut3 06:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (people) don't include the number of appearances at conventions or being a guest of honor. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines are just that, guidelines. I think the real problem with this case is that the subject is probably notable, but doesn't fall under traditional notability criteria, to me that says there's a problem with the criteria, not the subject. It's unrealistic to expect someone in any fandom to be in news articles, ect. That does not mean they are not notable. In this case, I'm not sure if he is or isn't, but I think it's worth looking into. Wintermut3 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly true that a guideline carries less weight than a official policy. Guidelines can certainly be ignored if there is a good reason to do so. Still, in this case, I don't see any reason to ignore it. Anybody is notable if you look at them with a sufficiently narrow view. The trick is to have done something of sufficient significance that you are noted outside of your narrow area. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Wintermut3. Anomo
• Delete insufficient notability for an encyclopedia article. DrKiernan 20:44, 29 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. The delete comments are unconvincing, and this looks like newbie biting. He appears to pass the fourth criterion of WP:PORNBIO. Anyone who disagrees with this take it to WP:DRV. Majorly (Talk) 15:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tory Mason

Tory Mason (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. No evidence of notability. Denni ^talk 00:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN pornstar. Has only been featured on websites save for one film. --Wildnox(talk) 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete `'mikka 01:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable porn actor. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:PORNBIO, does not comply to WP:CITE wtfunkymonkey 01:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 01:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete can't some things just stay out of the sum of all human knowledge, he's not notable and he's just some gay porn star who has been in one film. I doubt anyone would bother to look him up so it's just a waste of space T. Kewl the First 03:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails WP:PORNBIO TSO1D 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 07:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Non-notable. etc. etc. Spinach Dip 09:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Jyothisingh 13:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Jyothisingh.--Yannismarou 15:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

delete definitely... who is this person? get him off wikipedia, wikipedia is only for extremely famous people and is not big enough to hold the little ones

• Keep. Although passing WP:PORNBIO usually means the actor is notable, failing WP:PORNBIO does not necessarily mean they are non-notable. In particular, this one passes the criteria for WP:BIO in that he has multiple non-trivial articles written about him, as noted in his article (the articles listed are here: Tory Mason Interview and [13]). Although you yourself may not find the actor's contributions notable, be assured that it is not unlikely that someone will want to find out information about him, and Wikipedia is a valuable resource for that. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we are not subject to physical size limitations. If a subject passes WP:BIO there is no reason to exclude him, even if you don't particularly care about him. *sigh* these AfDs always seem to have a bandwagon effect at the start. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If for no other reason than to allow a reasonable amount of time to find additional information and sources.

• The article was begun at 22:21 and, 6 minutes later, (only 3 minutes after the most recent edit at the time), User:Denni added the {{prod}} tag at 22:27.
• The tag was removed at 22:32 and work continued on the article.
• Less than half an hour later and one minute after the most recent edit to the article at the time (at 22:52), the speedy deletion tag was added by User:Makemi at 22:53. The next edit was made a minute later, at 22:54. In other words, the speedy tag was added to an article that was actively being edited.
• The {{hangon}} tag was added at 23:02, and active edits continued.
• The speedy tag was removed by User:Pilotguy at 00:10 and replaced with the {{notability}} tag.
• The very next edit—a whole 18 minutes later, at 00:28—was User:Denni adding the {{afd}} tag.
• Although I wrote on the article's talk page that I doubted the article would meet the notability guidelines, I'm reversing myself.
• The article meets the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy
• Wikipedia:Notability (people) (WP:BIO) and Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) (WP:PORN BIO) are both guidelines.

(Point of information: WP:PORN BIO was intended to help clarify notability guidelines for porn performers, not replace WP:BIO).

• WP:BIO specifically states, in bold type:

"This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."

• One of the items listed in the guidelines would also appear to be applicable:

• Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by

• A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following"

• One of his movies, The Bottoming Desire, is already available as streaming media from NakedSword.com, one of the largest streaming media porn sites.
• His Yahoo group, created in July 2006, has 2,057 members. There have been 260 new members in the past week alone.

• By comparison, the alecpowersfans Yahoo Group, created in June 2002, has 6,183 members, very slightly over 3 times as many as Mason (3x2057=6,171. A difference of 12.).
• The videography at tlavideo.com for Powers lists 47 original films and inclusion in 14 compilations.
• So a performer with 7 films whose fan site has been active for less than 6 months has 1/3 the number of fans of a performer with 47+ films and a fan site that's been active for 4-1/2 years.

• The fact that he is a model on Randy Blue is quite significant; it is one of the largest online gay amateur porn sites there is. Mason has done three video shoots in the two months he's been on the site; the most recent was on December 6.
• WP:BIO also lists a criterion, under the Alternative tests section:

"Expandability -- Will the article ever be more than a stub?"

• I would think it highly likely that it will be given the speed with which this actor is moving in the industry.

• He made 7 films in less than 10 months—almost unheard of in gay porn.

• This was an attempt at an article by a first-time editor. Why in heaven's name would you nominate an article that was actively being edited? How could you judge whether or not there was information forthcoming that would establish his notability while the article was being edited?
• Sadly, I notice that the newbie has made no further edits and, it would seem, has given up. Way to go.—Chidom ^talk  00:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Not given up - its the holidays and the newbie is busy :) I appreciate all you have done, Chidom. It was my first page and I am still learning the ropes. Joosy 08:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP I see no need to delete this article. PLEASE KEEP this article. The information contained warrants its merit to be SAVED. Thanks! Xxx1971 07:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC) — User:Xxx1971 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment about this editor's contributions was added by Oden (talk• contribs), 14:02, 31 December 2006—Chidom ^talk  23:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable in his field. --Duke of Duchess Street 04:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, Chidom  (talk · contribs) Has the right of this, and WP:BITE needs to be watched closer when nominating work in progress. Haste makes waste. Hell, I've had similar starts nominated before I could get back to expand them See for example Arsenal of Democracy that nearly met a similar fate out of the gate. But that editor at least discussed it first. There needs to be a qualifying time limit on any nomination of at least 24 hours after initial starts. Basic courtesy and respect for anothers time, imho. Delaying an nomination a day isn't going to hurt wikipedia! // FrankB 22:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#A7 and general consensus to delete. Femto 13:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Les Balsiger

del A decent man, but seems to fail notability criteria (even forgetting that it is unreferenced) `'mikka 01:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• I do not agree, he is a well known person in Oregon and think he should remain —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.81.43 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 27 December 2006. — 71.111.81.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Then you need very rapidly to come up with some reliable secondary sources that establish his notability, say in some Oregon newspapers or the like. CyberAnth 02:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Absolutely non-notable. May be speedyable per {{db-bio}}, as I'm not sure there's any claim of significance besides being a humanitarian. -- Kicking222 01:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or provide sources that prove his notability. ← ANAS ^Talk? 01:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable failing WP:BIO, does not WP:CITE sources, and Speedy Delete by CSD:A7. Article has been tagged. wtfunkymonkey 01:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not sufficiently notable --Kevin Murray 02:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I tried to discern why he is notable enough but just could not. CyberAnth 01:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No substantial assertion of notability. Wouldn't object to a speedy deletion. ScottW 02:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unreferenced nn notable bio.--Dakota 02:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and a bit embarrasing for EOU. This article was written and submitted by Lesb246 (talk • contribs). Lesb246 was repeatedly asked not to spam Wikipedia. After Lesb246 repeatedly violated community norms and Wikipedia guidelines such that he/she was temporarily blocked by Wikipedia, an anonymous editor, 71.111.81.43 (talk • contribs), a Verizon user in Oregon, then began editing this article. 71.111.81.43 also deleted an pro-deletion AfD comment. Sadly for Les Balsiger, when all this is over, the only Wikipedia reference left to him when searching Google for "Les Balsiger" in a few days will a be a link to this AfD -- an embarrassing record of this article and its editor, Lesb246. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO TSO1D 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO and any reasonable understanding of what an encyclopedia would or should include. -- Siobhan Hansa 04:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Also consider action against anonymous editor 71.111.81.43 (talk • contribs). --Charlene 04:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence from WP:RS indicating that subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 07:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolute vanity. Close to the most non-notable thing I've ever seen. Spinach Dip 09:57, 27 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. --Coredesat 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] V-Squared

V-Squared (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

A short lived team that didn't do much. This tag team cruft needs to end. Wikipedia isn't a guide to every team ever. Val Venis and Viscera articles can explain the team, a seperate article isn't needed. RobJ1981 01:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete... maybe merge It'd be great if there was a List of minor WWE teams article that this could get merged into, because it sure as hell doesn't stand up on its own. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to each wrestler's own biography, under its own section perhaps. ← ANAS ^Talk? 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO and does not WP:CITE sources. Probably could be merged as per above, but I wouldn't be heart broken to see that not happen. wtfunkymonkey 01:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. A list of minor teams isn't what Wikipedia needs at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of useful, notable and known things. A wrestling wiki should get a list of minor teams, but not here. RobJ1981 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with a mention of the tag team in each wrestlers bio. --James Duggan 04:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: As far as i know the career section on the two wrestlers' articles already mention the short lived tag team... we just should send it to a wrestling wiki.. i know there are several out their im sure they would like the info... surly we could get in contact with one and tell its admin to take these pages --- Paulley 12:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Govvy 12:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO. Hello32020 22:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If it's that important then mention it in the two wrestler's article, doesn't need its own. --Wizardman 19:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Sect of Homokaasu

The Sect of Homokaasu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Previous debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sect of Homokaasu

Lots of claims to notability, but no citations to support it. Google news has a single (trivial) hit, and Normal search has "omitted some entries very similar to the 6 already displayed." Searching on the claims in the article:

• BBC - [14] nothing
• ProSieben - rasterblaster again, trivial.
• The Guardian - [15] nothing
• The Independent - [16] nothing

I'm always happy to be proven wrong, to see citations that support these claims added into the article, however at this time I can not see evidence that this satisfies the website inclusion guidelines. - brenneman 01:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• delete fails WP:WEB, does not WP:CITE sources. wtfunkymonkey 01:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I was able to find the Guardian's reference to it but it is extremely oblique. Rasterblaster is the subject, homokaasu is only mentioned as the website name. Mallanox 02:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails Notability Tests -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:WEB. MER-C 07:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Jyothisingh 13:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, stubify it's been covered in JPG magazine (they link to an interview with the creator in a pay issue) and on the google news result you dismissed. That's multiple reliable nontrivial sources right there. It's mostly about the Rasterbator, and the article needs to be trimmed down to a stub of verifiable information, but it's definitely notable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's the Guardian article you couldn't find: [17] Your exact-terms search turned up few results because the site is mostly known for what it hosts, not its own name. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Coverage in MAKE magazine: [18] (needs subscription to view). A google search for "homokaasu rasterbator" turns up over 200,000 hits, including numerous prominent sources like the above. definitely well-covered. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • These examples support the existence of a Rasterbator article rather than Sect of Homokaasu. Maybe rename and stubify might be more appropriate? Mallanox 00:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, NN. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB. Hello32020 22:42, 31 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 . Dakota 05:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DD Fine Dining

DD Fine Dining (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. No evidence of notability beyond several outlets. Denni ^talk 01:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:WWIN) - Savant45 01:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, I'm surprise the prod was contested. Mallanox 02:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 07:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable and an ad. Spinach Dip 09:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spam/crystal ball. SkierRMH 11:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• KeepAs a new member to wikipedia i now understand what is required in an article etc. I have made several changes to the article and have several more to make. So please do not delete the article just yet, and please check the changes before deleting the article.

Changes made so far: Added list of celebrities to have eaten in any of the DD Fine dining

Regards (Johnbarnes 02:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

• No reliable sources. Does not demonstrate notability of subject. Reads like an advertisement. Delete. --Slowking Man 03:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 03:54Z

[edit] The Chord of Humanity

The Chord of Humanity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Global Road (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

• Delete There are 93 Google hits for "Chord of Humanity"; none of the sites on the first two pages are related to the subject of this article. None of the information is sourced and the article doesn't state who the road is being "proposed" by. This all leads me to suspect that this project isn't notable and exists only on Wikipedia, although I wouldn't mind being wrong. P4k 01:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - Savant45 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 01:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:V. Also delete the associated redirect Global Road. Caknuck 02:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on account of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V (where's the official site?). Certainly a nice fantasy, but the Bering Strait Bridge should be nice indicator as to why this will never leave the realms of fantasy. --Dennisthe2 02:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V; seems like an unsubstantiated fantasy. TSO1D 04:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can not find any notability through web searches -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced speculation. MER-C 07:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Crystal ball, non-notable, unverifiable. Spinach Dip 10:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence this is planned and wouldn't work anyway: "fast trans-continential transit of road transport" - from South Africa via Europe, Asia, N and S America to Patagonia. Come on!!! Emeraude 12:45, 27 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. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angry midget

Angry midget (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Nomination for deletion Operator of a non-notable website -- notability possibly asserted with "runs an increasingly popular website"; orphaned article; cites no sources; unsourced Non-NPOV quotes that are possibly libelous, if they aren't written by the subject himself; all ghits seem to be from his blogs or unrelated; the troll/spam post that appears when you google for the title seems more notable - Savant45 01:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable at all. Possibly an autobiography. ← ANAS ^Talk? 01:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A7. I call autobiographical. --Dennisthe2 02:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Non-notable web site. =Axlq 03:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Dennisthe2. Danny Lilithborne 03:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete That's website is not exactly notable... or bearable for that matter, I call autobiographical as well. T. Kewl the First 03:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A7. TSO1D 04:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. "Increasingly popular" doesn't count. MER-C 04:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails notability tests -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I dunno, I'm going to go with "fanboy biography" over "autobiography" here. I think I vaguely remember hearing this name in some context from some 15 year old at some point. Regardless, non-notable. --Action Jackson IV 04:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under A7. Bio has no assertion of notability. Heimstern Läufer 05:38, 27 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 truly WP:NEO, WP:V, possible WP:NOR. Dakota 05:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ass to pussy

Ass to pussy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This page violates WP:NEO, WP:V and probably WP:NOR. Moreover, it has been tagged as having not cited its sources for one year and is still not sourced. CyberAnth 01:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment there also seems to be an Ass to mouth article. ← ANAS ^Talk? 01:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy DeleteThere is no reference and quesitonable purpose. Hoax? Perhaps there could be a mention of techniques at a site on pornographic performance techniques, or transfer to such a site. I think I'll go wash up now. (the preceding unsigned comment was added by at 21:59, 26 December 2006 by User:Bwithh.the preceding unsigned comment was added by at 21:59, 26 December 2006 by User:Kevin Murray

