Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 4

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

The result of the debate was merged/redirected. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goleta Postal massacre

Entire content of article is contained in article Goleta, California. Rockero 22:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, entire text is indeed in that other article, so no need to even merge. Only found 1 Ghit (out of four total) on the term that didn't lead back to WP. HumbleGod 23:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: also covered in Going postal too. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  09:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Is this a news article or an encyclopedia atricle. Seems to be a news article to me... Mbralchenko 13:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Goleta, California, since it's already been merged and redirects are cheap. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Moo. Herostratus 23:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect: the Goleta article seems the best home for this info. Antandrus (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. It's just a straight copy of the from the article it should be redirected to, presumably by someone who doesn't yet know about redirects. This didn't need to be AfDed. Grandmasterka 03:23, 8 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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magical negro

Possibly made up term. Ibaranoff24 20:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC) My apologies. (Ibaranoff24 01:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

• Keep, sources in the article demonstrate that it's not made-up. Catamorphism 20:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I've heard the term before outside of Wikipedia, and it demonstrates a valid point about modern film. HumbleGod 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - "possibly made up"? You're wasting people's time with an AFD and don't even bother to check its etymology? Did you even read the article (which, granted, needs work)? - DavidWBrooks 22:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep —Brim 23:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, real plot stereotype. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep very much not-made-up plot device. --DarkAudit 00:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable stock character from American film. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 00:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Why isn't there a mention of the take on this on The Man Show? --Burgwerworldz 00:34, 5 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 of the nomination was keep. Oh, nice article btw. ;) - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fairbank Memorial Park

Non-notable park, even among Toronto parks. --Christopher Thomas 20:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is already listed at List of Toronto parks, and the article adds little additional information. This park isn't notable, and there are several dozen others just like it in the city. The parks that _are_ notable in Toronto are Downsview Park, High Park, the Toronto Islands, and maybe Ashbridge's Bay Park. --Christopher Thomas 20:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Non-notability is not necessarily a factor when deciding whether or not to keep an article. Moreover, in his above comment, Christopher Thomas severely misrepresents the state parks in Toronto, as well as their converage on Wikipedia. Not only are there many parks deserving of articles, there's a whole category that includes a substantial portion of them. While the article is rather paltry at the moment, it does provide useful information, and it is frequently the case that great articles start out small. Another consideration is that this appears to be the first article Daloonik has created. While this alone can't be a reason not to delete, it can be a reason to err on the side of keep, as destroying the work of a contributor who took the initiative to learn enough about Wikipedia to create an article, including apparently going out to take pictures specifically for the article, is only likely to discourage a user who has shown he can make useful edits from continuing to participate on Wikipedia. Stanfordandson 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment that is not quite true, this user was also the creator of the ever-so-interesting page Fairbank Memorial Community Recreation Centre. He was also blocked recently. Pascal.Tesson 23:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. While a list of all parks in Toronto can be argued to be in scope, articles about every patch of land with grass and trees on it aren't. I live in Toronto, and am extremely familiar both with its parks in general, and with Fairbank Memorial Park (which I visit regularly). My comments stand. --Christopher Thomas 02:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge and redirect to List of Toronto parks. Also delete the page just mentionned. Pascal.Tesson 23:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my opinion to keep given new edits. Pascal.Tesson 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If Wikipedia has individual articles on metro stations all over the world, why not parks? --Rbraunwa 02:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the debate here is not about metro stations but on this article. How are "why not?" arguments going to enlighten the discussion? Pascal.Tesson 02:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't be rude. The OP has a point. If one thing, why not another? Ey is clearly showing that the bar for inclusion is entirely arbitrary. Why not address his point rather than make a rude reply? Grace Note 04:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The logical way to address his argument is to slap "merge to list of (city) subway stations" on all but the most notable of the station stubs. Grand Central Station would certainly qualify. Union Station (Toronto) _might_ qualify, as it's a historic building and a well-known landmark. Donlands (TTC), on the other hand, serves no useful purpose as a separate article. --Christopher Thomas 05:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to list of Toronto parks for now. That list could be organised as a table, say, with pictures of the parks and information about each of them. Of course, when there is enough information it can be split out again into its own article, but I think it makes much more sense in a list at the moment. --bainer (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is not a criterion for deletion. Please read policy before nominating articles you don't like. Grace Note 04:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If the article had any significant content, you might have a point. If it weren't for WP:NOT, you might also have a point. As it stands, the stub serves no purpose that the list of Toronto parks doesn't already serve, and given the non-notability of the park, I have grave doubts about it _ever_ having content that justifies a separate article. --Christopher Thomas 05:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that Grace Note provides no actual reason why the article should be kept, just an ad hominem attack on reasons why the article should be deleted. Proto///type 09:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless there's something particularly notable about the park apart from its presence. BigHaz 06:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. It's a park in Toronto. There is nothing encyclopaedic about that; all the necessary exposition possible on an unnotable park is within the List of Toronto parks. The park has no special features or unique aspects that make it anything more than a patch of grass and trees. Quite frankly, if it wasn't already going through AFD, I'd speedy delete the article as containing no significant content. The article states "Fairbank Memorial Park is a park in Toronto. There's a street to the west, and it has a community centre". That's not even a substub. Proto///type 09:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Public parks are notable public resources, and this is a perfectly reasonable stub. List of Toronto parks does not include any information about any of the parks in question apart from their names, so a Merge to that target doesn't seem like a viable option. If it's merged anywhere (which I'd still discourage), it should be to the neighborhood that contains the park. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't get it. How is a 1 block park a "notable public resource"? Look at a Google earth or something and you'll see what this is: a park with a baseball field and a basketball court. Any city the size of Toronto has about 100 of these. So even by a conservative estimate there are hundreds of thousands of parks like this all over the world. I don't see how any future editor will be motivated to expand this. Half of the edit history is due to racist vandalism created by user:Daloonik and user:Stanfordandson (who incidently voted above to keep the page). Why keep open an article that's a sandbox for vandals? Pascal.Tesson 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment While I don't currently have time to respond to everything I'd like to respond to here, I'd like to point out that at no time did I ever make a racist or vandalistic edit to that article. I'll deal with this more later, but before I do, I suggest you bone up on Wikipedia's no personal attack policy and Wikipedia's civility policy. I take accusations of racism very seriously. Stanfordandson 17:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Vandalism isn't a reason for deletion. If it were, we wouldn't have an article on a lot of topics worthy of coverage, including George W. Bush. If vandalism is a problem, request semi-protection for the article. As to your other point, neither you nor I have any idea as to which articles hypothetical future editors will want to expand. We have some very nice articles on small urban parks, such as Ralph Bunche Park (to cite one example), so it's certainly not out of the question that some editor will improve this one. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment note that I am not saying that the article should be deleted because of vandalism. All I am saying is that an article about an un-notable small park (unlike Ralph Bunche Park) is a door left open for trolling. Keeping the article means having admins patrolling it to remove inappropriate edits and then facing accusations of stalking (again, pls take a look at the edit history). There is no benefit for Wikipedia to keep this article. Pascal.Tesson 18:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've already looked at the edit history, thanks, and my opinion is unchanged. If someone wants to troll or vandalize, they're going to find a place to do it, whether it's this article or somewhere else. Deleting the article would only deny useful information to legitimate users. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You keep _saying_ that, but your argument about "denying useful information" breaks down for articles, like this one, that contain _no_ useful information. What purpose does this article, right now, serve? --Christopher Thomas 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now, even though it's a stub, the article still indicates the location of the park within Toronto and the existence of a community center within the park. It also provides two photographs of the park, indicating that the north end is mostly level ground, with a paved area containing children's playground equipment. That is useful information for someone interested in the subject, and it's information that wouldn't be available from a plain entry on a list. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I went ahead and expanded it a little. If you thought it was non-notable before, you may want to re-consider that opinion... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Major scandal that involved high-ranking municipal politicians accepting bribes to give the park to developers? A non-notable piece of land with grass and trees indeed! Thanks for the edits, Hb,ws! Stanfordandson 23:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The list of Toronto parks, though it may seem large, is in fact incomplete. It would make that article even more cumbersome to merge this current article with that one. I would also like to draw people's attention to what wikipedia really is. This is a place for information to be shared, and although most of you may have never visited this park in person, there might be somebody who would want pictures of this park, and would like to find them somewhere on the internet; this is the place for that. Trivialising an urban park, small as it may be, should not be done on wikipedia. In time, I would like to see an article with photographs of every urban park in Toronto, and the list of Toronto parks containing links to each of those parks. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Hit bull, win steak for expanding the article. Vivelequebeclibre 23:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Thanks to user Hit bull, this is now notable, reliably sourced and a keeper IMO. Crum375 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks, guys. Y'all are makin' me blush. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Although I have some doubts about having an article for every city park in the world (or Toronto) I think this one passes with the changes by Hit Bull.--Nick Y. 23:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per others. — getcrunk what?! 23:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. At least as notable as some schools, particularly in the present form. Powers 00:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The scandal was fairly significant at the time. CJCurrie 01:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per HBWS's edits. -- nae'blis _(talk) 02:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - appears to be somewhat notable, would prefer an expansion -- Tawker 14:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge - It's sourced, and there's picture. Nothing wrong with this article existing. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 20:37, 9 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 of the nomination was keep. – Avi 15:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of Irish-Americans

also including List of Irish-American actors, List of Irish American gangsters, List of Irish American musicians, List of Irish American politicians.

Merge all to Irish American including only those who are actually partly famous for being Irish-American like Gene Kelly, Ted Kennedy, Tyrone Power, Ronald Reagan. Lists of anyone and everyone who've said "I'm Irish" on St. Patrick's Day are not encyclopedic IMO. Arniep 20:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• do not delete leave as is. Certainly do not merge with 'Irish American' article. Few or no 'xxx American' articles include a name list. The names are all found in 'list of xxx American' articles which is what these articles are for. I created these sub-articles after proposing it on the main 'List of Irish Americans' article and receiving no opposition and one support. Why: the List of Irish Americans' article was getting too long and hard to maintain. As far as the contents of the list, the argument provided is irrelevant to the question. It is up to editors to determine who should be in the list or not, based on facts. Thanks Hmains 20:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

(above moved from the AfD's talk page)

• Delete these and all other "lists of foos". They can never be comprehensive and it's a bitter fight to get them anywhere near compliant with our policies. Most importantly, it's hard to imagine a reader thinking "oh, maybe if I search under 'list of Irish-American gangsters', something will come up". I think the "what will the reader expect?" test is a good one for articles. Categories were invented for precisely the purpose these lists purportedly serve. However, this is another case in which I do not expect anything resembling common sense to prevail. Far too many people "contribute" to Wikipedia by adding names to lists and once more mob rule will likely win the day. Grace Note 00:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- if we don't need "list of Jewish whatever" we don't need this either. A category would be sufficient anyway. Haikupoet 02:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I second Grace Note's comments. --Rbraunwa 02:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - not sure what to think. However, I believe, there is one list that now fully complies with Wiki's policies, and that is List of Welsh Americans. Every name is fully sourced to something that says the person in question is a Welsh-American. I plan on doing these once a day, alphabetically up from Welsh. So, Vietnamese - watch out - you're next. Mad Jack 02:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a List of Jewish American politicians. Since Irish-Americans are a much more prominent part of American politics, this list should stay. This list could use a new format though. It also doesn't list many politicians. It could be divided up into different categories and include many more Irish American politicians with wikipedia pages that are in the Irish-American politician category, but not on the List of Irish-American page. 75.3.49.50

03:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

'Do Not Delete the list' - this list does have value to researchers - Irish American studies as with other ethnic groups is common among sociologists , geneologists and other individuals who are carrying out various research projects at different levels. The Irish were the first great wave of immigration and it is important that a preliminary data-base of notable people is available. However I do beleive that only "sourced" entries should remain on the list - I take the point that it is possible for an individual to talk about their Irish ancestry yet there may be no "source available on the net - but the source can be a book or other material as long as the details are noted/cited. This list like all wikipedia lists and articles is subject to vandalism, silly and un-substantiated entries but as with all articles and lists is also subject to policing and these entries ultimately are corrected or removed. This list is valuable to other Irish studies including historic events such as the Irish Diaspora and The Irish Fammine. It should not be removed. If teh debate is over the name of the list - I really do not care if it is called "List of Irish Americans" or "List of Irish Americans or Americans of Irish Descent". The list is an excellent first level for research - particulalry around St Patrick's Day that is celebrated World-wide and as such generates numerous articles about "Irish Americans" "Irish Culture" "Famine Descendents" "Irish Actors and muscians" - The Irish hold a unique place in the world in that there is no corner of the world where they did not go and it is also unique that this identity can remain strong after many generations - as stated previously in Ireland many visitors arrive to trace their roots from several generations ago. In talked about in previous discussions on the article talk page, people world-wide but particularly in America can have an Italian, Polish, German, Spanish etc. etc. surname yet claim to be or feel Irish because of a close or remote ancestral connection and this is not only unique but has been acceptable to the Irish who experienced the first "ethnic" cleansing at the hands of a colonial government who did their best to wipe out "Irishness" but rather by doing so only enforced it. Therefore the Irish traditionally held on to their identity as something very precious and whether it is 1 or 10 generations in the past it is as valid to them. The Irish Government has also acknowledged the irish connectiosn throughout the world and has made numrous references to it and the waves of Irish that were forced to leave their country due to opression is as important to the Irish and to world history as is the Holocaust. The list should not be removed. Vono 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC) 86.12.253.32 07:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep These lists are useful. Anyone who has an article on Wikipedia, or should do, and is eligible for a given list should be included. Lists are better than categories, because they can be annotated and can have redlinks for people who should have articles but don't yet. And categories have exactly the same problems as lists regarding comprehensiveness and adherence to policy.--Newport 11:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• I'm torn, leaning Weak keep. Obviously, we CANNOT delete just one of these lists by ethnicity - it needs to be an all or nothing proposition. Lists on Wikipedia are useful if they either (a) provide meaningful information that you can't get out of a category (eg a table like this) or (b) include redlinked elements to assist in the creation of articles. This list contains really only a citation ... so there is no added value from that standpoint for having a list vs a category - the citation could just as easily be in the article itself. It contains very few redlinks ... and really, in the time you take to add someone to the list, you could create a stub for them. So I don't know that these lists really serve any good purpose that couldn't be accomplished by a category. However, because it would be wholly inappropriate to delete them piecemeal, keep. BigDT 13:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the problem is it is just not clear what can be considered a reliable, reputable, verifiable source that a person is an Irish-American. If someone makes a list and puts it on the net is that a reliable source? If someone says "I'm Irish" on St. Patrick's Day is that a reliable verifiable source that that person is an Irish American? If someone says "I am proud of my Irish heritage" is that? If someone says "I have Irish blood running through my veins" is that? What about "My heart is in Ireland" or "I feel as Irish as can be" or "I consider my Irish heritage a fundemental part of who I am"? All these statements would suggest to me that these people consider themselves Irish Americans, but some people think that only if they say "I'm Irish" on St. Patrick's Day that is enough or some people think only if they say specifically "I am an Irish-American" or are described by someone as exactly that in a reputable reliable verifiable source (what is a reliable source for who and who is not an Irish American again?). Arniep 13:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Arniep, this has been explained to you by several editors who are very familiar with policy. You either have a source saying someone is an Irish-American, or you don't. See List of Welsh Americans for how these lists need to be done. Don't worry, Arnie, "I" isn't too far up from "W" in the alpha-bet and I will get to doing this list in no time. Mad Jack 16:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please go to Talk:List of Irish American politicians to see a different kind of format for the List of Irish-American politicians. Also note that you guys are saying what is a reliable source for Irish-American. Most people in the Irish-American politician category are of only Irish ancestry with a few exceptions. 75.3.49.50 14:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - these lists serve an important function, and you can't just delete one while leaving others such as "List of Jamaican Americans" and "List of Cambodian Americans" - Nesher 14:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not Delete - Agreed that this list cannot be deleted in isolation - I for one am not concerned with what the verifiable source is other than that somewhere it should be on record that this person has been identified as Irish American either by their own statements or that of others whether it is only on St Patrick's Day or or through continuous identification is irrelevant - most well known historic figures or celebrities have family ancestry included in their biographies. The list provides that initial starting point that is key for research allowing the researcher to make the determination if tehy wish to pursue further detail and also it serves to encourage stubs and articles. I think that identity is a very personal thing and open to individual interpretation which is why there needs to be a minimum requirement for inclusion otherwise names are simply added because they "sound" Irish or maliciously to vandalise the list for some personal agenda also names can be removed for personal agendas - for instance say Robert De Niro or Liza Minnelli - both have documentable Irish ancestry and both have spoken about it in some form over their long careers, yet someone uninformed may determine that because their names are Italian in origin they do not belong on the list of Irish Americans or similarly that because of irish ancestry do not belong on a list of Italian Americans (of course they belong on both) or it could be that individuals are simply "portective" of their celebrity and want exclusive ownership by their (the editor's) chosen ethnic identity. Reliable citations avoid this for accuracy and research.Vono 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge (see above)- seems a reasonable list entry with substantial content, also agree that other similar lists would have to be deleted if this one was. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I find lists like this useful.--Runcorn 19:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If these lists are going to continue to exist, should people such as Maurice Costello be excluded, because I cannot find a source that says specifically that he was an "Irish-American"? He was born to Irish immigrants Thomas Costello and Ellen Fitzgerald in 1877. Yet, I have searched far and wide on Google and I can find no source that says he was specifically an "Irish-American", and, according to some users, this means that he cannot go on the list of Irish-Americans. Arniep 23:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe he didn't consider himself Irish-American. If you dig a little deeper, you can find a few sites that say he was part Spanish. Though those may be incorrect. I am not sure. Mad Jack 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Come on, this case is a perfect example of why I am arguing against this list as it stands. He is surely a lot more Irish than a large amount of people currently on the lists of Irish Americans for making some vague statement about Irishness. Would I be permitted to use Maurice Costello as an example of an American who traces their ancestry to Ireland on the Irish American page but not on the Lists of Irish-Americans? Clearly a non sensical situation. Something needs to give. Arniep 23:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, nothing needs to give. You have given no evidence at all that we are "stealing away" Costello's right to be Irish-American. You have no evidence that he considered himself as such, and you can find, so far, no sources that have referred to him as such. If you do, that would be great. Until then, he should be kept off the list. Oh, and I suppose you could say "Costello traces his ancestry to Ireland" on Costello's page and on the Irish American pages, though that would be pointless. Surely some more prominant Irish-Americans can be found to illustrate the main page. No need to use Costello, who we are not even sure about. Mad Jack 23:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK fine. Just so it is clear to everyone who wants to keep these lists, we are including people who say "I am Irish" on St Patrick's Day, but excluding the children of Irish immigrants if we can't find a source that says specifically that they are an "Irish-American". Arniep 23:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this St. Patrick's Day thing? I don't think there's a single person sourced to a link where they say "I'm Irish" on St. Patrick's Day (i.e. an article dated on St. Patrick's Day - you get the point). I am also not sure why you are once again inquiring on this, since it's been explained to you so many times, dating even back to the List of British Jews. Mad Jack 23:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

People often say "I am Irish" on St. Patrick's Day when they're drunk, but, according to you, that would be a sufficient source to put someone on the lists. But NO!! Not a source that actually says someone was the child of Irish immigrants. NO NO NO NO!!! Arniep 00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

