Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 18

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 has gone on long enough. Painting in very broad strokes: on the one hand, we have a vast number of editors who argue persuasively that this article does (and must by its nature) consist of unverifiable claims, original research, and no reliable sources. On the other hand, we have a slightly smaller number of editors who argue that this article should be kept for various reasons: (1) That Wikipedia has a duty to not delete articles about any entity criticizing it, (2) that various editors who favor deletion are acting in bad faith, and (3) since we have other articles that are similar to this one, it's unfair to delete this one. Those three "keep" arguments are all spectacularly unpersuasive, and (for the most part) do not address the objections raised to the article other than to assert their falsity. Added to this we have the spectacle of solicitation and/or spamming for keep votes. I have no opinion on Encyclopedia Dramatica — never having heard of it before tonight — but I am using my discretion and bringing this to a close, so we can hopefully all move on. Nandesuka 05:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopædia Dramatica

This article has been created under different spellings: The first AfD: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Encyclopedia_Dramatica resulted in delete. Article was recreated under a different spelling. 2nd spelling: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica resulted in keep, 3rd spelling: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopaedia_Dramatica resulted in no consensus. (This AfD uses the same spelling as the 2nd 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}}

This site does not appear notable (WP:WEB) outside of a rather limited sub-community. Additionally this article falls well foul of WP:V and is likely in conflict with WP:NOR. As well, it is very likely that this article meets the requirements for vanity deletion (see the specific vanity reason on WP's deletion policy) as there are very likely editors who edit on Encyclopædia Dramatica who concurrently edit the Wikipedia article that corresponds to it (in conflict of interest). This site appears to only be geared as an attack site and lately the article has become a bit of an attack page, that in combination with it's lack of notability and vanity problems merits a deletion. (→Netscott) 01:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin(s): Please refrain from merely counting keep or delete "votes" in determining consensus on whether this article should be kept or not. Please take the time necessary to read the arguments for and against deletion including discussion on the talk page of this AfD and properly evaluate said arguments in deciding the outcome of this AfD. Thanks. (→Netscott) (→Netscott) 05:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. (→Netscott) 21:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep ED is going to be the new GNAA. SchmuckyTheCat 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  That, in and of itself is grounds to speedy the article.--MONGO 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. Whether the GNAA or ED the site is liked/not liked is irrelevant. That article has proven it's notable in the fact that it survived 18+ deletion attempts. It's notable for better or worse.. rootology 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  MONGO, you have very unorthodox standards for deletion. This particular one does not comply with Wp policy. Karwynn (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Already established notability once and twice. No new evidence or reasons provided. Karwynn (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as notability to a large audience, see Maddox, Tucker Max, Animorphs, Last House on the Left, Livejournal; I could go on forever! Karwynn (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Article's WP:V and WP:NOR problems are being cleaned up as we speak! Karwynn (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Animorphs is about a series of nationally published books (not to mention toyline and television series), and Last House on the Left is about a nationally released film that has had significant impact upon horror film studies, as well as being produced by one of horror's foremost directors, Wes Craven. Your other examples are more apt, but those two are quite silly comparisons.--SB | T 06:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • If you are trying to argue for notability please provide some proper citations and not self-referential links. Thanks. (→Netscott) 21:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Please take note that the Alexa traffic ranking of Wikitruth, a purely anti-Wikipedia site, is 74,000ish. ED is 24,000th ranking. Which is more notable thus? rootology 06:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I started Talk:Encyclopædia_Dramatica#Facts_with_sources with lists of facts and their sources. I am hoping people will add to it. It seems prodcutive to me. --Bouquet 22:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • See (already linked) previous deletions, notability established by precedent UNLESS you have something new to say. Which so far, you don't. Karwynn (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Not only is the site not notable, it is also a massive violation of WP:V. --Hipocrite 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Funny, we seem to be able to come with sources for every dispute. WHy not let the dispute ride out first? Karwynn (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Not a single provided source has been a strong WP:RS - the provided sources were all to the site itself, or to old adminstrative pages on Wikipedia. There is nothing verifiable about this article. --Hipocrite 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Why aren't you discussing it in the talk page then? I've seen nothing recently from you as far as reliability goes. Karwynn (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I was very clear that wikipedia was not reliable, and that the site itself is of questionable reliability. I was clear that the livejournal hacking is totally unreferences. I was clear that you pulling out some themes you thought were notable as themes was WP:OR. You are ignoring this - because you like to wikifight. This ends my discussion with you. --Hipocrite 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Said livejournal hacking mention was removed from the article minutes ago. We are in agreement. Karwynn (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - violates WP:V and WP:NOR (and does not seem feasible to cleanup the article, see the talk page....) --≈ jossi ≈ 21:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is only here to tell people about the emotic and vain world of LiveJournal, and MySpace. I do not believe Wikipedia is for whining, so do it at Encyclop*dia Dramatica next time. --UNKNOWNFILE 02:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Not feasible? Why not let us try first, and see how we do? That seems more in line with the Wikispirit. Karwynn (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting attitude about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, read the archives... --≈ jossi ≈ 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm quite familiar with them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Although article is being vandalised by Wikipedia admins ~ IICATSII 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well I'm certainly not an admin and I'm not "vandalizing" the article. (→Netscott) 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, then he obviously isn't talking about you :-) He means MONGO, I would guess. Karwynn (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed, his conduct on this matter is not becoming of a Wikipedia admin. ~ IICATSII 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • This is a pretty serious allegation -- can you provide some specific links?--A. B. 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Review this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#How_to_report_abusive_admin_editing.3F_.2F_updated_with_details, and also note that MONGO stated on Tony Sidway's talk page that he would work to get this article removed from WP immediately before all this began. rootology 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep I think the progress in the talk pages is looking good. People are coming to consensus and inserting sources for material. Additionally, I think ED easily meets WP:WEB. Everyone is putting effort forth to create an encyclopedic article, I have faith in the process. --Bouquet 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep As mentioned this has been blocked from deletion twice, proving notability. Every point contested so far has been cited and proven, or is still up for dispute. Consider deletion request in possible bad faith/bias. Also, even if nearly every part of this article were legitimately removed, it is still just as notable as all these similar articles (just a small sample of similar articles on "niche market" wiki projects):

The_Psychology_Wiki, Jurispedia, Mac_Guide, Open_Source_Reiki, OpenFacts, OrthodoxWiki, PSConclave, PeanutButterWiki, Personal_Telco, ProductWiki, Quicksilver_wiki, Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy_Wiki, Star_Trek_Gaming_Universe, State_Wiki, and Symbolwiki.

Definite keep per all of this. rootology 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken about all the other articles. Having said that, we've got some set criteria for notability and I think we should stick with them until these rules are changed by consensus. I'm not saying this out of some slavish devotion to rules; I respect the fact they are formed by a broader consensus and are our best bulwark against a much busier, messier and more subjective deletion process. (In the meantime, maybe we've just been handed a working list of wiki-related articles for PROD tags.) --A. B. 18:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, perhaps speedy as a blatant WP:POINT violation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In Nettscott's defense, he wasn't involved in this before his nomination. More like an ill-informed nomination than a WP:POINT ciolation, it seems like. Karwynn (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and my worst fears are proving true...even SchmuckyTheCat who may or may not be also a SysOp at at encyclopedia dramatica sums up my fears with his comment above "ED is going to be the new GNAA". Wikipedia is not here to promote that website and many editors from there are now going to come here to filibuster this vote. The page is anarchy, the supportors of the wesbite editing it are nothing but trolls for the most part, and the article is a slap in wikipedia's face. I can see no reason at this time for this article to exist...it violates original research, has virtually no reliable sources and is being used as a soapbox for their own promotional agenda, which violates what wikipedia is not. Use a MOAB on this thing and send any remains to Yucca Mountain.--MONGO 21:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  Removing article is unneeded. If there is a problem with some content, then delete that content. Articles referencing WP are a small minority on ED. Most are about Livejournal. Even if the article exists only as a stub it is of no less merit than related stubs I listed in my vote. rootology 22:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. As the purpose of this site appears to be an attack on Wikipedia and/or certain Wikipedians, and consdiering the other reasons cited by MONGO, it needs to go. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Attacking Wikipedia is a small part of this site. Also, there are articles like Criticism of Wikipedia. Karwynn (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

    Is there an unspoken rule about linking to sites that have any kind of negative view of Wikipedia or it's users, even in a small minority of their content? If so perhaps this should be pushed as a Policy change to make it thus, rather than a possibly bad faith deletion request. rootology 22:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep as per Rootology. Since when has it been against policy to list those that criticize WP? Blatant home field POV.  T.K.  ^TALK  22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • We delete attack articles. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As we should. This is not an attack article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • This editor has admited on his userpage that he is a SysOp at encyclopedia dramatica. Painly put, Badlydrawnjeff's POV here should be obvious. The article may not NOW be an attack article but it certain was just yesterday. I can find little rationale to allow these people to use wikipedia resources to promote their hostile website.--MONGO 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Um, people are not prohibited from having POVs, only articles are. And it's not like you don't have a conflict of interest here either, having been mocked by the site. Karwynn (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It wasn't one yesterday, either, actually. You might actually want to do a tiny bit of research before blowing things out of proportion in the future. Your repeated violations of policy during this charade the last couple days has been noted by more than one person, and your personal investment in this should also be noted. If this is how you treat people who defended you on the talk page, I'd sure hate to be your enemy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Please provide a diff link proving the ED Wikipedia article was an attack article. Also, is it against the rules or policies of WP to be an admin at ED as well? Please cite this policy. Also, "Painly put, Badlydrawnjeff's POV here should be obvious." As is yours, as stated (citing you here for clarity/relevance, not a policy violation--DO NOT EDIT MY COMMENT, original link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=64453125:

        • I agree...problem it, it has been through two or three attempts to delete it. I may redirect it later on, or make it so insignificant, it won't be a troll magnet as it is now. I'll wait until they remove their nonsense from the mainpage and we then lift the protection. Then the article will be fixed once and for all. They think they will win, but policy is on the side of wikipedia.--MONGO 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

        • I contend this whole vote is done (ultimately) in bad faith... rootology 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Define how this is an attack article. It links to a site with SOME pages that attack WP. Wikitruth still exists however, is much more detailed, and links to a site dedicated to trashing Wikipedia completely. I call bias based on the MONGO/ED incident. rootology 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • NOT an attack article! Just because a site links to pages that criticize/attack WP does not mean they should lose their listing! The article as it stands is a collection of factual information, with no bias or attack as far as i can tell. Which is what a WP article should be.  T.K.  ^TALK  22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • How interesting that you yourself are using the word "attack". (→Netscott) 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, the site clearly says it is 'parody/satire' so why would the rest of the site beconsidered parody but the wikipedia parts be considered serious attacks? Can't have it both ways. Either the site is serious, which means we can use the statements on it as fact. Or it's not, which means we cannot trust what it says and therefor it is not attacking, merely parody/satire/etc like uncyclopedia--Bouquet 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. per nom and Dalbury. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no one will take us seriously if we delete our critics. Verifiability is possible for some version of this article, don't take the nuclear option for what should be an editing dispute. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I seriously doubt anyone takes Encyclopædia Dramatica to be a site geared towards "criticism" of Wikipedia... it's all about attacking... is that not obvious? (→Netscott) 22:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not obvious because it's not correct. It's all about humor! There's plenty of articles in there that aren't attacking, or even sensical at alL! Read the website, you'll see what I mean. Karwynn (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Rootology.--Nosmik 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. My view on this is that there are some subjects--Daniel Brandt, Encyclopedia Dramatica, and Wikipedia Review being chief amongst them--on which we cannot expect to write dispassionately and neutrally. We're better off concentrating on the production of a high quality encyclopedia that omits those few subjects on which we should clearly disqualify ourselves from commenting as if we were neutral parties. In these cases we are not.--Tony Sidaway 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That would make sense, it it didn't rely on the premise that having a WP article about something is an endorsement of the subject, but it's not. See Flying Spaghetti Monster. NO one takes that seriously either. Karwynn (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yet Daniel Brandt still has an article. Why shouldn't ED? rootology 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I know I could write dispassionately about these topics, although I would certainly be edited mercilessly afterwards by various partisans. I'm sure there a zillion other Wikipedia edotrs that could also.--A. B. 18:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete-The website does not offer "criticism" of wikipedia, just lowbrow and slanderous attacks (Jimbo is a pedophile, etc). Brandt's Wiki-watch is more constructive then this site. Clearly self published and original research. 205.157.110.11 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Anons can't vote, correct? Karwynn (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• keep-The website is notable.

• • • This isn't a vote. --Merovingian 22:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • • Anons can comment, just as anyone else can, and a well argued anon comment can swing a debate. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Biased-target soliciation was sent out by User:Funcionar, drive by, starting at 22:30. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, no valid reasons for deletion, especially having articles about various other run-of-the mill wikis of significantly lesser importance. — Jul. 18, '06 [22:32] <freak|talk>
• Speedy keep Quite notable, though current article does need some cleanup. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, along with other articles about unimportant websites. This page is more promotional for ED than informative for our readers. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per rootology, and de-list as soon as possible. I HEAR THE TROLLS A-COMIN'!!! --Merovingian 22:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Recived biased solicitation. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I did, but I voted the other way. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep No valid reason for deletion. Clearly notable, and useful. Sure it should be cleaned up and improved, but that's no reason for deletion. I might go as far as to say this AfD was proposed in bad faith. --Jmax- 22:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Jmax, Rootology, and others. --CharlotteWebb 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not seeing the notability. --Pboyd04 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Recived biased solicitation, but voted the other way. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Where are you seeing this? Please prove and cite each instance where you say this. rootology 23:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The spam message was, "Please come to Encyclopædia Dramatica to help vote in the deletion" [1] which sounds more like it's supporting the deletion. The account that generated all of the spam has been indef. blocked and I've reverted all of the spam. (→Netscott) 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I see a user asked for people to comment, but not to comment either way. Is it biased to simply draw attention to a vote's existence? As I named you as well in my complaint I think you need to recuse yourself a bit. This is silly and biased on your part. rootology 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Targets were selected for obvious reasons. Per WP:SPAM - "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think this is all in bad faith due to the attack article on MONGO that was previously ED's article of the week, which then lead to the admin edit-war. Ryūlóng 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Articles AfD and edits are clearly being made in bad faith. --Weevlos 23:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This reminds me somewhat of the Coca Cola userbox (or was it the Firefox one? water under the bridge now), where they used a copyrighted image, and the box was deleted rather than removing the image. If there's an issue with the article, try to fix it, rather than rushing to delete it. --Toffile 23:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that it should be cleaned up, but a few Wikipedia admins are blanking large areas of the article then hiding behind the loosest parts of Wikipedia policy to justify their actions, this whole thing stinks of bad faith. ~ IICATSII 08:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Karwynn. --Elonka 23:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not only does it fail WP:V, WP:NOR but it also fails WP:WEB. Has the site "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"? No. Has the site "won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation"? Again no. Finally, has content been "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"? This last condition it might have some chance of getting, but if so, someone needs to point it out. I was unable to find any evidnece of it meeting the third condition, and it clearly fails the first two. Therefore delete. JoshuaZ 23:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As mentioned in my initial vote, this logic of deletion for Wike-related projects means that nearly EVERY such article in Wikipedia must be removed as well. As those articles remain in WP space, so must the ED article. rootology 23:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not. The failure for some articles to follow basic issues does not mean that we have to ignore the guidelines here. If you want to go through and AfD a lot of the minor Wikis I won't disagree with you. If you want the guideline applied consistently that's what you should do, not save this one in defiance of the guidelines. JoshuaZ 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Perfectly logical argument on the part of JoshuaZ. Well expressed there JoshuaZ. ;-) (→Netscott) 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, if the concensus based on the voting is to keep, or no concensus, does that take precedence over individual admin action/freedom of choice in deleting? I am curious as there is at least one admin "hostile" to this article's existence, and possibly another. rootology 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • This site is not notable and the others are likely not. As well with editors like User:badlydrawnjeff editing on the article as an admitted sysop on Encyclopædia Dramatica you've got a conflict of interest that corresponds to vanity which is a very valid reason for deletion. (→Netscott) 00:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
          • The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself. rootology 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Low traffic website. Ramseystreet 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica#_note-alexarank 24,000th rank per Alexa. rootology 00:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep bad faith nomination. --Ozmodiar.x 00:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Where's the bad faith? I strongly encourage you to assume good faith. (→Netscott</span>) 00:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Dalbury, Hipocrite et al. Not particularly notable; vanity applies. Apparently virtually impossible to source. Note to those voting "Speedy keep": Since there has already been at least one delete vote, Speedy keep is not possible. Speedy keep is for all Keep votes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read speedy keep part 5, and note that many articles have been speedy kept rightfully due to WP:POINT violations. I'm a monger about these sort of things, as I'm sure you know, and this would likely qualify. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Where is the foundation of this ridiculous accusation of WP:POINT? (→Netscott) 00:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Multiple renominations, bad faith at the article, bad faith by various editors, falsehoods being strewnabout, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • None of what you mentioned here describes my involvement surrounding this article (and now nominator for its deletion). Where's the assumption of good faith? (→Netscott) 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
          • THe same place it is with me, if that's what you're thinking. Actually, you have renominated it yet again, even though the first attempts didn't get anywhere, so it does actually descibe your involvement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
            • If there's WP:POINT happening here it's that an admitted sysop (yourself) for the site that corresponds to this article is editing on it and arguing for the existence of it. Prior to today I've never once edited on the article nor participated in any discussions surrounding its deletion. My reasoning for the need for the deletion of this article is very valid. (→Netscott) 00:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
              • And when's the last time I did anything substantial there? Hell, when's the last time I made any sort of substantive edit at the article? My point stands, your labeling of my argument as "ridiculous" is out of line. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                • Your falsely accusing me of WP:POINT is out of line particularly with your established partisanship in this whole affair. (→Netscott) 00:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • I don't believe it was false, and I don't beleive I have any "partisanship" in this affair. I haven't edited at the site in ages, and I didn't approve of what caused MONGO to act out improperly. You coninue to assume bad faith about MY motives from the very beginning of this thread. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • Yes, your timely edit went some way to reduce your appearance of partisanship. I see. (→Netscott) 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                      • It's funny that a massive rehaul of my userpage is considered timely. Is it false, or are you just trying to get me fired up at this point. Do a little research, get a clue as to what I've actually been up to instead of continually assuming bad faith. You should certainly know better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                        • Actually I haven't really assumed bad faith on your part but your participation both on the article and here illustrate masterfully my contention that this article merits deletion on vanity grounds. (→Netscott) 00:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                          • Actualy, you have and continue to. You have yet to demonstrate vanity or the exent of my actual participation in the editing process, either here OR there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                            • Hmmm, there is nothing to demonstrate here. You are an admitted sysop at Encyclopædia Dramatica. It doesn't really matter how active you are there now. On your userpage it doesn't say "former admin" does it? Ergo if you are editing on the article about it and arguing for the article's existence, it is safe to assume that you are doing so with some motivation of vanity (as likely a number of other editors are). (→Netscott) 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                              • Then you assume wrongly, and you fail to act in good faith. That's no longer my problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • Given what appears to be possible partisanship on BOTH sides, I again bring up what I wrote above, and my concerns of bias/retaliation over the whole MONGO 3rd party thing in all this: "The notability of the site is still being debated after the issue was first raised a day or two ago, and this deletion was immediately forced through after editors complained about perceived bias (almost immediately after). Admins do a good job, but this does feel like a retaliatory nomination, especially given the ferocity of people to "get rid of it". This nomination so far is heading based on votes to either a weak to solid keep, or a no concensus. If that happens, the article should remain while it gets worked out further on the page itself." rootology 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • Helllllooo redundancy!!! (→Netscott) 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
                      • It's amusing how any counter-point to deletion is met with veracity from people opposed to the article, but my call for assuruance that group concensus will be honored is ignored. rootology 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, can we cool it down a little? Or at least move it to the talkpage. -- Banes 01:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  "Speedy delete per nom"? On an AfD page? Obviously the nom didn't think it was a speedy. Speedy delete cannot be "per" anything but a speedy criterion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong delete. The site simply isnt notable enough, in fact, "Themisfitishere", "Leeroy Jenkins" and that sort of thing are probably more notable yet often deleted. People often think that because an article get's nominated for deletion lots of times and is well known within wikipedia (Wikitruth for example), means it may be notable. I often make this mistake myself. Vanity article too. Don't really need to give these kids any more publicity (not that that is a deletion criteria of course :) ). -- Banes 00:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the reasons above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable. Criticism of Wikipedia isn't a factor when considering whether or not an article should be kept. 209.167.60.170 00:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  That's correct, criticism of Wikipedia shouldn't be a factor, and those bringing it up should drop that angle like a bad habit. This article needs to be deleted, not because ED criticizes WP, but because it's a load of original research with no reliable sourcing for anything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless more crtiable sources are found. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a bunch of original research about a website that no independent reliable source has ever seen fit to say two words about. Once ED attracts independent attention from reputable publishers, then whatever they say about it can be used as the basis for an article. Until then, no. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC) (Changing recommendation, see new bullet below with this timestamp: GTBacchus^(talk) 10:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC))
• Keep as per rootology. (edit conflict) This is not an attack article, and if a vandal adds defamatory comments to this or any other page the correct action is to remove said comments promptly and enable semi-protection, if necessary. Silensor 01:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Fortunately, attack article isn't a reason to delete according to anyone sane. Do you have any reply to the whole "original research, no reliable sources" argument? -71.212.73.43 02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC) This is the user's first edit. east.718 02:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable, not verifiable, original resarch issues, etc --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 01:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article attempts to support its own existance with dubious claims of the notablity of the subject. For instance, just because the ED website says they have 8,000 users doesn't make it so. --rogerd 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This info on the article is as verifiable by third parties as is WP's own http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics. rootology 01:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Notice that isn't a Wikipedia article, and nobody claims that Special:Statistics passes WP:V
      • Does the rest of the front page pass it? Maybe this should be removed from the front page. Double standard? rootology 03:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&limit=1000&offset=0 Click the Next 1000 link 8 times, you'll see that there's 8,000 users. Is that enough proof for you or did ED make up all those users too? --Ozmodiar.x 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
          • It's possible....the software is open-source. They could have done anything with it. They probably didn't, but how do we know? --rogerd 16:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ONLY if unverified, and self-serving statements are removed (ie: Rogerd's point about the number of users. Can that be proven?) Resolute 01:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&limit=1000&offset=0 Click the Next 1000 link 8 times, you'll see that there's 8,000 users. Is that enough proof for you or did ED make up all those users too? --Ozmodiar.x 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well known site. Alexa rank of 24462 when I checked just now. The content of the page can sure be fixed up, but there should be a WP entry about this site. -- Ch'marr 01:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a well known website with a high Alexa ranking relative to most all other wikis we cover. Yamaguchi先生 02:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Alexa rankings don't impress me. --InkSplotch 02:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not an attack article, though this may be an attack VfD. Stanfordandson 02:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Cool, so it's not an attack article. Do you have any good reason that we should ignore WP:V and WP:NOR, because those are the policies that I actually see entering into this decision, while the whole idea about whether it's an attack article or not seems to me like a really obvious red herring? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Regretful Delete. I expected to want to keep it, but after I took a look, I don't see evidence of notability or verifiable sources. If those can be found later, I'd have no objection if it were recreated. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Not again. KEEP Just give it up, enough is enough. How many times is this article going to be AfD'd? Keep per User:Karwynn's opinion above.--Azathar 03:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per rootology. I agree that this is a bad faith nom.--Anchoress 03:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just as non-notable as ever. --InShaneee 03:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Rebecca 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Travb (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Kill it with fire per nom, per TS (and I'd like to note that users of the site placed stupidly nonsensical attack templates on my userpage there just after I created an account - not a valid deletion reason but should be mentioned anyway). — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 04:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}
  • Having your page user page vandalised on that site by a minority of ED vandals isn’t a strong argument for delete. ~ IICATSII 08:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't say it was, did I? Kindly direct your attention to my quote of "not a valid deletion reason but I thought I'd mention it anyway". Please completely read my statements before commenting on them. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}
• Delete - per nom, this makes no sense to keep it -- Tawker 04:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a parody wiki relevant to internet culture and, more specifically, the LiveJournal culture. High Alexa ranking and many google hits. Keep, Keep, Keep. Jogabbeyjr 05:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on evidence of premeditated plans to destroy the article: [2]( other one - threat in edit summary) Hardvice 06:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Related evidence to Hardvice's post. Edit history of main admins opposed to article, showing determined attempt to disassemble article without proper discusssion (despite being asked for it by editors) almost as soon as it was unprotected on 7/17/06:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=MONGO
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Hipocrite
  • Also, open bias complaint on them here for this issue:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#How_to_report_abusive_admin_editing.3F_.2F_updated_with_details rootology 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Robertsteadman 06:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Uncyclopedia has an article three times as long as this one, the two websites have similar themes and the two articles have similar content. Also I have often seen statements such as "Let Encyclopedia Dramatica handle it" around Wikipedia, which suggests that not only is Encyclopedia Dramatica noteworthy (High traffic etc), but it is still important to complement Wikipedia's content. Remember, Encyclopedia Dramatica all started due to Wikipedia's refusal to document internet related activities such as http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Mediacrat the Mediacrat drama. In summary, if this is deleted then so should Uncyclopedia, but that isn't going to happen, is it? Since it is hosted on Wikia. And also, Encyclopedia Dramatica itself has a vital role to play in Wikipedia. Btw, I was recently given an unwarrented permaban from ED, so if anything I should be biast towards deleting the article. --Einsidler 06:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • • http://encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Einsidler permabanned - apparently not]
• Keep. I was on this site this morning. It was nice to be able to read a Wikipedia article about it after being on the site sparked my curiosity. I'd like other readers of Wikipedia to be able to do the same. --Lord Deskana (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, survived two afds and is at least as notable as Uncyclopedia, it would not look very good if only the site which is controlled by Wikipedia stays. This is a bad faith nomination and a case of politic taking over wikipedia. Lapinmies 07:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:WEB; this article is up for AfD, not the other articles who might or might not fail the above criteria. Lectonar 07:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Wouldn't we rather have the dozens of other good articles that will be created if editors don't have to waste their time dealing with this article? NoSeptember 07:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment-If 'delete everything that is a "non-notable" wiki' is the order of the day, why not AfD Encyclopedia Of Stupid instead? Encyclopedia Dramatica has considerable traffic, and has over 8000 user accounts. How, in any way, is ED non-notable? This article has also survived two AfDs, so why bother again?-Ket^{Talk to Ket, kthx 07:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}

