Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 29

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

[edit] Victoria Crawford

Non-notable model per WP:BIO as her only claim to fame is a modelling contract with the WWE, reads like a model's profile rather than an article. It was orginally tagged for speedy deletion under A7, but I removed the CSD tags as I felt having a contract with WWE was at least an assertion of notability. I prodded the article, the prod was endorsed, and then the prods were mysteriously removed by an anon without even an edit summary. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• No vote This person probably will be notable in the future, but is not really now. I really don't know what Wiki "policy" is on cases like this. I'm leaning toward keeping it, though. --UsaSatsui 00:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I forgot about the "crystal ball" thing. --UsaSatsui 21:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. When she's famous, an article can be written about her. Ziggurat 00:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ziggurat's suggestion. --Starionwolf 01:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ziggurat's suggestion.Warhorus 02:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Bwithh 02:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete come back in a year or two if she makes it Crazynas 02:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --JChap 02:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Stormscape 03:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bill (who is cool!) 05:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Scientizzle 07:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria, per nom. --Terence Ong 08:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ziggurat is right... --Dakart 09:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ziggurat. --Andy123 ^candy? 14:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yeh --Osbus 15:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete rewrite it when and if she is notable. HighInBC 15:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per ziggurat. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 18:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ziggurat with the word if instead of when Computerjoe's talk 20:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There seems to be some precedent for including listings for wrestlers. See List_of_WWE_Divas, which includes Victoria Crawford,and World_Wrestling_Entertainment_roster. See also Beth_Pheonix. TruthbringerToronto 21:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wryspy 21:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, if anyone cares, it seems Victoria Crawford is also the name of a notable basketball player in the WNBA [1] (though they are certaintly two different people, as one is African American and the other is Caucasian)--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 23:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Well in that case shouldn't Barbie Blanks page in under debate as well because her only claim to fame is being offered a developmental contract from the WWE as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naylan (talk • contribs) 14:42, June 1, 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 debate was speedy delete, per CSD G3 and CSD G4. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Race

Seems like a joke, but a funny one; check it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by JChap2007 (talk • contribs)

• do not delete this it is an orginal game that i invented. Its actually pretty fun to play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koudsi (talk • contribs)
• Delete - Don't post articles about games you created. Wickethewok 00:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• No way dont delete this game. It may catch on

• You clearly don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for things to "catch on". It is NOT the place for stuff you made up. Wickethewok 00:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

well my friend the purpose of this website may be interpereted differently. This is information about a new game people are playing.

• Delete, nonsense. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 00:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not what Wikipedia is for. Probably deserves speedy. --UsaSatsui 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

youre a stupid mother fucker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koudsi (talk • contribs)

• And you need to realize that even if you don't sign your comments, we can see who you are. Grow up. --UsaSatsui 00:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not a stupid faggot like you so i dont know anything about signing my name and all that. all i know is that youre a cocksucker. In your face.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koudsi (talk • contribs)

• Can someone block this guy already? At least most other vandals/troublemakers try to be witty and at least sound intelligent. Wickethewok 00:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete see WP:NFT, and wouldn't object to this being speedied. DVD+ R/W 00:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Recreation of deleted material. This exists under Wikipedia:Wikirace. It is not supposed to be duplicated as it has been many, many times. Zepheus 00:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. "do not delete this it is an orginal game that i invented." Key words. Non-notable. Also, speedy per Zepheus. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete duplication of Wikipedia:Wikirace. Ziggurat 01:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This game already exists within the wikipedia: namespace. It is neither new or original and being a self reference certainly does not belong in the main article namespace Ydam 01:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ydam's oppinion. --Starionwolf 01:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete CSD G4 (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia race) and permanently block Koudsi. Шизомби 01:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no consensusHomey 18:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UC Men's Chorale

Non-notable, see Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas — Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Upon further examination: article violates WP:MUSIC. I find no sites besides the "official" site mention their "international tour." I don't find any notable and verifiable sources stating that the tour actually took place. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment a chorale club founded in 1885 that has toured Europe and Asia doesn't seem non-notable to me, but on the other hand the article appears to be a copyvio from [2]. Ziggurat 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw that after I nominated for deletion. But does any site besides the "official" site mention their "national tour," per WP:MUSIC? I don't find any notable and verifiable sources that the tour was noted in. As far as I see, that is the only criterion that this article seems to fufill. Am I missing something? — Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I couldn't find any either, which is why I was commenting not voting delete :) I think it's a moot point, as the current incarnation appears to be a copyvio, so it may be best to remove it entirely, and if anyone wishes to write a sourced article on it at a future date encourage it. Ziggurat 02:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it doesn't seem to me that they are non-notable, however the article could definately use a lot of work.Warhorus 01:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Maybe I mistook "needs a lot of work" for "deletion" :/ — Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Does that mean you're withdrawing the nom? -EdGl 02:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • No. It may still be a copyvio, so it could just be better off being deleted. Or being merged. Or reducing the size of the article. It is up for the community to decide ;) — Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but drastically cut down Make it more of an encyclopedia article, less of a society advert. Could be cut down by 60% and would be an improvement Bwithh 02:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, or merge to University of California, Berkeley--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. --JChap 03:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with University of California, Berkeley. On its own, it's not that notable. Stormscape 03:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 08:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep – just about to be notable, but needs cleanup – Gurch 11:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with UCB. It's a college club. -- GWO
• Merge with UCB, maybe under Extracurricular Activities. --Osbus 15:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge same as above Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 18:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• 1st choice Delete or 2nd choice Merge, 3rd choice Cut down. If someone wants to recreate a decent article about this society they can, but as it stands it is all an advert.Captainj 12:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 05:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Augusta Arsenal Soccer Club

Deprodded by an anonymous user so I'm bringing it here. This is a non-notable youth soccer club. Metros232 01:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Google search doesn't convince me of notability. It's just a regular soccer club. -EdGl 02:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable organization; as mentioned above, very few google results (only 95 [3])--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --JChap 03:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn club. --Terence Ong 09:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. It's also a copyvio from here. Kevin 10:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Crazynas 12:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kevin. Article does not seem to assert notability. I knew it read like a copy and paste job. 65.35.168.248 14:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Signing my unsigned-in post :) Dlohcierekim 13:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Andy123 ^candy? 15:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. feydey 16:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 20:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kevin Captainj 13:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --JoanneB 16:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of teams sponsored by Adidas

I believe this list violates policy. See this similar AfD and this one also. Pretty much listcruft. EdGl 01:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 01:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; listcruft--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --JChap 03:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, as TBC pointed out, listcruft Stormscape 03:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Can be made encyclepedic. Such a list would not fit on the main page, it may have even been split from there. It is notable imo. Cvene64 08:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• if it had third party references like [4] and [5].. maybe. but it has no references at all at the moment --Astrokey44 10:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If we referenced each entry, then the references section would be longer than the article. Kevin 12:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, listcruft. --Terence Ong 09:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete too close to advertisng too in a way Ydam 10:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. With lists of potentially transient information, either each entry should have dates, or else the whole list may potentially dwindle to nothing over time. Kevin 10:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't see much use for this list. JIP | Talk 15:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Andy123 ^candy? 15:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks like listcruft. feydey 17:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks too much like an advert. Athenaeum 17:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wryspy 21:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Guinnog 23:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, is useful for those who are looking for information related to sponsorship and can be used in research. Our school assignment has us currently looking for information like this to chronicle the marketing "war" between Nike and Adidas.--Chrisjustinparr 13:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The thing is that lists like these can be useful, but is Wikipedia the place? I don't know. Captainj 13:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per User:Cvene64 :) Dlohcierekim 13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - i think the best place to find out this kind of information would be from adidas themeselves (i'm sure they'd be pleased to tell anyone who asks :) ) r2b2 22:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic listcruft. lowercase 18:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep doesn't violate my reading of the above policy. It's poorly edited, sure, but the information could be useful. RE:r2b2 perhaps true, but I can see that taking a few days to get the reply, does keeping a copy here really hurt that much? aLii 23:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." (from WP:NOT). Violates policy to me. -EdGl 22:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Pretty much every article on wikipedia could be argued to breach that, if you were so inclined. The policy is very specific about what kind of lists shouldn't be allowed, and I quote:

1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). You may want to consider contributing FAQ lists to Wikibooks.
2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.

aLii 08:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • The specifics in this section of policy you're talking about are merely instances where the community has already made a consensus. There is no consensus yet for the issue right here in this afd, which we are trying to make right now! :-) The argument I'm trying to make wouldn't work on "pretty much every article on wikipedia", but it sure is working on this one... EdGl 20:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not just another list, it is definitive and informative. It answers the question "Which teams, clubs, countries are sponsored by Adidas?" I question whether it is notable but I have seen many lists that beggar the same question which are kept. -- Alias Flood 01:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 12:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 05:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Patterson

Was prodded b/c "relevance unclear". I am deprodding and taking to AfD precisely because there is some significance, but it's not clear how much, and consensus is needed. This is a host of a real radio show on a station in Guelph, Ontario, which is not exactly a primary market. It's a once-weekly show and runs from midnight to 2AM. That's as bad as a radio slot gets. Yet I am not sure if we should be deleting this article for a bona fide radio host. No vote - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• • My vote is Move to Free Cheese and redo as article about radio show, which is an article all will find acceptable, I think. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Thanks, TBC - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I would be ok with this move, as long as it avoids the same problems that the Andrew Patterson article had. Namely, it still needs to be shown that the radio show has some significance. To bring up the example I used below, I think everyone would agree with me that a random college DJ isn't notable. To expand it to the idea of a Free Cheese article, it wouldn't make the college DJ any more notable if he got a partner and named his timeslot.Warhorus 02:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, it's a verifiable radio show on a real commercial radio station. I don't think that's deletable, as we're not paper, etc. etc. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As someone whom works part time in radio, I know how grueling it can be and how exciting it can be to be recognized. But, this hardly seems notable. It seems cruel, but he doesn't warrant a page yet. Yanksox 01:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete based on information included in article. Just because he is a radio host doesn't make him notable. Perhaps if some information can be further gathered that shows that there is something that makes him stand out as a notable subject? Unusual fanbase? Record high ratings? Notable charity work? Anything? As it stands, he isn't any more notable than the kid spinning tunes at his college radio station, except he gets paid.Warhorus 01:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I wanna see an article on his radio show "Free Cheese" first, and prove that the show is notable before creating this one. -EdGl 01:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Perfect. That is the answer. After this AfD, no matter the result, I will include this info in Free Cheese. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable person. Don't move to Free Cheese, which was already deleted as vanity and non-notable [6]--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Good call. Even stronger reason why this should be deleted. I guess the Crazy Russian has to alter his decision. -EdGl 02:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --JChap 03:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 09:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't pass any of the WP:BIO criteria. Kevin 10:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete misses WP:Bio by a little too much Crazynas 12:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Homey 18:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of teams sponsored by Nike

I believe this list violates policy. See this similar AfD and this one also. Pretty much listcruft. EdGl 01:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 01:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If we're throwing out Adidas, we've got to throw out Nike too. --JChap 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 09:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per (soon to be) precedent Ydam 10:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kevin 10:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crazynas 12:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, another useless list. JIP | Talk 15:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. --Andy123 ^candy? 15:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looks too much like an advert. Athenaeum 17:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete useless listcruft. Arkyan 21:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Guinnog 23:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. :) Dlohcierekim 13:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No place in an encyclopdia for this. lowercase 18:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. [Question: can anyone vote here? If so I want to] Anyway if you actually read the policy that you say this list violates, and I quote:

1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). You may want to consider contributing FAQ lists to Wikibooks.
2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference.

Then we should all notice that however pointless or not that this list may be, it most certainly doesn't violate the above policy. The list isn't useful to me, but would be to someone wanting to know about Nike. aLii 23:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment. You need to read the paragraph above that on WP:NOT. It says, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia...". (emphasis added). Bottom line, this list (and the other lists I put on afd) violates policy. Be careful to read all of a policy before making a judgement call. -EdGl 22:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Pretty much every article on wikipedia could be argued to breach that, if you were so inclined. The policy is very specific about what kind of lists shouldn't be allowed, and as we are talking about a list, that's what I quoted. This list should stay. aLii 08:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The specifics in this section of policy you're talking about are merely instances where the community has already made a consensus. There is no consensus yet for the issue right here in this afd, which we are trying to make right now! :-) The argument I'm trying to make wouldn't work on "pretty much every article on wikipedia", but it sure is working on this one... EdGl 20:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not just another list, it is definitive and informative. It answers the question "Which teams, clubs, countries are sponsored by Nike?" I question whether it is notable but I have seen many lists that beggar the same question which are kept. -- Alias Flood 01:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This list is informative and many other lists that are similiar to this are being kept in Wikipedia. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. DS 18:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yemen at the 2006 Commonwealth Games

Yemen does not compete at the Commonwealth Games. Mohammed Nasir represented Wales, as he is Welsh (well, from Newport, so he's Monmouthshirese). The reason, I suspect, that the article asserts that Nasir represented Yemen is that he is of Yemeni ancestry. Of course, he was part of the Welsh team, won a bronze medal for Wales, and doesn’t represent Yemen any more than Sol Campbell represents Jamaica at football. Bastin8 01:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - but make the above point within the text of the article. - Richardcavell 01:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yemen doesn't compete at the Commonwealth Games; such articles are organised by the countries that compete, not the ancestries of the competitors. Because of that, there is categorically no possibility for expansion of this page beyond the sentence "Mohammed Nasir, who competed for Wales in the 48kg event, is of Yemeni ancestry". Ziggurat 01:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into 2006 Commonwealth Games and delete. --EdGl 01:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pointless article Bwithh 02:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, pet Ziggurat. After all, would we have to make a People's Republic of China in the United States Academic Decathlon article if one of the participating students is Chinese?--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bastin8 and Ziggurat. --Metropolitan90 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge. --JChap 03:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 06:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article title suggests something that is not true. Nothing in the text can fix that. Kevin 10:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – article is unnecessary – Gurch 11:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC --Andy123 ^candy? 15:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article is a non sequitur HighInBC 16:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clearly. feydey 17:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 05:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mehmet Ali Neyzi

Not notable; vanity article combined with ad for company JChap 01:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per above reasoning.Warhorus 01:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Detete vanity. EdGl 01:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:BIO, non-notable person from a non-notable company--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 03:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanity. --Terence Ong 09:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Although this looks non-notable at first, he seems to have some media coverage in Turkey ([7] [8] [9]). One of these suggest he is also the chairman of the Turkey-Iraq Business Council and vice president of Turk Trade. I think this one passes WP:BIO, just needs cleaning up and expanding. Kevin 10:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crazynas 12:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Andy123 ^candy? 15:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't know about the person, but the company is definitely extremely notable in Turkey, selling about 1 million ton LPG per year, and everyone there knows its founder, the late Vehbi Koç, as well as his son Rahmi Koç, who is the current chairman of the board of directors of Aygaz. Aygaz also has significant international activities. But what I don't know is if CEO's of notable companies are ipso facto also notable. --Lambiam^Talk 01:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  For comparison, the annual revenue of Aygaz[10] in 2005 was about 40% higher than that of Texaco[11]. --Lambiam^Talk 02:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 05:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Quest Monsters I & II

Article refers to the games already covered by the article Dragon Quest Monsters. As such it is a redundant article, and since it includes no information not already covered in the other article it should just be deleted. Warhorus 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete near empty duplicate article, and redirect to Dragon Quest Monsters. Ziggurat 01:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only is it a duplicate article, Square Enix has postponed the game since 2000 [12] and has not anounced anything about it for six years, thus one can assume that the game has most likely been canceled.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 03:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 06:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate. --Terence Ong 09:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an article about nothing. Kevin 10:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – duplicate article – Gurch 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete duplication Crazynas 12:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Dragon Quest Monsters. JIP | Talk 15:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. The article is redunant. --Andy123 ^candy? 15:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wryspy 21:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Do not keep, article redirected/merged with Rudy Colombini. Homey 19:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fitzgerald Hotel

No vote yet. Prod was "Hotel's main claim to notability seems to be that it's owned by a semi-notable musician. Article might be ok in a travel guide but not encyclopedic." Sounds like a decent claim. Sounds like a prominent location. Consensus is richly deserved. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Rudy Colombini unless there's a good reason I'm missing why it should be a separate article. Ziggurat 01:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the article seems unnotable, and as such falls under WP:NOT's policy on travel guides. However, I agree with Ziggurat that the information should be included in Rudy Colombini's article.Warhorus 01:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Rudy Colombini like Ziggurat said, and/or merge into Union Square (San Francisco). --EdGl 02:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising abuse of Wikipedia Bwithh 02:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above to either Union Square, San Francisco, California or Rudy Colombini--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 03:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant ad abuse. --JChap 03:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/merge (from Prod nominator): The hotel is already mentioned in Rudy Colombini so I prodded this article (and Nob Hill Hotel), but if there's more info in it worth merging, that's fine. I believe this article to basically be advertising because of (among other things) the mention of the Fitzgerald and Nob Hill hotels in this revision of the Nob Hill article under "History and significance". That section plugged both of these hotels even though neither one of them is actually in Nob Hill (the so-called Nob Hill hotel is actually in the Tenderloin, though not in the slummy part of it). It also describes them as a fancy hotels in the same sentence as the Fairmont and Huntingdon, though they're not comparable at all, at least in size. Phr (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect If it's already mentioned in the Rudy Colombini bio, and there's an off chance that someone may look for it, why not just send them to Rudy Colombini instead? It's not notable enough on its own, but it might help someone to find more information. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. --Terence Ong 09:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rudy Colombini - all relevant info is already there. Kevin 10:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Ziggurat Crazynas 12:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Ditto --Andy123 ^candy? 14:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect I don't see anything worth merging. --InShaneee 19:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment article originally created by User:66.47.253.226, an IP that resolves to the street address of the Nob Hill Hotel. More info at Talk:Rudy Colombini. Phr (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Transwiki to simple:Global warming and delete . Ezeu 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming/Global warming (simplified)

This page was an experiment in writing a less technical version of global warming, but it has been largely abandoned. Rather than have it linger as a target for vandalism, I think it is better to delete it, but I decided to bring it here in case someone wants to make an argument for keeping it. Dragons flight 01:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've contacted the primary editors, User:William M. Connolley and User:NHSavage, to see if they want to hang on to this; it's probably best to transwiki into user space if they do. Ziggurat 02:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Development of simple:Global warming would possibly be the better choice for a simplified version. Шизомби 02:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, and/or move it to a subpage if User:William M. Connolley feels like keeping it.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete William M. Connolley 08:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 09:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to simple per Шизомби. --Pak21 09:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete I'm not sure we should be having simplified versions of articles at seperate names anyway. If artciles like this seem necerserry then surely it means that the original is too complex for wiki readers and needs improvement itself Ydam 10:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kevin 10:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• tw per Pak21 Crazynas 12:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Andy123 ^candy? 15:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to English (simplified) Wikipedia. Armedblowfish 16:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete as per above. --InShaneee 19:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the Simple English Wikipedia --tghe-retford 21:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not very familiar with simple.wp despite having mentions it - I think this article may not be simple enough for it. Whether that's their problem, or if it should be transwikied to a sandbox subpage there, I don't know. Шизомби 22:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Simple English or userspace per above suggestions. It's a decent article. --Starionwolf 22:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Guinnog 23:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to simple English sounds as a good idea. -- Heptor _talk 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Simple English --Aldux 20:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Merge and Redirect to X-Men Evolution. --Ezeu 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-Men Evolution Comic