For goodness sake, do you think we have cameras trained on every celebrity so we can catch their drunken ramblings on St. Patrick's Day? Honestly, Arnie, if you want to use the "St. Patrick's Day" argument, you're going to have to find a single source linked to here that is even vaguely like that. Mad Jack 00:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether anyone actually is sourced as speaking on St. Patrick's Day. The fact is, if someone is reported as saying "I am Irish" on St. Patrick's Day you will accept that. But not "I am of Irish ancestry" or "I have Irish blood" which probably mean exactly the same thing in that context. And not if we have a source saying a person was the son of Irish immigrantS. NO NO. Even though all those sources accord with the definition of Irish American as an American who traces their ancestry to Ireland. Arniep 00:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just like the fact that the definition of plagarism matches your opinion that Jones did not commmit it, but yet.... if no sources say that he didn't, you're not allowed to under Wiki policy. Specifically. So I ask you, politely, to stop mentioning this "Defintion", which, besides being ambigious and essentially meaning that there are no non-X Americans out there at all, is explicitly prohibited from being used to match a person to a term, because it is indeed a definition. I also beg you to stop using the St. Patrick's Day "argument", because, as you have been unable to find a single example like that, is moot. Mad Jack 00:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's in no way moot. If a person says "I'm Irish" you have decided you will accept that to put them on the list, but not if they say "both of their parents are Irish", or "I am proud of my Irish heritage", all of which are convey the same meaning that the person is an Irish-American in accordance with the definition in major reference works (including Wikipedia) which define an Irish-American as an American who traces their ancestry to Ireland. I want to make it clear that I am in no way arguing for people of distant Irish ancestry who have never muttered one word on their Irish forebear/s to be included, just that we use some common sense and if necessary invoke WP:IGNORE if some users believe that policy may prevent, for example someone of two Irish parents not to be included. Arniep 10:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, arniep, I can't really say to you much more than has already been said, dating back to the List of British Jews. If you have questions/concerns, you can discuss each name with me individually, though right now only on Welsh Americans and Vietnamese Americans - I take no responsibility for any other pages at this point. I'm doing one a day, so I should get to the Irish one this month. Oh, and as for two Irish parents, it's already been explained to you, by Jayjg I think, what if that person just considers themselves "American"? Mad Jack 15:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Not very good arguments all round, but the keep ones seem better. And John Fitzgerald Kennedy, an Irish American if there ever was one, once said 'Ich bin ein Berliner'; can he go on the list of German Americans?--Brownlee 11:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but you'd have to use common sense to realise that would not be appropriate! Sorry! Arniep 11:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --BrenDJ 19:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until there is an overall consensus guideline on lists of ethnic Americans generally. I do think there's a huge difference between Irish-Americans who immigrated from Ireland, Irish-Americans who are children or perhaps grandchildren of immigrants who grew up in a household strongly informed by Irish cutlture, and Irish-Americans whose ancestors happen to have come from Ireland but who have no strong inbred connection to Irish culture. I would prefer to see the latter types not included in these lists. However, its a continuum, so that's difficult. Herostratus 00:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's pretty easy. If the source said they are Irish-Americans, they can be on the list. If not, not. You'll find that for the most part the latter types are indeed the ones referred to as such. Mad Jack 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mad - jack yes referring to the latter group mentioned in the penultimate entry above I agree that quite often the fact that an individual has remote Irish ancesrty does not always qualify them for inclusion in that perhaps they do not feel "Irish" However it is also possible for someone to have remote Irish Ancestry (I consider remote 1 great great gandparent on ones side of teh family) and still feel Irish because that identity was preserved within their environment therefore it is difficult to exclude them - I think at the very minimum there should be verifiable evidnece that somone in their ancestral heritage came from Ireland. An example of this is Mohammed Ali - one great grandfather came from Ennis County Clare - does this make him Irish-American? - Superficiously - yes - but does he feel Irish? I don't think so but because of clear lineage he should be on the list. Researchers can determine what entries they wish to pursue - quite often it is those latter people who are the more interesting because their Irishness may not be common knowledge and much of the value these entries have to for instance; journalists or academics doing serious work to use as examples of how the Irish have succeeded in America so someone like Ali presents a more interesting or unique slant around issues such as the Irish Diaspora rather than extolling the virtues of Irish beauty, charm, wit etc etc that often permiate St Patrick's Day journalism we all Know that Maureen O'Hara, Bing Crosby, Judy Garland, Grace Kelly etc etc were Irish Americans and reading it over and over in numerous publications can become boring but the wider issue for the users of thsi list is to lay-out how this remote Irishness has influenced the person's success that is more of a challenge and ultimately more interesting. Of course as with all these type of lists - they are seen as a "badge of honor" for the entrants and can also contribute to study and analysis - e.g how has their Irishness influenced them? Are their ethnic traits or predisposition responsible for their fame - e.g. Maureen O'Hara was/is as famous for being Irish if not more so than as an actress - infact her Irishness may be more well known than her extensive film career, however the ethnic identity in some cases goes hand-in-hand with the accomplishment for which they are noted and could be a career initself for soem people. I don't think the list is about the subjective issues such as "do they consider themselves Irish everyday or just on St Patrick's day" The reality is that identity is not something that you are conscious of every day and usually needs something to trigger it and St Patrick's Day may be the trigger that some people need once a year to remind them - others may be triggered more often and by other stimulants such as a trip to Ireland, or an image, a memory, a song etc but for the most part Irish-American identity is not challenged if the individual can at least elaborate on it e.g. they know where in Ireland they originated - in my experience the only Irish Americans not accpted by Irish born people are those that do not know anything about Ireland, Irish history, Irish culture, Irish language etc etc. They are not concerned with how close or remote the actual blood connection is if the individual can demonstrate an affinity founded on real knowledge and mutual understanding and this usually does not occur unless the individual "feels Irish". There is nothing more offensive that an American claiming to be "oirish" that has no idea about what that means.145.229.156.40 11:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes definitely I agree. Some people with remote Irish ancestry feel Irish and refer to themselves as such, or are referred to as such by others, which is perfectly fine for inclusion, and in fact helps weed them out from all the others with the remote ancestry. Mad Jack 15:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all - For lists to be justified they should do something that categories do not; have added value. These lists do. They are mostly fully sourced with additional information. TerriersFan 02:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - As the original creator of the List of Irish-American mobsters (as well as Jewish-American and British mobsters) I was suprised to find the list had been created. I would suggest the article be merged to List of Irish-American mobsters, as the article follows naming convention and is the older of the two list. MadMax 14:10, 10 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 of the debate was delete - CrazyRougeian talk/email 00:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prior speculation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

WP is not a crystal ball. This article is not encyclopedic.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 16:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Obsolete crystal-balling, belongs on a fansite or something. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Alias Flood 17:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article is pure speculation, which is not allowed, and the book has already been released for like a year! (11987 17:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
• Delete as per nom. - Tapir Terrific 18:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:Not a crystal ball, speculation  Funky Monkey  (talk)  19:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - How many times does this need to go up for AfD? -- 9cds^(talk) 19:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  The fact of the matter is that it only managed to survive those 3 AFDs because it was first nominated around the time of the release of the book, and supoort had come because of all the hype. The subsequent AFDs passed because most people cited the fact that the first AFD resulted in keep. However, it's been nearly a year since it was last nominated, and I don't feel that the precedence factor should hold true.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 20:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  Check the dates - it was last nominated around 2 months ago :) -- 9cds^(talk) 20:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  ...with most people calling for a merge or a delete, none of which were carried out.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(esperanza elections!)} 20:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, the person who closed that last debate was someone on the Harry Potter wikiproject, and it should have been closed as "no consensus", not "not delete because the obvious consensus is not to delete". So this AfD is indeed valid. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And i would like to add that the book has already been released, so the whole page is POINTLESS. (11987 20:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

• Delete, outdated and doesn't even appear to have anything worth merging. HumbleGod 22:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 23:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge about 5% of this to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. I wouldn't be heartbroken if it were deleted, but there's a bit of additional (verified) content about the leaks and such that might be of interest in the article on the book. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom--Nick Y. 23:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The info about the leaks already exists in the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince article, which leaves nothing else worth merging. Bluerain (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Hit bull, win steak. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Most of this is not notable speculation. My reasoning is that if a bit of speculation is still notable, someone will independently put it in the main article. Grandmasterka 03:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Clear Delete anything worth noting should go in the main article. Eluchil404 02:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Like it was said, obsolete crystalballing. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 20:39, 9 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 of the debate was Delete - CrazyRougeian talk/email 00:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Øyvind Eikrem

This person has a Norwegian PhD in social anthropology, but no citations in the literature, and otherwise no noteworthy contributions towards being listed in Wikipedia. The entry on his thesis supervisor Stein Erik Johansen has also been nominated for deletion (not by me), but he likewise has no citations and little notability. If Stein Erik Johansen is not notable, then this person certainly isn't. Both entries are simple translations from the Norwegian wikipedia by Øyvind Eikrem himself (see no:Øyvind Eikrem and no:Stein Erik Johansen) and Øyvind Eikrem's entry has been proposed for deletion at the Norwegian wikipedia. Janbrogger 14:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:VANITY ~ trialsanderrors 16:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Thanks for the detailed nomination of someone working in a field and language that many Wikipedians will find hard to assess for notability.
  (For future reference, you should probably remove {{prod}} templates when AfDing an article; it makes the prod redundant.) — Haeleth Talk 17:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn bio. Alias Flood 17:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The real test here is WP:PROFTEST. And regardless of who did what when and why (below), I can't really verifiably see how this person meets that. Grandmasterka 03:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on bias

Some caution seems prudent about possible bias on the part of Janbrogger and his relation to Øyvind Eikrem. Brogger is the son of Jan Brøgger – a Norwegian professor of social anthropology and a clinical psychologist who died in February of this year. Eikrem is also a Norwegian philosopher, clinical psychologist, and social anthropologist. Eikrem has edited the article on the Norwegian Wikipedia about Janbrogger's father (they both have the name "Jan Brøgger") and the corresponding article on English Wikipedia was created by Eikrem.

It should be noted that Eikrem only has two out of a total 24 edits on the Norwegian no:Jan Brøgger article. More importantly, the content of Eikrem's edits introduced undocumented information about Jan Brøgger (sr.) being a controversial figure in Norwegian public discourse. I will take the liberty of translating the paragraph that must have appeared contentious to Jan Brøgger jr. as he proceeded to delete it in consecutive edit citing violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability (the English WP policy guideline as Norwegian WP doesn't currently have this) and WP:NPOV (Norwegian version):

Apart from his work as professor, Jan C. Brøgger was well-known in public discourse. He often took side asserting unpopular views, and his entire life he polemicized strongly in favor of his views on the role of the family as the supporting institution in society and against authoritarian movements (particularly on the left side of poltics).

It is curious that Jan Christian Brøgger jr. being a physician should happen to step forward to assert a lack of notability warranting the removal from Wikipedia an article about a humanities scholar who just happened to hold the same credentials as his father and who had inserted information about his father in a (Norwegian) Wikipedia article that Brøgger jr. took offense to. __meco 10:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

First, to put it all in perspective, please not that the entry for Stein Erik Johansen, the PhD thesis advisor for Øyvind Eikrem, was nominated independently for removal by a Wikipedia editor who has >5000 edits with an interest in the same fields. After this, I nominated Øyvind Eikrem for deletion. If his thesis advisor is not notable, clearly his never-cited student is not notable.

Now, to bias. The edit given above is completely incorrect. The paragraph above has been retained. The paragraph that I edited out was a different one, and was removed because it was POV and unsourced. Later my edit was commended by a Norwegian social anthropologist and other respondents (see the Norwegian discussion page). In the discussion page, I stated that while the viewpoints were interesting and might have some relation to actual fact, Wikipedia is not the place to start a discussion over the contributions of a deceased researcher, without sources (official Wikipedia policy WP:OR). With sources, it would be a different matter. As a matter of fact, I have found and entered sources for other controversial statements in this biography. I don't object to negative attention, it is just that unsupported personal opinion should not be prominent in a biography (or really any kind of unsourced slant in any direction). The actual paragraph removed was (my translation):

"Brøggers position in Norwegian anthropology was disputed. On the one hand he was given a lot of attention in public, but on the other hand he was not well regarded - at least not within the scholarly community nationally."

I happen to know Øyvind Eikrem because we went to the same school, and thus took an interest. I would not have noticed his entry if he hadn't edited Jan Brøgger's entry on the Norwegian Wikipedia, but that is the way of things. I've proceeded to take up to discussion on the Norwegian Wikipedia signpost the criteria for lexical notability, and a majority of respondents thought that simply a PhD and a clinical degree isn't sufficiently notable - especially without any citations or media attention. Some on the Norwegian Wikipedia hold that being elected to county office or getting a PhD is sufficient for notability, which means >500 new Norwegian PhD entries and 2000 county office entries per year - nearly impossible, but they are a minority. It should be noted that all respondents favored deleting the Norwegian Wikipedia entry on Øyvind Eikrem. If it is deleted there because of no notability, clearly it does not belong here. This nomination for deletion is clearly consistent with the Wikipedia person notability criteria (cant link directly to Notability:People.

I've contributed to some Norwegian and English Wikipedia pages over the last year (within my scientific field or personal interests). The debate between inclusions and deletionists has not yet been concluded. But it is my policy that all articles I contribute to should be properly sourced, and this will be borne out by my contributions. Also note that I do not consider myself notable enough for a Norwegian or English Wikipedia entry, even though I have >10 papers in the international literature and have been cited >60 times internationally, including in the The British Medical Journal and editorial comment in the Quarterly Journal of Medicine, Thorax, European Respiratory Journal, and International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. If this entry is retained, perhaps I should reconsider.

I thus stand by my nomination for deletion, and hold that it is unbiased and criterion-based, not based on personal animosity. However, I've come to appreciate the debate between inclusionists and deletionists. WP is not paper, and if there is some support for retaining this entry, by all means do. However, I predict that it is only going to be edited by the author or his friends (probably anonymous edits). Time will show. -- Janbrogger 21:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I rest somewhat assured. I did translate the wrong paragraph, which I'm glad to see has been rectified. However, I would have been even more happy to have seen Janbrogger present a full disclosure at the time of nominating for deletion that this could raise questions regarding his neutral point of view. __meco 00:03, 8 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 of the debate was delete - CrazyRougeian talk/email 00:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nebulosity Quotient

Was put up for speedy deletion for having no sources to speak of and apparently being original research. I switched it to PROD, which the creator removed. So now here we are... For the moment, I'm neutral. -- SCZenz 12:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable neologism with 25 unique Google hits. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. First draft said "This term was coined August 12, 1998 by Wray Curtis..." and was posted by WrayCurtis. Only Ghits are mirror and one webpage by the same name -which may or may not be connected. It was me who listed it as speedy. --Richhoncho 12:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If I'd looked at the first draft, I might have just speedied it. This is a case where following the letter of the law creates a lot of trouble, but I do prefer to interpret the speedy rules literally lest we lose good stuff by accident. -- SCZenz 12:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Richhoncho. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- SCZenz
• Speedy Delete If user made up a word, the word will almost never qualify. -- Tdslappy
• Non-speedy Delete (or WP:BJ) My NQ on reading this article is 170. Speediable begins at 185. ~ trialsanderrors 16:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism of no notability. -- Alias Flood 17:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Richhoncho. HumbleGod 22:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR --Satori Son 07:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. My speedy limit is somewhere between 125-150, but this is lower than that. Obviously made up and not notable. Grandmasterka 03:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Contains virtually no content. But if anyone wants to improve it, be my guest. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 20:41, 9 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gulf of Tonkin Incident and Operation Northwoods

Personal essay having no notable relevance either on its own or on related pages. This user had been contributing similar material on other articles, and having been spurned, decided to create his own page to muse. --TJive 11:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. --TJive 11:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Blatant OR. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteper nom.(XGustaX 16:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
• Delete per nom and WP:OR. -- Alias Flood 17:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pretty clear WP:POVFORK and some original research. Kuru ^talk 19:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. CJK 20:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This is just the sort of thing that {{prod}} is very useful for. Grandmasterka 03:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 23:26, 9 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Politics of Oil Nationalization

As the title suggests, this is a personal essay. The user was attempting to insert this same information into the main Chavez article, which User:172 called a "POV soapbox". He was correct, and this page should be removed as well. --TJive 11:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. --TJive 11:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom in its current format. -- Alias Flood 17:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. CJK 20:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Again, try using {{prod}} (I'm not sure the author would have came back to this soon enough... Maybe they would have.) :-S Grandmasterka 03:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 23:27, 9 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish communists

This entry, stated by indefinitely banned trouble-maker JJstroker (talk · contribs), is inherently problematic. The page will likely attract anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi POV-pushers, who argue that there is some sort of a connection between Communism and Judaism. Moreover, classifying who is a Jew is often a difficult judgment call outside the competence of Wikipedia editors. For example, Karl Marx, who is listed on the page, is a paradigmatic example of the difficulty of determining who is a Jew. Marx’s family converted to Lutheranism; and, later in life, Marx, like many communists, rejected organized religion. Strong delete. 172 | Talk 04:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete contains all of seven people, most of whom are better described as "of Jewish ancestry" rather than simply "Jewish". There's no corresponding List of Christian communists, List of atheist communists (for consistency, would that be coextensive with List of communists?), etc. - nor is there a need for them. Opabinia regalis 05:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - the list was a stub, indeed, so I added a few very influential: Rosa Luxemburg, Marek Edelman, Ernest Mandel, Ygael Gluckstein, Jesus Christ (more will follow). It is still a stub, but that is no reason to delete it, is it? ActiveSelective 06:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Active: Could you explain to the peanut gallery exactly how you arrived at the conclusion that Jesus Christ belongs on the List of Jewish communists? Since when does Christianity = Communism? I must be missing something, right? Hmm, it must have been the day I missed that liberation theology lecture on "Kermit the Frog is a communist" ("frogs of the world unite -- before you croak!") and thus he is a very vulnerable "Jewish" frog. IZAK 10:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • First, Christ isn't communist in my perception. Nevertheless, (1) the phrase that "Christ was the first communist" is quite a common - whether I like it or not. (2) Liberation theology is indeed a good argument for adding the name (with some reserve) (3) The term 'communism' is not only used for modern-day Communism since Karl Marx. For example, there is also Primitive communism. (4) The prominent leader Karl Kautsky wrote a long article on Christianity and compared Christ's ideology to that of communisms. You see, many reasons not to ignore the connection laid down by many people - even though it is not my personal opinion. ActiveSelective 10:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Active: The problem with all this stuff is that it is not mainstream and until such time as it's accepted by the mainstream churches this type of "information" will always run afoul of WP:NOR and hardly ever be fit to be NPOV. You know, Jesus lived so long ago you can call him anything you like, but that does mean it's valid to do so. Communism is associated with the likes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung and it is doubtful that Jesus could or should be placed in the company of such modern-day figures. Why is it that there is this desire to connect anything significant to the Jews when the Jews and Judaism utterly reject such connections on their behalf? IZAK 11:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, it's hard for me to defend an opinion that is not mine. But I think the argument goes something like this: the vision of communism is a classless and egalitarian society; communists are for the redistribution of wealth and organizing social security. A particular communist zionist movement organized kibutzim. It is not all that different from a Jesus who chases the rich out of the temple, shares bread and fish, and says the poor will be taken up in heaven and the rich should first share. ActiveSelective 15:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Wow, I think that nails it, it is not more controversial to classify Jesus as a Communist than as a Jew, and it's hard to argue that he was not a Jew... I of course think of Jesus first as a Jewish Pacifist, which is hard to reconcile with Communism on one level because of the call for revolution, but if that revolution can come without bloodshed... //// Pacific PanDeist * 08:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Example: Christian communism is a form of religious communism centered around Christianity. It is a theological and political theory based upon the view that the teachings of Jesus Christ compel Christians to support communism as the ideal social system. / For more examples, see Religious communism. ActiveSelective 08:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Everyone is a stealth Jew! JEW! JEWSSS!!! Danny Lilithborne 05:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

*Comment If anyone is as initially confused by Danny's link, it's to a page that makes fun of a genuine(ly appalling) website, namely [1]. If you have a strong stomach, check out the author's comments on 9-11. --Dweller 10:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC) -