    5 edits...total as of this comment:[3]--MONGO 07:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    • But had a point and was not even a vote... Lapinmies 07:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks Lapinmies-Ket^{Talk to Ket, kthx 08:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}
        • Of the 8000 accounts, how many are blocked, how many puppets and how many vandal accounts, or do just the figures of accounts made count? --Alf ^melmac 13:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VER Of the listed references, even those that aren't cited correctly, nearly all of them are primary resources, self-publishing items that are not in regard to notability. Of the remainder, they are blog sites, and do not qualify as reputible resources. Of the alexa traffic, it is only reaching 30 people per million, which is 0.00003. Also, it should be noted that this ranking only includes those participating members of Alexa that provide Alexa with data, and is non-representative of the actual english speaking population of the globe. WP:VER is policy, and supports WP:OR hand in hand. Therefore, this entire article is nothing but original research, unverifiable per the quality standards, written somewhat in the POV, and is basically non-compliant. Notable? Policy supercedes guidelines, but not notable per nom. Ste4k 07:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete only on the grounds of notability. Fails WP:WEB. DarthVader 07:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, fails WP:WEB miserably. Obviously, this article is also a vandal magnet. The content section fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom•Jim62sch• 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tony , GtBacchus et al. --Alf ^melmac 09:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is an important website. Could editors please get over themselves and stop trying to delete things simply because they are unhappy with or disapprove of, the amount of notability the subject has? Via strass 10:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This version which I saw when I came through to this article doesn't seem to contain anything really that unbiast, self inflating or otherwise grossly untrue about what is a controversal but not un-noteable site. There's not reason for this to be deleted. If you think vandal magnets should be deleted, you better start deleting some other articles too. --Nidonocu 11:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Hey, look, it's strongly referenced. And hey, it's been involved in a notable media event. Why are we still talking about this? Captainktainer * Talk 11:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (Liberatore, 2006). 11:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - To respond to the various arguments for deletion presented; OR / RS / V - None of these are reasons for deletion of an article... only for changes to its content. Further, primary sources are valid for verification of non-subjective facts... such as 'creation date' and 'number of users'. Some might insist on phrasing such as, 'Encyclopedia Dramatica claims to have over 8000 users', but the existence of that claim would be verifiable, reliable, and not original research. Attack site / Disruptive / We cannot be unbiased - All possibly true, but not reasons for deletion. We do not exclude Adolf Hitler because it is difficult to remain unbiased in writing an encyclopedia article on him... or because the page generates disruption... or because the man (and his followers to this day) said and did nasty things. Keeping this article from being used to attack others while not ourselves using it to attack ED may well be a difficult task requiring dedication and maturity... but we do that for Daniel Brandt and plenty of other contentious pages and should continue to do so. Notability is the only argument for deletion I have seen here which has any sort of validity. The notability standards for websites are bizarrely high / arbitrary (in that actual usage measures like Alexa ranking, registered users, daily page hits, et cetera are all excluded from consideration), but ED does (barely) qualify even by those measures given the reference to it from Brian Krebs. By any sort of more reasonable standard of 'web notability' based on usage, such as those actually followed for hundreds of other articles which are uncontroversial keeps, they are certainly notable. --CBD 12:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable people can disagree about WP:WEB, but I think it's too low a bar as it is. I would support raising the standards for inclusion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you 100% CBD, Notability has no validity as an argument for deletion... and OR / RS / V are absolutely reason to delete any' article that does not meet these well defined policies. WP:WEB is a guideline and as such can be argued either way... but WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS are non-negotiable.--Isotope23 01:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those are all policies... about the content of articles. They have nothing whatsoever to do with deletion. All but a very few Wikipedia articles failed the 'verifiability', 'original research', and/or 'reliable sources' policies when they were first created... indeed, the vast majority of articles still fail those policies. Yet no one is arguing for the deletion of several hundred thousand articles... because those have never been and never will be criteria for deletion. The frequent citation of them on this page is an embarrassing example of searching for a pretext to accomplish a goal founded on entirely different motivations. Lack of notability IS a reason for deletion, and ED is within the (very wide) grey area defined by Wikipedians' wildly differing notability standards... but it seems clear that ED is notable enough that it would be unambiguously kept (like many less notable web-sites are currently) if the subject matter were not so controversial. Which is what this really comes down to in the end... an effort to exclude information on ED because the site is annoying/offensive/obnoxious/et cetera. If it weren't then the page probably never would have been nominated for deletion or, if it were, a handful of 'high notability standards' deletionists would be the only ones voting delete. A few people have been up-front about deleting for these reasons and to prevent strife et cetera... which are valid motivations, but I think outweighed by the importance of impartiality in how we review and maintain articles. --CBD 13:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The argument presented is not that the article fails WP:V (which it does), but that it is fundamentaly unverifiable - that it cannot pass WP:V, ever. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite has it exactly right. You may disagree CBD but any article that fails WP:V and WP:NOR can and should be deleted if it cannot be verified. It has nothing to do with personal feelings about Encyclopædia Dramatica (to be honest, I quite like the site).--Isotope23 18:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said in my original vote... a good deal of the article IS verifiable. The claim that something can't be verified unless it has been printed in a major newspaper is just silly. The current user count of Wikipedia has been included in the Wikipedia article for years... despite not being stated in a 'verifiable third party source' or, since we got big enough that they did start reporting it, despite contradicting outdated figures in such sources. How is this possible? Are we 'breaking the rules'? No... we're using a primary source. The Wikipedia statistics page and/or list of users can be linked to directly as verification. ED exists. It has users. It has articles. Those articles are on various subjects. All of these things are easily verifiable by any user of Wikipedia... indeed, far more verifiable than references to obscure out of print books, which we accept without controversy. If the ED article were to say, 'ED is the funniest site on the internet' that would be POV. If it were to say, 'Josh Bumblemeyer of the New York Times says ED is the funniest site on the internet', that would be a verifiable opinion from a reliable third party source. If it were to say, 'ED claims to be the funniest site on the internet', that would be a verifiable claim made by the primary source (not that I am suggesting the make this claim - just an example). Verifiable means that there is some way for the reader to check that the info in the article is accurate. For most of this article... there is. Ergo, no... the claim that it can never be verified is just false. --CBD 11:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as per nom and others. Strong failing of WP:V, with little potential for not. Jefffire 12:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's been said above already. Karmafist ^p 13:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete We have heard their intentions, to which they are welcome, but Wikipedia does not exist to help them achieve those goals. 800 ghits, ZERO google news, ZERO cited reliable sources, and basically it's just an offsite troll-a-rama. Just zis Guy you know? 14:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I was asked about this, but reluctant to vote. The discussed site seems to exist for no purpose other than abuse and insult of Wikipedia(ns); and the article itself seemed to be pushed mostly as vanity by editors associated with ED. Nonethless, I had tended to feel the website itself did just barely reache notability guidelines, so didn't feel like I could quite vote delete. However, I had separate occasion to reflect on Wikipedia:External links, which seems to suggest several grounds to make this deletable. One is simply that linking to outright libel reflects badly on WP. But also linking to blogs like ED is generally deprecated. LotLE×talk 14:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I must totally agree with CBD's 12:32, 19 July 2006 comment above. Everything in the article is, or can be, phrased in a way which matches all Wikipedia rules for content. As for how notable Encyclopædia Dramatica is, I provide an example myself: I heard it mentioned (in real life!) a few days ago and had no idea what it was. I therefore looked it up on Wikipedia, where I found what appears to be a quite accurate article about its content, as well as the link to this discussion about possible deletion. Kremmen 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment User's first edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep AfD ain't for content disputes. JeffBurdges 14:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete does not assert notability per WP:WEB. KWH 14:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Despite the emotional and dramatic pleas from its backers, I don't see how this website is notable in an encyclopdic sense. It's really just a vanity article. Deli nk 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and for the http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Lulz lulz. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V & WP:WEB. this is obviously an emotional issue for a lot of people on both sides of the debate. The primary problem I see here is that there are no reliable sources given that show how this site meets WP:WEB guidelines. The "references" are a members list, statistics page, Alexa rankings, a Washington Post blog, and a Newsvine article. the stats and Alexa rankings are meaningless for WP:WEB purposes and the media mention is a blog... not a reliable source. The Newsvine article is barely a paragraph. Additionaly, verifiability problems arise from the fact that most of the cites are either links to Wikipedia discussion/AfD pages or Encyclopædia Dramatica pages. All in all, ED falls well below accepted guidelines for this sort of material.--Isotope23 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Newsvine is a bloglike publishing service - anyone can start and write anything in their own column. The ED reference is by shaolintiger, who bills himself as "L33t h4x0r, food lover and SCUBA diver." This is not a WP:RS, though the ED partisans are edit-warring for it's inclusion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but the newsvine thing is only being linked to as a review, not as a source of information. Karwynn (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • In which case, it doesn't seem to meet the criteria in Wikipedia:External links#Occasionally acceptable links. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 15:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Like it or not, we must abide by our central policies, WP:V and WP:NOR. We cannot keep articles that do not meet these policies. Most of the "keep" voters seem to be arguing that it should be kept because it is notable -- note that notability is not a criterion for inclusion, whereas V and NOR are criteria for inclusion. It is irrelevant whether the subject is notable or not if it cannot be written about based on existing, reliable, reputable, secondary sources.
  I strongly encourage the closing admin to disregard all comments, both for and against the article, if they are based on the mistaken assumption that either notability or the lack thereof is able to override the core policies on which the whole of Wikipedia is founded. — Haeleth Talk 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The solution to a blog review is to move it to external links, or even remove it, but not delete the article. Mongo's conduct has nothing to do with this, and should be addressed at WP:ANI, or for a matter of such detail, by an WP:RfC. Septentrionalis 16:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • comment aggreed. However, what do you think about the verifiability of the article? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • There are links supporting much of the description of ED itself, and much of the rest is both plausible and probably sourceable. (And may well be sourced when the article is unprotected.) I think those links can be accepted under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_themselves; we can accept ED (under reasonable conditions) as a source about itself. Notability would be a bigger problem; but I think we should lean over backwards to include articles on WP critics and attackers. We should avoid looking like censors; and many users will sant to know about ED, the next time it makes a scandal. Septentrionalis 17:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It is nn and breaks WP:V. FloNight ^talk 16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on grounds of original research, verifiability, and notability. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as not meeting WP:N. In particular, it fails to meet WP:WEB summarized here (with my additions in caps):

The content itself has NOT been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works ... The website or content has NOT won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation ... The content is NOT distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators ...

This one seems cut and dried for all the disputation it's generating here; perhaps all the other reasons pro and con are muddying the waters. The site's criticism of Wikipedia should not be a factor even if harsh. A Dramatica sysop's involvement is irrelevant since we're voting on an article, not an editor; the devil himself can write an article for all I care if it meets the guidelines. Vanity can get cleaned up and should not be a reason to delete if otherwise notable. Two previous failed AfDs are instructive but do not prove notability (as someone else claimed). Original research can potentially get cleaned up, but then that might also fix the notability issue. I started to vote "weak" delete based on 117,00 Google hits, then I noted only 109 were unique. There are no Google news hits from the last 7 weeks. Checking alternate spelling ("æ", "ae") gives similar results. Prove notability (or change WP:WEB) and I will be happy to change my vote. --A. B. 16:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Google Hit Question have people tried "Encyclopedia Dramatica" or are they just using the ae? Hardvice 16:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Unique Google Hits are completely meaningless. "Microsoft" only gets 460 unique hits. Silensor 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I was unaware of the unique hit issue. I did, however, look at (but not open) all 109 links and none were to traditional media; some might have been to notable blogs but I wouldn't know. As for the spelling, as noted in my previous comment, I tried all 3 possibilities ("e", "ae" or "æ"). --A. B. 18:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JoshuaZ. Would Microsoft Encarta or Encylopedia Britannica cover this? Would you go to a library and be able to find information on Encylopaeda Dramatica? Most likely not --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You can find one mention of Wikipedia in Encarta, and only in context of the open-source movement in a discussion regarding encyclopedias, and nothing in Britannica. So I don't see how that's really relevant. There are far less important things with articles here.Tx9 18:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Please note the talk page history of the article as well, related to reasons for deletion. The less important articles (of which there are tens of thousands surely) will not be nominated and pushed for deletion as aggressively as this one. This is a matter of subject matter. Or, using this AfD as basis, if this article is removed, the AfD will surely be clogged with thousands of AfD requests in the next weeks? This is a dangerous precedent being set here. rootology 18:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per AB, with a further plea for reliable sources, - FrancisTyers · 17:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I've heard of it. Homey 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Have you heard of WP:NOR and WP:V, too?

