Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] May 9
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Snow / Speedy / Its gone. Tawker 01:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of nymphets and faunlets
inappropriate content for an encyclopedia. Load of POV listcruft. Actually, in the same vein as List of sex symbols. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
So? The list of sex symbols isn't up for deletion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)
- The "something similar to this article isn't up for deletion so this article shouldn't be deleted" argument has got to be the worst keep argument. Ever. -- Scientizzle 17:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete "This is a subjective list of ..." 'nuff said. Fan1967 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is the subject matter of the article more than anything else that makes it put up for deletion, as other related articles are. You can't pin-point one article and not another just because you don't agree with its subject matter. Most of the lists on Wikipedia are POV.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)
- Delete I saw it and thought about submitting it myself ... Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information BigDT 00:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why not, go ahead and delete it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)
- Delete -- Oh my freaking god. Ditch this meretricious listcruft per nom and BigDT and let the pedos troll elsewhere. "Faunlets?" RGTraynor 01:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems most people's problem with the list is the fact that it says 'nymphet and faunlet'... if it was strictly the POV they were worried about, they'd've also tagged the list of sex symbols and other 'POV' lists... but go ahead, delete it.
A lot of the people on this list are not children, either. Many of them also appear on the list for sex symbols66.181.234.82 01:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- What is the statute of limitations on trying an AFD again? Looking at the List of Sex Symbols AFD, the vote was 10-7 in favor of deletion. Of the 7 voting to keep the list, four said that it needed to be trimmed substantially. It hasn't. Two of the keeps gave silly reasons. I guess technically 10-7 could be said to be no consensus ... but honestly, not too much has been done to improve the list and it, too, says that it is a subjective list so I would say it doesn't belong here either. BigDT 01:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sex symbols is at least verifiable, one can find sources that meet RS that call them sex symbols. Obvious examples would be Madonna and Marylin Monroe. This list does not seem to have that advantage. JoshuaZ 02:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hopelessly POV and unverifiable. JoshuaZ 02:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The poster child for why lists shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Ted 02:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. List includes Barbie and Ken, but I didn't notice any citations for any entries, even human ones. Barno 02:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per the above. Um, Kirk Douglas? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above OSU80 03:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per BigDT and Ted. --TorriTorri 03:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. SorryGuy 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Please deleteUser_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Gyre 04:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete POV/OR. Scranchuse 04:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NPOV violation from the first sentence. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV. --Terence Ong 05:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as The Most POV List Ever. But lists are usually quite useful, TedE. Grandmasterka 06:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. DarthVader 09:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 12:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Far too subjective, not a single cited source. I know "nymphet" comes from Nabokov's Lolita, but "faunlet" is probably a neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- 100% POV, and unavoidably so. Consider this my deletelet. Vizjim 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Umm.... What am I supposed to say about this except Delete? Beno1000 14:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete POV. --Tone 14:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Baleet -- stubblyhead | T/c
- Delete for oh so many reasons... -- Scientizzle 17:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all above -- Samir
(the scope) धर्म 17:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC) - whoever said 'faunlet' is a neoligism is wrong, it's in Nabokov's book "Lolita" ALONG WITH nymphet, so it is NOT a neoligism.66.181.234.82 19:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, alright, it might not be a new term, but it doesn't seem to be a very frequently-used one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- 66.181.234.82 needs to take a look at WP:PKMN. While I'm at it, delete per everyone else. -Whomp 20:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete POV list. --Eivindt@c 00:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all above. — CJewell (talk to me) 04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete as disgusting pedocruft. Wikipedia is developing a reputation as a haven for pedophiles [1] [2], and crap like this doesn't help. ergot 14:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- zOMG this is awful. The authors must have ergot poisoning. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Um... I am not a pedophile, I'm 15, most people on this list are OLDER than I am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)
- That's just what you think. I bet you plenty of wikieditors are under 15. And besides, the fact that you are 15 does not ensure that you are not a pedophile. Also, this article sorta violates WP:BEANS. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Regardless of how old you might be, this is an article whose very title is borrowing terminology from a novel about pedophilia. The pedophilia stuff is getting way out of hand, and it's making us look bad in the press. ergot 01:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Sorry. And I'm NOT a 15 year old pedophile, I'm attracted to people my age and OLDER. I can see where you're coming from, but the list was not made in the vein of any kind of pedophilic intent. As I said, most of the celebrities on the list are older than I am, and most of them I got from the list of sex symbols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)
- Comment - mm, I'm sorry, but no fifteen-year-old speaks in terms of "nymphets," "faunlets" or any other such child-slanted terminology generally restricted to pedos when discussing their peers. RGTraynor 19:11, 11 May 2006 ,(UTC)
- That is true in most cases, I don't go around calling my peers nymphet and faunlet, but I did just read Nabokov for class, and thought it would be interesting to make a list. I see now people are making a much bigger thing of it than I meant for it to be... I was just a bored teenager who put together a list with people my age and older after reading Lolita. Geez, I didn't know: 1. that people would take offense to it and think I was some pedophile, and 2. That wikiedia was ruputed as a pedophile thing... bad editing, yes, but not a pedophile thing. So, I agree that it should be deleted, because I in no way meant for the list to be that, and since it is being taken that way, I don't want to unneccesarilly offend any one else, so please DELETE it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.234.82 (talk • contribs)
-
- Ok. I've added {{db-author}} to the page. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 20:54, 10 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 06:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Political Test Dummy
The website doesn't even exist yet - that makes it hard to be notable. BigDT 00:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Hardly any Google hits, seems to be spam. Mdwh 00:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Richardcavell 00:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Buy an ad. Aplomado talk 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I suppose that something which does not yet exist can still be notable ("Tony Blair's resignation" is filling the news here, although it's some way off yet), but this article makes no claim of noatbility other than hype. --BrownHairedGirl 01:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Spam--Nick Y. 01:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn spam.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Gyre 04:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete spam.User_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A website can't be notable if it doesn't exist. There is no requirement to promote such a non-existent site, either. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Mdwh.--Eva db 09:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
How can you judge the value of a website on whether you have heard of it or not. There are literally millions of websites. Political Test Dummy plays in integral part in the development of youth opinion within the media in Australia. May I suggest you are out of touch. Judge on the merits of its aim, not the current numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.41.236 (talk • contribs)
- Delete, the passage above makes it clear it's a crystal-ball issue. ProhibitOnions 12:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per the reasons given by ProhibitOnions and others. Vizjim 14:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Crystal ball -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 17:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete 61.68.41.236: You need to realize that, no matter what the aims of an organization, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia if it doesn't exist. For example, Nazis are in wikipedia because of their (former) numbers, not because of their aims. M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The Website does exist, www.politicaltestdummy.com - Try reading the note that says they are currently 're-developing', not 'developing', but 're-developing. Or alternatively, attempt to Google the words 'Political Test Dummy'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.34.87 (talk • contribs)