• • Comment The above comment was NOT added by me. It was added by User:Kevin Murray[19]. I'm sure this was just a mixup. I have no opinion on this afd discussion at this time. Bwithh 03:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, cannot find evidence to support this name for an admittedly common feature of porn. Mallanox 03:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pretty obviously a take off on ass to mouth, but while that one is not a neologism, this one is. —bbatsell ¿? 03:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge to Ass to mouth. Or rename to "double dipping (porn)" or something. The article describes a fairly common practice in porn, so it deserves mention somewhere but perhaps not in its own article. =Axlq 03:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Move That's not what I call an encylopedia title, call it.... Anal Vaginal Contact or something. T. Kewl the First 03:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• If kept, RENAME to Anal-vaginal contact to match the similarly-themed Anal-oral contact. Otto4711 04:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above deletes but also seems to fail Notability Test because it also isn't just a porn 'trick' - doesn't everybody do this - on purpose or accidently? -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This term never exited before this article was made. Spinach Dip 10:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to anal sex per the reasons in the Ass to Mouth AfD. NeoFreak 13:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with ass to mouth or anal sex. The term is not so notable (at least not as much as "ass to mouth").--Yannismarou 15:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Edison 16:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Here's what I think. I say start a new article, double dipping and merge this and the Ass to Mouth articles and redirect them there. These terms seem to be common in the porn community. ← ANAS ^Talk? 17:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as garbage neologism. RGTraynor 18:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination --Mhking 19:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete because it lacks sources to pass WP:NEO, and I'm sorry I read that page.-- danntm ^T _C 04:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think that a special compilation page might be a better place for all the stubs related to possibly nonexistant sexual acts. But in any event, this is more of an urbandictionary definition than an encyclopedic article. As such I think it might even be speediable for giving no assertion of context whatsoever: it's simply a definition and a brief discussion of health risks. If there's a discussion of importance, or of context or something else it might be encyclopedic, but as it is, it's not. Wintermut3 06:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — Deckiller 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hello32020 22:43, 31 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. Almost totally unsourced, and it failed to assert notability. As this is probably controversial, and you don't agree with this result, please take it to WP:DRV. Majorly (Talk) 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ass to mouth

Ass to mouth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This page violates WP:NEO, WP:N, and largely WP:V and probably WP:NOR. Just because a porn film or so was named "Ass to Mouth" does not make it notable enough for an article. Moreover, it has only one source to a dialog in one porn film where "Ass to mouth" is mentioned. CyberAnth 02:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, google hits are very high. This term is in common usage, it does not violate WP:NEO, WP:N or WP:NOR. A cite tag would be sifficient to cover WP:V. Mallanox 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it would not. Actual citations would. But you haven't presented any. Counting Google hits is not research. Nor does it demonstrate the existence of sources. Uncle G 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's nice to be broadminded. But there is a point where our brains fall out. This article is well beyond that boundary. Maybe should be considered for WikiPorn.  :( Student7 03:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mallanox. To Student7, Wikipedia is not censored. We have articles on most sexual fetishes; this is pretty mild in comparison to some of them, and it _is_ an established term in the industry. Tevildo 03:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not, however, documented. Wikipedia is not for documenting the undocumented. Uncle G 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mallanox Savant45 03:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mallanox. It's definitely not a neologism. (Also, Clerks II is not a porn film.) —bbatsell ¿? 03:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-established term for a common practice in porn films, although I would prefer seeing one big article with these "porn film terms" combined, instead of a bunch of smaller ones. =Axlq 03:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cant we make this a redirect to Anal Oral Contact or something? I know wikipedia isn't censored but.... if your making articles with titles like that, why not just officially change the names of "naughty bits" to their vulgar counterparts? It's not exactly the sort of term you would find such a thing under in sexuality or medical books now is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TehKewl1 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Medical books, no, but it is the term that's used in the porn industry, and we should reference it under its most common name. A2M and ATM aren't options, for obvious reasons - and we'd still need a redirect from the unabbreviated name. Tevildo 04:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I can't deny that I find the topic pretty sick, but it seem to satisfy Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. TSO1D 04:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Anal-oral contact. Otto4711 04:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that this practice does not involve anal-oral contact, as anyone who reads the article will discover. It's generally a good idea to read the article before offering an opinion on the AfD. Tevildo 05:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's also a good idea not to be condescending. Otto4711 13:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable -- Jmax- 08:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Cite or Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NN. I'm completely willing to accept that this may be a commonly used industry term, but where is the verifiable citation of that? In it's current form the only reference is to the use of the term in Clerks II, which would make it a neologism by definition (and not a common one). This article needs to CITE AND VERIFY notability, not simply have a collection of editors here make assertions that "it really IS a common term, really!". I'm aware there are a number of terms in every industry that are commonly used colloquially but hard to prove, but it strikes that if there is any industry where one should be able to verify via web-based sources, it would be the adult industry. -Markeer 13:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to anal sex. The term is for the most part a neologism of a sexual "move" seldom seen outside of the porno industry. It's usage in the movie Clerks II gives it some more notability but it fails to solve reliable sources and verifiabilty issues. A blurb in the anal sex article would do just fine. Same with the "ass to pussy" article because as is stands now both of these articles fail policy criteria for inclusion. NeoFreak 13:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable in the pornographic community.--Yannismarou 15:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lots of non-notable things are known to some community or other. Multiple reliable mainstream independent sources are required to attest to the notability of a term. Edison 16:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd just like to remind everyone that neologisms are defined by how long the term has been around, and this term has been around for quite a bit longer than Clerks 2. This, and the above Ass to pussy are colloquialisms, in other words, they are used informally in conversation - that doesn't automatically make them a neologism any more than blowjob is. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Of course the term has been around longer than Clerks II. The problem is finding reliable sources to provide verifiability so you can then establish notability which this article does not do. NeoFreak 20:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Here's what I think. I say start a new article, double dipping and merge this and the Ass to pussy articles and redirect them there. These terms seem to be common in the porn community. ← ANAS ^Talk? 17:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Mhking 19:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ATM is the newest rage in adult film. So I've heard. DelPlaya 09:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment DelPlaya's vote is the core problem with this debate at the moment, specifically for "so I've heard". I don't think anyone here is doubting that this is an industry term. The delete votes that I see (my own included) are that the article does not verify this according to wikipedia's policies. "Everybody knows", "It's well known", "I hear it a lot", etc are all weasel arguments used to avoid citation. If no one is able to find a verifiable source for the phrase on the web for a term used in an industry with the largest web presence, that means the term is of questionable encyclopedic quality. -Markeer 12:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I strongly support Markeer's above comments. He or she is right on. CyberAnth 13:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - no reason for this to be separate from an anal or oral sex article. Not enough references to justify separate article. Hatch68 22:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Thanks again, porn, for introducing completely ridiculous expressions into the common lexicon! Ford MF 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• By the same token, Markeer, a bit of a problem arises in applying the same standards of verifiability to sexual colloquialisms (particularly of fringe sexual practices some may find unpleasant) as we do to, say, astronomical taxonomy. Sometimes "uh, doesn't everybody know what ass to mouth is" is what you have to work with, and you go from there. That's what that particular behavior is called (I can't think of a synonymous expression), and I really don't see why we need a citation from the New England Journal of Medicine to prove that. Handjob, rimjob, these are really not things you're going to have an easy time finding citations for, despite sexual behaviors occupying a central part in every culture that continues to produce babies (and orgasms). "Blowjob" is about 150 years old, and it's only very recently that etymologists have started to trace its origins. I don't think it would be a terrible idea to move this to a more encyclopedic-sounding title (although I can't begin to imagine what that would be Immediately-Post-Anal-Sex Oral Sex?), with a redirect from ass to mouth, a la, titty fuck redirecting to mammary intercourse. Maybe that would make everyone happy. Ford MF 04:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What would make everyone happy are source citations. Your lengthy apology for the fact that this concept is unverifiable doesn't excuse it from the application of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. If no-one has seen fit to document something, that is not Wikipedia's problem.

    By the way, discussion of etymology is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopaedia. The dictionary is over there. Wikipedia's articles are about people, places, concepts, events, and things. Unless you can show, by citing sources, that this is a documented concept, it may not have an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• None of the above editors have cited any sources. The article itself cites no sources. The only thing that it does cite is the quotations page for an IMDB entry on a film. That film is a work of fiction. There is no reason to believe that what the characters say is factual. Moreover, the quotations given don't even explain what the concept actually is in the first place.

  Searching for sources on the subject of ass-to-mouth fucking, I find nothing at all.

  The only web site that I found that purports to even answer the question "What is ass-to-mouth fucking?" comprises nothing but hyperlinks, and doesn't even answer the question. The only book that mentions the concept of an ass-to-mouth fetish is Kick, Russ (2005). Everything You Know About Sex Is Wrong: The Disinformation Guide to the Extremes of Human Sexuality. The Disinformation Company. ISBN 1932857176. . It mentions it once, on page 151, in one sentence giving it as one of a list of dangerous practices. It doesn't even say what it actually is.

  The only journal article turned up by Google Scholar is Jack Sargeant (November 2006). "Filth and Sexual Excess: Some Brief Reflections on Popular Scatology". M/C Journal 9 (5). . However, checking the references cited by that article, it turns out that the journal article is not only using the aforementioned book that doesn't document the concept but also is using this Wikipedia article as its source in the first place.

  This entire article is unverifiable and is primary documentation of something that hasn't actually been documented anywhere outside of Wikipedia, a violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. I suggest that editors wanting this concept to be documented go and get the concept properly documented in books and articles. Then it becomes eligible for a Wikipedia article. Delete. Uncle G 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: - Further to Uncle G's efforts to verify this article, I searched for the phrase in my major University's many databases of materials. I tried EBSCO databases, LexisNexis, WorldCat, and several major databases from the fields of medicine and psychology. The only thing perhaps relevant I came up with was a reference impertinent to the article, a 1959 novel called The Ass's Mouth. ;-) CyberAnth 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, I am 100% unsurprised that medical and psychological researched turned up nothing. However, cast your eyes over the net and you will see thousands (Google says millions, but let's be realistic) of uses of the term. With this much weight of evidence, to argue WP:V is arguing semantics. The term is not unverifiable but by dint of what it is "respectable" sources won't mention it. Remember, Wikipedia is unusual in that it is uncensored. Mallanox 04:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Counting Google hits is not research, and whether a phrase is in widespread use is only relevant to a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopaedia. What is relevant to an encyclopaedia is the existence of sources, and you still haven't cited any to show that any actually exist. Citing sources is your only counter to the charge that the article is unverifiable and original research. Continue to fail to do so, and you won't save the article, no matter how much you put forward irrelevant arguments about censorship. Uncle G 06:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable term that's managed to become mainstream. Kingfox 21:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Prove it, by citing sources. Show that this concept has been documented by "the mainstream". There is no evidence that it has been documented anywhere at all. Uncle G 06:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Which is one main reason why it simply does not meet muster of WP:NEO. CyberAnth 07:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'd just like to quote WP:AN page on why we should avoid neologisms- "[...]articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet — without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use." Blueaster 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - for those saying "Keep", I think you need to carefully review WP:NEO. This article just does not meet muster. CyberAnth 07:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, in my opinion, and remember these are opinions that we have even though some present them as fact, this article is valid. This practice goes on and if Wikipedia is to have any credibility it must be complete, if we are to have a category on sexual practices it should give the prevalent ones. This is an example of where WP:IAR (though I shudder to use it) is appropriate. There is a huge swathe of uses of Ass to mouth, ATM, A2M etc on the internet. There are interviews that include the term, it's not just in the "script" of a porn shoot, it is used verbally to communicate an idea. This is something real people do in their everyday lives, like it or not. Adherence to rules is ok but recognising when the rules don't serve the purpose for which they were written is essential. Mallanox 17:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• you do realize that "Ignore All Rules" is a controversial policy, right? and WP is not supposed to be about every single thing under the sun... If Wikipedia is to have any credibility, it should only have reliable, encyclopedic content that is not based on personal observation or research. The fact that this article violates so many policies and guidelines must raise at least one red flag in your head. And the phrase that this article is about just seems to be so unnotable -both from WP's standards and any layman's subjective viewpoint- even if it is often and only used in the porn industry. I mean, it clearly and without any wordplay or use of unconventional phrasing describes the act. It is unlikely to qualify for a copyright. It does not seem to be any special phrase whose history can be reliably traced. I mean, if this article is to exist, then we might as well create an article for "Guy On Guy" or something like that.

• Anyways, I say Delete or Merge (But I see no future for this content, even if it were merged) Blueaster 19:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep To satisfy the reference Nazis, I added references proving that this term has been in use and clearly defined for well over a decade. That doesn't seem like a Neologism to me. (posted on 1 January 2007 by User:86.16.115.162

• I Removed the references placed into the article by User:86.16.115.162 because the google.groups.com "references" here and here that he/she placed are not reliable sources per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet. What the sources do prove, however, is that "Ass to mouth" is, in fact, a neologism that violates WP:NEO...meaning the article should not exist. WP:NEO states that all article claims must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. Per the section mentioned, "Reliable sources for neologism", To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. **Folks, this one is a no-brainer**. If "books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term" cannot be sourced into the article, this must per WP:NEO policy be deleted. CyberAnth 01:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, added a couple of references. One to the number of websearches for the term "ass to mouth" to demonstrate the penetration (pardon the pun) of the term into the English language. Also an article which references the health risks of the act. Mallanox 01:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep or Merge with other similar porn terms into a single article. --Strait 02:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment - maybe you just do not understand, Malla. For a source to be considered reliable in an article about a neologism, per WP:NEO, which would justify an article about a neologism, the following must be followed: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers **about** the term — not books and papers that **use** the term. The source you added to Ass to mouth is merely an article that uses the term by noting "there is currently a trendy fetish for ass-to-mouth contact." Per WP:NEO, "Even though there may be many examples of the term in use", even though Google hits "show many examples of the term in use" - that is just not enough to justify an article about a neologism, yet your vote for "Keep" was based upon "google hits are very high. This term is in common usage." My friend, the base of your vote is irrelevant to this matter. It seems most votes are being cast here upon mere editor preference. I cannot understand why people seem to have so much difficulty simply reading and following the clearly stated policies at WP:NEO, although apparently so not always so, as even the NfV for Handjob is seeming to right now indicate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Handjob. CyberAnth 02:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I call shenanigans. A colloquial sexual term is never going to be verifiable to the standard of a scientific article, but that doesn't make it unworthy of inclusion. This article already survived one VfD. I believe Cyberanth is cunningly pushing a personal agenda by using overly strict interpretation of the rules with no regard to context. Note that he/she has recently nominated several long-standing sexual-practise type articles on similar grounds. Note also that his/her major contributions have been to articles about Christian views on contraception. You do the math. (The preceding unsigned comment was added on 23:30, 1 January 2007 by User:86.16.115.162

please dont use personal attacks, and assume good faith in interacting with other editors on WP Blueaster 04:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

- It's difficult to assume good faith when someone is gunning for the article so strongly that that they revert edits that were made in an effort to improve it.

• • I call follow the policies - The "math" is that that your post is a Personal Attack per WP:NPA. I have also recently written an article on Bonny Hicks, a Singaporean model who wrote controversial books on her sexuality. How does that fit into your stereotype of me? Also, the context is highly regarded in my mind. This is an encyclopedia of verifiable information on notable subjects, not a place for people to create articles about neologisms that have failed that. There are, in fact, articles that can satisfy WP:NEO, but this is not one of them. My interpretation of WP:NEO is not overly strict. As I will show below, each vote for "keep" here has apparently not bothered to try to follow it at all. CyberAnth 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's evaluate the basis of the "Keep" votes, besides Mallanox's which I already evaluated above.

• Keep - per Mallanox. To Student7, Wikipedia is not censored. We have articles on most sexual fetishes; this is pretty mild in comparison to some of them, and it _is_ an established term in the industry. Tevildo 03:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Censorship is not the issue. Satisfying WP:NEO is the core matter. "Mild" or "extreme" is irrelevant. "An established term in the [porn] industry is what defines it as a neologism per WP:NEO: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities" (emphasis added). For an article to be justified, more than that is needed. "Even though there may be many examples of the term in use" "to support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term."