• Keep - can't see a problem with it. quercus robur 18:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Can you see any reliable independent sources for it? If not, you're looking at a problem with it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete nn Ian¹³/t 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough for me. That its content is or was bad is obviously no reason to delete. That it is an attack (is this really so?) on Wikipedia, is obviously not a reason to delete. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Toffie and Karwynn Will (message me!) 18:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Abstain. Comment: Someone is sending unsolicited emails [4] from Wikipedia (presumably via the "Email this user" function), alerting recipients about perceived administrator abuses, this AFD, etc. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete At this point my opinion won't make much difference, but consider: it's ranked 24,000. Do we need 25,000 articles on the top 25,000 websites? Just because it exists, just because you heard of it, doesn't make it notable. Less than 4 thousandths of 1% of Internet users visit it on a daily basis. Furthermore, it is almost without citations, mostly because the facts involved may be unverifiable. Ingoolemo ^talk 18:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. All cited sources are primary sources, which are not acceptable under WP:RS. --Carnildo 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete, unnotable, and apparently far more bother than its worth. dab (ᛏ) 18:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Some US federal government computers, such as mine, are blocked from viewing this site. I suppose that means it has at least a tiny bit of notability. But actually I don't know how these things work. ike9898 19:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Can't quite see the merits of deleting, I'm afraid... -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Can you see the merits of citing reliable secondary sources for content in Wikipedia? Are you aware of any of those, for the content about Encyclopedia Dramatica? Is there a good reason to waive our policies about verifiability and original research for this particular article, and others like it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ridiculously strong extreme speedy keep.  Grue  20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Do all of those adjectives in front of "keep" somehow obviate the need to contribute a reason to the discussion, or explain why original research is just fine in this case? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  What original research? I see one section tagged as original research, which doesn't merit the deletion of the whole article. The adjectives in front of my "vote" demonstrate my utter amazement that this article is even considered for deletion.  Grue  21:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  The only reason the other section does not have similar tags is this unexplained removal of a tag. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Replying to Grue, all of the information about ED's content and tone, and most everything about its history that isn't a link to a deletion discussion here, is cited back to ED itself. That's original research, carried out by reading a lot of ED pages, learning about ED, and then writing on Wikipedia what you know about it. Are there any independent reliable sources that talk about ED from the outside, and comment on it, as a noteworthy phenomenon? Are we locating such sources and reporting on what they say is significant about ED? No, because such sources do not yet exist, as far as I can tell, anyway. Until you're doing that, you're doing original research. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia links back to itself and unverifiable Wikipedia/foundation stuff in several places. Double standard. If these are not valid, the count of users/articles and web traffic volume (the chart) on Wikipedia are not valid and should be removed. rootology 21:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  "Double standard" isn't a reason to keep policy violations around. I would suggest that any unverifiable content should be removed from any article, but if it turns out there's a good reason to make an exception for the Wikipedia article (I'm not familiar with that article, and the inevitable OR issues I assume it has), that's certainly no argument to make any other exception. Wikipedia is not AboutUs.org, a new sort of web-directory Wiki where users are encouraged to write about websites based on their experiences with them, and content directly from the site is ideal. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Oh, stop spreading the nonsense. An article about some document (be it a book or a website) can and should use the document itself as a source. In fact, it is the most reliable source available. The whole argument for deletion is based on ignorance and pettiness (because apparently they don't like Wikipedia - oh my).  Grue  07:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  Grue, I'd appreciate if you don't speculate about my motivations. I happen to really like ED, have an account there, and think their take on Wikipedia is hilarious. I also agree that, if this article is to exist, it certainly should use ED as a source (obviously we would want to link to examples of what we're talking about), but not as the only one. At that point, it's original research, and there's no difference between using a non-notable website as a source about itself and using some self-published book you wrote yesterday as a source about itself. Independent reliable sources have not yet seen fit to talk about ED and provide us with sourced material yet. I'll be ecstatic when they do; until then, this article doesn't have the kind of sourcing it needs. You can say I'm speaking out of pettiness if you want to drag the conversation to that level, but it won't make it true. I'm speaking out of my belief that WP:NOR and WP:V are sound policies that should be followed more strongly and more enthusiastically than they currently are, because they are what will make Wikipedia more trustworthy and more valuable. Now, if you think my argumets are based on ignorance, perhaps you can lead me to better understanding by teaching me what I currently don't know. I'd be quite happy to have that conversation with you. Can we do it quite civilly, though? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  Aye, Grue needs to try a little WP:AGF before jumping to ridiculous, unfounded conclusions about why others might opine deletion.--Isotope23 18:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Simply Keep. Kitia 21:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom --Ragib 21:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• One more simply keep - It could be a conflict of interests but it's just a reality. -- Szvest 21:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}
  • Have the simply keep voters looked into the verifiability and origional research problems the article is alledged to have? What reliable secondary sources are used in the article? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources. -Will Beback 22:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• VERY STRONG SMERGE. I've looked over the history of this article, as well as this discussion, and it seems to be breaking out into a war similar to that which happened to Brian Peppers, which ended very controversially. I don't want to see that happen again. Therefore, I am proposing this compromise to stop stupid debates like this once and for all. To my understanding, much of this information is Original Research, and thus must be removed. However, there is some verifiable information, at least in the opener that can be written without violating WP:NPOV. It is also my understanding that both ED regulars and Wikipedia admins are trolling the page and personally attacking each other. Several people even want this deleted because ED bashes Wikipedia. Censoring Wikipedia bashers violates WP:NPOV last time I checked. One person also sarcastically asked if World Book or Encyclopedia Brittanica (sp?) would have this. Well, they wouldn't have articles on a lot of notable stuff we have here, and WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia. However, WP:NOT a soapbox either, which is what about 4/5 of the article is. Also, the fact that so many Wikipedians, including myself (I'm an Uncyclopedian), hate ED, makes this have notability. I ask everyone, especially the extreme keepers and deletionists, to take this argument very seriously. This is one of those debates that went on for an extremely long time and have become flamewars. These debates need to end with all of us giving up a little of what we want to establish a firm community consensus so that doctrine doesn't get forced down our throats. Find a place for the one or two notable, verifiable sentences, and delete the rest of the article. Let's stop the trolling and settle this properly, okay? Thank you. Have a nice day. Crazyswordsman 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  I can get behind this. This would be fine for me as a valid stub that can be expanded in time as press cites grow. rootology 22:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  For the benefit of those who have followed the edits less closely, can someone provide a link to a reasonable version that's limited to what can be properly sourced? Crazyswordsman made one comment I have to reply to: the fact that so many Wikipedians, including myself (I'm an Uncyclopedian), hate ED, makes this have notability. I can't agree with that at all. Notability means notability in the world at large, not among Wikipedians. I love ED, and that doesn't make it notable, either. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  [5] Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  This article:http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/01/account_hijackings_force_livej.html also cites and links to the ED website. I've just been told as well that www.newsbank.com has some sort of archived Chicago Tribune article that cites it. Waiting for a link. rootology 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  That link doesn't point nor does it cite ED. A COMMENT on the blog post does. Unless I'm missing something, if this is the closest to actual coverage you can provide, this is far from evidence of notability, and more evidence of grasping at straws. Why is establishing ED's notability so important to you? Is it truly in the interests of informativeness, or merely vanity? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  I shouldn't have said that, GTBacchus. What I meant was some Wikipedians like to use ED as a dumping ground for non-notable memes. Also, it seems to have widespread (yet unfortunate) popularity within internet communities such as Fark, YTMND, etc. Putting one or two sentences or even a section about ED in the LiveJournal article is something I bet we could all agree upon. Crazyswordsman 23:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Swordswoman (and others), would you say the washingtonpost link I entered just above and this reference to ED: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikizine/2006-04 ...are valid sources of something's notability? rootology 23:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Rootology, as a blog the first link does not constitute a reliable source and the second link is self referential meaning... does not establish notability. (→Netscott) 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Agree with Netscott. No. To me, reliance on those specific pieces of evidence is in fact strong evidence of ED's non-notability to date. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  Per Wikizine's site it is seperate from Wikipedia and the foundation, it's just hosted on that URL. Read the page. It appears per that link that ED was notable enough to mail out however in a "news report" to the admins, sysops, and ambassodors of the Wikipedia family. Correct? rootology 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  How does a rather non-notable Wikizine establish the notability of non-notable website with a one line reference to that website? (→Netscott) 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  Nope. Blogs aren't reliable, sorry. I'm sure there is something out there, but frankly I have better things to do than deal with endless debates such as this. My main purpose is to end the debate, not help decide in the fate of an article that is obviously controversial. Crazyswordsman 02:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete because multiple people have spammed me about this. Yes, that's not an argument. Here's the argument: fails WP:V, no evidence of notability has been presented (Wikitruth is notable because it has been cited in a newspaper story). Ashibaka tock 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think that many here have made good cases for it being WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:WEB. Arguments against deletion seem to be along the lines of "there are worse examples in wikipedia". In that case, fine, let's get that lot into AfD too. David D. (Talk) 22:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. Whispering 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment this site is as notable as Uncyclopedia. if there's attack content in the article. Take it out. Don't delete an article based on that.--LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and because of the email spam I received promoting this thing. I detest email spam. Vsmith 00:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Also people don't like getting spammed. You've probably worked this out now. ed g2s • talk 00:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm fairly new to this discussion and have mostly been reading the comments of others, but it seems rather odd to me that we are considering deleting an article on a website which is home to a great deal of negative criticism of Wikipedia. It would not appear very favorable, now would it? I have done some reading of ED's articles on Wikipedia, and I can imagine that the editors of ED would be thrilled to see non-ED'er Wikipedians deleting the article on ED. It would serve to confirm every negative thing they say about Wikipedia. That alone is reason enough to keep, maybe prune it back to a stub, maybe block certain known abusive editors from being involved with it (esp. those cited as ED users above, per WP:vanity), but in general, keep it. Deletion is too draconian a solution. Kasreyn 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And the notability and verifiability questions? (→Netscott) 01:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I don't understand precisely what the notability and verifiability complaints are. If the article isn't that notable, it should be trimmed back; I feel that at least some mention of ED is warranted, so I suppose it would be fair to characterize my opinion as being that ED is at least minimally notable. As for verifiability, is there a concern that ED pages are being changed and thus cannot be cited? Don't they have permanent page history like WP? If so, just link to the specific revision in which a claim was made rather than the article name, and add a caveat explaining that ED is a wiki and its content may change. Kasreyn 07:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For me, it has more to do with avoiding original research, which is intimately linked with verifiability. I understand our policy to be: first something exists, then people in the world take enough note of it, someone publishes words about it, and then we get to write a Wikipedia article based on those published words. That gives you notability, verifiability, and the certainty that you're not doing original research, all in one. I don't see that happening with this article. Most of the facts in it just came from people who happen to be familiar with the website, which is pretty much the definition of original research. If we insist on using facts that come from independent, reliable published sources, then we aren't doing our own research. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - it seems that the desire to delete this article comes from the fact that its subject holds criticism of wikipedia. If wikipedia doesn't tolerate freedom of speech, and criticism of itself, then there's something wrong. - Richardcavell 01:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment about personal attacks on the site to which the article describes: Wikitruth's website has a category called http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedians and it has far more personal attacks on wikipedia admins than encyclopedia dramatica. It also has links to three of them on its front page. Where Encyclopedia Dramatica calls one on the list a mere name, wikitruth has pictures, real names, etc. I hope you consider this who voted to delete the article. Hardvice 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  Ummm... what on Earth has any of that to do with this article's WP:V and WP:OR problems, which are the only sane reasons being given for deletion. This discussion will go more smoothly if we can avoid being distracted by the fact that ED has pages attacking Wikipedia and Wikipedians. That's just irrelevant here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I can't believe the utterly obvious double standards over web content notability guidelines that exist on Wikipedia. Having trawled through countless trivial and banal entries for webcomics, I can tell you 100% that any webcomic with an Alexa rank of 24,000 would be speedily kept and the nominator slapped on the wrist for a bad faith nomination. There is, and should be one guideline for web material, WP:WEB, why the page interpretes as very much laxer for webcomics is beyond me. The amount of delete votes here suggest that any web material less notable or popular would be railgunned out of existence forever. This however, is not the case at Wikipedia, as can be seen in this AFD and this AFD and many others. For example, I agree with the keep outcome of this AFD, but note the total lack of delete votes for a website with an Alexa rank of 60,000. I think that an AFD for it's spinoff The Wotch: Cheer! would also result in a keep, something which I would absolutely disagree with. But the reason that I'm voting keep, isn't just out of spite for the double standards at Wikipedia, but because I genuinely think it's popular enough to be notable. - Hahnchen 01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  Care to address the complete lack of reliable independent sources for the actual content of the article, which is the only sane reason being given for deletion? I agree that our standards for webcomics are stupid, but that's no excuse to do everything else wrong too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  Related to this: nearly every project article on Wikipedia from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:MediaWiki_websites has LESS outside references let alone Alexa rank than ED. Why are those not attacked as vehemently for deletion? rootology 07:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  Because there hasn't been a catalyzing event yet. Isn't that always why some things haven't happened yet while others have? What's the point in calling motives into question here anyway? That's a red herring, and we'd do well to keep this discussion on topic if we wish to resolve it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:V.--Ávril ♦ ʃáη 01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Homestarmy 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The subject appears nn with no actual reliable sources to show notability (despite Washington Post blog, as WP:WEB points out Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores., thus trivial coverage is not relevant). Furthermore many of the keeps seem to be coming from mass spamming campaign, it seems that this is one of the cases where there is a massive backlash at attempts to manipulate Wikipedia.--Jersey Devil 02:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about spamming campaign? Who is spamming?? I submit that the deletes have put together a spamming campaign to silence all critics. 71.112.141.236 04:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • And I was being sarcastic too! 71.112.141.236 04:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Anon, your diff is an example of cluelessness. (→Netscott) 05:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • My diff is an example of you saying something quite laughable by a majority of people. 71.112.141.236 05:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
          • The spam Jersey Devil refers to was to essentially all admins on Wikipedia in support of some sort of action against User:MONGO (and in support of this article). Again, cluelessness is the perfect descriptor here. (→Netscott) 05:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Are they spamming people? Sending links to this AfD to uninvolved or uninterested people? If not then you need to look up the meaning of spam. Here's a link!. 71.112.141.236 05:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Seriously, get a clue... count how many times the word "spam" is mentioned in this AfD.... someone was spamming via e-mail. (→Netscott) 05:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
                • Okay, ever consider that it's someone trying to stir trouble? Whoever's doing it is NOT associated with ED. 71.112.141.236 05:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable website. Its notability is due to its importance in LJ community & spreading LJ memes, and also because it is related to Wikipedia. As equally as some people have argued that it could be a vanity page, I think the attempts to remove it are taking "anti-vanity" too far -- just because it is somewhat associated with Wikipedia, doesn't automatically imply its non-notable or vanity. Subjects of articles like Bomis, Nupedia, Larry Sanger, Jimbo Wales, MeatballWiki, Enciclopedia Libre, Uncyclopedia, Wikitruth all derive some of their notability from associations with Wikipedia, but that does not mean that they are non-notable, or vanity. --SJK 03:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  What about the lack of independent reliable sources for the contents of the article? That's the only sane reason being given for deletion; what's your response to it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  I can interpret "the lack of independent reliable sources for the contents of the article" in one of two ways -- as referring to verifiability, or to notability. In terms of verifiability, most claims made in the article are verfied through primary sources (i.e. if Wikipedia says "ED says X", a link to a page saying X on ED is verification; in fact, its better verification than a link to a secondary source would be.) There are a few ^{[citation needed]}, but I don't think that's a major issue. In terms of notability -- when dealing with websites, or Internet memes/phenomena, its not always possible to determine notablity by reference to "mainstream" sources, because this is the kind of stuff mainstream sources tend to ignore. But that doesn't necessarily mean they are unnotable... at the end of the day, notability guidelines (or even "policies") are only guidelines -- they are applied in accordance to consensus. (This AFD is one way of measuring that consensus.) --SJK 08:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I guess I have this picture of how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and this article and many web-related ones conflict rather badly with that picture. My picture is this: first something exists in the world, then people notice it, and if enough people care enough about it, they start writing about it in published works. After that happens, we get to write an article about it. I got this picture largely from AfD discussions relating to biography articles. It's also reinforced by my conception of an encyclopedia as a tertiary source, which relies on reliable and independent secondary sources. They serve as a filter, both in terms of verifiability and notability. In this discussion, I'm seeing people trying to bypass that filter, which is probably not how they see it at all. I guess we're dealing with conflicting visions of what Wikipedia is. I'm not sure how to resolve that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  Of course, "published sources" are inevitably going to exhibit selection biases. And of course, Wikipedia is inevitably going to have selection biases as well. The question is -- what selection bias does Wikipedia want to have? Personally, I think in writing an we need to consider both published sources & the collective experiences of Wikipedians--something can be notable if enough people here agree it is notable, even if published sources have not considered it notable. I think, in part because WP:NOT paper, Wikipedia need not be beholden to published sources. But this is really a question which needs to be answered through Wikipedia's decision making processes (such as this one)... --SJK 09:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  "If enough people here agree it is notable...". I think that's a bad idea. That's a good way to really hard-wire our systematic biases, for one thing. It's a good way to make Wikipedia more about internet culture and less trusted as a source for general information. It's a good way to make Wikipedia more like Encyclopedia Dramatica. I think it should be a matter of pride for us to have high standards for verifiability in independent reliable sources. If we actually get good about that, Wikipedia will be so much stronger. Articles like this erode at that possibility, and that's why I feel compelled to speak up against it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  Well, I suppose the reality is that Wikipedia is a quasidemocracy. What the majority of people think does count for something -- including about the questions of what kind of content should Wikipedia include -- although its not a pure democracy because its a system in which some people's opinions count for more than others. (For example, Jimbo's views about what Wikipedia count a lot more than yours or mine.) --SJK 10:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is one of few websites I've actually referred back to Wikipedia to learn about. RFerreira
• Delete. Non-notable website outside of its users. Google gets me 123,000 hits -- only 14 of which are unique. I'm not seeing the least sign of the alleged notability.--Calton | Talk 06:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I get over 150 out of 1000, whats going on? Lapinmies 06:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per User:SchmuckyTheCat. Trolls are not notable.-gadfium 06:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Voice-of-All 07:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I have posted what I feel is a great good faith compromise to this absurd mess here: proposed compromises (two). Please review and add commentary there. rootology 08:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Move to subpage of Wikipedia:Parodies, which is an appropriate place to keep unencyclopedic information like this. (My earlier recommendation of "delete" above has been striken.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Can this prove notability??? The massive number of people who came here to vote and debate on the site for this AFD, with strong opinions on each side. If it was nonnotable, it would get maybe 10 or 12 votes and that's only it. Hardvice 11:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  Absolutely not A high level of interest among Wiki subculture people has nothing to do with what we actually mean by "notability". "Notable" is really a codeword for "people who publish reliable sources have taken note of it, and talked about it in print". A tempest in this teacup means nothing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, the site is not very notable and in borderline nobility cases, I'm willing to entertain factors that I would not otherwise to make the decision. However, "borderline" is a charitable description in this case, as I have higher standards of notability than most editors. First, I received a spam email concerning the article. Second, the site has attack pages on Wikipedia editors. Third, those who edit the site are extremely interested in having a Wikipedia article and have gone to extraordinary lengths to have the article kept. This is a very bad sign. A notable organization would not care whether it has a Wikipedia article and a good non-notable organization would let the decision be made without trying to influence it, especially in an underhanded manner. Finally, unless an evil site, person or organization is so notable that Wikipedia would be incomplete not to have an article on it, like Charles Manson or the Aryan Nations, it should not have an article. When dealing with topics that are not very notable, Wikipedia can sometimes participate in the topic, increasing its notability, rather than just documenting it. In many cases, this is innocuous. In other cases, such as articles whose subjects are evil, it might not be. Wikipedia should never promote evil, not even a little and not even unintentionally. Based upon the attack pages, and the failure of the site to delete them, I believe that Encyclopædia Dramatica is evil. -- Kjkolb 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Who sent you the spam email? 71.112.141.236 12:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Someone calling himself or herself Rptng03509345. -- Kjkolb 12:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I also got the spam, I think many people did. -- Banes 12:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Actually, even if the main article is deleted, wouldn't a recreation after under parody count as a seperate article? Also, does anyone have any reason under policy that it shouldn't just be moved there NOW to end this nightmare? I now support just moving it RIGHT NOW. I'm tired of this, and if even thinks this won't be a no concensus vote where either a vote to keep or delete won't be met with scorn and appeal all the way up to ArbCom they're not thinking right. Rather than waste EVERYONE's time anymore I say we just move it to the parody section. Some day when (simple law of probability states it will happen... in 5 days, 5 months, 5 years, or 5 decades) when the site gets more notable press it can move back to the main name space. My vote is now to end the AfD, stick it in parody, and be done with it? Even if a truly neutral admin makes it a keep vote someone will just AfD this again and we will indeed have the next GNAA. Who wants to waste the next five years fighting over this? rootology 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Calton and Joshua Z. Guettarda 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'll never in my life seek to ban criticism (or a website full of criticism) of something I believe in. Amen to the Webcomic argument. --kizzle 17:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It must be noted that as of 10am PDT on 7/20/06 Admin name: Zanium is abusively editing the protected article as part of possible bias vs. the subject matter. It has been raised as an issue at AN:I but not addressed yet and he has not reverted. This is biased as 1) no editor can challenge his unilateral edits; 2) its a policy violation; 3) further evidence that as the thing that brought this to the fore was the attack on MONGO by the ED site, there is NO way for this to happen fairly. rootology 17:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Comment: We do, when it seems otherwise reasonable, accept people's statements about themselves and their own field. There are fairly tight restrictions on this; see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_themselves, but much of this article seems to meet those restrictions. Septentrionalis 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Marginally notable at best, but so much dust has been kicked up that it's hard to tell. There are so many blatant contradictions to Wikipedia policies and practices in the discussion that it's pointless to single any out. To keep the article under these circumstances just invites more dust-kicking. So delete the article (again?) for now, which is no great loss (if any). Then if the promotors of the site succeed in making it clearly notable without the help of Wikipedia and our many mirrors, someone unconnected with the site will recreate the article at an appropriate time, and will be able to provide unequivocal references to support notability. See Wikipedia:autobiography for this principle in more depth. Andrewa 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:VAIN, WP:ADS. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Notable as an experiment in itself, notable because it is well known in the Internet, it just needs a bit of attention. If we have an article on Uncyclopedia, we will have an article on this too. --Cyclopia 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC) no, double "deleting". :-) (→Netscott) 23:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd like everyone to take a look at the Straw Poll I set up on the Talk Page of this AfD, as I'm trying to hammer out a reasonable compromise between both parties before people start accusing others of WP:IAR. I failed to settle the Brian Peppers controversey, but I will not fail this time. We need a consensus. Crazyswordsman 22:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:V, complete and utter lack of WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources, tons of self-published original research, childish web forum fancruft, does not pass WP:WEB. Weregerbil 12:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, yes this appears to fall short of the WP:WEB guideline, but it has survided two AfDs as "keep" and "no consensus." (The "delete" VfD was very early in the site's existence.) If it were possible to keep stable, it could be a small stub like OrthodoxWiki. As it is many of the "references" are weak at best, eg. the Washington Post article that "refers to" ED actually refers to a webpage that happens to be on ED - it doesn't refer to ED as a site, nor does it even say "this page at ED." I tend toward delete per Andrewa, but the previous "keep" AfD gives pause. Gimmetrow 14:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Why should this be a stub? ED is similar to Uncyclopedia (although much funnier) and that has an article filled with useless trivia about the site, with the only references being on the site itself. Why can't people just follow WP:STFU and leave the article be, possibly with semi-protection? --Einsidler 13:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Easy question: Wikipedia has standards on notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. Weregerbil 14:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Banes and others. We have no obligation to give trolls a voice. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No, but you do have an obligation to write an article on every notable topic. 71.112.141.236 22:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • And this isn't one of those notable topics. Crazyswordsman 22:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The logical conclusion is: We have no obligation to give non-notable trolls a voice. -- Banes 18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per above discussion of WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Eluchil404 19:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I've re-opened the discussion, after closing from AfD/18 July and found that that it was way off the 120 hours cut-off. (in fact, this should be listed at 19 July). Also, it appeared to be listed at the top when it's supposed to be bottom,is it done to gain more attention of editors? - Mailer Diablo 06:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  As an impartial admin, can you fix any inappropriate or incorrect formatting like that which you see? I'd rather not (nor do I want Netscott to) since either of us trying to fix it will just start ANOTHER fight. Would you please mind? Just for the sake of civility, to make this like other AfDs. rootology 06:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  This AfD looks rather legible to me overall, so I don't think it needs any further re-formatting. - Mailer Diablo 07:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Violates WP:V and a bunch of other policies. As stated many times above. Garion96 (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable attack site. -Hanuman Das 13:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. An alexa rank of 25,000 is notable. Just because they make fun of some of our admins (sometimes a bit cruelly) isn't a reason to kill the article. We're holding it to unfair standards that we don't hold thousands of other articles to. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deletion nomination seems to be in bad faith and I can see that there is work being done trying to add verifiable sources. The site is certainly notable, this should not even be in question. Lenn0r 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 09:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Dunahee

This article looks more like a missing person ad than a true Wikipedia bio, and aside from him being missing, I don't get how notable he is. Editor88 16:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. This is a hard one, until you look at the inclusion critera. This case has been in in the media BC and Canada over the years, but I wonder if that is more through the tenacity of the family keeping it in the news. This missing child, as sad as it is, is no more or less notable than any other missing child. Could treat this one under WP is not a memorial page. Agent 86 17:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep after seeing improvements by Resolute. The article still needs lots of help, but in its current form may be more appropriate to label with {{cleanup}} or {{expand}} than to delete. Agent 86 03:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This case has been in the media over the years and this makes the subject in question notable. Moreover, children going missing in the world today are relatively rare. These kinds of rare events makes the topic notable in itself. Thus, we should keep this article. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete tragic, yes. But WP is not a forum for finding missing <insert Foo> here. Sorry -- MrDolomite | Talk 18:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Sad to say, children going missing are not that rare, and this one happened fifteen years ago. Fan-1967 19:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep after rewrite to show the significance of this specific case. Fan-1967 03:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Antares33712 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Several mentions in the Toronto Star as recently as 2004. Rjm656s 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Week Keep -- if this case really has remained consistently in the news regardless of whether it is the persistence of the parents, then it should be kept but with some documentation on the notability, and the article itself needs a serious cleanup since it currently is a missing persons notice and not an entry in an encylopedia. -- Whpq 21:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nothing special about the case (unfortunately). Dlyons493 Talk 23:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Not likely to become more notable in future. Sad, but not encyclopdic. Arevich 00:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Simply going missing does not make one notable, however this case spawned one of the largest police investigations in Canadian history [7] (Article from March 2006), was cited as a reason to introduce the Amber Alert system in BC [8] and has spawned the "Michael Dunahee 'Keep the Hope Alive' 5k family run/walk", an event now in its 15th year to raise money for ChildFind. [9] [10] There is enough to make the article notable, however it does require a complete rewrite so it reads as something more than an ad. Resolute 01:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I might be inclined to change my vote to keep an article like that. The one that exists now is a Milk Carton. -- Fan-1967 02:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have rewritten the article. I hope this suffices. I will also post it to the Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board to see if others can further expand on it. Resolute 03:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten version. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Dancing on the edge of the notability line, but I'll go with the keep given Resolute's improvements. Bearcat 04:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - for reasons above, plus others, the case has had an impact not just on the family but on BC society in general. The rewrite helps, and if Resolute posts it to the Cdn noticeboard, there undoubtably will be more improvements in short order. --Ckatz 07:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I support keeping this article although my comments may be discounted for the fact that I began it even though I have nothing to do with the participants or any previous involvement in the story. I agree that it was a skimpy start. The improvements that have followed have helped. The noteriety of this disappearance are unique in an area that goes beyond the City where he lived. This case struck a chord across BC and Canada that has sustained its recollection as an event familiar to many even those born after or too young at the time of the disappearance to remember the event. kgw 05:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cluster Resources, Inc.