- Comment But right now there's nothing - perhaps wait until it's "redeveloped" before writing an article? Anyhow, it only gets 30 Google hits [3], that's nothing. In fact, 13 are from the website itself, 9 from Wikipedia, and the rest are just someone spamming in various webforums! Mdwh 14:32, 13 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 06:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CSF Lifecycle
This page appears to be part of someone's failed multilevel marketing campaign from 2005 --Msebast 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ... 200-some google hits, mostly on places derived from Wikipedia BigDT 01:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - it's rubbish. - Richardcavell 01:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not seeing any notability. Aplomado talk 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not seeing any either. Give the guy props for his adspam lasting this long, though. RGTraynor 01:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Google for the term with -wikipedia set[4] returns only 32 hits, and most of those are still Wikipedia. This appears to be either original research or, as Msebast suggests, something to do with marketing. --BrownHairedGirl 01:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per BrownHairedGirl User_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete randomcrapcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 09:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable, and seems to be original research. Beno1000 12:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 12:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This kind of writing makes me physically ill. Smerdis of Tlön 13:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete OR -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:00, 9 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 06:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Robitic Nightmare
Barely coherent jumble, notability not demonstrated - Richardcavell 01:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. From what I can ascertain, this is referencing a particular team in a Super Mario-related soccer game. Very non-notable. Aplomado talk 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete--Nick Y. 01:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm surprised this nonsense made it this far. Kevin 01:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Non-notable, nonsensical —Larry V (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Gyre 04:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete randomcrapcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- DeleteUser_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Incoherent videogamecruft. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Incoherent Jumble--Eva db 11:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yikes, delete. ProhibitOnions 12:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- wow. did Jeff K. write that? Delete -- stubblyhead | T/c 16:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:01, 9 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 06:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Barobax
nn slang term, used in Persian, which the article admits is mainly used by an underground band in Iran, and would appear to be very recent. This I think would not be particularly notable, as Iran is a conservative theocracy and an underground rock band would probably only be known to a few people who go against the conservative orthodoxy, which most likely strongly disapporves of such music. Also, the band has a website with no alexa rank, so I am dubioiuis of their influence on pop culture.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, though transwiki to Wiktionary if someone can find a reliable source. Aplomado talk 01:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, NN. To quote from their website, "They started working on their music in 2001 and are trying to release their first album." Good luck, gents, but you're going up against the wall. RGTraynor 01:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Dlohcierekim 04:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Ted 05:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 12:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the band info which hasn't met WP:NMG, possible transwiki the slang per Aplomado. I tried to find a source but couldn't. Any Farsi speakers? -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not significant. Tyrenius 18:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. doesn't belong here. may urban dictionary, but doubtful there too. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:55, 10 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. Mailer Diablo 06:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bernard Tomic
An under-13 tennis player. He may become good one day, but there are many child wonders who never convert to the top echelons. It doesn't seem that he is notable on accounts of publicity, for the moment.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
What? Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball? Delete.Keep per Kevin1243. Mea culpa for not doing a better job of checking this topic out. As penance, I volunteer to take on the task of reworking the article myself. Sounds like an interesting topic. Aplomado talk 01:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)- Keep and cleanup. Fox News quotes "His extraordinary success was hailed as a "significant accomplishment" by Tennis Australia" earlier this year. There have also been articles in the Herald Sun and The Sydney Morning Herald. Kevin 01:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Kevin. JoshuaZ 02:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up given his record as a representative player. Capitalistroadster 02:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The fact that he is 13 does not make him encyclopedic....let's wait until he wins a major OSU80 03:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep He is notable for his age, which IMO makes him encyclopedic given the results. Winning two overseas tournaments is enough for his age. Needs to be NPOV'd but apart from that looks good. Ansell 03:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Dlohcierekim 04:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup Repeated comments about talent in notable journals is good evidence for a notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable enough per media attention, achievements, and age. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, definitely notable at such a tender age, winning two international tournaments is very good for a 13+ year old boy, meets WP:BIO as he gets frequent media attention of his acheivements. A cleanup will be better. --Terence Ong 06:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per the above comments, meets WP:BIO guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Terence Ong. ProhibitOnions 12:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it is amazing what this kid has acheived at his age and that is very notable. matchu01 12:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This comment was actually placed by an IP address. [5] EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable athlete. Just because he's a minor and not yet part of the American commercial sports machine doesn't mean he doesn't need an article. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 14:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Fine rewrite by Aplomado. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Well saved. Tyrenius 18:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- keep please this is definitely notable Yuckfoo 19:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Message Well I voted to delete however I must say Aplomado did a great job of cleaning it up! OSU80 22:46, 9 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. Raichu 15:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Native Americans at Dartmouth College
Non-notable student organization at my alma mater. Brian G. Crawford 01:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable student organization. Zaxem 01:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect into Dartmouth College. There's a section there with the same title, and no content. Kevin 01:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment - I'd opt for just deleting that section in the article. It's a student group, so should go into the article specifically for Dartmouth College student groups, and any history items relating to Native Americans can just get merged into the history section. --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Kevin1243 OSU80 03:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, the first relevant Google hit is the Answers.com mirror of the article. Gyre 04:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per Kevin1243 User_talk:Dlohcierekim 04:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge in to appropriate Dartmouth College section and delete. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete *Merge NAD (Native Americans at Dartmouth) section into Dartmouth College student groups and merge the rest into Dartmouth College --└ Smith120bh/TALK ┐ 05:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge to Dartmouth College, nnin its own right. --Terence Ong 06:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as per Smith120bh.--Eva db 09:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge or delete as above. ProhibitOnions 12:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I merged the content to Dartmouth College student groups. I would have merged it myself if I'd found that particular article. I also added a mention at the disambiguation page NAD. The more general first bit that's not about the student group has been merged with Dartmouth College. Brian G. Crawford 17:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete agree with Brian G. Crawford's bold strategy-- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as the content is now in a more appropriate place. Tyrenius 18:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete NN organisation. Beno1000 23:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable student organization at my father-in-law's alma mater. Only fifty members and doesn't seem to have a website. ergot 14:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 20:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, it deserves a place on the dartmouth college article. Benjaminstewart05 07:05, 14 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. Mailer Diablo 06:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dyer Elementary School