• Keep. Notable in the pornographic community.--Yannismarou 15:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • See comment above.

• Keep - ATM is the newest rage in adult film. So I've heard. DelPlaya 09:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also see comment above.

• Keep - Notable term that's managed to become mainstream. Kingfox 21:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Which "mainstream"? Kingfox must mean "the porn industry". I live in the "mainstream" and I first heard of it on Wikipedia. Even so, "Even though there may be many examples of the term in use" "to support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term."

• Keep - Thanks again, porn, for introducing completely ridiculous expressions into the common lexicon! Ford MF 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • See comment above.

• Keep - notable -- Jmax- 08:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Per which "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term"? That is what would make it "notable" per WP:NEO.

• Keep - I can't deny that I find the topic pretty sick, but it seem to satisfy Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. TSO1D 04:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Criteria for inclusion of an article about a neologism is "Even though there may be many examples of the term in use" "to support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." This article fails that; thus, it fails inclusion criteria.

CyberAnth 03:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• If wanted to make a personal attack, I could have done much better than that. What I did was point out the pattern of your behavior and evidence of the the motivations that may be behind it, verifiable for all to see.

• Comment as Uncle G pointed out on a similar AfD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Handjob , the article is not about a neologism therefore WP:NEO is not an issue. The article is about a perfectly notable, verifiable activity. I refer back to my initial statement on the subject. Mallanox 04:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

not neccecarilly. If this article were to be about the activity, and nothing more, a more appropriate title would be "Oral to Anal Intercourse" or maybe "Oral/Anal Sexual Intercourse". The phrase that this article uses is a colloqialism, and it tries to document the term's usage, and so it clearly is about the term, not the activity. And therefore, it is affected by the No Neologisms policy. Blueaster 05:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - why don't we rename Semen to Cum? Or Sexual intercourse to Fucking? Or Cunnilingus to Going down on? Or Fellatio to Head job? At best, any verifiable material in Ass to mouth needs to be merged into Human sexual behavior and described as Anal to oral contact. As is, this article is simply trying to document a currently trendy fetish in a small number of porn films, nothing more. That by definition is not notable because there is no evidence that "it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." CyberAnth 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you even read the article you're trying so hard to kill? As has already been pointed out, Ass to Mouth is a completely different thing and does not involve anal-oral contact at all. There is no formal or better-known name for the practise. As for the "small number" of porn films, may I ask how you define small? The porn industry puts out DVDs at a phenomenal rate. How many thousands of titles do you need?

"...if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." That does not include if a Wikipedian has watched scads of porn films with covers containing the term "Ass to Mouth" and can cite them as containing the act. CyberAnth 05:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on latest ref added to article - Ass to mouth is admittedly about a colloquial term used in the porn industry to describe Anal-oral contact. The newly cited source is simply another example of a paper that uses the term, but is not about the term. The purpose of the cited source is, in the author's own words, "to challenge us -- in harsh language -- on men’s use of pornography". And it is therein that he uses "Ass to mouth". CyberAnth 08:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the only material I could from the article and placed it into Anal-oral contact#Anal-oral contact in popular culture. What is left is well-cited within that context. CyberAnth 08:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The two most recently added references do more than just use the term, they describe it's meaning and practise. Why do you persist in going on about Anal-oral contact when you should know by now that Ass to mouth can be performed without anyone's mouth being near anyone else's ass? You appear to be demanding nothing short of multiple peer-reviewed academic research papers on the subject, which is totally unreasonable in this context, and just adds to the impression that you are attempting to effectively censor the article by setting unattainable standards. As for your your edit to Anal-oral contact, did you even read it first? The second paragraph of that article says: "It is a distinct practice from anal sex followed by fellatio, which is often referred to as ass to mouth."

I have to agree, multiple source have been provided that the practice exists. It is real beyond doubt. As already stated, the source doesn't have to be about the origins of the term. If I added a source to England it should prove there is a country called England on the island of Great Britain not why it's called England and where the term comes from. The crux of argument, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we don't know what to call it. It seems to have no proper name. In this instance I suggest we use a term that brings back a massive number of Google hits and move on to another subject who's verifiability and notability are in doubt. Mallanox 13:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 07:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's pouring on our heads

It's pouring on our heads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

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}}

Deletion nomination Prod contested by anon IP. Hoax. Claim that this band had a no.1 album and millions in CD sales appears to be false - No hits in the Billboard.com database for their "big break" album[20]. Actually, they don't appear to be in the database at all[21]. Only ~40 googlehits[22]. Band website is amateur and hosted on free webhost. Fails WP:MUSIC Bwithh 01:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Since my nomination, a single purpose account has adjusted the article's claims to be more believable - now it is no longer claimed that the band had No.1 hits in the US and Canada which went went multiplatinum, selling 6 million CDs worldwide. Now it is merely claimed that the band debuted in the US and Canada charts and went only platinum, selling just 2 million CDs worldwide. Nice catch, guys Bwithh 02:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

More backpedalling Bwithh 02:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Obvious hoax. Only three ghits for "Assumption Academy Sucks", one of which is WP. Caknuck 02:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom Savant45 02:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - certainly not notable yet, guys, but best wishes. "Yohan Records", said to be a "major label", does not even have website. CyberAnth 02:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Moving the following 2 comments from article talk page and registering them as keep Bwithh 02:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep i think that this is true do to the fact that this is on there website and myspace, and myspace friends reconize that there famous and talk how they are famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfhsdfyhtraq (talk • contribs) — Gfhsdfyhtraq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep this is band is great and many poeple like it and is probably going to be recreated over and over again so i think you guys should just keep it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhgljsdnofh (talk • contribs) — Fhgljsdnofh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Above 2 comments moved from article talk page by Bwithh 02:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Comment: The statement alone that it will be repeatedly recreated is enough to cause the article to be salted, and even if you do recreate it repeatedly upon deletion, it will be subject to speedy deletion as a repost. --Dennisthe2 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

They may be the best band since the Beetles in your view but MySpace is not a source that can used in Wikipedia articles Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability. You need to come up with some press reports. CyberAnth 02:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Recommend salting this article if it is deleted. Bwithh 02:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oh for pete's sake There's another keep comment from a single purpose account on this afd page's talk page - apparently made after I moved the keep comments from the article talk page and left a big link to this afd discussion. If people can't follow clear instructions twice in a row... take a look at the this afd's talk page if necessary, I'm not going to do more moving. Bwithh 02:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Myspace notability and talking as if peopel are famous and otherwise recognizing them isn't really all that reliable. --Dennisthe2 02:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Myspace notability" is an oxymoron. MER-C 03:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Precisely. =) --Dennisthe2 04:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Very, very obvious delete per everyone who already expressed their deletion rationales above. -- Kicking222 03:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, in my opinion should be speedied as per WP:SNOW.Mallanox 03:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete before this stupid myspacery gets any worse. MER-C 03:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete db-band, and block Fhgljsdnofh (talk · contribs) for pretty much announcing his intent to troll Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 03:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I don't know why it wasn't tagged that way in the first place, instead of going to AfD. =Axlq 03:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Because originally the article claimed it was a multi-platinum selling band with no.1 hits in North America and 9million CDs sold worldwide. Even though these claims are false, likely hoax content is not covered by the criteria for speedy deletion. Having even a dubious claim to encyclopedic notability is sufficient to fail speedy deletion tagging criteria. I originally prodded this article and it was contested. So here we are at AfD. Bwithh 03:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • In the case of outright false claims, the {{db-nonsense}} tag would have sufficed rather than going to AfD. Ah, well, too late now. =Axlq 06:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Nope, that's not right. CSD G1 specifically excludes hoax claims from db-nonsense tagging:"This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." Also see WP:NONSENSE and WP:HOAX. Bwithh 06:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's not a candidate for speedy but it sure is for deletion. TSO1D 04:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably okay as a db-band speedy now, as the article editors have withdrawn their no.1 hit/worldwide success claims Bwithh 04:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, notability assertion is obviously false. Recommend editor who states it will be "recreated over and over" have a read through WP:POINT. Seraphimblade 04:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, salt, and also salt "It's Pouring on our Heads", "It's Pouring On Our Heads", etc. Also permanently block user who clearly has not read WP:POINT. --Charlene 04:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nice try but NN -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 04:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt since commenters-for-keeping above threaten that it is likely that the article will be created "over and over again." Tarinth 05:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious WP:BALLS, utterly violates WP:V. Salting sounds reasonable. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:55, 27 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. Kimchi.sg 04:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonny Hicks

Bonny Hicks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

AfD nominated by Fighting for Justice with reason: "the bonny hicks article appears to have no notablity whatsoever. I say it should be deleted." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 03:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I did a Google search for her, and a few reputable articles turned up, but nothing really significant. This is a tricky one. I say that if someone can expand the article and provide references that satisfy WP:BIO, then I guess Keep, but if not, I say go ahead and delete it. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 03:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO and does not assert notability, which is speediable. Unless the article can be expanded, as above, I would go for a delete. wtfunkymonkey 03:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. She absolutely is notable in Singapore and a CNN article mentions her prominently in an article about the jet that crashed, killing her[23]. 45,000 books sold, as the article mentions, is a good number in Singapore. She has also has had numerous community centers and social organizations named after her in Singapore. The article needs cleanup and to be de-stubbed to better establish her notability, that's all. CyberAnth 03:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

*Delete in my view does not meet WP:BIO -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Agree to Keep as per request from CyberAnth (posted on my talk page) and now that adjustments made. -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now ... authors that are more than self-published are inherently notable. BigDT 06:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per CyberAnth and [24]. Kimchi.sg 07:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, without question - I just spent a few hours expanding the article. She is even more notable than I had initially thought. Check out the article now. CyberAnth 08:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep clearly is independently notable even she didn't meet the section of WP:BIO about enduring contributions. Fabulous job, CyberAnth.--Kchase T 08:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Had the article look like this I would never have nominated for deletion. Fighting for Justice 09:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you had not NfD'ed it it would not look like this. :-) But I think this is a lesson that we should all be slow to delete and quick to research...in a fair amount of depth. CyberAnth 09:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So can we consider this nomination withdrawn? :-) Kimchi.sg 09:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, she is notable enough and after the expansion it is definitely better. She was a well known author in the past as well as a model. Terence Ong 10:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep looks notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep pretty notable. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Yes, keep it. The article looks lovely now. :-) Fighting for Justice 20:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as above. Tonytypoon 00:44, 28 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 03:55Z

[edit] List of Miniclip Games

List of Miniclip Games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list/directory of unremarkable web content. Contested prod. MER-C 02:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There is just no point to making a list like this. ~~Eugene2x ☺ ~~ 02:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Miniclip game developers. Tevildo 03:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 03:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not require its own article! -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What purpose does this article serve? Spinach Dip 10:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless Tx17777 15:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pointless list, the vast majority of these don't have articles and never really could. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've played a few Miniclip games. The website is notable and I think it has its own article, but the individual games aren't worth half a fictional life. 129.98.212.73 17:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The first point of call for obtaining this info would be Miniclip, there is zero need for this here. Well caught Mer-c. QuagmireDog 01:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I found it very informative.Xammer 20:33, 28 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 01:56Z

[edit] Tyholttårnet

Tyholttårnet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Yet another unremarkable tower. Deprodded on the basis that it has... (gasp!) ... a revolving restaurant! MER-C 02:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge into List of towers.

• Delete -- Actually, I found out that it's already in the list of towers. If so, then I'd say just delete it. ~~Eugene2x ☺ ~~ 02:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into List of towers. CyberAnth 02:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• There's nothing worth merging per above... MER-C 03:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral -- I've read Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts but I'm not clear on exactly where the cut off is going to be regarding deleting articles on towers. What height or other criteria will qualify a tower as notable and therefore worthy of retaining? I'm not in favour of just deleting the few articles now tagged without a clear idea of where that cut off is going to be. Shawn in Montreal 03:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. What is the difference between this and other towers with revolving restaurants such as the Space Needle or the Calgary Tower? It's not in North America? --Charlene 04:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• The main difference is height. MER-C 05:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, it's about 40 metres shorter. I'm still curious as to what the proposed cut off would be. The Norwegian tower is 124 metres. When does it become a notable tower? At 165 m? or more? And does anyone know if this is the tallest manmade structure in Norway?Shawn in Montreal 05:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's the tallest in central Norway. That may well be damning with faint praise. I added that to the article, though. I'm still neutral.Shawn in Montreal 05:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Does not require its own article! NN -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Without addressing the merits of this article, I'm concerned that the mast deletion is trying to define a consensus cutoff by sequential deletion of all towers and masts until the community says "stop". That is unlikely to recognize the appropriate cutoff, however, because of the overwhelmingly large number of inarguable legitimate deletions that have dominated this field for the last few weeks. I know the US masts nominations are up to everythign less then 500', and this one is edging up closer to corresponding landmark buildings like the Space Needle. That doesn't necessarily imply that I'd argue to keep this one (as the article stands, its pretty unpersuasive -- anyone able to search the Norwegian press?), but we might want to think about where we want to stop before we actually get there ... inertia being what it is. Serpent's Choice 06:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• The problem I am having voting one way or the other is that it's not a mast. It's a self-supporting tower and a tourist attraction that happens to also be a radio tower. I don't think the mast guidelines apply. --Charlene 09:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I'll admit: I was the one so impressed by the... (gasp!) ... revolving restaurant that I deprodded this. I also deprodded the probably very unremarkable Fernsehturm Kulpenberg which could very smoothly be merged to the one-line substub on the Kulpenberg, the mountain it stands on. Not being an expert on these things, my intuition still tells me that there is a difference between a mast and a tower, especially one with a ... (gasp!) ... revolving restaurant. A tower which is the highest in its region and has a... (gasp!) ... revolving restaurant is obviously a frequently visited landmark in that area. However else would the restaurant make a profit? I wonder why whoever prodded these towers, if s/he felt they were unworthy of articles of their own, did not consider merging (or simply redirecting) them somewhere. It doesn't save any server space to have them go through the deletion process. And the most obvious merge target here is not the List of towers, but the article on Trondheim. up◦land 08:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

there is indeed a distinction between a guyed mast (which is basically a big antenna, right?) and a tower supporting a revolving restaurant. I didn't care for the "gasp" wisecrack either, btw. Shawn in Montreal 08:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

*Merge into List of Towers AND article on Trondheim, per above suggestion. I've supplied a link from the Fodors website to the tower article, indicating that it is a bone fide attraction in the region, so a merge into the main city article is indicated, in my view. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 09:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Keep. I wanted to sleep on this and see if anyone from Norway came in and spoke out in favour of retaining. Eivind, below, is good enough for me. He is a person of some experience, judging by his user page, and confirms what I've been feeling. Shawn in Montreal 17:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's a well known landmark in Trondheim. --E ivind ^t@c 14:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as landmark and tourist attraction. -Freekee 19:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not just another tower, but per Freekee, an important landmark and tourist attraction. --Oakshade 22:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Long Live the Restaurant Revolution!. up◦land 09:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (I didn't !vote in my comment above.)
• Comment I am leaning towards a weak keep for the subject. I reckoned that this would be slightly controversial AfD, and was not within the scope of what I was trying to do with the mass deletes I initiated. In response to those citing 'keep' per "famous landmark/tourist attraction", I would urge them to cite sources of guide books so we can put this one to bed. Ohconfucius 18:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Majorly (Talk) 13:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of channels available on SkyCable