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a useful list. -Will Beback 05:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It is impossible to imagine that this will ever turn into an academic, reliable encyclopedia article, especially on any kind of Wiki. RK 17:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - You're very right anti-semites have no business here or anywhere, and therefore your warning is a valuable addition to the pages and talk pages. Not oposing that, the combination of the two subjects (the love-hate-relationship of Communism-and-Judaism and the Jewish communists caught in the middle) remains a very interesting object of study since it is connected to many questions in history and politics; it is just like the similar complicated love-hate-relationship of Judaism-and-Zionism (see Jews against zionism). Why did the people of one of the most backward countries in the world, and certainly the most anti-semite country, chose Trotsky (and other Jews) among their communist leaders? How very different where the personal and political fights of these particular communists against racism from outside, isolation from inside, opposing the zionist racism? Jewish communists have a very interesting history of their own no other Jew or communist has. Rather than deleting this list in order to prevent possible abuse (call it pre-emptive deletion) and thereby also preventing any normal use, I would suggest: (1) to add your warnings to the pages. (2) also to start an article on why it is difficult to determine who is a Jew and who not. How the term "Jew" changed during history from its original religious meaning to a new racial meaning and all the confusion and abuse inbetween? Then a "list of non-Jewish Jews" as illutration? ActiveSelective 06:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I find the topic somewhat interesting as well, as a historian who is of Jewish background. Still, as Wikipedia:Relevance instructs us, just because a topic is interesting does not mean it is encyclopedic. The object of study you describe is beyond the scope of Wikipedia, as it is not Wikipedia's place to decide on the difficult question of who happens to be a Jew. (Religious affiliation is one criterion, but it does not apply to the bulk of 'Jewish' Communists, who, like Karl Marx, did not practice Judaism.) Thus, I cannot imagine this page continuing to exist within the framework of Wikipedia's content guidelines. 172 | Talk 06:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • (1) Well, I've seen many well written articles on problematic subjects. Atheist authors and believers cooperated on the Existence of god article, not deciding whether God exists or not, but displaying the whole spectrum of arguments evenly. With similar caution the different interpretations of the word "Jew" can be described. (2) Also, the list of terrorists is about who is 'generally considered' as such, and the list of humanists is about people who 'self-identify' as such - whether they are or not is thereby left out of the question. The perception of them being so is an important real power in itself. Likewise, Karl Marx is generally considered being 'Jewish' even though he wasn't religious. So, it means we should choose our words carefully here, indeed. We must also reference to the article Who is a Jew?. ActiveSelective 08:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • This is not just a problematic subject, but a problematic list. Just about every entry on the list would be a POV judgment call. Your own addition, Jesus Christ - according to some interpretations a communist Jew, in particular, raised eyebrows. 172 | Talk 08:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I hear you. You are welcome to delete the entry. ActiveSelective 08:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Tdxiang 06:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - ActiveSelective does make some valid points I'd heard before (not from anti-Semites, which I am not). With reservations because of the obvious target, but would prefer to "be bold" with articles. If the list isn't fleshed out with more substance and discussions of this unique political/religious subset in due time, though, I'd likely change my vote. HumbleGod 06:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (I like Jesus Christ as the #2 Jewish Communist abakharev 06:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Jesus Christ - according to some interpretations a communist Jew I missed that line earlier. Yeah, this article ought to go. 172 | Talk 06:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jesus and indiscriminate nature of list. What's next - list of redhaired wide receivers? - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As mentioned, this 'list' was compiled by a previous troublemaker, and is likely just another joke of his. There are only so many Communists in the world and whether or not they are Jewish or are of Jewish ancestry is entirely irrelevant unless they say otherwise. On a more personal note, this strikes me as an attempt to black-list Leon Trotsky, a human being I have much respect for (this comment withstanding bias). Black-Velvet 08:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom and indeed everyone else. Surprising this page has lasted this long. David | Talk 08:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this very clumsily written list. It's in fact a misnomer to say "Jewish communists" as this article implies quite blatantly that it's somehow one's "Jewish-ness" (implying a connection to Judaism as well) that has anything to do with being or becoming a "Jewish communist." This is similar to claims by communists that it is "Jewish capitalists" or "Jewish financiers" who are behind the world's ills. Then there is the claim that there is "Jewish racism" versus the power of "Jewish liberalism". So its "Jewish-this and Jewish-that" and it's all quite meaningless. This madness can go on and on unless it is stopped, and now is as a good a time as any to do so. Perhaps a better title may have been Communists of Jewish descent or The role of Jews in the history of Communism written in a very delicate and professional manner, but as this article stands it is nowhere near that. IZAK 09:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A rename is fine. More info in the article is definitely very very welcome. However, I do not see how the article determines communism to be a Jewish thing. People become communist by chosing, whatever their religious or ethnical background. Likewise, you're not seriously considering List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners to be about 'Winners of the Jewish Nobel Prize', are you? ActiveSelective 10:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Active: I do not like any lists or categories of Jews. At one time I thought some moderate lists were ok, but things have gotten out of control on Wikipedia with all kinds of crazy lists growing every day (see Category:Lists of Jews). See my views about any lists or categories of Jews at User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews. Wikipedia is NOT Jew Watch and should not be inadvertantly aping it. IZAK 11:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Very valid topic but very bad form. --TJive 10:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As a general principle, we shouldn't be making lists of members of ethnic group-by-ideology. However, per IZAK, I think there would be room in Wikipedia for a careful article along the lines of The Communist Party and African-Americans.--Pharos 10:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, per above keeps. ShaunES 10:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC).
• Delete Gilgamesh he 11:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I often ignore articles about Jews when there are similar articles about other groups. There aren't any communist lists focusing on Christians, Muslims, or Buddhists. Obviously another anti-semitic attempt to skew the Wiki against Jews. --Yodamace1 11:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV bait Kuratowski's Ghost 11:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherent POV risk, pointless list (an article on Jewish communists would fare much better). Also: why does it presently lists socialists, labour activists, feminists? And what is the point in listing books? JFW | T@lk 12:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: we already have lists of jewish politicians, so why single out Communism?--Brownlee 12:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV and to properties that are about as unrelated as things get. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete An article explaing the relationship between Jews and Communism (ie zionism etc) is one thing, but a list of Jewish communist has no meaning. Jon513 12:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination - these "list of Jewish xxx" have got to go. --Leifern 12:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kuratowski's Ghost --Ioannes Pragensis 13:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete As per most of the above. I'm not sure this deserves inclusion. After all why not include a list of socialist zoroastrians if the above deserves entry. Amists 13:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's nearly as hard to decide who's a communist as it is to decide who's a jew! jnothman ^talk 13:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WING --Shirahadasha 14:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia need not foster or revive the Jewish-Communist conspiracy fetish. Dauster 15:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I would also oppose a list of Catholic fascists. The conceptual frame for both is one that amplifies historic stereotyping while obscuring encyclopedic content. These--and similar diads involving a religion and an object of scorn--need to be enclosed within broader discussions in order to minimize their use by bigots by placing the discussion in a detailed and nuanced context. This is the approach at Neofascism_and_religion that helped calm down edit wars and exploitation by bigots. In addition, the underlying assumption of the existing entry is that Jews appear to be a biological or genetic concept, rather than a religion and ethnicity with a wide range of forms. Some of the people listed clearly walked away from both the religion and the ethnicity. What is left is the non-existant racial or biological "Jew"--the core concept of Hitler. Wikipedia should avoid taxonomies favored by the Nazis. The page looks just like dozens of others I have studies...on neonazi websites. Same claims. Same list. Same echos.--Cberlet 16:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see no point in having a list when the communists in question are described on individual pages. -- Owoc 16:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and jnothman. --Metropolitan90 16:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this crap. Antisemites are always trying to ascribe everything evil to Jews, not the least pernicious association of which is this particular one. A study of Jews in the history of communism might be worthwhile, such as the article The role of Jews in the history of Communism that IZAK mentions, but that article ain't this one. The only possible use for this article is if it's gutted and restarted to cover the epithet of Jews as Communists, but that clearly was not the purpose of this article, nor do I see anyone volunteering to write one up...regardless, the present article should not be preserved in the history of such an article should it ever be written. Tomer^talk 16:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Opabinia regalis and CrazyRussian. Non-encycopedic listcruft that violates WP:POV. Agent 86 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It should be noted that Walter Benjamin, a German-Jewish philosopher, theorized, albeit in very oblique terms, a connection between Dialectical materialism (the philosophical core of Marxism) and Jewish mysticism. However, this list does not explore this issue. As many have pointed out, many of those listed can only be determined as either Jewish or communist loosely, if at all. Moreover, Jesus was not a communist, for much the same reason as why the Sumerians were not Christian: namely, it's utterly anachronistic. Communism specifically stipulates its own emergence in the process of history; therefore it makes little sense to call someone who lived two millenia ago a Communist. --Ori Livneh (talk..contribs) 17:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  Keep, per ActiveSelective's justification. --Ori Livneh (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteper nom. -- Alias Flood 18:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteper nom. -- Runcorn 19:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (with apologies to comrade Jesus) --IslaySolomon 19:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This just screams POV PLAYGROUND and would take some serious surveillance effort from editors who probably aren't all too interested in keeping the list to not attract all kinds of Wikirabble. ~ trialsanderrors 01:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pharos. There's a way to deal with this topic, but a list isn't it. Ziggurat 01:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I took a look at the article and three questions came to mind. (1.) Are there many lists of communists by ethncity and lists of communists by religion and if so for which ethnicities and religions do such lists exist? (2.) Isn't there a lot of tension between communism (as an ideology) and the sectoralism of non-national identities as well as between communism and religion? (3.) If such tension does exist, how well can this be covered in a list? Regards, gidonb 04:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Good questions. Let me first say that I didn't start the 'article' (it seems to be done by someone with not so best intentions) but I did try to make it into something more decent yesterday. So I might not be able to answer everything as good:
    1. You can type in "american communists" and wikipedia gives you the CPUSA party. You can type in "german communists" and wikipedia gives you SED party. Etcetera. Etcetera. However, when you type in "jewish communists", wikipedia does not give an article about a Jewish communist party. We cannot refer to a Jewish communist party since there existed none (or not for long) in history, so we can and must refer to a list of Jewish individuals (Leon Davidovitsh Bronstein / Leon Trotsky was a very prominent example). (* Comment - Israeli party Hadash made up of the Communist Party of Israel remnant of the Communist Party of Palestine --TheYmode 04:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC) )
    2. The difficult debate about the definition of "Jew" (religion, ethnicity, race, culture, etc. etc.) is dealt with already in the article Who is a Jew? Therefore this list starts with: This page is a list of people identified as Jews, either by themselves or by others. "Jewishness" has the meanings both of "adherence to the religion of Judaism" and "membership in the ethnic group 'Jews'. People of both groups are listed here. By other criteria, these people may be listed under other nationalities as well. See: Who is a Jew? This warning is copied from other Lists of Jews. See List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners, for example. So Leon Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg are considered "Jew" because of ancestry.
    3. There are many forms of "communism": it is the vision of an egalitarian society, it is also the communist movement for social change, even distribution of wealth and social security. So communism is not necessarily bad. It is also the good/bad legacy of communist individuals, the party bureaucracy, etc. There are pre-Marx communisms: Primitive communism. There are combinations with religion: Christian communism and Religious communism. So, why would being Jewish (religiously or ethnically) and being communist then be impossible?
    4. Communism has its distinct tactics and strategies against anti-Semitism, through workers unions, and workers revolt, "workers across the world, unite!" etc. However, no other communists but Jewish communists were the direct victims of anti-Semitism. This makes this group especially interesting: 1. no other communist but Jewish communists had the "inside" view of being direct victims, 2. and no other Jew but the communist Jews were trying these communist strategies against anti-Semitism. Their views and position are unique, special, interesting, and valuable. That's why I also added the articles on "The Jewish Question" (the old name for fighting against anti-Semitism) in which they describe their strategies against anti-Semitism. ActiveSelective 08:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

       There is already an article on Jewish Communism, it's just called by its Hebrew name...see kibbutz. Tomer^talk 00:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

       You are partly right. The Kibbutz movement was communist, indeed. However, it was only one particular form of communism. The majority of Jewish communists were on odd terms with the Kibbutz commies. They'd rather fight in the country they lived, loved and worked in, than move away into hiding somewhere near Jerusalem. See for example my super hero Marek Edelman: he fought the nazis (Warsaw Ghetto Rising) and after WWII the Stalinist dictatorship (Solidarinosc). You see, there is still need for such an article. ActiveSelective 01:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

       I would be inclined to agree with you iff you could show me non-antisemitic sources that demonstrate that there's something about their Jewishness that serves as a source of commonality for Jewish communists. The point is, as others have pointed out here and elsewhere previously, Jewish mensheviks had more in common with other Russian communists (and with the kibbutzniqim) than they did with Marek Edelman and his ilk or Arthur Koestler and his ilk. Tomer^talk 03:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Per (far) above -Seidenstud 06:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid topic. I also reject the nom's bizarre speculation regarding neo-nazism and anti-semitism. Those sort of scare tactics have no place on AfD. --JJay 17:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete strictly on grounds of lack of verification. If sources were added that these people were indeed Jewish and communist, I would opine keep instead. I agree with JJay as well, speculation as to what sort of editors an article will attract is completely irrelevant to an AfD discussion. POV pushing is to be dealt with by editing, not deletion.--Isotope23 18:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom, too overly specific, will definately be a troll magnet. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not convinced this is a useful or verifiable list. There doesn't seem to be any point in connecting the two. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If there are lists of other communists by ethnicity, then Jewish shouldn't be the sole exception. I don't think the subject list refers to Judaiam = Jewish religion, but Jewish ethno-centrism within the larger context of the period, and in that context the anti-Russian, anti-czar activities of early Bolsheviks could be explored, and many of the leaders were indeed of Jewish ethnicity. Karl Marx was an ethnic Jew too, was he not? Is there a reason to deny this information from the reader?Yukirat 06:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  For the record, as has been discussed numerous times, "Jewish ethnocentrism" (see also here and background for that here) is an equally offensive epithet favored by antisemites... Tomer^talk 14:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  Jewish is an ethnicity and a religion, it cannot be neither. Thanks. The Bolshevik leaders weren't religious, but they were still ethnically Jewish. It wasn't used an an "epithet".Yukirat 17:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  Their leaders weren't religious, to be certain, and they were ethnically Jewish, and I think it's pretty bizarre that no mention of the fact that what caused them to storm out of the Congress where they became dubbed as "mensheviks" was in response to the excessively antisemitic remarks (which would have made Göbbels proud) made by the "bolsheviks" is never mentioned in either menshevik or bolshevik... That notwithstanding, there are two things you mention here, both of which are easily refutable wrt the usefulness of this category. (1) "Jewish" is both an ethnicity and a religion, to be sure, but that's not really relevant to anything anyone's said here in arguing against the usefulness of this category... the problem is that there is nothing demonstrable about their Jewishness that makes these Communists' Jewishness notable, as such. If it were "ethnicity" that were important, then Karl Marx should be included as in Category:German communists since his family was originally from Germany, Category:Christian communists and/or Category:Lutheran communists since he was raised as a Lutheran Christian and Category:English communists or Category:British communists since he lived most of his life in England and Category:White communists (since he was white). The fact that his father [I've never seen anyone presentation of evidence that his mother was Jewish] is irrelevant since he's [if his mother wasn't Jewish] not Jewish according to halakha, but that notwithstanding, his father's [and even his mother's, if she was Jewish] Jewish ancestry is rendered allthemore irrelevant, at least inasmuch as the merits of this category are concerned, because of his father's and family's conversion to Lutheranism while he was still young (if he was even born yet...our article on him doesn't discuss even when his father converted to Lutheranism), and because at no time in his life is there any record that Marx even once identified himself, even in an effort to openly disparage his "bourgeoisie" ancestry, as "Jewish". On the other point (2), the business about "Jewish ethnocentrism" I was referring to, is the indisputable fact that the phrase "Jewish ethnocentrism" is used almost exclusively as an epithet by antisemites. The assertion of "ethnocentrism", vis-à-vis the Jews, generally is tangled up in a grotesquely mangled misperception about the meaning of "Jews as a chosen people", which always ends up coming out as an indictment against the Jews of such "crimes" as "exclusivity", "aloofness", "superiority-complex", etc. [which generally describe the claimants of "ethnocentrism" far better than they've ever described Jews...but when these people suffer from a severe inferiority complex coupled with poor education, there's no accounting for the illogic they'll come up with to support their conspiracy theories...] That notwithstanding, the assertion that it was "Jewish ethno-centrism" that made communism attractive or naturally compatible with Judaism as you imply, is a non-sequitur on two fronts...not only did the early communists-who-happened-to-be-Jews not suffer any sort of "Jewish ethno-centrism", they in fact eschewed any signs of ethno-centrism (and reserved their most venemous vitriol for observant Jews), but also the idea that they had some sort of "Jewish ethno-centrism" is utterly erroneous since, as you yourself acknowledge, they didn't identify with Judaism at all! The only thing that made them Jewish was their ancestry, and that ancestry played no significant rôle whatsoever in their communist ideology. TIA. Tomer^talk 09:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

>> Yukarit, the supposed "ethnocentrism" is nonsensical and racist. You neither listened to Tomer an TShilo's arguments, nor read anything about / written by these communists. And I don't think the way you'd like to see this article go, is gonna be my way too.

>> TShilo12, Tomer, Gidonb, et al, even though I think an article on Jewish Communists is legitimate and can be well written, I am very pleased to see the overwhelming number of people voting 'delete' here. It shows that editors are vigilent against any possible anti-Semitism. Although it is blocking the article, the knee-jerk automatism ("Jewish? Communism? Oh no, it must be anti-Semitism!") is a good first reaction. But think about it twice: Yes, the combination 'Jew' and 'Communism' has been abused many times by anti-Semites, but does that mean we need to give in to their nasty POV?

Communists were internationalists calling for workers of all backgrounds to unite against an economical system of exploitation -- an international workers victory. They were not "anti-Russian", not "Jewish ethnocentrist", nor "anti-Semite". Just like the French non-Jewish communist Emile Zola was one of the few to defend Alfred Dreyfus, so were the Russian communists defending Jewish and Christian minorities against the Tsarist pogroms. In the most anti-Semite country in the world, the Russian communist movement voted (among others) for Jews to lead them.

However, communism has a different side too. There is a difficulty with the word 'communism' which is almost analogous to the difficulty of the word 'Jewish'. In history new meanings have been added and now there are several communisms like there are several ways of being considered 'Jewish'. The name has been long abused by Stalinist powers for the exact opposite: anti-internationalism (because of economic competition with foreign economies), anti-worker (because of exploitation of the working class), anti-Semite (in order to divert attention). To put it plainly: Stalinism is anti-communism. That's why he had Trotsky, Old Bolsheviks (of whom many were Jews) and their followers killed in The Great Purge (the Stalinist Counter-Revolution). The whole sharade was wrapped in red banners and portraits of Marx, but Marx, communism and Communist Jews obviously had nothing to do with that kind of 'communism'.

Again, what legitimizes an article on Jewish Communists is that they were singled out on many occasions by anti-Semites. Because they were singled out so often and so harshly, they had a unique position as Jews among communists and as communists among Jews. They had unique experiences and strategies of fighting against anti-Semitism. Other communists and Jews did not have both. They have written down their valuable lessons (see List). What makes these valuable is not that they were 'religiously Jewish' (most were not), nor that 'race' should somehow be of importance (it should not!). What makes their lives and lessons valuable is that they were forced by the historical circumstances (by anti-Semitism and by social change) to become the unique combination of experiences and to do something about these circumstances. Not the Jewishness-in-itself played a role in becoming communist, but the being a direct victim of anti-Semitism that was haunting your 'Jewishness' was. (We could name it "List of Communists haunted by anti-Semitism because of their ancestry" but that would be a bit strange). It would be a waste to ignore this in an encyclopidia.