Non-notable School with only 44 students. --Corporal Punishment 01:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. There's nothing special about it. Brian G. Crawford 01:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. —Larry V (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Tony Bruguier 02:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete only 44 students? Some of my classes at high school have more M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Did anyone see the school district? This is 2/3 of the entire county school district's children (65 total). The entire population in the county (971) is less than my high school. Certainly not world-wide notable, but I'm willing to keep it. Ted 04:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Schools are generally not notable unless they are the location of some significant event. Cedars 05:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Schools are notable, that has been established. If you aren't interested, don't read the article. Markb 05:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but given the small size of the school and district, a merge/redirect to Esmeralda County School District would likely be appropriate. --Rob 07:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Markb Jcuk 08:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge useful content to Esmeralda County School District and delete the article. Non-notable as an article due to its tiny enrolment. --Terence Ong 08:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as per Terence Ong. There is no assertion of notability, and there must be zillions of such tiny schools on the planet: we can't have an article on them all. --BrownHairedGirl 08:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Schools are notable. DarthVader 09:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Schools are notable, even if they're small.--Eva db 09:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge All universities are notable, maybe even all high schools, but elementary schools are clearly less so. However, this name should redirect to the district, and not just be deleted. JeffBurdges 11:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as above, though schools should have their own pages if there's enough to say about them. ProhibitOnions 12:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. This school has more students than some U.S. towns have people. Silensor 16:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Possibly notable because it is so small. What is the smallest public elementary school in Nevada? If no one can come up with a few more details like that that might make linking to it alone useful, it could be merged into the district article. Rigadoun 16:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are historically huge numbers of schools with less students. Schools don't get notable for being small. Average Earthman 19:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SCHOOL Computerjoe's talk 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, keep per a rejected guideline? You might just as well say "Keep because all schools get kept".--Isotope23 19:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep inherently notable -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep either in this form or with information merged to district article. Then use it as a redirect. Tyrenius 18:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- keep please this school is verifiable and important Yuckfoo 19:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge, since it can't be usefully expanded. Anyone saying it can should prove it by expanding it. Average Earthman 19:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, as all schools are notable. Carioca 20:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Schools are notable regardless of enrollment number. Beno1000 23:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per JeffBurdges. BryanG 02:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merge with the school district article. If there is ever enough content to justify an article on this school, it can easily be spun off the school district article. NoIdeaNick 06:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn. Grue 09:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep schools are notable. ALKIVAR™
18:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC) - Delete Lame. Duckdid 08:41, 12 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 A7, userfied article. Royboycrashfan 
18:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suresh C Dave
This is a vanity article. It was created by User:Cansur and is an autobiography. On top of this, the notability is not asserted Tony Bruguier 02:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as vanity. Kevin 02:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - does not assert notability. - Richardcavell 03:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Gyre 04:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete should have been speedied, probably M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and userfy before doing so. {{db-bio}} candidate, WP:BIO and WP:VANITY refers. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn, vanity. --Terence Ong 11:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 12:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete after userfy. His awards are not sufficiently notable. Tyrenius 18:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete CSD A7. Userfied and tagged -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Not a speedy delete, since notability is claimed by the sentence "He also won the George Kent Award in 1971 from UK (third prize) for his technical paper." Stifle (talk) 18:25, 9 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 07:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shwarp
Delete. Prod was "Hoax. Googling (shwarp and golf) produces 29 n/a hits." Deprod by anon was "Regardless of Google results, this is not a hoax. It is a new word that is heard more and more frequently." Article was rewritten a bit by the anon, but the point remains the same. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism possible heard only in close proximity to the author. Kevin 03:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wait for some notability to come to this word. Metros232 03:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This neologism requires references and citations from popular media to demontrate common usage. If these can be supplied, then it could be considered for Wiktionary. (aeropagitica) (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete randomcrapcruft again M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If not a hoax, it is certainly non-notable. Ted 04:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikitionary at best, or as an entry under golf terms, if its use were ever attested.Dlohcierekim 05:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DarthVader 09:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 12:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete protologism per CrazyRussian -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete just rubbish Mrjeff 17:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I mean, really, does there need to be a new article every time someone comes up with a "cool new word"? --UsaSatsui 20:23, 10 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 was No consensus ~ trialsanderrors 01:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was asked to provide a reasoning behind my decision, so here goes: 1. If I count !votes I get roughly 21 dels, 13 keeps, that's a 60% majority for deleting, but really in no man's land between no consensus (ca. 50%) and rough consensus (ca. 67%). 2. The policy on WP:NOT is very much in flux over whether glossaries are exemptions to the Not a dictionary provision. Unless there is consensus to strike the exemption I prefer to stick with the status quo ante (still reflected in Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)), which is that glossaries are acceptable. 3. Most importantly, the content of the article changed significantly in the last days of the debate [6] thanks mostly to edits by User:JJay, and this change was reflected in a number of delete→keep changes and late keep !votes, so the early "delete not sourced" !votes are no longer on solid factual ground. Taking these three factors into account I did not see that consensus for deletion was established. This is a no consensus closure though so it can be renominated anytime. I recommend waiting three to four weeks for the policy debate to be settled and to see if the article improves, and consider renomination then. But of course I might be wrong, and that's what we have WP:DRV for. ~ trialsanderrors 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] List of Japanese sex terms
- See previous deletion debate for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese sex terms 2005
This list contains Japanese terms for sex, sex organs, sex positions, and so on. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We should not be hosting random lists of foreign words. Although we do have some lists like this, unlike those there's no particular reason to maintain a list of sex terms in various languages, since sex-related articles on English Wikipedia are written in English, and those that are specifically on Japanese sex topics define all the terms they use. Exploding Boy 06:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Erm. Delete, obviously.