List of channels available on SkyCable (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of DirecTV channels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The article List of DirecTV channels was added at 22:11 on 26 December 2006. --myselfalso 15:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The articles listed below were added four days after the discussion began. --- RockMFR 05:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Dish Network channels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of XM Satellite Radio channels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of CW affiliates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of MyNetworkTV affiliates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Dish Network channels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of CBS affiliates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of NBC affiliates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of ABC affiliates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Fox affiliates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Contested prod. MER-C 02:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - an advert. CyberAnth 02:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I was one of the first authors of this article. I have patterned this after the List of DirecTV channels article. And that article didn't sound like an advert. The least I could do to make the article in question not sound like an advert is to delete the "About SkyCable" section. (That sounded like an advert to me.) I'd also remove the "Exclusive to SkyCable" line on the Technical Notes column. I think I'll do it now. PinoiBIGscientian 02:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know about that one. Added to this AFD. MER-C 03:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Can anyone please properly define "TV guide?" In WP:NOT#DIR, the only expample on "guide" is on a radio guide. "For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable."(~From Wikipedia is not a directory) which makes the discussion of a TV guide issue very hard. But judging from the given example, listing radio stations is not included. This article does not show any "upcoming events, current promotions, telephone numbers, schedules, etc." From my level of knowledge (3rd year high school student), a TV guide is a guide of program schedules. This is a channel lineup. Simple logic. So, my stand is still a strong keep.(P.S Please forgive my online temper today.) pinoiBIGscientian 08:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. It doesn't sound like advertising, but there's really no reason for this to be here. As the AFD points out, we're not TV Guide, and really, it's up to the cable providers to provide this to their users. --Dennisthe2 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Point of Information: In that case, there's a whole bunch of articles just like this that you have to delete, sourcing from DirecTV, Dish Network, XM. It feels unfair that "TV guides" from Philippine cable operators are being held first. I was waiting for articles just like this from U.S. cable operators to be deleted before I can approve of the deletion of the article in question. And besides, the TV guide that I interpreted from Wikipedia is not a TV guide are showing schedules of individual channels, and not channel listings. PinoiBIGscientian 03:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the pointer, and the point of information. Note that we can't get to all the cruft in here in one go. For what it's worth, I think that the one for SkyCable here got targeted only because it got noticed first. Please remember to assume good faith in these cases. --Dennisthe2 03:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yep, these two just got noticed first. The rest could be prod fodder once this nomination gets closed. MER-C 03:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, the lists of channels for DirectTV, Dish Network, Sirius, XM, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, MNTV and CW stations/affiliates were nominated for deletion on November 13, 2006, with a result of keep; in addition, the listing of MNTV affiliates was nominated for deletion in August 2006, also with a resulting vote of keep.

• Keep Considering that recent discussion on this subject was barely two months ago Previous discussion and nobody here has offered any rebuttal of that decision, I say keep, and just short of speedy. If you can argue with that discussion, that might be worth a start. FrozenPurpleCube 03:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• In the last discussion, at least half of the keeps were WP:ILIKEIT votes. And no-one effectively counteracted Wikipedia != TV guide. At least we're getting some real debate here. MER-C 07:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the parts where people said why a list of channels is not a TV guide then. There are several quite relevant arguments made there, much more substantial than ILIKEIT. A list of channels or even a list of programs is not the kind of TV guide that's been warned against. Now if this network used a wide variety of different programming blocks, then there might be arguments against this list, but it wouldn't be because it's a TV Guide. In any case though, it is important to be aware of the prior discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 15:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep We've already had this discussion. This is not a TV Guide, this is a list of channels. If it were a guide, it would have a list of programs when run and the time which it is. --04:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarinth (talk • contribs) 05:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
• Strong Keep, This is an old discussion. The DirecTV listing was nominated for deletion along with lists of ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CW, MNTV, Dish Network and XM channels less than two months ago. The general consensus was that the lists of channels offered by each service, as long as they did not include detailed guide-type listings, did not constitute TV Guide as noted in WP:NOT. Nothing has changed since that point. Each of those nominations resulted in a finding of keep. I urge those prior decisions to be upheld, as nothing has changed in the interim. --Mhking 07:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Each of these listings (I can't speak for SkyCable) grew out of their parent articles. They do not constitute a TV Guide-type listing; they are an indication as to what stations are associated with the network/satellite company, not unlike the list of teams in the NFL or the templates of stations in each television/radio market. I want to WP:AGF, but this AfD feels more arbitrary than anything else. --Mhking 17:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets content policies. A merge might be something to consider, but personally I think this information makes more sense in a separate article. JYolkowski // talk 23:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless and ever-changing list. The only people who need this are the subscribers, and they're already getting that information. --Calton | Talk 04:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• POI. There are lots of things that are ever-changing that are in Wikipedia. Politics is ever changing, culture is ever changing. There is an article on the War in Somalia. That's a war in progress. How about the article on the War on Terror, the War in Iraq? Also, there are other people who might want to read this article, who are not subscribers. I think it's valid information to include a list of channels that DirecTV provides as their service. To list what the channels broadcast would clearly be a tv guide, and this is what Wikipedia is NOT; the List of channels DirecTV provides for its subscribers is clearly not a tv guide. TV Guide goes to that next step. As far as I'm concerned, as I read it and interpret WP:NOT#DIR, DIR only refers to TV guides such as what's in the newspaper, or the aforementioned magazine. AND, most importantly, NO ONE HAS YET TO SAY HOW EITHER OF THESE ARTICLES CONSTITUTES A TV GUIDE. I ask, how is List of DirecTV channels a tv guide? When I look at the page, where are the upcoming events on those channels? I don't see what time Mythbusters is on. That's why I go to tvguide.com for that. --myselfalso 05:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as Yellow-pages-like advertispamlistcruft. Also all other lists mentioned by Mhking.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• POI. Do you care to explain why this, along with other channel listings, became implied spam? And do you know what Yellow Pages are? They're a list of companies, along with their contact details. A channel list is nowhere near those. pinoiBIGscientian 12:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep As many people already stated, many of these listed were nominated on November 7 on the same issue and was ruled a keep. If the ruling was to change now, it would be seen as a hypocrisy to the earlier ruling. TravKoolBreeze 00:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is the fathest thing from advertising. People who don't subscibe mostlikely want to see what is offered. Hands Down Strong Keep --Mgarnes2 02:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - it is an advert, a plain mirror of the company's website. Can you come up with any reliable secondary sources that have reported this list and can you establish notability? CyberAnth 01:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A mirror would not give extra information, such as the list for XM. This extra information such as radio format and note on what has happen to said channels on certain dates are not found on the website at all. Thus the history given is the notability needed. Please explain how it is trying to promote the service and telling about subscription prices, since that would be an advert? Moreover, how is this a TV Guide if it is not telling what shows are coming on at a certain time, which is the reason for the AFD? TravKoolBreeze 02:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot point to reliable secondary sources who have done what you have done in the article and who have established some kind of special notability than it fails on Original research. CyberAnth 03:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So everything in the world needs to have a credible secondary source to count as research? As noted ealier, the formats and notes on the XM list have been done to show a history of what has happen. Once again, please explain how it is trying to promote the service and telling about subscription prices, since that would be an advert? Moreover, how is this a TV Guide if it is not telling what shows are coming on at a certain time, which is the reason for the AFD?TravKoolBreeze 03:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, do you realize how ridiculous the Intro sounds for an encyclopedia?

Please be advised that this list is the current SkyCable channel listing. This list is lifted from the SkySked Channel and SkyCable's official website. This channel listing is not applicable to subscribers in the CAMANAVA area and in the provinces.

Get you own web-hosting where you can rightly post this kind of stuff if you want to. CyberAnth 03:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how it is trying to promote the service and telling about subscription prices, since that would be an advert? Moreover, how is this a TV Guide if it is not telling what shows are coming on at a certain time, which is the reason for the AFD? I only speak for the XM list.TravKoolBreeze 03:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That intro was the ost encyclopedic intro I could think of. That was the most informational. And still you think it is not encyclopedic? OK, since your'e asking for it, I'll change the intro. I'll think of a more encylopedic intro than that. (Whaw, I am so angry right now.) PinoiBIGscientian 17:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest keep possible. This is not a TV guide. These are lists of network affiliates. --- RockMFR 04:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• And where are they listed in reliable secondary sources that establish some sort of special notability? One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the subject-specific notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is the criterion that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. CyberAnth 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  If you're asking about television affiliates, I'd say you could review documents from the FCC, Nielson, TV Guide, and who knows what else in in the Television industry. oh, and SEC filings. Are you trying to argue that an important aspect of a multi-billion dollar industry isn't important? FrozenPurpleCube 05:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Where are the sources in the articles? CyberAnth 05:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  That depends on the article. The articles on the stations themselves apply in many cases, which satisfies me. If you feel a need, I'm sure you could find a reference list like [25] so I don't see a problem requiring deletion. Do you seriously think such information is difficult to source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs) 06:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

• Changed to neutral - this is no longer merely a list of channels which I can find in the relevant cable TV guide but rather a list of TV affiliates. Perhaps a retitling and reworking to clarify this would be in order. MER-C 07:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep on all These are reference lists of network affiliates and channels, not a TV Guide. Completely useful (as a contributor to the MNTV and CW articles) and well-sourced. Adding the American networks to this article four days after the beginning of the AfD is something that I really don't like. Nate 08:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep How many times are we going to go through this?! It's like people will keep nominating them until they get their way. --Tv's emory 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• KeepI agree with TV's emory.--XMBRIAN 03:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all; this is an encylopedia, not TV/radio listings. —tregoweth (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Caldorwards4 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment to both delete above How are these non-encyclopedia works when they would give information? By using the judgement that you are giving, Category:Lists of radio stations and all lists within should be deleted. The previous ruling stated that these lists were not a directory, which is the closest to what you are meaning by listings. TravKoolBreeze 22:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The Other encyclopedias have list of networksMagnum Serpentine 01:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep One of the first things I looked at when I was looking into getting DirecTV subscription was the DirecTV channels article. Very noteworthy and very informative. And to those who say that Wikipedia isn't a TV Guide, TV Guide shows what programs each channel is broadcasting. Listing what channels a satellite company is available to its customers is not a TV guide. For that reason, this AFD should really be deemed void. --Raderick 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for bottom four, Weak Keep for the rest. As long as these articles are all kept on a tight leash so no advertising seeps through, then I don't have a problem with this. To me it's notable enough, even thogh I understand that Wikipedia's not a TV guide. --Wizardman 01:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep People who don't subscribe may want to see what is offered. Hands Down Strong Keep Mgarnes2 02:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to X-Men (disambiguation). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 03:57Z

[edit] X-Men Trilogy

X-Men Trilogy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The article appears to be redundant, there is nothing in it that isn't in the individual film articles X-Men (film), X2, and X-Men: The Last Stand. Other film series do not require a central article to tie them together as they aready refer to each other. Mallanox 02:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, very redundant. --Dennisthe2 02:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to X-Men (disambiguation). =Axlq 03:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not require its own article -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Axlq. Tarinth 05:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Axlq, despite the somewhat unusual practice of redirection to a dab page. This article's primary purpose is better served by the navigational templates that already exist for the individual topics. Serpent's Choice 05:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to X-Men (disambiguation), as above. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 06:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 11:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect would serve for now, but I am not opposed to an X-men Film Series page. I think this might be a better choice than Trilogy, especially if further movies are made. See for example Star Wars which does cover the film series, not one movie example. Also Spider-Man_film_series for a Marvel franchise example. FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to X-Men (disambiguation) . Tonytypoon 01:46, 28 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, per consensus. Future eclipses are predictable with high certainty and there are reliable sources to back it up, compared to say, rumours about the next album released by a certain artist. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:01Z

[edit] Solar eclipse of 2017 August 21

Solar eclipse of 2017 August 21 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

crystalballism Ncisss 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is absolutely not crystal ballism. We can predict this event with extreme accuracy, and the content of the page is quite good--it traces precisely where and when the eclipse is going to take place. It even includes scientific data about the nature of the eclipse. Not only is this event notable because it's a sufficiently rare event in and of itself as a total eclipse, but it will be the first total eclipse visible from the contiguous United States since the '70s. If that isn't enough, then please keep in mind that eclipse-hunters get together yearly to chase down these remarkable events--planning them years in advance--and this article is both relevant and of practical use. My college physics teacher is among them, and I know she keeps track of when, where, what kind, and how long eclipses will happen and then coordinates with other friends and researchers. So as something of important scientific and cultural merit, I believe this article should stay. Torie 04:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't believe this falls under crystalballism. Unlike some far-off Olympic games, a lot of things can be said with near-certainty about astronomical events. Assuming the eclipse is not invented it should stay. Akihabara 02:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment Just because it is predictable does not mean it's notable. Predictability is not a requirement for inclusion on wikipedia, notability is. I do not see anything in the article, nor is there anything notable about a predicable astrnomical event that will not be taking place for another decade. wtfunkymonkey 03:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as much as needs to be said is included in List of solar eclipses. Mallanox 03:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. ~22 solar eclipses will take place between now and then. Yes, we know all sorts of shit about this. However, using that logic, we could potentially have articles about solar eclipses hundreds of years from now (or so I assume). We just don't need these articles, especially if they have not happened yet. --- RockMFR 03:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Aren't computer simulations fun?!? But wait, that is my birthday... Lmcelhiney 03:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This one is notable for a large fraction of the English Wikipedia readership - it's been since 1979 that we've had a total eclipse in the lower 48. Also, it's an eclipse listed in List of solar eclipses. There's no reason for eclipses listed there to not have their own article. If this article is deleted, we'll need to trim the list, too. Finally, it's just not that far in the future! Davidlwilliamson 04:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment; What about it being a total eclipse for the United States makes it notable? Are you saying that because it will look different for Americans it should be somehow more important? wtfunkymonkey 05:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment;; It's notable because a large landmass with a lot of people haven't seen a total eclipse in a long time. If this article described an eclipse in China (or anywhere else) that was the first one in several decades, I'd want it kept too. This isn't US-centric: the lack of an eclipse in a given large and well-populated area for several decades makes the next one interesting. Davidlwilliamson 19:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. If this event is so notable for that reason, why doesn't it SAY SO? Spinach Dip 10:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because it is not notable enough for it's own article! -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into an article that lists solar eclipses. It isn't crystall-ballism because astronomical events can be predicted with great accuracy, and the prediction of solar eclipses in general has been known for centuries. I think it sounds notable enough to be mentioned in such a list or article but not have an article on its own. Few people will enter the name of this title when looking for the subject, anyway, which means that Wikipedia users won't be served well by it. Tarinth 05:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As the first total solar eclipse in the continental United States in over 40 years, which establishes its notability. If anyone cares to wager whether this event will happen, I'm willing to mortgage the house. Alansohn 07:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no, the fact it will be seen in the USA does not establish its notability. - fchd 08:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE - This totally falls under Wikipedia is not a crystal ball criteria. Like far future presidential elections and Olympics, there is nothing verifiable apart from speculation about what will happen that day. I'm leaning towards giants grasshoppers covering the sky during the eclipse.--Eqdoktor 09:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to your proposing almost all astronomy-related articles and many science ones for deletion as unverifiable for the same reason. Akihabara 12:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if its crystal ball gazing original research with no verification cited on its notability. A lot of people forget that Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, not a book of lists or an almanac. --Eqdoktor 08:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite the above delete note, I think the general feeling of most people is that this isn't crystal ball gazing. I may not know what the results of the next Olympics will be, but I know where they'll be, and when. Heck, I'm more certain about the eclipse than the next Olympics. Davidlwilliamson 19:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep All information in the article is precisely knowable (there is no speculative information) and the event is notable in that a large population will have the chance to experience an eclipse for the first time in 39 years. Hilmar 10:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• You mean a large American population. All future eclipses are precisely predictable and a general article listing their dates and field of view is useful. Separate articles on past eclipses that were in some way special are useful. An article on a future eclipse is not necessary and the fact that Americans (or anyone else) will have had to wait 40 years between total solar eclipses is neither unusual nor notable - that's the way it is! Delete Emeraude 12:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep My argument is that solar eclipses are an extremely important tool for scientific education of the general public,