Information of this comic is already contained in the X-Men Evolution page. Electricbolt 02:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• In addition to its info already being explained in another article, the composition of it is atrocious. I vote to Delete. Eric 02:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Warhorus 02:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as duplicate per nom but leave as a redirect to X-Men Evolution to discourage recreation. 23skidoo 03:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, move to X-Men Evolution (comic), and expand/cleanup. The subject seems to merit it's own article, as comics based off other forms of media tend to differ in storyline, character development, and possibly character design than the original work.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 03:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It was just created yesterday, and has the potential to become better. If it really bothers you, move it to the creator's userspace for improvement. Armedblowfish 03:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - Merge with X-Men Evolution. Havok (T/C/c) 07:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to X-Men Evolution (comic). --Terence Ong 09:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed my vote to merge and delete to X-Men Evolution. --Terence Ong 09:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to X-Men Evolution. When it becomes too long for that page it can warrant it's own article but until then M + R it Ydam 10:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the X-Men: Evolution content is much better, and not really expandable seeing as it was quickly cancelled. Kevin 10:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to X-Men Evolution.
• Merge and redirect per above. --InShaneee 19:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per others --Bucephalus 20:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete The article contains duplicate information in X-Men Evolution. --Starionwolf 22:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect Also clean up - the article's structure is very weak. TBC has a good point about noting the differences between the animated and comic book forms of X-Men: Evolution. - CNichols 23:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 05:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soxtalk

Seems to just be promotional. There is no notability established. Delete Yanksox 02:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--JChap 02:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 03:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:WEB; Alexa traffic ranking is 46, 296 [13].--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 03:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 06:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Has more links than content. Kevin 10:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertosing, spam. --Terence Ong 13:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 15:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Andy123 ^candy? 15:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Guinnog 23:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not the lowest alexa ranking I've seen (about 46,000), but still nn. Grandmasterka 00:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 05:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tranquillity Park

Previously marked for speedy deletion, but I would like to see if other users can help me find references that this stadium was indeed the previous home of Maidstone United F.C.. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, most likely a hoax as well since I can't find a single relevant result on Google (excluding Wikipedia mirrors)[14]--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 03:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per TBC. Ande B 05:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete probably a hoax. Kevin 10:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – as non-notable and probably a hoax – Gurch 11:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, nn, hoax. --Terence Ong 13:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, probably a hoax. --Andy123 ^candy? 15:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I couldn't find any pages about the park or stadium. I found some pages about Netherton United. --Starionwolf 22:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spot Color vs. Process Color

Original research and not an encyclopedic topic. Metros232 02:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. We have articles on both Spot color and Process color. Wikipedia isn't for howtos. Dr Zak 03:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Not very good now, and may have some original research, but ther eis no real reason this is not an encyclopedic topic. Bryce 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like advice, not encyclopedia entry; original research unsourced. --JChap 03:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as it is both a violation of WP:OR and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 03:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see any original research or indiscriminate collection of information. Could you point out which things you'd place in that category? Fg2 07:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this is a valid topic but, if someone wants to write a real article, we're losing nothing in starting from scratch. definitely WP:OR at the moment - Peripitus 03:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unencyclopedic, unsourced, original research, adds nothing to already existing articles on Spot color and Process color. A badly drafted, chatty "how-to" that violates WP "No tutorials or how-to's" policy. Ande B 05:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unreferenced OR. We shouldn't ever have this type of article, unless someone writes a book or journal article specifically to compare these two things. Kevin 10:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Bryce Crazynas 12:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to/advice site. --FuriousFreddy 14:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, unencyclopedic, unsourced. --Terence Ong 14:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• When did you look at it? I added external links at 13:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC). My vote is keep because I improved it a bit (made it a bit less conversational, added some external links, etc.) I also added links to it from other articles on the subject so that someone who is familiar with the subject might improve it. Armedblowfish 16:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, not unencyclopedic and can develop. We need to give it some time. --Andy123 ^candy? 15:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete This is not an encyclopedic subject, but the information therein could be rescued and moved to appropriate articles. HighInBC 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Reyk _YO! 20:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Guinnog 23:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Nobody who voted "delete" has pointed out any statement in the article that constitutes original research; the article is presently free of original research. Some people pointed out lack of citations; this has now been taken care of. What we have now is an article on an encyclopedic subject, containing references, and free of original research. Keep. Fg2 00:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A page comparing two things that already have their own pages is unnecessary. Zaxem 01:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 No consensus Computerjoe's talk 20:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laughter Yoga

Adversisment for a school of yoga, no notability demonstrated. Delete--Peta 02:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Obvious original research: "...we all follow the same basic structure..." --JChap 03:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's a copyvio from [15]. The subject, however, is entirely appropriate for a Wikipedia article; there's heaps of verifiable media coverage. Ziggurat 03:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten version. Ziggurat 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean-up. Only the introduction (which I've removed) seems to be a copyvio, though please corrent me if I'm wrong--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 03:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm guessing that the rest is taken from a print source (Part 2?), although I could be wrong on that. In any case, WP:NOT an instruction manual, so it'd be easier to scrub this entirely and start over. Ziggurat 03:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

*Delete Unsourced, POV, & OR. This is a poorly drafted "how to" that fails WP rules for inclusion. It's so badly written I don't suggest it be sent to Wikihow. Ande B 05:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Change to Keep new version of article. Still needs a lot of work but is now legit topic. Copy vio & tutorials have been removed. Ande B. 22:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Ziggurat. It's definately a candidate for a properly written article. Kevin 10:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ande B Crazynas 12:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising, nn. --Terence Ong 14:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral/Comment Rather strange, but some instructors on Laughter Yoga came to my school back in September. Anyway, that's not a reason to keep it; I think it merits an article but this once is so bad it might as well be deleted and rewritten, as per Ziggurat. --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 15:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ziggurat. --Andy123 ^candy? 16:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep this is all verifiable data: please visit http://www.laughteryoga.org/ for more information. An international directory of Laughter Clubs is posted there - all with contact name, tel. and emails - as well as many videos and worldwide media coverage on this method. I have rewritten this entry and shorten it to a basic definition. There is something UNIQUE about Laughter Yoga, in that it is a method where you laugh for no reason (no reason = no mind = no ego, no power-struggle, no past (guilt) and no future (worry). It brings you easily into the "here and now" where only equilibrium exists and tension gets released without the need to verbalize). ALSO this is a grassroots wordlwide social movement (please visit the website for valid proof). I would be very happy to expand this entry again in a way acceptable to WP. There is a great value in this for the common good, yet obviously you may say I have a partial viewpoint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgendry (talk • contribs) .

Comment: Content of article has changed It may be verifiable but at the time of nomination was a poorly written how-to; tutorials and how-to's are not suitable for WP inclusion. The article has changed since that time with the removal of a great deal of copyright vio and instructional material. It is still POV. People may want to take another look at this new version. Ande B 19:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, noting changed content. Still perhaps needs a bit of rewriting to bring in line, but certainly worthy of entry. Seb Patrick 08:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, known therapeutic method. --Shuki 20:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reading spark plugs for racing

Was kept before under Wikipedia:How-to, however that is no longer in effect, having been made redundant by WP:NOT. Delete. -- SonicAD (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• BTW, here are links to the two previous deletion debates: 1, 2-- SonicAD (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep If you want to move this somewhere better (Is there an automotive wikibook?), that's fine; but frankly you should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking about deleting this much quality work by one or more people. Disk space is cheep, human effort isn't. Bryce 03:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a racing fan, and I like this, but, well, it's in the rules, I'm just following them.-- SonicAD (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as per SonicAD's nomination. Wikipedia is an attempt at an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for all kinds of information - whether its "quality work" or not shouldn't come into this consideration. And incidentally, there's no guarantee that this is quality work Bwithh 03:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, per nom. As mentioned by Sonic AD, the decision of the original AfD's was keep becuase (as quoted from Uncle G) "although some do not like how-tos in Wikipedia (which would have astonished Diderot), there is no policy against them". This however has changed in recent months, and now articles are considered a violation of the WP:NOT policy--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 03:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Fails WP policy of no tutorials or how-to's. Direct authors to Wikihow, where how-to's are being developed. (sorry, forgot to sign this before: Ande B 05:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC))
• Delete per above. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 06:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kevin 11:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Crazynas 12:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide, per nom. --Terence Ong 14:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move or Transwiki Not exactly in the right place, but it could be put in a talk page or userpage. It should at least be preserved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flyne (talk • contribs) .
• Delete per nom; I can't imagine that there's anything in the article that is (a) sufficiently encyclopedic and (b) not already covered in other articles, such that merge and redirect isn't appropriate. Joe 23:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep: This issue has been discussed twice before. While the article is written as a 'how-to', the subject matter itself is not a "how-to". While Wikipedia wouldn't have an article on "how to do brain surgery", "brain surgery" is a valid article. The opening paragraphs are a valid description of the subject. If people object to the rest of the article, that should be discussed on the talk page of the article. SimonP's comment at the last AfD was the best: "just make sure it is descriptive rather than prescriptive". I would agree to a "cleanup" tag on the article referencing these issues but not an outright deletion. Samw 00:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sam makes a strong keep argument, but I wonder whether the treatment already accorded at Spark plug#Reading spark plugs is sufficiently encyclopedic and appropriately descriptive (though it, to be sure, needs cleanup as well); I don't know that the section is sufficiently large/distinct to merit its own article. In any event, I think fairer analogies would be betwixt the Spark plug and Brain surgery articles and between this article and Brain surgery techniques, which, even if written consistent with Wikipedia is not a how-to guide", we'd still likely delete in view of its being overly specific (we'd merge, I think, any encyclopedic information to a broader article, such as Neurosurgery or even a section of Surgery, and I don't think anyone would object to merging here, although I supported delete in view of my conclusion that there was nothing to merge). Joe 03:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The nomination for AfD is predicated on the article being a "how-to" and thus doesn't belong. Has the issue now shifted to the "notability" of the subject? I'm not aware of any notability guidelines for technical subjects. Any verifiable technical subject is fair game AFAIK. See Voigt notation; that must be much more obscure than this topic. I cite that simply because I contributed; I'm sure there are many technical subjects even more obscure. If the issue is that it's a how-to, my assertion is that while it may be partially written as such, the subject matter is not. Let's flag it for clean-up and rewrite it so that it is "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive". Samw 03:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Even as the nomination is in view of the article's quality as a how-to, we may nevertheless support deletion on other grounds. When I use non-notable here, I mean the term to mean that the information is exorbitantly trivial (or, as I said above, overly specific; cf., esoteric, where your Voigt notation adduction would be apt) and thus unencyclopedic (even if formulated other than as a how-to). Joe 19:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
        • So on the issue of notability, I strongly object to technical subjects being held to a "notability" criteria. Wikipedia is not paper. Until there is established consensus as to what is notable and what is not within each subject area, as many topics as possible should be covered. Top-hat shim has 13 Google hits. What is the notability criteria for automotive technologies? Samw 03:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There's an outdated version on wikibooks. Should just update that one and delete this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flyne (talk • contribs) .

• Strong Keep: If you want a clone of britanica why bother with wikipedia? Britanica (or encarta etc) doesnt have stuff like this, Wikipedia DOES. Seriously, Who needs wikipedia if all it has is the same inane "lowest common denominator" goop as all the commercial ones? You can be just like them or you can be special. To be just like them is to doom the experiment to failure and gives away the greatest point of strength wiki has, the ability to present RARE information. I think I need my own web page for this stuff.

As an asside to the above comment "there's no guarantee that this is quality work". True, just as there was no guarantee of the vericity of all the other crap I learned which proved NOT to be true (the GREAT BULK OF WHICH IS STILL OUT THERE)in gaining the knowledge and experience to write that article as it is now. Over 30 years of cutting edge racing research have allowed me to seperate the wheat from the chaff and give the verified work to others. The real test will be when someone tries it. I'm confidant!--=Motorhead 02:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to =Motorhead: You may have missed some of the discussions on this article. This article appears to already exist in Wikibooks. Another appropriate location would be Wikihow, which was specifically created for the purpose of gathering together instructional materials on one site, related to this one. Your worries are misplaced, as is your apparent anger. Deleting the material from Wikipedia does not remove it from the entire Wikiverse ;-) Ande B. 06:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, after updating the copy that (as Flyne points out) already exists on Wikibooks - there's no point in keeping the same content in two places, and - as a how-to - this really fits better on Wikibooks. If there's any general information on the practice of reading spark plugs that belongs in an encyclopedia, it should probably be merged to the Spark plug article. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per motorhead. Not a paper encyclopedia. :) Dlohcierekim 14:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Motorhead, this is great work. It has already been transwiki'd to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Reading_spark_plugs_for_racing. Fear not, your work is not going to dissapear!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 05:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Christian prophets

This is problematic and hinges very much on the definition of "prophet". If we take the doctrinal view that the purpose of the prophets was to announce Christ then the last prophet is John the Baptist. If on the other hand we define a prophet as a leader endowed with charismatic authority then St Peter and James the Just would be "early Christian prophets" as leaders of the Jerusalem congragation. Under that definition John the Baptist would be out of place. Finally, if a prophet is anyone who has received a message from God, then the list is quite endless; many people are mentioned in the New Testament by name that received a vision or a word from God.

These points have been raised on the talk page, there has been no reply, and I'm at a loss to say where one could take the article. Besides, we have an article on Early Christianity already. Dr Zak 03:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Early Christianity; there doesn't appear to be any accepted definition of the parameters of this topic, therefore it's an OR selection. Ziggurat 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Where to start? Article has no real context for prophets. If this could be established, possible weak keep. On the other hand, delete just to stop the penis waving on the talk page and redirect to Early Christianity or Church Fathers. The irony of religious wars never ceases to amaze me. --JChap 03:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The redirects don't really fit. No one denies that the persons listed on that page are notable figures in the early development of the Christian church. The problem is that the page is unreferenced; we don't know what definition of "prophet" was used and who considered the individuals mentioned there to be indeed prophets. Dr Zak 06:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unreferenced, strongly POV, dubious categorization, disputed though meager content, utterly useless, appears to be personal vehicle for rather problemed editor. Ande B 05:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment if it could be refferenced to Prophet#Christian_concepts_of_a_prophet, something might be able to be salvaged from it. Jcuk 09:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's been a week since the talk page promised citations, without it is OR to group these people together. Kevin 11:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crazynas 12:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork, no sources available, possible original research. --Terence Ong 14:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced OR. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Terence Ong. Grandmasterka 01:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reelin hypothesis of the development of schizophrenia

Original research. Google hits for "reelin hypothesis": 79. Google hits for '"reelin hypothesis" -answers.com -wikipedia -thefreedictionary -encyclopedian -websters-dictionary-online': 1, which is about autism, and wherein the phrase "reelin hypothesis" is split across a sentence boundary "...protein called reelin. Hypothesis about the involvement...". AFAICT, reelin is present in abnormal quantities in schizophrenics, but this article is 1,500 words long, and outside of the title the word "reelin" only appears twice. It seems to me to be a vehicle for the author's fringe views of the epidemiology of schizophrenia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moe Aboulkheir (talk • contribs)

• Delete, unreferenced. The article admits that it's original research. Dr Zak 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, original research plus only 1 goggle result. Stormscape 03:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unreferenced and even original research can be corrected in many cases but the entire article appears to be OR and it's a non notable hypothesis at that. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 03:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --JChap 03:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge relevant information to reelin, and delete the POV suppositions. There's certainly a topic here (see [16]), although it's not known under the name 'Reelin hypothesis'. Ziggurat 03:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unsourced, original research. This article has been in existence since 2002 and has yet to take on a credible form. However, there are 26,000 Google hits for the Reelin protein connection to schizophrenia so statements that it has only one Google hit are mistaken. Still, beacause of the utter absence of references, there is nothing here that could plausibly used in the Reelin article. Ande B 04:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  Question. Aren't there any usable references among these 26,000 Google hits? --Lambiam^Talk 11:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Reply There is technical information out there about the correlation between reelin levels and propensity toward schizophrenia but it has not apparently risen to the level of being an "hypothesis" as much as it is a speculation that warrants further investigation. I would think that this information would best be covered within the schizophrenia article but WP should not be designating something as a "hypothesis" when the scince / medical community has not already done so. ("Hypothesis" has a technical meaning within the scietific community.) I haven't done any research in this area, though, so you may come to a different conclusion if you sift through some of the materials out there. Ande B 19:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete a classic example of OR. Kevin 11:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced, original research. --Terence Ong 14:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced, OR. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. An unreferenced, OR question and answer session the author had with themselves. Grandmasterka 01:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article itself seems too strange. At first, i voted "merge", but I see nothing of much value to merge there. The article is way too "soupy". BTW. Yes, there are credible and duplicated scientific results showing that Reelin is low in the brains of SZ patients. I plan to include the data in the "Reelin" article (I explore the reelin/DAB1 cascade mechanisms and write two versions of "Reelin" article in parallel: in Russian and in English. For the Reelin's role in SZ, look out for Erminio Costa's scientific works, for example: http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15961543 --CopperKettle 12:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• P.S O.K. (0: I've included references to the postmortem studies of the schiz. brains (proving the link to reelin deficiency) in the Reelin article. Comments are welcomed. My language may have stylistical mistakes (I'm Russian), so proof is welcomed too. --CopperKettle 13:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge if there is anything of value anyone can extract from it, the article is poor, otherwise Delete. Talk of a reelin hypothesis is a little unusual but there is plenty of scientific basis for it (e.g.[17] which says "the morbidity risk of schizophrenia...may arise as a consequence of compromised RELN expression" - essentially stating a reelin hypothesis of schizophrenia), but would be better covered as part of the neurodevelopmental hypothesis. --Coroebus 10:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Flowerparty☀ 04:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bit-sieve

Not encyclopedic. This is an implementation of the Sieve of Eratosthenes with an extremely overbroad article title. Even if it is moved to Wikisource, it still doesn't deserve to have this article title as a redirect.

This nomination was made by Olathe at 03:08, May 29, 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. While it is interesting to me . . . It is a description of specific algorithm that is not general enough to be of interest in itself. (Why is the {{disputed}} tag still there? It isn't needed anymore) Shenme 05:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete – per above – Gurch 11:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. --Lambiam^Talk 11:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic, original research. --Terence Ong 14:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If this ever makes clear that this is the sieve of Eratosthenes, it's in the program (in a language I don't read). I see no point to keeping this; if there is an article to written here, better to start from scratch. Septentrionalis 18:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 15:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snaps (game)

I vote against deletion, favouring that it be marked as a stub and kept. It has a useful overview of the game, and only needs to be expanded --Vishahu 03:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This is a useful article. Spacepotato 08:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment This afd was created incorrectly by an anon. The afd template was added to the artcle but it was not listed and this was not created until the first vote by Vishahu. SandBoxer 02:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

keep Why delete a article on a game that people may play. Sometimes, it seems that the delete nominations are becoming just another form of nuisance vandalism, serving only destructive, negative purposes and wasting our editing time, not positive, building purposes of creating a good Wikipedia result. In addition, most every entry this IP address makes is vandalism, so why don't we just revert this Delete notice and stop playing with the vandals. Hmains 04:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Thanks

• Comment: The above remark appears to be a request for a speedy keep. I have no objection to this. Spacepotato 08:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public Transportation serving Winthrop, Mass.

