Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 13

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

The result was Redirect to Eminem. If someone wants to merge parts of the article, the edit history is still available. trialsanderrors 18:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hailie Jade Scott

a.k.a. Eminem's daughter. First AfD in August ended in a clear merge consensus which was never performed. To wrap this up I recommend Delete and redirect. ~ trialsanderrors 00:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Eminem. Not really noteworthy enough to have her own article. TJ Spyke 00:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per TJ Spyke. Not noteworthy enough yet! -newkai t-c 00:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Hello32020 01:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. — TKD::Talk 01:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect obviously. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^{contribs Count} 01:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Redirect per consensus from last AfD.--Isotope23 13:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect: IMHO, though, Trials, if this kind of thing comes up again, I would recommend that you just (1) do the merge or (2) delete the text and redirect, if you thought that any merged text would be redundant. In either event, thanks for following up.TheronJ 14:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, I think it's clear that this article needs to be deleted. After two relistings, the only !votes are to delete. The consensus is very strong to delete here. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey Irvine

Notability? (converting contested speedy to afd - association with CIM asserts some notability) — ERcheck (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused about the policy here -- and where exactly I'm supposed to "defend" keeping this page, but I created this stub and I will copy here what I wrote on its talk page about Jeffrey Irvine's notability. "Jeffrey Irvine is one of the leading viola teachers in the US today, and the list of where he teaches/has taught ought to lend enough clout to his name to assert his significance or influence, without other superlatives or generalizations. His students hold positions in major orchestras and they are teachers in university music departments all over the world. As a student of Karen Tuttle he is also part of her legacy as an annual organizer & teacher of the Karent Tuttle Coordination Workshop." J Lorraine 09:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Where his students play isn't really relevant to whether Wikipedia should have a biographical article on him. The criteria that you should show that this person satisfies are our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, and the best way to do so is to cite sources. Uncle G 12:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete non-notable. Nekohakase 17:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I disagree with Uncle G; if a person's field of work IS teaching, then whether or not they are notable teachers depends not only on what they teach, but where and who they teach. If a music teacher's students are themselves teaching & performing in major musical venues all over the world, then that person's influence is felt all over the world. Thus, such a person is notable because of their students' activities. J Lorraine 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless more sources can found to show that this guy satisfies WP:BIO per Uncle G. If he is as impressive as J Lorraine says, then such sources should be plentiful. (I looked, and can find none.) Pan Dan 23:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIO lists a number of ways a person can be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but it also seems to say that passing or failing such tests is not a sole reason to either include or delete an article, and that the whole idea of notability is not a wikipedia policy. It does point to verifiability, not original research, neutral point of view, etc. I contend first that this article is verifiable, it is not original research, and it has a neutral point of view. I'm in the process of finding more references (besides the link to his bio on CIM and ASTA's webpages), so I would like to request some time to finish doing that before any consensus is reached to delete this page.

I also would like to point out that he does meet some of the criteria for notability on WP:BIO and on WP:MUSIC, even though such criteria is not supposed to be a sole reason for keeping or deleting an article. For example....

1. made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. (Organizing, publicizing, & teaching at Karen Tuttle Coordination workshops, and, through her work, contributing to the spread of William Primrose's techniques in the following generations of violists.)
2. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources.[2] (as a performer with the New World String Quartet in the US and in Europe.)
3. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (The Journal of the American Viola Society, the Journal of Performing Arts Medicine, several news articles (I'll try to find exact dates))
4. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style (This is not exactly spot-on, since I'm claiming that the "style" he represents is a technique or school of viola teaching, not a musical style of performing; and he is one of the most prominent, not the most prominent).
5. Has won or placed in a major music competition. (Aspen Music Festival Viola competition, Cleveland Quartet competition)
6. Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in ... teaching in a particular music genre. (notable teaching organizations such as Cleveland Institute of Music, Meadowmount, American String Teachers Association; also referenced as a notable teacher of Karent Tuttle's Coordination technique in places like the Journal of the American Viola Society)
7. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. (well, if you call classical violists a 'sub-culture').

Again, I'd like to reiterate my request for more time to find exact references, since most of them are in journals or newspapers, and the dates and article authors of which aren't readily stored in my brain. J Lorraine 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to what I listed above, he also passes several of the "alternative" tests for notability on WP:BIO.

1. The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included. (He has published more articles on teaching in American String Teacher and in the Journal of the American Viola Society than most average college Viola professors).
2. Verifiability -- Can all information in the article be independently verified now? (some say) 10 years from now? (yes, it can)
3. Expandability -- Will the article ever be more than a stub? Could the perfect article be written on this subject? (yes, there is sufficient information to provide a full-length article)
4. 100 year test (future speculation) -- In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful? (yes, although this will probably be limited to those in the field of classical music, in particular those interested in 20th & 21st century performance practice)
5. 100 year test (past speculation) -- If we had comparable verifiable information on a person from 100 years ago, would anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful today? (yes, again, though, probably only in the specialized field of historically informed performance, which is a sub-field (albeit a large sub-field) of current performance practice in the classical music world).
6. Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of distinguishable hits on Google or another well known search mechanism? (yes, although the word "lots" is somewhat ambiguous)

J Lorraine 09:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomangani^talk 00:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Run-of-the-mill faculty CV. ~ trialsanderrors 00:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Above, J Lorraine asked for more time to find reliable sources to show why he passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. But that was a week ago, and this AfD has been live for three weeks. At this AfD, I thought the guy under discussion there was notable, but couldn't find any reliable sources to back up my claim, so the admin's decision to delete that article was correct. Same would be true here. Pan Dan 00:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NN. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^{contribs Count} 01:41, 13 October 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 Nomination withdrawn following rewrite by Michaelas10. Capitalistroadster 00:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gender and religion