and here in the USA, we desparately needed a scientifically well-educated public!!! This page is very useful for planning public events so that people can observe this faacinating phenonmenon and get interested in science !!! please keep!Avwells 15:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Eclipses are almost certain. A total solar eclipse in a densely populated area is rare and always generates large interest. Already many Ghits. Seems notable to me. PrimeHunter 15:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is not a crystal ball issue because (absent some astronomical catastrophe) this eclipse is going to happen. There is a question of whether the article is suficiently notable. I would argue that all total solar eclipses are sufficiently rare and interesting enough to be notable, and all will, eventually, have articles as they approach. Those articles will provide more detail about viewing the particular eclipse and other useful information than may be conviently presented in List of solar eclipses. It is true that the number of Wikipedians interested in this eclipse (presumably due to the convenience with which they will be able to see the event) have led to this article being created before the articles for Solar eclipse of 2010 July 11, Solar eclipse of 2012 November 12, Solar eclipse of 2015 March 20, or Solar eclipse of 2016 March 9, but the fact that these articles have yet to be created does not reduce the notability of this article, any more than District Courts of India is made less notable by the fact that District Courts of Pakistan has yet to be created. JohnPomeranz 16:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm very much in favor of providing the information contained herein as an educational resource; but really, who is going to come to Wikipedia entering 'Social eclipse of such-and-such a date' as an article name? It seems that people looking for more information would be better served by containing this in an List of solar eclipses, or perhaps a new article such as Future Solar Eclipses which might encompass all such future events. Tarinth

• Keep. I scanned some of the comments. I agree that future astronomical events are not in the crystal ball category because the scientific community agrees that they will happen according to very specific details. I also agree that solar eclipses are notable. The cutoff can be debated -- should we go to 2040, 2050, or even forever into the future? But this one is close enough to be relevant. 129.98.212.73 17:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We can predict a lot of things way into the future, and scientists may agree on the details, but that does not make them notable. We do not need articles now for every future astronomical event for which computer models can grind out the details. If it is notable at this time, then add articles which provide more than passing reference about it from the New York Times, Newsweek or perhaps astonomy or science magazines. Blogs do not count. All that is provided is one NASA site, which is reliable and verifiable, but not "multiple." This is a filter to prevent someone from adding articles about every lunar or solar eclipse for the next 10,000 years. Edison 19:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, as noted above, this is not a WP:CRYSTAL issue, as it is, there is specific scientific information contained here that while it may fit by itself, may as well be served by merging with an overall solar eclipse article. I can't honestly recommend merge as my vote, without having a more complete knowledge of the solar eclipse article. --Mhking 19:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with List of solar eclipses. bibliomaniac15 23:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep come on, look at the nominator's edit history. This is only "crystalballism" in the sense that it is a future event. Wavy G 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or perhaps Merge into Future solar eclipses along with all future ones at Category:Solar eclipses. BTW, the subject IS NOT crystal ball, it is hard science and notable. CyberAnth 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. While not a crystal ball, we're talking about an eclipse that will happen nearly 11 years from now, and there doesn't appear to be anything particularly notable about this one (being the first one visible from the US in a while isn't enough). There's just not enough to warrant anything more than a list entry at this time. Redirect to a list if you want, although it doesn't seem like a very likely search term. BryanG^(talk) 08:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - As I understand it, its proposed to be deleted under the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball guideline not because its predictable, scientific and notable - its because its happening 10 years into the future and there is no reliable independent verifiable sources cited that discusses this particular eclipse and its notability. Two links cited, point to past eclipses, One points to a TIF file detailing its path (not discussing notability), and another uses a google map to illustrate the path. Theres a lot of hand-waving (here and in the article) claiming its notable, but theres ZERO external citation of an independent reliable source claiming notability. The exact sort of thing that the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball guideline guards against. The Wikipedia is not a directory or in this case an almanac. Right now as it stands, this article is basically original research with uncited hand-waving towards notability. Yes, its scientific, its notable but at the moment (as I write this) it sure doesn't deserve to be a Wikipedia article. Its a crystal ball gazing original research. --Eqdoktor 08:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Is this a good-faith nomination? This nomination was the very first edit of nominator. The WP:CRYSTAL guideline is directed against (I quote) unverifiable speculation. It is not against future events per se, but states: expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Is this notable? Again from the guideline: the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. All of this is satisfied. Is this almost certain to take place? You bet. There is no requirement anywhere that notability requires that independent reliable sources claim notability. Please don't confuse the notability guidelines with the WP:RS policy, which is about verifiability. The NASA link is a reliable and totally authoritative source, and provides quite satisfactory verification.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment; I was wondering about this nomination, too. It looks like the original poster has a total of four edits over a ten minute period, and no further comments on this. Meta-question: can I just start creating new accounts and requesting deletions of random articles for nonsensical reasons? That would be a fascinating new denial of service attack...it would really keep a lot of people very busy for no good reason. I'm not going to do that, but who's to stop someone else? Davidlwilliamson 19:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are dozens of sources going back to the 1970's that highlight the 2017 eclipse as the first chance for many in the continental United States to view a total solar eclipse for almost four decades. References have been added to the article that indicate American astronomers and interested amateurs taking cruises and traveling to view other eclipses, noting that the next chance in the 48 states would be in 2017. A reference from 1991 cites that year's eclipse that crossed Hawaii and Mexico as the best until 2017. This is not just one total solar eclipse in an unending string of such eclipses that will take place somewhere on Earth until the Sun burns out. It has been deemed notable for decades as the first total solar eclipse in the continental United States to take place in 38 years. It is clear to me that notability has been established for this event. Alansohn 17:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If there are all those sources going back 30 years as to how notable this eclipse is, then please add three or so of them to the article and I will gladly change my vote. Many things are predictable which are not notable. These days people do not even go outside to see the eclipse if they are busy, unless they are astronomy buffs. See one, seen'em all. Edison 00:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge My first impression was to delete an article, but now I think we should keep this article because it contains info on the solar exlipse and is not a crystal ball. If all else fails we should merge to solar eclipse.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep WP:CRYSTAL does not apply for the most part, as eclipses can be accurately predicted and their path very well described. Instead the issues are notabity and whether the topic is encyclopedic. As an event which will occur in well-populated areas, it immediately is potentially notable. As for it's occurring over 10 years from now: That is more of an issue, but I am not sure where the line should be drawn on this kind of article. Obviously an article on a 22nd century eclipse would be a joke, but if this eclipse was to occur in 2007 it would already be a topic of some interest. --EMS | Talk 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment They can accurately predict high tides and sunrises many years into the future as well, but they do not need articles unless there are multiple reliable sources to show they are notable now. It was a bigger deal hundreds of years ago when they were unpredictable or thousands of years ago when they thought the gods were fighting. Edison 00:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Then again, high and low tides happen daily, right? CyberAnth 20:43, 29 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 03:58Z

[edit] The Indix

The Indix (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This band fails Wikipedia:Notability (music): No hits at national level, no gold records, no national concert tours, no major label etc. In 2000, it was mentioned in some music reviews columns or the local news sections of some newspapers. The band claims that they were the first pop group in Kerala and that they were the first to release a 3D music video in India. I am an Indian and I feel that claiming such things doesn't make this band notable. The google results are from Wikipedia mirrors, or about a system called IndiX (developed by NCST or about "International Network for Development Information Exchange" (INDIX). Delete. Jyothisingh 03:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with nom in so far that The Indix appear to be NN -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - a quick google search throws up zero evidence of existance but rather a piece of software. Fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 07:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable and vanity. Spinach Dip 10:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment See also: Anuj Nair, Simple Truth and My Love for You. -Freekee 19:22, 27 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:06Z

[edit] Simple Truth

Simple Truth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

My Love for You (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin) (redirect, previously merged per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Love for You)

Non-notable album of a non-notable band The Indix, which fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). I am from India, and I can assure you that neither the band nor the album are notable. Google results are about albums by other artists such as Mike Stand, Jeff Kashiwa etc. The band and the album were mentioned in some local newspapers in 2000, because the group claimed that they were the first pop-band from Kerala and that they were the first to release a 3D music video in India. That doesn't make them notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Delete. Jyothisingh 03:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've noticed that there is a series of AfDs that all pertain to this band and related articles. While they are not very good articles and their notability is shakey, is there anyway we could condense all of the articles into a single article? That way we do not have to completely wipe what could possibly be a notable band (possibly in italics for emphasis) from the entire Wikipedia, but their less notable articles can be deleted. I think that would be a good idea. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 06:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, because it still fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 07:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 07:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the rationale for deletion shows a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BAND. They're covered in multiple nontrivial media sources, which you dismiss as "mentioned in some local newspapers." I'm disappointed at the pile-on votes here that don't consider any evidence. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I still don't like the way this is rationalized and claimed, but the total lack of google results is giving me verifiability issues. Not a single hit outside wikipedia and its mirrors. Possible hoax. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The band isn't popular even in Kerala.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 14:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. JYolkowski // talk 23:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph W. Eaton

Joseph W. Eaton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This is very long. It is unformatted, unsourced, reads like a resume, contains all manner of information, almost certianly has sections copied from elsewhere, and it is very hard to read. This person appears to be notable, but the article is just hideous. I am unsure what to do about this. J Milburn 03:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination, for reasons cited by other editors. J Milburn 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like this article falls under the category of "Articles which may resemble crap but could contain a pearl". You don't delete pages if they are in bad quality but still have the potential to become an encyclopedia article. From your nomination, I can see that you gathered some information about the subject in the article, if nothing else, trim down and rewrite the article. Feel free to nominate it for deletion once you can reason that the article does not belong in the encyclopedia. I therefore suggest withdrawing this nomination for now. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong & Speedy Keep Notability guidelines quite clearly specify multiple reviews and awards a proof of notability. He was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship and his works have been reviewed multiple times, with citations of these reviews within the article (toward the end). The format is terrible but the article meets notability. Contrary to the nomination, this article is very well sourced -- just badly organized. --Kevin Murray 05:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep My sense is that the subject easily meets WP:BIO based on the "professor test" alone, but this article should be condensed and organized much better. Poor organization isn't enough of a reason for deletion. Tarinth 05:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I feel that this article is quite awful the way it is right now, but that is no reason to delete it. It needs a lot of clean-up, as most of it is utter nonsense right now, but it seems to be notable and could become a decent article. One thing that bothers me is that it might violate WP:COPY. There is no way someone typed in all those references by hand, it is an obvious copy-and-paste article. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 06:16, 27 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. I mean... come on... EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If we fall in love lyrics

If we fall in love lyrics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

WP:NOT a song lyrics repository, and unlikely song lyrics could be GFDL released in any case. Prod removed without explanation by article author. Seraphimblade 03:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —bbatsell ¿? 03:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Lyrics are unlikely to be GFDL or anything close. If someone can find documentation as to its GDFL status, however… Will (Talk - contribs) 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Even if the song is noteworthy (I don't feel like checking), it wouldn't deserve to have an article just for the lyrics. TJ Spyke 03:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete db-copyvio. Danny Lilithborne 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as copyvio. So tagged. MER-C 04:45, 27 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 this collection of campfire stories; no prejudice against a sourced article on the subject of campfire stories. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:00Z

[edit] CampFire Stories

CampFire Stories (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

• Delete. The nature of this subject is to be passed on orally, therefore making it hard to write an article with facts. Bouncy 01:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete see WP:NOT. WP is not for a collection of stories. Mak (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I could see a good encyclopedic article on this subject (verifiable history, traditions, etc.) but this jumbled collection of uncited material isn't it. Grandmasterka 04:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Whats rong with the article..its campfire stories stop deleting all my pages! pleassse theyre good , look how many hits they get. This one is atleast educational...somewhat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmfmets92 (talk • contribs)

Comment - you need to transform it into a clearly encyclopedic article, while citing sources. You should begin right away. CyberAnth 20:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not encyclopedic at this time (also not appropriate to put in the above comment in my view) -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I could also see a good article on this subject, but everything about this article is wrong: the naming, the organization, WP:NOT, etc. The list goes on and on. WP is not a place to publish stories. It would be easier to scrap the entire thing and just start as a section under Ghost Stories or Horror Stories first, and redirect "Campfire Stories" to that. Maybe then it will accumulate enough to become its own article. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 06:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a press for these types of stories. A legitimate article could be written on this topic, but this is not the right start. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 07:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - everything's wrong. This breaks more rules than I have fingers. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a free web host. Bastun 11:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If an admin is reading this, I'd consider a speedy. 129.98.212.73 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is clearly a notable vein of oral tradition. There are many publications, from the Foxfire books to Scouting manuals and more, that speak of camp fire stories both theoretically and practically and give story examples. The article sucks right now, true, but that is not grounds for giving it the old DELETE but for improving it. Bonny Hicks is a recent AfD'ed article where an editor, myself, decided to fix and expand it rather than just wield an ax (see difs here). The current article could become just as high of quality if an editor will but do it. I did one this week, anyone else game? :-) CyberAnth 19:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Nice work on the Bonny Hicks article. But personally, Campfire stories aren't something I know enough about to avoid OR. There is nothing to stop the original author from copying the current article to userspace and turning it into something readable, but at the moment it isn't the basis for an article. Bastun 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I would generally agree with you except that your assertion assumes that only the initiating author(s) or a currently reading editor or expert exists that is qualified or is likely to expand it. Stubs or very poorly written articles exist for a reason per Wikipedia guidelines, and such articles are frequently expanded upon by persons other than the initiator, e.g., my "adoption" of the Bonny Hicks article, who I was acquainted with in only a minor way before delving into her life and contributions, although I consider myself an expert on literatures of discontent (which is a kissing cousin of post-colonial literature) and had a fair understanding of Singapore culture going in, which made things a bit easier. Bottom line: Generally, if a poor but potential-ridden article remains on article space, adoption by others can and frequently does happen, even by new Wikipedians who happen upon the article. Still: Author, are you listening? Prepare for the worst in the probably likely case that deletion happens: You can copy AND SHOULD RIGHT NOW copy this article on to your user space which I created for you at User:Nmfmets92/Campfire stories. Then, you can get it up to Wikipedia standards and repost it without any fear of it being deleted. It will definitely be a learning experience for you in either case. CyberAnth 12:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated question: Literature of discontent? Isn't that pretty much all literature? I'm hard-pressed to think of a single novel in which the main characters sit around giving thumbs up and laughing at how awesome their lives are. Ford MF 04:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Its literatures that played a significant role in decolonization, written by subjects in the language of the colonizers. CyberAnth 06:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Obviously unencyclopedic. Not about campfire stories (the title isn't even in line with the naming conventions guideline). Obviously should not be a collection of campfire stories, but redirected to ghost story except that it is not a plausible misspelling. —Dylan Lake 00:07, 29 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:01Z