This has no notability, it also appears to be an ad from the MBTA, this is not an encyclopedic entry. Yanksox 03:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --JChap 03:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete definitely nn. --Bill (who is cool!) 04:20, 29 May 2006
• Delete Not notable enough for inclusion Ydam 10:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Crazynas 12:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong 14:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 15:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup and strong keep. We need more articles on public transport.--Guinnog 23:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Not according to this[18], also this is more of a directory than something else, like the MBTA page. Yanksox 23:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw nothing of releveance in that policy to this article. Improve the article and keep it.

• Keep. Why does someone from the Boston area want to remove so many Boston pages? This entry gives information on the transportation in Winthrop, Massachusetts. Just because it lists prices does not necessarily constitute as an advertisement.

Comment When I need information on the T, I go to the T's website. This is not an encylopedic entry. Yanksox 03:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment It's not an ad for the T, and it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fg2 08:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Cite Sources Has an encyclopedic history section. Wikipedia is not paper. How an artcile with a history section going back to the 1880s can be called an ad for an organization (the MBTA) formed in the 1960s is beyond my understanding - the history starts 80 years before the organization. Furthermore, the MBTA doesn't provide this service, it only subsidizes it, and the article says this. The map and fares section should probably just be replaced with external links - but I wasn't quickly able to find the source of the data, so the article definitely needs source citations. GRBerry 01:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 01:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. DS 19:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruckusball

Prod removed, so bringing here. WP:NFT would be about right, I think; no Google hits (as the original prod suggested), no cites, nothing to indicate existence or notability. Tony Fox 03:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - one google hit and that's this article. Fails WP:V and is definiately WP:NFT - Peripitus 03:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax, not verifiable, non-existent sport. Ande B 04:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ande. —Khoikhoi 04:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As stated above, definately WP:NFT. exile-rate this and toss it in a 50-gallon bucket. Shenme 05:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NFT. --Terence Ong 14:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 as revised during discussion. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ONE Family Fund

Currently a thinly-disguised vanity article about Kady Goldlist, who does not appear to meet WP:NN standards. Marysunshine 03:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the vanity aspect is a result of a merge from a previous AfD (one that, in my opinion, should have resulted in the article being deleted instead). The information on Kady Goldlist should be removed, but the topic of the article seems to have quite a bit of press to back up its inclusion. Ziggurat 04:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete wow, that's a pretty sad trick to pull to cover what seems to be a vanity article. --Bill (who is cool!) 04:24, 29 May 2006

*Delete Vanity, not notable, seems to be gaming WP per Bill (who is cool!). Ande B 04:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Change "vote" to Keep new stub Newly rewritten "stub" article resolves prior complaints, provides basis for expansion. Ande B. 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete looks like vanity to me. —Khoikhoi 04:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment are you guys reading the comments? Vanity aspect the result of an inadvisable merge rather than an attempt to pull a trick or game the system, but the main topic (unrelated to Kady Goldlist) has merit. Ziggurat 06:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply I actually did read the comment about the previous merge and don't know what to make of the rather odd decision to put this vanity piece into an otherwise contentless article about an organization. Perhaps a delete without prejudice to recreate the page when and if an actual article about the organization is drafted. But this, along with its odd history, should just be gotten rid of and let future editors have a clean start if they want to give it another try. At least, that's my two bits (and it may not be worth even that ;-) Ande B 07:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse my comment - I was just a touch irked at what I thought was an unfair representation of whoever wrote the original article's intentions (I doubt they promoted the merge themselves, that is). In any case, I'd be happy with a clean start seeing as the original article was so very small. Ziggurat 07:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You needn't apologize to me (though I can't speak for others). If my comments don't make my reasoning clear, then I need to make sure they do. Otherwise I'm wasting my own and other people's time. Ande B 08:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Nonnotable, vanity Bwithh 07:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanity. --Terence Ong 15:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

*Delete. One sentence and some info about a nn person? Yeah. --UsaSatsui 22:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Keep. The revision helps. --UsaSatsui 00:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

*Since the ONE Family Fund article is not about the ONE Family Fund, delete. If you delete the Kady Goldlist section, it would leave the article with one sentence, and as I often write in these AfD's, one sentence does not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per B.Wind. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Rewrite addressed problems; reasonably notable. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 05:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I have deleted the vanity paragraph and put in a bit more information about the group. This is a significant charity that has been in the news a good deal. -- Mwalcoff 23:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my "vote" per Mwalcoff. It's now a worthwhile stub that asserts notability. I'm looking forward to the time that this gets fleshed out. Keep stub as it is now edited. B.Wind 23:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Sango123 20:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin and Growth of the English Bible

Not an article. Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete This asci mess needs to be removed pronto. There is nothing here and no prospect of it being turned into a legitimate article. There are plenty of Bible related pages, this one is less than useful. Ande B 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as per Ande B --Bill (who is cool!) 05:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to English translations of the Bible. Some editors apparently believe it to be useful. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but not immediately... maybe someone can make use of this and convert it into a graphic under GFDL? ~Kylu (u|t) 06:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I like the Bible, but this article is junk. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 07:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with English translations of the Bible or Bible. It might help to turn this into writing first, though.
• Merge with English translations of the Bible, preferably in the form of graphics. Useful material in that context, but not suitable as a standalone article. -- On second thought, if it's to be turned into graphics, how are we technically going to preserve the useful links within the graph? Any ideas on how to solve that? They are eminently useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete But stick the ascii onto a talk page somewhere. --Clawed 11:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Ande B Crazynas 12:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Ande B Crazynas 12:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Excuse me, but exactly which criterion for speedy deletion do you think this page falls under? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Question. Is this original research? I see no references. --Lambiam^Talk 13:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Valid point, but there seems to be quite a bit of documentation in the linked articles on the individual versions, including what translations were based on which others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge - A non-ASCII version of this should be used as an illustration in a real article, not as a separate one. -- Hirudo 14:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete SM247 03:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 15:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a repository for ASCII art. Maybe merge the information into Bible. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I learned something new today - there's a category called "Articles with ASCII art"? Anyway, take a look at the graph ... it doesn't seem to be entirely accurate. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls are just as ancient as the other ancient copies - we just didn't have them available until recently. Also, I'm not entirely certain that the NKJV and NASB really belong in the same column as ASV/RSV/NRSV. NKJV and NASB are really a separte fork. At any rate, an ASCII art map of Bible history probably isn't that helpful. BigDT 19:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is of dubious quality as BigDT points out. If someone wants to make this into a graphic, I suspect it would be better to start from scratch. Grandmasterka 01:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - also, according to our own article on The Living Bible, it is a paraphrase based on the ASV. (I'll take our word for it - I know nothing about TLB.) So it should be with the ASV, not out with The Bible formerly known as TEV, NIV, and NLT ... not that NLT, NIV, and GNT/TEV are in any way, shape, or form related to each other to begin with. BigDT 01:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Omigod, I'm back on Usenet in the early 1990s again! Bad ASCII art, not an article at all. KleenupKrew 23:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Naconkantari 02:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diplobrat

Delete non notable neologism and origional research violates WP:NEO and WP:NOR. Also violates WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY.Strothra 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete slang dicdef neologism Ande B 05:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 13:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, original research, unverifiable. --Terence Ong 15:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 15:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete I've heard of it, but see Terence Ong's comments above. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki parts to wiktionary. There are sources for usage of this term, see [19], [20] (third paragraph, second section,) [21] (ninth paragraph) and [22], among others. I think it is a valid dicdef but probably not a full article. Grandmasterka 01:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 05:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - i've added some examples in use...but this is getting out of hand - i can't verify all this American stuff, but i'm working on it. Poss transwiki. Pydos 09:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, already userfied. Sango123 20:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Poe

Vanity, laughable insignificance. To allow this page would be to set a precedent allowing all humans the right to a page. Adambiswanger1 05:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy to User:Frankpoe. As quoted from the article "Poe recently became well known in New Zealand when he won a $500 raffle run by the Wellington Boy Scouts Brigade. Poe received nationwide media attention, and was interviewed on Campbell Live by well respected journalist and liberal, John Campbell". National media coverage for winning only $500 at a lottery? The article also claims that "according to legend, he purchased an ice-cream from the local store. The ice-cream stick is currently on display in a framed cabinet in the local tavern." Laughable vanity, possibly add to BJAODN.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Yes Userfy. Actually the NZ contingent should pile on at the slight from "received nationwide media attention." (BTW: I fixed the {{userfy}} tag at User talk:Frankpoe)
• explain to me why this man should not have his own wiki when yours is exactly the same thing. you've just had more time to create yours thats all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.181.7.1 (talk • contribs)
• Frank: You have created a Wikipedia article. You might want to consider creating a User Page, which is not part of the encyclopedia, but is a place where you can write whatever you want about yourself. See User pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambiswanger1 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 13:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete possible speedy. A search of an Australia New Zealand media database came up with nil stories indicating that his $500 win in the boy scouts raffle did not in fact attract national interest in New Zealand. There are no other claims on the page indicating or claiming notability nor is it verifiable through third party sources.

Capitalistroadster 13:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - Vanity page of a non-notable person. JoJan 17:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 13:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)"
• Speedy delete. This is not vanity, this is nonsense. No painting at Te Papa would sell for $60. No winner of a raffle gets nationwide press coverage (although the raffle organisers may be obliged to place an advertisement announcing the winner).-gadfium 19:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:Frankpoe --Zoz (t) 21:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Uservy OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Db-bio - but the ice cream thing made me laugh BigDT 22:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy Brian | (Talk) 22:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:Frankpoe. --Starionwolf 23:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per most. It's kinda funny, and it should be preserved. Grandmasterka 01:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy r2b2 02:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. There is no reason to bring an article to AfD when it will make a good redirect and a redirect will be necessary if any content is merged to preserve attribution anyway. -- Kjkolb 20:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SuperGT

My reason for deletion is, there is already a page on this series called Super GT which is what the series really called. The former series JGTC and Japanese Grand Touring Championship all leads to All Japan Grand Touring Car Championship. As I am now in the process of moving all the articles to the former page, if not this page is nothing but a duplicate of the aforementioned page, therefore I nominated it as DELETE.

Willirennen 15.20 27 April 2006 (utc)

Comment: The original nominator appears not to have correctly listed the article for deletion. I have rectified this. I think.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect SuperGT to Super GT --☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per TBC. --EdGl 16:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no consensus Proto||type 09:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] London Psychogeographical Association

Delete I considered ((db-group)) but decided against in light of the long history. What is this about? A fictional association? This would be downright funny if it wasn't so sad. CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This seems to be a fairly common term on Google, but I cannot decipher its true identity. It seems to be a widespread inside joke, with the humor being the plausibility of the name and ever-elusive true identity of the fictional association to outsiders. I could be completely wrong, but my web travels lead me to believe this. Perhaps if the term reaches a certain degree of prevalence, a true article could be created, but for now, kiss it goodbye. Adambiswanger1 05:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ande B 05:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I can see references reported from [23] Goal, British sports magazine, issue of August 1996, as an exhibitor at anarchist bookfair, Conway Hall, 1995 .They're referred to as non-existent but highly influential . Very line ball but the clincher is that they are claimed not to exist. - Peripitus 06:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  Non-existent does not imply non-notable; see Unicorn and Perfection. --Lambiam^Talk 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Deosn't seem to be notable. DarthVader 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn organisation. --Terence Ong 15:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• No idea. The french version of the article seems to say it was a real organization that became part of Situationist International, for your information. I don't know if that's right and this is a farce, or they're both wrong. The SI article here claims the same thing, though. Grandmasterka 01:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - lots on google and an entry is clearly needed - i agree the subject is very difficult to understand, but maybe we need to improve the entry rather than delete it! Paki.tv 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - lots of google entries and this is where Psychogeography originated. The dfact taht people find its "true identity to be problematic, shows an understanding i.e. see http://www.lutherblissett.net/archive/283_en.htmlhttp://www.lutherblissett.net/archive/283_en.html
• Keep They are a real situationist organisation in London - I've come across them offline. Secretlondon 12:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article may need work but whatever the LPA is/isn't/is said to be, it's widely-enough referred to to merit an entry. Dogville 22:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 01:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment for this article to survive, it MUST clearly explain what the LPA is. I would appreciate anyone familiar with it to do this. Adambiswanger1 01:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I tried -- please see redrafted article (rush morning job), which tries to explain why it's a difficult one to write. Dogville 07:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

{

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 restore redirect after disregarding several sock/meatpuppet votes. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yacht rock

I'm nominating this article (and related categories and templates) for deletion: see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and Wikipedia:No original research. Also see especially Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Reliable sources for neologisms for Wikipedia's position on avoiding new phrases that have no independent explanation in established research. Perhaps some of the explanation of this topic can be moved to Yacht Rock (show), although it appears the show itself may not meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (web). So that you can see how I arrived at this: I started looking for how notable "marina rock" was, and it turns out that searching for "marina rock" doesn't even show the phrase itself in normal use until positions 36 and 37 on Google. (This itself is a strong hint that it doesn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, in my opinion.) #36 is a MySpace user profile. #37 - "Marina Rock finally mentioned, still no credit to Jimmy." is where it starts to get interesting. The article is about how these terms were starting to get mainstream coverage. Note the topic. Now that post links to this article: "Talk Talk: J.D. Ryznar", Seattle Weekly, 2005-12-07. First words in the interview from J.D. Ryznar, the producer of Yacht Rock (emphasis mine):

J.D. Ryznar: I've always fantasized about what it was like being guys making music back then—certainly a freer time, and the boats looked like they were fun to be on. I came up with the term "yacht rock," but Hunter [Stair], who plays Kenny Loggins, and Dave Lyons, who plays [soft-rock impresario] Koko, have their own term: "Marina rock," as in Marina del Ray [where Yacht Rock takes place]. So we compromised: Yacht rock had to do with the more elite studio artists.

That is the creator of the show saying explicitly that "yacht rock" and "marina rock" were intentionally coined phrases for the show. So now that one knows that its a neologism, one looks for independent research to see if it's widespread or at least has independent research somewhere else. I can't find any independent research. This article appears to be original research in the Wikipedia sense of the term, which is a no-no. If it is not original, then, lacking any independent sources, it appears to be speculation, which is an even bigger no-no. In addition, nearly all mentions of the terms "yacht rock" and "marina rock" on Wikipedia come from an edit streak in the last 48 hours by a User:Fernandobouregard, including creation of "yacht rock" categories. --Closeapple 05:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they will be unused if this article is deleted:

• Template:Yacht rock

--Closeapple 06:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So, with that:

• Delete - possibly "introduces original ideas" or "defines new terms" (WP:NOR); certainly "introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source" (WP:NOR); and has not "been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories" (WP:NOR). --Closeapple 05:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete - Per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambiswanger1 (talk • contribs)
• Delete WP:NOR per Closeapple Crazynas 12:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete delete also Category:Yacht rock albums --Emc² (CONTACT ME) 13:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 15:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore to previous version and redirect Yacht Rock (show) here. This article was fine when it contained both concepts, and I previously argued against the separation. The term on its own is not necessarily notable as far as the music is concerned on its own, but the two combined makes for a fully appropriate article. "Yacht rock" is definitely notable, as demonstrated through Google results (and news articles), but the term itself has everything to do with the show. -- ChrisB 16:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restored/Redirect Per ChrisB. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Radiozilla 02:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and redirect, per ChrisB. TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 18:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and you people really need to get a life. It's pathetic that people waste time trying to delete a page on Wikipedia. Grow up. Aaronproot

And you wasted time voting for a keep for what reason?Damiancorrigan 11:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - revise to standards. Lordwow 02:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Keep Keep How else can you summarize the smooth grooves and beautiful vocals from the late 1970s? Must we always suffer at the hands of rockin' beats and primal screams!?! SAVE YACHT ROCK --- KEEP THE FIRE! lml6 08:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per original reasons. Tychocat 13:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with either a redirect (and mention) on soft rock, or redirect to the show. Damiancorrigan 11:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, It is relevent. Hollywood Steve is a credible source. --Psycho78m 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep granted it's a new word, but it sums up that particular soft rock sound perfectly.--elisaparish 22.03 1 June 2006
• Keep because even though it's a new word, it aptly summarizes a specific genre & time period of music.--Theoreticalgirl 15.203 2 June 2006
• Keep - perhaps a neologism, but it does vividly sum up a recognizable genre of music, for which no other popular name exists. Furthermore, the article does offer a concise and factually solid introduction to the genre - it isn't just a plug for the show or its inside jokes, and even as a fan of the show I actually learned things here. I would say the "marina rock" discussion should go, though, since it rambles considerably and seems to definitely belong to the inside joke category. Keep the reference to the ancient Usenet use of "Yacht Rock" in reference to Jimmy Buffett, though. If anything this article could stand to be a little more elaborate, perhaps with some quotes from old reviews to give a context to the "critically despised" theme. Robotsarered 04:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• restore/redirect/(re)merge and wait to see if the term extends beyond the show. I cannot agree with those wishing to delete for a couple of reasons. First, the term is the name of the show, so in the very least it deserves a (re)merge, redirect, or restore but not a delete. Second, the term is defined by various sources (granted, in the context of the show) such as SFWeekly, InsideNOVA and the host Steve Huey, a contributor for allMusic. Deletion would be an overzealous reaction, and would make it harder for someone searching for an understanding of the term "Yacht Rock". Ektar 17:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep/restore/redirect/(re)merge --Jdryznar 19:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC) here are links to articles mentioning the term Yacht Rock out of the context of the show: New York Times, March 9, 2006, IGN Music, May 30, 2006, Los Angeles Times, May 27, 2006, Eye Weekly, Toronto, Canada, May 25, 2006, Entertainment Weekly, May 23, 2006, Entertainment Weekly, May 19, 2006. More mentions are popping up on major blogs and papers weekly. note: I am the creator of the show, which I do not make for profit. I have nothing to do with this Wikipedia entry for the show or the term. The entry popped up months ago, created by an unknown author, and I keep tabs on it to help make sure all the facts are accurate. Whether this hurts or helps the argument, the fact is, the term is out there now in the cultural lexicon, and people need a place to go to find out what it means. This Wikipedia entry is satisfactory in the definition of the term. If this is a "neologism" and breaks the rules of Wikipedia, at the very least a breif definition of the term should be redirected to the entry about the internet show, which, for the record, closeapple, has been rightfully and easily cleared of the notablility concern. Hopefully the links I've provided can help you editors begin to filter out the original research and clean up the entry to closeapple's satisfaction. And save the fact that Yacht Rock is a new term, these links (as well as the fact the internet show has been written up by Reuters, AP, Spin, Entertainment Weekly, Newsweek, and the LA Times) certainly disprove the arguments for deletion at the top of the list.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Legacy of the Home Run

No hits for this on Google, original research JChap 05:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Going, going, GONE Adambiswanger1 05:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. nn OR Possible prank. Ande B 05:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. OR. Fouled out. (But I'm going to remember this for awhile - is there someplace to keep these trophies? I mean, wot a pitch!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenme (talk • contribs)
  • This ones headed for the BJAODN Hall of Fame -- GWO
• Delete This one's outta here! --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 06:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. OR violation. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 07:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 15:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• no prank(What are the statistical odds that all these players throughout history would be Catholic? Very remote! As much credible folklore as the bygone Boston Curse. I only disovered this baseball trivia by reading through some African American Catholic youth organizations sites where Hank Aaron was a frequent speaker.) perLogan0703
• Because this is not a well-known theory, leading many to believe this is original research. Adambiswanger1 17:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• I just read over the article again. It's hilarious! I love the picture of the Pieta, also. nice touch. Oh, and perLogan--perhaps the reason why supposedly have better statistics is that many baseball greats are south american, which makes them necessarily catholic. Also, if you'd like, I could share with you some sluggers who weren't catholic. Hank Aaron? Barry Bonds? Mickey Mantle? . Adambiswanger1 18:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• no jokeAdam, I would have preferred a San Deigo Padre icon in the thumbnail, but I didn't see it in the Commons, so I guess it is not fair use.