Yes, I do also think a longer article "history of Jews and Communism" is better than just a list of individuals and their works. No doubt in my mind this list will be deleted. A massive numbers voted against - that's good and sad at the same time. Still, we have to start somewhere. ActiveSelective 11:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

ActiveSelective: I think you'll find that pretty much everyone who's voted "delete" would be perfectly content to see an article such as Role of Jews in the history of communism or History of Jews and communism. The problem with this article [i.e., this "List of..."] is that, as a list, it makes no room for actual discussion of the rôle Jews played in the development of communist ideologies, nor is there any room for coverage of the fate of Jews living under communist régimes. As I mentioned earlier, there is such a thing as "Jewish communism", and it's covered briefly at kibbutz. As you mention above, Jews (among other groups) suffered horribly under Stalin's "communism"...when you talked about the goal of communism as the deshackling of workers worldwide, that's true, but Stalin's communism wasn't as "anti-communist" as you describe it...instead it was bolshevik philosophy in action (the masses are too dumb to "do communism" themselves), indeed the very philosophy that the mensheviks had so vehemently rejected. Anyways...I think this discussion, if it goes much further, should prolly be moved to the talkpage... Cheers, Tomer^talk 18:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per answers of ActiveSelective above. Yes, he does try to make something out of an extremely problematic (if not bashing) list, but, as his answers illustrate, it is a unique list among among non-national ethnicities and religious groups. It seems unique even among nationalities! Perhaps this is not without reason. A list is not the correct form to deal with the deep conflicts between communism, (non-national) ethnicity and religion. Instead I would recommend a history of Jews and communism article, which would include the intellectual and other contributions to communism, the Jewish and Arab-Jewish communist movements in Israel/Palestine and the long history of Soviet policies and practicies with respect to and against Jews and Judaism. gidonb 10:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia needs this like it needs a list of toasters that are available in stainless steel. RedNitrogen 03:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per gidonb. P.S. didn't knew Jesus Christ was a commie... --TheYmode 04:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, primarily per nom. This is a largely indiscriminate collection of information with an unclear definition of inclusion: Pointing to Who is a Jew? is not helpful for defining who should be included in this list, because, well, its an open question. This list presents a question without an answer to me, which is its fatal problem. Grandmasterka 04:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per gidonb. Pecher ^Talk 14:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or extremely weak merge - Extremely problematic article, possible POV fork, and the content is better discussed in other places. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete what is this fascination with communism and Jews? List is unhelpfull. Categorise by profession please, not by beliefs or political affiliations (or both like this case). --Cat out 20:50, 9 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] StealthBot

• Delete or Move/Merge This article is about a small computer application designed specifically for a single internet gaming server that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject, and at the most should only be a subsection of Battle.net_(community). dearly 04:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Delete not Notable and does not show any significance to the subject.(IIIV 04:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

This user's confirmed sockpuppets have been strike and colored below. Kevin_b_er 01:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete does not claim notability unless bein threatened under the DMCA is notable (no wait we've all been there). --Pboyd04 04:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete does not claim notability.(FR-Altas 04:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
• Delete not notable, only link is to a request for money page. -- MrDolomite 04:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. (24.60.161.63 05:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
• Delete as it fails software guidelines. Besides, it's non-natable.--Tdxiang 06:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Unique downloads for version 2.5 number over 27,000 since its release," - Hah! 27000?! Not quite enough to warrant a 'Pedia article. Black-Velvet 08:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Shaun Eccles-Smith 10:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC).
• Delete per nom and per Black-Velvet. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - unworthy of own article -- Alias Flood 18:03, 4 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 of the nomination was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of largest empires

NOTE - at least two users suspect sockpuppetry at play here by the original deletion suggester. Please see the comments below, a checkuser request has been made: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser. Gsd2000 17:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets per Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/XGustaX are tagged now. XGustaX, FR-Altas, Celto, Forhonor, and IIIV. Kevin_b_er 01:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This article has been discussed before and still hass no sources. I say delete it .On top of that it pretty obvious the author abandoned it and has a POV.(IIIV 02:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
• Strong Delete Article openly questions the validity of the website it's citing as its main source! --NMChico24 02:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article essentially shoots itself in the foot. Abandoned, and not NPOV. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Article clearly questions the validity of the webite its citing as its main source, Clearly has a POV and has been Abandoned by its Author. (FR-Altas 04:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) SOCKPUPPET OF IIIV

Welcome to wikipedia. Could you explain exactly what the POV is ? Megapixie 05:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have listed the AfD subst tag on the page - this discussion is the second nomination and should be indicated as such. SM247^{My Talk} 04:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Verification and substantial work was not carried out since last nominated, so throw it in the bin until somebody can revive it properly. SM247^{My Talk} 04:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: these claims are false. The diff from the end of the last nomination to the start of this one is here. How can you say that "no" verification has been carried out, when in fact the only references in the article were added since the last nomination? How can you say that no "substantial work" has been carried out, when in fact the article was expanded to twenty times its previous size since the last nomination? Please verify your facts before making misleading claims. — Haeleth Talk 17:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete questionable source -- MrDolomite 04:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article has NOT been abandoned - see the edit history. It does state sources - however they are not good sources - we should leave the {{verify}} tag in place. At least one other article cites the webpage in question Mongol Empire, and the numbers in the linked empire articles which do not cite the webpage appear to match up, suggesting (though not proving) the numbers are taken from a good print source. I don't see how this can be POV - can someone enlighten me/explain ? Sure it needs some work (which appears to be ongoing) - but does it really need to be deleted ? Megapixie 05:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Source is questionable and clearly does not have a NPOV. Author abandoned article and article kills it self.(Celto 05:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) SOCKPUPPET OF IIIV/XGustaX

Welcome to wikipedia. Would you care to explain what the POV in this article actually is ? Megapixie 05:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, like how the main source is questioned openly to be wrong.POV stands for Point of View.(Celto 05:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

I think you are confusing WP:NPOV with WP:Verify. An inaccurate source doesn't make it POV - remember wikipedia is about verifability not truth. I agree that the source isn't a good one - but I believe good ones could be found. Megapixie 05:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 1 1st Afd ~ trialsanderrors 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment 2 Is it coincidence that we have three four editors with slight edit histories that all use the same manner of signing off? ~ trialsanderrors 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I found this to be interesting, surely some way can be found to verify all of the information, which looks about right to me (me being not an historian, though).

//// Pacific PanDeist * 06:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

An article "being interesting", is not a valid reason to keep it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per Pacific PanDeist.--Tdxiang 06:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, also per Pacific PanDeist. HumbleGod 06:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but improve and verify (some current countries are larger than the smallest empire mentioned, thus making e.g. the Belgian "empire" (i.e. Belgium + Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi) fit for inclusion). Fram 09:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article can be improved. It will need a lot of verification, but the fact that there is contention over the sources (read the discussion page) as opposed to a lack of sources shows that it simply needs more work (rather than deletion). Wiki-Ed 09:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is just the sort of thing that I like to use wikipedia for. MLA 09:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and increase sourcings and it'll be a good little article. ShaunES 10:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC).
• Delete as original research, listcruft. also no context. yes, it may be interesting or useful, but it's not encyclopedic. Maybe the Guinness Book of World Records will take it. Tychocat 10:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would it be better if sources like this one were used? Fram 11:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No. None of my objections have to do with sourcing. This list could be the most meticulously documented and verified list ever listed, and it would still be a list that exists only for the sake of being a list. I am considering an article to list all the letters in the common english alphabet - each letter is surely notable, interesting, and usable, and therefore, the list must be worthy of inclusion...? I realize irony often doesn't translate in print, please so note. Tychocat 02:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply: Not that it is of major importance, but at least one of your objections does have to do with sourcing. If you complain about OR, then you are complaining because no sources are given. As for your other objections, well, let's agree to disagree... Fram 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Tychocat - what you write is doubly ironic - check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Latin_letters . Well done for defeating your own argument! Gsd2000 11:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Sputter! True, apparently nothing is too trivial, or original research, to be denied WP status. Tychocat 11:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and improve references and accuracy. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and improve references and accuracy.--Kev62nesl 11:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This has been pretty much disputed since it's last nomination in January. If the source is not credible, the article should go. We can't keep that verify tag on there indefinitely. I'd be happy if a new article was written using Fram's suggested source. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, The article can be substantiated, and would be a fine article if sourced. Tdslappy
• Delete for the source issue. If one found an credible source to cite they can always recreate an article using that source. --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, Are you kidding me this article does not have a NPOV and even states "The calculation of the land area of a particular empire is controversial;" but then again he goes against his main source and puts the land area anyway as if it 100 precent certain. (Forhonor 15:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) SOCKPUPPET OF IIIV/XGustaX
• Keep, first user above does not understand what "POV" means - (s)he claimed that the statement 'the British Empire was the world's most extensive empire' constitutes POV. Gsd2000 15:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, User claims that the whole article has a POV which is true it openly goes against its Main source!
• Delete, Article clearly has a POV, by questioning its main source! (XGustaX 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) SOCKPUPPET OF IIIV/XGustaX
• Comment, FR-Altas, Celto and Forhonor are clearly sockpuppets of IIIV, the original poster. Gsd2000 16:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment2, actually - looking at the edit histories, I have reason to believe all four above are sock-puppets of XGustaX. Gsd2000 17:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. For a change this is a list of the kind that actually belongs in Wikipedia, so the article's active editors should probably be given a chance to clean it up. It appears they have not realised so far that WP:V might lead to an article this poorly cited being deleted. Perhaps this nomination will be the spur they need to get some solid references in there. Let's revisit this in a few months; if it's still not adequately verifiable by then, it should of course be deleted. — Haeleth Talk 17:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I still fail to see why this article should be deleted. And which part of the article is POV? Perhaps the comments at the beginning, but the actual lists themselves have very little POV in them. Why should we start from scratch if all we need is to improve the sources. Fram has already found us a very good source. All we need to do is implement it into the article. It seems a bit extreme to delete the entire article when all it needs is a little improvement. Jagged 17:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've now added that source in the article, and numerous figures from it. This should make the article much more reliable overall, though a few of the figures will still need some more work. Jagged 18:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article needs a clean-up but it has potential. -- Alias Flood 18:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the topic is a valid one - and the list is broken out into segments that would seem to eliminate definitional confusion. I don't think there's significant enough problems with the content to warrant a deletion to restart the list. Work it out on the talk page. Kuru ^talk 19:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Alias Flood. Kariià¦Deranged Ramblings 19:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article has potential to be a good group of lists. Verification is important however, and should be a goal in all edits going forward. As nobody owns articles on Wikipedia, abandonment by the original author, if true, is totally irrelevant. Abandonment by the community might be relevant, but the talk page amply demonstrates that is not an issue. And for something like this, where the truth doesn't exactly change every day, community abandonment would not be a big issue. GRBerry 02:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per GRBerry. It's a useful list that is beginning to have more reliable sources. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 05:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per GRBerry again. Reo ^ON | +++ 05:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep work is being done now and it is improving. Useful I suppose, but it would be better if more sources can be added and verified. SM247^{My Talk} 06:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. How is the subject of this article unencylcopaedic? Unless that can be answered, this articel should not be deleted. Which part of the deletion policy does this article fail? Yes, it needs work, and sources, but instead of AfDing it, {{sofixit}}. Batmanand | Talk 12:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If listing the size of actual empires doesn't merit a spot in an encyclopedia, heaven help the multitude of science fiction entries. --Alsayid 01:11, 7 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Christmas Held Captive

NN in the extreme. Ran for two months in Beverly Hills almost twenty years ago. Googling "A Christmas Held Captive" yielded zero results. —  MusicMaker 00:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep if someone can find references. The director is pretty notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless there's proof that the play has been produced again since (even by a high school). --Usgnus 00:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with Usgnus' qualifier. --Pboyd04 01:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Two months at a non-equity, 99-seat playhouse in Beverly Hills? Even if the director is notable (although not for directing), not everything he does is notable. No evidence that this particular production/play is anything close to being notable. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• I hesitate to say delete, since the director and other person's involved seem notable. Could this possibly be merged with another article, or at least made a footnote? It's amusing since this is the early work of a notable director, and such a factoid does have encyclopedic value. Xuanwu 01:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• What notable director? The director of this show, Oliver Muirhead, is a character actor -- one with enough credits that indicates he makes enough to pay the rent, but otherwise undistinguished. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I can't help but be reminded of Matt Le Blanc performing a musical of the life of Sigmund Freud in Friends. --IslaySolomon 03:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable play, unless this is ever performed again for a wider audience. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete even tho it looks like a few people really put some time into it. :( -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, per nom and TedE. SM247^{My Talk} 04:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete nn -- MrDolomite 04:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. (Celto 05:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
• Delete per nominator as it is non-notable.--Tdxiang 06:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ShaunES 10:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC).
• Question: Who is the director, I don't see his name mentioned. Only that of whoever wrote the songs. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oliver Muirhead, a British character actor. He was relatively notable, but I don't think that qualifies the production as being notable. —  MusicMaker 02:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 18:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep if references can be found. Kariià[[User talk:Kariià|Deranged Ramblings]] 19:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, went into it wanting to give it benefit of the doubt, but non-notability seems obvious upon further review. HumbleGod 21:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. Resume-padding, it looks like. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ssilvers 23:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless it was independently covered by a secondary source, there's no way it could be covered here, and I have no idea how we would find such coverage. How do we know this isn't a hoax? Also, the characters list made me want to puke. Grandmasterka 04:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Although this play only played for a few months, it was significant as Oliver Muirhead's first directorial piece and Lavina Dawson's first stage play. The reason it was probably not found on google searches is due to the fact that it did not play during the time of the internet's general usage by the public. This does not negate the play's historical significance. If the play were created ten years later, in 1996 instead of 1986, then it would have certainly yielded numerous successful searches at least. --Howard352 02:11, 10 July 2006`

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subhashchandra Konjengbam

Claimes to be a relatively common name in India. If it were so common, then it would have more hits on the search engines. Maybe there is a misspelling in the name somewhere, because the only web hits are Wikipedia mirrors. --Dangherous 00:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete if it is a common name then let it become a disambig page when we have entries for people with that name. --Pboyd04 01:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the article basically says nothing except "there exists a person named after Subhash Chandra Bose". —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-04 01:28Z
• Delete The article spends more time on who it is named after than on the name itself. Looks like a vanity page trying to be kept in with the name-connection with someone notable. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - seems unsouced author's own work to me. TerriersFan 02:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NN, WP:V, and per nom. Zos 02:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article jumps from one subject to another, talking little about the name itself. --NMChico24 02:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:N, WP:V. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteDoesn't show up on Search engines please how is it so common then! (IIIV 03:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
• Delete for every reason shown above. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. SM247^{My Talk} 04:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agree with the above -- MrDolomite 04:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Failure of WP:NN leads to deletion.--Tdxiang 06:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NN -- Alias Flood 19:00, 4 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert J. Sherman

NN last scion of notable parantage. Imdb yields one entry under actor instead of producer in one episode of an NN show. Lyricist of A Christmas Held Captive, also afd'ed. Suspect autobio. —  MusicMaker 00:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed with Musicmaker. Also if you look at the creator's contribs, they show him making changes mostly to assorted Shermans, which leads one to believe they are related to them. While most do seem to be legit, this person seems to be a no name director. Maybe, if needed, it could be added to form a "Sherman Bros." page. Arod14 01:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, being part of a notable family doesn't make you notable. Maybe if he directs something more notable, he can have an article, but not now. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BIO. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. SM247^{My Talk} 04:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO.--Tdxiang 06:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Appaerntly, he's got Academy Award winning family who wrote some pretty famous music, but his IMDB entry has only one credit for himself. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO Not worthy of own article -- Alias Flood 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, similar reasoning to my opinion on A Christmas Held Captive; we can't verify this, he's non-notable and the article could be part hoax. Grandmasterka 04:28, 8 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Anderson, Alexandria attorney

Non-notable. Accomplished attorney, but not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia by WP:BIO. —Brim 00:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. nn. Looks like an ad to me. Fan1967 00:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete only claims to notablitity are serving on the boards of two state-wide organizations. --Pboyd04 01:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. SM247^{My Talk} 04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I second with the nominator as it is non-notable.--Tdxiang 06:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete.Non-notable -- Alias Flood 19:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Satori Son 07:25, 5 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 of the debate was Speedy Delete. Recreated content.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 11:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Wrestling League

Non-notable backyard wrestling league. 4 Google hits. Metros232 00:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete information is worthless, obviously created by the teenagers who run the farcical organisation.
• Delete run by teenagers no less. --Pboyd04 01:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-04 01:26Z
• Delete per nom. hateless 01:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Backyard wrestling is inherently non-notable. --DarkAudit 01:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete A no-name organization probably added to Wikipedia by members. Not at all fit to be in an encyclopedia. Arod14 01:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Their "official website"[2] is on a geocities-esque free webspace service[3] and boasts a massive 347 hits. --IslaySolomon 02:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There has been no media coverage of this league and it has real verifiability and notability problems. Capitalistroadster 02:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, non-notable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Kids these days Feedyourfeet 04:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the picture of the kid wrestling his 8 year old sister (or whoever) were cute, but this is still obviously non-notable. Update: counter is up to 350. Kuru ^talk 04:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete reads as personal website. SM247^{My Talk} 04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per basically everyone else at this point. Homestarmy 04:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nonnotablevanispam -- MrDolomite 04:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable kids group, been deleted once already[4].--Andeh 05:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a repost of deleted material (CSD G4 -- Kevin 09:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable as it reads as a personal website. More of vanity.--Tdxiang 06:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, etc. ShaunES 10:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC).
• Delete Site claims they are teenagers, but based on the pictures they look under 10, and in some cases even younger than that. No more encyclopedic than a backyard game of tag or hide-and-seek. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete reads as personal website. (XGustaX 16:21, 4 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 of the nomination was delete. – Avi 15:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biip

My Norwegian being a bit rusty I'm not able to assess this website but it gets little in the way of Google hits. An unsourced 'fastest growing' doesn't confer notability to me. TerriersFan 00:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. It dosen't seem that notable. However, there are articles on websites for a similar purpose, such as MySpace and Miniclip. Green caterpillar 01:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is a question of notability not purpose. MySpace is undoubtedly notable. Miniclip should possibly be reviewed since it looks more like an advert to me. However, I am saying Delete because there are insufficient Google hits (that I can find anyway) to show any real notability. TerriersFan 02:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. [5] vs. [6] Even in Norway this pales in comparison to Myspace. The site looks tacky and very commercial. You can't even get past the frontpage without sending in a text message. This feels like spam for one of countless many naff mobile phone services aimed at teenagers. Without any assertion of significance it should be deleted.--IslaySolomon 02:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No real evidence of notability. If their membership has grown to the levels claimed in 5 months, there should be some news articles or something that the author can cite to back it up. Otherwise, it's yet another advert article. --NMChico24 02:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not very notable, especially on a global scale. This is probably better off on the Norwegian Wikipedia. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Better off in the Norwegian Wikipedia. Not too global it seems.
  • Wikipedia is project that should be accesible to anyone. Entries shouldn't be deleted for not having an international appeal. That said. This appears to be basic spam that cannot even be compared to MySpace. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. SM247^{My Talk} 04:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Tdxiang 06:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NN -- Alias Flood 19:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, shouldn't even be in the no.wikipedia (and it isn't, I've checked), just another website. --Eivind^t@c 23:02, 5 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 of the debate was Keep per introduction of WP:RS beyond obits Eluchil404 00:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brede Arkless

Nothing stands out as exceptionally notable about this rock climber, and WP:NOT a memorial. Suggest deletion. RFerreira 00:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete google search showed obits and wiki mirrors. --Pboyd04 01:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Memorials are pretty clearly spelled out in WP:NOT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-04 01:24Z
• Delete per above. -- Captain Disdain 02:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Keep. Thanks to the excellent edits by trialsanderrors, I feel the article now not only establishes notability but is also properly sourced. Good job! -- Captain Disdain 00:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial.(IIIV 04:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
• Delete per above and I might add WP:V or WP:RS for good measure, as there is only an aobituary cited and there only appear to be like sources available. SM247^{My Talk} 04:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, has no ark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.81.232 (talk • contribs)
• Strong Strong Strong Keep WP:NOT an obituary, but various obituaries from WP:RS confer notability. [7] [8] [9] [10]. Also [11]: Irishwoman Brede Arkless, a mountain guide now living in New Zealand, attempted Everest via the North Col pre-monsoon this year, hoping to be the oldest woman (she is 54) and the first Irish woman to climb Everest. Unfortunately she had to give up at 8500m with severe altitude sickness. Lazy nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A notable story.--Tdxiang 06:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There aren't that many articles on her in the major newspapers, but what there is is WP gold: First off is the news from Lochcarron mountain guide Martin Moran, that his five-strong Anglo-Indian expedition succeeded in their attempt to repeat Eric Shipton and Bill Tilman's epic, and nearly fatal, 1934 crossing between the Hindu temples of Badrinath and Kedarnath in the Garhwal region of the Indian Himalaya. Moran, who arrived back in Scotland last weekend, recommended the 14-day crossing as "a good way to lose three-quarters of a stone". He continued: "We were not exactly in prime condition. I had just recovered from injuries sustained falling off my roof, Brede Arkless is in her sixtieth year and John Harvey in his fifty-seventh. That we did succeed was due to good teamwork, enthusiasm and determination for the project, and considerable luck with the weather which stayed good for the crucial col crossing." — The Herald (Glasgow) June 20, 1998. Someone with RfA ambitions should jump on this and turn it into a featured article. ~ trialsanderrors 06:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another dead mountaineer. -- GWO
• Keep - firstly my apologies to the lady for obviously not having done her justice in my original stub. But I would have thought that even your most dismissive posters would have paused for thought when noting that she had an obituary in each of the UKs 'liberal' newspapers. Her fame rests in her success as being the first female alpine guide at a time (late 1960s) when that profession was both _completely_ male dominated, and also dubious of UK mountaineers. Her dedication in the 70s to the developing of all-female mountaineering was also a very important and pioneering contribution. (Her subsequent contribution to NZ mountaineerng has also been noteworthy, I gather, though largely unrecorded ). She is clearly much more important than say some minor male US-football player, and a failure to recognise this in WP is both blinkered and arguably sexist. Bob aka Linuxlad 10:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep an obituary in The Times, The Guardian and The Independent is a fairly clear sign of nobability. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all the above. Receiving obituaries in such high-profile newspapers indicate this is not just a regular mountaineer. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The links provided not only demonstrate notability but give us verifiable sources. Exactly what we need. --kingboyk 12:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for revelation of new information (Newspaper report links), which was added by Trialsanderrors after this AFD begins. --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. -- Alias Flood 19:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable indeed. trialsanderrors has convinced me, and newer edits have helped. HumbleGod 21:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Many obituaries, even in leading newspapers, are about subjects not notable enough for wikipedia Bwithh 21:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment She had a number of articles on her during her lifetime, about 20 in total from three five different countries if I include obits, not including mountaineering magazines. Passes my T&E:510 test with ease. ~ trialsanderrors 23:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per lots of good references. nn Ziggurat 00:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact that she was the first female mountain guide makes her notable. Her climbs add to this. The fact there there are articles about people in other sports who are much less notable than her is of course not a good argument but it is true none the less and should give some thought to those who know nothing about moutaineering. As a mountaineer, she is clearly notable. --Bduke 02:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This Afd has been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand ~ trialsanderrors 00:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• 'Keep The Guardaian Unlimited obituary contains in the lead sentence "became of iconic significance in the huge expansion of women's participation in mountain activities." Translated to wikispeak, that means she is highly notable. For a baseball example of iconic significance, think Jackie Robinson - he is so notable that he generates contact notability for people like Clyde Sukeforth. GRBerry 03:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:trialsanderrors, User:GRBerry.-gadfium 03:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but I don't have to like it --Ori Livneh (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. obituaries, etc. -Seidenstud 06:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per trialsanderrors. -- Avenue 11:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Important to both North Wales and female climbing history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.99.6 (talk • contribs)
• Keep - a remarkable woman and well worth a place here. TerriersFan 02:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per trialsanderrors, notability established. Yamaguchi先生 04:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per obits Maxamegalon2000 23:33, 9 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kathy Moore