[edit] Lucy Parker (transsexual)

Lucy Parker (transsexual) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I turned down a speedy deletion request on this page a while back. After looking closely at the article though, this page is edited heavily by a User:Lucy Parker and the info in the article is overwhelmingly trivial and/or unverifiable. Whether or not one-time subjects of TV shows are worthy of inclusion has been up for debate many times before on this forum, with mixed results. However, I think we can agree that a subject mentioned in one press release (that doesn't include Lucy's last name) for an upcoming show cannot meet WP:BIO. Delete pending more coverage by reliable sources. Grandmasterka 04:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO TSO1D 04:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 04:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If she were to appear on a second program, maybe it would be a different story. Maxamegalon2000 04:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. Notable also the crystalballery therein. --Dennisthe2 04:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment should this speedy deletion tag be removed while the article remains on AfD? If not, it will likely be deleted out of process. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because it isn't a speedy. I have done so. MER-C 07:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete in my view does not meet WP:BIO -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO and is probably WP:COI. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 06:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence that subject meets WP:BIO. Being featured on one episode of a television documentary series such as Surgery Saved My Life does not grant notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 07:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Spinach Dip 10:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, but not A7, not now, not earlier. - crz crztalk 13:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If the most notable thing about you is that you are a transsexual, then you don't belong here. (Look again at the article title.) 129.98.212.73 17:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Funny you should mention that, I always thought the parenthetical was a disambiguation convention around here. --Dennisthe2 22:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete exactly as per nom. Especially since they don't even have a title for the episode yet. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --rogerd 19:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. -- Satori Son 22:22, 28 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:01Z

[edit] Xtreme world wrestling

Xtreme world wrestling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable independent wrestling federation. Gets 190 Google hits, none of which confirm notability. Its website definitely doesn't help its case. Metros232 04:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn wrestling fed. TJ Spyke 04:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 04:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, again per nom. Completely non-notable. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 06:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 07:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity, and ad. Spinach Dip 10:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, at all. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:23, 27 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 Giant squid. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:09Z

[edit] Archie (squid)

Archie (squid) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Totally non-notable and written as an advertisement for the Natural History Museum, London, an institution that hardly needs clumsy linkspam from Wikipedia. The subject of the article isn't an especially large specimen of a giant squid, nor a historically important one. It hasn't provided any unique scientific insight, and isn't the type specimen for a new species. The "Archie" name has the ring of something coined by the marketing department, and without a reference to its use by the national press is pointless. All except the first paragraph read like marketing-speak and add nothing to the value of the article. Will every stuffed bird or preserved fish deserve an article of its own on Wikipedia?

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 04:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Does not deserve its own article. This might be included in the museam's article itself, but in its own article it just sounds like an advertisement. It's blatantly POV too. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 05:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Merge Doesn't particularly read like advertising to me. I did a google search and found a number of articles referring to the specimin, including major news sources such as the BBC. Apparently this particular specimin is notable for having been caught alive, as well as its general size and condition; the organism itself is extremely rare. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4756514.stm Tarinth 06:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment from proposer. I know Wikipedia doesn't particularly respect "experts" but I happen to have been a cephalopod palaeontologist and I also know the NHM well, having done my PhD and post-doc there.[26] I've explored the modern cephalopod collection at length and am reasonably familiar with the breadth and depth of the material preserved there. There is nothing the least unusual about this specimen (the NHM has several other giant and colossal squid specimens, and these specimens lack entries on Wikipedia. Even more ridiculous, there is already a photograph of a one other museum specimen of this species on the Giant squid page already, and it doesn't have its own page! Whilst not an expert on modern squids, my understanding is that giant squid are far from rare, and there are literally hundreds if not thousands of preserved bits of giant squid in museum collections around the world. Admittedly, many are unexciting fragments taken from beached carcasses or sperm whale stomachs, for example. But the uncommon preservation of this specimen doesn't make this specimen notable. If it does, there'd need to be entries for nice but not special cuneiform tablets or Egyptian mummies! Simply because a museum is proud of a specimen doesn't make it worthy of its own article. If the thing was featured as a photograph on the Architeuthis page along with some comments on its size and preservation, that would be one thing, and as an interesting addition to the Natural History Museum page under "things to see" that would make sense too. But simply giving one, non-unique, and non-scientifically revolutionary specimen its own page just strikes me as absurd. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 06:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Neale, I can understand your viewpoint, and I agree that the article comes off as a bit silly. Nevertheless, there's some precedent for giving common human names to famous museum specimens (Lucy (Australopithecus)) and scientific specimens (Dolly the Sheep). Since news entities like the BBC have made this particular specimen well-known, it leads one to expect that a person might search for this. Tarinth 15:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Tarinth, I agree that some specimens are so special that they do have common names. I'd also agree that these specimens are so important and well-known that they deserve Wikipedia pages. I'd add to your list things like the Rosetta Stone at the British Museum and Stephenson's Rocket at the Science Museum. But this squid isn't even close to that level of importance. It's just one, nicely preserved but otherwise unremarkable, giant squid. Unlike Lucy, this squid hasn't redefined our understanding of an aspect of biology (as the article notes, because it's preserved intact, it hasn't yielded even basic information like whether it's a male or female!). It isn't the first giant squid or the largest, so it isn't notable in that way either. It's just a nice specimen; nothing more, nothing less. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 16:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is my concern--I'll take your word for it that the specimen has little or no notability within the community of cephalopod biologists; but on the other hand, there seems to be notability within the popular-science-press. I have no expertise on the subject and no particular desire to keep it around (other than that I find cephalopods extremely interesting), but what I'm attempting to do is see whether it meets Wikipedia's minimum standards. WP's standards for inclusion of an article on a named museum specimen is considerably lower than something of profound historical value such as Rosetta Stone, or even a more current example like Dolly the Sheep. I think this is an example of an article which falls into the category of "we probably don't really need it, but it meets the minimum anyway." It does seem to satisfy the minimal inclusion criteria (mentions of it in several non-trivial media sources). As a comparison, imagine if the BBC did a write-up on a new musical band; that band would easily meet notability on that basis alone, and could claim a page on Wikipedia. Because WP is not a print encyclopedia, it can be far more liberal. A compromise worthy of consideration may be to include a sentence on Archie within the giant squid article, and then change this to a Redirect. Thoughts? Tarinth 22:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tarinth! I have no argument at all with having "Archie" mentioned in the Giant Squid article. The difficulties involved in photographing, capturing, and displaying these animals are very interesting. There's an excellent book partly on this topic by Richard Ellis, The Search for the Giant Squid, that has chapters on the 'evolution' of model giant squids in museums. But the place for such discussion would be in the Giant Squid article, where there could be a proper discussion of how the first specimens were found and displayed. The Museum itself has a very nice 3D model in the marine invertebrates gallery that is one of my favourite things there. It really gives you a good idea of how big these things are! Anyway, there could be explanations of why they're not easy to find (live in deep water), recover whole (not robust, rather gloopy ammoniacal tissues), or put on display (not hard parts and no easy to 'stuff' like bird or mammal). In such a context, figuring "Archie" along with an outline of the good luck that led to its capture together with discriptions of how it is preserved and displayed would be perfectly logical. My problem is that given that this squid is otherwise completely non-notable, it justifies any museum or historical society creating a page for any specimen in their collections. While they're free to do so on their own web pages as advertisements or science communication, on Wikipedia there needs to be at least some level of discrimination, surely? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 00:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed my vote to Merge, but I'd like to see the giant squid article capture the information Neale suggested, or we'll be back here in a month after someone makes the article again because it wasn't included elsewhere (and might be shy about editing a good article like giant squid).

Comment I am against a merge, I think it should stay with its own article. At first glance everything Neale says about Archie's non-notability as a specimen seems to make sense and he certainly talks like an expert.. but the press coverage strongly suggests otherwise. I also got slightly suspicious when Neale used Archies intact state to begin a line of argument that ended with Archie being less valuable to science.. ultimately they could always open him up, and anyway in 20 years time there will likely be non-invasive methods of imaging Archie's insides. A disingenuous argument, I think. Zargulon 20:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Zargulon, press coverage is a debateable standard for the value of something being included in Wikipedia. There are presumably millions of events around the world that don't get included in the Encyclopaedia Britannica or in Wikipedia. Should there be an entry for every amusing dog or every beached whale? As for the "intact condition" of the specimen, my argument is basically this: in science, the value of something comes from the information it provides. This specimen has not yet provided anything exceptional, and since we don't even know the sex of the specimen, it has actually provided less information than the average NHM specimen that is dissected and studied more closely. Note that I'm not saying the article contains nothing of value, but I do think that it could be used more productively as material for the Giant Squid article where it can be used to illustrate the issues surrounding the exhibition of giant squids in museums. Instead of focusing on this specimen and how wonderful the NHM is (which I don't disagree with) why not explain the problems with finding specimens and why specimens such as "Archie" are so rare and thus newsworthy. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Neale, the key word which you are glossing over is yet. Your argument would treat a scientific artifact of no value the same as one so valuable that people have to prepare very carefully to analyse it. Then you say "instead of A why not B?" but there is plenty of room in Wikipedia for both A and B. Provided there is no misleading glorification of Archie, I don't see how you can begrudge a perfectly coherent and informative article. Zargulon 21:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Zargulon, there are lots of objects in museums and elsewhere that may yet yield useful information. I dare-say there are still interesting fossil hominids in the ground that are yet to be discovered, and perhaps there are letters by Dickens and sketches by Picasso lying around in attics that will tell us more about them. But they don't deserve an encyclopaedia entry until that time. I am not an expert on giant squid, but I know the NHM collections (at least during the 1990s) somewhat, and know for a fact they have lots of more material of this species as well as other large squids. The single thing that makes this specimen unusual is that it is in good condition. But it isn't unique in this regard. By all means create a section on the Giant Squid article about specimens in museums, but there's no point having an entry on just one specimen, especially when a similarly well preserved specimen in the Melbourne Aquarium is featured on the Giant Squid page! Should that specimen have a Wikipedia entry as well? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the Melbourne squid.. I'm not sure I see your point. Something can be notable but not unusual. Zargulon 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. With respect to the resident expert here, the article does assert some notable things about this squid: That it was captured alive, and that it's the best preserved whole specimen in existence. Giant squids may be numerous, but my understanding is they are nevertheless rarely seen whole even when dead, let alone alive. I would be happy if the salient facts about this squid were merged into the giant squid article or somewhere else appropriate. I don't mind seeing the article deleted as long as the relevant content still exists somewhere. As long as the content is to be found in this article, it should stay, but if it's merged somewhere else, it should be deleted. =Axlq 06:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the relevant information into giant squid. That seems best. Charlie 08:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.. there should also be reference to the media coverage. Zargulon 10:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. With due respect, I don't think a singular museum exhibit is notable on its own unless it is unique. Do the dinosaur skeletons in the Natural History Museum get their own entries? The Science Museum has lots of unusual machines, but I don't think any of them get their own entries. Also, I cannot see how anyone is going to look for information on this subject under the name of "Archie". Leave that to "Have I Got News For You". Sam Blacketer 15:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. Madman 23:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Giant squid. CyberAnth 01:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Neale Monks' second comment. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect The relevant material is already at Giant squid#Timeline with better sourcing. I see multiple publications about a single day's news event, and thus don't believe that the primary notability criteria is truly met. GRBerry 22:09, 29 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 Redirect to Tank Johnson. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:02Z

[edit] William Posey

William Posey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Subject has very, very shaky notability. He was the bodyguard to a guy who plays for the Chicago Bears--a player who had run into legal problems just a few days before. Posey's shooting death probably got a bunch of coverage for that fact, but otherwise, there's nothing that makes him notable. Metros232 04:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• strong delete - This type of news fades away quickly. It has no place in an encyclopedia. Fighting for Justice 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tank Johnson. Redirects are cheap, and it's at least mildly conceivable that someone would search for this guy. Zagalejo 05:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tank Johnson. Per above --Kevin Murray 05:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tank Johnson. The shooting incident might merit a sentence or two in that article, but it doesn't deserve its own page. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 05:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above _SUBWAYguy 05:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Zag. TSO1D 16:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. This fails the criterion of "will anyone care 10 years from now?" 129.98.212.73 17:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:20, 28 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 Redirect to ASAP Mania. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:10Z

[edit] ASAP '06

ASAP '06 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

AfD nominated by Wikiuserphil. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 05:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• yea.: i agree to wtfunkymonkey, this should be ASAP (variety show) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikomouse (talk • contribs) 07:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
• comment: from the article As to who will win in this word war, no one knows just yet.