Bonds and Aaron are Catholics, amigo. Aaron is an inspiration as a black Catholic and speaks at black Catholic youth get togethers. The Catholic Church was a refuge for Aaron as he pursued Ruth's record in a hostile environment. I don't know if Aaron would have broken Ruth's records had he been subject to the political hotbeds of Southern Baptist churches. Kareem Abdul Jabbar converted to Islam to avoid black Baptist politics, he was not the only black celebrity to do so. There is a famous story about Bonds at Sierra High Catholic H.S., where his lay teacher told him to 'gear up, baseball will never do anything for you.' The only Latin player I listed was Sosa, the rest are Anglo, African-American and Irish. Baseball players were predominantly 'Protestant' until the influx of Latin players. My point is about the two elite records that Ruth set, single season and career. Maris was not the great player Mantle was, but Mantle didn't pass Ruth, now did he? If you reject spirituality in total as a materialist, then yes, the idea must seem comical. I offer this sincerely, though. It is certainly as valid an article as the bygone Ruth curse on the Red Sox. Tolkien and Ruth

I am surprised no one has commneted on the oddity that Tolkien and Ruth would both be raised by priests, beginning in 1904, who would encourage amd mold their careers, and their contributions would remain vital even as the 21st Century begins. per Logan0703

• Comment Because there's nothing remarkable about it. Church-run orphanages were routine in that era. That two orphans from Catholic families ended up being raised by priests in a Catholic orphanage isn't an oddity in any way. Fan1967 21:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ok logan, well aside from my ill-chosen examples, how do you respond to the allegations that this article is original research? Adambiswanger1 19:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR. Fan1967 21:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Exception:Including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results (e.g. theological or philosophical theories)per Logan0703.

• Delete junk Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Junk, junk, junk in the trunk. Oh yeah. What on earth are you talking about? I have the feeling there are not a whole lot of baseball fans contributing to the discussion. perLogan0703

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 05:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coffee culture

Article is a corporate vanity page that is lacking any sort of information. Gump Stump 05:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• oppose deletion A re-writing and POV purge is what this article needs. All major companies deserve an article.Adambiswanger1 06:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - misses WP:V and WP:CORP - cannot get any google hits at all. Nothing in the article to suggest notability - Peripitus 06:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Four store company. See also WP:NFT. I am opposed in principle to companies trying to advertise here. --JChap 06:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I just re-wrote the article. It is completely NPOV. Now, I would appreciate it if you re-read it and reconsider your votes. By the way, it has 7 locations, and they seem to be noteworthy by virtue of their striking chicness and modernity amid the rest of New Zealand. Take a look. [24]Adambiswanger1 06:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

unfortunately WP:CORP requires multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or some other external assertion of importance. Simply having many wonderful coffee shops is not enough - Peripitus 09:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to get people to think about what they're voting on and slow down their Pavlovian disapproval.Adambiswanger1 16:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Crazynas 12:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Does not assert notability Crazynas 12:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No substantial notability is asserted. ScottW 12:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 13:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:CORP JoJan 17:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete ...wow, WP:CORP has some pretty high standards. Unfortunately, this company doesn't meet them. My heart wants to see it kept, though, so I hope some notability can be proven. If the striking chicness and modernity is what makes it notable, maybe you can find some news articles about the chain. That'd help the case. --UsaSatsui 22:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 05:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no consensus. --Ezeu 15:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesians in the Philippines

Article is essentially nothing but an overly verbose non-notable demographic 'fact' with no sources, citations or references provided. Deleterious 06:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose This article needs improvement, not deletion. I only support deletion if the premise of the article is flawed; not the content.Adambiswanger1 06:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose needs sources though and will make the appropriate notice.--Jondel 06:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. --JChap 06:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The 36,000 Indonesians claimed to be living in the Philippines would represent 0.0004% of the total population of 89.5 million. Not significant enough Bwithh 07:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  Umm... would you go for 0.04%? According to the Ethnologue report there were only 2,580 speakers of Indonesian in the Philippines in 1998, or 0.003% --Lambiam^Talk 14:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My math sux <=P Bwithh 18:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. What's next "Indonesians in France", "Indonesians in Iceland"? → Wombdpsw - @ ← 07:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  Why not? There is also Indonesian Americans, Indonesian Chinese and Indonesian Indians, as well as German-Brazilians, Japanese-Brazilians, Irish Australians, Greeks in Great Britain, Armenians in the Netherlands, and this is just a random sample; there are many more such articles. --Lambiam^Talk 14:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 09:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Deleterious 11:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh Crazynas 12:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into List of minorities in the Philippines and redirect. Keep per User:Matthewprc; after a bit of research on the web his argument appears convincing to me. Originally signed: --Lambiam^Talk 14:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC); Recommendation changed: --Lambiam^Talk 14:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of minorities in the Philippines. Wiping the article off totally is not a good idea, some mention would be good. --Terence Ong 15:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Lambiam. B.Wind 18:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with List of minorities in the Philippines or weak keep and cleanup--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 18:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Tenuous delete since its nowhere NEAR as important as, say, Indonesian Chinese, Indonesian Americans, and the like. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Mergeorama W4rez 21:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if you just briefly scan Philippine (especially in Mindanao) culture and traditions as well as its' historical connections to Indonesia, you'll find this article worth keeping and improving. As a resident of the Philippines, I know that there are many more Indonesians than that figure - that figure merely gives the number of Indonesians who entered the Philippines legally, and not those who entered the Philippines illegally. According to estimates, thousands of Indonesians come to the Philippines (especially through Mindanao) where they get Muslim Filipina wives, hold businesses, and even train in terrorism camps. It is very evident that there is a wide disparity between the views of foreigners and Filipinos. In this case, since this is an article pertaining to Philippines, I think that it would be alright to surmise that the Filipinos are correct..--User:Matthewprc 21:55, 02 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge provided that it's cleaned up first, to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability Waitak 13:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Indonesians in France may be deleted, but Indonesians in the Philippines shouldn't. The Philippines and Indonesia are Southeast Asian neighbors, and there is a significant Indonesian minority. If articles with no sources, citations or references provided should be deleted, let me point you to this. --Howard the Duck | talk, 03:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 01:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 05:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 100 episodes

Looks like OR to me. Unless this is a really pervasive industry phenomenon, then I think this needs to be deleted. mgekelly 07:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Notable element of television. Cvene64 08:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is notable in the television world. It should probably be re-written to make that clearer, though. --Dakart 08:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 09:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is, in fact, a "pervasive industry phenomenon". 23skidoo 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've added multiple citations from reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 15:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable TV programme. --Terence Ong 15:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Dakart. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and cleanupMerge and redirect as per below comment. Probably very little worth merging, but just a note about the (possible) significance of 100 eps might be worth a mention. --InShaneee 19:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to television syndication. While the 100 episode mark may be important in the industry, the article is original research, particularly the reasons given for success and failure of shows, which makes up the bulk of the article (Also, I believe some of them may be incorrect, but I would have to do some research to verifiy this). -- Kjkolb 20:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article has been improved somewhat and I think it should stay and be further improved. Definitely notable. Grandmasterka 01:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 21:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huntsman Program in International Studies and Business

This article is about a joint degree program at a single university. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An individual academic program at a university is generally too narrow a topic to warrant an article of its own. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 07:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Merge any relevant information into Jon Huntsman, Sr.. -- Scientizzle 07:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with above post, merge relevant info and delete. Dbertman 10:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Merge info as above. DarthVader 12:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge relavant information to main article. --Terence Ong 16:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: the article must be made into a redirect if any content is merged to preserve attribution. -- Kjkolb 20:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Proto||type 09:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Lehre

Non-notable American film director. One film release, being The MySpace Movie, based on the website of the same name. -- Longhair 07:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair 07:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it's always a giveaway when MySpace comes top of the external links. Non-notable. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - irrelevant article. Dbertman 10:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 12:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, since he is a filmmaker who has not yet been listed in the Internet Movie Database. --Metropolitan90 15:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, if anything that links to MySpace, the article is vanity and self promotion most of the time. --Terence Ong 16:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to the Myspace Movie. The movie is certainly notable, and one would think that the person who created said movie would be notable in itself, but a merge would be unfortunately appropriate. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable. Yet again, Wikipedia's stupid pandering towards webstuffs. - Hahnchen 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Not notable...yet.Adambiswanger1 18:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - The page should be merged with the The MySpace Movie page, under the David Lehre Productions section. =D Jumping cheese ^Contact 21:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with The MySpace Movie. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the MySpace Movie. --Starionwolf 23:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 01:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- David Lehre has many followers of many of his other great films - fritz3650
• Delete- This guy flash in the pan, and straight-up douche bag as well. —ap8849 04:48, 04 June 2006 (EST)
• Keep- He is someone people will look up and it's important to have as much information available as posible.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Ezeu 16:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shaker_Aamer

Should the individual article pages on all (around 200 in number) the guantanamo detainees be included in wikipedia? I feel these pages aren't substantial to wikipedia being encylopedic. There are more then 700 detainees in the US Naval base camp. If their names are released, should all their biographies be collected and article pages be created for all of them? If yes, then, I'd like to point out there are currently thousands of POWs detained by a lot number of countries all over the world. Would wikipedia be a place to host information all those detainees, from all over the world?

I strongly feel such pages are a seriously violating the notability criteria, turning wikipedia into what is infamously called, the junkyard of information. In this case, even the list of detainees is more than enough to be considered encyclopedic. We want and expect wikipedia to last long, like encyclopedia brittanica, 1911. Cos, in the longer run, in the next 50 years, there may be a number of wars, battles, detainees and POWs. I don't think wikipedia should have all the information relating to that. Though the facts and plights of the detainees may be important for the world to know, including all the information of every single detainee may be considered too trivial to be considered encyclopedic. Therefore I'm marking it as AFD on the guantanamo detainee pages, starting with the first one in the list. And I expect a consensus and mutiple deletion on all the detainee pages. Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 08:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Apparently not very notable.--Jusjih 15:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• What, are you kidding?!?!?! All those people are vicious terrorists!!! Of course they're notable. (re-enter reality). Delete. --JChap 17:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - This person may at the moment not be notable to the world. But, if he is innocent and his detention at Guantanomo turns out into a scandal or, if he is convinced as a terrorist, this (short) biography may become very handy. As long as the US doesn't bring those people before a court, we have to keep an open mind in those matters. JoJan 18:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - he is one of hundreds that were detained in 'Gitmo. If he's not guilty of terrorism, he'll sink into nonnotable obscurity. If he's guilty, he'll sink into nonnotable obscurity. B.Wind 18:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JChap and B.Wind. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --P199 21:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I understood the nominator to mean that this AfD had been noted as an AfD discussion on a page about the guatanamo detainees as a group or about the camps. But I couldn't find that giving of notice on probable pages nor can I see it in the nominator's contribution log. If this is to be a test case for all of the detainees, it ought to receive wider than average notice. I've gone ahead and notified the article's initial creator, but wonder if more should be done. GRBerry
• Keep this one Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We have the space for all notable detainees. And as time passes and they become less important, the content can be trimmed down. This is part of the normal versioning of encyclopedias. That this detainee was involved in negotiating an end to one of the hunger strikes makes him more notable than the average detainee. Article has links to two reliable sources. I reserve judgement on the articles for other detainees until they are nominated - but I suspect that only a proper subset will be deletion worthy. GRBerry 02:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This is not the Encylopedia Britanica or a specialty encylopedia. This project is one of the most extensive and braud reference works in history. The arguments given, if allowed to stand, would open a door for deletions of just about any article in the encyclopedia. ANY article that concerns a subject that may be considered not to be significant would by up for deletion -- and there are a LOT of articles that just about any member with an account here would consider insignificant. We'd stand to loose half the articles here. No, do not delete. Jason Palpatine 03:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It can be agreed that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia., but the same policy says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Plus, it cannot be figured where, 200 odd pages (as of now) on Guantanamo detainees will come under WP:BIO. The decision on these pages will pave way for a stance on notability in the absence of a guideline or policy. If not deleted, will it mean that any article on detainees in other nations as well be allowed to be created?? Instead, I'd suggest an article on the experience of the detainees be created and a line that this person helped end the hunger strike be included. We don't need a blue link and a separate page on this as well as all other detainees. -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 03:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but someone should write that article first, then nominate appropriate detainees for deletion. After writing the article the editors of it should have an educated sense of which ones are worthy of their own article, and which are not. If we want a delete and merge outcome, which I expect will be appropriate for most of the prisoners, we need someplace to merge it to. I don't see any appropriate articles wikilinked in this one or in the category. It would probably be too much for Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States or Guantanamo Bay detainment camp which are already getting long, but ought to be a sub-page of one of them. GRBerry 14:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems encyclopedic to me. Keeping it doesn't hurt anyone, and may even help his cause. ··gracefool |☺ 08:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What rational reason could there be for deleting this well referenced series of articles that are clearly of interest to readers. - SimonP 14:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, if we don't keep individual articles than "people" will create a grand clusterfuck List of all prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay detention area that gets bogged to hell, and instead of 32k, falls somewhere around 6.5gb of text as they discuss each one. Look at all the Nazis we keep details on, even low-ranking ones. If they're verifiable (as these are, through their ID#s, court orders and detainee reviews) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per GRBerry. An unfortunate but notable individual from a significant and ongoing political event. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Disclaimer, I started this article, and most of the other Guantanamo articles Chez has suggested should be deleted.
  • Chez, no offense, but your arguments in favour of deleting all these articles are based on unfortunate misconceptions. If these individuals were merely POWs, about whom there was no controversy, or misunderstandings, I would agree with you that they wouldn't merit individual articles. You are laboring under a misconception if you think they are POWs. The nature of their incarceration is a subject of great controversy largely because the Bush administration has chosen to not afford them the protections of POW, even though many legal scholars believe this is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and members of the US judicial branch concur. You are laboring under a misconception if you think their identities remain secret. 5,000 pages of transcripts, containing some of their names were released on March 3, 2006, followed by two lists of names, released on April 20, 2006 and May 15, 2006.
  • Chez, there is an excellent site called "the Jurist", maintained at the University of Pittsburg law faculty. It is an excellent, very neutral, very reliable site that gives short articles on current legal matters. If there is no fair-minded, authoritative site about the principals involved in one of their reports, they write a backgrounder themselves. But if there is a fair-minded, credible page somewhere, they cite that page. They have cites some of the articles on individual Guantanamo detainees here on the wikipedia, as in this article.
  • Chez, I saw you were on the recent changes patrol, and the new articles patrol. You cited WP:NOT. I suggest you re-read the portion entitled WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground, which reads, in part: "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation.... Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion." -- So why did you wait until I had created hundreds of articles, spending hundreds of hours to do so, when, as a regular patroler, you probably noticed these articles months ago? Why didn't you write me with your concerns the very first time you noticed an article that concerned you? Other people did write me, during the last couple of months, when my efforts accelerated, once the DoD released the detainees identities, and 6,000 pages of transcripts. I took their concerns seriously, and modified my efforts to take their concerns into account.
  • As to whether the individual detainees will "fade into obscurity":
    1. WP:NOT also says wikipedia is not a crystal ball. They might fade into obscurity. Or the nature of their incarceration and interrogation might remain the focus of ongoing controversy, just like Lynching in the United States, or Japanese American Internment and Japanese Canadian internment. These articles may serve as an invaluable resource if the American public were to decide that the inhumane conditions at Guantanamo represented the same kind of blot on America's record as the paragon of freedom and democracy and the rule of law as slavery, lynching, and the internment of those of Japanese descent during World War 2.
    2. Do you think we are going to run out of disk-space? The capacity of hard drives is doubling every two years. Wikipedia is a success. Expect to see the size of its disk-farm increase. Let me suggest that if it ever becomes necessary to purge articles, solely because of a lack of disk-space, that the candidates should be chosen purely on a "least recently used" basis. -- Geo Swan 14:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There are other articles that reference these articles, like:
    • charities accused of ties to terrorism
    • Casio F91W -- the "terrorist's watch"
  • As Sherurcij noted, if all these articles was rolled into one article it would be overwhelmingly large. Not only would that make it hard for browsers to load, but it would be useless for other articles to reference it. Suppose the chariites article referenced the omnibus article you suggested, how would the reader interested in which Guantanamo detainees were accused of ties to Al Wafa, or Al Haramain Foundation, find that info? -- Geo Swan 14:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Amnesty International or a webhosting service Bwithh 19:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per GRBerry, unfortunate yet notable. Silensor 06:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Persianism by Arabs

There are a couple of thousand ethnicities in the world, and we can guess mostly every one of them has some animosities towards any two or three of its neighbours. So, let's have a bunch of 10,000 or so new articles of the format "Anti-X'ism by Y", listing all the world's complaints and injured prides, from unjust conquests a thousand years ago to unfair football fans and world-domination conspiracies today. I'll gladly make a start with "Anti-Württembergism by Badenese", taking the abovementioned essay as a model, as it is meticulously sourced, highly original and refreshingly frank in the way it spins all those disparate yarns into a coherent new synthesis of ethnic animosity. Not. -- Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm concerned by the obvious anti-crapism of this AfD nominator...Delete! While the material in the article seems very well-sourced, it's irreparably POV. -- Scientizzle 08:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Anti-Persianism" gets 10 hits on Google. I'd agree that there has been animosity between Persians and Arabs in the past (under the Umayyads -- the Abbasids, who overthrew them, were allied with Persians) and recently (state-formation in Iraq, Iran-Iraq War, hostility between Sunni and Shi'a revived), but the article conflates past and present in a historically illegitimate way. It ignores twelve centuries of minimal or no friction between Arabs and Persians. IMHO, the section of older history is also grotesquely slanted and inaccurate. See the talk pages of Islamicization in post-conquest Iran for discussion of Umayyad language policies, etc. Material on oppression of Shi'a and Iraqis of Iranian background under Saddam is interesting (and depressing), but belongs in modern history of Iraq articles. Zora 08:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If articles like Anti-Arabism and Anti-Semitism are okay then the topic is fair game as long as it is sourced. Term "Anti-Persianism" gets exactly 506 hits on Google and "Anti-Persian" gets 655. Maybe it could be renamed "Anti-Persian racism" which gets 453,000 hits on Google. Racism and bigotry cannot be denied or ignored, which is what it seems LukasPietsch wants to do. Khorshid 09:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You need to put quotes around "Anti-Persianism" or you're going to be pulling up sites that don't actually contain the full term. Zora 10:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The number of hints in English language does not count. The subject has been thoroughly covered in Persian and arabic sources. If Anti-arabism has more English hints, is just because there are 22 arab countries and one Persian country. --Sina Kardar21:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Excuse me for being maybe a bit paranoid, but are you a duplicate account by any chance? Account created just 8 hours before this nomination, less than 10 edits, none to this article - just how did you find this nomination within half an hour of its creation? Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It is worthwhile looking at the reasons why this article was created [25] and also how widely the term "anti-Persianism" is used [26] - the only evidence for the use of this term is once in one article [27], but some of the material in this opinion piece has been copied and pasted into the "anti-Persianism" article, as I pointed out here [28]. Out of 12 hits on Google, three are related to this article, indicating that this is original research. The chief problem I have is that this article interprets many actions against Iran as anti-Persian racism, when in fact only 50% of the population of Iran is ethnically Persian and these actions have political motives rather than racial ones. Criticism or actions against the Iranian state by Arab governments appear to be deemed anti-Persianism in this article. I suspect that the reason why "anti-Iranian" and "anti-Persian" are conflated is precisely because there is little evidence to support this polemic. There is more evidence to support an article on "anti-Iranianism" [29], although it would have to be broader than just sentiments expressed in the Arab world. At present, the article seems like nationalist posturing.--الأهواز 10:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to clarify my own position:

• I disagree with deleting all anti-X-ism articles.
• However, I am against the creation of articles based on an -ism that does not appear to exist outside Wikipedia
• I am in favour of an article on anti-Iranian sentiment, as I believe that this prejudice does exist
• However, I am against an article that focuses just on the prejudices of some Arabs and that there is a large amount of prejudice against Iranians elsewhere in the world
• So, I propose that this article be renamed Anti-Iranian prejudice or Anti-Iranian sentiment, be widened to include the hatred or fear of Iranians wherever it occurs (not just Arabs) and the matters relating to POV and copyright violations in the article are cleared up. If this is agreed, then I would vote to keep the article.--الأهواز 22:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk has since renamed the article Anti-Persian sentiments, which is a positive development. I have made a proposal for a separate Anti-Iranian prejudice that would clear my remaining objections (along with the misgivings of other editors) and would establish the difference between racism against ethnic Persians (who form 50% of the Iranian population) and hatred of Iran as a nation: [30]. At the moment, I feel the article is confusing anti-national and racist sentiments which are not one and the same. If this proposal or something similar is accepted, then I will drop my support for deletion.--الأهواز 12:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the change in the name of the article to Anti-Persian sentiments (taking out the reference to Arabs), the creation of a separate article on Anti-Iranian sentiments (to cover anti-national sentiments as distinct from racist sentiments) and an agreement on the structure of content[31], I withdraw my delete vote.--الأهواز 23:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of "Anti-Iranianism" because then there is more than just a single ethnic group. There is definitely racism against Persians so I think renaming the article is a good idea, but it should stay focused on anti-Persian ideas. Problem with "Anti-Iranianism" is also that "Iranian" in this way only means citizens of the country of Iran, and not any ethnic groups. There might be some hatred because of that, being citizen of Iran, but the hatred is more directed against Persians, and not so much against other groups. So the aim of the article is valid since widespread racism exists in the Arab world - and especially Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Bahrain - against Persians and anyone seen as being "Persian" or "Persian-like". Khorshid 11:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment... I am a little bothered by having Anti-Arabism and not this... not sure why (I don't know the subject well at all... just that there is mutual animosity that pops up from time to time)... It does get more google hits but... it is possible that the terminology is not as singular as with anti-Arabism... are there many different terms, maybe? I do think the article is not very good. It conflates anecdotal evidence into a tale.... I mean... quoting traditions like this does is quite dangerous... we need to be quoting secondary scholarship not trying to make our own (and if anti-Arabism suffers from the same problems they should be fixed as well). Are there any academic (relatively) non-partisan works on this? The only ones this seems to cite are related to Iran and not Persians in general... I don't vote delete because I don't know if there is scholarship on this... but, this article is dangerous because it masquerades as being fact when... well, it's just not. And sadly, I think non-neutral articles are looking more sophisticated and escaping scrutiny. gren グレン 11:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Khorshid Crazynas 12:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep peri norm. Valid topic. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Uhhmmm, excuse me, keep per what? Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

* Comment: Uhmrmmmphmhm. You are excused. The topic is valid, its the title that may need changing. --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Telex 14:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Which "norm" ??! --Sina Kardar22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. term appears in only one article.--JChap 14:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all the term exist in Persian language and articles and also the whole subject can be found easily in arabic articles. Second, you can find many hints by searching terms as "hate" and "persians" or "ajams" etc in English. The number of hints is at least comparable to the number for other anti-X-ism article (except for antisemitism which gives much more hints). --Sina Kardar22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. As most (if not all) of the information from the article is original research, inaccurate, and is extremely biased. It's nothing more than a political polemic, also the subject isn't notable enough to be worthy of an article, espescially of this size. --Inahet 15:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who was involved in making Anti-arabism article !!! So you cann't vote for deletion of this article. --Sina Kardar22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The reason why I got involved in editing the Iranian anti-Arabism section (a mere section, not a bloated article like this nominated one) was because anti-Arab Iranians were using that section to make racist statements against Arabs. [32] [33] I was new when I started to correct this section, and so I had little knowledge of what is considered acceptable, so I sought the advice of an admin and another user [34]. I was advised to find reliable sources otherwise the information I had added would be considered original research. So I removed the information I had added to comply with Wiki policies [35]. ZereshK, the sole writer of the Anti-Persianism by Arabs article, did not attempt to comply with Wikipedia policies (including NOR and NPOV), despite the fact he has been actively editing for a much longer time that I have. BTW, Zereshk writes politically charged, and what some might consider controversial articles for Iranian.com. I have nothing against him editing Wikipedia articles, but he should not enforce his own opinions at Wikipedia. And Sina, you can't tell me that I can't vote; where in Wikipedia guidelines do you base your claim? --Inahet 01:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think the key issue here is whether or not this is a notable social phenominon. I think it is, the article may need to be mantained by a more diverse group of editors. I think and RfC would suit this article more than a AfD. HighInBC 15:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 16:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Move to Anti-Persian sentiments by Arabs. Also perhaps the article could be expanded to include other people like Azeris and Balochis, so the title could also be Anti-Iran sentiments by Arabs. —Khoikhoi 17:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Why just anti-Iranian sentiments by Arabs? As one editor stated on the talk page said "sentiments against IRAN and/or its inhabitants can have many causes and have been ubiquitously prevalent at different points in time, during the last two and a half millennia. Be it Babylon or Egypt or Greece in Antiquity, or the Arab Caliphates, as well as India, Afghanistan and the Ottoman Empire in more recent times." [36] I don't understand why this is being protrayed as some kind of civilisational conflict between Persians and Arabs when Iran is an ethnically diverse country and there are many other disputes concerning Iranians and non-Arab countries.--الأهواز 17:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Both you and I know that today many Arabs have shown prejustice towards Iranians and vice versa. Just look at soccer games between Arab and Iranian teems. It's just like watching a game between India and Pakistan. The point it's a notable topic, and deserves to be mentioned. —Khoikhoi 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that there are tensions and in some cases animosity and racism towards Iranians by Arabs, but my point is that the article conflates Iranian as a nationality and Persian as an ethnic group that comprises 50% of the Iranian nation. "Anti-Persianism" or "Anti-Persian" are terms that have been virtually invented by the article author, whereas Anti-Iranian sentiment is widely written about.[37] How can one realistically argue that anti-Iranian attitudes expressed by Arab football supporters during a soccer match is evidence of hatred against the Persian people rather than Iran as a country? My other point is that anti-Iranian attitudes are not only evident among Arabs but other ethnic groups and countries. Why are Arabs singled out and anti-Iranian sentiments among Americans not dealt with? I have no objection to an article on Anti-Iranian prejudice, which is something I originally suggested on the Anti-Arabism talk page, covering all aspects of the issue and not just Arab-versus-Persian.--الأهواز 18:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This article contains notable and factual information that is not present in any other articles. The phrasing and title of the idea conveyed "anti-persianism by arabs" is irrelevant. All previous arguments presented against this article seem to either quibble about the title of the article or bemoan the "irreparable" state of the organization and tone. Unless it is original research, the premise of the article, not content, should dictate its fate. I find the cumbersome title and POV style to be irrelevant in the discussion. Adambiswanger1 17:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the "premise" is exactly it. The premise of this article is that "Anti-Persianism" (or whatever you call it) is a unified phenomenon across the eras, providing a single interpretative framework for each and every real or perceived grievance Persians have against Arabs, from mistreatments during and after the Islamic conquest, to the behaviour of football fans today. And this idea, I believe, is indeed irreparably original research and tendentious, no matter how well the details are sourced. Lukas ^(T.|@) 18:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think that the difficulty of the task (studying the animosity towards persians across time and in different contexts) warrants the deletion of the article. What is needed is good, hard work on the part of a scholar. Anti-persianism is one consistent entity across time, only manifesting itself in different ways, thus flustering the inability of some to view abstractions and concepts.Adambiswanger1 18:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Huh? Assume the existence of the phenomenon and then go looking for it? Even though there's no evidence from google that other people believe there is such an entity? Isn't that the definition of original research? Zora 19:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • "One consistent entity across time". Wow, that's a big claim indeed. References that such is a legitimate perspective in scholarship? Lukas ^(T.|@) 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete because this opens the door for a load of POVforks that are unencyclopedic IMHO. Also, I must agree with scientizzle. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 17:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable subject, there is an article named Anti-Arabism and many of the people who like to get rid "Anti-Persianism" article, are major contributors on Anti-Arabism . This looks like a POV nomination. --ManiF 20:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The person who started the Anti-Persianism article has contributed to the Anti-Arabism article. The editor who nominated this for AfD has not contributed to either article. But this is beside the point. The article should be judged on whether it is worthy of an encyclopaedia article.--الأهواز 20:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep.--Zereshk 20:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A little reminder to Iranian editors and a couple of leading sentences could be just enough to ensure a vote against deletion:[38]

That's what we've been doing all along. But you still approve of the article's deletion. Revealing, Id say.--Zereshk 02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - article is a well-referenced piece of work discribing the historical events after the Arab conquest of Persia. Absolutely no reason to delete it! Tajik 20:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting that this article is nominated for deletion when there are the following similar articles:

• • Anti-Americanism
  • Anti-Hellenism
  • Anti-Canadianism
  • Anti-Italianism
  • Anti-German sentiment
  • Anti-Arabism
  • Sinophobia
  • Francophobia
  • Anti-Semitism
  • Anti-Kurdism
  • Anti-Turkism
  • Anti-Japanese sentiment
  • Russophobia

I dont see any reason why this article should be different.--Nightryder84 21:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Don't forget Anti-Romanian discrimination! ;) —Khoikhoi 21:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I'd indeed be happy to see most of these go too - except a very few where the concept is a well-established object of research, such as Anti-Semitism and arguably also Anti-Americanism. Lukas ^(T.|@) 21:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The hostility of arabs toward Persian has beed "well established" and costed us the lives of many people. It is not acceptable to refer to English sources (for a conflict between Arabs and Persian speakers) to define what is well-established or not. --Sina Kardar21:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to create an Anti-Scottishism by the Irish, relating to the hatred of the Scottish planter population in Ireland. Then I'd create an Anti-Parisianism by the Bretons on account of Celtic Breton resentment of Parisian attitudes towards the Breton language and regional identity. The possibilities for these articles are endless.--الأهواز 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fortunatelty there is enough room for you to write about subjects that you have expertise in them. If you are intereted and qualified, please do not hesitate to contribute.--Sina Kardar22:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• But, google the anti-Kurd or anti-Turk one... you get 132 hits and 66 hits... these are not terms in wide currency... which makes the article original research. It's not that there can't be expertise but when you put it under a specific title it has implications... such as that we are citing scholarly sources... I mean, the name is very important... we don't want to call the Yankee-Mets rivalry "Anti-Yankeeism by Mets fans"... there is a rivalry that may notably be mentioned somewhere... but giving it a name that is not in common currency is original research and not something we are supposed to be doing. gren グレン 05:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per User:Nightryder84.This page is a responce to Anti-Arabism article. Neutrality of wikipedia demands to keep this article. --Sina Kardar21:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As per all of its supporters. Amir85 21:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep . The article is sourced and explains the phenomenon that has existed among Arabs for so many years. Sorry if it bothers some people but it is the reality. I as an Iranian acknowledge that anti Arab feelings have existed in Iran and among Persians and I ask the other side to do the same.Gol 21:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Votestacking. Please note that, as often before, the Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board is again used for votestacking ([39]). Lukas ^(T.|@) 21:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see no problem. According to my experience, on many issues about Iran, a very well organized network of wikipedians is heavily involved in intoducing bias and vandalising issues related to Iran. All of these guys are related to eachother and call eachother on voting. I have little doubt that these people are associated to political circles and receieve fund as they are working full time on wikipedia articles about Iran. Ofcourse there is no "official noticeboard" for them! --Sina Kardar22:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

People talk to each other on WP and there is no law against it. We were not told to come here and blindly obey and vote!! We were asked to get involved and since we have brains of our own we are capable of making up our own minds about the matter. I see nothing wrong with it. Gol 22:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, interestingly enough, Lukas also goes around calling on other editors to come here and participate as well: [40]--Zereshk 22:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Lukas, please see a similar AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan. One user was accused of votestacking, but if you see Wikipedia:Vote Stacking, you will notice that it's only a proposed policy, and by no means offical. —Khoikhoi 23:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This is a well-documented and highly informative article based on historical and real facts. It should be nominated for the featured articles. Deleting this information is censorship. That providing this sort of information could be done regarding many nations and peoples is no argument to commit this censorship. I would very much like to know the history of tensions between the Irish and the English. If somebody will write a well-documented article about it in this encyclopaedia it would be a shame to delete that.

--Mani1 21:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this an edit war, or a serious discussion?[41] The Anti-Persianism article was created in reaction to the Anti-Arabism article [42] and now it has come up for AfD, there is a retribution by some editors, prompted perhaps by [43]). Incidentally, you made a serious mistake with the template. Take a closer look.--الأهواز 22:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: User:LukasPietsch's reason for deletion of this article is completely unsubstantiated. He is being selective. Otherwise I invite him to also call for the deletion of the entire corpus of these similar articles:
  • Category:Anti-national sentiment
  • List of anti-ethnic and anti-national terms

Thanx all.--Zereshk 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: User:LukasPietsch ommited my deletion nomination tag for the Anti-Arabism article after just a few seconds without giving me time to take the rest of steps technically needed for this nomination!

My response to his message to me was:

It seems you are more familiar with the technically correct deletion processes. As you have gone through this trouble for trying to delete the informative article Anti-Persianism by Arabs, you are naturally expected to do the same for all such articles, otherwise you have been acting biased and selective.--Mani1 22:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• In response to the allegations of votestacking, I would like to remind voters to read the article and read the arguments against it, most notably the concern that it is and inherently flawed idea, and "Anti-persianism" is too broad and vague to warrant an article. This is not necessarily my opinion, but I want to make sure we have informed voters. Adambiswanger1 22:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Persianism by Arabs is a very real and accurate notion, felt, discussed, studied and researched by millions of Iranians around the world. Thinking of it as "too broad and vague" shows total unfamiliarity of User:Adambiswanger1 with the region's culture and history.

--Mani1 22:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mani1, I humbly submit the fact that I am acting as mediator in this exchange, and I was merely summarizing some of the previous contentions of other voters. If you had read the rest of the discussion, which was the point of my last message, you would realize that I voted to keep the article. Thank you, but please read all the information available to you before making a decision. Also, this statement: "[anti-Persianism by Arabs is] felt, discussed, studied and researched by millions of Iranians around the world" is a contentious point because many are saying there are no scholary sources to support this.Adambiswanger1 22:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of many scholary sources in which many facets of the anti-Persianism by Arabs is discussed and explained:

• http://www.iranica.com/
• Conversion and Poll-Tax in Early Islam, D.C. Dennett, Cambridge 1950
• The Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition
• Slaves on Horses, P. Crone, Cambridge 1980

An example from Princeton.edu:

• Mawali (mostly Persians) were regarded as inferior to the Arabs and were required to pay additional taxes. Despite such discrimination, the mawali rapidly rose to prominence in Muslim society in administration, military, and scholarship.

--Mani1 23:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mani, we've had these arguments at other articles. Those books do not prove what you think they prove. The early Arab conquerors did not consider themselves superior just to Persians -- they considered themselves superior to everyone. North Africans, Egyptians, Syrians, Sindhis ... if they weren't Arabs, they were second-class citizens to the later Rashidun and the Umayyads. They were dhimmis, they paid jizya, they had to wear distinctive garments ... none of this was directed at Persians qua Persians. The Arabs did NOT force their subjects to learn Arabic; in fact, they would have preferred it if they didn't learn Arabic. Arabic was the official language of government and religion, which is not the same thing as enforcing it as the language of everyday life. The Islamic conquest section of the Anti-Persianism article is a biased and historically inaccurate polemic, which says a lot more about the mindset of Iranian nationalism than it does about history. As someone who CARES about historical accuracy, I must protest your characterization of that section of the article. Zora 02:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A language other than native language being used at school and work was considered by you and Ahwaz as native language being “Suppressed” (from what I remember in Khuzestan article.) Why double standard Zora? Gol 10:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Nightryder84. Bidabadi 23:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think the purpose of Wikipedia is talking about racisim and I truly feel we should not have any anti pages in regards to races!--(Aytakin) | Talk 01:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to point out that large parts of the article have been directly copied from work written by Nima Kasraie aka Zereshk, who started the Anti-Persianism by Arabs article. For instance, parts of [44] can be seen in the article. I am not sure about the rules on Wikipedia editors using their own work to write their own Wikipedia articles, although in this case it is obviously not a case of copyright violation. Also, parts of this article [45] have been directly lifted into the article, which is an example of copyright violation.--الأهواز 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is allowed, because it is a published source. It is also based on sources that are heavily referenced.--Zereshk 23:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Partial copyright violation can not justify deleting the whole article. Bidabadi 23:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a copyright violation because the parts have been referenced to the source. Furthermore, Ahwaz is simply trying to divert attention away from the fact that the article has 3 times as many sources as his anti-Arabism article does.--Zereshk 23:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the Anti-Arabism article is not mine and was not started by me. I contributed to one section of the article. Whether or not the Anti-Persianism by Arabs article stands up as a subject for an encyclopaedic article is unrelated to the existence of the Anti-Arabism article. It should be judged on its own.

If it is OK for a Wikipedia editor to start an article on Anti-Persianism - a term used only once in a serious article, according to Google - and copying articles he has published in the past, then that's something we should accept. I was not aware that opinion pieces on websites (no matter what sources they use) could be transformed by their authors into Wikipedia articles, but now I know better.--الأهواز 00:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Note that all the other articles about "anti" this or that don't point fingers. "Anti-Semitism" is allowable; "Anti-Semitism by U.S. citizens" is an accusation. I'd be fine with an "Anti-Iranian sentiments" article.

Also, as others have pointed out, the proponents of this article can't decide whether it's about Iranians or Persians. Citizens of Iran are of many ethnicities, speak many languages, and follow various religions. Sometimes the term "Persian" seems to be used of all of them; sometimes it is used only for the 50% of Iranians who are "ethnically" Persian (which is itself a devil to define and a subject of controversy). Now just "WHO" is this supposed prejudice directed against? I have the impression that current political tensions can lead to animosity towards Iranians in general, whatever their background (animosity not necessarily Arab -- the Bushistas seem to be trying to whip up the same thing in the US). The same way that "Americans" can be hated in some countries whether they're black or white, of Slovak or Mexican stock.