- Delete. This article is inherently unverifiable. We have no way of knowing if these definitions are accurate. If anywhere, it belongs on the Japanese Wikipedia. Even then it is not encyclopedic. These are not unique concepts, such as might find in a glossary, they're just definitions of crude words in a foreign language. -Will Beback 08:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you call this inherently unverifiable. why would this be any less verifiable than american sex terms? Derex 10:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I fail to see any merit in this ever-growing list of foreign language sex-slang. It fails what Wiki is not, so I'm suprised it's managed to stay up for so long. At best this article is an unverifiable list of foreign language slang with minimal use as any kind of reference point, and at worse it's just acting as a bulletin board for people to post titillating rude words from Japan. ShizuokaSensei 08:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per ShizuokaSensei, its not what Wikipedia is. James086 Talk | Contribs 14:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. No comprehensible rational for deletion advanced (as far as I can see, all arguments are either a)factually wrong or b)essentially "I don't like it, for no particular reason". WilyD 15:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please be civil. If you would like to explain precisely why the claim that Wikipedia is not a dictionary applies is "factually wrong", someone might be willing to listen to you. Merely asserting that those who oppose you are making "incomprehensible", "irrational", "factually wrong", and unsupported claims is inappropriate. — Haeleth Talk 09:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Uh - this is clearly not a dictionary entry. Thus wikipedia is not a dictionary doesn't apply. There's zero plausible basis for even trying to assert it's a dictionary entry. Clearly it's a stub or start class list - but being a stub is hardly a criterion for deletion. It's hard to aruge that it's not a dictionary entry because there's no argument to be made - a cursory visual inspection reveals it not to be. WilyD 14:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please be civil. If you would like to explain precisely why the claim that Wikipedia is not a dictionary applies is "factually wrong", someone might be willing to listen to you. Merely asserting that those who oppose you are making "incomprehensible", "irrational", "factually wrong", and unsupported claims is inappropriate. — Haeleth Talk 09:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and salt - How on God's green earth can you claim this is encyclopedic??! It does NOT meet WP: NOT. It is NOT VERIFIABLE in that there are no SOURCES. Bishōjo has no sources. Futanari is not sourced. Image club is just totally made up. I would strongly suggest that the people voting keep THINK about what they are voting to keep. There are some terms in the list that are legit, but the majority of list is an unsourced list of mostly unsourced terms that , if they belong ANYWHERE, belong on the Japanese Wikipedia. Please also look up in the dictionary the definition of encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not toilet paper. --Shrieking Harpy
Talk|Count 15:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I said it's encyclopaedic because it is. I said it's verifiable because it is. This seems like a fairly straightforward proposition - I'm not sure how you missed it. WilyD 18:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Really, folks, you gotta love inclusionists. Alright , let's examine:
-
-
- If you are using the definition of encyclopedic as "an alphabetical organization of fields of knowledge" then you are being pedantic. It is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, no matter how much it tries to fit a dictionary definition of encyclopedic. It is not a collection of verifiable facts. If you are saying that it is, then I respectfully think you are wrong and agree to disagree.
- If you are suggesting that articles, without sources, that are little more than stubs, that have existed in the same state for months, are verifiable, do you mean theoretically? Because, theoretically, anything is verifiable to some people. But it is not verifiable in terms of WP:V for a very large majority of terms on that list. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Okay, apart from being demonstratably not an inclusionist (I've compared my AfD votes and it's pretty clear I'm a "centrist" on the issue - my keep arguments for articles that are deleted are a percentage of my keep arguments that equal to the percentage of my delete arguments where the article is kept) I'll show what the problem is when you vote to delete an article without first reading it.
- If an article is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, but not for "the spirit of an encyclopaedia" then voting to delete it clearly fails WP:NPOV. Rather than make value judgements about whether I particularly like a topic or not, I apply Wikipedia, she ain't paper and ask merely "Is it encyclopaedic?" - here even you admit the answer is yes, so I'll move on.