Non-notable company, but was told, I cannot speedy away as spam, despite previous deletions as such. So I open the floor in hopes of resolution Antares33712 15:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:SPAM with a passion. Also seems to fail WP:CORP. Per it being spam, I suggest we wrap it in a burlap sack and toss it in a river. WilyD 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment, this has been tagged as spam before, but can't get the speedy so hey....down the river it goes Antares33712 16:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I was one of three editors who supported proding. Not notable enough according to WP:CORP and creation of spammer. Pascal.Tesson 18:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per failure to pass WP:CORP hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:SPAM and WP:CORP. KarenAnn 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I remember this article being linked from every imaginable concurrency and distributed computing article. Those links were removed as spam; and so should the article itself for failing to establish notability. Saeed Jahed 05:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete 216.141.226.190 12:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:VSCA, protect the deleted page if necessary. Make sure to get rid of all incoming redirects and links, and any inappropriate external links to the company that have been inserted into other articles. Phr (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, therefore Angela will join Jermaine Dupri here on Wikipedia. Money ain't a Thang! - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angela Constance

Defeated candidate who holds only local public office, fails WP:N. See Ann Garrett and Ben Abbotts for AfDs on losing candidates in more recent by-election (where Abbotts also came significantly close). Mtiedemann 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete - useful information of a leading Scottish Nationalist Politician. often those who unsuccessfully fight by elections are those who have a high profile (eg Tony Blair was an unsuccessful By election candidate). Suggest that those from Scotland or interested in Scottish politics are more likely to see the importance of this information.--Sjharte 13:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • While there certainly seems to be some merit to the notion that "often those who unsuccessfully fight by elections are those who have a high profile", I really fail to see any of the alleged "useful information" contained within this stub. If you can expand this article to include said "useful information" (which I can't seem to find in existance), I would be willing to support keeping it. --Vengeful Cynic 15:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. --circuitloss 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If you can cite evidence that she does have a high profile, she can stay, otherwise she goes. --David Mestel^(Talk) 15:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Vengeful Cynic 15:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely importance is in the eye of the beholder. All of those advocating deletion do not appear to be from Scotland or exhibit an interest in Scottish politics. Those who are and so will find it useful to have a Wikipedia resource that includes individuals such as Angela Constance. Although I am not a supporter of her party I do know that she is standing for one of their target seats (Livingston) at next year's Scottish Parliament elections. Keeping this entry will, for example, allow ot to be sued as a link when discussing the election process in that constituency.--Sjharte 15:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep against nom Antares33712 16:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• WP:N is not policy. Keep as this person is clearly notable within the context of Scottish politics. Vizjim 16:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not mentioned in the Independent once in the last two years. Dr Zak 18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. She is more than a nobody, but she is certainly not clearly notable in any sense of the word. For example, the article currently says, quite truthfully, that while she has failed to win a place in the British parliament, she will have a shot at getting a place in the Scottish parliament in 2007; what it does not say is that she is not particularly likely to succeed (see this article in the Scotsman, which is mostly about some rather more prominent candidates, but does discuss her chances briefly in the final paragraph). — Haeleth Talk 18:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- disclaimer, IANAEOSP (I am not an expert on Scottish politics), but it appears that the person holds an office on a council of a county/city/local government subdivision. That seems not-notable to me, and certainly "party spokesperson for children services and lifelong learning" and "elected President of Glasgow University Students' Representative Council" don't add much either. An American equivalent could be someone serving a first term on a 26 member county commission board who also is vice president of the library fundraising council. -- MrDolomite | Talk 19:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N. 1,240 Google results. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --CharlotteWebb 22:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a candidate is not notability in itself, and there is no notability from any other source. David | Talk 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for having held elected office (even if it was on the local level). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and deletion of other mere candidates and councillors. Timrollpickering 16:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for having 43 unique hits on the Scotsman website; pretty good for a West Lothian councillor given the unremittingly parochial Edinburgh nature of the paper. Also 15 on the BBC, 6 on the Herald, and so on. WTF anyone would think that the Indie was likely to notice anything outwith Londonistan will forever be one of life's great mysteries. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep please the person is notable within scottish politics Yuckfoo 18:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep who is Jermaine Dupri outside the USA? She is notable in her homeland and that is important. It is painfully obvious this vote was undertaken by an ignorant person here. 216.141.226.190 02:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per keep arugments. If she is notable in Scottish politics, who are we to define her notability here. And I love the statement right above 205.188.116.138 14:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerry Stephen Freedman

Vanity about failed local authority candidate, who holds public office only at the most local level (Community Councillor) Mtiedemann 11:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:BIO - local candidates are not notable and failed candidates are even less so. Reads as a vanity article - Peripitus (Talk) 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Peripitus. --David Mestel^(Talk) 15:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable politician; fails WP:BIO and reads like a vanity article as suggsted above by Peripitus hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for having held elected office (even if it was on the local level). Needs a metric ton of cleanup; hopefully some kind soul will do the dirty work. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Peripitus. Joe 03:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO - 6 ghits, WP top and none of them press, TV or radio. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. The nomination raises the questions of sources and verification, and these points are never addressed: The article is still wholly unreferenced.

I'd encourage every editor to print out and read at your leisure Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Don't skim them, or just read the lead, take them to bed with you and curl up with a nice cup of tea.

The issue of what is "cruft" is not one we should be debating. That is a personal judgment, and not an editorial one, and editors whom have worked in good faith in producing an article should not be subjected to pejoratives. In almost every case, however, meticulousness regarding sources will solve any perceived problems without resorting to disparagment, or even appeal to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

brenneman ^{L} 01:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A deletion review has been opened. - brenneman ^{L} 02:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] StarCraft units and structures

Wikipedia is not a game strategy guide. This article consists of nothing but game guide information, such as "a Protoss Zealot has higher hit points than a Zergling but the Zergling can attack faster to balance this out" (and that's in the introduction). There's also a great deal of individual units, each with their own article and useful game guide information such, but this is not the AFD for those. Does nothing that the StarCraft category doesn't do. And so, to summarise: Redundant, game guide (fails WP:NOT), and unreferenced (fails WP:V and WP:NOR). Delete. Proto::type 17:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There seems to be a craze of AfD debates about computer game-related stuff recently; and I have voted delete to almost all of them. They are not suitable for Wikipedia because of WP:NOT. The onus is on people to say why they should be kept. Batmanand | Talk 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

CommentI looked throuh WP:NOT and didnt see any reference to a game guide at first, I finally found it under instruction manual. So really this page just needs to be modified to fit what it was meant to be, it is currently horribly organized and needs alot of coordinated help from the VG group to Wikify it, but its premise is needed. It consolidates all the units from Starcraft and Starcraft:Broodwar into one place, yes the category can do that as well but it also contains people, places, etc. One thing for sure that needs to be done is to remove the "this unit is better because" references and just have a reproduction of the sheet that came with the games listing units of similar tier with cost and possibly stats. That is all verifiable fact, people can draw their own conclusions from it.Sir hugo 19:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

While the data from "the sheet that came with the games" is verifiable, it's also copyrighted. Just making this page into a reproduction of that information sheet would be worse than things stand currently, IMO. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The data is not copyrighted, all that data is available in the game for everyone to see. The exact layout with pictures and such might be though. I also beleive the only copyright notice on it was protecting the Blizzard and Starcraft logos and such as trademarks.Sir hugo 21:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Most text is copyrighted by default; if something doesn't have an explicit message disclaiming or modifiying copyright, you have to assume it's 'all rights reserved'. For example, look at the bottom of any Wikipedia page for a copyright notice stating the copyright as GFDL. --ais523 09:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Batmanand. Gameguides belong in forums, not encyclopedias. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. At least it puts everything into one list, wikipedia is not paper. Themindset 19:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  Nor is it toilet paper. (sorry, couldn't resist!) Proto::type 08:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Provides objective information on one of the most popular computer games of all time. [11] WP:V and WP:NOR can easily be satisfied by references such as this and a host of others. It does explain specific characteristics of the game, but that does not make it an unencyclopedic strategy guide, any more than it does to describe specific characteristics of chess or go. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 21:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  Quick comment - just to reassur you, I in no way suggested that StarCraft itself is not notable - it obviously is! Proto::type 10:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as per nom. Wikipedia may not be paper, but it is also an encyclopedia, and not a game guide. Wikigamers, please start your own wiki for game guides some time!!!. Great game though. Bwithh 23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There's at least two places for game guides that are wikis: wikibooks and gameinfo. Unfortunately these are not very well promoted. --ColourBurst 07:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure Wikibooks is not accepting gameguides anymore. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: in WP:NOT all you can read about games is "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s." but this does not apply to the page under discussion.--Pokipsy76 09:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Actually, WP:NOT refers specifically to this kind of information - in WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, part 8 (Instruction manuals), it says "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides". Proto::type 11:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide -- GWO
• Keep per Reaverdrop MarineCorps 16:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Followup Comment per "keep" vote above: I decided to actually check on chess as a point of comparison. There is absolutely no comparison; chess blows Starcraft out of the water in the amount of Wikipedia content devoted to all its conceivable minutiae. Not only are there lots of articles along the lines of Rules of chess, Chess strategy and tactics, and Chess openings, but look at the vast continents of articles in Category:Chess, Category:Chess rules, Category:Chess variants, Category:Chess checkmates, Category:Chess endgames, Category:Chess games, Category:Chess notation, Category:Chess openings, Category:Chess pieces, Category:Chess problems, Category:Chess strategy, Category:Chess tactics, Category:Chess terms, Category:Chess titles, Category:Chess traps, and many more. Category:Chess openings by itself has 137 articles. And needless to say, to compare with "units and structures", every chess piece has its own article. Anyone upset with the question of the encyclopedic nature of articles on specific mechanics of a globally popular game should work on getting a few thousand of the chess articles deleted before worrying about StarCraft units and structures. (And comparing starcraft with chess is eminently appropriate; they are probably in broadly comparable ranges of current worldwide players, current top professional player earnings, current global press coverage, current global television coverage, etc.) As another comparison, Category:Go has six subcategories and 49 articles, including articles on such nuts and bolts specifics of game mechanics as Go strategy and tactics, Life and death, Empty triangle, Capturing race, Fuseki, Rules of Go, Go opening theory, Joseki, and Yose. StarCraft units and structures is equally as encyclopedic as all of these. (There is a relevant, non-conclusive discussion of these issues at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#List_vs._Game_Manual, where I have referenced this AfD.) - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 21:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  And of course, in 10 years people will still be playing chess, and while they might be playing StarCraft 7, it doesn't put this game on the same par as a 1000+ year-old game. This is just an example of Wikipedia's Systemic bias toward the new and shiny. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply - The sampling bias of WP's editors is fascinating in its own right, but each topic should be evaluated by objective evidence on a case-by-case basis. And anyway, judging solely by the vastness of the chess content on WP, its systemic bias would appear to be toward canonized pillars of culture over the new and shiny. As evidence in this case: over 9.5 million copies of Starcraft have been sold so far; [12] at over eight years old now, it typically has around 70,000 Starcraft games currently being played on Battlenet at any moment, which is about three times higher than during its first year; 46% of over 10,000 voters in a World Cyber Games poll this year named Starcraft, out of eight WCG competition games, as the one they'd most like to participate in, [13] a gain over the prevous year; at eight years old, more professional competitions keep forming, and professional earnings and endorsements are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and have continued rising, while it is one of only two computer games with leagues of full-time professional players; [14] the government of Singapore let a pro Starcraft player postpone his obligatory military service to play Starcraft at the World Cyber Games, out of its support for those "who are selected to represent Singapore at prestigious international sports and cultural events"; [15] in South Korea, two cable channels have programs devoted to Starcraft competition, and schools post students' Starcraft rankings along with their academic rankings. [16] While identifiable ancestors of chess have been around for 1000 years, modern chess would be at least "Chess 7" if they had kept track of different versions, and chess in its modern form has been around less than 200 years, only 25 times as long as Starcraft, while evidence indicates Starcraft has only continued to grow more popular over the past eight years, so it shows no sign of dropping into a void anytime soon. A fairer comparison with the greater body of ancestral games under the "chess" aegis should be to the whole Starcraft/Warcraft family, which has sold over 35 million copies over the past twelve years, and with the newest version, World of Warcraft, accumulating about one million new paying monthly subscribers every three months, since its release around a year and a half ago (the most paying subscribers of any computer game ever, by a vast margin). In sum, there is substantial evidence that Starcraft and/or its descendants will still be of comparable popularity and encyclopedic notability to chess in ten years. If not, I'll AfD this article again in 2016. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, verifiable and not a how-to, and I tend to agree with most of Reaverdrop's comment. JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Users wanting this level of detail should buy the manual. The attempt to compare StarCraft with chess is intellectually interesting but fails to convince me. Chess traces its roots back to the 6th century, is played and has been played by far more people, has been the subject of literally thousands of books and the subject of academic studies and publications is a wide range of disciplines, has a highly formal tournament process with recognized Grandmasters, etc. If, in 10 years, StarCraft is of comparable notability to chess, create this level of detailed article then. Rossami (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment The debate is not whether this level of detail is needed it is whether this type of information constitutes "Strategy" guide. If I were to say "When playing as the Zerg you need to build alot of Zerglings really fast and try to overwhelm your closest opponent." that would be a strategy guide, where as saying "Zerglings cost 50 minerals for a set of two and produce in the same time as a Zealot which costs 100 minerals making each Zergling more economical" that is no longer a strategy guide. If I had more time to actually edit this article instead of just skimming and fixing small things then I would try and rewrite it. When I first came looking for Starcraft on Wikipedia it was for this particular page, I wanted a page with a link to each units page as well as a place for basic information about each unit compared to other similar units.Sir hugo 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Zerglings cost 50 minerals for a set of two and produce in the same time as a Zealot which costs 100 minerals making each Zergling more economical" is strategy guide information. Just because it avoids using 'you', doesn't make it any less game guidey. Proto::type 14:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

How is that strategy guide information? It is straight out comparison, a strategy guide explains step by step how to accomplish something. Saying this unit attacks faster, or costs less is just stating verifiable fact. Stating that one unit is more economical then another may be straying too close to original research though. I see this as no different then an article listing military aircraft comparing the F-22 to the F-16 and stating that the F-16 costs less and is faster to produce but less capable then the F-22.Sir hugo 14:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Compare with this passage from Queen (chess):

The queen can be moved in a straight line vertically, horizontally, or diagonally, any number of unoccupied squares as shown on the diagram at the left, thus combining the moves of the rook and bishop. The distance it can move is known as the Chebyshev distance. As with other captures except en passant, the queen captures by occupying the square on which an enemy piece sits. Ordinarily the queen is slightly more powerful than a rook and a bishop together, while slightly less powerful than two rooks. Because the queen is more valuable than any other piece, it is almost always disadvantageous to exchange the queen for a piece other than the enemy's queen, unless doing so leads to a position where the king can be checkmated.

I don't think either article is any less encyclopedic. Dividing between providing objective content on specific game mechanics, and actually suggesting or recommending strategy, is the appropriate dividing line between encyclopedic and WP:NOT. Otherwise, where is there a principled dividing line between eliminating specific game mechanics, and eliminating any rules of a game, and eliminating any content at all related to a game or sport? If forms of recreation are encyclopedic at all, providing specific descriptions of their rules or mechanics should be limited only by the same criteria as for anything else, i.e. notability, references, etc. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Saying that "Users wanting this level of detail should buy the manual" seems a personal opinion having nothing to do with wikipedia policies. One could say that if you want to learn the chess rules you should buy a chess manual. The argumet about the number of people playing chess or playing starcraft or about the age of the games has no relevance with the WP policies. The real difference (not explicitily expressed so far) between chess and starctaft here is that starcraft is a trademark. This could make you think that if we go in the details of the aspect of starcraft we are behaving unfairly with respect to the owners of the trademark. This would not happen with chess. If this is the problem please say it explicitly.--Pokipsy76 14:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply to chilling effect of conceptions of trademark - It pains me to see conceptions about intellectual property having this chilling influence on speech. Trademarks and copyrights do not exclude sharing information or opinion. Please do not censor your own communications out of fear of intellectual property. Looking at "behaving fairly" from the other side, would you think it was fair if a company sued someone for telling her friend how many minerals are required to make a Zealot? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (Disclaimer: although the writer is an intellectual property attorney, this is written as personal opinion and not provided as legal advice. If you require legal advice, retain an attorney admitted to practice in your jurisdiction.)

• Transwiki to Gameinfo or the StrategyWiki. Wikipedia is not for game guides. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki We don't really need this gamecruft on Wikipedia that's what GameFAQs are for. Whispering 17:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Do we "need" chess or go "gamecruft" intstead?--Pokipsy76 17:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment *sigh* there is no way you can compare Chess to Starcraft besides you can always AfD those articles as well if you want. Whispering 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I know they are "different", I just cannot figure out what *policy* are you supposing to apply to accept chess "gamecruft" while not accepting the same for starctaft?--Pokipsy76 20:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - You may be interested in a similar AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Units in Advance Wars. - Hahnchen 17:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This (with the sub-articles - on its own, it's pretty much a useless lump of ugly tables) is a detailed guide on how to play Starcraft, and doesn't offer the historical context or copious sourcability of a chess article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - there are no policies about the need of "historical context" or "copious sourcability". Moreover an article like Rules of chess has no historical context and is a "guide on how to play chess" but I saw nobody asking for its deletion.--Pokipsy76 10:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • There is, however, policy about game guides being inappropriate for Wikipedia: WP:NOT. I'm not wild about Rules of chess, either, frankly. If you think it's unencyclopedic, put it up for deletion. The existance of other inappropriate or borderline articles doesn't justify keeping this awful article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think that Rules of chess is unencyclopedic and this is coherent with my position that describing details about other games like starctaft is encyclopedic too. The incoherent position is yours if you think that the former is encyclopedic but not the latter. I saw nobody saying that rules of chess is inappropriate or borderline. Last: The fact that you find an article "awful" is not relevant at all.--Pokipsy76 11:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
        • This is awful because it's a poorly-written game guide. That's pretty relevant. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Your opinion about its being "poorly written" is not relevant with the initial motivation you gave for the deletion and is not related to the policies (we are supposed to improve poorly written article, not to delete them).--Pokipsy76 08:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
            • It's poorly-written. It's a game guide. It's garbage. It needs to be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
              • When people have valid points they generally are able to express them by rational means rather than by emotional slogans.--Pokipsy76 08:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
                • Game guides are called out in WP:NOT. Additionally, this is poorly-written, so there's little to salvage with a merge. Are you done asking me to repeat myself, or need I do it again? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • I was just trying to make a rational discussion until you started repeating the same things about alleged "awfulness" and "game guide" without taking in any consideration the objections already done.--Pokipsy76 09:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • I've read the above objections. You're harping on the chess and go articles, but I'm unmoved; I don't think they're particularly encyclopedic either. I really think they should be merged into a more-encyclopedic article, which I think is quite possible given the centuries-long history of chess. Not so with Starcraft, which, while exceedingly popular, doesn't have the history or breadth to justify more than a single article about the gameplay itself. Additionally, this article is so poorly-written that it is unlikely to form a useful basis for that single article, nor will it be a useful merge into that single gameplay article. On top of all this, this article is wholly unsourced and unlikely to become sourced.
                      Basically, this is hopeless junk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 05:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• On the fence Keep, maybe with some merging I believe that Starcraft units are notable enough to be covered, but this does read like a game guide and one article per unit seems excessive. Perhaps merge all the units to the page for their respective race and have brief information about them there. It's often a fine line between encyclopedic coverage of gameplay and game design and game guide, but I think in current form, these articles are on the wrong side. Transwiki to Encyclopedia Gamia, though. Ace of Sevens 09:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant Changing suggestion. I stil believe this is encyclopedic and worth covering, however, this page seems to contain no information which isn't on the main StarCraft page or the pages about the individual races, so it's unecessary. Ace of Sevens 08:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Gamecruft. Artw 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep it was really big game in its time and I can see there being interest in this into the future. Is it as big as chess? No. but I think the comparision is largely apt. --Pboyd04 00:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As sympathetic I am to people who work hard on articles like this that might be of some interest to some people, Wikipedia rules are rules. WP:NOT clearly states no game guides. The argument over [[chess] doesn't fly with me, because you don't have articles for each chess piece in Wikipedia describing their moves and role in the game. If you really want to make the Starcraft article consistent with the chess article, provide a brief description of Starcraft units and the differences between available races in the article, or perhaps in one split-off article. Describing them in such detail, however, is without question a game guide. Aplomado ^talk 00:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, you do: King (chess), Queen (chess), Knight (chess), Bishop (chess), Rook (chess), Pawn (chess) Ace of Sevens 01:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I got owned. I still think these articles are excessive, though. Isn't there a gamewiki for this kind of stuff? It just all seems oddly out of place on Wikipedia. Aplomado ^talk 01:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per A Man In Black. GassyGuy 00:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP I have read the arguments and I agree with the yay's, not the naysayers ^^ -- Librarianofages 01:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:

Dragoons are created from Zealots who have been crippled or mortally injured in combat and are thus unable to continue fighting in their preferred manner - with a pair of psionic blades. They continue to volunteer their services, however; their crippled or mortally injured bodies are placed within large exoskeletons which contain any life-support equipment required by the individual Protoss. Living within a cold and dark environment, Dragoons are very somber compared to their Zealot counterparts. Seeing themselves as fallen warriors they show many signs of lost pride. Based on their quotes within the game; "I have returned", "For vengence", "I am needed", and "Make use of me" it becomes clear that Dragoons feel a sense of worthlessness among the protoss. For this reason Dragoons make a large effort to contribute to Protoss society. Although considered second class citizens compared to Zealots, Dragoons are undeniably valuable. Having both a ground/air attack and a ranged attack they are the all purpose Protoss unit(similar to the Zerg Hydralisk or the Terran Marine). When combined with Zealots they create a simple yet deadly force of long and close range attacks.

God help us all if this is what Wikipedia is becoming. Aplomado ^talk 01:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would think covering both its place in the fiction of the game and in gameplay would be an appropriate approach. Ace of Sevens 04:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, this AfD is not for the Dragoon article in any case. --SevereTireDamage 04:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a game strategy guide -- and no amount of wikilawyering and false comparisons changes that. Where else is it of use except as guide for the game? --Calton | Talk 02:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You're defining game guide so broadly as to be meaningless. Any sort of information could be called a guide. This isn't a guide to playing a game, more an overview of its design characteristics. What sort of nformation about games do you think isn't a guide? Ace of Sevens 02:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Was there an actual response or any actual information buried anywhere in that bit of handwaving? "Any sort of information could be called a guide"? True, but utterly a non sequitor, since I'm talking about THIS piece of information.
• What sort of nformation about games do you think isn't a guide? Type of game (board, FPS, turn-based strategy?), point of game (gathering treasure, surviving to the end, outscoring your opponent?), type of opponents (computer, partner, online?), distinctive qualities (customizable, nearly infinite combinations, biggest seller for a platform), etc. You know, facts (or, to use a meaningless phrase someone keeps introducing to these discussions, "true facts"). --Calton | Talk 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• If I were to write a single article on Draw Poker (actual example is kind of moot, since it's been sub-divided into so many articles on all the variants), pertinent information would include that you use a deck of 52 cards with numerical values of 2-10 and 4 face cards. Then I would have to describe the hierarchy of hands, as well as the betting system. I wouldn't describe the proper ways to bluff or other subjective tactics, as that would be a strategy guide. With Starcraft, the units and structures are equally worth mentioning and pertinent to the game's design, as they are base elements of this very complex game with its rules. The fact that it is a computer game and the subject requires a lot of material to adequately cover doesn't mean it should be dismissed as unimportant, and I believe that it can and should be covered without veering into how-to/guide territory. --SevereTireDamage 05:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• the subject requires a lot of material to adequately cover No, it doesn't. The principles are easy enough to set forth. Going into the mechanics in detail makes it -- wait for it -- a game guide. --Calton | Talk 07:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, per cruft, per wp:not. SynergeticMaggot 02:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as original research, cruft, and all other reasons listed above. Wickethewok 02:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, per gamecruft, as how-to guide. I play the game myself, it's a good game, I know lots of people who also play it, but none of that is the point at hand. Tychocat 03:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Transwiki if they take it. A good part of the chass stuff is cruft too btw. (But then again so are minor OC characters). ~ trialsanderrors 03:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki to appropriate wikis. I also highly agree with Aplomado's most recent comment. Picaroon9288 03:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, per all valid reasons above. ShaunES 04:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

• And which "valid reasons" would those be? --Calton | Talk 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete gamecruft. Transwiki is potentially a good idea, especially if the article is cleaned up considerably. Dbratton 04:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Regarding the nom: First of all, the quote at the top is misleading, because while it sounds crufty, it actually immediately follows the sentence: Unlike Blizzard Entertainment’s first two forays into RTS with WarCraft, StarCraft went against the typical symmetrical match ups. Instead, each race is given its own unique properties, their own advantages and disadvantages. As such, each unit does not quite match up easily with another race’s. which is then followed by several examples. This seems like a valid encyclopedic description of StarCraft's unit system. Which leads to me to another point: This page, StarCraft units and structures is the one up for deletion, not the sub-pages, which should each get their own AfD and be measured by their own merits, if people feel it's necessary. Remember, we are talking about this single page.