Reads link an ad. "Moore Method Exercise" only gets three google hits, so the person is probably non-notable too. However, this is more difficult to verify with google as Kathy Moore is a quite common name. -- Koffieyahoo 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. The only Google hit is her website on a free hosting service. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-04 01:23Z
• Delete as non-notable. If the method is notable with celebrity adherents, it would certainly show up somewhere. It doesn't. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No relevant google representation, nothing in notable exercise or yoga publications that I could find (due to the aforementioned fruitless google search). Looks like a weak stab at gaining some additional hits to the website. --NMChico24 02:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad and self-promotion, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not-notable/written as advertising. Even resorts to "she has worked with" name dropping. --IslaySolomon 03:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertising of non-notable person. SM247^{My Talk} 04:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delte. An advertisement?.--Tdxiang 06:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, away with self-promos. HumbleGod 06:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, reads like advertisment. ShaunES 10:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC).
• Delete as spam -- Alias Flood 19:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only a blatant advert, but a poorly written blatant advert. --Satori Son 07:28, 5 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 of the debate was Keep. Whilst the case to delete this article hasn't been made. I certainly recommend that the editors consider merging it to a suitable target, or perhaps expanding it to discuss the other school in the area. Any work done in expanding it, in lieu of merging, would also be welcome. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Point Elementary School (Pennsylvania)

Notability in question (West Point serves approximately 250 students) --NMChico24 01:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per precedent of established notability of public schools. hateless 01:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a notability precedent for high schools. There's no precedent for elementary schools, except that very few are notable. -- Kicking222 02:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with major clean-up, By reading the article, you can't really determine anything about the school , such as where it is located besides being in a no-name township. Arod14 01:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of real content. Deletion should deter people from putting up half-finished entries that cannot even be considered stubs. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is nothing notable about an upper elementary school of 250, and no notability is even claimed. This simply has to stop. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just because it's a public school does not mean it's a notable school. Unless something else can be added to the article that would make it stand out among elementary schools, this article is unnecessary. joturner 02:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As I commented above, few elementary schools are notable, and this one doesn't state why it's any more important than any other elementary school. -- Kicking222 02:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Here's that slippery slope we were assured wouldn't happen. Even if high schools are inherently notable (which is a dubious concept made "true" only by repeately saying it is so), there is nothing inherently notable about an elementary school. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Nothing in this article demonstrates why it is encyclopedic. The concept of "precedence" is a myth. WP:SCHOOL did not succeed, the creation of a wikiproject does not automatically confer encyclopedic value on any given article within that project, and schools are not inherently notable. Agent 86 03:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, College=notable, High Schools=for the most part notable, Elementarys=Unless something amazing is involving it, not notable. There is nothing notable to this and there is no assertion of notability. Yanksox 03:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. High schools are one thing, but unless there's something absolutely astonishing about them, elementary schools aren't notable at all. WP:SCHOOL is not policy. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm a school inclusionist, but elementry schools need to be pretty special to actually be notable. --Pboyd04 04:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Elementry schools Need to be pretty special. This one is not. (IIIV 04:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
• Strong delete per above. High schools as a matter of course should be kept, elementary schools should not for the reasons articulated here and in many other places. SM247^{My Talk} 04:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Inclusion of elementary schools is going too far. AdamBiswanger1 04:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Schools are important. Ramseystreet 04:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that high schools are important. Many, many people go to their high school reunions. But there's a reason there's no such thing as an "elementary school reunion." Elementary schools just aren't that notable. --NMChico24 04:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete get something notable to happen at the school and then we will talk -- MrDolomite 04:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the local elementary school is not notable. Why did this an-article-for-every-school meme get so popular anyway? Opabinia regalis 05:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Hempfield Area School District which the school belongs to. Not very notable on its own, and the article is very short, but some information on the school might be of interest to some readers in the context of the entire district. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the usual reasons for deleting schools. Artw 06:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not schoolcruft. It ought to be expanded or face deletion.--Tdxiang 06:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If you're going to cite my personal BEEFSTEW guideline as showing that the article is "not schoolcruft," note that BEEFSTEW does not say anything about "schoolcruft..." And please note too that by my count, in its current state, this article gets points A (barely... it's three sentences long), B (I don't really think it's coherent as a paragraph, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt), and D, for building and renovation dates, for a total of 3 out of 10. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Dpbsmith, how have I missed your tasty-sounding set of criteria? My compliments to the chef for such a well-thought out set of guidelines. I may have to steal the recipe for myself. Agent 86 17:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, I see Sjakkalle's point, and maybe a merge would work, but really it seems like too much trouble when elementary schools are non-notable by wikipedia definition. HumbleGod 06:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't buy the argument that high schools (sic) are notable, yet elementary schools are not. Just because there is a tradition of attending high school reunions in the USA does not make high schools more notable. All schools are notable, each have a profound impact on 1000s of people over the years, equiping them with the ability to enjoy wikipedia, for one. Markb 07:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: and to concur with Markb and add to my Keep vote above: All public schools are public institutions no matter the grade, and are administered by the same authorities. Enrollment in elementary schools is mandatory whereas not as much in high schools traditionally, and probably have a greater impact on the development of a person than high schools do. They also tend to be institutions as old or older than high schools. High schools granted are larger institutuions, but it is one factor among many to compare notability. I do not see the obviousness of how high schools are inherently so much more notable than elementary schools. And in my eyes, the reason why notability has any concern to a non-paper encyclopedia is because of WP:V, and as public institutions there should be enough information available via these public agencies to ensure verifiability. hateless 08:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem is that most of the borderline school articles have no source citations but the school's own website... while easily obtained official sources usually contain only basic statistics that would be better presented in tabular form than as a stubby paragraph. As I write this, this article cites no sources at all and thus is not in accord with the verifiability policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. High schools may be notable, but the majority of elementary schools are not notable enough to deserve articles. --Musicpvm 08:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another unspecial elementary school. -- GWO
• Delete. Utterly non notable, like most schools are Fram 09:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn school. --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Green caterpillar 15:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per other delete votes. --Metropolitan90 16:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NN. -- Alias Flood 19:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Sjakkale- Elementary schools... not so much. FCYTravis 21:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete elementary schools are not inheirantly notable Ydam 21:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:NN is NOT POLICY, what is more, notability is not a valid criteria for deletion of a school article. Over FORTY elementary schools survived the AfD process last month alone, how can it be consistent to delete this one? 68.144.102.170 23:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What happened with other articles has no bearing on what happens to this one. And it is quite accepted by the community at large that an entry should be notable in order to be included. Nothing that is happening here is outside of Wikipedia policy. --NMChico24 00:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:NN may not be policy, but it's generally accepted that not everything can be included. People and bands must have done something notable before being included, and words must be in common use before being worth listing. Schools should be no different. Scores of articles are deleted because they lack content on a daily basis. Again, schools should not be treated any different. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability, and none seems possible (there is no inherent notability associated with four walls and a roof). Proto///type 10:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete just another boring school. Catchpole 11:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No verifiable information avaliable to expand article beyond substub Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect into Hempfield Area School District works for me. — RJH (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

* comment. The problem with merging schools into some local government/administrative department is that the essence of the school, it's huge life-long impact on pupils, becomes subsumed into a bureaucracy. Would you suggest, for example, that the achievements of Olympic athletes, should be covered by an article on the file-keeping abilities of the International Olympic Committee ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markb (talk • contribs) 21:36, 5 July 2006

• Comment - How does one encyclopedically explain the essence of an elementary school? I mean, honestly, what can an elementary school article ever be but a list of teachers, the school mascot (if there is one) and the day the school was founded? What else is there possibly to be said? FCYTravis 01:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• A few elementary schools are certainly notable. Froebel's original kindergarten (which literally included a garden... there I've seen cute pictures of little German kids working in it), the original Montessori schools, Summerhill. These would be encyclopedically explained by reference to the unique, pioneering and controversial educational philosophies of their founders. It is very unlikely that West Point Elementary School falls in this category. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There are a number of elementary schools by this name and it is completely reasonable that someone would expect Wikipedia, the sum of human knowledge, to document them. Verifiability issues within the article have already been addressed and resolved. Silensor 21:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "the sum of human knowledge" is Britannica's slogan. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that a fact? "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." --Jimmy Wales Silensor 02:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Boston Daily Globe, Jan 25, 1903, p. 34

Yes, it's a fact. They've been using it in various forms for at least a century. AFAIK it's not trademarked or anything. I don't believe for a microsecond that Jimbo is unaware of it. I don't know for sure but I rather think Jimbo expects people to catch the reference. "The sum of human knowledge" means "something sorta-kinda-vaguely-like the Britannica, not some whole totally 'nother thing." Dpbsmith (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a fact that the Britannica used it as a slogan, but I was wrong about Jimbo intentionally referring to it. I emailed him and he said "I had no idea actually. It could perhaps be that I subconsciously got it in that way, of course." He credits the line as you quoted it to Erik Moeller and himself, when preparing his first public talk about Wikipedia in Berlin circa 2003. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but leave the merge/redirect that User:RJHall put in place. I support an article on this school, but one hasn't really been completed yet. There's no harm in leaving it as is (with the redirect) Also, since there's been a merge, we can't delete without undoing the merge (which would be rather odd). When somebody has time/interest, they can make a full stand-alone article. --Rob 21:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a useful redirect to West Point Elementary School while retaining the edit history in the event that this will be expanded at a later date (and for GFDL purposes). Bahn Mi 04:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all schools are notable, and worthy of inclusion in Jimbo's big bag 'o trivia!  ALKIVAR™ 11:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per bag o' trivia. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, almost all schools are notable. bbx 22:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Kepp per Bahn Mi and others. --Myles Long 22:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this school is important and we should document it here Yuckfoo 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You say this school is important. How is this school any more important than any other? --NMChico24 02:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable elementary school. Also note that the AFD tag was vanished for two days by a well-intentioned reidrect of the article. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of "notability". RN 21:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - while I buy that high schools are inherently notable because of the strength they have in their local communities the same arguement does not apply to elementary schools. This one does not assert any notability. TerriersFan 02:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to the school district. It is not the most notable of elementary schools, but still could be searched for. Yamaguchi先生 04:28, 9 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 of the nomination was delete. If we are just vote-coiunting, it's 60% delete (15 delets, 10 keeps). However, a number of those keeps are either 'No, it's not a list!', 'I think it's useful', or 'If you have THESE, this should be kept'. None of which are ever great arguments. Most of the deletes refer to either the article being superceded by categories, or it failing WP:NOT. both of which are strong arguments (except two votes). Therefore, delete. If anyone would like a copy placed in their userspace, please let me know - I imagine this could be a useful reference for researching the history of the Sci-Fi channel. Proto///type 13:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD is the subject of this deletion review: 2006 July 17: List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs

[edit] List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs

Delete - A similar article passed this way recently. These 'Lists of movies shown on' seem to have limited value and are not directly sourced. BlueValour 01:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Precisely what the nominator said: this is nothing a category (or several categories) couldn't handle. joturner 02:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think program listings for television channels are encyclopedic information. -- Captain Disdain 02:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: wikipedia is not a tv guide :p Zos 02:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not TV Guide. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Really needs Wikification and Keep for the most part. In relation to the very television channel, this would be rather pertinant information concerning the constant evolution of the Sci Fi Channel. Although it's definately a list right now, this duly needs to be Wikified in order to examine how SciFi Channel changed over the years, especially since 1998 wherein which much of the "classic" reruns, namely the now defunct second-run programming, seem'd to have disappeared and likewise prompted the start of more original series aside from Mission Genesis and movies produced by SciFi Pictures (however, they are usually rather horrid aside from their unintended[?] humour). DrWho42 03:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • But surely that would be something that could be far better accomplished within the main Sci Fi Channel article instead? I mean, there really isn't even anything to merge, this is just a list. -- Captain Disdain 04:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Some of it... But eventually it would overcrowd the rest of the article which is the reason why it was moved separately onto its own being.. Like I did for the marathon programming block called S.C.I.F.I. World and the two cartoon blocks they used to air on Saturday mornings during the early and mid 1990s. DrWho42 04:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, wouldn't it make more sense to split something off the article when it grows to that point? I mean, is "List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs" really the most convenient, sensible and useful thing to split off the main article? I mean, especially considering the name of the article, I just don't see this ever becoming useful... -- Captain Disdain 09:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not TV Guide. (IIIV 04:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
• Delete - looks like it could've gone somewhere, but easier to do categories since they update themselves too. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a pile of indiscriminate listcruft. SM247^{My Talk} 04:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I think many of you are knee-jerk voting to delete this without actually looking at the article, it reason for being or its potential. It is not a programming guide, but a verifiable historical documentation. It has the potential for seeding a "History of.."-type of an article. - Davodd 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I looked. It looked OK, but can be made with a few categories like "Sci-Fi originals" etc. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on the Comment. There are already the Categories of SciFi Channel original movies and the more newly formed shows for the sake of organisation, although the main thing for this article is to evolve past its primitive list state and examine itself in more detail (i.e. why did they stop showing Lost in Space and olde Doctor Who episodes with its impact on the fandom, original programming, &c). DrWho42 05:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wikify. We gots to know what Sci-Fi is showing.--Sinewaves23 04:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a list of lists -- MrDolomite 04:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree that this page can be expanded from being just another list and it is important to see what Sci-Fi has shown in the past and is showing now. --Electricbolt 04:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:NOT.--Tdxiang 06:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I can see this having some value to some people, but it could use some revamping. Maybe someone who finds the article useful will take this deletion threat to heart and contribute something of more value to it. HumbleGod 06:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as proposal. michaelCurtis ^talk+ _{contributions} 10:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TV Guide part of WP:NOT --14:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see the value in this article. NOT listcruft. Royalbroil 18:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT -- Alias Flood 19:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - How is this any different than many existing articles? :
  • List of programs broadcast by A-Channel
  • List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company
  • List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim
  • List of programs broadcast by Alpha TV
  • List of programs broadcast by Animax
  • List of programs broadcast by Anime Network
  • List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC
  • List of programs broadcast by CBC Television
  • List of programs broadcast by CBS
  • List of programs broadcast by CH
  • List of programs broadcast by CTV
  • List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network
  • List of programs broadcast by Citytv
  • List of programs broadcast by Discovery Channel
  • List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel
  • List of programs broadcast by Fox
  • List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network
  • List of programs broadcast by Global
  • List of programs broadcast by HBO
  • List of programs broadcast by History Channel
  • List Of Programs Broadcast By Jetix
  • List of programs broadcast by Associated Broadcasting Company
  • List of programs broadcast by Discovery Kids
  • List of programs broadcast by TVNZ
  • List of programs broadcast by METV
  • List of programs broadcast by MTV
  • List of programs broadcast by MVS Multivisión
  • List of programs broadcast by Mega Channel
  • List of programs broadcast by NBC
  • List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon
  • List of programs broadcast by TV 2 (Norway)
  • List of programs currently being broadcasted by TV 2 (Norway)
  • List of programs broadcast by TV Azteca
  • List of programs broadcast by TV 3 in Norway
  • List of programs broadcast by Telemundo
  • List of programs broadcast by Televisa
  • List of programs broadcast by The WB
  • List of programs broadcast by UPN
  • List of programs broadcast by The CW
  • List of programs broadcast by Univisión

MakeRocketGoNow 17:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:No different. AfD them all, I'll vote. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 17:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. -- Captain Disdain 02:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - For most of them; no different. Look out for more AfDs coming soon to a computer near you. :-) BlueValour 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT This is also a policy, which means its non-negotiable, this shouldn't even be up for debate.--Crossmr 19:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this is a useful guide and many of these films already have begun to be importance. Also, if we delete this we should vote to delete ALL of the above pages as well since it is absolutely NO different.--rxdxt 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Those films that have importance rightly have (or can have) their own article. A list showing what has been shown on which channel is unencyclopaedic and I find it hard to see its use. I will be bringing the others forward (unless they have additional merit) in due course. BlueValour 21:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Categories have a tendancy to get screwed up. This type of list article is found throughout the site. Like others have said, it could be expanded with information, wikified.-Giant89 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Information about what network a show is broadcast on is found in the article for each show as it is - the shows are not linked other than by virtue of being broadcast by a particular channel. Lists should really have a decent nexus, not just any particular common characteristic like who has aired them. There will be any number of these lists which repeat-mention popular shows, with only minor variations from list to list as you go from country to country. SM247^{My Talk} 22:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 09:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Revragnarok, right down to the willingness to vote the rest of them off the grid too. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Wikify. As others have said above, this has the potential of becoming an important article on the history of Sci-Fi Channel. Even in this form, it is highly informative. It's easy to forget, when turning on Sci-Fi once a week for SG-1 or whatever, how large a role Sci-Fi has played in producing, airing or rerunning science fiction series over the last decade, and how much it has changed over the years. It's also obvious that the list is already too long to fit in the parent article, and categories don't really give the big picture here. To delete this article as listcruft would be shortsighted, a loss and a shame, IMO. Karen 07:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep wikify Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MakeRocketGoNow Maxamegalon2000 23:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Kf4hzu 05:38, 10 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 of the nomination was merge and redirect to Adelaide University Sports Association. – Avi 15:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Table Cup

A cup between two universities was recently deleted so it is hard to make a case for one between colleges of the same university. In any case, the essentials can be added to Adelaide University Sports Association. BlueValour 02:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Smerge per nom. hateless 02:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom AdamBiswanger1 03:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. SM247^{My Talk} 04:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge BlueValor has the right idea -- MrDolomite 04:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. I agree with the nominator as well.--Tdxiang 06:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article refers to a sporting competition, not merely the cup which is awarded. Adelaide University Sports Association is not the governing body of said competition. --edwinski (primary author) 12:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Whatever else, this is not notable enough for its own page. Therefore, if it is not suitable for merging it is a Delete. BlueValour 16:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge. Per nom, this does not deserve a page. Since it doesn't have anything to do with AUSA, mentions on the college pages should be enough. JPD (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JPD (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge as per nom. -- Alias Flood 19:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Adelaide University Sports Association. Capitalistroadster 21:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, article too long to merge, not non-notable enoguh to delete. —Pengo 06:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not even intervarsity stuff, this is internal university stuff and isn't related to the Uni Associatn, but rather something that the colleges organize themselves. BTW, each of these colleges only have about 150-200 people, so they cover a total of 750 students and only 5% of the uni population at most.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable sporting event. --Roisterer 11:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested by Capitalistroadster. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per nominator. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:41, 8 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mortal Monday

I don't see how how one aspect of the marketing campaign merits its own page, at least not with this little info. There's nothing here that can't be covered on the Mortal Kombat page. Ace of Sevens 02:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Ace of Sevens 02:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This already recieves the coverage it deserves in Mortal Kombat (arcade game)#Ports --IslaySolomon 02:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per IslaySolomon. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Is this supposed to be in the same encyclopedia as WWII? AdamBiswanger1 03:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 03:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, redirect or merge unnecessary. SM247^{My Talk} 04:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Danny Lilithborne 05:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Tdxiang 06:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 19:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Slight merge/Redirect to Mortal Kombat (arcade game)#Ports. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-05 00:41Z
• Redirect to Mortal Kombat (arcade game), since redirects are cheap and it's a plausible search string for someone looking for information on the topic. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Fatality But leave a redirect to Mortal Kombat (arcade game). Proto///type 09:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mortal Kombat (arcade game) --HarroSIN 08:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 09:02, 9 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westcoasanostra

This is not a notable release; hasn't charted, not on a major label. It is a mixtape, which is self-produced and released. It is advertising, as it includes a link to order it online. Mikeblas 02:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I was set to keep this since it is by an artist with an article (Crooked I). However, on closer inspection it seems his notability is equally dubious. The same goes for his "upcoming" album B.O.S.S. which is "slated for release in 2006". --IslaySolomon 02:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blatant ad, non-notable album by an non-notable artist. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom AdamBiswanger1 03:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete an obvious Ad. Not a notable artist. (IIIV 04:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
• Delete per above. SM247^{My Talk} 04:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator.--Tdxiang 06:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom: ad for a non-notable album. ¦[[User talk:Kariià| Deranged Ramblings]] 19:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - 20:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant ad. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't Delete. I needed a tracklist for this CD, and I found it useful.