This kind of thing rises and falls according to the political weather. During World War II the U.S. and Russia were allies, and the brave Russian soldier was the U.S.'s friend. Then the Cold War and the same Russian soldier was an evil fiend who wanted to invade and oppress the U.S. (Red Dawn). After the Iranian Revolution, Iranians became dangerous wild-eyed zealots. In another fifty years ... who knows? Perhaps they'll be the brave allies of the Euro-US Federation in the fight against Uzbeki imperialism. Framing current trands as evidence of a deep-laid plot going back millenia is ... absurd. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, UNLESS Zereshk and his friends can come up with cites showing that many Iranians believe it -- in which case it belongs in an article on Iranian politics, or the politics of the Iranian diaspora. Zora 00:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The article's disclaimer nullifies your argument Zora. And in any case, the article will be expanded. Deleting information is simply unreasonable.--Zereshk 00:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Inserting a disclaimer saying that "Iranian" and "Persian" are considered equivalent won't make the Iranian minority problem go away, Zereshk. Many people do not consider those words equivalent; hence the endless arguments in the Iranian peoples article. Zora 02:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Iran and Persia ARE used interchangeably often enough and prejudice toward Iran can not be considered unrelated to Persian identity of Iran. When Saddam Hussain attacked Iran, it was all of Iran that was attacked but he did use the Persian vs Arab argument. More importantly, history of Iran is that of Persia since the country was called Persia in the outside world. When we talk about historical stuff we have to use PERSIAN since all Iranians were labeled as such. some people are trying to imply Iran has nothing to do wiht Persia and dislike of Iranians has nothing to do with Persians!! Gol 10:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It wont make the minority problem go away (just like the Hawaii drive for independence will never go away). But it will firmly legitimize the article.--Zereshk 03:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• keep per Nightryder84 --Striver 01:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Aside from Wikipedia (and mirrors), I get zero hits on the term anti-Persianism [46]. The articles found have the word Persianism not anti-Persianism. I had no idea that creating new terms was allowed here at Wikipedia. Also the article is much larger than this discussion page, which is amazing for something that is not considered a "universal phenomenon." --Inahet 01:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The writer of the article user:Zereshk has accused one user of "anti-Persian drivel" for saying that "Iran sponsored terrorism in Bahrain." [47] If this is his standard of determining what is "anti-Persianism", then can you imagine what other bogus claims are presented as facts in this oversized article consisting of original research?? --Inahet 02:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Persianism by Arabs has three times as many sources as your article Anti-Arabism. Either all such Anti-national-ethnic sentiment articles should go, or they all should stay, it's not up to you to pick and choose what type of racism is a "universal phenomenon" or what type is not, all types of racism are unacceptable and should be addressed. I find all these arguments about the existence of anti-Persian racism, insulting to thousands of Persians who faced racism at the hand of Arabs, being expelled from their homes in Iraq and treated like animals by the "the Hero of the Arab street" Saddam Hussein who believed "Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies".(in Saddam Hussein: The Politics of revenge, London: Bloomsbury, 2000, p.123) --ManiF 02:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Ok that's good stuff we're getting out of this debate. Now if someone could add this info and lose the POV we'd have what you call a "good article". ManiF you seem knowledgeable on the issue. Perhaps you could, in a reserved and neutral tone (and mindset), improve the article? I also think there needs to be some more introductory and basic statements in the beginning of the article for those of us unfamiliar with the issue. Adambiswanger1 02:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The things Mani mentioned are from the article.--Zereshk 02:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Anti-Arabism article is not my article.
2. The quality of sources are much more important than the quantity.
3. The term anti-Persianism is pretty much a Wikipedia original. The word truthiness is much more notable than anti-Persianism.
4. I could write pages and pages on Persian anti-Arabism, which would include many examples of simple to complex anti-Arabism actions by Persians. The web is chockfull with that stuff. But I'm not here to turn Wikipedia into a soapbox or a battleground. I can't say the same thing for the writer and the defenders of the anti-Persianism article. --Inahet 03:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Per ManiF.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This nomination page should be taken as a good example of what votestacking is. I guess I should invite people, who will vote without reviewing the article and the discussions on its proposed deletion but will do so as favor for me. How fair would that be? --Inahet 03:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is very insulting to claim that people have not read the article and are only voting to do someone a favor, especially given that you have no evidence. People have brain and can decide for themselves whether to vote for or against something.Gol 10:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That does occur, whether you choose to deny it or not. And I know a couple of users who are likely to do what I described, based on their previous actions. And User:Lukas has provided some evidence for the votestacking that is occuring on this page. And don't tell me to stop pointing out shady behaviour, that is not your job.--Inahet 22:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Inahet, please stop making accusations about individuals and their motivations just because they don't agree with you. Discuss the topic, not the users, as per WP:AGF and WP:NPA. --ManiF 03:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, don't lecture me on personal attacks or anything of that matter, why don't you read the policies that you cite, I doubt that you did. Also, although my comment wasn't directed to anyone, I find it interesting that you got on the defense. Does it hit close to home? [48]. --Inahet 05:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I will cite the policies for you, because you are violating them as we speak. Your accusatory comment was directed at "writer and the defenders of the anti-Persianism article" and that constitutes a personal attack. Also, don't bring up old issues, and disputes trying to "score a point", because there is a lot of such quotes and links on the same page, that can be used here to make a point about Ahwaz, Zora and etc, if we go down that road. Again, discuss the topic, not the users, as per WP:AGF and WP:NPA. --ManiF 06:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you read those policies and implement them in your own participation at Wikipedia rather than lecturing others to do so! My statements are not personal attacks so stop labeling them as such. Do I have to report you? Because you certainly don't want us to go down that road. --Inahet 06:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. I am not in violation any rules at the moment, you are. The last sentence of this edit of yours is a clear personal attack against the "writer and the defenders of the anti-Persianism article". Just stop it. --ManiF 06:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, please stop removing my comments from this page: [49]. Thanks.--Zereshk 03:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There might have been an edit conflict. I certainly did not remove anything on purpose. I was completely unaware that there was a problem until you mentioned it. Zora 04:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• strong keep I beleive this article should maintain with its new title:Anti-Persian sentiments--Sa.vakilian 04:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP There is no way to deny what realy happens. Qoqnous 06:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have read the article and this discussion, and am familiar with other ethnic articles on Wikipedia. This article is typical in content to already listed "Anti-Foo" articles. Though I personally question the entire series, there is no reason to single out this one for deletion. The article is well-sourced, reasonably NPOV (like many articles there is room for improvement), sticks to its subject, and modestly calls the subject a "phenomenon" rather than movement or ideology. The new title is better. NOR should be a concern, but I don't see many conclusions or editorials in the text, rather it seems mostly to summarize the sources, as it should. The problems with this article can be solved through the normal editing process. -Will Beback 07:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Votestacking Alert 2 - Again, as on earlier occasions, the Persian Wikipedia is also used for even more votestacking ([50]). Apparently even more blatant than the one on the "noticeboard" here, and again branding named users on enwiki as the opponents. I'd be grateful if somebody could translate what is again said about me and others behind our backs there. Lukas ^(T.|@) 07:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

They are mostly arguing among themselves about the extent and nature of anti-Persian and anti-Iranian sentiment in the Arab world and elsewhere. Someone there has posted a very interesting link showcasing anti-Iranian sentiment in the popular culture. --ManiF 08:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete - I am familiar with the ethnic issues of the Meddle East region and can confidently say this is a constructed hate page which has no real base. Through out the Arab world there are millions of Shiat Arabs who see Iranians as their “brothers” and defenders of their faith. Please note that the supposed names in the fist line of the articles (عجم ستیزی) also (ایرانی ستیزی) are both in Farsi/Persian words and not Arabic, in effect the writer(s) of the article could not come up with any Arabic word or name for this so cold phenomenon.

The search in Google for ایرانی ستیزی and عجم ستیزی brings 18 and 1 cases respectively in the whole web! The only entry for the latter is in Farsi/Persian Wikipedia !

This seems to be just a payback to the establish Anti-Arabism article and more specifically to the section under the Anti-Arabism in Iran’’’. While Anti-Arabism in Iran in Iran is kept live by Persian ultra nationalist in attempt to arouse some nationalistic feelings of the masses by way of hatred against the neighboring Arabs and Turks, there is no evidence of any notable anti Iranian or anti Persian sentiments in Arabic literature, media or government propaganda. Mehrdad 08:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but that is extremely biased. You are basically saying Iranians are capable of being racist especially against Arabs, but no such hostility exist on the other side!!!! Is this what you call a neutral attitude?Gol 10:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I said "by Persian ultra nationalist" not Iranian. Mehrdad 15:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And there are no Arab ultra nationalist or chauvinist? Basically you are saying within the nation of Iran there are some racists by among Arabs there aren’t any.Gol 16:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence of anti-Persian sentiment in Arabic literature, media or government propaganda? Then "Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies" which was part of a textbook for school-boys in the Arab world, must be a complement to the Persians. --ManiF 08:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"textbook for school-boys in the Arab world" is this your refrence? Arab world has a unified text book for school-boys!!! This is another myth created by Fars/Persian ultra nationalists, and another proof of what I wrote.

Mehrdad, you claim to have studied the whole corpus of Arabic literature, media and government propaganda? If you really did so you might have overlooked big chunks of it such as Arab hateful forgery of the name of Persian Gulf, or Arab hateful historical rubbery by calling most of the Persian scientists, Arabs, or spreading as much as lies possible by Arab media regarding Iranian province of Khuzestan or anti-Persian racist material which was a part of the school curriculum in Iraq for decades or ....

--Mani1 09:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Users not only should look for the term anti-Persianism on the web but also for its more widly used synonymous anti-Persian. If some of the users do not find the term anti-Presianism such a current term we can change the title to "anti-Persian sentiments among Arabs" or similar ones. But this is no reason why the whole article and its well-referenced informations should be deleted. --Mani1 09:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The title has already been changed to Anti-Persian sentiments, and there are 34 published sources listed that discuss the subject. --ManiF 09:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no such a claim, but I have good contacts and surces to probe what is happening around me. Mehrdad 15:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Mehrdad, You say "you have good contacts and surces to probe" that "there is no evidence of anti-Persian sentiment in Arabic literature, media or government propaganda". Can you show us some of that sources and contacts?

--Mani1 18:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Mehrdad should change his name, since Mehrdad (Given by the Sun) is a Persian name. He is an Azeri nationalist and seems to hate Persians. A person like that, with such hatred in his dark heart, does not deserve such a noble name. Khorshid 10:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Khorshid, I have no hathred for Persians/Fars people at all. In fact I am partly Fars and I have Kermani ansestors, as well as Hamedani as well as Tabrizi so I am Iranian with any definition as well as being Azeri. I belive this ultra nationalistic idealogy of small group of people so called "Roshan Fekran e Fars" (Fars Luminaries) who do not respect the basic rights of other other people in Iran, including the Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Turkmens and Baluch. Mehrdad 15:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Geez, how many times do I have to ask everyone here to discuss the topic, not the users. Please stop it. --ManiF 10:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is clear by his edits that he is pan-Azeri nationalist who has a hatred of Persians. I am not saying anything wrong. His comments are themselves racist. Khorshid 10:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, you have to assume good faith. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA which are official policies. --ManiF 10:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Racism should always be condemned. I dont support it and will always strike down what is obviously racist language. It has no place here. Khorshid 11:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as a non-Persian Iranian, I have to say that unforunately both Anti-arabism and Anti-Persianism do really exist and have already had many political implications and induced wars. Therefore I think there is no question about the existence of these phenomena. There is no question about the important consequences of them either. Ajam-Arab story is a long one. And the word ajam mainly means Persians and Persian speakers (who are the prototype of Iranians; like it or not). --Zeelkey11:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep.--Sajad 12:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep same reasoning as User:Will Beback. --Mitso Bel15:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep but take out the phrase "by Arabs" to increase parallelism with the Anti-Semitism, Anti-Arabism, etc articles. Elizmr 20:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's strong POV: its only source is the encyclopaedia Irania. If this article used more than that source (coming from Iran) and tried to remain neutral with respect to Arabs, my vote would have been very different, but... (and I'm no arab nor from any semitic country) --Neigel von Teighen 22:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: What this encyclopedia REALLY needs is a good article on Shu'ubiya, which is an important topic in the history of Islamic societies (and has some relation to Arab-Persian conficts). AnonMoos 23:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep That article is purely based on facts and verifiable sources.. If someone thinks it is POV then should bring other sources, supporting his/her POV. A lot of people who have voted for Delete, don't know NPOV policy. Behaafarid 23:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Since the article was nominated for deletion, the article's title has been changed to Anti-Persian sentiments - taking out the pointed reference to Arabs - and an agreement on the talk page to splitting some of the content away from the Anti-Persian sentiments article to form the basis of a new article dealing with anti-national prejudice against Iran as a whole.[51] There's also an agreement that a lot more work needs to be done to broaden the article's scope. Some changes and additions have been made to improve the clarity of the concepts the article is addressing. I know some people have misgivings about the whole concept of anti-national articles, but apart from this objection, is there any point in continuing this AfD? Perhaps those who have voted for delete might like to look again at the article and offer their comments. The only problems I have now are regarding POV, not the actual existence of the renamed article.--الأهواز 23:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I'm willing to withdraw my DELETE vote. I am also quite enthusiastic about AnonMoos's suggestion for an article on the Shu'ubiya. I hadn't heard of that, it seems important, and I want to learn more. Zora 23:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Nightryder84 & Mani1, however move to NPOV title. The current title does not even reflect the early periods of Greek conflict described in the article. Tewfik^Talk 06:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mani1 as Anti-Persian sentiments not "Anti-Persianism by Arabs". --Armon 17:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Homey 19:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rainbow International

Company which does not pass WP:CORP (contested prod; prod removed with the claim that "a company is inherently notable"). Delete --Pak21 09:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crazynas 12:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 12:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --JChap 13:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable company. JIP | Talk 15:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. HighInBC 15:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:CORP. --Terence Ong 16:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 21:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University Heights (movie)

The film appears to be a student film. Does not appear in at least the first 5 pages of Google (I stopped looking). The IMDb reports festival screenings and a TV showing. I suspect the IMDb comments are from peers: they sound film student-ish. Delete as non-notable. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DarthVader 12:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn film. --Terence Ong 16:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn film. While the trailer won an award from mtvU (a cable channel distributed to North American colleges), the film did not... and I doubt anybody would claim notability for the trailer. B.Wind 18:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. As an aside, the premise sounds really hokey to me, personally. Grandmasterka 01:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If it becomes notable an article can be created then. R.E. Freak 07:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 by Mailer diablo (forgotten to close this debate). DarthVader 08:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Varya Akulova

Suspected hoax, urban legend? 350 kg, for a 40 kg girl and a grandpa that lifted 1200 lbs (see site)? Delete Spearhead 09:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe delete article may be relevant if more information can be added suggesting who the person actually is and what her claims are. But as the article is at the moment it should be deleted. Dbertman 10:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - enough google hits that are articles written in powerlifting/body building circles about her. Can't find anything on Guinness site but it does not list all their records. There certainly seems to be enough information out there to create a proper article rather than a one-liner copied from her website - Peripitus 10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - arguments below are very convincing - Peripitus 04:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Please supply a reasonable source to back up this claim. Looking at [52], it seems unlikely that this claim of 350kg is correct. DarthVader 12:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is certainly a funny hoax. Her website is funny but clearly false. When she was seven, she only ate noodles and water, because there was high food inflation in the Ukraine... LOL - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Lord Vader. This does get some press coverage but it doesnt mean its not a hoax. (Pravda is not a reliable newspaper by the way - after the collapse of Communism, it decided to go down the sensationalist tabloid story route). Bwithh 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --P199 21:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nocturne (movie)

Another vanity article for a student film. That the 'official website' cites the creation of this article as 'news' gives it away, really, along with the redlinks. Oh, and the plot also reveals the studentishness: available set (school) + available actors (school kids) = plot (about a school kid in a school). Not in IMDb. Delete as non-notable, and unverifiable. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless information can be found showing this film to be commercially available (ie. not just a student film). Dbertman 10:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 12:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. According to the official web site, this film hasn't even started shooting yet. --Metropolitan90 15:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn film. --Terence Ong 16:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• While University Heights (movie) was a close call, this one isn't. Delete. B.Wind 18:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, totally non-notable film. This is much worse than University Heights. Grandmasterka 01:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Original poster makes unverified assumptions of the movies based solely upon the plot. "studentishness". Story is based mainly in a psychologist's office and a unamed, enviroment. If the original poster took time to read the screenplay, he would understand that it is not mostly about 'school', as he put it. Nowhere in any of the text and/or official website does it state the ages of anyone involved, therefor, it is incorrect and unfair to assume the ages of the cast/crew bassed upon a couple of sentances, which were not properly read. Shooting has also begun and completion dates are listed, this would mean the title in question is, "In-production" which is an acceptable state. Needless to say, should the project fall through, the article will be deleted. Distribution in New Zealand has been obtained and can be verified if need be, Australia's distribution will most likely be handled independantly. Movie has been submitted to IMDB and is currently in the process of descision. Article is non-biased and formatted correctly, references to it being non-notable are speculation to the popularity of it. Article exists so anyone can look and discover what the movie is if they hear about it. Article is not designed as the original poster claimed, 'vanity'. Nor is it designed as a student film. For it to be a student film, it would require me to be a student of a highschool, college or university. Seems I am neither of these, how can it be a student film? Because it focuses on high school students? Elephant is also listed in here as dealing with high school students and that isn't a student film. Additionally, link on the home page back to this and the reference to 'red' writing are invalid and pointless comments. They serve no purpose and do not affect the explanation. cchamber 17:42pm, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The "unverified assumptions" were based on the information in your blog, which says you are 16 years old. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This mistake has since been fixed while I was looking through to discover the source of your information. I apologise for this confusion. cchamber 20:13pm, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per Nom --Angelstorm 01:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see no reason why this film should not stay. Redmist1000 05:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This vote was Redmist1000's first contribution to Wikipedia. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This makes a difference how? So he has wasted less time than you? Big deal. I haven't made an official vote yet, and I don't expect my vote will be counted. Cchamber 12:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: New users votes are generally discounted, especially when their first edits are to a AfD. I'm not sure what you mean about "wasted less time". Avoid making pesonal comments, please. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Excellent Idea, now if we can all deal with personal bias then we are set.... Cchamber 13:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 01:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --Ezeu 16:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry C

the page appears to be a vanity page, possibly created by the person himself rather than the page of an accomplished singer/band. Dbertman 10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• OpposeThis is not a "vanity page". He is an accomplished guitarist and is currently in the process of releasing an album, I will compromise and remove the "accomplished" and "talented" in the article as I can see how that isn't neutral. Is that OK? Thunder Cat

• Delete along with the image: fails WP:MUSIC. --Pak21 10:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