  This article is not cruft and it is not a game guide or instruction manual. It is an overview of the races, units and structure in a notable video game, a key part of the explanation of a complex gameplay system. It does not instruct the players - in that regard is it is pretty useless. It is also not original research, since this straight-ahead comparison of units can be cited from a secondary source such as an actual strategy guide, or just using the game itself as a primary source. I am further swayed by Reaverdrop's arguments. --SevereTireDamage 04:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• a key part of the explanation of a complex gameplay system. A game guide, then. --Calton | Talk 04:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• If that's what peopel think is a game guide, it's no wonder we've been getting these votes. Explanation of design and gameplay issue is not the same things as guide, which is directions, not an explanation. Ace of Sevens 04:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, more handwaving. In what way does "[e]xplanation of design and gameplay issue [emphasis mine] NOT constitute a game guide? --Calton | Talk 07:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I already explained this. Guide is a broad term. Any sort of information could be called a guide. However, the game guide rule is a corollary of wikipedia is not a how-to-guide, which this isn't. Saying you can't cover game design in video game articles, only the publisher, release date, etc is like sayign you can't discuss literary technique in an article a book or cinematic technique in an article about a movie. In most cases, it's whatmakes a game notable. Stating the publisger and story of a game doesn't really you anything about it. Ace of Sevens 08:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Just fyi, all the article quotes that SevereTireDamage has listed are all original research or at least information thats not from a reliable source. Determining that "each unit does not quite match up easily with another race’s", for example, is original research as it is an unsourced interpretation of the gameplay of Starcraft. Wickethewok 04:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Everything is original research at some point. All information must originate somewhere. WP:NOR only applies to Wikipedia itself, not cited sources. Ace of Sevens 04:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• How is it original research? The statistics of each units are facts - the units of different races do not have the same stats and abilities. (This is also a deliberate change in the from earlier Warcraft games, where for the most part, the units on both sides were equal in strength, movement, etc. That is probably why it is noted in the first place.) Those are factual observations, not interpretations - speed, attack, other things are hard numerical values in the game that can compared directly. It is not some kind of subjective value judgment, as you seem to imply. Everything in that opening paragraph is of the same nature. --SevereTireDamage 04:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is short on references, but that doesn't mean it's original research. Basically any review of Starcraft would work for this point, such as this one. [17] Ace of Sevens 05:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete productcruft, fans of this game should start their own wiki, something like Memory Alpha for Star Trek. Phr (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note - individual units are up for deletion here. Note that there is a StarCraft wiki here: wikia:starcraft. Wickethewok 05:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I vote delete, but with several major reservations that I feel have to be taken into account. I agree with this particular deletion, but only because the section can be done better justice on the strategy wiki. Wikipedia itself can provide an external link. However, after reading this page, I have to post these reminders since some people obviously don't remember:

• Reminder 1: There is no official fancruft policy so don't pretend there is. If you voted Delete because you believe there is such an official, binding policy, change your vote because that's not the case. It's a guideline at best, and heavily disputed. Not all Wikipedians have to agree with it.
• Reminder 2: Starcraft is not just a game, it is a cultural phenomenon. See the compilation of information provided by reaverdrop.
• Reminder 3: Not knowing something doesn't make it original research. Aka, your ignorance on Starcraft is not an opinion. Sorry, no offense to those who actually know StarCraft material, but anyone who mentioned original research either doesn't know StarCraft or doesn't know original research. A quick google search verifies most of the information. Note that Blizzard, the company that produced StarCraft, has endorsed much of the strategy on this page. Is that official enough for you? See http://www.battle.net/scc/terran/ufire.shtml for example.

Last but not least, this is no reminder but a minor editorial from yours truly. In my humble opinion, the "how-to/advice" and "fancruft" mottos that have become common as "reasons" for deletion are (1) too vague and (2) too dogmatically applied when personal bias would concur with the result. It is impossible to provide encyclopedia information on a serious, potentially competitive or practical topic (chess, Starcraft, football, programming, etc) without delving into "how-to" at some level. Therefore, moderate use of "how-to" information in relevant articles is not be a problem. -- Solberg 06:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Blizzard... has endorsed much of the strategy on this page. I wish you guys would make up your mind on whether or not this is a strategy guide or not. -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not say whether the page is or is not a strategy guide. Who are "you guys?" Do not associate the opinions of others with mine in order to undermine my own argument. Such an action is referred to as a strawman fallacy. -- Solberg 23:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

• Delete per nom. Michael 07:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Delete as gamecruft per nom. -- H·G (^words/_works) 07:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The chess analogy is hilarious. It's like saying we need articles on every episode of Spongebob because we have articles on every play by Shakespeare. Too, too funny. -- GWO

Reply - If this is the point stop using the "gamecruft" argument (that applies to chess (that is a game)) and just say that there is "not enought notability". Actually nobody did.--Pokipsy76 08:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply - That's because "not enough notability" would be a lie as reaverdrop has amply demonstrated. Only valid reason for deletion is transwiki. Everything else is just a lie. -- Solberg 09:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Second reply. The amount of space/number of articles a given game deserves should be proportionate to its historical and cultural importance, and its intellectual depth. This is why Chess is like Shakespeare, and Starcraft is like Spongebob. One is a cultural touchstone for hundreds of years, the other will be basically forgotten within 50 years. -- GWO

Reply You're right that the articles a game deserves should be proportionate, which is precisely why StarCraft deserves more pages. As already demonstrated by reaverdrop, Starcraft is historically and culturally notable. It's undeniably the most popular RTS and like several other major games, it has transcended its medium and become notable outside of gaming circles. Prove that StarCraft isn't notable culturally or historically or that it lacks intellectual depth. I'm a tournament chess player so don't try to fool me with poorly stamped comparisons. If you have any concrete comparisons to make with chess, make them now. If you have any evidence that contradicts reaverdrop's, show it now. Otherwise don't bother with the notability argument, it's worthless without any evidence backing it up. -- Solberg 21:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Reply - Why should starctaft be compared to Spongebob and not, for example, to Harry Potter or Lost which do have much more space dedicated to them than the Shakespeare's operas even without sharing the same historical value?--Pokipsy76 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Clear delete per consistency. Punkmorten 08:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Deleting units and structures is the equivalent of deleting any mention of cards from poker or chess pieces from chess. Articles like Rook (chess) are less encyclopedic then this collection of information about each individual unit. I would argue the chess articles are even worse since they actually dedicate an entire article to each piece describing how it moves etc. which is equivalent to this condensed article describing the facts of the "game pieces" which happen to be bits and bytes. I think people are just failing to grasp how large Starcraft is and how much of cultural phenom it is. Terms have arose from this game, not fully directly, but popularized because of it, such as "to zerg". While there is a word, the term gained its popularity through the pieces in this game, much like people using the term "checkmate" when they out do an opponent. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've no interest in this computer game, and find some of the comments about it laughable. Having said that, the comparison between it and chess are appropriate, & it is clearly a notable game. On the other hand, chess is not 'owned' by anyone, unlike star craft, and it requires simple equipment to play without buying a license from a 3rd party. Markb 12:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT a game guide. Starcraft is an interesting cultural phenomenon, but there is no good reason for structure and unit lists for any game unless it has a very profound and lasting impact (ala Chess).--Isotope23 14:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The fact that we have another bad/crufty/minutely detailed article on a different topic has NEVER been a good reason to keep in AfD. If you don't like the Chess sub-articles, nominate them and see what happens. Right now there's a lot of momentum toward consolidation/trimming of extraneous detail on AFD, so you might succeed. -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- As bad as this article is, I don't see any procedural or policy reason why it should be deleted. Look at the class descriptions at World of Warcraft for example. A similar situation, just better written and edited. This article just needs a major rewrite, and maybe an excorcism. --circuitloss 14:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep why? because my interpretation of why strategy guides are NOT encyclopedic is related to original research(i.e. my personal strategy) and NPOV restrictions as well as the non-factual basis of such things. I would submit, that many things that are common knowledge(FACTS known by a reasonably large group of people) are worth keeping for those who don't know. A similar thing would be a zerg rush, which, while an element of strategy, is seperately important because it has a massive cultural understanding as to what it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ikanreed (talk • contribs) 09:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  Errr, the "massive cultural impact" of zerg rush (which redirects to the arguably broader topic of rushing) is blunted by the fact that very few people who don't play the game have any idea what you're talking about. Lots of things LOOK important from the inside, but are actually minute details when viewed from a broader perspective. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• trans to gamewiki This article must go other place where it suppose to be. --Wnmnkh 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Reaverdrop, SevereTireDrop, Solberg, and IkanReed. This is not game guide material in the least bit. Game guides is under the instruction manuals subheading in WP:NOT. This article has no instruction manual material whatsoever, I think this claim is totally false. It is a table of units in StarCraft, nothing even hints at strategy. Wikipedia will fail in its mission to be the sum of all human knowledge if people try to delete everything that they perceive to be unimportant. Cruft does not harm the encyclopedia in the least bit. The article is not harming those who are uninterested by existing; they are free to choose whether to look at it or not. However, it is still there for those who are interested in it. --Varco 19:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete.
  Answering Varco: this is not knowledge, so we lose nothing if we delete it. Let me explain. The basic details -- such as the fact that different races have different units with different attributes, and require different strategies -- are knowledge, encyclopedic, and belong in Wikipedia, and can usefully be illustrated with representative examples. But full lists of every single unit are facts, not knowledge; they are to StarCraft what a phone directory is to Telephone. One does not need such information to understand the nature of the game, nor its cultural importance; one only needs such information if one is actually engaged in playing the game, in which case there are plenty of better places to get it. So it should not be here. We are in the business of producing a first-rate encyclopedia, not second-rate game guides. — Haeleth Talk 19:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- belongs on gamewiki.org, if it ever comes online, or even gamewiki.net. The main article StarCraft is encyclopedic; the tree of articles it has spawned are not. While I realize WP has more capacity than World Book, let's face it, their editors would have laughed this article out of the room. -- MrDolomite | Talk 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Additionally, Chess's articles are acceptable because chess has had immense cultural impacts. Maybe if this game becomes important in society or lasts for an additional twenty to thirty years, this article can be re-created. As of right now, the game is not notable enough to require an extensive list of units and structures. Srose (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide; article is gamecruft hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Emphatic Delete In all of these debates the keep argument keeps getting less and less convincing. This is clearly only useful in the context of playing this particular video game. In my mind that makes it a game guide. I'm a big fan of this particular game but this is completely unencylopedic and is exactly what you would find in a book on the subject.--Nick Y. 22:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• My vote is still delete per all the excellent reasons above. Whispering 00:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Transwiki The chess argument is a fantastic one. --JD79 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Are you all really that convinced that because we have an article on chess, that means we should have an article that covers in excruciating detail each and every fictional unit in the myriads of computer games in existance? I think anyone who votes "keep" on those grounds is reeeeeaalllly reaching. Aplomado ^talk 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Are you really that convinced that this is the argument at all? No one suggested covering every fictional unit in the "myriads of computer games in existence" anymore than it has been suggested we cover every book in existence simply because Shakespeare is good. See strawman fallacy and false analogy. -- Solberg 00:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

OK. So I must be hallucinating when everyone brings up chess when an article like this is nominated for deletion. Aplomado ^talk 00:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Um, no one has suggested covering every book in existence. See AfD Thalir. Sometimes they make the cut, sometimes they don't. But, based on the AfD discussions and, as an example, the contents of [[Category:Real-time_strategy_computer_games]], one can say that many computer game articles with extreme amounts of detail have been added. I'm not going to wikilawyer and pull quotes from Jimbo or previous discussions. As to the chess argument listed above, any game invented more than a century ago, which can be played by two people who don't even speak the same language, using very simple objects (think rocks and sand), which has world championship going back to c.1520, definitely falls into the notable category. Is there a grey area between chess and SC? Definitely. Can I understand that editors are excited about things that are top of mind in pop culture and use WP as an outlet, knowing there are others that share an interest? You bet. Another sanity check; would your grandma know about chess, or SC, or both, or neither? This level of treatment of fictional objects in a video game, albeit a currently popular one, is not appropriate for an encyclopedic resource, printed or otherwise. -- MrDolomite | Talk 01:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's my question. What on earth is a game guide if this isn't? If I posted the StarCraft manual on Wikipedia, what would it have that isn't covered in these articles other than installation instructions? Aplomado ^talk 01:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. User's other edits are only vandalisms. --Golbez 00:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colt angels

Speedy tag removed. No ghits. Nothing on Allmusic. Reads like something made up in school one day. --DarkAudit 00:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) why is this being deleted?Pie182 00:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• er excuse me look at www.undecidedrock.co.uk and www.myspace.com/coltangelsPie182 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Non-notable band; no notability claims presented (anyone can make a Myspace page, that does nothing for notability). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hyes we are a band looking to storm the music industry. We deserve an article. Poo you, DarkAudit. Don't you have anything better to do than deleting worthy articles. Mmm. Thought not. Ta. Beyatch91 00:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 into Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium. bd2412 T 21:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MM Support Network

Simply a website run by the Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium for patients with multiple myeloma or their caregivers. Fails WP:WEB, can be merged/redirected with the MMRC page or simply deleted (my preference). JFW | T@lk 00:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Add the link to the MMRC article and delete. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Multiple Myeloma or where relevant. SynergeticMaggot 02:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Multiple myeloma. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• merge and redirect to Multiple myeloma is best Yuckfoo 19:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: It may need to be merged to Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium instead. SynergeticMaggot 04:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 09:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Rhodes (porn star)

Rhodes appears to fail the proposed WP:PORN BIO notability guidelines. He is exclusively signed with Falcon Studios, has dated another porn star who is redlinked, and has a relatively short filmography (less than a dozen films). Searches on IAFD and IMDb both result in zero relevant matches. As usual, comments are welcomed on my talk page if anyone feels I have made a mistake somewhere along the line with this nomination. RFerreira 00:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom no notability beyond someone shopping for pornography. Doc 02:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NN and WP:BIO/WP:LIVING. SynergeticMaggot 02:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PORN BIO, which means he fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. by Porn Bio. Ugly, too. -- GWO

There's no need to attack the guy's looks in AFD, Gareth. -- nae'blis _(talk) 13:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- has starred in seven movies by Falcon Studios and its subdivision, Jocks, in the last year and a half. Falcon is the leading gay porn studio: it produces big budget, widely-distributed movies. It is not some backstreet operation with limited distribution. WP:PORN BIO is only proposed, and is still being developed. It was developed with straight porn in mind, and is not, in my opinion, well-suited to gay porn. The article is well-written, properly linked, and better referenced than 95% of Wikipedia articles. Zeromacnoo 12:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Zeromacnoo's comments, Rhodes is notable. He has appeared on the covers of Men, Unzipped, and at least a third magazine.[18] This is more notability than many other performers. Also, "[t]he person has [or does not have] an entry on a filmography database, such as IMDB, IAFD, et al." is non-criteria for erotic actors' notability on WP:PORN BIO -- Dcflyer 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - insuficient to meet WP:PORN BIO requirements. Write another article when he's bottomed for a few more years - Peripitus (Talk) 13:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Zeromacnoo Antares33712 14:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Zeromacnoo PsYoP78 15:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Zeromacnoo. Carlossuarez46 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Per Zeromacnoo, I think we should clarify WP:PORN BIO with qualificiations for G/L Porn notability. My thoughts only, though. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Zeromacnoo has contacted several editors about this AFD. I'm not sure as to what his reasoning was (message cited recent edit history), but that may be a factor in concluding this discussion[19]. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

concur that there should be concern over this type of spam about which there has been discussion. When someone goes to this length to bias a discussion by contacting others with whom there has not been prior contact just based on their edits, that is spam. Doc 23:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Because AfD's are shortlived, it is wholly appropriate for someone to give notice to possibly interested editors. I thought WP was about inclusion; if someone's "spam" causes an editor to put in his/her $0.02 or it's British equivalent, so freaking what. You can contact whoever you feel to give input, too, it's a free country (free world). And your suggestion that my comment and position should be discounted or devalued because I was alerted to this by another editor is frankly kinda scary. Carlossuarez46 00:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Alerting other editors with whom you have dialogued is one thing, it is quite another to alert other editors with whom you have had no contact based on their edits alone. That's spam, pure and simple. Doc 01:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If people complain about spam, then someone may address it; to try to push your POV by discounting my (and anyone else who has been contacted) opinion has no basis in WP policy. Often alerts are posted on message boards for various wikiprojects about ongoing AfD's, do we stop the counting then? No. Why? because WP should want to hear everyone's opinion. If they are new or a sockpuppet they get discounted anyway. We don't care whether they are "regulars" or "lurkers". Carlossuarez46 03:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Response: If I have violated a policy or a guideline, please let me know where I can find it, becuase I do my best to behave according to the rules here. I have looked, and have not been able to find a Wikipedia policy against alerting other editors to an AfD. I did not try to persuade editors other than on this page to vote against the AfD. If there is no policy, then I don't know how I can be expected to conform to behaviour that certain editors think is appropriate. Zeromacnoo 04:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Response: In defense of Zeromacnoo's alerts, I personally appreciated this as it was a topic I was interested in, and I wouldn't have known about the discussion otherwise. Daydream believer2 04:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeromacnoo and others: I could have explained that better. There's an objection to "spamming" about discussion of deletion/policy/candidacy here at Wikipedia, because most of our processes work on the basis of consensus/rough consensus, the idea that most editors will come to some reasonable conclusion that is obvious, given the chance. Letting a certain subclass of editors know about a particular discussion skews those results and makes the final decision by the closing admin harder to determine if it's true or false consensus. Note that I didn't say "thse editors should be ignored", because a) that'd be assuming bad faith on Zero's part, and theirs, and b) I didn't look up what the reason was he contacted them (presumably, edit history with this or related gay porn articles). I just noticed that suddenly this discussion jumped from three commenters to six or seven, and wondered why. Does that help explain my message? -- nae'blis _{[[User_talk:Nae'blis|}

_{Response: In additional defense of Zermacnoo's alerts, I have been editing other gay pornographic pages. The decision of this AfD will set precedence for other gay porn star articles. I did not view his contact as spam, but relating to articles I have recently edited. PsYoP78 18:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)}

(talk)]] 13:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Completely. I'm sorry if I sounded negative, I don't think spamming is necessarily right. I guess I'm just thankful to be informed about discussions I'd like to weigh in on. Daydream believer2 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I also should have mentioned that the reason notices on WikiProject pages, for example, are not considered under the same bad light is that they are "opt-in" and available to anyone on any side of the discussion (for instance, I could watchlist WikiProject Porn stars and hear about any relevant discussions that people wanted to post there, whatever my personal interest/POV was about their notability. -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Zeromacnoo's contact with other editors is no reason to close discussion. As for the topic at hand: The reason why Erik Rhodes seems to have appeared in Falcon Studios videos only is that he has an exclusive contract with Falcon. Falcon Studio (+ Jock and Mustang divisions) produces a limited number of films per year. While I may disagree with Falcon's business model of concentrating mostly on white males, the "Falcon Exclusive" is a status that Falcon grants to a very select few gay porn actors. Rhodes has such a contract and most wannabe gay porn actor would kill for such a contract. As for notability, go to the falcon website [20]. See that guy on the left? That's Erik Rhodes. Falcon, one of the world's leading gay porn studios, promotes its website by putting Rhodes on its homepage. BTW, Rhodes (before signing on with Falcon) did appear in a video produced by Studio 2000, Flesh, in 2004. And yes, Studio 2000 is one of Falcon's main competitor for top talent. As for the counting bean criterion for notability: it's quite off. Ryan Idol, one of the biggest gay (for pay) porn stars ever, appeared in around ten (10) non-compilation videos from 1990 to 1996. The reason he did so few was that he thought doing so many would make him more of a has-been a lot sooner. He was right. Idol is not alone. See Rex Chandler and Jeff Stryker. Mtparnas 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cloachland 23:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Mtparnas and Dcflyer; WP:PORN BIO should be amended to include appearances on the covers of major magazines. Yamaguchi先生 02:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Although I would usually agree with deletion, Mtparnas' comments about other notable pornstars is completely valid in this sense. Daydream believer2 03:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Zeromacnoo and Mtparnas. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Zeromacnoo about the applicability of the proposed WP:PORN BIO to gay adult film performers and especially with Mtparnas's illustration of why counting the number of films for a particular performer isn't always a good indicator of that performer's notability.

• IAFD and IMDB are not appropriate resources by which to measure notability for gay adult film performers. Case in point: Al Parker was one of the most prolific gay adult film performers of his time.

• A search on IAFD [21] for Al Parker returns a no match. The same search on IMDB [22] lists Parker as an actor in 12 films, a director of three, a producer of one, and one appearance as himself. Hardly representative of his actual work.

• The video retailer tlavideo [23] lists Al Parker as a performer in 32 gay adult films (some of which are compilations of scenes of other films), a director of 22, and a producer for 2. He is also listed as a model in two books, as the subject of another, and as appearing in a deck of playing cards of gay adult film performers. Al Parker’s career spanned 13 years; tlavideo's listing does not include all his work.

• Erik Rhodes, having begun his work with one film in 2004, is listed in tlavideo as being in nine films. Five of them he made for Falcon Studios, three for Jocks Studios (a division of Falcon), and one for Studio 2000. Zeromacnoo and Mtparnas have addressed the concern regarding Erik's short filmography; which, given the average output of a gay adult film performer, is pretty impressive for roughly 2 years in the industry.

• Being exclusively signed with Falcon Studios is an excellent indicator of notability in terms of gay adult film performers, as Falcon is one of the largest studios (if not the largest studio) currently producing gay adult films. Falcon is also one of the oldest surviving studios to do so and is a highly-recognized brand.

• Dating someone who isn’t notable (i.e., redlined) doesn’t lessen an individual’s notability.