The similar Mix tapes Young Boss (Volume 1) and Young Boss (Volume 2) have now been added to to this discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 5 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 of the debate was speedy delete. There's no way this article on a term that's "starting to spread" is going to be kept. Vegetarians can now relax. :P Kimchi.sg 08:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meatitarians

Meatitarians are people who it [sic] only/mainly meat. Neologism / made up in school one day nonsense. Sorry to bother you with this but an established editor removed the speedy tag. -- RHaworth 02:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Clear case of "made up in school one day". --IslaySolomon 02:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Agent 86 02:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Delete Seems like this should have speedied for nonsense, although that always varies by admin. --NMChico24 03:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Strong delete per CSD-G1, patent complete nonsense. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Note sorry, its not patent nonsense, so I've removed the speedy tag. However...

• Strong Delete Non-notable neologism. Gwernol 03:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete could probably have been PRODed. --Pboyd04 03:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism/nonsense/things made up in school one day. AdamBiswanger1 03:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, complete non-sense (IIIV 03:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
• Delete for the reasons stated above. This is not speediable. - Richardcavell 04:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Should've been speedy delete. Obviously 'one day at school' - why is there a link to rapid transit? -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Rapid transit ref looks like a botched link to Subway (restaurant). Kuru ^talk
• Comment yeah I figured that out too, but was trying to point out how little effort went into the article. -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 04:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete very silly. I wish I could say this was Spam, but Spam's meat content is questionable. SM247^{My Talk} 04:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as complete neologism. I think I'll just stick with carnivore. Kuru ^talk 04:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, could this be a BJAODN candidate? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom TheRingess 05:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• BJ-ify The "scientific classification" burger puts it over the top. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy speedy speedy delete. Nonsensical...--Tdxiang 06:59, 4 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 of the nomination was merge and redirect to Linkin Park Underground. – Avi 15:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LP Underground 2.0 EP

Fanpage listcruft, needs redirect to Linkin Park Underground Zos 02:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Though it pains me to admit it, this is a work by a notable band. The three articles could be merged into Linkin Park Underground, which looks a bit sparse at the moment. The resulting article might be very cluttered though. --IslaySolomon 02:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Linkin Park Underground if possible. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. SM247^{My Talk} 04:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to main article.--Tdxiang 07:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Linkin Park Underground -- Alias Flood 20:02, 4 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 of the nomination was merge and redirect to Linkin Park Underground. – Avi 15:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LP Underground 3.0 EP

Fanpage listcruft, redirect to Linkin Park Underground Zos 02:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and/or redirect to Linkin Park Underground if possible. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. SM247^{My Talk} 04:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to main article.--Tdxiang 07:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Linkin Park Underground -- Alias Flood 20:02, 4 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 of the nomination was merge and redirect to Linkin Park Underground. – Avi 15:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LP Underground 4.0 EP

Fan page, again, redirect to Linkin Park Underground Zos 02:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and/or redirect to Linkin Park Underground if possible. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. SM247^{My Talk} 04:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to main article.--Tdxiang 07:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Linkin Park Underground -- Alias Flood 20:03, 4 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skull and Bones historical connections

I nominated this page for deletion a month ago; the discussion terminated in no consensus. As before, with minor changes marked:

1. The length of this article (approx. 250 241 kb) is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia article, not a book.
2. The writing style of the entire article is inappropriate. The whole thing is filled with innuendo, speculations, uncited accusations, and gossip.
3. Finally, and most importantly, virtually nothing is cited. The article makes a number of extraordinary claims about the involvement of the Skull and Bones group in drug dealing, but there are only 20 18 citations in the entire article, most of which are for auxiliary points. To put that in perspective, that's about one citation for each 12 13 kilobytes of text.

One of the serious concerns with the article - the presence of large direct quotations from books and other sources - has been dealt with. However, little else has changed since I first nominated this article for deletion about a month ago. It's quite likely that the sheer size of the article simply makes cleanup an impossible task. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

See also: AFD: Skull and Bones and U.S. Education. Another article by the same authors, with many of the same issues. Zetawoof^(ζ) 02:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Holy page length, Batman! This article clearly can't be saved, as it hasn't really changed much in a month. It fails WP:NPOV and is barely cited. I would have no objection to it coming back in the form of multiple, NPOV articles, but I'm not sure how possible this is. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. This is a quater megabyte long, unverifyable and almost unreadable. It certainly is not an encyclopedia article. --IslaySolomon 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Every policy applies here but WP:PORN BIO. It's quite remarkable. AdamBiswanger1 03:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't think anyone has climbed the Reichstag whilst dressed as Spider-Man yet. Besides that, though... Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge anything worth saving (good luck pulling it out of that mess) to Skull and Bones --Pboyd04 03:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Forceful Delete That's no article, its a giant mess of POV, unsourced speculation SM247^{My Talk} 04:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like a giant waste dump for OR. Zos 04:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I read the Keep votes from the 1st AfD as "get this article in shape or else". It's time for else. ~ trialsanderrors 04:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Or Else Massive consipacruft. --DarkAudit 04:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agree with AdamBiswanger1 above. ouch -- MrDolomite 04:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsalvagable UNBELIEVABLY long (about 38,000 words, maybe half-a-book in length) OR mess. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - where did all this text come from? Oi vey. HumbleGod 06:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It was mostly created as a split from Skull and Bones by Ronabop (talk · contribs), then expanded by ReSearcher (talk · contribs) (who, it appears, wrote a lot of that text to start with). Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Too wordy and too LONGGG...sorry!--Tdxiang 07:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep - the length is what made me notice the article in the first place; it was (and still is!) high up on Special:Longpages. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Mad, mad, mad. -- GWO
• Mild keep. Being too long is not a valid reason for deletion. We usually ask for citations and let articles stew for a while before deleting them. Have the major contributors refused to cite sources? A quick glance and the writing style seemed alright, though I don't know about the content. Justforasecond 20:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The users who originally created the article haven't touched it for months; in fact, ReSearcher (talk · contribs), who wrote most of the original article, has only made one edit since April. The recent quote cleanup was carried out by another user. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR and WP:SOAP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As an aside, I just noticed another article in the same vein: Skull and Bones and U.S. Education. I'm going to give fair warning on this one before nominating it, but it appears to have many of the same issues - a near-total lack of sources, extraordinary claims, and general WP:OR. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • On second thought, I'm going to go ahead and nominate that one, too. Another user commented that s/he "very seriously considered putting it up for AfD" in April, and little seems to have changed since. Zetawoof^(ζ) 02:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Wholly original research (Batman)! Delete. David | Talk 21:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Presents as fact a bunch of conspiracy theories. This article is hopeless. --Joelmills 00:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR --Satori Son 07:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. I wouldn't oppose a strongly reduced and rigorously cited section in the main Skull and Bones article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, enormous block of original research. Unreadable too. Look at the first version of the page, when it was creatoed, this just screams "copied and pasted" from somewhere... but google was no help. - Motor (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The original version was split out from the Skull and Bones article. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete tedious nonsense. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is literally the first time I've been unable to read an article properly before voting on deletion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a... whatever this is. — Haeleth Talk 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone's unpublished book, it seems, and we're not in the business of publishing...whatever this is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks as (obsessively paranoid) original research. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And from there it can be used as a text in paranoid schizophrenia. (I don't think they want it, either.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah... Wikibooks is primarily intended for educational texts. I really don't think this qualifies. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom. I aggressively pushed for its deletion before and I will do so now. This is in an unsalvageably bad state beyond cleanup, it might very well be a copyright violation and it has innumerable other issues. Please trash this (and start anew, if you must.) Grandmasterka 04:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Srong delete as encyclopedic, non cited, original research all 241 kilobytes of it.--John Lake 04:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. For reasons cited above. Kaldari 21:07, 9 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raincrowd

Vanity page for what seems like a non-notable band. Cheekily, they've also linked to the wikipedia article from their Official Site in place of biography. IslaySolomon 03:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The link from the website is suspicious. Weak Delete since I'm not entirely sure if being an opening act for a couple of notable bands creates notability. But as it appears now, it looks like it fails WP:MUSIC. Yanksox 03:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. I see no substantive assertion of notability. AdamBiswanger1 03:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete is saying they opened for notable bands an assertion or notability? If not I would even say speedy delete --Pboyd04 03:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it possibly could be, but it depends on numerous factors like the venue. Yanksox 04:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fail WP:MUSIC, non notable and no album releases on major labels. SM247^{My Talk} 04:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article requires at least a claim to notability with the criteria set out in WP:Music. Three self-produced indie albums on local release doesn't cut it.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC.--Tdxiang 07:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:47, 4 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 of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 00:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boogiemonsters

Notability in question. Sending to AFD due to speedy being contested by seasoned contributor. --NMChico24 03:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep they have two records released, and one single released by capital records (according to allmusic), seems to meet WP:MUSIC. It just needs a cleanup. --Pboyd04 04:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Despite the half-assed article they do seem to have released two albums on a major label. Therefore they pass WP:MUSIC. [12] [13]--IslaySolomon 04:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WP:MUSIC. SM247^{My Talk} 04:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but with the hope that someone cleans it up soon. HumbleGod 06:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per WP:MUSIC.--Tdxiang 07:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:MUSIC. Desperately needs cleanup, though. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean. Shaun Eccles-Smith 10:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC).
• Keep per WP:MUSIC, assuming that the claims are true. Ardric47 01:26, 5 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 of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 00:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedro Luis Diaz Lanz

This was up for a CSD, and as an admin, I just wasn't sure if this is really notable enough. So I figure an AfD should determine it better than I can. Not sure exactly how accurate the google test would be considering these events took place 30+ years ago-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep According to source, which is a Congressional transcript, he was the head of Castro's airforce. Article could be cleaned up, but notability appears to exist. Yanksox 04:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as Yanksox. The article reads like "Baby's First Book Of Cuban Revolution" though --IslaySolomon 04:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Google shows some orignal research and some latin american sites. But I can atleast tell he was a pilot who defected which backs up some of the story. --Pboyd04 04:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Appears to have been mentioned in relation to the Kennedy assassination, occupied important position under Castro, was allegedly a contemporary of Lee Harvey Oswald - not sure really but I lean towards keep if verification can be inserted, and the article made up less about non-verifiable information such as what he wanted to do as a boy. SM247^{My Talk} 04:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As written, the article seems inappropriate in tone for an encyclopedic article. Take away most of the unverifiable content and we are left with a stub of a man who's only claim to fame is as head of Castro's airforce. Fails to meet WP:BIO. TheRingess 04:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article, and made it more of an encylopedic tone. It's not the best, but it is an improvement. Yanksox 04:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break, I'm 14.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acsta (talk • contribs) .

It's not you that's being debated or the quality of the content. It's the notability. Yanksox 04:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. It fails WP:BIO but is quite encyclopedic.--Tdxiang 07:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Appears notable enough, and maybe someone who's not "just 14" will add something more soon. If not, delete it next time around. HumbleGod 07:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per cleanup. The article looks much better now. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems fine after the cleanup. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep —Brim 00:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now that Yanksox has tackled it. Still needs citations, but much better. --Satori Son 07:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Yanksox and rewrite. A deflected Cuban airforce commander is notable. I don't see how that fails WP:BIO. Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 5 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 of the debate was speedy delete per author request. Roy A.A. 01:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josette Halpert

Non-notable actress. Google finds only 18 hits, the top one for her IMDB bio. Prod removed by article creator without explanation. Delete. Kimchi.sg 04:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Name of main editor is the same as the fan site. ~ trialsanderrors 04:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Special Thanks on a TV Christmas Special? Thats her claim to notability. --Pboyd04 04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete she only has an imdb bio because she was one of a large group of children that appeared in the background of a cheap TV christmas special. --IslaySolomon 04:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I prodded the article & was considering AfD. Maybe if/when Molly: An American Girl Victory is released, but she doesn't meet WP:BIO now. -- Scientizzle 04:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete textbook non-notability. SM247^{My Talk} 04:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable article.--Tdxiang 07:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - only person who seems to know anything about her is the main editor. WP:NN. HumbleGod 07:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

....the main objection is that the subject is not noteworthy. Perhaps with time and a larger resume she'll be of enough note to merit an article here, but at the moment the article just serves as advance publicity for a young actress in a yet-to-be-released film. Props for working to promote your clients, but this isn't the place for promotion. HumbleGod 21:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Extreme delete!!!!!. The admission that this article about a non-notable aactress was written by her agent makes me nauseous. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Tagged for speedy deletion per CSD-G7 - author requests deletion. Also, we don't delete old AfD debates here. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:10, 5 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 of the debate was speedy delete CSD G7, author's request. Kimchi.sg 08:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eye4you

Notability in question. Possible advert. --NMChico24 04:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete only claim to notability is distributing software written by someone else. --Pboyd04 04:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Spam. Creator's contributions speak for themselves [14]--IslaySolomon 04:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 04:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete all corporate spam. SM247^{My Talk} 04:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Main author of this page (Nathan.manzi) concedes main purpose was advertisement. HumbleGod 06:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Small 4-5 man shop that would appear to only be re-distributing software (correct me if I mis-read that). Article is written by employee, so WP:VANITY conflict of interest problems. Media reviews are mainly for the re-distributed software, with scant mention of the company - with one fairly strong exception [15], so I can't see any claims to WP:CORP.Kuru ^talk 05:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Kuru ^talk 05:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Conflict of interest, however, article intended to inform rather than advertise. Nathan.manzi 05:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator.--Tdxiang 07:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:VAIN. Technically, the author voted to delete - does this get a G7 for that? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:50, 4 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cognitive orthogony

Neologism invented for an academic paper. Author of said paper, Stephen Terence Gould, is presumably the author of the article, User:Stgould. Stephen: please mind the notice on the WP editing pages that says "Don't write about yourself". Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 04:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete agree with nom. TheRingess 04:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It's a shame because the writing style is so accessable: "An orthogony is an orthogonal-like or pair-wise relationship expressed in simple-power terms." --IslaySolomon 04:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think one would expect more than 6 google hits for a term of sufficient usage to merit an article. Tyrenius 04:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The Postmodernism Generator usually does a better job putting meaningful phrases together. Opabinia regalis 05:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because if semanticist dematerialism holds, we have to choose between dialectic libertarianism and subtextual narrative. Oh, and WP:AUTO. ~ trialsanderrors 05:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and, inter al., Trials, to whom someone somewhat less lazy than I should give a barnstar for humor. Joe 05:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. HumbleGod 07:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Tdxiang 07:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I have a bit of academic experience and couldn't pull anything out of that other than it has something to do with how men and women remember things differently. That, and the fact the term seems to have been made up by the author. Ace of Sevens 14:33, 4 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 of the nomination was nomination withdrawn. Mailer Diablo 04:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] .007 (Rudyard Kipling)

No real content. It needs to get expanded ASAP, or it should just go. --zenohockey 05:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Hmm, it could be tagged with speedy deletion {{db-empty}} if you think it should be.--Andeh 05:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but I figure that if someone took the time to write even a few words and hit enter, there's a chance someone looking at this page will have enough information to make the article worthwhile. If not, well, it's already been there since May 12; a little while longer won't hurt. (A lot longer will, though) --zenohockey 05:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep for reasons listed by nom. Let it survive this threat; if nothing changes in some time, bring 'er back and chuck it for good. HumbleGod 07:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete for reasons stated by nominator.--Tdxiang 07:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep for now, if nothing changes, I'll support speedy deletion per CSD-A3 - no content. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - a little research reveals it is about a locomotive not a bullet calibre, so its one fact is incorrect! However other Kipling stories have their own pages so there's no need to get rid of it if it is expanded.Yomangani 11:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously now a Strong Keep - at this rate it could make Featured Article before the AfD discussion is done.Yomangani 12:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Awful write-up aside, this isn't one of Kipling's better known stories. It should just go on his page. Ace of Sevens 14:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ace of Sevens. Idiotic writeup, minor story. I don't think it should even go on his page though Bwithh 16:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe not the best article around, but as noted above, other Kipling stories have their own articles, and it's more deserving of amn article than all the Pokemon episodes.--Runcorn 19:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep + expand --Lukobe 20:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Awful article. Legitimate topic. I've always rather liked this story about anthropomorphized locomotives. Full text online here. There is at least a credible possibility[16] that James Bond's number may in fact have been suggested by the story. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC) P. S. I don't agree with Ace of Sevens that it is "not one of Kipling's better-known stories." Not ultra-famous but hardly obscure. For example, it was chosen as one of fifteen stories for inclusion in a little Signet paperback, "'The Mark of the Beast' and Other Stories." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong keep Keeping articles about individual episodes of TV series while deleting articles about stories by Nobel Prize winners makes Wikipedia a laughing stock. Cloachland 02:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, having articles whose only content is "A short story by Rudyard Kipling. The .007 is probably meaning caliber-number. This story has no relation to secret agent James Bond (codenamed 007)" makes WP a laughingstock. If it still looks like that after it's been on AfD for a week, there is clearly not enough interest among editors—and thus, presumably, WP readers in general—to make it worthwhile, at least at this time.