He has done a tour of Taiwan thus shouldn't he meet the standards? This is proved on the website, there are videos to prove as such. Thunder Cat 10:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I've made my opposition clear and I have, for want of a better term, stated my defense so I prepose that article is allowed to remain and improve. Thunder Cat 11:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 12:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're saying the tour is not notable well it doesn't have to be, only the source of verification does and the source of verification is his website which has videos of it and I'm sure, given time, I could show other sources that are undisputable. Thunder Cat 13:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. if you look on you tube he gets loads of views on his videos so he will be notable. cannon got 31,889 viewings. so he must be notable to some point if that many people are going to watch just 1 of his videos 82.118.120.209 13:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Having a video on YouTube is not a sign of notability. Maybe he does meet one or more of the WP:MUSIC criteria, but the article currently doesn't indicate that or show how it can be verified. If the article is revised to indicate why he qualifies under WP:MUSIC with sources, I may reconsider. --Metropolitan90 15:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Repost. - Eagle^(talk) 16:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if he meets some of the criteria he the article remains as an article only has to meet one of the criteria to be able to remain. I will use your advice and revise the article and be sure to include sources but I will need some time to do so so could we remove it from the list for deletion as a small recess so I can do so? Thunder Cat 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: You've got five days before the article is deleted. If you can't come up with sources in that time, he's not notable. Cheers --Pak21 16:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose I'm going to get any help? Thunder Cat 16:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm quite new so could you elaborate on "repost" Eagleman please? Rather than just delete surely we could just put it as cleanup and help yourselves to make it better? Thunder Cat 16:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: the article Jerry C has already been created on Wikipedia once, and then deleted on 9 April under speedy deletion criteria A7, namely "Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages". With respect to cleanup, you're missing the point here slightly: editors are suggesting deletion not because it's currently a bad article, but because it has no potential to be a good article, as the subject is (as far as anyone can tell) not notable. Cheers --Pak21 16:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, alright that seems very reasonable and I wasn't aware someone had made the article in the past but if and when he releases his album will that make him notable? Thunder Cat 17:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: WP:MUSIC states "has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" (my emphasis). Cheers --Pak21 17:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'd recommend that (if they've been on significant - major or important indie - labels with a national distribution), plus touring details. Be sure to give independent references (after all, they do get checked). Best of luck in the future. B.Wind 18:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am not familiar with the Wikipedia submission process, but I have been asked to argue in favor of a JerryC Wikipedia submission. JerryC is without a doubt an Internet phenomenon. Youtube, Google Video, and many other video sharing sites are populated with hundreds of videos of people covering (copying/playing) JerryC's Canon Rock. JerryC videos became popular because of the stark contrast between his high end guitar & compositional talent juxtaposed against the humble back drop of his tatty bedroom. If he had recorded his videos on stage, I'm sure few people would have noticed. However, he does currently have a huge Internet following. I run a non profit JerryC video link site: [[53]]. I have no financial or contractual link with JerryC (in fact I've only emailed him twice). My site gets 40,000 Unique visitors per month, and has had 8.5 million hits in the last 5 months. I would say, that's popular. I think at the very least, JerryC should get a mention on the Internet phenomenon page, but really deserves his own link. It's not about promoting him as an artist, but more about documenting the Internet ripple his video's have caused (the Canon Rock covers). Megazoid --82.152.166.122 19:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Non-notable artist. --InShaneee 19:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Surely if someone has tried to make an article in the past and there are so many viewings he must be at least a "notable artist". As to verifying the amount of viewings one can simply go on the websites listed. As Megazoid runs the website he can issue proof to verify the amount of hits he recieves and one can simply look at the number of hits on You Tube. Thunder Cat 20:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The definiton of notable is worthy of note, remarkable or a person of distinction. Jery C is worthy of note, he is remarkable and he is a person of distinction. He is a very talented guitarist, one could easily say he is a virtuoso. Not only this but he is also a very competant drummer and pianist. Not only this but he is very distinctive as the music he plays is very different to what one would normally hear, unique even, apart from his covers of course! There is a vast amount of interest in him all over the internet so surely he is a notable artist at the very least. Thunder Cat 20:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete as non-notable per WP:MUSIC and as necessarily unverifiable (per WP:RS) in any event. Joe 22:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment That definition of notable is becoming out of date as there are other people who are popular and notable on the internet alone. Jerry C is an example of them and we should reform our definition of notable to accept people like him. Does it also not say if the rules hinder the improvement of Wikipedia you should ignore them? Thunder Cat 08:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed at the village pump, not in the middle of an AfD, in which we must follow the established guidelines. For the time being WP:MUSIC, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOT establish the rules under which this process is run now. Oh, I forgot WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB and WP:BIO. B.Wind 01:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Verification The 15th most viewed video on YouTube, is a cover (copy) of JerryC's Canon Rock video by a young Malaysian - FunTwo. Simply titled "guitar" [[54]], it shows Funtwo playing an unaltered version of JerryC's composition in the same setting (his bedroom). It has had 4,612,731 views, and was mentioned in an article on The New York Times website [[55]]. JerryC is mentioned in both the video, and the article. JerryC's original Canon Rock video has been posted so many times on YouTube, that it has diluted its true ranking unfortunately. A Google search for the term "JerryC" produces 134,000 results [[56]]. It is interesting to note, that this is more results, than some of the band entries currently listed on the wikipedia Internet_phenomenon page. For example: "Lemon Demon" [[57]] produces 124,000 results. I personally feel the submitted JerryC page needs to be edited heavily, but some reference to JerryC is warranted on wikipedia. Megazoid --82.152.166.122 14:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, this discussion has gone round and round. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is not an agent of promotion. This article is premature... It's time to delete it until WP:MUSIC is established. Of course, an encyclopedic article would discuss in some length his work (preferably spelled correctly - misspellings stand out when they're red links). I'd be more inclined to accept the article if it truly had significant substance besides the POV/biographical first paragraph. Admins, is it time to invoke WP:SNOW? B.Wind 01:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Insufficiently notable. Zaxem 01:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. He isn't notable so I'll just wait until he releases his albums but yeah go ahead and delete it. Thunder Cat 19:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CoP.Track

Not notable. 500 google hits. Advertising Sleepyhead 10:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Article lacks any substance or actual direct information. Dbertman 10:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 12:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement. --Terence Ong 16:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --P199 21:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.User:Dbertman :) Dlohcierekim 04:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Techlepathy

I'm inclined to think it's a neologism, given that most Google hits point to Wikipedia mirrors. - Sikon 11:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. DarthVader 12:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - reference indicates the likely beginning of a branch of telepathy with that name, but it's the only occurrence I can find of that term. I'd urge taking this information in this article and putting it into telepathy without using the "techlepathy" term as it might be premature. B.Wind 18:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, merge per User:B.Wind. :) Dlohcierekim 04:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rick O'Connor

Advertisement disguised as quick 'fact' about a non-notable persson or persons. Deleterious 06:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ^^ Dbertman 11:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 12:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. --Terence Ong 16:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO. Doesn't sound like an ad to me, though. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. :) Dlohcierekim 04:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 No consensus, default to keep. Comment on nom: Redirecting this oft used term (to which 41 namespace articles link) to an article about a pornographic website to which two namespace articles link, is against reason. --Ezeu 17:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Active duty

The article is a dictionary definition and the article name is the same as another article with different capitalisation (Active Duty). I propose that this page be deleted and made into a redirect. Clawed 11:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and if required, transiwiki article to wiktionary. Dbertman 13:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary; delete afterwards. --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 15:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary--Jusjih 15:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Terence Ong 16:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep/move to a disambiguation page. The two articles cover completely different meanings of the word, and Active duty covers the more common one. However, it is short enough that the entire article can fit on a disambiguation page that also has a link to the other meaning. Armedblowfish 17:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/move per User:Armedblowfish :) Dlohcierekim 03:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 no consensus, default to keep. --Ezeu 17:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Petrodollar warfare

Below is a paste of my thoughts as an economist on this issue, including a list of ommissions, errors and misleading insinuations. It is my belief this page will never be free of a measure of bias, and as such will lead to a consistent misrepresentation of the facts for every Wiki user.

Ultimately it is not the purpose of this encyclopedia to air misleading statements, errors, and arguements that are so narrow and unverified as to be redundant.

I also wish it suggest that while individual components of the article are factual, the phrasology, presentation, and arguments are not. All the facts can be found elsewhere in wikipedia, and thus we must question what purpose it serves to bring them together so poorly here to substantiate a fundamentally misleading argument.

For every user that reads this article and is entirely convinced due to a lack of economic education, wikipedia has failed. Here now are some of my specific thoughts:

[edit] Fiat Money

In my opinion, the point about fiat money is largely a platitude, nor important in substantiating the theory.

Most if not all currencies are in the form of fiat money (whether they be convertible or not to a commodity). Even in the century from 1800 to 1900, Triffin identified that 95% of new money creation on the European continent was in the form of credit or fiat money - a period largely claimed to be dominated by the Gold or Bi-metallic standard and exchange rate stability.

The principle of accepting the value of fiat money is now engrained in our culture, and moreover backed up by the fact that the currency is "legal tender". I.e. it is illegal not to accept the money in settlement of a debt or other contract.

My point is, that this article is misleading in how it presents the link between the physical fiat money and its value as being weak, when in fact it very strong, nor would it be any stronger if it were convertible to a commodity.

If anything this article should focus on whether the currency is MIS-valued, or will receive a SHOCK to its value as a result of exogenous impacts. To play devil's advocate, if the dollar were freely convertible to gold or some other commodity, and the dollar took a hit in value (say to a fall in international reserve holdings), the dollar would still suffer. The economy would shift from the dollar to gold, in an exact parrellel of a shift from the dollar to another currency.

If we went even further to suggest that the US issue actual gold coins, the theory states that in order to maintain parity, the money supply must vary with the balance of payments. If gold is over-valued at the mint (i.e. there is a reduction in demand for the gold dollar, and the nominal value of gold is greater than that of the domestic currency exchange value) then you will still get a flight of capital from the US, and instead of a shift in currency values (since the gold price is essentially fixed) it would be prices of good that went through the roof instead.

Ultimately, this argument that the a currency is somehow flimsy, and more vulnerable as a result of being a fiat currency is ridiculous. No system of currency could protect against the shocks described in this article.

[edit] M3 removal from the statistics

While the article credits the official reasons for the abandonment of the M3 measure, its insinuations are towards that of a modicum of duplicity. Not only is there a risk of this being defamatory, but it ignores the true nature of econometrics. Constantly our system of economic measures are being changed. A cursory glance of the statistics published in the economist will show the myriad of different money measures used across the Globe.

Specifically, correlation between movements in M2 and M3 for the last 6 years are almost 1 to 1. In fact, M2 moves slightly ahead of M3, so any shift in M3, can be slightly predicted by shifts in M2.

The loss of the M3 statistic is justifiable, and moreover is no hinderance to economists in that M2 is virtually a perfect proxy for M3.

[edit] A GLARING OMMISSION in the argument

A signification topic for debate among American economists is the issue of China's currency dealings. Greenspan himself has critisized China's maintainance of an undervalued currency versus the dollar.

How do they achieve this? By buying as many dollars as they can get their hands on, and selling their domestic currency. Ultimately....why would an administration hell bent on protecting its domestic currency from losing its value through a fall in foriegn holdings, so openly critisize and condemn the policy which results in the largest foriegn, non-utilised stock of dollars on the planet.

This theory is....largely, rubbish in my opinion, poorly argued, lacking in decent evidence, with extremely tenuous links and furthermore is incredibly short sighted.

It is unencyclopedic, and more importantly, actively misleading and should be removed. I should also point out that many developing nations peg to the dollar, or adopt a full or partial policy of dollarisation (i.e. using dollars as the domestic currency) and these policies are generally opposed by the US policy makers due to the inflationary impact.

....what I ask you to focus on, is that this article will never be anything more than a collection of disparate facts, widely accessible in properly constructed NPOV factual articles across wikipedia, laiden with bias, POV and misrepresentation of economic theory. What purpose then does it serve?

In my opinion, at the least, it does not serve the fact seaker. If nothing else, any impact is greatly exaggerated (an always will be). A study by Flood and Rose estimates the losses at 1/200th of GDP, in terms of lost seignorage.

Unclebob 11:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC) (London School of Economics BSc Econ Graduate....for what its worth)

[edit] ...and now, back to the AfD

• OK. But we have an article on creationism, too; so "The theory is whack," is an argument for pointing out that it is rejected by mainstream economists, not for deleting the article. A google search reveals that the only person who seems to use the term is the author of a book by the same name. Change to a discussion of it as a book, not a hypothesis. Encourage Unclebob to quote economists other than himself who criticize the basic ideas therein. --JChap 13:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Some valid points there. However, this topic is so out of left field that there is little or no mainstream criticism of it - this it will be essentially impossible to provide a balanced view on the topic. What little evidence exists to disprove the theory and more over the uneconomic inferences drawn were listed in my critique above. Much of the theoretical analysis above is made on the basis of models created by "other" economists. I apologise if it was not wiktiquette or some such to suggest deletion, but you be hard pressed to find any other encyclopedia giving space to conspiracy theorist's ravings, based on inferences that are counter factual and counter theoretical. There is nothing counter factual about creationism, whereas the inferences in this article are, and will continue to be in order to serve the purpose of the conspiracy creators - long may their books sales continue.

Nevertheless...as a newbie, I'll graciously accept the will of the mob :p Unclebob 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you to contribute to the article, which is now crap. Focus on the book and refutations by mainstream economists. The theory itself isn't notable enough for inclusion. --JChap 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Why is this here? This belongs on the article's talk page in my opinion. You've come here with your opinions and when I look at the article I see other opinions. Bring this to the article's talk page and work out those opinions together into a comprehensive article. Metros232 13:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you acknowledging the page has failed to be NPOV? If not, can I put my "ravings" on the article? Unclebob 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Metros232. If there are no objections, I'd like to move this filibuster to the article discussion page. Filibusters tend to make me urge deletion regardless of actual validity of the argument. B.Wind 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, also note that there has already been a previous AfD discussing this article--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 18:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, AfD is not the forum for content complaints, per Metros232. Sandstein 20:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. The article seems perfectly fine. Just because you don't like what something has to say is not a reason to delete it. --UsaSatsui 22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its not fair to say I ever used the word "like" - my argument is the article is counter factual and counter theoretical. It is in essence misleading readers. Unclebob 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Then should we delete controversial articles like evolution or God just because they might somehow "mislead" readers? Please note that keeping an article isn't judged by how factual or accepted the subject is, but by the notability of the subject. This discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not on AfD. --☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Er....this isn't about controversy. Its not even about debate. Its about factual and theoretical errors, being consistentently represented as accurate because of the skewed nature of the public debate and seeming importance attached to that. Is it weight or quality of information that merits inclusion or exclusion in this encyclopedia? Is there not a parrellel here between this topic and the vested interests of the Congress editing of wikipedia pages for their purposes? Unclebob 23:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've said above, the decision to keep or delete an article is not depended by how factual or accepted the subject is, but by the subject's notability. If the subject does have factual or theoretical errors, you can always mention it in the article (provided that you have some sort of citation to back it up).--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 00:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

By that standard, this article should be deleted. There is nothing notable about the phrase petrodollar warfare; see the results of searches in my comments below.--csloat 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I've read the article in full. The subject is notable, but the treatment of it is seriously flawed. It should be rewritten about the book. As it stands, it is just a collection of wacky conspiracy theories. Unclebob made a procedural misstep by bringing this here, but this should be forgiven a newbie. If we keep, we should support him rewriting this steamy pile of pony loaf. Where's a rouge admin when you need one? --JChap 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• So, is there any redeemable content? If not, a delete is justified. --Mmx1 05:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and do-over, as content is inappropriate abstract of a book when it should be About the book, as that is the only significant citation. If God was simply a synopsis of the bible, it would be deleted and rewritten from scratch. That is what I feel is appropriate here. --Mmx1 05:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep, this article should not have been brought to this discussion again. What is the agenda?--tequendamia 09:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep', appears of interest but perhaps does need clean up. --Mr magoo 17:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• I would support a re-write of the article containing Unclebob's criticisms/rebuttal. In that way Wikipedia readers can learn to be more sceptical of such conspiracy theories and also maybe learn a bit about economics as well. --User: Jaganath 11:12 31 May 2006

In general I think the consensus is that the subject is sufficient ACTIVE, at least in the internet domain, to warrant inclusion. In one week from now (when I am liberated from exam considerations) I will re-write the article focusing on the claims of the theory, and a more full and cited criticism and theoretical de-bunking section. I apologise for not using the AfD properly...albeit I believe more effective discussion resulted than would have ever been possible in the discussion page :p. Feel free to Aye or Nay to this idea.

Furthermore, any recommendations as to what procedure would be used if some other "economist" attempted to re-assert the haphazard economics on a period basis, either by deleting the critcisms or by other means etc. would be appreciated. Unclebob 18:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oddly, what is preeminent in Wiki is not truth, but verifiability. See WP:V Provide sources for all criticisms and debunking, and if another anon attemps to reassert uncited material contradicting what's cited, then it would be legitimate to remove that material. --Mmx1 20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I endorse what Mmx1 and Unclebob are saying. The funny thing about this article is that it combines sourced, verifiable statements with statements that include "reportedly" with no indication of who reported it. WP:CB articles are usually much easier to spot. --JChap 00:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or rewrite per Mmx1. Support User: Jaganath's comments re: rewrite. Armon 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Per my comments from the last AfD on this: Non-notable. This seems like a vanity page to showcase someone's research (though it is so poorly written as to suggest it probably wasn't the work of the author showcased). As pointed out on its talk page, most of the google hits for this page point to advertisements for this guy's book or to blogs. On Lexis/Nexis I searched full text for all available dates for "petrodollar warfare" in major papers, then in all news transcripts, then in all wire reports, for all available dates, and did not come up with a single citation for an article mentioning that phrase. Not one. A search of EBSCOHost for academic journals found not a single use of the phrase. A google search of books mentioning the phrase returns nothing. The only results on Google scholar is a link to an essay by Clark posted to a site called "ratville times" and three other pieces that list Clark's book as a reference but do not use the phrase "petrodollar warfare." None of those four sources is from a peer reviewed article or even from an article published in print (as opposed to on websites). This looks like a vanity page for a young scholar. --csloat 19:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Euro Gang

Each of these groups seems to be independent and aren't collaborating as this article states. The closest result I can find in searching Google is that S.A.S. does a song with the Diplomats/Cam'ron called "So Free" in which one of the S.A.S. rappers says "This is S.A.S., DipSet Euro Gang". Nothing to suggest this is nothing more than a nickname S.A.S. has bestowed upon itself. Metros232 12:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete 11600 Ghits--Jusjih 15:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 2630 google hits for +"Euro Gang" -wiki +band. Cannot find where they pass Wikipedia:Notability (music). Open to suggestion :) Dlohcierekim 15:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Only 4 Google hits for "Euro Gang" + Black n Bronz [58] Metros232 15:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 16:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - while the "connections" are themselves noteworthy, the group is not yet. Let's see after the first CD or two are released. By then, I'm sure that a more comprehensive article about them will be written. B.Wind 18:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 as copyvio/blanked by author. Royboycrashfan 19:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alesis Micron

seems like an advertisement to me Krankman 13:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, could be. :) Dlohcierekim 15:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --JChap 13:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as possible copyvio. :) Dlohcierekim 15:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. Any guesses why it's unsourced? B.Wind 18:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete!!! daveJ7 6:40, 30 May 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 debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freshman Academy

Non-notable program at a university. A lot of schools have some sort of transition program for incoming freshmen. I don't even think it warrants mention in the main Brigham Young University article. Metros232 13:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete - completely non-notable. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 13:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 15:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 17:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 (less weight given to the numerous suspect sock "votes").--Ezeu 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Of Mice and Mayhem