• As for the comments, I appreciate that Zeromacnoo noticed my fledgling editing efforts and thought to inform me of this discussion - it's a topic in which I have a great deal of interest. I would hope that being new to a forum doesn't automatically discount one's contributions to it. Chidom 08:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Per Zeromacnoo Spheroide 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep is more notable than most gay porn stars. There is an active discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors) about what the relevant criteria should be but he looks to meet them. This can be considered to meet criterion 8 of WP:PORN BIO as currently written. Note that IAFD has basically no coverage of gay porn. Eluchil404 18:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mostly Rainy 02:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-Strike Spray

Pure gamecruft. Additionaly sprays are not even an original feature of Counterstrike but of Half-Life, the game Counter-Strike was derived from - are we to have an article for every game that allows sprays? Artw 00:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge a small mention to Counter-Strike. --Pboyd04 00:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge You're wrong about there not being sprays in CS, merge to CS main article -- Librarianofages 01:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sprays exist in CS, but they did not originate there. They were a feature of Half Life which was left in when the mod was created. Artw 17:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - To Half-Life or GoldSrc or just delete. Whatever, this article should not exist. - Hahnchen 02:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Counter-Strike culture, which is the perfect place for this information. syphonbyte 02:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. As well mention that many other FPS games such as Day of Defeat have sprays. --JD79 00:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to where relevant. SynergeticMaggot 02:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I may have written this originally, but definately willing to merge per above Userpie 17:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge but Delete soon.--Nick Y. 22:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to CS culture, like syphonbyte said. --ViceroyInterus 19:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 (A6/A7/G4). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anry Nemo for an earlier discussion of this subject. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anry

Speedy as attack tag removed by author, so it's here. --DarkAudit 00:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• delete as non-notable - fails WP:BIO. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 00:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete may or may not be attack but definately nn as is pointed out by the article. --Pboyd04 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete It's non-notable, and also non-sense. *~Daniel~* ☎ 01:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:29] <freak|talk>

[edit] Juan Camilo Montoya

Cannot verify notability per WP:MUSIC. Nicely written article but no sources that can verify notability are cited. Nv8200p talk 00:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A nicely written vanity page, but a vanity page nonetheless.--SweetNeo85 00:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. -- Whpq 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Still lives with his parents. -- Mikeblas 01:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 02:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. SynergeticMaggot 02:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Nuttah68 10:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NBA International

Looks like original research. I don't think this has much encyclopedic value. It also has no sources for any of it. Metros232 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral, The NBA appears to tabluate this information, and the wiki article is far from complete, or accurate. Could be meaningful if it's filled out correctly, then again it changes so much that it may not be encyclopedic. --EazieCheeze 00:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my recommendation to Keep and expand, per Vengeful Cynic and other discussion. --EazieCheeze 19:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but with the caveat that it would need to be rewritten (even to the extent of accuracy). There are other articles on foreign-born players in various sporting leagues, and they seem encyclopedic enough. BigHaz 00:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No notability stated or implied for this stuff, either. Kudos to EazieCheeze for finding the source material, but I don't get into the variations and flavors of statistics that sports fans seem to enjoy, nor do I see the value in collecting every stat for WP. Tychocat 08:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, clean-up and expand 216.141.226.190 12:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Clean-up and expand, satisfies notability and has encyclopedic usefulness. --Vengeful Cynic 15:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep per Vengeful Cynic. --Wnmnkh 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment since it seems a lot of people want to keep this, does anyone have a suggestion for a title for the article? NBA International sounds like a television station that broadcast NBA games in Europe. Metros232 19:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge there is quite good information in this article, and I feel it should be merged into in NBA and be given its own section hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand, almost all "minor" sports leagues have pages and they are definitely of encyclopedic/ reference value.--JD79 00:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is exactly why I think the article's title needs to change. People will think it's another division of the NBA or something along those lines. Metros232 00:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Metros232 most have missed the source I gave under "Sources". The 06 season is clearly from the NBA website. I created this page as a way to talk about the international effect of the NBA. Both the effects of the league and the effects around the world, as the league is making the sport more popular. But, I guess nobody went with it and exand it. Chaldean 03:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I see that link at the bottom. And I see that it leads to the 2001-2002 rosters. But if you went through and counted each one of those and tallied where each player was from, it's original research. And it's not "clearly" from the NBA site since you didn't cite it. Metros232 03:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep and expand please this is a important topic we should cover Yuckfoo 20:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I would say merge into NBA, but it already has a long paragraph discussing this topic. Recury 00:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep although it needs clean-up and expansion. Unpublished data is original research, but tabulation of published data is not (unless it advances a position). -- NORTH ^talk 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sea Warriors

There is nothing in this article that isn't covered in the Hawaii Pacific University entry's Athletics section, or is so notable as to deserve its own article. Only two pages, a user page and a project page, link to it. --EazieCheeze 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Hawaii Pacific University article has more info than this article so nothing to even merge. -- Whpq 01:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Whpq. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Michael 07:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• maybe you can improve this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogud (talk • contribs)
• Delete, nothing worth merging per Whpq. Not sure if this term is used anywhere else for any other purpose, but it might be a useful redirect. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 G4 - repost of merged article. Pumpkinfest reverted into redir to Waterford, Ontario. Kimchi.sg 03:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pumpkinfest (Waterford, Ontario)

This seems to be an end-run around the AfD on Pumpkinfest that closed on July 8, 2006. The result of that AfD was to merge the article into Waterford, Ontario. As you will see, the former Pumpkinfest info that was merged into the Waterford article now forms the basis of the new article now nominated for deletion. Normally, I'd say this qualifies for Speedy Deletion as a recreation of an article deleted after an AfD; however, this might fall into a loophole. If I'm wrong on the qualification for Speedy, then I "re-nominate" this article for the additional reason that this is an event of only local importance which otherwise lacks any notability or importance. That the article itself has to include an argument for notability is a sign that there is none. It would not be surprising if many small towns had such an event, but we don't need an article on each and every one of them. Not sufficiently encyclopedic. Agent 86 01:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - there's no "seems to be" about it. This is blatant. Rklawton 01:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and also delete the pumpkinfest disamb page. Phr (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lest we get every town's fest. I live in the area of this article and can think of a dozen "fests" around it. Roby0215 02:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the disamib page was created by the closing admin (Tyrenius), this page is not a speedy since according to CSD G4, "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process (may be deleted.)" The page was not deleted but merged. However, this article can be deleted for creating a sepearte page for something that is notable within the scope of a city, but not notable enough for it's own article. Yanksox 02:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, maybe I've had too much sun today, but I don't exactly understand these points. It's not that I disagree, I just don't understand them. Could you explain each of these points again in simple English? Rklawton 02:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've had about 10 hours in the sun and no sleep so I could be out of mind right now. What exactly is confusing? Yanksox 02:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I just listned to an online tech presentation, so I think I'm back up to speed again: we can't speedy it 'cause it wasn't XfD'd, just merged. It was then recreated by a user with a history of creating articles that get deleted. OK, so delete and frag makes sense. Question: is there a disambig page that needs removal, too?

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unauthorized Rolling Stones

vanity/spam article, marginal notability

This is a self-promotional article by persistent Wikipedia spammer Rudy Colombini; see

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudy Colombini

for more info. It was originally entered from an IP address resolving to a hotel owned by Colombini and as such is almost certainly a vanity article. The band in question is a part time Rolling Stones cover band that plays in the San Francisco area. It has no records released AFAIK (anyone who wants to listen to Rolling Stones records buys real ones). It does have a few local press articles cited but that's pretty marginal for a global encyclopedia. The "Best of the Bay" award is not impressive since it's not really a competitive award; the newspaper just makes up categories to give out awards in, as a way of promoting local businesses and products, nothing like the "major awards" listed at WP:MUSIC. The article gives no evidence of the band's notability per any of the other WP:MUSIC guidelines except the above.

The tone of the article is relentlessly self-promotional and many of the details are unverifiable, and the author has a history of making disputed self-promotional claims (see the AFD linked above). The article also tries to promote the nonexistent "SF Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" and "Music City SF", two more vanity articles now deleted (author wrote about those venues as if they were separate and notable entities, when in fact both are at the same street address and are still apparently under construction. See Talk:Rudy Colombini for some details.

• delete as nom Phr (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, excellent research from nom. I also liked the contribution of Zepheus, having someone "on the ground" as it were, to check out the site of the reputed "Hall of Fame". Tychocat 09:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nuttah68 10:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and possibly with fire. --Brad101 13:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MBADiversity.org

Weak case for notability. Looking over their corporate website, their activities are heavy on the fundraising and promotion and light on actually helping minorities earn MBAs. I think this qualifies as advertising. --Xrblsnggt 01:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a non-notable group, and tagged as such. Aplomado ^talk 01:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Regular delete spam, but companies don't fall under CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 03:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A company doesn't qualify as a group? Aplomado ^talk 00:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Spam -- Alias Flood 03:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, spam spam spam spam... --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Michael 07:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. --CharlotteWebb 18:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SPAM hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless they give me, a minority, an MBA WP:SPAM, or possibly failing WP:ORG if they're a non-profit. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Schuh

Notability/importance in question. ghits:[24] --NMChico24 01:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:BIO -- Whpq 01:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until Wikipedia:Candidates and elections is settled, as he's a candidate in a current election. -- Mikeblas 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article as written is vanity. The names of his dogs and kids are not encyclopedic no matter what his political aspirations. --Xrblsnggt 03:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM. The original posting edit note of the article admits it's a campaign ad. Nowhere else in the article does it mention he's running for anything. --DarkAudit 03:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone deleted the sentence about how he's running for the Maryland state House. -- Mwalcoff 03:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:C&E if there's anything here worth keeping. -- Mwalcoff 03:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure vanity, even if the election sentence is included. --Calton | Talk 04:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanispam. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanispam. Putting "nationally recognised" don't make it so. -- GWO
• Delete. There's not even a mention that he's a candidate in an election. Captainktainer * Talk 19:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable biography. Fails WP:BIO. Even assuming that the Candidates and election proposal became policy, it quite clearly states "That does not mean, however, that all candidates for office should automatically receive their own articles in Wikipedia. Articles on candidates for office, like all Wikipedia articles, must meet standards of quality and verifiability." This one is unverifiable as it entirely lacks sources. It is also clearly vanity and fails to maintain a neutral point of view. Gwernol 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, its not necessary to have every state congressional candidate in Wikipedia Mrcfjf 14:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brain Teaser

This article does not meet wikipedia's notablity requirements. If this were a full size roller coaster than sure, but it is just your run of the mill little kiddie coaster. see a picture here[25] Although I understand the need for articles on the big rides at parks like this, small generic rides should not be granted their own articles... thanks for reading T-rex 01:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge any relevant info to Six Flags Darien Lake to expand the short blurb that already exists on that page. At least the other rollercoasters listed there (except for the The Viper) are located in several parks and are not kiddie rides. Fabricationary 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters, whose goal is "to make Wikipedia into a BETTER roller coaster reference than the Roller Coaster Database". To do that, we need articles on all coasters, big and small. This one just needs some time and expansion. Note that it's also linked from the SFDL template -- also part of Project roller coasters -- if the article is deleted, it will leave a hole in this template. --Rehcsif 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  No, if this is deleted it will be removed from the template... the biggest drop on this thing is only like 2 feet... --T-rex 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

RCDB thinks it's worthwhile: [26]. --Rehcsif 14:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not RCDB. Our standards are different. Not higher, not lower, just different. And less directly oriented towards the inclusion of rollercoasters. — Haeleth Talk 19:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep. If the intent of Wikipedia is to be better than RCDB, then this coaster should have its own page. That is the goal of the Roller coaster WikiProject--to make Wikipedia better than RCDB. --myselfalso 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopedia, not a directory --T-rex 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as Fabricationary. Too minor/generic for its own article. -- GWO
• Merge. Sorry to the rollercoaster project, but I'm afraid your goals are secondary to the goals of the Wikipedia project as a whole -- that is, you can only create a better rollercoaster reference to the extent that that is compatible with our goal of creating an encyclopedia. I don't think that this particular ride really merits its own article in the context of an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This article isn't much as it is, but all it needs is for a Wikipedian who lives near the park to go there and do a little first-hand research and maybe take a picture or two. Also, if this article is deleted and its entry is removed from the park's template, the template will be rendered meaningless as it wouldn't list ALL the coasters at the park. We'd have to call it "Selected roller coasters at Six Flags Darien Lake" or something to that extent. If this is deleted or merged, it will set a bad precedent for other similar coaster articles. Also, as much as I hate to refer to WP:PTEST, it pretty much applies here. Dusso Janladde 19:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  Please look at this page (sixflags.com), the park itself doesn't even think this ride is important enough to put on their ride list. The first two are their big new rides, followed by the 5 (yes only five) real rollercoasters and then selected other rides, no mention of this non-notable want-to-be coaster --T-rex 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I am also a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters, and I agree with Rehcsif -FTIII 20:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Basically all of Dusso Janladde's reasons --Phantom784 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & expand For the reasons stated above. RCDB simply lists statistics whereas Wikipedia has the potential to include a detailed history for all roller coasters. However, articles like this need expanding by someone with knowledge of the ride in question for the Roller Coaster Project to be taken seriously. --Fozi999 22:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Even with no previous knowledge of this coaster I've done some research and added a little more to the article. However, it still needs attention from someone who has more knowledge of the ride. For example, there's no information on where the coaster is actually situated within the park. --Fozi999 11:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - The creation of Wikiprojects attest to the overall notability of the subject matter and deserves the Wikipedia's community's support. The size of the size of the drop is irrelevant. Each coaster (big or small) is an architectural structure that incoporates the applicable laws of physics. If we are compiling a worthwhile and informative data base on coasters then there is need and notability in the inclusion of all types of coasters--even teh small ones. 205.157.110.11 22:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per Fabricationary and Haeleth. This is an Encyclopedia, not a database. T. Moitie 23:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, you can keep it as comprehensive as you already have it when it is in the main article. There is no warrent for an article for every single rollercoaster big or small. And there is no reason why having the article inside a larger article would ruin the project. - T. Moitie 23:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge & Redirect, there's no reason that there cannot be a half-dozen paragraphs in one article about the coasters at that park, rather than six separate articles that are only a few lines each. Merging would actually make it more useful. --JD79 00:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: But this is not a finished article, so saying "a few lines" is not a fair statement. Please check out Kingda Ka, The Demon, or El Toro for an example of a coaster article with some maturity. --Rehcsif 03:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: This article has been nomiated for deletion, and I oppose that idea. Certainly it is not a major article, and certainly will never rise above stub level, but there is little reason to delete it based upon how much work has been done by members of the Roller Coaster Project on tracking every roller coaster possible. (Note: The preceeding comment was placed on Talk:Brain Teaser by User:Zotdragon)
• Keep: This article may not be the most important ever, but I think its vital to Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters. - Bagel7 04:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Six Flags Darien Lake. Kiddie roller coasters are non-notable, they just are. Claims that its deletion will destroy a template or go against a WikiProjects guidelines are irrelevant. It is not the intent of Wikipedia to be better than RCDB. It is the intent of Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia. -- NORTH ^talk 05:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per North. GassyGuy 03:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharma Method

Article is a hoax, or at the very least non-notable. No references of it can be found through googling. Whpq 01:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Fabricationary 01:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not for something that you make up at the bar one day. -- Mikeblas 02:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsensecruft --Xrblsnggt 03:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia's not for beer instructions... Michael 07:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax/advertisement. "Its emphasis of refining an already superior taste"? One might almost suspect this of having been written by the Corona publicity department. Maybe it's a transcript of some new campaign. — Haeleth Talk 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Most likely a hoax/ad. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:27] <freak|talk>

[edit] No Mercy Video

Not notable video company. The article itself states that "they didnt [sic] sell more than 100". The website doesn't offer the video release for sale anymore, and it's hard to find any meaningful references to the company or its products by searching the web. So we're failing WP:CORP, and if we apply WP:MUSIC to a video release, it fails too. Only substantial contbributor is User:No mercy video, same name as the article title, so WP:VANITY.-- Mikeblas 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Almost-Speedy Delete per nominator. -- joturner 02:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete redneckvertisement (Isn't "Pro/Backyard Wrestling" an oxymoron?) --Xrblsnggt 03:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Backyard wrestling is inherently non-notable. Unless ICP are at the door, or you've already got a PPV on Comcast, it has no place here. --DarkAudit 03:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Michael 07:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 08:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Whpq 12:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict Style Inventory

this article had an aborted nomination on July 2nd that never got posted here and was removed from the article. I'm bringing it here because I think it needs a broader viewpoint; as it stands it is written largely by one user whose name is suspiciously similar to "Kraybill" itself. -- nae'blis _(talk) 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Clean-up at least. Totally incoherent. If made any sense I'd have a stronger opinion. A physical tool? Psychological tool? Testing procedure? WTF? -- GWO
  • FWIW, I believe "inventory" in this context generally refers to a type of personality test. — Haeleth Talk 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn topic, 671 Ghits and all of those appear to be product/catalog listings. No major third-party articles by uninvolved writers, and the listed authorship here makes impartiality questionable. The article apparently has been steadily massaged by some attentive writers. It has however no context, evidently was written by someone who knows the topic, and makes assumptions that a layman would not. The talk page contains a claim the writer is selling books by making manifold links to the page; I can't know the writers' intent. WP:VAIN is also a guideline, not policy, and I'm not quite seeing relentless self-promotion in the text despite the original contributor's username Kraybilr. The name is admittedly close to the Ron Kraybill Conflict Style Inventory, which in turn lends itself to the question of impartiality. Bottom line: No notability stated or implied. Tychocat 09:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless radically cleaned up and notability asserted. This reads like an advertisement. — Haeleth Talk 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The word "Inventory" in this context implies a method of rating or measuring behavior, and thus the article must show evidence the mesurement instrument is reliable and valid. Published scientific evidence from verifiable and reliable source, I may add. KarenAnn 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Massmato 16:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 G1. Kimchi.sg 03:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glistening

Delete as nonsense. Speedy tag removed by author. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 02:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as above. BigHaz 02:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopaedic nonsense. syphonbyte 02:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. -- Alias Flood 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trick or Treat Bang Bang

Not at all notable. "Trick or treat, bang bang" is a phrase that appeared in one episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. The article provides no assertion that this phrase has somehow entered popular culture, been referenced outside the series, or even is considered remarkable by anyone but the individual editors.

I successfully nominated this article to be speedied a while ago under A7, no assertion of notability. I'm not a sysop, so I don't know if this is a carbon-copy recreation of the same material, but it might be, meaning that this article could be eligible to be speedied under A7 and G4. However, the {{prod}} tag I added yesterday was removed by User:82.40.35.24 with an edit summary of "its a very funny line. many of larry davids phrases end up in popular culture." Not very compelling, but I felt I would be being a dick for taking this to be speedied after the {{prod}} was removed, so I'm bringing it here. Dylan 02:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment by nominator -- I forgot to add, 41 Google hits for exact phrase (including punctuation variation). Dylan 02:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete along with Stop and Chat from the same author. Totally non-notable. Larry David's a funny guy. Doesn't mean we need an article for every sentence he utters. Fan-1967 02:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism -- Alias Flood 03:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --Evan Robidoux 06:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, irrelevant... Michael 07:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment from author - not the same article "carbon copied". Both "Stop and Chat" and "Trick or Treat Bang Bang" were wikilinked to from Curb your Enthusiasm, so I decided to write them. They can be deleted if you want...--midkay 08:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are a lot of redlinks in a lot of articles. Very often the solution is to remove the wikilink, rather than add the article. Fan-1967 13:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Of course. I assumed that since they hadn't yet been removed, however, they'd be accepted if written. --midkay 01:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both CYE cruft -- GWO
• Delete non-notable neologism. Probably technically speedyible under WP:CSD#A1 (no context), as it starts "In the episode, Larry refuses to give candy..." and the only clue it's from Curb Your Enthusiasm is the categories at the bottom. -- NORTH ^talk 05:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the reasons noted above Alcuin 14:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Likewise. 82.152.225.137 19:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hannon Hill

Is this company note-worthy? If it is, someone should cook up some content for the article. Otherwise it's just cruft and should be deleted. goofyheadedpunk 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, I'd be stronger about it if I knew whether or not this "Cascade Server" product is of any note. If not, the article has had over a month and a half to prove its subject's notability, and so far that hasn't happened. Willing to change my vote if someone more knowledgeable about this field can share what they know or don't know about the company and/or the product. -- H·G (^words/_works) 23:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I did an extensive notability check before creating this article after its suggestion at articles for creation. As far as I remember, it was borderline, but did pass to my standards. However, I know nothing about this company, and apparently the IP hasn't returned to edit it. So I'm neutral. It looked notable, but if nobody cared to edit it, then it must not be. Cheers! --Keitei (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete per HG. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Checked news.goole.com with only a press release showing up twice and a single by the way mention. Most of the top google hits are to their own or related websites with not much independent write up, just product announcements in trade press. Fails WP:CORP for me. -- Whpq 13:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:CORP as Whpq stated above. Make a big product, sell a lot of them, c'mon back, ya hear? -- MrDolomite | Talk 19:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MrDolomite. Treebark (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 back to Scouting in Louisiana and redirect. Mailer Diablo 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chilantakoba Lodge 397 (Order of the Arrow)

I prodded this but it was just deprodded, so I'll just use my original prod reason: Non-notable chapter/lodge of a larger organization. About 25 unique Google hits none of which seems to be an independent sources. Metros232 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn (Seems like little more than a random clubhouse) or possibly merge into the main Order of the Arrow article. -- Steel 23:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. If a merge is done, it should be into the Scouting in Louisiana article, in the section on the Southeast Louisiana Council, not the main OA article. Gentgeen 00:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with main article. Nothing notable about this particular lodge but some info in the article should be kept, just in a more appropriate spot. Agne27 05:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Scouting in Louisiana. Individual chapters of larger organizations are not notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn club equivalent to a parish of an otherwise notable religion. Carlossuarez46 01:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to the Scouting in Louisiana article, in the section on the Southeast Louisiana Council. See Scouting in Maine#Pamola Lodge for an example of how an OA lodge is treated in another state. GRBerry 02:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 fresh copyvio. Kimchi.sg 03:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H-o-m-e-r

The article looks like copied and pasted information, and I don't think it's notable. JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 02:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete If it is copied, it's ok to speedy as it has no other edits, but I couldn't find an exact duplicate online. (someone did, and marked it for speedy. Though it looks more like an advertising of the site than a copyvio, probably) Even so, doesn't read like an article, and is all in an OR tone. Delete. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I put a speedy-delete tag on it, just after I did this AfD. Should have thought a bit more :S The link the information is copied from is at the bottom of the article. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 02:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 00000011111111111bbzbzbzbz I mean OMG gone! - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special Characters

A 130-kb text dump of HTML special characters: that's it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this is about as indiscriminate as you can get. Was Prod'ed, but tag removed without comment. Calton | Talk 02:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Yeah, that's indiscriminate information all right. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Millett

This not overly intelligent young man was not the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of [him]". As such, I say we electrocute this article to reduce light pollution.- CrazyRussian talk/email 02:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, even for Darwin Award winners. --Calton | Talk 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I created this article after being referred from the Brandon Vedas article, and the subject is noteworthy for being one of the first internet deaths by misadventure. He was subject to a fair amount of news coverage at the time due to the internet angle. BoojiBoy 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete in agreement on Calton's Darwin Awards comment. Michael 07:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and Calton's comments. I don't think this incident really stands comparison to Brandon Vedas -- Millett just went out, did something dumb and got himself killed, whereas Vedas pretty much died on screen and became a symbol for the stupid bravado ("i told u i was hardcore") and the cowardly group mentality and evasion of responsibility ("damn this is hard call[.] yall make it[.] good night[.] [exits]") that directly contributed to his death. They pretty much watched him die. That element is what made the Vedas incident famous and an ongoing part of internet lore, and that element is precisely what's missing in the Millett incident. (Obviously, they should've talked him out of it, but they honestly didn't realize that a) he was really going to do it and b) it really was a very dangerous thing to do.) Sure, the two incidents have parallels, but in the end, one of them is a very notable event, the other one isn't. -- Captain Disdain 08:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a list of people who killed themselves doing stupid things. -- GWO
• Delete as those above. Nuttah68 10:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Captain Disdain. Not really "Internet related", if that makes a difference; else every suicide, criminal, or accident victim who records their plans on MySpace or LiveJournal is encyclopedia material. Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The point was that he was the first such idiot, and was newsworthy at the time. However I will obviously accept the judgement of the community if consensus is reached. BoojiBoy 14:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Subject fails WP:BIO. A chat log is not a Reliable Source. If he was the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works" then please cite those sources. Note, WP:BIO states, "Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage." Subject is trivial. Scorpiondollprincess 14:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 20:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- KarenAnn 23:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete not-notable, vanity, trolling article. --Werto 13:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep purely because of the insensitivity shown by the nom to a human being who has died. --Tim1988 ^talk 11:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:BIO. Clipped the wires on a light pole??? Such a minor crime likely wouldn't even make the local paper, much less an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ehud Olmert and Iran