Besides, which do you think is more likely to make WP a laughingstock: Good articles on bad (read, "uncultured") topics, or barely readable articles on good topics? --zenohockey 02:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Amen, brother. Oh, wait... that was a rhetorical question. Well, I guess you'll never know which of your hypothetical opinions I'm agreeing with. You'll just have to guess as to whether I've guessed your true opinion. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If a sentence bothers you, {{sofixit}} applies. I've added a Project Gutenburg link to the talk page. GRBerry 03:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per zenohockey
• Strong keep. The article has been expanded since it was nominated, and is now a much less obvious deletion candidate. (Incidentally, I profess bafflement as to why so many people, having expressed dissatisfaction with the old writeup and demonstrated that they knew what was wrong with it, didn't take a moment to fix it themselves. Surely, if you had time to moan about it here...) --Paul A 07:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Probably people didn't want to spend time on something that had lukewarm support and might be deleted (that was my reason anyway).Yomangani 09:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about me... well... I can't speak for others but I like to spend a little bit more time when I'm adding material to an article than when I'm commenting on it in an AfD. I shoot from the hip sometimes in an AfD comment, but I try not to when I'm editing an article. I wanted to get my "keep" in early, and I wasn't sure when I'd have time to work on the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And if you're talking about me, who took the time to nominate it...well, that's what I felt like doing. And lo, it led to a vast improvement in the article, didn't it? There's more than one way to bite the bullet. --zenohockey 03:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (or if that fails, merge and redirect it to the author article). Story by famous author should be covered especially when it's about antropomorphic locomotives, which don't seem to be his standard fare. I don't see any good reason to delete content about stories by Kipling in particular one that has been cleaned up. BTW, shouldn't this be at .007 without the modifier with a redirect at 007 (Rudyard Kipling) for those who forget the dot? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Mgm that the title should be just .007. I'm looking over the titles in Category:Short stories, where the vast majority don't have the author's name. Joyous! | Talk 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Fer shur. And there will need to be some tinkering with the 007 (disambiguation) page, and a decision as to whether 007 should continue to be a redirect to James Bond. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Agree the title should be at .007. 007, on the other hand, should continue to redirect to James Bond, because that is the overwhelmingly most common usage of "007". —Lowellian (reply) 09:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved. --zenohockey 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per User:Cloachland's comment above. —Lowellian (reply) 09:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, needs more attention, but what is there (currently) is certainly fine. K1Bond007 04:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, withdraw nom - expanded substantially since nom date. Outriggr 04:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support withdrawing the nomination—I don't think I can do that unilaterally, but I'll ceremonially vote keep. Great job, everyone. --zenohockey 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - article is obviously no longer at death's door. Chrisd87 22:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now a good article. Maxamegalon2000 23:37, 9 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 of the debate was Deleted at authors' request.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brothel (soup kitchen)

I suspect hoax. abakharev 05:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 05:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unfunny joke, more of a punchline than a hoax.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - silly, no value. HumbleGod 06:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Is this some kind of joke?:) --Tdxiang 07:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not very funny. Technically fails WP:HOAX. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete either as hoax or neologism. Travelbird 13:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I thought it was funny, though. Ace of Sevens 14:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete half-funny nonsense AdamBiswanger1 16:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE please! - as author I am embarrassed I fell for it (see how here). I have marked it with db-author John (Jwy) 19:25, 4 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 of the debate was Speedy close, withdrawn, keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 06:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J.J. Nissen

Delete per WP:CORP- CrazyRussian talk/email 05:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I see the name all the time, and I don't think it's defunct. Official website here[17]. Seems to be part of Interstate Bakeries Corporation, so keep or merge more information into IBC. Google search does bring some relevant results and news articles that existed but have to be seen through cache due to age. Yanksox 05:39, 4 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 of the debate was Keep move and expand Eluchil404 00:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conrad-johnson

Non notable organization. abakharev 05:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, spam.--Andeh 05:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Take another look, please. I think its notability is demonstrated by the independent coverage of the company's products. See the Sources section of the article, which was added after the two comments above. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Quite notable.--Tdxiang 07:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, seems at least marginally notable based on the coverage. Needs some heavy cleanup and a move to Conrad-Johnson, though. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable per above. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep notable but needs serious expansion. -Seidenstud 06:27, 5 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 of the debate was speedy delete CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Kimchi.sg 08:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tragedy Styles

Not very notable, doesn't meet WP:BAND, all this info is from a MySpace account, etc... Delete.Wickethewok 05:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom, no assertion of notability, deprodded.--Andeh 05:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No claims as to notability according to WP:Music.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. HumbleGod 06:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Does not fufil the criteria of WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC.--Tdxiang 07:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD-A7, no assertion of notability. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:56, 4 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reveal (rapper)

I'm nominating several articles for rappers connected to the AfDed article Poisonous Poets (separately.) This is a rapper whose claim to notability is winning a rap battle in 2000. I did clean up this article and added a source showing that this feat was covered by the BBC, but this still seems like a localized phenomenon and isn't covered by WP:MUSIC. There might be more to this than just that though (though I'm not finding much) so, I'm bringing it here for your consideration. Grandmasterka 05:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, couldn't find anything on google. :\--Andeh 05:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Google turned up [18], an interview showing Reveal to be an underground rapper who has contributed to a Poisonous Poets compilation CD but has yet to release a solo CD. WP:Music refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator.--Tdxiang 07:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Poisonous Poets was also deleted. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete per nom. Travelbird 13:35, 4 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 of the nomination was redirect to Doctor Emmett Brown. Proto///type 13:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doc Brown

I'm nominating several articles for rappers connected to the AfDed article Poisonous Poets (separately.) This person's claim to fame is being a part of one radio show, and being the younger brother of a notable writer. This does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO, but there may be a lot more to it than this, so I am bringing it here for your consideration. Also, the article needs to be cleaned up a lot if kept. (Analysis of linguistic content? C'mon...) Grandmasterka 05:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Doctor Emmett Brown as the primary Doc Brown of note. Danny Lilithborne 05:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as mentioned by Danny Lilithborne. HumbleGod 06:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Doctor Emmett Brown.--Tdxiang 07:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect with 1.21 gigawatts at 88 mph per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Poisonous Poets, are one of the biggest acts in British hip-hop, and suggesting them for deletion is in my opinion ludicrous. They have received HEAVY rotation on mainstream radio, toured nationally, and in UK hip-hop at least, mixtapes are the main format of distribution, as there is far less backing from major labels compared to the US scene. Check my edit history for UK rap knowledge reliability. Yeanold Viskersenn 11:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect no allmusic entry for either Doc Brown or Poisonous Poets, so they don't appear to have any records which means they probably don't meet WP:MUSIC --Pboyd04 15:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • According to Amazon [19] [20] and Discogs [21] he has released an album. Tim Ivorson 2006-07-04
• Keep on grounds of having had much national radio play. Tim Ivorson 2006-07-04

Unless I'm misunderstanding WP:MUSIC, the artist only needs to meet ONE of the criteria, so whether or not they've released an album thats featured on allmujsic is irrelevent, as they have:

• Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. (BBC Radio 1)
• Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network.
• Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (Hip Hop Connection, Mixmag)
• Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country
• Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.

Poisonous Poets and therefore its members qualify for all of the above, so I fail to see why this article is at all being considered for deletion. Yeanold Viskersenn 16:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that membership of a notable group is sufficient for notability? Tim Ivorson 2006-07-04

• Redirect to Doctor Emmett Brown. Voice of Treason 20:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This AfD is for the person, not the group. If you wish to contest the deletion of the group, please bring it to deletion review and cite your sources. Grandmasterka 23:38, 4 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 of the debate was speedy delete for blatant use of Wikipedia as a free webhost forbidden by WP:NOT. No other contributions unrelated to this page. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celebere

Does not appear to refer to anything prominent; one person's online username only. Person in question has no bio article on Wikipedia, and Google did not turn up anything of note HumbleGod 05:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete without a doubt. This person is not significant enough to merit a Wikipedia article. --Phoenix Hacker 06:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Online handles are non-notable. Those of famous people would be better as a mention on their biography, even people such as Captain Crunch or Emmanuel Goldstein.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy created by User:Celebere, whose userpage and talk page redirect to this article and its talk page. Transparent vanity, but what's worse, lame transparent vanity. Opabinia regalis 06:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just like it was when Tan Ding Xiang was created (by me, long time ago). Vanity.--Tdxiang 07:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete please do not userfy vanity, especially when the user has no other edits! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Andrew Lenahan for using Wikipedia as a free webhost. Has no contributions that are not related to this vanity page. I'm not endorsing userfication when they're gonna use the userspace for vanity only. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 5 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 of the nomination was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lowkey

I'm nominating several articles for rappers connected to the AfDed article Poisonous Poets (separately.) This one makes a few claims to notability which are not cited, but the three mixtapes and the rest of what's in the article do not meet WP:MUSIC (right now.) If anyone has evidence that this meets that standard, please bring it forward (any British hip-hop fans?) Otherwise, I don't think this belongs here. Grandmasterka 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC.--Tdxiang 07:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, fails WP:MUSIC, Google inconclusive. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Poisonous Poets, and especially Lowkey, are one of the biggest acts in British hip-hop, and suggesting them for deletion is in my opinion ludicrous. They have received HEAVY rotation on mainstream radio, toured nationally, and in UK hip-hop at least, mixtapes are the main format of distribution, as there is far less backing from major labels compared to the US scene. Check my edit history for UK rap knowledge reliability. Yeanold Viskersenn 11:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete only one album for Lowkey according to allmusic, no albums for Poisonous Poets. Fails WP:MUSIC --Pboyd04 15:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep According to WP:MUSIC, as Yeanold Viskersenn. Tim Ivorson 2006-07-04

Unless I'm misunderstanding WP:MUSIC, the artist only needs to meet ONE of the criteria, so whether or not they've released an album thats featured on allmujsic is irrelevent, as they have:

• Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. (BBC Radio 1)
• Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network.
• Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (Hip Hop Connection, Mixmag)
• Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country
• Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.

Lowkey and Poisonous Poets qualify for all of the above, so I fail to see why this article is at all being considered for deletion. Yeanold Viskersenn 16:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Just because it's not something that famous in the USA, it's famous enough over here, and clearly meets WP:MUSIC. HawkerTyphoon 23:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This AfD is for the person, not the group. If you wish to contest the deletion of the group, please bring it to deletion review and cite your sources. Grandmasterka 23:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. For reasons cited by Yeanold. Efortune 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• '"Keep"'. Lowkey is without doubt one of the biggest up and coming hip-hop acts in the UK, has had several articles run on him in magazines such as Hip-Hop Connection and Undercover and has received heavy national airplay for the single Mad World (Donnie's Lament) released with fellow Poisonous Poet, Doc Brown. He has also toured nationally (though I'm not sure how to substantiate this).

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oil Interests and Anglo-American Foreign Policy

I doubt the possibility of an NPOV article at this title. I think the title frames matters in a way that guarantees POV (including simply the phrase "Anglo-American Foreign Policy"). Certainly the current article is highly POV (e.g. "There have been criticisms on the real motives of the United States and Britain to intervene in Iraq.Critics point out that fact that the only Iraqi government ministry that was not attacked was the oil ministry.The involvement of Halliburton in the Iraq has provided credibility to these charges," all this in Wikipedia's narrative voice, without clear citation (there is a lengthy set of ostensible references at the bottom of the article, but the current state of the article does not suggest something that has particularly used these references). I'd love to have someone prove me wrong and bring it toward NPOV—I'd probably settle for a few experienced Wikipedians promising a rescue—but I suspect that anything substantive here should simply be merged elsewhere. Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I see some troubles with the article's neutrality (I am sure many will dispute that the motivations for the coups and actions presented were based purely on oil), and the article seems redundant with articles such as Petroleum politics which is more balanced article. This article may well be an accidental content fork. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Oil interests are only one of a large number of factors involved in the incidents described in the article. Article gives a different impression. Better to just chunk it and let the articles on individual countries/encounters explain the complexities. HumbleGod 06:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV slightly disputed.--Tdxiang 07:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no way this could ever be NPOV. This hasn't been touched by its creator in a little more than a week. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV Essay rather than encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Oddly using "Anglo-American" to mean either UK or US. Thus references to Vietnam, Falklands and Venezuela. Often a mix of conspiracy theories and weasel words. e.g.: "There have been claims that the British interest in invading the Falkland Islands was not only to eject Argentinian troops but to protect British interests in underwater oil reserves near the Falkland Islands." - if that's true then they've waited a long time to start drilling --IslaySolomon 11:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this in the same way that all the other POV oil essays get deleted, optionally redirect to Petroleum politics. MLA 11:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --TJive 10:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 23:38, 9 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 of the nomination was keep. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Fake

Article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, subject has written and complained about inaccuracies and states that he would prefer to see the article deleted. Subjects wishes aside, the article is of poor quality with little chance of improvement and failes to meet our criteria. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC per nominator.--Tdxiang 07:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - look at the GHits - [22], many positive media mentions from reputable sources. Other people who have requested articles about themselves be deleted haven't got their way. Ac@osr 08:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Nice reviews aren't enough: release a damn record. -- GWO
• Comment - the reviews are for his album.....Ac@osr 09:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, does not fail WP:MUSIC: he "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.". See e.g. [a very recent interview in Out Soon, in Dutch, where his Japanese tour is discussed, and where it is mentioned that he will be playing for the second time at Ten Days off (a Techno festival during the Gentse Feesten with 20,000 visitors. He will also play at the Dour festival in Belgium next month, and has played at Eurockéennes, a festival with a/o/ Depeche Mode, Muse, Morrissey and Sigur Ros. I can also offer a Newspaper review from De Morgen. Young artist with only one album, but has toured, has performed at major festivals (internationally), has received a lot of attention, ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fram (talk • contribs) .
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, passes WP:MUSIC. BoojiBoy 13:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong/speedy Keep - The subject of an article cannot request its deletion because he does not like it. I removed any info that isn't blatantly true. He has released an album: see here!. He has toured internationally, which meets WP:BAND blantantly and explicitly. See here for the page on Resident Advisor about him: http://www.residentadvisor.net/dj_view.asp?ID=636. He has had his works reviewed by many reputable sources, which meets the criteria of being featured in multiple non-trivial works: here, here, and Googling for reviews brings up many reviews for non-trivial sources: here. Speedy keep if possible due to overwhelming evidence. Wickethewok 15:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to meet WP:MUSIC per the above points. If there's inaccurate data left after the recent cleanup, feel free to correct them. The artist's wishes are not relevant to inclusion. Kuru ^talk 19:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Fram and Ac@osr. This is why article creators should add sources. Captainktainer * Talk 23:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. chocolateboy 19:02, 7 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HDGuard

Appears to be no more than an advertisement for the product. Parent company Eye4you is also being considered for deletion; both pages are primarily the work of the same user HumbleGod 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. An advertisement is not allowed.--Tdxiang 07:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as ad. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Has anyone ever even heard of this software? The company is a small business that specialises in redistributing software developed by others. I am unable to find any real info about them, and so their notability is dubious indeed. Let me clarify this. I am able to verify their existence, but I was unable to verify that they have produced or distributed anything of note. --NMChico24 08:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, are you talking about 'Eye4you' the distributor, or 'Ramcke DatenTechnik GmbH' the developer? Kuru ^talk 19:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The company I refer to is Eye4you. That is the company this article was associated with, as the same user who posted that article (since deleted) posted this one. --NMChico24 21:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Indeed, I am actually employed by the company eye4you, we do distribute HDGuard which in turn is somewhat of a competitor of Deep Freeze (Deep Freeze has little presence in Australia and Europe). I absolutely love wikipedia, and thought it may have been a good idea to post articles on our company which is well known throughout the Australian public/private education arena, however, after reading through the WP articles I do agree that both the HDGuard and eye4you articles should be removed. Notability doubts and corporate _influence_ are present, please delete this article. (Comment also posted on the Deep Freeze (software) AfD dispute.) Nathan.manzi 01:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I'm really not seeing the usual media collage and references on the company's site - is there better data in the German version of the page (the company's home langauage)? Any idea of the install base? The Austrailian distributor (eye4you) had mention of some fairly large orders, but any idea outside of that region? Kuru ^talk 01:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, RDT supplys the whole of Europe (a bit more information on that on the German site), whereas eye4you supplies Asia Pacific. The German site [23] has some references to the install base. Over 300 schools in New Zealand and 668 schools in Australia are HDGuard users. The company is working on a client base media release. Nathan.manzi 02:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Adware. TerriersFan 02:53, 9 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of railroads with a nickname ending in "Road"

It should be fairly obvious. Whenever I see this page, the first thing that comes to mind is: what? Meteshjj 07:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be fairly obvious that this is not an "indiscriminate collection of information", as only a small number of railroads fit the list. --SPUI (T - C) 07:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. Why do we need a list with five names of railroads? There's so few there's no point in having this page.--69.145.123.171 07:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

For someone who sees that for instance the NYC&StL has called the Nickel Plate Road and wonders how many others are like that. That's why I made it. --SPUI (T - C) 07:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete repeated attempts to avoid this process by removing tags. Yes, it's a short list - its also a listcruft list. With no redeeming qualities. Sorry.Bridesmill 07:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. I removed the PROD tag because that's how PROD bloody works - if you disagree YOU REMOVE IT. I removed the speedy tag because it was clearly not a speedy. --SPUI (T - C) 07:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If it was a speedy, it would've been speedied. It was prodded instead which is a totally different process. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Chill. — sjorford++ 14:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, completely useless list. This wouldn't even work as a category. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, what's the point? Fram 10:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A bemused que? per Fram MLA 12:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• delete and WP:DAFT, perhaps? Grutness...wha? 13:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Okay for trivia, not so useful here. HumbleGod 17:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced, unreferenced trivia. I doubt anyone would actually be looking for this. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and I second the WP:DAFT nomination. 23skidoo 22:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, arbitrary. I also don't need a list of Wikipedia users named after highway interchanges with a name ending in "interchange".  :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-05 00:30Z
• Delete. SPUI's a well-informed guy, but this is railcruft. I'm sure there's a FoamerWiki somewhere that would be able to use this. Haikupoet 02:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The size of the list has nothing to do with how indiscriminate it is. Who's going to be looking for this? Grandmasterka 04:42, 8 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BFilter

NN proxy Computerjoe's talk 07:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn, a lot of listings on download sites, no independent news articles. Also advertisement. Tychocat 10:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• As the author of this entry I've lost a lot of respect for WP. I was very surprised when I heard about this software a couple of weeks ago that there was no listing on WP. "NN proxy"? "Download sites"? Crystal clear. I worry that some of the regulars here might be a bit thick.
  • NN means non-notable. See WP:N. This isn't personal, but the Wikipedia is not simply a listing of information. Computerjoe's talk 15:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete please see WP:SOFTWARE while this is not yet policy it will show you the kind of information that we think is needed to be included in Wikipedia, also feel free to comment on the policy as it is still being developed. --Pboyd04 15:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • From the linked 'policy': "Software is considered to be notable enough for inclusion if ... The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Fedora Core or Debian". Articles? ONLamp.com: Dru Lavigne. I know, so hard to find with all those "listings on download sites".

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MessUnit

Strong Delete Non-notable article, appears to fail WP:WEB also badly writen. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete until assertion of notability is given.--Andeh 07:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Haikupoet 02:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment, changed to strong delete as page creator is spamming the link to other articles.--Andeh 09:45, 6 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, Andeh 14:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. And, I must say, the above seems like a consensus to me. Tevildo 14:43, 6 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getix Interactive

Fails WP:CORP, vanity/spam, crystal ballish, not written in npov. Created by user Getixinteractive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Andeh 07:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The site was also built using freewebs.--Andeh 08:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete, crystallised vanispamcruftisement, fails WP:CORP, site only has 127 hits and contains nothing worthy of note except a page with a ton of digits of pi. The "owner" uses a freeware game-making program to make his games, and is only 13, so this may also fall under WP:NFT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Absolute vanity Teke 08:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with fire and brimstone Danny Lilithborne 10:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Smerdis of Tlön 15:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above the one above this DavidHumphreys ^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT _{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 05:30, June 15, 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Flying Hospitals

article consist just of advertising Travelbird 07:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete advertisement, also WP is not a free webhost. Tychocat 10:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I cleaned up the article a bit. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 12:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, still an ad. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, notability is questionable at best. HumbleGod 19:02, 4 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planetside Universe

Contested prod. nn fansite, fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank 482,000. Delete. Oldelpaso 07:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already fixed the problem with the site type being "fansite". I have changed it to the proper title of "Gaming". I don't understand why you have requested a deletion after I fixed it.