- I'll ask is it sourced? For this article, the answer is yes - clearly it's important to read the article to determine whether or not it's sourced. Merely guessing can result in the wrong answer. Being sourced (such as this article is) brings the advantage of a vaguely NPOV test of notability - someone else has found it notable enough to document - this is (I believe) a much more NPOV test than Do I personally find this article interesting? WilyD 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Delete - In addition to the problems we see alot with lists we also have the fact that WP is not a dictionary, not a slang archive. The article lacks sources and is unverifiable. -- wtfunkymonkey 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, things like "image club" are verifiable if anyone could be bothered to try; encylopedic. Kappa 17:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'd just like to note that people aren't providing reasons for their "keep" votes. It's not enough to say it's encyclopaedic, particularly when so many have argued that it's inherently unencyclopaedic. While items on the list may be verifiable, that still doesn't provide a convincing rationale for keeping the list itself, as mentioned in the original post. Exploding Boy 17:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- The justification for keeping the list is that it explains a variety of encylopedic topics grouped in an obvious way. Kappa 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- But it doesn't. It's just a list of non-English terms. All the Japanese sex-related articles should already appear in List of sexology topics, and every article that uses Japanese terminology should already be explaining those terms within the article. Exploding Boy 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes it does. List of sexology topics doesn't explain anything, are you suggesting we add the explanations there? Kappa 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'd just like to note that people aren't providing reasons for their "keep" votes. It's not enough to say it's encyclopaedic, particularly when so many have argued that it's inherently unencyclopaedic. While items on the list may be verifiable, that still doesn't provide a convincing rationale for keeping the list itself, as mentioned in the original post. Exploding Boy 17:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. May well be verifiable, but shouldn't be here: belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. WMMartin 17:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, or even a regular dictionary. A big list of words and definitions beside them is called a dictionary. Slang is not only hard to cite, but it also means different things in different areas/eras. Also this is an english encyclopedia, so an article that primarily carries foreign langauge is not suited here. Not encyclopedic. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if sources can be found. Singapore sexual slang terminology looks to me like a good example of what this article could be. I wonder why most of the articles linked to from this list aren't in Category:Sexual slang. —Wrathchild (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note. The artilce has had a "source request" tag up for the last three weeks. Apparently no addiitonal sources are available. -Will Beback 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all the Delete votes. This is Wikipedia, not Sugoipedia (sou desu ne :P). Danny Lilithborne 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary, then Delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)- Keep per precedent per Wrathchild. Carlossuarez46 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep a precise list of terms on a given specific subject is authorized by policy. Terms such as bukkake, gokkun etc. are extremely well known and verifiable through tons of sources. I don't even understand the objection on that score. The nom seems to be questioning the raison d'etre of this list. Well, for better or worse, Japan and sex have been tightly intertwined in the western imagination since at least the 19th century. The interest in Japanese erotica is thus not new and is today a serious subject for critical examination and scholarship [7]. The vast popularity of specific Japanese porn genres in the west is just a later-day manifestation of the previous craze for Japanese erotic prints. Given the cultural divide, it is entirely appropriate for wikipedia to maintain a list of this type for its mainly English speaking readers. --JJay 23:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Every term is either in or not in a dictionary; those that are in dictionaries are obviously verifiable. Verifiability is not an issue. Fg2 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete is not a dictonary. Arbusto 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete (1) Dicdef. (2) What's verifiable already has its own article. Everything else is unverifiable. (3) This is another of many cases where a "List of..." should be a category. There already is Category:Japanese sex terms even in the article itself, so this list is redundant -- not to mention they're harder to maintain. Anomo 03:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- So this list of foreign language terms with explanations is redundant with an incredibly useful list of foreign language terms without explanations? Kappa 09:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep per the reasoning in the previous VfD. Useful list that points to useful articles, inherently encyclopedic and so on. Grue 08:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Anomo. -- Hoary 09:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per official Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Note that the list is also rather inaccurate. It might be better titled List of random Japanese words that some otaku think might sometimes be associated with sex. How the hell are "bishōjo" and "bishōnen" sex terms? (And in what parallel universe does anyone use the word "bishōjo" by itself to refer to eroge?) How is "dōjin" a sex term, given that dojin works are no more exclusively pornographic than Western vanity publications are? — Haeleth Talk 09:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Amen to that. ShizuokaSensei 10:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- AfD is not a place for content concerns. That's why there's an edit button. WilyD 14:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- True, but let it be noted that a major cleanup on this list was only done after the list was AFDd. Exploding Boy 19:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- The lesson here is, never attempt to clean up an article after it goes on AFD. Kappa 04:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- True, but let it be noted that a major cleanup on this list was only done after the list was AFDd. Exploding Boy 19:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; encyclopedia =/= dictionary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't understand how anyone can argue this is encyclopædic. It is a list of foreign words with definitions. Additionally, Haeleth is absolutely right about it being a very Western-otaku-biased "article" with very little Japanese language comprehension: even as a dictionary article it is not very good. The onus of explaining the individual terms should be on the individual articles, as linked-to from the Japanese Sex Terms category. Finally, do the 'keepers' not see the redundancy, all other arguments aside, of a "list of japanese sex terms" article within the overall category "Japanese sex terms"? Erk, 1345, 10 November 2006 (GMT-8).
- For those not following the discussion, how is a list of defined foreign language terms redundant with a list of undefined foreign language terms? Kappa 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This iscnot what wikipedia is for.