First let me start with some history. Because of all of the attention and debate caused by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements regarding Israel and The Holocaust, the section of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dealing with his comments about Israel became too large for the article on him, so it was split off into Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. Ehud Olmert and Iran was clearly created as a POV response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. This article was created with the intention of showing that the Israeli Prime Minister makes parallel comments about Iran that Ahmadinejad makes about Israel. However, whereas Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel actually talks about an ongoing controversy that is frequently in the news, this article is intended to create a controversy. If you read the article you will see that it is entirely POV and OR, and the grammar ain't much to write home about. Further, the subject is bogus, anything here that's relevant already exists at Ehud Olmert or could be merged there, and nothing that Olmert is quoted as saying here is particularly notable or hasn't been said by other world leaders. GabrielF 02:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If there is ever any useful information on the page, merge into Ehud Olmert. --JWSchmidt 02:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork Avi 02:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. IronDuke 03:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This page appears to be related (a rebuttal?) to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. I can't tell if that one is non-NPOV. I scrolled down 7 pages and my head start to hurt. --Xrblsnggt 03:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, merge relevant content to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. This is an example of trying to use Wikipedia as a platform through Original Research ("an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor...") and use of non-neutral language: "Israel which is said to possess nuclear warheads..."; "Prime Minister Ehud Olmert launched a scathing attack...". It includes incoherent, non-native English statements: "Ehud Olmert claimed that Israel and the western world can not see the Iranian regime due to its Islamic nature among ither things..." --Leflyman^Talk 04:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Wikipedia's not a soapbox, either. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails everything. Hoxxy 12:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. The new article needs to have an appropriate title. --Mitso Bel13:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think about it, the reason why there exist an article called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel is simply the echo of his statements in western media. Non of his statements were new and many of former Iranian and non Iranian muslim officials have had very similar remarks. Olmert's statements had also very similar echo in Iran and muslim countries. In this respect wikipedia is very much POV as it mainly covers what is in western media (as most of the media of Iran and muslim coutries use a language other than English). --Mitso Bel14:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Western media, eastern media, they are all biased. Think for yourself and don't trust any of them. --Xrblsnggt 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge As per Mitso Bel above. --Spahbod 17:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Lukas ^(T.|@) 14:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't like Israel but this pay is not needed, we can merge it with Foreign relations of Israel. Robin Hood 1212 21:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Jayjg. Bibigon 22:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a POV fork. I wouldn't even bother trying to merge it within anything. 205.157.110.11 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article, is POV, and has no relavant information, but it's even worse than that. It's POV that supports genocide. I certainly don't want wikipedia to be a key piece of propoganda in the start of world war three. Tobyk777 00:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If this article is POV then why is there Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel? Is that not also a violation of POV forking policy??? Khorshid 03:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That article decribes events happening in the news and gives lagitamate information from a varaeity of perspectives, that of many countries. It doesn't break any policy. This one basicaly lists every reason why Israel is bad and Iran is good. Making it propoganda for Iran and a clear violation of the NPOV policy. Also, this article is advocating genocide. If I were an admin I would delete this on sight. Tobyk777 03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is advocating genocide in the article? Khorshid 05:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• 'Merge and Redirect (or Delete) into Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel or Ehud Olmert, de-merge when this becomes a talked about issue. Having said that, present some coherent reliable sources that discuss an ongoing controversy and I may change my opinion - FrancisTyers · 21:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Either delete this AND the "Ahmadinejad and Israel", or keep them both. There has to be some consistency here. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment There already appears to be an article on Iran-Israel_relations. --Xrblsnggt 01:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Per above.:NikoSilver: 10:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. --Tēlex 16:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. It is really funny. User:Jayig who voted for deletion of this article has repeatedly reverted inclusion of the material in either of the following page: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel or Iran-Israel relations. Well! Would you please let us know where we shoud include Israeli prime minister's policies and remarks about Iran and Iranian president??!!!!! --Sinooher17:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried to merge the relevant and sourced information into Ehud Olmert? --JWSchmidt 17:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he's now trying to insert the exact same information into 4 different articles, including Ehud Olmert. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons already mentioned. --Hectorian 00:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warren Woods Tower High School

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}}

High school article with minimal content and no assertion of notability about the school. —C.Fred (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Saeed Jahed 05:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Here we go again: high schools are not inherently notable, and WP:SCHOOL failed. The creation of a wikiproject does not automatically confer notability to its subject. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:SCHOOL was rejected by the community. Green caterpillar 17:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Let the fun begin. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Having this squabble over and over again isn't "fun", it's a totally futile waste of time. Golfcam 23:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain because Delete even though this article is going to be kept, but and I would like to point out that, not only does it say almost nothing, but it pulls in a whopping two Google News results, one from an article that isn't about the school but rather a person from the school, and one giving local softball results. I'd be curious to know how the inevitable keep voters plan to expand this. GassyGuy 07:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not by researching it on Google, but by giving knowledge acquired through actual experience with the school. That's how most information on small towns, colleges, etc gets added anyway. AdamBiswanger1 23:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the well reason arguments documented at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. This and all other secondary schools are notable enough for an encyclopedia aiming to provide the complete sum of human knowledge. Not that notability is a requirement for inclusion. Silensor 09:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • enough for an encyclopedia aiming to provide the complete sum of human knowledge.

If you find such an encyclopedia, add this article to it. If you think this is such an encyclopedia, you have greatly misunderstood the stated aims of Wikipedia. -- GWO

You're the one with the misunderstanding problem, as these are always kept, and the founder of Wikipedia is in favor of them being kept. Golfcam 23:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No. They're not always kept. That's an outright fabrication. A policy insisting they're always kept was rejected by the community, and the community outranks Jimbo. -- GWO

• Delete there is nothing notable or interesting about the school. If we want to note its existence, Merge into relevant school district.Catchpole 09:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 10:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• What's this? A very special high school. It has a principal. It is part of a school district. It has athletic teams. It even has students! Delete (Liberatore, 2006). 12:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

.... and as such has a major influence on those students' lives. Keep as per standard approach to schools. If you ain't interested, don't read the article. Markb 12:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was interested until I read the article. GassyGuy 16:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep or else merge — Yes there's no commonly accepted criteria for H.S. notability, but this page survives my personal criteria. Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk)
  • The useful content has been merged with the Warren Woods Public Schools page. — RJH (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Parents have an influence on childrens lives, but being a parent doesn't make you notable. Just another unnotable high school. -- GWO
• Merge to district article. --Liface 15:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per every other high school article being kept. You aint telling me you're gonna waste your time and ours by trying to delete every school thats ever been "kept" are you!? If I need more reason, its a high school and if we have to have articles about every damn pokemon that (n)ever existed, then a school is a no brainer! Jcuk 18:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If you believe that the Pokemon coverage should be amended (and I'm sure you're not alone) then perhaps it'd be more productive to attempt to change the way those rulings are administered than to pick a new topic to fill with unnecessary entries. GassyGuy 19:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this secondary school is important we should document it Yuckfoo 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just another school like any other. The existence, nature, history, and development of schools are all very important topics that deserve extensive discussion. Individual schools that do not stand out from the crowd in any way are not important; their existence is a random fact, not a part of human knowledge. We have articles on cherry trees in general, but not on the rather fine example outside my window, even though its existence is easy to verify; we have articles on prominent people, but not on me, even though I can find plenty of independent sources that discuss me; we have articles on the telephone, but we do not include lists of phone numbers.
  Summary: schools in general == knowledge, specific schools == not knowledge except in exceptional cases, this school == not exceptional == not knowledge. — Haeleth Talk 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete -- disclaimer #1) ok, I grew up going to school near WWTHS and the Titans are not even notable in the immediate area, let alone on WP. disclaimer #2) My POV is that school articles can all go, unless they have notable alumni or an event. -- MrDolomite | Talk 19:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per my notion that all secondary schools carry inherent notability hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. High schools are notable. --BaronLarf 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep High Schools and Colleges have an intrinsic notability, this article must be kept. -- Librarianofages 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth per Jimbo Wales. [27] Bahn Mi 22:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Secondary schools are important I don't care what the out come of WP:SCHOOL was. --Pboyd04 23:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The secondary school notability debate needs to end. To recap key points, secondary schools often have many more students than a small college or university, often have famous alumni, and are the location of many important events in the lives of thousands of young adults. Intrinsically notable. AdamBiswanger1 23:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Then show some notable facts about this school. Delete--JD79 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand to match the many other school articles. Cloachland 23:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Schools are important. Ramseystreet 00:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Secondary level educational institutions and above are inherently notable. Yamaguchi先生 00:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per precedent. My opinion is that all public schools are notable. hateless 00:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete - I believe that most schools can be notable, but content is what establishes this notablility. Very little content. Note I am here due to an email sent to me asking me to vote here. Please wieght my arguement accordingly. HighInBC 00:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. HighInBC has been active on Wikipedia for about five months with a somewhat sizable edit history. —nom. —C.Fred (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. school. Carlossuarez46 01:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Easy Delete, article provides no discernable notability amongst ~27,468 high schools in the United States. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

DELETE. This school is not discernably notable, no real encyclopedia would ever accept this trash. GameSet 01:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. All enduring institutions are verifiable and should be documented in any encyclopedia whose purpose is to comprise the sum of all knowledge. --Centauri 01:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• If the purpose is to comprise the sum of all knowledge, then I don't think any article would be deleted that contained facts, including the ones about nn people, nn bands... 'cause, like, you can verify their existence. And yet we do delete those articles, because the sum of all knowledge is not quite what we're collecting. GassyGuy 01:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as there is no evidence of noteworthiness in the article, and per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. At the worst, Merge to Warren Woods Public Schools, but there is little new content here - mostly a disagreement as to enrolment numbers. GRBerry
• Keep all real places.  ALKIVAR™ 12:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Question: what does "trite witicisms" [28] mean? Is it meant to be an insult? (Liberatore, 2006). 19:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It means that these school debates are inevitably filled with droll sarcasms and endlessly-repeated arguments. It's a comment about the process, not an individual. So no need to take offense. :-/ — RJH (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as schools are inherently notable. --Myles Long 17:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep over-riding precedent and consensus is established over the last 2 years to keep high school articles on wikipedia. Notability is not and never has been a valid deletion criterion for schools.--Nicodemus75 02:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 100 best movies of the cinema of Mexico

This article, like several others that have been deleted recently, is simply a restatement of some single source's "best of" list. In this case, we don't even have an article on the magazine yet, which makes it all the more spurious to have this article recreate their arguably copyrighted content. -- nae'blis _(talk) 02:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Listcruft. SynergeticMaggot 02:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see what makes this publication's Top 100 listings any more notable than any other publication's top listings. Wickethewok 02:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. These lists also often infringe on someone's copyright. -- Alias Flood 03:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Michael 04:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hoxxy 12:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Scorpiondollprincess 14:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom FancyPants 09:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 g4, it's pretty much the same. - Bobet 10:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Z Games (2nd nomination)

This article has been deleted three times. The main contributor is a user called "Z Games" and the company still fails WP:Corp. Half of the links are to sitesled.com and the other half are to awardspace.com. Please see the last Afd ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable company, unless this article is the same as the one that was deleted the last time, in which case speedy delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete cute, but not notable. --Xrblsnggt 04:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD-G4, and protect from recreation per WP:SALT, tagged with {{db-repost}}. This article is exactly the same as the one deleted in the previous AfD. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 07:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and protect, per Coredesat. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 07:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and protect, per Coredesat. --SevereTireDamage 08:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't seem notable. The article says they only hit 10,000 total downloads between all products this years. That's nothing. Ace of Sevens 08:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sean-Michael Smith

Inclusion of an individual at IMDB does not imply notability. While IMDB notes a few minor acting and directorial credits, these do not meet WP:BIO standards. (Plus, all the article asserts for notability is that he is a union member.) —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - does not meet WP:BIO. He's a technician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arichnad (talk • contribs)
• Delete. There are more tags on this article than information. Fails NN, V, BIO, OR, and everything else. SynergeticMaggot 02:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--Dcooper 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I apologize, after reading Cfred's comments, I'm sorry I removed the prod. I don't contest Antares33712 14:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Djnet

Fails WP:WEB: no media coverage, no awards, no distribution by non-related avenues. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. SynergeticMaggot 04:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom., nn Rob 07:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KarenAnn 23:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Massmato 16:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 bury the treasure, and salt the Earth. Mailer Diablo 09:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TreasureTrooper

• Non-notable website, borderline spam, AND it was previously deleted so we may have a speedy here. Avi 02:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ya I agree with you on this one. The website is a spam-lovers paradise and a spam-haters worst nightmare. And I remember when it was deleted before, so theres no need for this article to be remade again.--koolgiy 02:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete first 20 google hits are mostly forum spam from treasure trooper members. Phr (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Someone slap a tag on. SynergeticMaggot 03:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and Protect from re-creation: was deleted twice in one day before, why not keep it from ever being made again? Ryulong 03:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and Protect from re-creation: Good point. Lets delete the article and banish it forever!--koolgiy 03:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Regular delete this newest version is substantially different - it is more neutral and does not read like an advert anymore. The previous versions were blatant and even included the referer ID in their external link. Kimchi.sg 03:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment And the same won't happen to it if it is recreated? Ryulong 03:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • We have something called... page protection. No one shall invoke the holy clause of CSD G4 for the purpose of this AfD. Kimchi.sg 03:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well its a valid internet address, its just the only problem is people keep changing it to make it look like a referral, from the website. Maybe we should keep it, but have a [sprotect] tag on it, so people who aren't registered can't just go on and screw around.--koolgiy 03:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 03:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• (Removed extremely incivil comment by 68.112.238.207 (talk · contribs)) Ryulong 04:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spamvertising --Xrblsnggt 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I can't imagine HOW it could possibly be "substantially different" from the previous, give it's -- what? -- one fact-light sentence long? --Calton | Talk 04:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect from re-creation, fails WP:WEB. This isn't "substantially" different, but is probably different enough to avoid G4-ing. Still, this should definitely be salted, especially if it was deleted twice in one day. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect from re-creation. I agree with all the comments made so far - nothing much more to add. --Mark ^{(Talk | Email)} 17:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• I think this article shouldn't be deleted, but that it should have the "vandalism lock" so anonymous or new members can't edit it. People should have a place to learn about TT without having a ref link at the end, and Wikipedia is the perfect place for it.Kaabi 17:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, it's an annoying, but ubiquitous.--JD79 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• How much longer?, How much longer does it take untill we make a decision? koolgiy 00:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As we have decided this should not be speedied, this has five days to run, so we need to wait until July 23 to determine the consensus. -- Avi 01:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Huh? Wow- I had no idea this was already made- I don't think its going too badly so far though- especially since it's been locked :/--Dagibit 02:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn Matthew Fenton (contribs) 12:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• It's FINE! So now that no one can edit including me - the one who started and maintained the article - and it is substantially different including it's neutrality, why can't we just keep it and remove the tags?--141.151.94.113 00:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is only semi-protected. -- Avi 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus you (141.151.94.113) were making the article look like a referral or an advertisent for the website. Koolgiy 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• How? All I initially wrote was that it was a survey site that pissed others off for spamming! I then just REFINED a very LONG and ONE SIDED, but INFORMATIVE addition that another user had added. I transformed it to be neutral, and cleaner! All I wanted was to learn more than its user's spamming.--151.197.119.208 21:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• So why am I the original author who did not write it as an advert blocked from editing? How is this semi-protected?--151.197.119.208 21:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Section from History on TT article

This is what you (151.197.119.208) added. Tell me if it sounds advertismentish

There is also an opportunity to complete daily surveys in the Cash Surveys section. If you qualify and successfully complete the daily survey, TreasureTrooper will pay you .75 cents. If you qualify for and successfully complete every daily survey, you could potentially earn up to $22.50 each month by doing the daily surveys alone.

TreasureTrooper.com also allows you may also participate in contests, earn items gold coins, pearls and virtual gems, which are used to purhase items at an online trading post called Mabutu's Trading Hut. The purchases made at Mabutu's Trading Hut can be used to earn extra referrals, participate in online contests, and help you in your search for the fabled Lost Statue from the Mambiku Tribe, worth $100.00 in prize money! There are several contests offered to help you increase the amount of money you make on Treasure Trooper.'--Koolgiy 04:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply What You Think

• I did NOT write that! Look over ALL the history if you want to reference to it. I refined that over many re-edits. If you look through history longer you'll notice that text's original addition was added by another user, while it's dramatic change was made by me. Remember me saying here, "I then just REFINED a very LONG and ONE SIDED, but INFORMATIVE addition that another user had added."? YOUR QUOTE was what I was talking about! ALSO, did you not notice my criticizing that in the discussion section?--141.151.78.22 04:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• It has come to my attention that User:141.151.78.22 shows no sign of contributions on the TreasureTrooper article. Unless they were signed in at the time of the modification.Koolgiy 06:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• HAHAHAHA eheh hahaha... My randomly bieng logged off for a period would explain why I, Dagibit and 141.151.78.22, couldn't sign edits as Dagibit, and was not able to edit the article or to argue. I did admit to sucking at this kind of stuff in the discussion section, but either way, I'm sorry for the large amount of spam this caused here and for sort of flaming you, koolgiy. Now back to buisness, The article really is improved from the state that you shared, so why can't it stay?--Dagibit 15:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. (As a side note, plenty of old pages fall through the cracks here. Also, if I can AfD a page that's four years old, no article is sacred based on the amount of time it has been here.) Grandmasterka 20:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars Epics Forums

Non-notable forum. Alexa rank around 5 million at the time of nomination. Delete as original research as well. Wickethewok 02:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Michael 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable website. Fabricationary 04:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, please. --circuitloss 15:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a growing and very active community. Corran Antilles 23:04, 19 July 2006
• Keep, google ranking of 5 - notable for being that highly ranked at only 1 year old at current domain. Thera2400 9:37, 20 July 2006 (EST)

• What? Its the number 5 result when you type the name of the website into Google. Is that what you mean? If this was a measure of notability, we would have had a featured article on Clifford's Cat Hats already (it has a Google ranking of 1 according your measures, which I assume means it is 5 times as popular as your site). Also, this is my favorite reason for keeping an article about a forum ever. Wickethewok 15:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'm glad I could amuse you. That's not what I meant. The google pagerank is 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.196.74 (talk • contribs)

• Ah, I get it. Still, thats not a criteria of WP:WEB or any sort of proof of notability. Wickethewok 14:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- per nom --T-rex 14:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Wow, this article has been around since April... how has this been here for that long without getting deleted...? I'm surprised it even made it through the new page patrol... Wickethewok 14:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yet another reason to keep it, everyone who saw it for 3 months apparently felt it was worthy. But I won't contest further. Thera2400/—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.196.74 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 July 2006 (EST)

• Delete not even close to passing WP:WEB, and the article is horrendous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haylee Oakes

Fifteen-year-old national karate champ with 0 GHits. NN or hoax, take your pick. Oh, she also works part-time at Tim Hortons. Fan-1967 03:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, also, seems to be nonsensical. Not to mention, I live in the local area and I haven't even heard of her. Not exactly well known. Roby0215 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• If you live in the area you might want to take a look at some of the author's other articles, like: Bill's Corners, Ontario, Lynndale Heights Public School, Green's Corners, Ontario and Simcoe Town Centre. Haylee's mentioned in a few of them. -- Fan-1967 03:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've seen them. This author tends to write some unique articles. Roby0215 01:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ---Charles 03:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If you look up a Simcoe Composite School yearbook for either this year (2005-2006) or last year (2004-2005), you will see her name and photo. Her name (which might have been unintentionally misspelt as "Haylee Oates") and photo can also be found on the Simcoe Reformer. GVnayR 03:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• So she's a high school student. Does that make her notable in some way? Or does her work at Tim Horton's merit an encyclopedia article? Fan-1967 03:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Having a yearbook entry does not make her notable. This is not the Norfolk County Wikipedia. Bearcat 04:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• • This editor is responsible for a lot of articles nominated for AfD. I'd appreciate it if an admin with a bit of extra time would review this user's "contributions" and assess whether or not this editor should still maintain an account here. Rklawton 00:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

His contribution history, from what I can tell, is more crufty than invalid per se (although admittedly there's no excuse for Kelly Lloyd-Jennings on any level whatsoever.) Bearcat 04:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hai-Yaaaa! Delete! Phr (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - page could well have been created by the man listed as her cousin in the text. BigHaz 04:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Makes sense, since GVnayR recently reversed his username from RyanVG. Fan-1967 04:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Baleeted for reasons self-evident. Danny Lilithborne 04:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, possible vanity, non-notable, unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, most certainly fails WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and frag the author. Rklawton 00:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• but, but, but, she won "numerous championships" at THE Canadian national karate tournament in Edmonton. EDMONTON! Delete Vanity, unverifiable. Resolute 02:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Bearcat 04:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. — Jul. 18, '06 [21:24] <freak|talk>

[edit] Dork (band)

The article admits this is an unsigned band, lucky enough to get on a regional tour by virtue of playing roadies/doing manual labor. I don't see this as passing WP:MUSIC. Delete. Xoloz 03:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. SynergeticMaggot 03:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete One day, maybe, but not yet notable. At the present time, they fail WP:MUSIC -- Alias Flood 03:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn bandcruft. Phr (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Deletefails WP:MUSIC.--Avril fan 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. "has been permitted to work the Warped Tour over the past three years in exchange for working" Sounds like they got a raw deal. ~ trialsanderrors 06:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, why are we discussing this? --CharlotteWebb 18:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CharlotteWebb Robertsteadman 21:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. If you wish to propose a merge, discuss it on the article talk page, not here. Grandmasterka 20:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vashi Bridge

non notable bridge. possible merge and redirect to either Mankhurd or Mumbai. - SynergeticMaggot 03:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. A bridge? Is it important for any other reason than it has two ends? (omg - I looked up Brooklyn Bridge and found there's a Category:Bridges completed in 1883 - please tell me there's no Category:Buildings renovated in 1937 :( ) Shenme 05:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless article can establish notability.--Rehcsif 05:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Click here to see two trains crossing each other on the Mankhurd-Vashi bridge from height of 1060 feet. And then Delete Keep on the basis of much less notable bridges in Shenme's categories. Dlyons493 Talk 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If Train A is traveling toward Vashi at a speed of 100km/h, and Train B is traveling toward Mankhurd at a speed of... oh never mind ;) --Rehcsif 14:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to Vashi, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 22:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Bridge is actually notable, being the main road and rail connection between Bombay and New Bombay. I'm sure it is also notable constructionally, quite akin to say, the various bridges crossing the San Francisco bay. Page need to be greatly expanded. ImpuMozhi 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems "notable" enough to have an article. To the nominator: if you wish to merge, simply do so - you don't need a VFD. --SPUI (T - C) 19:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep needs to be sourced and expanded, but a quick look at the bridge categories identified by Shenme shows lots of U.S. bridges of lesser notability so keeping verifyable Indian bridges fights systemic bias. Eluchil404 19:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gran Turismo 4 Car List