It pains me to nominate this - a worthy subject for an encyclopedia if ever there was one. But this is currently a combination list-farm and original research. The subject is currently spread across a dozen or more articles, many of them in the Cat:Religious feminism. Given what's here, it would be better to start from scratch with this. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn after good work by Michaelas10. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Cancel and instead use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion Someone ought to actually take the time to make an article. This should be a wakeup call. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 00:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-08 02:19Z
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 02:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Grutness, if you think this subject is encyclobedic, then why don't you work on the article to improve it instead of AfDing it? I see a lot of these kinds of nominations, where their first reaction is to AfD the article instead of improve it, and I just don't get their reasoning. - Lex 05:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know about everything. I think this is likely to be an encyclopedic subject, but it's not one that I know enough about to write much more than is already there. It needs work from experts in the field to make it worthwhile - and I am not one of those experts. Also, as I pointed out, this is already covered in a number of other articles around wikipedia; those articles may be sufficient. Grutness...wha? 04:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand per Quarl. Dekimasu 09:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic topic in this guise and open to original research: what is it supposed to cover exactly? If someone wishes to migrate discussions of gender within individual religion articles to a general overview of the topic, that might be ok, but there needs to be a clear reason for doing so. This will almost certainly end up being a hodge-podge of indiscriminate facts. Eusebeus 11:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep fascinating. Need more work in it, though. Anomo 04:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom without prejudice to encyclopedic recreation; this would actually work better as a category right now, I think. Sandstein 07:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Come on guys, the article was just created, and within 4 hours it was tagged for deletion. As stated, it's an encyclopedic topic - by definition it should not be deleted, at most it should be stubified and rebuilt. Themindset 21:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, AdamBiswanger1 00:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a subject taught at universities and there are hundreds of book on it. -newkai t-c 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Themindset. bibliomaniac15 01:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Themindset. Hello32020 01:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with sandstein that this article would work better as a category. It's basically serving the same purpose right now with links to a bunch of different main articles. Also, the text that is there is OR. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^{contribs Count} 03:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • See comment below. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^{contribs Count} 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. I agree that the article is in a bad state, but that can be fixed. Let's not delete an article about a good topic just because it's poorly written. N Shar 01:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete I agree entirely with Sandstein and largely with Eusebeus, and I'd observe that, in any case, whilst there is most probably an encyclopedic article that could exist under this title, there is nothing in the instant article the salvaging of which would be aid one in crafting a new article. In situations such as this, I don't think keep and cleanup to be particularly useful, principally because the article is essentially devoid of content, such that there's nothing to cleanup; expansion, of course, along encyclopedic lines, in quite fine, but during the pendency of such process an unencyclopedic article need not to exist. Perhaps a listing at WP:RA is in order, although I suppose stubbification per Themindset isn't particularly harmful (at least should we conclude that an article [cf., a category] apropos of the topic can reasonably and properly be crafted). Joe 03:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete I'm not clear on what this is attempting to cover. Gender discussions will be different depending on the religion, and perhaps even the context in which that religion is being practiced. Other issues raised already have articles on Wikipedia (many of which can be seen on this page). There may be a good article to be had at this title, but the one developing here just isn't it. GassyGuy 09:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I don't think the article should be a complete list of other articles (or list-farm), but it's worthy enough a topic to expand. However/Unfortunately, someone has to be devoted enough to do so. - SpLoT 11:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd be willing to give the originator a couple of months to fix this article, but right now it is mostly a list of links to other articles and the commentary is unverified and unsourced. I've tagged it for failing WP:V. If this is not rectified it should be AfD'd again in 30-60 days.--Isotope23 13:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it appears to be a collection of related pages. --Alex (Talk) 14:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cleanup and expand. People Powered 14:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not sure where the claim of "original research" is coming from: the page I read was almost a disambiguation style stub, pointing readers to more in depth discussions of various aspects of the subject in other articles. This strikes me as a valid approach to huge subjects whose details are best covered in detail elsewhere; see ecclesiology for another example. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article needs better summaries with some cites, but the links to subarticles is perfectly reasonable, and AfD shouldn't be a clean-up request. TheronJ 14:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite as stub or disambiguation page, per above. Vectro 17:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Cancel and instead use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, There is no reason this article should be deleted, other than it is poorly done. If it was put in a few projects, and requests were made to expand it, someone would, and it could be very informing.-- ¢² Connor K.   20:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've expanded it a little, it's current status is pretty much good enough. Michaelas10 (T|C) 21:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I withdrew my delete suggestion above but I still do not suggest keeping. In the current state, the article is still unsourced with apparent OR. However, at this point, I believe that somebody with sufficient expertise could rewrite this article and make it encyclopedic. This will require a complete rewrite. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^{contribs Count} 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've given some basic references. I can reference more if you would like. Michaelas10 (T|C) 22:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per newkai. Cynical 22:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - good work Michaelas - it certainly looks far better now that when I nominated it. As such, I'm withdrawing my nomination. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - since nobody can provide reliable evidence that it is another name for Yamuna a redirect is not appropriate (it can always be created if such evidence comes to light). Yomangani^talk 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kalindi

No mention of it in linked article at Yamuna for which it claims to be an alternate name—and if that claim is true, this article should likely be a redirect. No real information here, talk page suggests possible confusion, has been tagged for nine months or so asking for citations and verification and nothing has been done. Gene Nygaard 09:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Yamuna. Google search for "Kalindi+Yamuna" confirms existence of this alternative name.--Húsönd 17:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the talk page suggestion that Kalindi-Yamuna is a different river? I don't know the answer, but I don't think we should be redirecting to our Yamuna article if that is the case. Gene Nygaard 19:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

All the Google results I checked referred to them as being different names for the same river. Often "Kalindi (Yamuna)" and vice-versa.--Húsönd 01:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Either it's a different river, in which case this is a one line stub giving the wrong information and Wikipedia would be better off if it's deleted, or it's the same river and there's no need for this entry other than as a redirect which I don't think anybody will miss if deleted. Equendil Talk 20:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 20:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment searchin online has not yielded a clear idea as to the relationship between the two, though one does seem to exist. - Tewfik^Talk 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomangani^talk 00:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Why is this being relisted? No verifiability → Delete. ~ trialsanderrors 00:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably because it's not completely and utterly unverifiable, there are actual sources on it, even if those sources are perhaps not as robust as might be hoped for. For example, there are lots of baby names books that use it. And a few other links. Me, i'm inclined to say that this should be verifiable, but it'd probably require someone from India to do it, since they'd have access to the material. FrozenPurpleCube 00:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is unverified. That's all that really matters, not unverifiable. It's not like it would be any big loss, a dubious at best sentence or two. If there is anything worthwhile, it may crop up again in the futre, but by someone who knows how to verify whatever information there is. Gene Nygaard 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is unverified, all that means is somebody hasn't verified it yet. It is still verifiable, and I don't know about you, but when I do a search for "Kalindi River", I get some hits. Mostly stuff from babyname sites, but there are a few news sources that use the phrase, including what seems to be a report on a wetlands page and something to do with a border incident with Bangladesh. So it's not coming up a total blank. Now personally, I'd prefer something from an official Indian gov't agency on this, but I expect you'd have to be from India to do it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and there is a suggestion of confusion, that there is no connection of this name to the Yamuna for which we have an article. Gene Nygaard 05:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I tried to verify it, but I can't. There are two rivers by this name, but it they aren't related to the Yamuna. Arbusto 02:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So, should we have articles on those other rivers named Kalindi? FrozenPurpleCube 02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You can make them if you like. What's here wouldn't help you any even if we kept it. Gene Nygaard 05:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect. [1]. utcursch | talk 13:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nominator, not to vote again but just to clarify I do not support redirect because there is no reason to believe it would be correct to do so. Gene Nygaard 15:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect, but for Krishna's sake don't leave it as is. Vectro 17:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep - considerable work done during AFD makes a redirect or merge impractical. Yomangani^talk 17:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Butterley Tunnel