- Weak Keep Presuming the terms can be verified. Given that for some of the terms we have extensive articles on them it isn't unreasonable to have a list of all the highly notable Japanese sexual terms. The only issue is that it might make more sense as a subcategory of sexual slang rather than as a list. JoshuaZ 04:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unverifiable list. JASpencer 09:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:V, if you can't source it, delete it.Sources cited, so change to a keep. Seraphimblade 01:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)- Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wiktionary is a dictionary. -- Stbalbach 06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I am not sure how this list is any more or less unencyclopaedic than any other list on wikipedia. How is this any different from the List of gay slang words and phrases, the List of films that most frequently use the word fuck, etc...The terms are all verifiable, there is ample precident for this kind of lists, or lists in general. If people think this list should be deleted, then the opinion should hold that 100% of lists should be deleated, as they are all equally unencyclopaedic.MightyAtom 01:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- List of gay slang words and phrases is at least defensible on the grounds that the terms are in English. As for the other article.... it's been AFDd at least 5 times. Exploding Boy 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
So I checked as to why that list survived. "Like other 'lists of trivia', they are interesting and not detrimental to the encyclopedia." Seems like that could apply here as well. It is all verifiable info. Its interesting. Seriously, what is the point of lists at all, anyways? None of them are "unencyclopaedic." Delete this one, delete them 100%. MightyAtom 00:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Has it occured to you that those articles may be just as deserving as deletion as this one? After all Wikipedia is not subject to precident.(actually the list of films with the word fuck is very well sourced, but is not a dictionary list) HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with HighInBC's comment. I can't find a thing to verify most of these terms, but if they're easily verifiable, cite sources and I'll happily change votes! The main sticking point here is the lack of verifiability, so at least to my thinking, fix that and the whole issue goes away. Seraphimblade 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The books "Japan's Sex Trade" and "Japanese Street Slang" by Peter Constantine can verify some of these, but dictionary issues?... Pete Fenelon 01:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and transwiki to Wiktionary, if they want it. It's not sourced and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The cleaned up version of the page is just as invalid as the full version (which would have been better material for Wiktionary.) The cleaned up version consists of a list of links to other articles in the project. There's no need for that. Inclusion of other articles is not an indicator of notability. --Kunzite 05:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. If this list is going to survive, what is listed on it needs to be very closely monitored. The fact so little of this article's definitions are unique to Japan is a big part of the problem with it. Very little of what was listed is unique to Japan - it simply defines a Japanese word for something which goes on all over the world. This is a deeper problem with Wiki wearby numerous topics of little or no note are documented in great depth, but let's not get into that here. So, what is of note out of the article? Just up to H, I'd argue that at least half of what is currently there is not in anyway unique to Japan and merely serves as a DicDef.
- Bukkake: A Japanese invention - worthy of inclusion
- Chikan: Not unique to Japan - of little note. However, has a long and meandering article (lifting large sections from Rotton.com as a source) suggesting otherwise...
- Ecchi: Links to the article for the English letter H. A foreign slang word for sex - of little note
- Enjo kosai: The Japanese term for underage prostitution - at a strech worthy of inclusion
- Futanari: Japanese for hermaphrodites - of little note
- Fuzoku: Defined as meaning "sex culture" in Japanese Doesn't have an article. Of little note.
- Gokkun: A genre of Japanese porn. Worthy of inclusion
- Hentai: Defined as "pervert." This is a much wider part of sex culture, so worthy of inclusion
- Comment. If this list is going to survive, what is listed on it needs to be very closely monitored. The fact so little of this article's definitions are unique to Japan is a big part of the problem with it. Very little of what was listed is unique to Japan - it simply defines a Japanese word for something which goes on all over the world. This is a deeper problem with Wiki wearby numerous topics of little or no note are documented in great depth, but let's not get into that here. So, what is of note out of the article? Just up to H, I'd argue that at least half of what is currently there is not in anyway unique to Japan and merely serves as a DicDef.
Any thoughts?ShizuokaSensei 07:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP not a dictionary. Eusebeus 12:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep -- I voted to delete this before, but I've changed my mind, because the article is in different shape now. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but these are not simply translations of English phrases into Japanese but rather a completely different beast: sociological phenomena of sexuality in Japan, explained, and with articles about (most of) them. This could maybe use a renaming of some kind, but this list is cut down to the essentials and is encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) and you'll see that this kind of list is much like other kinds of lists given there. I can't help but think that many of the people who endorse deletion under the dictionary argument haven't noticed these points, but rather noticed the "list of ... terms" and didn't like the article concept. So like I said, maybe renaming is a good idea, but I'm not sure to what. Still, this goes well beyond mere "terms." Mangojuicetalk 19:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Changing to Keep per changes indicated by Mangojuice and others, above. I think it is now definitely encyclopedic and fits the guidelines indicated on Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep its sourced. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 07:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Slouching
Delete - nn protologism that sadly couldn't fall through the prod process without the prod being removed. Wickethewok 05:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable proto/neologism. (aeropagitica) (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Posture, err... Human position. — May. 9, '06 [06:17] <freakofnurxture|talk>
- Delete Exploding Boy 06:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, just a dicdef, and an incorrect one at that. Vizjim 14:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete protologism -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect per freakofnurture. -03:26, 11 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 Speedily deleted at author's request. (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Kalaha/Denmark women's national handball team
The article is empty. kalaha 15:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- These four articles are all eligible for speedy deletion; see WP:CSD#User pages. — AKADriver ☎ 16:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete CSD G7, author advised on talk page -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 17:32, 9 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 Speedily deleted at author's request. (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Kalaha/Handball kit
The article is empty. kalaha 15:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- These four articles are all eligible for speedy deletion; see WP:CSD#User pages. — AKADriver ☎ 16:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete CSD G7, author advised on talk page -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 17:33, 9 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 Speedily deleted at author's request. (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Kalaha/National handball team
The article is empty. kalaha 16:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- These four articles are all eligible for speedy deletion; see WP:CSD#User pages. — AKADriver ☎ 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete CSD G7, author advised on talk page -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 17:34, 9 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 Speedily deleted at author's request. (aeropagitica) (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Kalaha/WWHC 2005 participants
The article is empty. kalaha 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- These four articles are all eligible for speedy deletion; see WP:CSD#User pages. — AKADriver ☎ 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete CSD G7, author advised on talk page -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 17:34, 9 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, defaults to redirect to Beth Nahrain, already redirected by Sargonious. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nahrainean
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
This article is a complete fiction. The term Nahrainean is a new coinage by User:Sargonious: it receives no Google hits [25], and is not present in published works on Mesopotamia past or present. This appears to be the pipe dream of a teenage Assyrian. — Gareth Hughes 16:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:ATTACK: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Although I understand your frustration, Gareth, please. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 17:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Aldux 16:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree wholy. Here are your Google hits you Pharisee. http://www.google.com/search?q=nahrainian&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.7.70 (talk • contribs)
- See above. Please, no personal attacks. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 17:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
2000 hits or not, it is still a valid article.