How on Earth is it not known what will happen? This event took place over three years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if we're looking at a copyvio here. wtfunkymonkey 05:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete as failing WP:NOTE and WP:CITE, does not appear to have much in the way of third party sources. Though I do imagine that a great many could be drummed up, I am not sure if any of them would be enough to qualify it for an article on en.wikipedia.org. Additionally there are a lot of problems with the content of the article not matching the title (article should probably be named ASAP (variety show) since ASAP '06 is the name of the current season/run. If appropriate sources can be found, notability can be established, and the article is renamed and cleaned up then the article could be kept. wtfunkymonkey 05:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Needs a lot of clean-up and revamping, but I think that there is enough to call this notable. I agree that it should be moved to a different page name. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to ASAP Mania, an article of which it is an almost exact duplicate (as pointed out in this duplicate AfD). Demiurge 12:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to ASAP Mania or rename to ASAP (TV series). Take your pick. This is a legit TV show. --Howard the Duck 13:37, 30 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:05Z

[edit] Steelers vs. Browns

Steelers vs. Browns (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Browns vs. Steelers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Steelers vs Browns (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Browns vs Steelers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Browns-Steelers Rivalry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Steelers-Browns Rivalry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Cleveland Browns-Pittsburgh Steelers Rivalry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Pittsburgh Steelers-Cleveland Browns Rivalry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

The premise of this page is inherently original research and has no information about this supposed rivalry, only statistics. Prod removed by author. Also included in this AfD are three other articles which are essentially duplicates of the first one. Danny Lilithborne 04:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Unlike Yankees-Red Sox rivalry, this is unreferenced and therefore not really encyclopedic. Heimstern Läufer 04:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. TJ Spyke 04:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Completely unreferenced, non-notable, and nothing that would contribute any more to an encyclopedia than a small section would do. Even if this is decided as keep, someone should at least sort out the sprawling list, and condense all 4 pages into a single page. It doesn't deserve 4 pages... --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 05:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. MER-C 07:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. fan-cruft. Spinach Dip 10:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per all of the above. This is a fan page, not an encyclopedia article, and there is already a couple of notes about these teams at Significant rivalries in the NFL -Markeer 13:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - unencyclopedic. Moderately significant rivalry, but coverage in the NFL article cited above is quite sufficient. Fan-1967 13:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as uncyclopedic.--Yannismarou 15:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all unencyclopedic. TSO1D 16:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - per WP:ROFL. ;-) CyberAnth 01:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - Good work, guys. Let's create four (FOUR!) identical articles about some trivial football game. Wavy G 01:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all the rivalry exists, but does deserve its own (4) article. And despite the original assertions of the article, I doubt this rivalry is more important then any of the infamous ones in, say, the NFC East. I also find it interesting how the article refers to the moving of the Browns to Baltimore as "the Art Modell scandal," although that's a bit POV.-- danntm ^T _C 05:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all I love sports but this isn't much of a rivalry in the grand scheme of sports rivalries, especially now that the original Browns are the Ravens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DelPlaya (talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Author has created yet another duplicate article at Browns-Steelers Rivalry. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment He has also created another duplicate at Steelers-Browns Rivalry. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment He has now made all the articles redirects to Cleveland Browns-Pittsburgh Steelers Rivalry and created another redirect, Pittsburgh Steelers-Cleveland Browns Rivalry. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:49, 31 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:06Z

[edit] World Class curse

World Class curse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Unsourced list for a non-notable curse. "World class curse" gets about 50 Google hits, almost all of them Wikimirrors in some shape or form. Metros232 04:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom: It's unsourced, and it doesn't exactly provide a lot of context for those unfamiliar with it (yes, the latter could be fixed, but the former remains a problem). Heimstern Läufer 04:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unreferenced, and if it is neccesary to include this in an article, I think that it at most could be a section of a larger one. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 05:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Crufty. MER-C 07:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced OR. TSO1D 16:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced and original research. Does not explain the notability or context of the "curse" which is pretty unscientific to begin with. --Eqdoktor 07:23, 28 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:11Z

[edit] Danasoft Signatures

Danasoft Signatures (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable hosting service/product. I personally have never heard of this on any of the various Internet forums I frequent. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB, etc. Prod removed by User:Humowtiulun. --- RockMFR 04:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete because article fails to assert notability and doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose beyond advertising the product; however it could be a good article with a lot of work. I never heard of them either, but 161,000 hits on Google isn't insignificant. Lots of reviews (many negative) appear to have been written about this. =Axlq 07:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:CORP found on Google, may be persuaded to change if Axlq finds some. MER-C 07:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability that would satisfy criteria of WP:CORP, WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE, et cetera. -- Satori Son 06:32, 31 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:08Z

[edit] Neutomic Keyboard

Neutomic Keyboard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Brother Caine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

God is a Hermaphrodite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Who Is God (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

With a Mustache (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

On Tuesday (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Night Soil (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:NK-Band.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:NK-Show.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Live1.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:NK-BC-Photo.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:NK-GIAH-Cover.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:NK-WIG-Cover.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:NK-WAM-Cover.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:NK-OT-Cover.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:NK-NS-Cover.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Category:Neutomic Keyboard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Category:Neutomic Keyboard albums (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

This band does not meet any criteria for notability as established in Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Nor is there any semblance of citation for verifiability). The only websites mentioned as references or external links are the band's own pages, except for three of interviews, which seem (as best-case scenario) to have been conducted by a friend of the band, on a website with the same name as a Wikipedia editor, who created the page.

Also, the article on one of the members, and five of their (self-published) albums are included in this AfD. Brother Caine, God is a Hermaphrodite, Who Is God, With a Mustache, On Tuesday, Night Soil (album). And Category:Neutomic Keyboard. -Freekee 05:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable and unverified. Heimstern Läufer 05:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V with 4 non-wiki non-myspace ghits. Don't forget Category:Neutomic Keyboard albums too. MER-C 08:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable Spinach Dip 10:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC TSO1D 16:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources, fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 03:34, 28 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. Majorly (Talk) 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saga (singer)

Saga (singer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable artist. Mainstream coverage is less than 90 seconds on the Discovery Times Channel. There are claims on the talk page she has been covered in nationalist and neo-Nazi magazines, but no details are provided and I wouldn't consider them to be particularly reliable and independent sources. One Night In Hackney 04:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 90 seconds is a long time on a mainstream TV news feature. We're are not trying to establish prominence, just notability. The neo Nazi publications are not being cited as references within the article, the nominator criticizes U-Tube below, which again is not one of the references used at the article; the U-tube links are for song samples etc.. --Kevin Murray 19:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Discovery Times Channel is not "a mainstream TV news feature". WP:MUSIC states Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network, if you think that is unreasonable, then try and get the guideline changed. One Night In Hackney 23:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rebuttal I think that you are misinterpreting this section. If someone had that length of coverage they would be automatically notable. She is not automatically notable because of the Discovery documentary, but it is one solid brick in the wall. --Kevin Murray 00:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If she was interviewed on Discovery that gives some indication that she is notable. There is a link, now at the article, to the Minnesota Public Radio website where she is mentioned as an example of White Power artists. I would err on the safer side of keeping this social phenomonon.--Kevin Murray 20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC) In addition to the Discovery Channel segment, there is recognition in multiple and diverse media including: the liberal institutions: US National Public Radio and The Southern Poverty Law Center Intellegence Report and ultra conservative (reactionary) sources including: The National Alliance and Resistance Magazine. Guidelines call for non-trivial and independent sources. There is no specification that the source be independent of her political beliefs, just independent of her control. This subject should be evaluated not only based on the musical relevance, but also as being politically notable (updated) --Kevin Murray 18:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTE Kevin Murray was not involved in the article until AfD, although I have heavilly edited it since mostly for NPOV and referencing. I am not a fan of nor politically aligned with Saga etc. But I do feel that it is important that WP Standards be evenly and intellegently applied and that we be an excellent research resource. --Kevin Murray 19:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment WP:MUSIC gives guidelines on notability for music acts, she doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria. One Night In Hackney 06:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I see the notability here not strictly as a musician, but but as a representative of social movements, both in nationalism and in racism. That her notability has penetrated to the point of being mentioned on US TV and as deep within US culture as to be on Minnesota Public Radio (known as a liberal medium), is significant. Perhaps a more pertinent article would be about Swedish nationalism or Swedish neo-nazism. To me an internationally recognized Swedish neo-nazi singer is of notable concern--Kevin Murray 20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Saga hasn't been on Minnesota Public Radio. A link to the article in question [27] shows it is an interview with the owner of a Minnesota based record company, and the only mention of Saga is when the owner states There's Czech bands, Italian bands, you've got Valkyrian and you've got Saga -- female Swedish folk tunes. It's a trivial mention at best, and can't be used to argue she's notable. One Night In Hackney 21:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  Weak keep: Much revised, although I'm not entirely convinced of the notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Definitely, I agree with keeping her on wikipedia; she does have some influence in the White Power scene. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Groar! 21:56, 28 December 2006

• Comment In that case, please show evidence of the influence citing reliable sources. One Night In Hackney
• Comment Well, a few YouTube videos focus on her. Additionally, she created a tribute to Skrewdriver longer than any other band thus far (4-5 albums. Just look on such WP websites, namely MiceTrap.net and other WP music distributors). Moreover, a page for her Symphony of Sorrow project exists on Encyclopaedia Metallum (or Metal-Archives.com). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Groar! (talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

• Comment YouTube isn't a reliable source. Companies that distribute her music aren't reliable sources. At this moment, Encyclopaedia Metallum is down due to bandwidth problems, but as their site is based on user contributions any claims or her influence can't be classed as reliable, and merely having an album listed on there doesn't make her notable. One Night In Hackney 02:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence that artist "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." -- Satori Son 03:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• The criterion cited by Satori Son is only one among several within a list at WP:MUSIC where the instructions clearly specify: "meets any one of the following criteria:" This gaff is probably due to haste. The subject qualifies on other criteria within the list. --Kevin Murray 06:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Which ones? She doesn't appear to meet any of them. One Night In Hackney 06:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The subject does not meet any of the optional criteria. I refuse to presuppose what Kevin Murray's gaff is due to. -- Satori Son 06:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• OK, now Satori has stated his case, albeit defensivly. Before he wanted to hang on one criterion now he cites all criteria - talk about covering all of the bases! Please specify why you don't think that the author(s) have met the criteria. Let's talk some specifics, if you're not too busy --Kevin Murray 07:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Two words explain it best - reliable sources. There are no reliable sources to verify she meets any of the criteria. One Night In Hackney 07:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes we have three five reliable sources that demonstrate that she is recognized internationally as a symbol of racism and intolerance -- thus notable. More than that, she is a snake-in-the-grass due to her ability to "come across as the girl-next-door" and alternatively the "Swedish Madonna of the far right." This is not about just a singer; it's about a potentially dangerous social phenomenon. Please stop micro lawyering and look at the big-picture --Kevin Murray 07:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Three reliable sources? The Minnesota Radio show has been discounted above, it does not assert notability. Second reference is exactly the same. It's an interview from a far right radio show (of unknown broadcast status), where her name is mentioned in one sentence, and does not assert notability. That only leaves the incredibly short clip from Discovery, which does not assert notability. One Night In Hackney 08:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hackney, you are starting to cite your own statements of opinion as sources of reference. You have stated above your concern about the sourcese, but you can't cite your own opinions as "discounting" the credibilty of the source -- this is circular logic. You seem to be losing objectivity here. --Kevin Murray 08:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No, I'm just not the one saying that simply because Saga is mentioned in passing on a couple of radio station by people who run record companies that distribute her music (which are therefore not independent, and are not reliable sources) she is notable. If you wish to carry on this charade, I suggest first reading WP:RS, WP:V, WP:MUSIC and especially using extremist sources. Extremist sources can only be used as primary sources, and articles may use primary sources, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources. Without independent third party sources, there's no way of proving she's notable. And yet again not one of the sources (be they credible or otherwise) made any assertion of notability that she meets any of the criteria for WP:MUSIC. One Night In Hackney 08:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• As the various criteria at WP:RS, WP:V, WP:MUSIC are merely guidelines, we must look to the overarching spirit of Wikipedia, especially when someone's notability crosses among genres and borders. In this case Saga is more than a musician, she is a symbol within an international cult. By your own statement above her "distributors" are getting her press in the US, as far reaching as the ultra-liberal Public Radio and the reactionary National Alliance, with a significant interview on Discovery Channel in the middle, which is a big deal on this side of the Pond. How can you question the independence of Public Radio and Discovery Channel? What is the risk of inclusion? Again, this seems to be mirco lawyering to win a point --Kevin Murray 09:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment WP:V is policy, it is not a guideline. Re we must look to the overarching spirit of Wikipedia, especially when someone's notability crosses among genres and borders, quite possibly so proving there is evidence that the person is actually notable which you have consistently failed to show thus far. I can't put this any simpler for you, stop saying she's notable and produce some evidence that she is! Any further comments from you without this evidence will be summarily ignored, I'm done feeding the troll. One Night In Hackney 09:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• You cite Verifiability as the policy, you have three five verifiable source -- that is fact. --Kevin Murray 09:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• You say the sources are insufficient, that is subjective - your opinion! --Kevin Murray 09:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Calling me a troll is getting personal. Not appropriate. --Kevin Murray 09:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Its an awfully written article with no references, and notable surely means more than "has more than 5 fans". 58.7.0.146 09:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• 58.7.0.146 has blank user and discussion pages. SPA? Sockpuppet? Admin should check for multiple vote offense --Kevin Murray 21:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. So far, all of the reasons listed supporting deletion are satirical, and seem to be attacking the singer's political views, rather than her notoriety. Saga is an important singer of a music sub-culture and should be kept. A simple democratic vote may not be fair, as people who are too emotional or opinionated politically may allow their own personal opinions to sway their votes. -Wikischmedia 16:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I added several sources, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and an interview with Resistance Magazine. With every passing day, there is a better case being made to keep Saga on Wikipedia. The satirical, and hateful "has more than 5 fans" comments do not help the discussion. --Wikischmedia 17:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment So far, all the reaons against deletion have failed to produce a single verifiable reliable source that Saga is notable, and repeatedly misrepresent the content of the articles they have linked to and ignore Wikipedia guidelines and policies at will. If she is an important singer, please produce evidence to support this. Not one of the sources suggests she is notable. The Southern Poverty Law Centre merely has her in a list of over a hundred acts, with no information apart from her name. That isn't a source, other than to prove she actually exists. Please produce sources that assert notability. If she is notable as you allege, you should be able to produce sources to support this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by One Night In Hackney (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

• Missing the Point Hackney continues to miss the point or try to throw the discussion off track with non sequitur discussion and ad hominem conclusions. Focusing on Saga as only a singer ignores the political symbolism for which she is most notable. The perponderance of sources makes Hackney's arguments about the weaknesses of several irrelevant. By the heated level of discussion here and vandalism at the article, it appears that the Saga issue is controvercial enough to qualify by that alone. If you look back to the Notability guidelines, there is very little specification of what makes media mention notable; the concern is mostly that the medium be independent and that the mention be non-trivial. When the US Southern Poverty Law Center puts published a list including a Swedish singer, along with an article expressing deep concern on a list of concerns, that is notable from a highly credible liberal source, not to mention public radio. Hackney may not respect the neo-conservative press, but they are independent of Saga herself, and are discussing her clearly in more than a trivial way. Hackney seems to be taking this to a level of prosecution rather than nomination --Kevin Murray 00:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Misrepresenting the content yet again They are not "discussing her clearly in more than a trivial way" [28]. She is not discussed, she is a name on a lengthy list with no context. Not one "source" (and I use that term loosely) asserts notability. The Southern Poverty Law Centre didn't "put a Swedish singer on a list of concerns", the article clearly states it was a list provided to them. I strongly suggest an administrator thoroughly reviews this debate and disregards the constant blatant inaccuracies clearly made in bad faith by Kevin Murray. One Night In Hackney 00:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)}

The more that you contribute the more you prove my point. You seem emotionally charged by this subject, lending further creedance to the assertion of the subject's implied notability. --Kevin Murray 00:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If she was ONLY listed on the SPLC's list of White Power bands, with no other sources, I'd agree that she wouldn't be notable. But the fact that SPLC thinks she's a worth warning people about, and that Discovery Channel interviewed her suggests to me that she's notable and will probably only become more so. Tarinth 18:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

* Keep as obviously notable based on coverage on:

• (a) a prominent cable television show as well as
• (b) Minnesota Public Radio
• (c) designation by Southern Poverty Law Center as a White Power band (I don't think SPLC is in the business of denoting neo-nazi garage bands...)

All are clearly verifiable, reliable sources. I find the subject of this article despicable, but that is not a reason to exclude her. Tarinth 17:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Yet again, (b) and (c) are not coverage. Minnesota Public Radio did not cover her. Her name was mentioned in one sentence during an interview with the owner of a Minnesota based record company. The Southern Poverty Law Centre did not designate her as anything, please read the articles before making grandiose and factually incorrect claims. One Night In Hackney 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Oops. I forgot to sign in when I wanted to keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Groar! (talk • contribs) 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

• Comment This editor has already stated Keep much earlier. One Night In Hackney 04:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I wrote to Groar to suggest that he come back to sign his prior "Keep", the second Keep was apparently his reposnse and should not be counted as a second Keep. --Kevin Murray 07:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Source

"White off the scale", Guardian - Observer Music Monthly, Sunday January 22, 2006. Research for this topic is time consuming because the name "Saga" is such a common word. This article I found this morning is from an undisputable non-trivial and independent source. --Kevin Murray 21:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Quotation from Article:

"Some white power websites list a 'Nazi Top Ten' - Viking is a regular chart-topper. Frequently appearing in the same hit parade is another racialist chanteuse called Saga - or the 'Swedish Madonna of the far right' as she's been nicknamed thanks to her stunning looks. Her philosophy, she told me simply, was: 'I just don't want people that are not like me around me.' We met in Stockholm, where she was feted in the streets by skinheads. She has deliberately concocted a 'mainstream' look - not for her the 'skin-girl' haircut and bovver boots - despite her celebrity status in the white power underground. She's immaculately coiffed and made up - and alludes to something terrible happening to her in her past, that she won't talk about explicitly, which turned her towards the politics of hate.