Article about a three mile long tunnel in England. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 00:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It can be described in its quasi-parent article, Cromford Canal. -newkai t-c 00:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cromford Canal, unless expanded. With 111 unique Google hits, it would be hard to write anything of substance about this tunnel that shouldn't go in Cromford Canal. (For a tunnel closed since 1900, sources should probably be sought elsewhere.) Pan Dan 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cromford Canal per Pan Dan. Hello32020 01:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reason changed to per below. Hello32020 23:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is a substantial tunnel on the line of the Cromford Canal. This canal is currently undergoing restoration so it follows that the tunnel, despite the fact that it closed in 1900 will be restored too. Other significant canal tunnels in Britain have their own pages. It therefore follows that if this tunnel should be referred to purely within the Cromford Canal page then other tunnels should share the same fate. There is a great deal to be said about this tunnel not available elsewhere on the net. During its lifetime some of Ripleys coal mines delivered coal directly to underground wharves within the tunnel. Refer to the restoration groups website linked from the Cromford Canal page and you will see that much is known about this tunnel. Why don't you want this information in Wikipedia?Martin Cordon 01:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be in Wikipedia, just merged into Cromford Canal. Hello32020 01:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You haven't actually shown that the information exists. We don't take the sole words of editors around here. Please cite sources to show that there is enough material on this tunnel to require a Wikipedia:Summary style breakout article from Cromford Canal. Uncle G 09:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Let it Grow A fair article on the Butterley tunnel would swamp the article on Cromford Canal. I live near to this tunnel therefore I have access to library records which do not exist on the net. I assure that it is a story worth telling.Martin Cordon 01:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A three mile tunnel?! Does this even warrent merging? --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^{contribs Count} 01:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine. I guess it does warrent merging. Now that it has been updated there is some material to merge; however, while there is much more information now, there is still really no strong claim of notability. So... merge relevant information and delete the article. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 00:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Let it Grow A three mile tunnel is a considerable achievement for men with picks and shovels at the end of the Eighteenth century. Again I refer you to my previous comment. Independent articles already exist for less substantial canal tunnels in Britain. Why should this tunnel be diferent?Martin Cordon 02:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Repeated "votes" from the same editor struck through. Uncle G 09:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Let it Grow A search for Butterley Tunnel on Wikipedia shows that it is referred to by many different pages, including the Benjamin Outram page, the Ripley page, the Butterley Company page, of course the Cromford Canal page. Do you want the Butterley tunnel article merged into every page?Martin Cordon 02:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually, only the Cromford Canal page references Butterley Tunnel. The other pages that come up on this search contain the word "Butterley" or the word "tunnel". --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^{contribs Count} 02:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Let it Grow Danielrocks123 is partly correct. The Cromford Canal page refers directly to the Butterley Tunnel. The Benjamin Outram page refers directly to the Butterley Tunnel. The Ripley, Derbyshire page refers to the canal tunnel, meaning the Butterley Tunnel.The canals of the United Kingdom page refers to the Butterley Tunnel. The Butterley Company page does not, however refer to the tunnel at all, my apologies. But my original comment stands. There are at least four pages which refer to this tunnel. The Canals of the United Kingdom page has a section which directs users specifically to tunnel articles. This page will always be incomplete if some tunnels are allowed pages and others are not.Martin Cordon 02:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the canal article. I was ready to vote keep, but aside from the collapse the tunnel appears completely unremarkable, and I don't see how it can actually "grow" from here. Martin, saying your argument three or four times doesn't make it stronger. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I've changed my view from 'delete" to "merge." P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Cromford Canal page, too short to keep, but if it becomes too long for the Canal page, it can be a sub-page, or a new article can be re-written for it. ¢² Connor K.   20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Munge Merge with The canal page listed above !paradigm! 19:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)!paradigm!
• Strong Merge The author, (Martin), has expanded the article a lot more and has added pictures. I think if we merged the article to Cromford Canal, it would help to drive it towards Featured Article status. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. The article is short, and looking at the sources I'm not convinced it could be expanded beyond the length of a good section on it in Cromford Canal. Also not convinced of notability of the tunnel independent of the canal (the sources primarily feature the canal). Martin's done a beautiful job, and I agree with P.B., this would be an excellent addition to Cromford Canal. Pan Dan 22:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• The article now cites multiple sources about the subject, and even includes pictures. Whether merged into Cromford Canal or left standalone, clearly hitting the delete button isn't required here. Merger can be discussed at Talk:Cromford Canal. Uncle G 10:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep i have changed my vote to keep, concidering recent revisions !paradigm! 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)!paradigm!
• Keep Well researched and referenced. I would've said merge if there wasn't so much reliable information in this article. To merge to Cromford Canal would make that article extraordinarily long, with perhaps too much emphasis on this tunnel. --Marriedtofilm 02:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• comment Too long to be practicaly merged. The tunnel was a significant enginnering atchivement of it's day.12:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Surely a 200 year old triumph of civil engineering is noteworthy enough for its own article. It's a strange kind of cultural snobbery that says that any film, album etc. no matter how mediocre is worthy of an article, but human endevour of the engineering kind is not of importance.--JBellis 19:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I, for one, think the article is interesting. But I don't base my judgments of notability on whether I find something interesting or important, I base them on whether published sources think it's notable. In this case I don't see any substantial independent sources that are primarily about the tunnel (as I said in my comment above, they're primarily about the canal). Pan Dan 21:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Watching you trying to delete say Second Severn Crossing should be interesting.Geni 23:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The Institute of Civil Engineers report cited on this page, refers specifically to the tunnel. Martin Cordon 23:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason to delete that I can see. Is this listed anywhere for historic value? Vegaswikian 21:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep major enginearing project for it's time and there is too much material to merge into the cromford canal article.Geni 12:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Canal tunnels have always been notable features of the British landscape. -- Necrothesp 18:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I used to work at Butterley Engineering sited above the tunnel, and know that there is a lot of information to be found/published about the tunnel which, as mentioned by others, does not appear to be readily available elsewhere. Additionally, the Cromford Canal article risks being swamped if this was merged in to it.Jschwa1 11:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete vandalism by serial hoaxer. Guy 06:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claus von Hessert