- Delete per nom. Two thousand Google hits would have been significant. Only two Google hits are likewise significant, but in the other direction. RGTraynor 19:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete since google just asked me whether or not I meant Bahrainian [26], I'm afraid my conclusion is non-notable. --Eivindt@c 01:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Beth Nahrain, and if there is any useful, NPOV information, copy it there. Both Google hits are Beth-Nahrainian (or variations on that spelling), so it seems to me that Nahrainean by itself is a neologism. No reason not to redirect, though. Rigadoun 16:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Beth Nahrain, I'll go with the redirect. King Legit
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 20:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete People already know that, I dont know how things are "made up" out of nowhere. Wikipedia is not a place to create an idea or an identity. Chaldean 03:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do not Delete A hit's a hit. There's credibility in this. Nahrainian, Nahranean, same thing. --Shaitan Al Mahdi 16:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete Just because there's only two hits doesn't mean it isn't valid. Obviously those articles (2) do mention Nahranians. It's just mispelled here.--Yessou El Maseekh 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do not delete The two articles though few and by one source are still valid. The website itself is an Assyrian Nationalist page. Peter Agga
-
- Comment And ... here comes the march; the two comments above constitute the sole contributions of the editors to Wikipedia. RGTraynor 16:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
More Evidence of the tern Nahrainean/Nahrainiean/Nahraini: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=nahraini&btnG=Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=nahraya&ei=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&fr=moz2 http://www.google.com/search?q=nahraya&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
-
-
- Comment - Eight extra hits, which in context of the links each and every one of them a misspelling of "Bahraini?" That's desperately unconvincing, frankly. RGTraynor 18:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Don't Erase This just looks like a case of a priest trying to molest a perfectly good article. I see enough evidence. If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit therefor I say save this article from the clutches of a mad priest.--Jihad Jones 18:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yet another first-time contributor. RGTraynor 18:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect to Beth Nahrain - Looks like the closest thing we have here on Wikipedia. I'm also not 100% sure as to why Hugoye was linked to above. Hugoye is a prestigious journal, but this page doesn't seem to help this article's credibility. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Under article 16 it mentions NAHRAYA which is Syriac for Nahrainean.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.7.70 (talk • contribs)
-
- ... or Syriac for the more common translation "Mesopotamian," as the article agrees with. Either way, Nahrainean would then (arguably) be a duplicate for Mesopotamia or Beth Nahrain (I feel more of the latter) and should be redirected as Wikipedia is not a dictionary and shouldn't have every inflection of the word, or the two articles (since the content is so similar) should be merged. Why argue over the existance of a duplicate article? The point of this is not an attack upon your person, beliefs, or identity, it's to keep Wikipedia free of redundancy. If the article is merged or redirected, when someone types in "Nahrainean" they'll find themselves with the exact same information, no? אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 13:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I DO NOT disagree with a redirect. I stated previously it was fine with me. I will go ahead and redirect and just add in a sentence in the Beth Nahrain article that Nahrainean or Beth-Nahrainean is the Anglicized form of Nahraya or Beth=Nahraya which is Syriac for Mesopotamian which is a broader term. Beth Nahrain means "the Land of Rivers" where Mesopotamia is Greek for "the Land between Rivers." There is a distinction. It could be even argued that Beth Nahrain should be merged into Mesopotamia with a statement on that article explaining the two terms.King Legit
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 keep. An incorrect name is not a valid reason to nominate an article for deletion anyway; WP:RM is the proper forum for that. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Age of consent in North America
The name is factually incorrect, the article violates WP:NOR, as it is not verified. Delete Ardenn 16:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- speedy keep -- tasc talkdeeds 16:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep since nominator's reasoning does not seem correct: just about everything links to outside verification (gov websites, law website, etc). If anything, this is far better, verification-wise, than probably 99% of Wikipedia articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- speedy keep, plenty of verification. Needs some input (more states, countries) but it's a great start. — AKADriver ☎ 16:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Seems OK for a start. Verification is at least as good as most articles in Wikipedia. This AfD seems to be the result of an edit war over the title. Work it out! Ted 16:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Nominator has been in an edit war trying to speedy it out of process, and move it around. Bad faith nomination? I'd close it as a speedy keep, but I'm involved in the dispute so I'd rather not. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 18:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep – yep, bad faith nomination – Gurch 18:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep AfD is not the way to address edit wars -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 19:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Rename. Ardenn is right on the article's talk page when he states that it's a misleading name (in the US alone, there are differing ages of consent for sex, marriage and contractual arrangements), but the list itself is eminently verifiable. RGTraynor 19:19, 9 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Arbetsförnedringen
Wikipedia is not a Swedish dictionary. This word is also nominated for deletion at Swedish Wikipedia and will very very likely be deleted, see AfD nomination on Swedish Wikipedia Thuresson 16:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete almost an attack page -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 19:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It seems to be a well-known alternate name. How does this fall under attack page? 1() 19:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Förnedring means humiliation, it's not that insulting but still... --Eivindt@c 01:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Are we to maintain articles for foreign language slang and figures of speech. Puh-lease! Madman 21:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the Swedes seem to think it's unencyclopedic and propaganda, and who am I to disagree. --Eivindt@c 01:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Unverifiable using reliable sources. Fagstein 02:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, per 1(). --Off! 11:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Well-known nickname of a widely criticized organization. The context seems also to be useful and verifiable as well. --Fdp 15:42, 15 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 and expand, though the appropriate tag has already been applied. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Honduras Sign Language
This page is as good as empty. Jadriaen 18:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. The language should have its own page. --Nlu (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Agree with Nlu. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 19:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep & expand, but this should be moved to LESHO when this AfD closes with a redirect from Honduras Sign Language. LESHO is the proper name for this variant of sign language [30].--Isotope23 19:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- A question. On the list of sign languages many sign languages have red links, and they all should have their own page. Is the solution then to create almost empty pages like the one under consideration? I have checked all of them in the list, and this is the only one with no additional information, except stating that the Honduras Sign Language is signed in... Honduras. But if this article ends up being expanded soon, all the better of course (but again, does that mean that creating almost empty pages from the red links in the list of sign languages is a good strategy?). --Jadriaen 19:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC).