Previously nominated and deleted a year ago. Nothing has changed since the last nomination. It is still unecyclopedic, gamecruft and just a FAQ. I would possibly suggest a transwiki to Wikibooks, but I don't think they take FAQs (if this could even be called one) so that suggestion is out. There are also a number of these lists around the Internet and could always be linked to from Gran Turismo 4 if people feel that this resource is really all that valuable. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and cruft. Possible speedy-d if this was once deleted. SynergeticMaggot 04:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted material; if it's different enough, just delete as gamecruft. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete or delete per Coredesat. -- Captain Disdain 07:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but I'll add that I only noticed the article because someone recently added a new (in-line) link to it from Gran Turismo 4. Whatever. --SportWagon 16:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above reasons. Wickethewok 20:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. After four hours, absolutely no reason at all even vaguely hinted at by the nominator as to why the article should be deleted. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lassie (2005 movie)

Delete and redirect to Lassie. SynergeticMaggot 04:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: You haven't told us why. Kimchi.sg 05:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The Lassie article has redlinks for most Lassie movies, indicating that someone expected them to have their own articles someday. Two other Lassie films have their own articles already.--Rehcsif 05:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Is there a good reason not to? Michael 07:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 09:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Jersey Brewers

Very WP:NN. This was a soccer team, never having been to a playoff, nor the U.S. Open Cup. Delete. SynergeticMaggot 04:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge into an article for the league, and Comment: There's a whole bunch of them at Category:United States soccer clubs. ~ trialsanderrors 04:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, if you want, you can link them all on AfD using this method: Wp:afd#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. SynergeticMaggot 04:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought there was one more team listed already, but I can't find it. In any case, better to launch a couple of trial balloons before you put in the effort. ~ trialsanderrors 05:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• So wait, we want to delete former professional teams now? I don't know if i like that at all. The team was a pro team in a league that was very well established, so keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs)
• Keep - A member of an established professional sports league. Wickethewok 14:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a professional sports team in what was then the top-flight football (soccer) league in the US. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just because the team wasn't in the playoffs or the U.S. Open Cup (as far as I know, none of the professional football (soccer) clubs in the US entered the cup in the 1970s and 1980s) doesn't mean they are irrelevant. Using this criteria we would also have to delete some NASL teams. It's fine to keep obscure information. DC 17:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Are tabled data listings subject to copyright? If so, the cluster of articles might have copyvio problems. ~ trialsanderrors 18:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Doubtful. If they are, it's a quick fix. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • There's a whole bunch of them. I think I might run this by WP:CV. ~ trialsanderrors 18:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • What part do you think is copyvio? The results? The setup? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Wholesale copying of tabulated data. ~ trialsanderrors 18:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Do you consider any sort of tabulated data that's reproduced a copyvio? I'm not trying to tweak you here, I'm honestly curious. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
            • As a researcher, I'm happy if people take my tabulated findings and summarize them in their work. If they just take my work wholesale and provide no sourcing I think I have a very good standing if I call them on copyvio. But I'm sure there is precedent, so maybe someone with more expertise can chime in. ~ trialsanderrors 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Btw, I looked around a little and it seems at least rankings are clearly copyrighted. Not sure if those tables are considered rankings, and if e.g. ESPN has to pay MLB to publish them. ~ trialsanderrors 22:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
                • I'm really not sure how rankings can be copyrighted - it's like saying that "The Red Sox are a half game in front of the Yankees" is copyrighted. If it is, then remove it, but that seems...curious to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • There's a clear precedent in college rankings. I guess part of the question is whether MLB compiles the standings themselves. If they do they clearly hold the rights for their efforts. If not they might still do as they generate the product that yields the rankings, but it's less clear. ~ trialsanderrors 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • Interesting, I never knew that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
                      • Actually, a comment on the 1984 Orange Bowl AfD said that full game reports are also copyrighted even if they're written by journalists because the creative effort is the game itself, not the reporting. ~ trialsanderrors 23:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep formerly a professional team. Unless we want to delete all former kings, or (God Forbid!) presidents, on the basis they are no longer in office therefor NN? Jcuk 18:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this is former professional time erasing makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jcuk. If part of the article is in fact a copyvio, as trialsanderrors says, remove that section. I believe this team has value as part of the history of American soccer. Srose (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned, there is a whole bunch of them which look essentially the same. One-liner, repeating the comment from the (very well done) American Soccer League article, table. If we have to remove the tables, the purpose of the articles collapses and they can be folded back into American Soccer League unless they have distinguishing content. ~ trialsanderrors 20:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep article is about a professional sports team and is notable for that, as well as for the history of "soccer" in the US hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Professional team in a defunct league is notable. Article just needs expansion. Resolute 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, because real notability has an infinite shelf life. Yamaguchi先生 02:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleted as db-author since blanked by author. -- JLaTondre 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Preston Johnson

Can't quite speedy this as "patent nonsense" but I'm not sure what it is. Maybe original fiction? The name googles, but nothing that looks relevant to this. Danisvjold Makijivic does not google at all. Whatever it is, definitely not encyclopedic. Fan-1967 04:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Fabricationary 04:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If its not even showing up on google it might be just that: patent nonsense. Try slapping a speedy-d tag on and see what happens. SynergeticMaggot 04:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but the administrators seem to reject that speedy 216.141.226.190 05:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• There's a big backup in the speedy category right now. Fan-1967 05:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Michael 07:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Whpq 13:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsense. Scorpiondollprincess 14:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Article has been blanked by author. So tagged. Fan-1967 01:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 into San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto). bd2412 T 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brown Streak Railroad

Cruft about a company from a game that isn't mentioned anywhere except on trains. Also original research. 1ne 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Smerge with GTA-SA, or something related. SynergeticMaggot 04:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto). youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment My suggested target is the "state" in which the game takes place and which the railroad serves, not the game itself. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per above as MyFavoriteGameOfAllTimeCruft. -- Kicking222 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge as suggested by first comment. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • lol, internet)} 21:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 09:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniela Hamaui

Delete per possible WP:VAIN and fails WP:BIO. SynergeticMaggot 04:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. Shenme 05:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and expand. Lazy nomination per [29] L'espresso is a major weekly founded in 1955, see it:L'espresso. ~ trialsanderrors 06:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep under the condition it is expanded and the paper is notable as Shenme alleges. Michael 07:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you're talking about me, since Shenme voted Delete. How hard is this? I get 1,090 hits on google.it, including [30]. Seems like she also created some controversy. ~ trialsanderrors 07:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Editors of major news magazines are certainly notable enough. up+land 13:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep please editors of major news magazines are important too Yuckfoo 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment editors of newspapers are notable. So wheres the notability established on this article? As far as I could tell, its a one liner. There's no BIO here in the first place. Its unencycolpedic and could possibly be merged to the actual newpaper's article (if there is one). SynergeticMaggot 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You're contradicting yourself here. editors of newspapers are notable. So wheres the notability established on this article? It's in the one line that's in the article by your own criterion, and the article is clearly marked as a stub. Merger proposals are not done via AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 19:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand.--A. B. 02:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 De'Lete. Mailer Diablo 09:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D'Leons

Non-notable local resturant chain with only 3 locations. Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The restaurant does not place advertisements and does not have a website. -- No wonder its not notable! You might as well hide this resturant on Mars. SynergeticMaggot 04:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per SynergeticMaggot. Kalani ^[talk] 04:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• D'Lete ... and does not have a website I guess it's against their policy to have a WP entry too then. ~ trialsanderrors 06:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... three locations doesn't quite cut it for WP:CORP unless they give me free food for life. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 with the possibility of transwiki. The prevailing wind here is that these articles are more than we need, and any possible merge targets already contain ample information on the subjects. As I don't think the StarCraft wiki is really a sister project of ours, I'm not going to mess with trying to transwiki this whole thing (also, it is possible/likely that their articles are better than what was here!). If someone would like the deleted content to do the transwiki work themselves, drop me a line. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific StarCraft units

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}}

Original research, game cruft, game guide, whatever you like to call it, these articles' content features mainly strategy advice, unit statistics, and other content that is quite unencyclopedic. Regardless of goings-on on other AFDs, this content should certainly be deleted.

Nominating:

• Space Construction Vehicle (StarCraft)
• Probe (StarCraft)
• Marine (StarCraft)
• Zergling
• Firebat
• Dragoon (StarCraft)
• Hydralisk
• Terran Ghost
• High Templar
• Vulture (StarCraft)
• Siege Tank
• Protoss Reaver
• Goliath (StarCraft)
• Infested Terran
• Protoss Archon
• Ultralisk
• Wraith (StarCraft)
• Protoss Scout
• Mutalisk
• Dropship (StarCraft)
• Science Vessel
• Arbiter (StarCraft)
• Battlecruiser (StarCraft)
• Protoss Carrier
• Dark Templar
• Dark Archon
• Valkyrie (StarCraft)
• Corsair (StarCraft)
• Devourer
• Forge (StarCraft)
• Gateway (StarCraft)
• Shield Battery (StarCraft)
• Templar Archives (StarCraft)

Note that I am not including heroes/NPCs/characters in this nomination, only generic units. Judging by a similar previous AFD (here), most editors believe this content does not belong in a general encyclopedia and should instead be in a separate Wiki.

Wickethewok 04:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki/merge to wikia:starcraft. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 05:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per Kaustuv Chaudhuri. All these games can be mentioned/described here, but this game guide material needs to be on game wikis, and Wikia seems a great answer for all of these! Shenme 05:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Transwikify: my original thought was to just delete. SynergeticMaggot 05:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki them somewhere that wants them (such as the SCWikia), but do delete as wholly unencyclopedic game-guide. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I'm sure they'll be better off housed at the Starcraft wiki. GassyGuy 07:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 07:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to the articles about their respective races, or StarCraft units and structures if that survives its AfD. They may need to be pruned in the process. This is worth covering, but a page per unit seems excessive. Ace of Sevens 08:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all/transwiki I looked at the race pages and these seem to be covered in sufficient detail on those pages, so these are unnecessary. This should be transwikied to a gaming wiki, though. Ace of Sevens 08:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete , because the Protoss, Zerg, and Terran already have sections on their respective units, which describes the units well enough. There is no need for any of those articles here. E946 08:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Starcruft. The SC wiki has this covered. -- GWO
• Comment. Editors watching this review might want to be aware of this digg post. --Cymsdale 10:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Unimportant comment Wow. "This is a travesty!" Somebody either has had a very, very good life, or needs to take a step back and analyze just how much they value StarCraft, or, at least, its presence on Wikipedia. GassyGuy 11:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki --Flipkin 11:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Side note: Someone posted on Digg to influence the AfD

• I like how the only post on Digg so far thinks they should be deleted, too. Wickethewok 13:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, gameguide stuff. Recury 13:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete!, If this is removed from Wiki then obviously we have to go even further than that. Anything pertaining to Star Wars or Star Trek in complete details involving planets and race's have to be marked for deletion as well. If you remove one set of fictional articles, you remove them all. Personally, I don't think this is a path that should be traversed. --Wil2197 14:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Eh? If you remove one set of fictional articles, you remove them all. Why would one have to do that? If one includes Romeo and Juliet, must we include every play ever written? Not all fiction is created equally, or has equally cultural notability. Furthermore, its not POV to point that out. -- GWO
    • Eh? I too am in favor of transwiki-ing, and you are right to point of the slippery slope fallacy. However! Starcraft is one of the most culturally notable videogames ever. Especially in .kr, but even in the English-speaking world, the starcraft is legendary. En taro adun, eigenlambda 19:10, 18 Jul 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Zergling, delete the rest Ironically, the title of this AfD is the one that should be kept, and seeing it on the afd list piqued my interest to come here and say so. Do we need an article on every SC unit? No way. But the Zergling has become extremely notable in popular culture - the term has come to be a word on its own, and is also more symbolic of the game as a whole than any other unit. However, it should be made into more of an article explaining these points than the strategy-guide reading they get having one for each unit. -Goldom ‽‽‽⁂ 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional comment to my above - While I originally said keep zergling, delete rest, I'd like to clarify I have nothing against a transwiki, as seems to be the growing consensus. The thing is, while I don't know the SC wiki, I would assume they probably already have info on all these units, and probably more about them than we do. But if not, then sure, trans away. Also, there have been a few suggestions to merge to a list. I would say that this is probably the best way of keeping any info here, as a list of units with minor single-line-ish info. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki and merge down to a single 'list' style article, after generous cutting. --InShaneee 19:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki all per first few comments. Maybe I might as well go ahead with this. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, transwiki, smerge, any would be an appropriate solution to this problem. Goldom may be right that zergling should be kept, but I think it's really the concept of the "zerg rush" that's the culturally notable thing (I know what "zerg rush" means, I didn't know that it involved zerglings), and that is quite adequately covered in Rush (computer and video games). — Haeleth Talk 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, transwiki, merge Deletion based on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a game guide hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Transwiki It appears Wikipedia is on an AfD rampage, but this one actually might be justified... however total deletion is still stupid and pointless, and the slippery sloper argument is becoming increasingly valid. Merge them into Starcraft Units, etc. or transwiki them to where they fit better. But don't delete outright. The game guide stuff should not survive any such change however, but it seems that rather than fix articles, Wikipedia is just deleting them altogether. I'm not sure that's a good idea. David Fuchs 22:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All game guide. Someone could take all of this material slap "StarCraft Game Guide" on the cover and make some good money selling this at Barnes and Nobel. As to the slippery slope there is a difference between video games and movies or books. There is no issues of "succeeding" or "doing well" at movies or books. ALthough this should not mean that video games or individual components of videogames are inherently game guide material. For example Mario is highly notable and the article about him has no useful information in the execution of any of the vast number of games in which he has appeared. It is the collection of small bits of information that is useful in playing the game and fail any notablilty outside of the game that is the issue.--Nick Y. 23:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to their races per above. --Pboyd04 23:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• The thing is, there's already sections on the units in the articles for the races, as I described earlier. Merging wouldn't accomplish anything because the information is already there. E946 02:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. Love the game, but this is a crystal clear violation of WP:NOT. If this isn't a video game guide, nothing is. Aplomado ^talk 01:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki I didn't know there was a SC wiki. Prolly be nice if it were listed on the Interwiki map. Great info, I play the game, but let's keep it where it belongs. -- MrDolomite | Talk 02:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per StacyD. The game guide material needs to be on game wikis Stacyd
• Transwiki per above. These articles are non-encyclopedic, and most of the usable information is already well covered in other articles, as said. --SevereTireDamage 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, tag for cleanup if necessary. I'm sure the Starcraft wiki doesn't need our contribution. If the articles have too much advice in them, they need editing, not deleting. I see no reason why we can't have articles on individual Starcraft units when we have articles on individual Pokemon. Mangojuice^talk 14:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep All - These articles provide objective information on one of the most popular computer games of all time. [31][32] [33] [34] [35] There are basically three rationales to this mass-AfD: original research, notability, and "game guide", and they have to be address on two levels: what content could ideally make good articles but is not currently of high quality, and what content is inherently non-encyclopedic. As for the quality issues, these should be resolved by IMPROVING rather than deleting articles. From what I've seen, most of what has been called original research is actually insufficiency of references; these issues can be addressed by deleting true OR and improving the articles with more and better references for the objective information. As for notability, there is little question, as the references a few lines up indicate, that Starcraft is one of the most popular video games in the world and has remained so for the over eight years since its release, with indicators such as media coverage and endorsement contracts for professional Starcraft players (!) continuing to go up. As for the fuzzy, poorly defined "game guide" objection to encyclopedic worthiness, the proper dividing line is an active area of discussion, but I think should be between providing recommandations on strategy (not encyclopedic), and providing objective information on details of how the game works, as we do for detailed explanations of the rules for any notable game or sport (encyclopedic). Otherwise, where is there a principled dividing line between eliminating specific game mechanics, and eliminating any rules of a game, and eliminating any content at all related to a game or sport? If forms of recreation are encyclopedic at all, providing specific descriptions of their rules or mechanics should be limited only by the same criteria as for anything else, i.e. notability, references, etc. An apt comparison here might be made to chess, which has dozens of categories, with up to 137 articles per category; these are all properly encyclopedic as well, and must have been found so by the untold number of WP editors it must have taken to write them and who must have read them without a problem. I for one find them relevant, informative and fascinating and wouldn't want to see them deleted, just as with these Starcraft-related articles. They are filled with the sort of detailed game mechanics that populates the content of these Starcraft articles, such as this passage from Queen (chess): "The queen can be moved in a straight line vertically, horizontally, or diagonally, any number of unoccupied squares as shown on the diagram at the left, thus combining the moves of the rook and bishop. The distance it can move is known as the Chebyshev distance. As with other captures except en passant, the queen captures by occupying the square on which an enemy piece sits. Ordinarily the queen is slightly more powerful than a rook and a bishop together, while slightly less powerful than two rooks. Because the queen is more valuable than any other piece, it is almost always disadvantageous to exchange the queen for a piece other than the enemy's queen, unless doing so leads to a position where the king can be checkmated." An even more apt comparison might be made to Final_Fantasy_X, which is today's featured article on the WP front page (as of this writing). Final Fantasy X passed the gauntlet to featured status in part because it is well-referenced, obviously a notable subject, and provides objective information on detailed specifics of how the game works - see, for example, Final_Fantasy_X#Battle_system. The editors who agreed that this deserved featured status did not seem to apply an absolute rule against "game cruft" as opposed to detailed, objective information on a notable recreational subject. This is the same in principle as each one of these articles would do in their ideal state, after being appropriately improved, rather than deleted. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 00:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (repeating some comments made previously elsewhere)

• 'There are basically three rationales to this mass-AfD: original research, notability, and "game guide"' In my case, this is incorrect. I want them deleted because the articles on the three Starcraft races already have sections for all of their units and structures which describe them well enough. The fact is, there's not much to say about most units, and what there is to say has already been said in the unit sections of the race articles. E946 02:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for ALL subjects! I want to know the statistics for the Protoss Arbiter (besides the fact that I wrote the article on the Arbiter). Where do I find them? Wikipedia? Yes. Unless this AfD comes through. And, like E946 said above, AfDs have 3 reasons: original research (definitely not), notability (StarCraft is VERY popular), and game guide. I fail to agree with his reasons, though. StarCraft units fit none of those! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RelentlessRouge (talk • contribs)
  • Starcraft is notable. That's why it has an article. A Protoss Arbiter is not notable. Therefore, at best, it should be included in the game's article. And then it should still not be about how to use it in the game, or that's a guide. If you want to look up stats on units, there's tons of sites with that info, including the official one, so it's not like you're gonna be out of luck if these pages are deleted. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a game guide. And we aren't discussing whether or not Starcraft is notable which it is very much. However Wikipedia isn't a game guide and these articles are and that is why they need to be deleted. Whispering 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete what with WP:NOT being a game guide. There is a starcraft wiki where this might be welcome. If so, transwiki, but delete whether transwikied or not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Ugh, Delete all. The only articles that I considered keeping might be the ones for specific units which are extremely well-known, such as the Zergling. However, the current edit of the Zergling article is - like most of these articles - primarily focused on the unit's statistics in-game. While this information may be of interest to some, it is not the sort of material that belongs in an encyclopedia. Blizzard already has a page with this information and more.

A reasonable standard that I've been mulling over in my mind for topics such as this is the following: "Fictional topics should only receive articles if they are featured to a significant extent (i.e. not a cameo appearance) in works which are significantly separated from the ones in which they originally appeared." For example, Bulbasaur (to use a popular example) gets an article, as it has appeared in a bunch of Pokemon media -the collectible card game, various video games, the TV series, etc. However, aside from a brief cameo appearance in Warcraft 3, the Zergling has never (to my knowledge) featured prominently in anything besides Starcraft. Neither have any of the other units listed here, so none of them should have articles. The same goes for Charles Foster Kane (of Citizen Kane); I may eventually propose that that article be merged to Citizen Kane. Zetawoof^(ζ) 01:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• That's certainly a...unique opinion. The Bulbasaur example makes no sense under your criteria, since all of those other works are all Pokemon works and not any more "significantly separated" than the Starcraft books. Also, I think it's fair to say that Holden Caufield deserves an article, even if J.D. Salinger refuses to license any of his works for treatment in other media formats. 129.61.46.16 19:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Josh

• Ooh, the existence of Starcraft books actually throws a real wrench into this particular issue. The difference as I see it is that the various Pokemon works are not as directly connected to each other as the Starcraft books are to the game: as far as I know, the Starcraft books serve as minor expansions and "riffs" on the story told within the game, while the Pokemon card game (again, as far as I know) shares very little with the TV show or the video game. Holden would, incidentally, actually be safe under my policy, though, as he appears in (or, at least, is strongly connected to) several other works of Salinger's. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep all. These articles have been worked on for YEARS now (look at the history on some of these), and contain a lot of valuable information. If they read too much like a game guide, there's no reason they can't be modified (after all, this IS Wikipedia). Those that have little information left after removing strategies could simply be redirected to the main StarCraft article. I think the biggest issue here is that if these are removed, there's really no telling where to stop. I mean, what about this? There are articles for just about every character in the Mario series. In fact, "Goomba" was once the featured article of the day, which is why I bring up this point. Also, what about the countless articles on Wikipedia dedicated to schools and songs and episodes? Are these somehow more notable than StarCraft units? I strongly urge you to re-think your votes. This sort of careless deletion immediately throws about 90% of other Wikipedia articles into question. Czj 06:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Goombas have been in many different games and pieces of media. No StarCraft unit can claim such for themselves. The argument that there are articles worse/less notable than these are not a defense. If you have issues with those articles, bring it up there. Though, right now the Goomba article is large uncited and parts of it could very well be original research. Wickethewok 12:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep all. Why shouldn't Wikipedia have this information? Wikipedia is supposed to have information about all subjects. If you don't like the pages, don't look at them. Some of the Star Trek related pages are better here than on Memory Alpha. Some of these pages need cleaning up, that's all. Rondmc170 07:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  Have you read the nomination or the discussion here? It has been amply explained why Wikipedia shouldn't keep them. I think you are mischaracterising Wikipedia; it is not supposed to be a compendium of "information about all subjects", as you put it. Rather, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. For an encyclopedia a mere mention or a short sentence or two of description of the minor units of this game is sufficient and the interested reader can be pointed to other more comprehensive sources. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Popular This game is extremely popular in Asia, so popular in fact it is a live "sport" on television. I believe this dictates keeping the page. Founder 02:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• That example would be excellent if we were nominating the article StarCraft for deletion. However, that doesn't really do anything for anything for giving individual units any encyclopedic value. Wickethewok 03:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge to an aggregation While the unit statistics and game strategy should probably be removed it seems as though there is enough information on the individual units as fictional "characters" ("place in society", quotes) to be worth preserving. A little more sourcing would be nice, but I think most of this is taken from the game manual or in game story --Topkai22 11:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/transwiki per Kaustuv Chaudhuri, but Keep Zergling per Goldom. WP:NOT a game guide. Kamek 23:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is the norm is all [[:Category:Fictional universes]. Jon513 23:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rework to meet WP:NOT. Fredil Yupigo 00:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep! 24.146.24.61 03:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep per Mango. If articles are not up to a standard, they need editing not deleting! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Terran Ghost - not any of the other ones. Ghosts are pivotal characters, and a spin-off game is based on them. It will be useful to have a reference article to discuss the character type when Starcraft: Ghost comes out. MrKeith2317 17:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. These articles all clearly violate WP:NOT by being part of an effort to create a comprehensive game guide for Starcraft. No matter the vote count, it must be deleted as a violation of wikipedia policy. Indrian 01:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Mango. Lets provide useful information through prudent editing, not through large sweeping deletion Enigmatical 06:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)