The article itself asserts only one claim to notability -- heir to the House of Hessert. But as that house does not have a WP article, neither does the heir. (If they even exist, that is.) N Shar 01:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No relevant google hits. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^{contribs Count} 01:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A Google search for "House of Hessert" brings up only 1 hit, this persons Wiki page. TJ Spyke 02:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax or at minimum unverifiable. I was actually wondering when a fake article on an aristocrat named Stephan (it's the middle name here) would show up. There's a kid this age named Stephan who's reinserted himself here numerous times under numerous names, many with German titles. Heir to a nonexistent title is just his style. Note the author name here is Clasteph (talk · contribs) and the article has only been edited by SPA's. -- Fan-1967 02:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note Google search shows there's no such German word or title as "Hochwohlgeborenis". Fan-1967 02:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• The person who created this article creat 2 articles based on this persons title: HWB and High Well Born. TJ Spyke 02:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• I tagged them as nonsense, and they're gone now. Fan-1967 03:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 05:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Deizio talk 02:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poppenkast

Prod'ed after two months of inactivity, an anon removed the Prod and put an "under construction" note on the page, but it's not even clear what this is supposed to be. Article says it's "a game design and development community" but no website is listed for it. Unable to get anything from google because it's a common word in Dutch. Googling with the listed game names gets a tiny handful of forum posts, so looks quite non-notable. -- Fan-1967 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 23:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable, whatever it is. I searched Google for Poppenkast+community and got less than 500 results, many of them simply because the word appeared in the middle of a Dutch sentence.--Húsönd 03:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Tempted to db-bio it. Resolute 06:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - but there should be a db-underconstruction tag --ArmadilloFromHell 06:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: poppenkast plus one of the games gives no Google hits at all, another gives one google hit from a gamers forum. Utterly non notable, and unverifiable. Fram 12:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Non-notable, and its current form is complete nonsense. --- RockMFR 22:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete per Hús Cynical 22:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - page has been under construction since creation. Should be constructed in a user sandbox before creating page in main wiki. Matthuxtable 11:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable/nonsense. Delta Tango | Talk 01:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment An anon has edited the article and added the following: "They were formed on the 14th of august 2005, and have grown from a handful of members to a bit over twenty." I think that pretty well says it all. Fan-1967 14:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Prodego ^talk 23:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texas Baptist College

Delete per no notability. An unaccredited "college" that offers "degrees" in subjects like "Secretarial Studies". I can't find a figure on how many people attended, but I assume its small since the church, Longview Baptist Temple that operates it claims that the church has 3,000 members. Moreover, looking at their website the Bob Gray, "founder" of the college, is constantly referred to as "Dr." without mentioning his doctorate is honorary and from Hyles Anderson College (an unaccredited institution.) This is telling of some problems of WP:V on its website. I get 3,000 yahoo hits for "Texas Baptist College" which included this article and places not related to this subject. Could be a diploma mill or could be a great school either way it lacks WP:V. Arbusto 01:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. It is a "ministry of the Longview Baptist Temple", also listed for deletion today. Either delete or merge with that article if it isn't deleted. QuiteUnusual 07:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• DeletePer nom. --The Way 08:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 14:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not a significant institution. Gazpacho 23:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete, though I honestly could not care less about this school one way or the other, I would point out that though it is unaccredited it still has had students, at the same time it has controversy and respect as well. The fact is some people may wonder about this school that want an unbiased opinion, I would never have known it existed until I saw it on wikipedia, plain and simple that is one of the great things about wikipedia, there are millions of things listed in standard encyclopedias I may never read but at the same time there may be somebody who needs to, by chance, no something, I do not find it notable, but it may be useful to someone else. The school's site is biased, wikipedia, is supposed to be an unbiased rescource for those searching, also there are many schools on here that are unaccredited, though I do think that this article should be kept I do not feel that the church article should be I feel that if anything the church article should be a section of the College article. --MJHankel 02:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Regarding your claim that it "has students", does it? Please provided WP:V of how many students it has. If it has a lot that might establish notability. Your claim that basically everything should be kept (even though you may not read it) isn't a reason for inclusion, and in fact goes against wikipedia policy. --Arbusto 02:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Frankly I do not know but there has been a book written about it, from one of its alumni, beyond that I do not know, Like I said I never had heard of it before but it just seems as though there are other Unaccredited colleges listed and it just did not seem that there was any real reason to not list this one. I am just trying to expand and keep info on all subjects, frankly either way it does not much matter to me personally. I am just trying to make an appeal for this article. --MJHankel 05:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Please give a reason for inclusion based on wikipedia policy. Your claim that everything should be included is absurd. Arbusto 18:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment As I said there was a book written about it called The Texas Baptist Crucible[2] so in that sense it is notable other than that I do not care plain and simple I honestly do not like in anyway Independent Baptist Fundamentalists look under controversies on Hyles Anderson College, William Andy Beith was my principal, I was at that school when it all went down,.. so basically this is not a biased argument I am simply stating that it is somewhat notable for its controversy which I am positive is more than this especially sense the founder/chancellor of this school "Bob Gray" was also the founder of another highly controversial school in florida Trinity Baptist College, either way I fill that if for no other reason than controversy this article may be important.--MJHankel 05:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem confused the book is about the church not the "college". The book is self-published by a former member of the church. Arbusto 06:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't know that that is a confusion. The comments on Amazon and on various blogs and forum posts (yes, I know, not WP:V — just listen a sec) seem to indicate that the book discusses both, possibly because they are so intertwined. Lawikitejana 09:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe one day when this can pass WP:V and there is more than forum posts this article can be recreated. If the "book" is so important to the article then why not include it? Seems strange to cite something as a reason for keeping an article without entering it into the article. Arbusto 01:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete: Those suggesting this outfit is trivial clearly don't live in East Texas. This is a sizeable (if a bit odd) organization that is one of the major religious and social institutions in East Texas. I don't know the numbers, but they fill busload after busload of congregants every Sunday from as far away as Dallas (130 miles). No, it isn't world-famous; but anyone who lives in Longview or any of the surrounding towns is well aware of it, has likely had dealings with it in some way, and understands that it is quite influential in the region. Its accreditation or lack thereof really doesn't have much to do with it's overall influence. This is a substantial, locally influential, controversial institution - if that doesn't make it worthy of an entry, then I just don't understand the criteria very well I guess.Ritwingr 05:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this is Ritwingr's first ever edit. Arbusto 17:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment At first, I had trouble understanding the problem, too, but let me see if I can explain it. All of this controversy is potentially VERY notable ... but we don't have sufficiently solid sources to demonstrate that controversy yet. (The Spurgeon book doesn't yet count because none of us seem to be able to address whether it talks about TBC or only about the church.) If you look at the Hyles-Anderson College article mentioned above, you see that newspapers have written about problems there (just one example). If you live in East Texas, you may be able to find verifiable sources that those of us using online searches can't find; for example, have the Longview News-Journal or the Tyler Morning Telegraph published stories? I also wonder whether any specifically Baptist papers or papers of other Baptist colleges have written about it; I know that when the International Churches of Christ were getting started, a paper called The Christian Chronicle was writing about the movement long before major newspapers and TV stations or networks started covering the topic. Consider whether you or someone you know has access to such sources, and if so, post here any information you find. Lawikitejana 09:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry wikipedia does not keep articles based on "potentially notable" articles. Arbusto 02:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep unless the nominator can explain how having an entire book published about the folleys of this school somehow make it "not notable". I see several things notable about this school, non-accreditation != non-notability. Silensor 17:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please name those several things that make it notable; I see nothing in the article. The book is about the CHURCH, and its self-pusblished! Regarding the self-published book: church!=school. Also accreditation is required in Texas to give degrees.[3] The article currently states they give degrees. That is a serious WP:V issue. Arbusto 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Silensor is right... just because it isnt an accredited school doesnt mean it cant be notable... It could be quite infamous for many reasons... This school in particular has a book published about all of its mistakes. That means the information is verifiable, and therefore should be kept.  ALKIVAR™ 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What makes it notable? How many "students" attend? Arbusto 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per Silensor and Alkivar. bbx 19:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a school inclusionist voter. Reasons for keeping (per others) are addressed above. Arbusto 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The closing admin should see this. Arbusto 01:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Arbusto 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