- I'm not at all a fan of creation of nearly empty (or obvious text restating the title in this case) articles simply to create a bluelink elsewhere. WP:AGF though that the originator's heart was in the right place... I wouldn't consider it best practice to create articles like this though. If this survives AfD I'll add it to my "To Do" list and move it/try and make it into a real stub. I'd do it right now, but I'm going to have to do a bit of research because I'm not really familiar with the topic.--Isotope23 12:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Isotope23, it's nice that you'd want to do that, but there are lots of sign languages that need a page. There is actually a project for sign languages and Deaf culture (Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf): they have an opinion of which articles need the most attention.
As for me, I'd go for CSD:A3 speedy delete as outlined by Stifle below. (Question for Nlu: what is the additional information you speak of? Only the hds qualification? That's not much...)--Jadriaen 16:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)- If there is a wikiproject for this then I'll let them clean it up if it gets kept... they are better informed than I. I still don't see any logical reason for deletion though. The subject is WP:V, and there is obviously a community here that works on these sorts of articles. The fact that the article is nearly blank is strong argument for keep and expand... not deletion. --Isotope23 17:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, let's go for keep and expand (and redirect to Lesho) because this article needs to be written in the end. But I still think the purpose would be better served with a red link than an empty article. Look at all the energy spent in this discussion... bummer. Anyway. --Jadriaen 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- ...and between the 2 of us there is a servicable stub there now. I would only go with my move idea though if that doesn't go against naming conventions for sign language articles (if the WikiProject has any naming conventions).--Isotope23 00:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, don't move the article just yet then. But let's stub'it. --Jadriaen 10:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- ...and between the 2 of us there is a servicable stub there now. I would only go with my move idea though if that doesn't go against naming conventions for sign language articles (if the WikiProject has any naming conventions).--Isotope23 00:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, let's go for keep and expand (and redirect to Lesho) because this article needs to be written in the end. But I still think the purpose would be better served with a red link than an empty article. Look at all the energy spent in this discussion... bummer. Anyway. --Jadriaen 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- If there is a wikiproject for this then I'll let them clean it up if it gets kept... they are better informed than I. I still don't see any logical reason for deletion though. The subject is WP:V, and there is obviously a community here that works on these sorts of articles. The fact that the article is nearly blank is strong argument for keep and expand... not deletion. --Isotope23 17:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Isotope23, it's nice that you'd want to do that, but there are lots of sign languages that need a page. There is actually a project for sign languages and Deaf culture (Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf): they have an opinion of which articles need the most attention.
- I'm not at all a fan of creation of nearly empty (or obvious text restating the title in this case) articles simply to create a bluelink elsewhere. WP:AGF though that the originator's heart was in the right place... I wouldn't consider it best practice to create articles like this though. If this survives AfD I'll add it to my "To Do" list and move it/try and make it into a real stub. I'd do it right now, but I'm going to have to do a bit of research because I'm not really familiar with the topic.--Isotope23 12:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as per CSD:A3, only content is templates and rewording of the title. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 10 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. Mailer Diablo 01:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ladder theory
This is a pop psychology theory published only on the web. I don't think this passes the WP:WEB guideline. From the article: "Though it has generated some interest in online communities, it has not been seriously evaluated by any studies, journals, or social psychologists." That tells me it's not notable as a psychological theory and should be deleted. Brian G. Crawford 22:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- A google search tends to suggest it's fairly widespread. Keep as a notable internet meme. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I agree that it is a very notable "meme". I've heard of it various time, on various websites. As long as the article makes no false claims about having been evaluated by serious research, I see no problems with this article. Beltz 22:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Widespread pop psychology, notable and should be documented. It's not meant to be a psychological theory, it's meant to be satire. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 23:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The article appropriately identifies its subject as a pop-psychology theory, not a psychological theory. -- backburner001 02:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The Ladder theory is widespread and never adverstised as a psychological theory but it is just assumed to be a pop-psychology theory as Backburner says. Furthermore it's fairly widespread and I believe this article is useful. SirGrant 04:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment as it stands, this article needs better sources. If it's a reputable pop-psychology idea (I'm inclined to believe it is) then there'll be some good verification out there somewhere! Ziggurat 04:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I find it rather intresting. I have also heard of it. I question why some people put so many things up to be deleted. I think some people need to have more of an open mind and take the time to read things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Sarnatino (talk • contribs)
- Delete - if this guy can't even get the theory past a publisher, never mind the swcientific community, then why should Wikipedia keep spreading an incorrect, non-notable theory? Vizjim 10:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable internet meme, discussed in several schools psychology departments (Yale actually discusses this concept for a whole day in Psych 101) ALKIVAR™ 02:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I completely agree with Alkivar, it is a popular Internet phenomenon or meme and deserves to stay. SirGrant 22:56, 12 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.