Credema 09:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not what Planetside Universe is described as in the article, but rather whether or not Planetside Universe is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia. I do not think Planetside Universe meets the criteria in Wikipedia: Notability (web), hence the deletion listing. Oldelpaso 10:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No notability stated or implied. All links go to itself. Also advertisement. Tychocat 10:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and Alexa rank in particular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad for non-notable website that fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable even though I loved PS back in it's heyday. MLA 12:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps we can put an external link in Planetside, but this article is no different from millions of other fansites and WP:WEB and Alexa agree. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 5 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canyon Creep

Another non-notable band. The CSD was opposed by a usr who claimed 3,500 Google hits, but there are only 500 unique hits, none of them that seem very reputable. A nearly empty VH1 link exists, but I'd say this doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harro5 (talk • contribs)

• Strong Delete I don't like to do the "per nom" thing, but honestly, the above says it all. They broke up after their debut, which, to my reckoning, had no chart toppers to speak of, so where's the notability? --NMChico24 08:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, notability pretty much nonexistent if they broke up right after their debut. An empty VH1 link doesn't help, really. Signed to non-notable label. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. HumbleGod 19:03, 4 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 of the nomination was Redirect to MIT Media Lab. Deathphoenix ʕ 16:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MIT Media Lab Physics and Media

Exactly same material is covered in MIT Media Lab article. Currently there is no need for a separate article. Also the article title is not descriptive. Others considered it redundant as well, in Talk:MIT Media Lab. --þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 08:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect, redundant to MIT Media Lab. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. HumbleGod 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirectas redundant but also a plausible search term. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 00:24, 5 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Commodore Triplets

Fails Verification and Notability, possibly Vanity, with very little Possibility. Teke 08:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP is not for things made up in school one day. Also, no notability stated or implied. Tychocat 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFT. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as soon as possible Fram 13:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as probable vanity Resolute 05:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if they were one of the first to start wearing Commodore robes (which hasn't been verified), I can not see how this would be encyclopedic. -- JamesTeterenko 05:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I could see a mention of this on the Carolina Hurricanes or Mike Commodore articles if it were sourced... and this weird fashion statement does infact exist as observed during the Stanley Cup Playoffs... but... I think this article is pure vanity. DMighton 05:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Run these goobers over with a Zamboni per nom. RGTraynor 06:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Amusing, but still delete. BoojiBoy 13:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nn-group.  RasputinAXP  c 14:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Mildly amusing, but no more notable than those guys in the fancy orange suits at Rexall Place. Doogie2K (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: please, as soon as possible scsgoal31 15:55, 6 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 of the nomination was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raquel Evita Saraswati

Notability in question. --NMChico24 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. 17 unique Google hits, Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The reviews listed under "References" seem to indicate notability. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What reviews? When I click the "review" link in this article (which points to a pdf file), I get "page cannot be displayed." --NMChico24 19:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Delete - every woman on this list, "Sixteen Women who Shame Islam", deserves her own article (and at least one other already has one). These women are leading Islamic feminists and risk their lives more so than any early American feminist ever has. Rklawton 16:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, if it's not on video, it didn't happen. Uh. No verifiability, no article. My bad. Rklawton 00:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In that case, keep. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 17:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Where is the list? I searched for it, and I was unable to find it. There are a few random ones that come up in blogs, but I didn't see this person's name. Also, the sites listed as external links here really have nothing to do with her activism as a persecuted muslim. They verify her as a lesbian and a poet, and her involvement with CNW, but nothing about death threats or anything that would verify those claims. --NMChico24 18:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I suspect it may be helpful to search in Arabic since that's the source language. At any rate, the cross-language, cross-cultural aspect will make this biography more difficult to evaluate. Any Arabic readers out there care to lend a hand? Rklawton 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Since I was unable to find this list either (even when searching in Arabic), and it's a clear vanity article, I have changed my argument back to userfy and delete. The notability mentioned here is unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete unless this list can be sourced and shown to be notable - I can't find evidence of it. It's a vanity article which reads like promotion of a colourful but non-notable person. NMChico24 makes good points. Dlyons493 Talk 22:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

--the list was published on shiachat.com and has been brought down because of intervention by the authorities. I have heard of it though. --this was an issue in boston, and death threats weren't publicized but sent directly to the women on the list. they actually aren't permitted by authorities to publish them; but the list definitely existed and she was on it.

• Comment then it's unverifiable. Even if it were still on shiachat.com that would be unofficial and in all probability non-notable. Dlyons493 Talk 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please do not interfere with the AfD process by changing other editors contributions. Dlyons493 Talk 04:48, 6 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gillam in Heaven

A non-notable web comic written up by Gillam. Pure vanity. -- RHaworth 08:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN webcomic hosted by Geocities. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable vanity webcomic. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity page for non-notable (and jaw-droppingly awful) web animation. --IslaySolomon 20:17, 4 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 of the debate was keep - Eluchil404 00:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hugh mcmanners

User:Downwards tagged this article as speedy delete with a rationale of "vanity article", but I did not feel it passed CSD A7 since notability was asserted. So, here it is for procedural reasons and I abstain. hateless 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, but move to Hugh McManners. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A search at google for "Sunday Times" "Hugh McManners", and Amazon for "Hugh McManners" shows that he was the ST defence correspondent and has written several books. How much of the rest is true, I have no idea. The article needs references, and I will tag it. Mr Stephen 08:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Mr Stephen. Not a speedy keep candidate. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable journalist at minimum (have moved as suggested) Saga City 12:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - certainly a notable journalist. --JennyRad 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mr Stephen Maxamegalon2000 23:40, 9 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 of the debate was Redirect to existence. Computerjoe's talk 17:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonexistence

I'm hesitant to nominate a page that has been around for a long time, but despite its age, it doesn't seem to contain much that is obviously useful. There's no citations, and it looks like it's mainly (perhaps totally) OR and speculation. And while I'm not a philosophy major, it doesn't feel particularly deep to me. Your thoughts please. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Article is OR, and its title essentially describes its sources - nonexistent. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with Existence. There is a fair amount of old philosophy content that dates from the early days of the project; a lot of it isn't all that good, at least by current standards, but remains worth keeping. Not sure we need separate pages for Existence and Nonexistence, though. Smerdis of Tlön 15:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to existence and merge what useful/verifiable content there may be. Strange that this is so old but has so few edits or incoming links - I guess that's a hint that it doesn't need to exist. Opabinia regalis 16:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - even a merge and/or redirect seems pretty generous for an article that is almost entirely speculation. The article on existence is well-written and well-cited; if its editors feel this topic deserves mention there, let them write it up from scratch with proper citations. HumbleGod 17:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to existence. We should leave those editors a note so they can determine if anything is worth merging. I don't see a need to delete when we can redirect. Redirecting leaves the old material available for possible merging and rewriting by people who care to look up sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. There doesn't seem much that isn't WP:OR to merge. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to existence. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to existence. TerriersFan 02:57, 9 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 of the debate was speedy delete. — FireFox 10:05, 04 July '06

[edit] Fried briefs

This has to be a joke, right?? Does it really exist? Jaunio 09:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - obviously some sort of absurd joke. I've tagged it as a speedy (CSD G1: patent nonsense). Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP KEEP KEEP. Not a joke, does exist. --Torrmallin 09:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Previous AfD vote was clear: the article was speedily deleted. -- Ec5618 09:42, 4 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 of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Drakengard characters

An anon user User:84.184.85.201 User_talk:84.184.85.201 added an AfD banner to the article List of Drakengard characters but didn't create Articles for deletion/List of Drakengard characters. He or she posted the following message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Drakengard characters :

Reason for proposed deletion: Serious POV. Wrong information. Not enough information (the main character has less information then many of the minor characters) Information outside of the the article scope (listing of institutions). Gives Wikipedia itself as source. Necessary characters, institutions and concepts can be worked into the main article (they may have been there before someone created this article as an URV, where after it had been deleted). --84.184.85.201 09:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The anon user has also posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FFXIclopedia (second nomination). I do not take a position yet on this AfD. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 10:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per the anon's nomination. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Game cruft. Merge it back to the original article. -- GWO
  • Then why are you voting delete? Merging doesn't require deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That list is so badly written, it is not mergable with the main article. --84.184.110.108 10:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Additionally I do think, that neither the game nor its characters are notable enought to warrant several articles for it/them. The article itself isn't too large yet and would benefit from a section about the institutions and characters. I do not recommend merge since the list in question is POV in most parts and partially wrong(I'm the anon user in question. I couldn't create this page, that is why I took another recourse. Though I don't know why my comment on the other AfD is relevant?)--84.184.85.201 15:06, 4 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 per dicussion below, this is non sourcable and keeping it could be seen as "feeding the trolls" - not that DENY applies to the mainspace but I think you know the concept... Tawker 04:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Nigger Association of America

The article does not cite any reliable secondary sources. Note, please don't close this early as we really should get a consensus and consider deleting this article, as it is unsourced. Voortle 15:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break 1

• Comment I also agree that this should not be closed early, as the page hasn't been discussed at all in five months and not truly discussed (i.e. not just closed early with a "speedy keep") in eight months. -- Kicking222 16:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing has happened in those eight months that would warrant re-discussion. The issue has not changed at all. cacophony 01:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Zero reliable sources. For an organization whose entire existence is online, you'd think it would get more than 1,000 total and 240 unique Google hits. -- Kicking222 16:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's an odd way to search for GNAA. cacophony 01:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources, I don't think there are any, forums don't count, this is probably more of "Hey look, I can blame my trolling on something else" than a real organization. Nobody should say speedy keep, at all. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment against speedy keep. Of the 18 nominations, I think like 7 were bad faith, and another 5 were just stupid, and those cast a bad light on the rest. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources. Voortle 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. The main reason for having kept this in the past is the claim that they're well-known on Slashdot. They aren't. I've been reading Slashdot for quite some time and have never seen even so much as a passing mention of the GNAA. Not one. Ever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • • The GNAA is hardly limited to slashdot. It is a well-known internet community, such as Albinoblacksheep or SomethingAwful. Jmax- 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the only reliable source is this Scotsman article which on closer inspection is just a passing reference. All the rest are self-published websites or blog posts, so fails verifiability and notability. Demiurge 16:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't that the very nature of an internet phenomenon? Jmax- 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep For what it's worth, I have looked this organization up on Wikipedia previously. With 18 nominations, it's clear that this will keep happening over and over, because many people find the mere existence of the group patently offensive. However, the page appears to be quite well sourced; note that sources such as paper newspapers and major online outlets may be loath to even acknowledge the group's existence or put its name in print. The group is nevertheless notable. Chubbles 16:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If nobody will put their name into print, they are not well sourced. Notability does not provide a free pass on verifiability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • People will put their name into print, just not the most visible (and by extension, those considered most reliable) outlets. GNAA will not, ever, be found in Time or Newsweek, or any daily newspaper in any major or minor city. Some of the sources cited may be unacceptable if the subject were something well-covered in other sources, but in this context, many of the sources used in the article appear to follow WP:V's use of dubious sources criteria. I urge cleanup, not deletion. Chubbles 17:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:V does not say that if there are no good sources, it's acceptable to build an article from bad sources. Everything has bad sources... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am familiar with this group work Vintagekits 17:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • ...which is thankfully irrelevant to whether or not it should be kept. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. Finally a nomination that is well thought-out. Naconkantari 17:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: no reliable sources, as per WP:V. -- The Anome 17:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It will almost certainly be kept anyway, but the sources are bilge and yes the credibility or significance of sources does matter. If it doesn't it should. In addition Wikipedia is moving beyond the "computer-dork navel-gazing" era. The nn elements in Category:Slashdot have been deleted or merged to Slashdot. It's kind of time to shed the geek-trivia.--T. Anthony 17:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V, WP:RS. ergot 18:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt, no reliable sourcing, which is too bad since the group is mildly amusing. Of course, the repeated nominations and discussions about the article are playing into exactly what the group wants... Otto4711 18:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am not a fan of GNAA but this is the eighteenth AFD, every one has ended at keep. Some people just need to accept that this article exists and get on with your lives. Whining until you get your way is not a valid way to create an encyclopedia. meshach 19:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • They did not end at keep. The first few ended with no consensus due to terrible arguments, there were some bad faith ones, and then they started all getting speedy kept per the earlier ones. Articles do not get a free pass on WP:V just because they have a lot of bad AfD discussions. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolutely no non-trivial sources. The only source I see that comes close to "reliable" is the Mac Daily News article, which... doesn't mention GNAA. Utterly non-notable outside of their own tiny circle. bikeable (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This should have been fucking deleted years ago. As per above. - hahnchen 19:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is the 18th time that this has come up, and it hasn't been deleted yet. Cman 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I encourage you to take a look at the last several nominations, and to consider the verifiability of the articles. --Wafulz 20:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've looked through every reference in the article, and they are all either blogs, forum posts, or from the GNAA website. The vast majority of the previous keeps were "speedy keep per prior afd." I should also point out there was a quasi-pool about the GNAA's 10^th nomination, which may have encouraged bad faith noms. The last eight AfDs seem like bad faith noms of the form "NN delete" or "encourages trolls". Article has no reliable sources and is not verifiable. --Wafulz 20:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep They are real and they do real things. They are also offensive in name, objectives and achievements but that doesn't remove their notable status. (aeropagitica) 20:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The nominator has brought up issues of verifiability, not notability. So far, no reliable independent sources have been shown. --Wafulz 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I am real and I do things. I'm even published, sort of, that doesn't mean I deserve an article.Cedarville High School is also real, but doesn't really merit an article.--T. Anthony 20:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep based on precedent of 17 previously failed AfDs. — RJH (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Have you read the entirety of this discussion? It even says in the nomination that we're trying to find some actual sources behind this as opposed to saying "speedy keep per the past".--Wafulz 21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes I read it. I don't believe that AfD is the appropriate forum to discuss this issue any longer. — RJH (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. My previous comment on the article's talk page: I'm sure this has been said thousands of times, but I find it funny that this article has no reliable secondary sources at all. Blog posts and slashdot user pages normally wouldn't be considered reliable. --- RockMFR 21:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RS 0L1 Talk Contribs 21:40 26/11/2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Effectively a promo page for a troll organization without reliable, substantive, non-trivial sources as the article stands Bwithh 22:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ah, it's this time of year again? Good. As variously pointed out, this has substantially no reliable sources, and no case for any notability that I can understand. Sandstein 22:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there are far less obnoxious things that are not allowed to have an article here. Danny Lilithborne 23:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails to comply with WP:V, WP:RS and imo WP:N, and the article has been around more than long enough for us to fix it, so I seriously doubt we can. --E ivind ^t@c 00:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it is mentioned here[24], and it's obviously verifiable that the organisation exists. It could perhaps use some pruning, but the site itself is much more popular than many on Wikipedia, with an Alexia ranking of 288,468[25]. Salad Days 01:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • EXISTENCE being verifiable is irrelevant. Mere existence is not enough to build an article from. There has to be OTHER information which is verifiable, and there is not. And WP:INN to your "more popular" comment. Articles about forums with very high Alexa ratings have been deleted for this same reason, lack of verifiable information. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • True. Also, 288,468 is not particularly high anyway. The vast majority of websites in the 100K+ range don't have articles, and won't be getting them either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Alexia isn't always that relevant. Dell Magazines's website[26] gets a 700,000+, but they're a noteworthy publisher.--T. Anthony 04:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, many articles that aren't in the top 20,000-30,000 are deleted (with a few minor exceptions). Nishkid64 01:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but remove all unsourced material. VegaDark 01:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If we removed the unsourced material, the resulting article would be maybe one or two sentences long, at best. Take a look at the sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per...well, I think it's all been said.--Agent Aquamarine 01:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Precedent has been set to keep the article based on 17 previous AfDs. Give it up already. --Hemlock Martinis 01:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No consensus due to "BUT I LIKE IT!!!" arguments, a couple bad faith noms, and everything else being speedy kept due to previous nominations sets no precedent. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The only "precedent" the previous AfDs set is that this is a controversial topic. I would agree that 18th nomination would be preposterous, if the consensus to keep would have been reached each time with little controversy. In this case, many of the AfDs were speedy closed, many that weren't failed to reach consensus. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's about time. Nishkid64 01:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm a little uncomfortable with the fact that so many people are voting delete with some comment about how this is finally happening, or how it should have been done a long time ago. I'm also a little uncomfortable with the fact that every single Keep vote has been followed by comments by deletion advocates. I will assume good faith, but the zealousness with which this particular AfD is being pursued is worth noting. That little box at the top of the AfD applies both ways; this is not a vote. Chubbles 01:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, several comments seem particularly nasty on the deletion side.-- ABigBlackMan 03:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • If it's not a vote, I really don't see why you have an issue with people arguing against keeping a lot. And this should have happened a long time ago, instead of the masses of "Keep because it's cool" and "Delete because I don't like them" comments. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Highfructosecornsyrup 02:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, established notability.. Heck, they even pull stuff in real life. -- ABigBlackMan 03:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)ABigBlackMan
• Delete in the strongest possible terms for a paucity of verifiability, as stated many times over the unfortunate history of this non-encyclopaedic article. SM247^{My Talk} 03:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably a pointless gesture, but nuke this pile of unverified non-notable vanity bait, protect the name, and be done with it. --Calton | Talk 04:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Please. --Mhking 04:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The attacks are notable, but unvertifiable.Edit: I mean independent source, other than victims. SYSS Mouse 04:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 18 AfDs is rather pathetic. The article provides reliable sources and the group meets the criteria for WP:N. Becuase it is offensive and childish doesn't mean it doesn't also meet the policy criteria for an article. NeoFreak 04:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't tell people who disagree that they are really disagreeing because they don't like the group. We don't think there are reliable sources, and saying there are, and that we just dislike them, will convince nobody. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I can think of several groups more loathsome or crazy who merit an article. This isn't about whether we like them or not, it's about verifiability and significance.--T. Anthony 04:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I count four reliable, thrid party, non-trivial sources. If you have issue with the content of the article then change it. If you have issues with some of the sourcs used then remove/change them. This article has enough reliable sources to warrant its existence even if not in its current form. Deletion is not justified by any argument put forth here. NeoFreak 07:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Which of these sources specifically is reliable? Can someone point this out to me because I don't see it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per user Danny Lilithborne, The Anome and good riddance.--John Lake 05:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt worse troll magnet by 1000x greater than even Encyclopedia Dramatica. It also has huge reliable source problems as I can't find anything not original research on it. Anomo 05:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, lacks multiple nontrivial reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 05:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If it gets deleted, there won't be a 19th AfD discussion, which would be a shame. Sam Hocevar 05:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this a joke vote? Or am I reading it wrong? Nevermind, the answer is apparent. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Apparently not-read his userpage. Chubbles 05:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • We'd have to delete the template as useless, too. Such a shame. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, there would be 19th AfD. You're forgetting the inevitable AfD after the inevitable Deletion Review. =) =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but it's really not a slam-dunk. Verifiability and reliable sources are the crux: they are a semi-notable group, but not in a documentable way that currently satisfies Wikipedia's requirements. Antandrus (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, definitely notable. If there are verifiability problems, then fix those parts in the article, don't delete it outright. --EBCouncil ^{Speak with the Council} 07:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Ordinarily, this wouldn't be an issue, but this is an exceptional case of historic significance. I refuse to make decision on GNAA article unless Daniel Brandt is nominated on the same day. You know, one of those days that make me sing... ♫ "GNAA and Brandt in the AfD, and the woo-oo-oorld is all-ah-right..." ♫ --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, enough jokes. Merge the few scraps of verifiable content to Troll (Internet), remove the rest. Needs a really big chainsaw trim tough. The group exists and annoys people. Honestly, I don't think they need an article though. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no real reason for deletion, meets basic standards. I do, however, applaud folks for keeping this open this time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, We've survived 17 nominations, and I see no problem with the article. lol, kikepedo Koptor 12:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • User's 8th edit.SYSS Mouse 15:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - verifiability and NPOV concerns per Sandstein et al. One mention in the press does not constitute encyclopedic notability (if it does we'll never delete a failed political candidate again and DRV will be clogged for months to come). A verifiable and neutral article would redirect to Troll (Internet). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Troll (Internet) since that seems to be all that can be independently verified. Kusma (討論) 13:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect, since immediate recreation is rather likely. Fails WP:V, not-notable. Recury 15:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; non-notable and non-verifiable. —Psychonaut 16:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsense. Now. Gah, how long have I wanted to say that? – Gurch 17:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - for those wanting a merge to Troll (Internet), it might be better to merge to Troll organization. --- RockMFR 18:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep too notable. ReverendG 18:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V since no cited sources seem to pass WP:RS. What "basic standards" does this article pass? Barno 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the same arguments I've made in other AfDs... the source cited A) Mostly don't even mention GNAA or B) Are hardly reliable and at best C) Say nothing more than "These guys told us they're a trolling group". Wikipedia was the only party gullible enough to let these people write about themselves, it's time to finally stop that. --W.marsh 18:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Sweet Morley Safer! - Is the famous GNAA article finally going to get deleted? I never thought I would see the day... ★MESSEDROCKER★ 18:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree completely with W.marsh -- there are no reliable sources currently in the article and nothing in any secondary source that would pass notability criteria. Shell ^babelfish 18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep. Lets cease yelling for free speech and actually do something about it! Cptchipjew