• Comment: Could we have a WP:V independent from the "college" that there is a classroom? A student body? Regular staff? That this "college" is authorized to give degrees? I ask because Texas requires accreditation to award degrees.[4]--Arbusto 02:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 03:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep any school that is the subject of a lurid exposé of its "cult-like environment" is notable in my book. Besides, what other institution of higher learning offers degree programs in "Church Maintenance and Mechanics". The Buddhists only offer bike maintenance at their schools. Given the notability of teh school, the nominator's unsupported concerns are irrelevant. Alansohn 05:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Alansohn, do you have any citations for this "lurid exposé" of which you speak? Also, delete per nom. Vectro 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The SINGLE "book" (by a former member of the church) is about the CHURCH. The publisher of this 2006 book is PublishAmerica, which is a self-publishing company.[5] According to that Washington Post article, "PublishAmerica does use POD technology -- saving manufacturing and warehousing costs by not producing a book until a consumer actually places an order." The church was not notable enough for wikipedia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longview Baptist Temple and was DELETED. The only source that is being cited to make it notable is self-published. Self-published sources are not allowed per WP:RS. Hence the article should be deleted. Arbusto 06:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A student number would be important here. Seeing that the staff number is 20, and that a bunch of those are probably non-teaching, that means there's probably only 10-15 instructors at this place, and thus the student number must be tiny. -newkai t-c 11:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. People voting keep on any and every school are getting a bit tiring, and this is a good example of what is so annoying about that behaviour. If an article doesn't pass the standards set by our policies (and seems unable to do so even after researching it), it should go. Fram 12:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per lack of WP:V from reliable sources. It appears the main sourcing being offered for keeping this is the vanity published book about the church which is not sufficient. No clear case for notability has been made here and nobody has offered any sort of reliable sourcing for even the basic existance of this school.--Isotope23 14:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation of verification of student numbers etc. is found Cynical 22:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete AdamBiswanger1 04:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Levitz

Surgeon biography with nothing to substantiate inclusion in wikipedia Droliver 02:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD G12 [6] copyvio here. In addition, it's blatant advertising and the guy is hardly notable (520 google hits). AdamBiswanger1 04:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Werner

Yet another politician mistaking Wikipedia for a free promotional vehicle. Third-Party candidate for Texas governor; otherwise, completely unnotable (unlike, say, Kinky Friedman, who did a few things before running). Calton | Talk 02:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is meant to provide information and there was no intent to use Wikipedia as a "promotional vehicle". The information included in the Wikipedia article is similar to the information found on other candidates' articles. Their education, residence, and other information is mentioned. It is better to edit this article, if necessary, rather than delete it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty6 (talk • contribs)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a voter's guide. I have no interest in the word games between "provide information" and "promote". Let's face it, he's a marginal candidate looking for any exposure he can get. Fan-1967 02:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan-1967. Also note that Liberty6 appears to be a SPA which seem to frequently appear when politics are being discussed here on Wikipedia. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^{contribs Count} 03:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Not exactly. The only edits from Liberty6 are directly related to this candidate. Presumably an employee or supporter. Fan-1967 03:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are a number of 666 mentions in Google News about this candidate but mostly are in the also running categoty. [7]. a