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

A nice looking webcomic, but little to no evidence of notability. Delete as advertising and vanity. --InShaneee 14:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've already done the Comixpedia thing. It's here. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• I was unaware of the Comixpedia site and the service it provides. Though the reference to this comic in Comixpedia as a Wikipedia import would be somewhat sufficient, I remain opposed to deletion (I believe it is notable enough given its quality and high regard amongst the FanFic community) –BabylonLegacy 11:47, 29 May 2006.
  • Note: User's second edit, has edited only this page and the page in discussion. --InShaneee 23:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: It appears to be an important part of the fandom. -- Eyrian (talk • contribs) 01:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: It's part of an overall bigger picture, alerting fans of an additional branch. -ADW 8:15, 30 May 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.228.35.235 (talk • contribs) .
  • Note: User's only edit. --InShaneee 23:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I like this entry... keep it. Don't listen to these naysayers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.59.201 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: User's fifth edit. --InShaneee 23:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: What do you mean, no evidence of notability!? It's one of the most spectacular fan-produced works I've ever seen! It's been a huge influence in many areas of the Disney fandom and is often cited in a wide variety of sites. Definitely a "keeper". ---Ray Jones--- --24.170.36.86 15:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User's only two edits are to this discussion. --InShaneee 23:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This fan-made work has probably brought more people to fandom than the series itself. I'd even call it a milestone in the history of both fan fiction and fan art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.8.229 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: User's only edit. --InShaneee 23:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This comic is vital to the Rescue Ranger fandom, and is an important part of said fandom's artistic and fanfiction history. Please keep it! 152.163.100.201 05:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)RangerReady23152.163.100.201 05:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This comics quality in both art and writing makes it more then sufficient in terms of notability, I strongly think it should be kept on wikipedia 128.195.111.119 06:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Gabb
  • Note: User's fourth edit. --InShaneee 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no claim of notability in article, no reliable sources. See WP:WEB for what is meant by notability. -- Dragonfiend 13:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not going to weigh in on whether the article should be deleted or not. Perhaps it'd make more sense as part of the main "Rescue Rangers" article. However, I think it's definitely notable, just as much as other major furry works like Jack or DMFA which aren't under debate. It's really a fully-fledged fan-created graphic novel, and was created and released as such. It's an accomplishment which is fairly unique, as most other comics are episodic on-going affairs, often times lacking a single cohesive storyline. Considering OMaM's readership, if it were a regularly comic, instead of a completed work, this discussion probably wouldn't even be coming up. I was directed to this work by Mat Sherer of Badly Drawn Kitties fame, in an off-handed comment he made about a year ago in his blog. (Unfortunately, the Internet Archive is down at the moment, so I couldn't try and look for it. If corroboration is necessary, I'm sure he wouldn't mind speaking for himself. Heck, why not ask notables in community to weigh in?) Mat isn't even necessarily a part of the CDRR-specific fandom, but he seems well-connected to other notables in the community, and his comment mentioned the waves this comic was making. I think that speaks loudly enough about the level of impact it's had. --BeeBot 17:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: User's only edit. --InShaneee 23:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Though this may be the only page I've contributed to, I hold no association with "Of Mice and Mayhem" or its author. I use wikipedia quite regularly. However, this is the first time I've come across a page that was nominated for deletion. Given the contents of the page and the subject it was referencing, I was compelled to open a wikipedia account and voice my opinion on the matter. I would also like to note that I have not participated in alerting anyone to this page's impending deletion. I am merely a voice among many who feels this subject is notable enough to warrant a reference on this site. And though I am aware this in not up for a vote, I'm hoping the administrators will at least take this under consideration and reconsider. –BabylonLegacy 12:04, 1 June 2006.
• Delete I saw this page ages ago, and considered deleting it. However, I put it off to go after even more useless webcomic crap that we had lying around and never came back to it. The guy seems to have some iota of talent, but the arguments above say it's notable to the Chip n Dale fandom? That really isn't enough, because I'd vote to delete an article on the Chip n Dale fandom any day. - Hahnchen 05:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: There must be dozens of pages about fandoms, series, webcomics and shows that aren't as noteable as "Of Mice And Mayhem". Yet they deserve a place to. Furthermore, most people got it wrong that it's important to Rescue Rangers fandom. It's considered an accomplishment in the whole furry and anthromorphic fandom. Most of these fans, when asked if they know this comic, are likely to give a positive answer. Even if some have never watched the series itself. And the comic's creator still recieves praise for his work. I find the claim that it has little noteability very dubious. ---CD--- 11:34 2 June 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.51.85 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: User's only edit. --InShaneee 23:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If users only edit how come the top directions say anyone is free to discuss this subject, how come when I go to actually edit the page the top reminds me that I am not logged in but it still says I am free to edit the pages, and how come later in the directions it says Please sign your posts on this page by adding ( the squiggles ) at the end ( if only users can edit then they wouldn't have to do this ). Happy editing!, I think anyone is allowed to edit and you don't have to only be a user 01:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Gabb —The preceding manually-signed comment was added by 128.195.111.119 (talk • contribs).
• Delete. The fandom doesn't matter. And this particular fan-made comic book(s) doesn't look to be much different. Nifboy 04:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It looks like very good fan fiction, but this does not make it notable. Google returns 96 hits, 44 unique. Looking through them shows no reputable primary sources. Alexa rank of site is 4.6 million, and the linked-to review site has no Alexa rank. This possibly deserves a mention at Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers (which it already has), but not its own article. lowercase 10:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This debate doesn't seem to hinge much on whether or not someone is a fan of the show, but it's notability. I'm all for the increase of free information, and I didn't even know about Of Mice and Mayhem until I was checking the article for the RR show to see the chronological airing of the episodes. I'm glad the information was there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.28.187.177 (talk • contribs).
  • Note: IP's only edit. lowercase 05:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scooby-Doo 3

All speculation. No official announcement, no IMDb page, no nothing. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. FuriousFreddy 14:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. "There is no real official plot," only rumours of dissociation. :) Dlohcierekim 15:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculative, even three stars don't want to come back. As per nom and Dlohcierekim as well. --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 15:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a crystal ball. feydey 17:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per feydey. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per feydey. Recreate it if nessesary. --Starionwolf 23:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. CB. Send it with Final Destination 4, Ghostbusters 3, Mrs Doubtfire 2, Kung Pow 2 and, for all I know, Ishtar 2. Fan1967 23:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Well, if you told me a month ago there was gonna be a Garfield sequel, I would have laughed at you, but there you go. Anyhoo, not a crystal ball, yada yada, Delete. Danny Lilithborne 01:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone. Heck, there was supposed to be a sequel to Battlefield Earth! Grandmasterka 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom --Angelstorm 01:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jawad Mohammad

• Delete: Non-notable teenage cricket player with no Google representation. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Forgot to mention that this was de-prodded by an anon without explanation. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Google search for "Jawad Mohammad" -wiki +cricket". :) Dlohcierekim 15:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. no citations to indicate otherwise, no evident google results. HighInBC 15:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not yet notable. Grandmasterka 02:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Yamaguchi先生 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Justice League (TV series). --Ezeu 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Savage Time

What the? No indication what this is (TV show? comic story arc? The name is poorly selected, and the article a mere fragment. Delete Dyslexic agnostic 14:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete one episode of a cartoon Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Can we merge the relevant info to Vandal Savage. This appears to be one of his nefarious exploits. cheers :) Dlohcierekim 15:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Justice League (TV series). B.Wind 18:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. --P199 21:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect cheaply. WP:NOT a repository of cartoon episode details. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Transwiki to Wiktionary and redirect to Half-time (posted transwiki request). -Ezeu 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halftime

Nothing more than a dictionary definition. Transwiki to wiktionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mets501 (talk • contribs)

• Transwiki per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above. --Osbus 15:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above. :) Dlohcierekim 15:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki and redirect to the song. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki and redirect to Half-time since that will be the far more likely redirect. Move the song to its own page. fuzzy510 00:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Beck

Non-notable fim maker. Has produced festival films (see University Heights (movie)) but as far as I see none have been released commercially. Is in IMDb, but entry does not impress, really. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable per google and IMDb article. Fails WP:BIO :) Dlohcierekim 15:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - too early in his career for an article. Fails WP:BIO. B.Wind 18:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rike Scholle

Has only appeared in one movie which has not even received five votes on IMDb, suggesting it is not of note. Has otherwise had a non-notable modelling career which has ended. I r Barneyboo (Talk) 15:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Tone 15:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 123 google hits. Fails WP:BIO :) Dlohcierekim 15:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 22:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Syndicate

A student group at Oxford. Nominating along with The Syndicate (St Edmund Hall, Oxford), an article on the same group. Perhaps it could be put in St Edmund Hall article instead, but it's not deserving of its own article. Metros232 15:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with extreme prejudice. -- GWO
• Delete both. Bwithh 18:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. Once there is an article or section about the Oxford crew, the material can be incorporated there. B.Wind 19:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See OUBC. But this doesn't belong there. See below -- GWO

• Delete. I've yet to find anyone who admits to having heard of it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- an explanation is in order. During Oxford's terms, there is some serious intercollegiate rowing that takes place. However, there are also many more low quality races before the main events, in which a great many social crews with silly names compete, usually as an excuse to go out and drink heavily the following night. This is one such crew, from literally hundreds each year. (I still have my crew shirt with "Demon Axe Warriors From Oblivion" on it, somewhere). Anyhow, they're not associated with the Boat Race crew OUBC in any way, besides using the same stretch of water. Fun, really excellent muscle-tearing drunken fun, but not notable. -- GWO

• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.--Ezeu 20:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Axelrod

His 15 minutes of fame are up. He has sunk back into obscurity with no lasting effect on the world. Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment 12600 Ghits--Jusjih 15:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets basic notability standards. Just because his 15 minutes are up doesn't mean he doesn't meet basic standards. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If this article was purged, many other articles (Star Wars Kid, numa numa guy, and others) would be deleted. 15 minutes of fame can be notable. Yanksox 17:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 15 minutes can be notable, if they're remembered and/or have an effect on the world. Norma McCorvey's 15 minutes were good. Ditto Mark David Chapman. Not Axelrod. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Mark David Chapman killed a man, not to mention a highly regarded singer/songwriter and Norma McCorvey was part of a monumental decision in the US Court system and reversed her decision. I'm not sure if that qualifies as 15 minutes of fame, if it has a lasting effect, it's not 15 minutes. Yanksox 19:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW, the numa numa guy, Gary Brolsma, is a redir, and the star wars kid incident also had major reverberations in pop culture, incl. a parody on arrested development, etc. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I still think your definition of 15 minutes of fame is drastically flawed. You listed people that have an impact. 15 minutes of fame has been and will be recorded into this site. You are trying to imply that 15 minutes of fame, something that has an importance that immedially goes away, has to be something that has lasting effects. There are many fades, and other events that quickly wash out but have articles here. Does that mean we should wipe out Jimstown because it doesn't have a lasting social effect? Yanksox 19:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That probably shouldn't be a redirect. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge - The only reason anyone has heard of this guy is because of the incident involving Antonio Davis. He should be mentioned there. - Hahnchen 18:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Correction - It is already mentioned there, just plain out delete and redirect the thing. - Hahnchen 18:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Expand and keep - notable political consultant who was involved in a sports fracas that made the news. His 15 minutes may be up, but that doesn't change the issue of notability. Also, with the rise of Barack Obama, it appears that another 15 minutes might be coming. B.Wind 19:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I do not think he is a notable political consultant. I think his father is, although not following US politics closely, I can not be sure. - Hahnchen 19:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It's his dad. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I stand corrected. My comments above are duly modified. Thanks to all. B.Wind 19:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Even here in Chicago, his 15 minutes were pretty short. I imagine elsewhere he was barely a blip on the radar. Fan1967 21:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - totally NN. Should every clown that gets a bit of TV time be on WP? --P199 21:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete So far as I can tell this guy is not notable beyond the fight itself. All relevant information is already covered in Antonio Davis. ScottW 23:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This guy didn't even deserve the 15 minutes of fame he got, and this stub doesn't give any other reason for its existence. This isn't the phonebook: let him do something with some sort of actual impact and then he can get an actual biography. --Calton | Talk 02:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. He is not notable beyond the Antonio Davis incident, which is mentioned elsewhere. This was more like 30 seconds of fame that was repeated over and over on national television for a few days... Nowhere near enough for me. The coverage was centered around Davis, not this guy. He had no lasting impact. People that were the focus of whole international TV episodes are sometimes deleted. Many reasons for this. Grandmasterka 02:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - sports figures getting into fights is not notable beyond the article on the specific sports figure. Now if there were a week without a sport figure getting into a fight, that would be notable... AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A minor scuffle in the stands at a sports event. Not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.--Ezeu 20:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aliyah Likit

Delete. The subject of this article fails to fall under any of the criteria listed in WP:PORN BIO. A previous nomination of this article was met with a no consensus vote. Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Expand There are about 27000 Ghits. Try to expand first.--Jusjih 15:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:PORN BIO for an explanation as to fallacy of Google hits in this case. B.Wind 19:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: all discussion should be stopped until nomination is complete. Article in question has not been edited in any way since March 7, 2006. No AfD tag has been placed. I'll be glad to remove this line and resume my discussion of this article upon completion of the nominating process. B.Wind 19:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to note: I've placed the tag. I believe I did this, but apparently the edit did not go through for some reason. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 19:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. Since there is no evidence in the article of the number of movies she made (the eleven listed is roughly one-ninth the number needed for inclusion in WP:PORN BIO) or awards or anything else mentioned by the proposed threshhold, delete. B.Wind 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PORN BIO. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. GentlemanGhost 07:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough in her field to justify an encyclopedia article. Zaxem 01:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as per the comments made by Capitalistroadster in the original nomination. Silensor 06:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Google hits referred to by Capitalistroadster seem to be limited to picture galleries, rather than actual articles on the person. Please, prove me wrong - if there are actual articles from known sources that could be a reason to keep. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Google hits aren't enough for porn topics, and 27000 hits is nothing spectacular anyway. I have 15,500 google hits currently, and I didn't even have to take off my clothes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 22:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn dellimore

Delete - non-notable person according to Wikipedia:Notability (people). Has a handful of Google hits, most pointing to Wikipedia. His site, www.CelebEvents.co.uk, is well-trafficked, but he himself is non-notable and says nothing in the page to assert his notability. Fabricationary 16:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - autobiography, copyvio, nn B.Wind 19:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per B.Wind. --William Pietri 08:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per above --Jo Leslie 11:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deleted, CSD-G4. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trae

STILL non-notable rapper, page has already been deleted once and was remade. Old discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trae. —Batman2005 16:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Is this the same article? If so then it falls under CSD G4. TheProject 17:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - recreated deleted article. B.Wind 19:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, {{db-repost}}, so tagged. Sandstein 19:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 deleted as empty. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 20:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eleana Apartments

Not only do search results solely come up as an active tourist hotel/apartment block of no apparant great significance, and, it hasn't been updated in over 5 months. L-Bit 10:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

delete cleanup tag since December 2005, stub consisting only of 8 words, not linked by any Wikipedia article Deleteme42 16:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per above; I'd slap it with {{db-empty}}. -EdGl 16:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - one sentence does not a Wikipedia article make... and this one sentence is empty of substance. B.Wind 19:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, {{db-empty}}, so tagged. Sandstein 19:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 22:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ace Titles in A and N series

From MfD: Replacement pages exist at List of Ace Titles in A series and List of Ace Titles in N series. Computerjoe's talk 16:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not even a worthwhile redirect. B.Wind 19:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - listcruft. --P199 21:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I wrote it and I think it needs to be deleted in favour of the replacements. If those replacements (and the related articles listed at Category:Lists of Ace Books (which I would wikify if I could figure out how)) are truly listcruft and unnecessary, please let me know before I do any more work on them. Mike Christie 15:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mike Christie and nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 04:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 22:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] England World Cup Song

advertisement, unable to make into encyclopedia article, this is not the only "England World Cup Song," If someone wanted to do a list of various songs connected to/about the 2006 Cup, that's another matter JChap 17:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. I aggree, pointless if it is just about one song --Fenigan Brack 23:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Wikipedia has articles about major soccer songs like "World in Motion" and "Three Lions" but this particular article is just promotion for a particular song. --Metropolitan90 17:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, unless it is expanded to discuss the World Cup song(s) generally. (And I say this as an American who has had Ant and Dec's "We're on the Ball" on his iPod for the last four years.) —C.Fred (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Guinnog 23:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and I like Spizzenergi (although I've not heard this song and didn't know they were still going). Misleading title as the only song that can lay claim to the name is the official song; and even then, the title isn't year-specific (that said, I wouldn't mind seeing, say, an England Official World Cup Songs over the years article). Shameless advertising, too. Seb Patrick 08:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 22:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macroterrorism

Article is original research, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Equendil 17:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - turns up 262 google hits, but does not seem like a notable or significant word. There is no article for microterrorism. --Nydas 18:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources are provided that this is not a non-notable neologism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete most references obtained through Google point to Gordon Woo, apparently the person who coined the term. The acceptance of the term, however, seems to be slowly spreading. B.Wind 19:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Agreed with B.Wind; let's wait until it has spread before having an article on it.--Guinnog 23:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP is not a place to propagate new words. Pavel Vozenilek 02:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable neologism. KleenupKrew 23:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, per above. Also completely uncited! Armon 16:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 all articles deleted; user blocked for life. DS 00:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will Guest

User:Put It Down Boy has been quite persistent in creating what are a string of hoax articles related to the fictional (or at the very least, extremely non-notable) band "Evil Chemistry." No substantial Google hits for the band, the albums, the members, etc. Quite interesting for a band that released an album that "has sold 5.4 million units in the US." Nufy8 17:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

These are all of the related articles listed for deletion:

• The Bedroom Sessions Volume 1
• Pete Stiller
• Nick Rose
• Liar (Evil Chemistry)
• Trash Records
• The Bedroom Sessions Volume 2
• Soldier (Evil Chemistry)
• Crossed Swords
• The Pursuit (Evil Chemistry album)
• Daniel Bourne
• Regain The Body
• Making My Mind EP
• The Way We Were: The Years With Pete - 1999-2001
• Everybody Hates
• The Devil's Factory
• Evil Chemistry Battle-Axe
• Trash!
• Trash Europe!
• Trash New York!
• Trash The World!
• Satanic Fantasies

• Holy shit that's an impressively elaborate hoax! Speedy delete the whole bunch of them and block this guy's IP. The Disco King 17:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, my bad, guys. I was SURE that hoaxes qualified for speedies. At any rate, strongest possible delete. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 19:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:HOAX; not a single relevant google result [59]. Don't speedy delete, as the articles do have some kind of claim to notability (even though it may not be true). Also, please remember that hoaxes do not merit speedy deletions.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 18:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but not speedy per TBC. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 18:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as hoaxes, temporarily block author for vandalism (that's what introducing text noise to Wikipedia is). Sandstein 19:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete it all.... then block the author for vandalism. I'd suggest padlocking each of these after deletion as I'm sure this person will try again. B.Wind 20:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per TBC. —C.Fred (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoax Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete very much hoax. Note that the Image:SKTSBA-m.jpg, the Evil Chemistry Battle-Axe, is now under speedy delete for copyvio. Kevin Breitenstein 21:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as vandalism - according to WP:HOAX, "Hoaxes in Wikipedia are considered vandalism, and the originator of a hoax is subject to blocking and banning." WP:VAND clarifies that vandalism includes "insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense". Thus, the article can be speedied as G3. Or failing that, there's always WP:SNOW. BigDT 21:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, it depends on the type of hoax. Please remember that only hoaxes that are obviously patent nonsense can merit a speedy deletion (see WP:PN for details). However, I must admit that you are certainly correct about WP:SNOW, though its usually recommended that WP:SNOW should not be applied to most occasions, as one of the main purposes of Wikipedia is to make decisions based on community consensus.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 23:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC).
• Delete all. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 23:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 22:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Hills Easley

I'm not personally convinced that this individual is notable enough to require an article. I have found no other sources on this individual.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 17:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. No evidence of notability. This sounds like its been copied from a newspaper obituary. Most newspaper obits describe persons not actually notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Bwithh 18:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. B.Wind 20:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mailer Diablo 22:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beale Street Barbeque

non notable trademark, advertising -- Equendil 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --JChap 17:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Fry this article - ad, misleading (Beale Street in Memphis much more notable), clearly nn, clinched by author inserting Trademark numbers at end. B.Wind 20:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - advertising. --P199 21:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)