Saga flew secretly to the UK to play a white power concert in yet another run-down former mining town in the north of England. Most gigs are arranged surreptitiously through a series of mobile phone calls, like football hooligan rucks. Those in the know phone their mates, and then they phone their mates, and so on until everyone in the white power scene knows where and when the latest gig will be.

Saga's biggest thrill is giving the Nazi salute to her fans. I watch while a moshpit of smitten British skinheads salute her back - including a child aged about eight. 'Raising your right arm is like - we all do that, you know, to greet each other,' she says later. 'They greet me and I greet them. It is a victory salute. For me, it is a really honourable thing to do. There is a lot of honour in doing that.

At gigs such as the one played by Saga in Britain, all profits from merchandising and ticket sales go to the BNP. 'You do something to make a difference,' she says. 'I sing because that's what I do. If I was any good at politics I would probably do that, but I am not so I am doing my bit the musical way.

• Comment I don't think anyone can seriously challenge The Guardian as a reliable source. I think this puts her well over the minimum bar for WP:BIO. Tarinth 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I received a note on my talk page asking me to please review the newly sourced article, and I do agree now that reliable sources have been found to verify the article's contents and establish a bare minimum of notability. I have stricken my "Delete" opinion above. Nice job to Wikischmedia and others who worked hard on this one! -- Satori Son 03:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

* Comment Kevin Murray is the one to thank. I found a couple of sources, but I couldn't have dreamed the article would expand to over a page in length. If you look at the article's history, a mere month ago it was only 2 lines, with no sources. Amazing. --Wikischmedia 03:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment An interview which you have never read and do not know the content of [29] is not a source, and has been removed from the article. One Night In Hackney 04:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Saga appears on the cover of Resistance Magazine, which is visible on the webpage; the article is linked to that visual. Another editor referred to the interview, but that has now been removed and only the reference to the cover page remains. Hackney should not have removed the entire discussion and reference. However, Hackney also removed the reference to the Jewish Defense League which mentions Saga at it's webpage. I think that an editor in opposition to an article should not be removing references without discussion. --Kevin Murray 07:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2005-06 in English football. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:12Z

[edit] The Football League 2005-06

The Football League 2005-06 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The same tables can be found at 2005-06 in English football. I've noticed that the English football seasons list tables for all 4 divisions until about 1974 when they stop.Surge79uwf 05:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Do you plan on deleting all the prmier league seasons? Kingjeff 05:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No since they already have their own pages. What we could do is limit the season pages to Football League tables (i've noticed 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 are missing tables), and only optionally include the Premiership tables or link to them. Surge79uwf 05:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect - copy the tables back into the 2005-06 in English football page, and then there's no need at all for this article. And yes, I would be leaning to delete the Premier League season-by-season articles as well. Other than the league tables, everything else is best left to RSSSF. - fchd 08:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per fchd. I too would delete the Premier League season by season articles. Jcuk 14:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Question: Why don't you do that then? Kingjeff 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:21, 28 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. --Coredesat 22:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baroque metal

Baroque metal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This was kept with consensus to merge last time. However, original research can not really be merged anywhere. This is a non-notable and unverifiable term. All the supposed "key artists" are power metal bands. 3490 Google hits altogether is very low for a supposed musical genre and the only incoming wikilinks are from the previous Afd discussion and List of genres of music: A-F. Prolog 05:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per last AfD. The only reason it survived is because the consensus was to merge. Unsourced OR cannot be saved, thus it must be purged. It's been nearly a year and the article has still not been improved since the last AfD. wtfunkymonkey 06:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: unsourced and unverified. Heimstern Läufer 06:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Unsourced, unverified, and sounds just too overlapping with power metal. --Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • See my edits!)} 11:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - originial researc, unverified, etc etc. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:08, 27 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. WP:BIO requires multiple independent sources, and regardless of its triviality, one is not multiple. --Coredesat 22:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Susan Molloy Owens

Susan Molloy Owens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Prodded as non-notable, unsourced, possible hoax. De-prodded without comment. Some assertions, but no sources, have been added so original reasons for tagging remain. Pleclech 06:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: apparently not a hoax; see the university website. But there is nothing to suggest sufficient notability here. Heimstern Läufer 06:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep She is not a hoax. I found an award for her which is cited at the site, but it sounds like she teaches some pretty basic skills. --Kevin Murray 06:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete She doesn't appear to be notable. TJ Spyke 06:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability established. MER-C 08:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just an instructor doing her job like thousands of others. Unless the coincidences in the last paragraph are statistically significant, there is nothing in this article to justify a wikipedia article. (And speaking as someone who was born on the same day as his father 19 years later, you can guess my feelings there!) Emeraude 13:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - But this means I want an article about my teaching, thesis, and several publications too! But seriously, the article lacks good establishment of notability. To the author(s): are there any sources I am missing? CyberAnth 01:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, albeit not a hoax, no notability. SkierRMH 12:01, 28 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:09Z

[edit] Eternity Theory

Eternity Theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Reads like an essay--not encyclopedic. I can't find any reference to an "Eternity Theory". Glendoremus 06:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Without references, it seems like Original Research to me. And the claim that Agnostics "support" this theory is dubious too. =Axlq 07:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. To quote from the article, "no evidence exists to support this concept". Indeed. Serpent's Choice 08:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original Research. Possible hoax. Spinach Dip 10:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Full of flawed logic. If justification for an article is that "no evidence exists to support this concept, (but) believers argue that there is no evidence to disprove it" then we are in serious trouble. Emeraude 13:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR essay. TSO1D 16:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I suspect that the idea of so-called eternity theory is discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia. (Try cosmology.) 129.98.212.73 18:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's found at Steady state theory. The idea is completely discredited since Penzias and Wilson. Delete -- Bpmullins | Talk 23:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources given despite request. Gazpacho 06:01, 29 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. --Coredesat 22:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HBG Prangins

HBG Prangins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Yet another unremarkable tower. Contested prod. MER-C 06:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as the article does not even assert notability. Charlie 08:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Extremely non-notable. Spinach Dip 10:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's not reallyi a tower article as a facility article. -Freekee 19:46, 27 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:10Z

[edit] Like a Boy

Like a Boy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The article is essentially one statement, indicating that a song of this title is "rumored to be the next single" off of Ciara's album, but it's "uncertain"... no WP:RS are found indicating that this is nothing more than a rumor of some sort. Appears to be a contested PROD for whatever reason, so brought here.

• Delete as WP:NOT a crystal ball, especially one that contains unsourceable information. No prejudice to recreation if this is indeed confirmed from a reliable source (i.e., not her Myspace). --Kinu ^t/_c 06:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. =Axlq 07:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom> MER-C 08:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No rush, it'll be created when it is released. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ciara: The Evolution. Unsourced crystal balling. —ShadowHalo 22:31, 28 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:12Z

[edit] That's Right

That's Right (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Much like the article above, this article consists of a couple of unsourced statements indicating that a song of this title "is most likely to be the next single" off of Ciara's album (which kind of contradicts the statement at similarly unsourced Like A Boy). Again, no WP:RS are found indicating that this is nothing more than speculation based on non-final results of a poll at her Myspace page. Appears to be a contested PROD for whatever reason, so brought here. Delete as WP:NOT a crystal ball, especially one that contains unsourceable information. No prejudice to recreation if this is indeed confirmed from a reliable source (i.e., not her Myspace). --Kinu ^t/_c 06:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I separated the two AfDs for liability purposes... i.e., maybe one might have some sort of WP:RS, but it's hard to say based on what I could find. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons above. =Axlq 07:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 08:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I have sprotected the page because anons keep removing the AfD tag. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:08, 31 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:14Z

[edit] Pisces (notable persons)

Pisces (notable persons) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Gemini (notable persons) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Cancer (notable persons) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Aquarius (notable persons) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Aries (notable persons) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

This is a simple list of links intended to include one-twelfth of all Wiki-biographies — i.e., entirely free from information, ludicrously broad in scope, and based on an utterly meaningless random criterion. Previously proposed deletion was accepted without objection, but the article was silently recreated (note blank talk page). Recommend deletion and blank-page protection. ➥the Epopt 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. One-twelfth of the entire population? Delete as an indiscriminate list. Also, there are, not surprisingly, other lists floating around:

• Gemini (notable persons)
• Cancer (notable persons)
• Aquarius (notable persons)
• Aries (notable persons)
• Taurus (notable persons)

The other signs of the zodiac ought to receive pre-emptive salting if this passes. --Calton | Talk 07:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - arbitary indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 08:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and someone should AFD the others, and salt the remaining. Charlie 08:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable and inherently POV (that eternal problem of "who decides who is notable?"). I agree the others should be proposed for speedy depending on the outcome here -Markeer 13:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, the others should be combined with this nom. Or is Aries more notable than Taurus? --Dhartung | Talk 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Your horoscope for today: avoid rainclouds and don't take any wooden nickels, and try not to be upset if the Wikipedia article about you is deleted. >Radiant< 17:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. This is such a no brainer, I'm not even sure what to say. 129.98.212.73 18:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, speculative. Punkmorten 21:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, can this be serious? CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete completely arbitrary scope, no added value.-- danntm ^T _C 16:14, 28 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. --Coredesat 22:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keron Thomas

Keron Thomas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non notable, prod tag removed with no justification One Night In Hackney 06:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• These past procedural matters are irrelevant to the discussion of AfD. Are you trying to say that the article is guilty of misbehaving? --Kevin Murray 18:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable in that the MTA changed several internal policies as a result of this incident and tightened policies of restricted access to crew areas. also the figure is relevant as a teenager with misguided zeal, similar to farris hassan (the teen who left florida for iraq) or mathias rust, who flew a cessna from Finland to Russia in 1987. User:hockeyman001. prod tag removed because article was under edit at time tag was originally applied, article subsequently expanded to current size. citations needed.

• Keep per Hockeyman001; remembered even 10 years on: [30] Kimchi.sg 07:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Notable, BUT this will fall under living biography WP:LIVING, will need to find external sources to verify all the info listed here asap. Especially given that this article states that he was arrested for attempted murder a few years later - without citing any sources. If the article is not fixed by the end of AFD discussion period, delete --Eqdoktor 10:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sounds like a notable person, but a lot of unsourced statements in the article. I marked it as {{unsourced}} and I think time would be better spent attempting to enhance an article like this rather than make an AfD. Tarinth 17:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I took it to AfD after the prod tags were removed (with no edit summary or explanation), as they aren't supposed to be removed until the issues raised have been addressed. I still don't regard this person as notable, he's just a typical "Dead Donkey" filler news story. One Night In Hackney 17:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• These past procedural matters are irrelevant to the discussion of AfD. --Kevin Murray 18:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but wikify and get more sources and references Alf photoman 17:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I added a source and clarified the other. We now have a recent NY Times article and a 1993 Associated Press article - this makes two non-trivial accounts. Regardless of the silly aspects, it meet the notability guidelines. --Kevin Murray 18:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable enough for a brief mention in a non-paper encyclopedia. CyberAnth 02:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I feel some people are seeing this back to front. The points being put forward are along the lines of "well he was in the newspaper, therefore he's notable", whereas I think his actions weren't very notable in the first place. The only possible part of WP:BIO he comes close to meeting is Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated., and stealing a train seems a long, long way from assassination in my opinion. One Night In Hackney 03:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  Isn't that taking the guideline a little too rigidly? He's notable enough to be remembered by the media after 10 years. He was mentioned mostly in 1993 for the train thing, again in 1994 for stabbing, and again compared to others in 2003 for his "daredevil-ness". Has survived the "test of time", so to speak. Kimchi.sg 03:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not taking the guideline rigidly at all, in fact I made it clear there was room for manoeuvre. I wouldn't say "remembered by the media" is a particularly accurate statement either, one website of unclear importance doesn't qualify your statement. One Night In Hackney 04:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If the Gothamist doesn't satisfy, surely the New York Times does. And that's a even more recent article. Kimchi.sg 04:17, 28 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. — Lost^(talk) 13:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Named passenger trains in India

Named passenger trains in India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Abandoned by its creator (hadn't been edited since December 15), and as it stands, gives no information at all, and even if fleshed out, is likely to be a list of little practical value. Delete. (I considered speedy deleting it as basically an empty article, but I thought it better to submit it for community consensus. --Nlu (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Give it more time to be worked on, It's the holiday season. DXRAW 07:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the subject's notability is not asserted, nor is the subject suggested by the title even discussed in the article! Also, I appreciate the sentiment that editors not being online because of major religious holidays should be taken into account, but I can't say I support the idea of temporarily suspending WP policies for the holidays. Not everyone is Christian, and it's pretty much a holiday season for some religion all year.Charlie 08:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. The article is two sentences long, with no actual content or information. The essence of an "empty article" that does not respond to its title. If the original editor (or anyone else) wants to write this article, a speedy will not prejudice against recreation, and there would certainly be no significant loss of prior effort. Serpent's Choice 08:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Good point - so tagged. Charlie 08:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• This article is a result of a wrong move. A template talk page (created by my bot) was moved to the current title. I am speedy deleting the article — Lost^(talk) 13:40, 27 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 Redirect to Ten Commandments. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:13Z

[edit] Revelation at Sinai

Revelation at Sinai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Still listed as under construction, but no conceivable content that is not already more than adequately covered by other articles, I think. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• KeepDelete. Article was created less than 2 weeks ago, and the author may be on a holiday break, so I would have personally waited a month before proposing this for AfD. =Axlq 07:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Axlq: Any editor is free to work on an article in the sandbox, but the fact is that many don't ever get around to finishing (or in this case, starting) the work. When there IS an article on this subject, the article can be recreated. In the meantime, this is not an article and editors should not be "parking" article names. -Markeer 13:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point. I changed my vote above. =Axlq 14:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteunless notably expanded by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Perhaps redirect to Ten Commandments, which are the laws given at the Revelation of Mount Sinai. A section might be added to Ten Commandments to establish its context in the Biblical narrative. 129.98.212.73 18:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ten Commandments - no need to have two articles about the same event.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:31, 28 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 Redirect to Custom Robo. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 04:15Z

[edit] Rahu I

Rahu I (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

When I came across it while cleaning up the list of articles under construction, I went, "Huh?" Right now, it's utterly incomprehensible, and even if rewritten, I can't see how this is going to be encyclopedic or sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It appears to be a Robo (mech) from the game Custom Robo. It's just a minor one though. TJ Spyke 07:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, minor game character. MER-C 08:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Boardering on game-guide. Spinach Dip 10:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Custom Robo? Anthony Appleyard 10:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Extremely minor character. --- RockMFR 16:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)