• I actually meant that single purpose accounts frequently seem to come up when politics are being discussed, not this specific user. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^{contribs Count} 03:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are 666 mentions of this candidate in Google News. [8]. Most are of the also running is variety. He wasn't invited to participate in the debates because he didn't meet the criteria outlined by the organisers. [9]. Capitalistroadster 03:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete recreate if he wins.-- danntm ^T _C 04:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many articles on people who are not as known as James Warner. James Warner's status as not being very popular is not a legitimate reason for deletion of this article. If that was a legitimate reason, that than deleting every reference of him on every article in Wikipedia would be reasonable along with deleting every reference of every person not as popular as he is. The information regarding why he was not invited to participate should be added to the article if you believe the article is biased in that respect. Also, I do not know what is meant by,"Most are of the also running is variety." Use correct grammar if you wish for me to understand what was attempted to be conveyed. Liberty6 04:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't understand the grammar, let me clarify: Most of the news mentions were of the "Also running is James Wermer" variety. He was mentioned in the articles, but only barely. Fan-1967 04:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In order for article mentions to matter for WP:BIO and similar guidelines they need to be more than just passing references. JoshuaZ 20:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete And we are woking on deleting THOSE articles as well. From the relevent guideline, WP:BIO: A political subject is notable if they are, and I quote, "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature." This guy holds, nor has ever held, any political office at the international, national, state or provincial level. If he has nothing else to make him notable, he doesn't belong here... --Jayron32 04:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete useless. --MonkBirdDuke 05:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Any relevant information about him can be listed on Texas gubernatorial election, 2006. Cynical 22:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because he is not a main candidate it would be wrong to not let him have an article in the same way that they didn't let him in the debate I say keep and if the article is deleted i'll recreate it and if it's deleted again i'll recreate it again, and again, and again, and again. --Jimwitz 20:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• And the article will be protected, and you will be blocked. Announcing your intention to violate Wikipedia procedures is perhaps not the wisest course of action. Fan-1967 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• among the many things that WikiPedia is not is a blog. Wikipedia is not about unfettered and free expression. It is an encyclopedia, and as such, there are certain standards against which a subject will be judged by community consensus. The basic guidelines of verifiability and notability require that a subject meets a minimum baseline before the community will accept it. This guy does not rate. If you wish to find a vehicle to bring this guy greater exposure, great, more power to you. The internet is FULL of websites and tools to do exactly what you wish. Wikipedia is not one of them. --Jayron32 20:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• I never said I was going to do anything bad. Obviously I would just forget about it if they blocked e from recreating the article. I just want to have an aricle for James Werner but if you want me to stop on the article so bad I will but what you have to relize is i'm no trying to vandalize anything and i'm writing about a real politician who's name is going to be on the 2006 Teas Governor Race ballot just like Rick Perry, Chris Bell, Kinky Freidman, and Karole Keeton Strayhorn. Im not writing about my 6th grade talent show. Jimwitz 22:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just to clarify the standards: if an AFD nomination concludes with a consensus to delete, recreating the article in defiance of that decision is considered to be vandalism. Abiding by community consensus is one of the practices necessary in order to keep the project running (semi-)smoothly. Fan-1967 14:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If for any reason it would be an act of vandalism I would not recreate the article but if their was no notice indicating that it would be vandlism their would be no harm in recreating the article. I admit I overeacted but if they deleted it a second time I wouldn't keep recreating it. Jimwitz 16:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Rewrite it if necessary. Mike Richardson 05:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Liberty6 08:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please elaborate By what standard should the article be kept? Simply noting "keep" does not help the closing admin decide to keep the article. Please provide hard evidence to the notability of this subject. NOT unsubstantiated claims, but links or citations of URL or print references that establish his notability... AfD is not a democracy; its not a vote. Its about presenting evidence to help the closing admin make a decision. --Jayron32 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of my elaborating can be found by simply looking for what I typed on this page. Also, to further elaborate, the article(James Werner) should be kept and revised. Revising, if done correctly, is obviously something that can be done that will make the article easier to understand and verifiable. In addition to that, Jesse Ventura polled about 10% before the debates and he went on to win the election, despite the fact that no major polls indicated that he was leading. While, it is true that James Werner is/was not as popular as Jesse Ventura and he is not polling 10% in any major polls, he is still polling in single digits, not a fraction of a percent, and although he did not participate in the debates, he is a candidate that should have an article. Michael Badnarik can be considered a person and a candidate(former and present) that shouldn't have an article, but does. How is he extremely more significant that James Werner? Is it because Michael ran for president and James is only a candidate for a less significant office? Think about it, what harm is done by keeping the article on James Werner, considering the article will be revised in the ways necessary? Liberty6 04:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply Harm is not a criterion for keeping the article in question. Notability IS. You merely claim that he is notable. PROVIDE SOME SOURCES. Dozens of people run for dozens of local elections. What makes him more notable than the average political candidate. Be careful with the "If Y than X" arguement. Every article needs to be judged of its own merits. Still, if we must use Badnarik for analogy purposese, here goes. Badnarik received CONSIDERABLE national press coverage during his run for president. Though Nader ultimately received more vote, the Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the U.S. via total registered memebers, and the Presidential Election is considerably more notable than a congressional race. Its the nature of the race he was involved in. Badnarik's political positions were put under the scrutiny of the national press. He merits significant NON TRIVIAL mention in several fact-checked sources. We have no evidence that Werner has been covered by any source more notable than a voter guide. THAT is the standard that we are going by when we make the case for delete. If you want to change our minds, provide evidence to the contrary by putting forward NON TRIVIAL, FACT CHECKED references to this candidate. If you can provide them, you will swing the discussion to your favor. In the absence of such sources, however, your pleas, however heartfelt, will not sway the consensus. --Jayron32 05:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Think about it, what harm is done by keeping the article on James Werner, considering the article will be revised in the ways necessary?

• There is no necessary way to revise this article because no matter how it is done, the subject will still not be notable. Above, Liberty6 argues that Jesse Ventura has a Wikipedia article but then goes on to admit that James Werner is less notable than Jesse Ventura. This candidate is simply not significant enough for this encyclopedia. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 17:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• 1) Jesse Ventura is notable independant of his political career. His notability comes from his career as an actor and wrestler, which would have made him worthy of a Wikipedia article had he never even run for Governor. ALso 2) Had Jesse Ventura not been notable before he ran for governor, he would not have been notable polling only 10% of the electorate. He would have become notable the day he won the election. If THAT had been the case, he could only get an article after he had won. This guy is in the same situation. If he wins, we'll write an article about him. He hasn't won yet. Therefore he doesn't yet need an article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Jayron32 02:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's BEEN thought about and thought about plenty, long before you showed up. The harm, as I stated in my nomination, is in allowing Wikipedia to be mistaken for a free promotional vehicle. It's not; nor is a free webhosting service, a blog, a mode for free expression, a repository of unreferenced and speculative factoids, a way to attract attention to someone's cause, an unmediated and one-sided depository of candidate press releases and soundbites, a disguised campaign position paper, a dessert topping or a floor wax. Wikipedia aspires to be a vital and valuable online ENCYCLOPEDIA; devaluing it just so someone can get a few more votes for his pet candidate or pet cause DOES do it harm. --Calton | Talk 05:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I realize that we can't list every candidate for every office up for grabs in the United States (or anywhere in the world), but I think WP:BIO as it relates to politicians needs to be revised. I think we need to include information about candidates as well as victors in important races. A consensus should be reached as to what those races are, but I would definitely assume that governor, secretary of state, AG, etc. would be among them. I am in COMPLETE agreement that articles need to be NPOV - we don't want them to be big, free promotional vehicles (and it sounds like this has been an issue here), but then that's a different issue, and we need to address that accordingly. I can't think of one thing more confusing and in need of clarification than politics to most people - having a deletionist policy and only listing winners/officeholders seems to be well beside the point of what Wikipedia is for. My humble opinion. (Full disclosure: I was the author of an article of a candidate for secretary of state in my state that was deleted, despite media attention and notability.) NickBurns 19:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major League Baseball All-Star Game Records

Article is just a list of facts. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Mets501 (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^{contribs Count} 03:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral So tempting to keep...... I can't bring myself to oppose- It's so useful. AdamBiswanger1 04:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep, keep, keep. Sports record holders are eminently notable and verifiable. Notability and verifiability are discriminate criteria for inclusion, not indiscriminate. List articles are important enough to merit their own Wikipedia Guidelines. List articles are an important part of WikiPedia structure. Merely being a list is not justification for deletion. Possible merge with Major League Baseball All-Star Game, but that discussion should not happen here. Tag article for a merge, bring up point at the on the relevent talk pages, and let people know your opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball. --Jayron32 04:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep They're baseball stats. Not indiscriminate information.--MonkBirdDuke 05:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but requires cleanup. An opening statement of what the list is about, and the year the single game records were achieved would be nice. Resolute 06:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep expand and add more prose. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 08:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Major League Baseball All-Star Game. These are not major records of the sport, they're just records of one exhibition game a year. Yes, the game gets lots of press coverage, and occasionally an "All-Star Game record" will be mentioned, which is why I'm not voting delete per Mr Darcy. The list of records is not significant enough for its own article, and belongs with its topic. If that article is too long it should be trimmed rather than splitting off its less important parts into separate articles. Barno 12:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I see the parent article contains hundreds of words on "2008 All-Star Game and beyond". WP:NOT a crystal ball and most of that section isn't encyclopedic. Cut the fluff, if size is a reason the list of records was separated. Barno 12:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I also think it should be merged, as Barno suggests. PJM 14:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Easily verifiable (some sources would be nice, though) and notable. A merge might be in order, but that's not a discussion for this page. SliceNYC 15:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Why not? Per the AfD page's introduction: "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, or another language's Wikipedia—please note that it cannot be transwikied to WikiTravel [1] or Wikinews), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." Barno 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Votes to merge are OK here. Discussions of the nature of the merge are not. If it is decided to merge, how and why that is to be done are carried out elsewhere. --Jayron32 18:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• My response would have been what Jayron wrote. SliceNYC 22:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• keep; the main article of Major League Baseball All-Star Game is already too big to add this information to it. Vectro 18:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's only an anti-merge argument. The reality is that all of the information on this page is available here, and Major League Baseball All-Star Game could then include a link to that site. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent! You found a source! That proved verifiability. One more reason to keep. --Jayron32 03:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability was never in question here - you won't find a sport with better statistical records than baseball. The point is that this information is easily available elsewhere, and simply reproducing that content here is a violation of WP:NOT. If the article could be expanded to include something more than just a list of stats, I'd see the logic behind keeping it, but I don't see how that is possible. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ok. Fair enough arguement. But the information is valid for inclusion in wikipedia. Where do you propose it go? I already noted that a merge with the main article may be in order. Do you have a better place for it, or are you contesting that WikiPedia not include such information at all? --Jayron32 03:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm arguing in favor of deletion. The article can't stand as is, nor is it ever likely to become a free-standing article rather than a list of numbers, leaving deletion or merge as the options. The All-Star Game is a meaningless exhibition, one not taken even a little bit seriously by most of the players (witness all the defections from the announced rosters each year), and I don't see how information like most All-Star Game balks (2) or triples (also 2) is encyclopedic. I'll respect the consensus, of course, but if we're not deleting, let's trim this to the major stats before a merge with Major League Baseball All-Star Game. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Vectro. --- RockMFR 22:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination.--Anthony.bradbury 14:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opie and Anthony's Traveling Virus Comedy Tour

Delete - This article is for something that no longer exists and certainly does not need it's own article. Attention whore 02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Opie and Anthony. --Dhartung | Talk 04:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Opie and Anthony. Shadow1 (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Opie and Anthony. Payneos 17:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. —Khoikhoi 02:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Noteworthy event. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, since the tour was a success it is going to continue next year. It has already been announced on-air as continuing.--Hndsmepete 06:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect both to Kingdom Hearts. Yomangani^talk 14:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keyblade, Princesses of Hearts

As this was part of Glossary of terms from the Kingdom Hearts series, which was deleted, I don't see any particular reason why this shouldn't be deleted as well. Interrobamf 02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The article Princesses of Hearts has been added since it is in the same situation. Interrobamf 12:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Poifo33 07:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. Unless someone has a 2nd hand source, this article will be a constant source of original research and fan speculation. Mitaphane _talk 08:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mitaphane and Interrobamf. Vectro 18:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect both to Kingdom Hearts. --- RockMFR 22:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• merge and redirect both, likely search terms, but difficult to support individual articles. -- saberwyn 23:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect both, merging the keyblade article into the main Kingdom Hearts article and just letting the princesses article go. Even uncited, some information on the keyblade would be good for the KH article for future work, but the princess article is unneeded. Six of the seven are main characters from classic Disney animated films, which can (and at least some already are) linkable from the KH article. The info. on the one original character is unusable spoiler and possibly uncitable (though definitely in need of a complete rewrite). QuagmireDog 00:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, leaving 'the nature of keyblades' and intro out, the remaining three headings could be slapped straight into the KH article during the AFD if nobody objects? Let's see how it goes, but if more contributors think this should be merged/redirected/deleted then it'd be the work of a minute. QuagmireDog 00:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The info really should be merged into the story section. No separate sections. "Sora gets the Keyblade, an important weapon/object because blah blah blah". Interrobamf 00:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. The story section of KH (possibly most of the article by the looks of it) needs rewriting anyhow, so it's not like the article will be compromised by inserting that text, but it will at least serve as a reminder to expand on the keyblade point when the article is overhauled. QuagmireDog 00:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. All useful information from those articles is already contained within the main article. Axem Titanium 03:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete (not that that stops anyone redirecting this where they wish). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spitting dragon

Fails to assert notability. Note that it is about a project rather than a band (thus not under the scope of csd a7). Contested prod. MER-C 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Why do people think that things which have no external sources but the official site for the thing itself merit inclusion? -Amarkov ^babble 04:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not worthy of inclusion MikesPlant 09:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Synthetic Dream Foundation. There's no reason to believe that this project could assert notability per WP:MUSIC, and I don't see any point in a merge since there's no verified content to merge over. However, a redirect won't hurt anything and may direct searchers to the main band page, which apparently survived its own deletion review. (See the SDF talk page). TheronJ 14:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanieo

Appears to have been submitted by the subject. No independent evidence of notability. --Peta 03:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. All google hits seem to be wikipedia mirrors. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^{contribs Count} 03:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - completely unsourced and per nom. MER-C 08:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. As far as I can see, all the concerns of the delete proponents were addressed by Arthur Rubin. It is the responsbility of participants to watch discussions for new evidence and either change their opinion or explain why the evidence is insufficient. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drugs I Need

Contested {{db-web}} speedy. Editor removed tag saying "Video is done by notable group." The problem is, it's not. I'm assuming the editor was referring to the line in the article that reads "The animation, which is supported by JibJab...", but all that means is that JibJab is hosting a copy on their servers; they did not do the animation. Take out the JibJab line and I see no notability at all. To make matters worse, the animation is a highly POV ad attacking drug companies. To top it all off, zero wikilinks. --Aaron 03:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Further reasons to delete: I just discovered that JibJab no longer even offers this video on their web site. I've removed the JibJab references from the article. --Aaron 03:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I believe the notable group to which they refer is the Austin Lounge Lizards. SteveHopson 03:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Well, they sang the song, but they didn't do the video... --Aaron 03:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Where's the video? El_C 08:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; uncited, unnotable, and unlinked. Vectro 18:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Marginal Keep; being produced by Consumers Union provides some indication of notability (and also provides availablity at http://cu.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=Rx_song_download . Also won the (2006) Grassroots Inovation Award from the Public Affairs Council, http://www.pac.org/pages/staff/print/PR-GIA2006.shtml. Also, a NY Times column (available with free nytimes.com subscription) at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/science/08song.html?ex=1161144000&en=3b52328690f57dfa&ei=5070 ; Give me a moment to insert those into the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 12:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drausio R. Haddad

Subject is not notable. Page author and suspected sockpuppets have repeatedly inserted name into multiple articles. Also note duplicate of this article, Drausio Haddad has been previously nominated for deletion SteveHopson 03:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Freelance multimedia delete. -- Hoary 03:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 07:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, non-notable biography. Vectro 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Doc ♬ talk 13:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Can't sleep, clown will eat me. MER-C 08:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Kenneally Features

Article consists entirely of nonsense, inside jokes and personal attacks. Dyfsunctional 03:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by JesseW. MER-C 08:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PIITB

Silly neologism of uncertain notability. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think this has been here before. Yes. Gazpacho 03:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• And we have Speedy. Delete, of course. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete - as has been pointed out, WP:WEB requires coverage that is directly related to the subject. Some of the 'coverage' presented here by the keep side doesn't even mention the website, only the emulator, whose article is not up for discussion here. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emulators unlimited

I don't believe this website meets WP:WEB. Now don't get me wrong the emulator UltraHLE which they helped distribute widely is (or at least was) notable, no question about it. The website however is not. I suppose we could redirect to UltraHLE but then again, I'd rather have even that choice confirmed through AfD since I've been in disagreement with the creator (and sole editor) of the page. The search "emulators unlimited" on Google returns about 10K hits, not bad but then again not so good given they've existed for 10 years and that of the first 1K hits, only 260 are unique [10]. More problematic is that searching those links I could not find any solid third party references. Pascal.Tesson 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 23:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I dont feel that this reason for deletion is appropriate, wikipedia is meant to be based for things also in the past, just because the website isnt as popular now as in its heyday, doesnt mean that during the times your question, that it wasnt a huge aspect of why UltraHLE was popular and infact released and a solid piece of emulation history which provided emulator homepages for its authors to use, without any financial gain.

• Comment Web notability has nothing to do with being popular. It has to do with verification from multiple third-party reliable sources. Either that, or a significant web award, or being distributed from a reliable source. ColourBurst 03:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am the webmaster of emuunlim.com and any questions on why you dont think that this (alongside other websites included such as Zophars Domain) shouldnt reside on wikipedia please ask, whether you feel that the website didnt have any significance on the emulation/internet regarding media attention and regarding UltraHLE, is souly down to your judgement at this moment of time, im sure that Realityman (Gordon, UltraHLE) will vouch that we played a major part of changing history & bringing it into the forefront (myself being the first person to test it also) of the emulation fans and the media, if you need any more validation, contact Nintendo :)

want some validation? okay:

http://www.emuhq.com/idx/5/004/article/UltraHLE-In-the-Press-News-articles.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/02/03/n64_emulator_vanishes_after_lawsuit/

correction, the current search of "emuunlim" (emuunlim.com is the website) shows 126,000 on google and "emulators unlimited" shows 1,570,000.

thanks and keep up the great work on wiki! ste (fox)

Comment Well if you put quotes around "emulators unlimited" it's below a thousand. Note that the search without the quotes is meaningless since it will hit any page with the words "unlimited" and "emulators" in it. The search with the quote tells you that about 1 out of every 1500 of this million and a half hits is relevant to the website. As for the search for emuunlim, yes it does get a lot. Yet half of those are the pages from the site itself! [11] A quick look at the remainder of the hits shows that the site does not come close to meeting WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 20:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The notability of UltraHLE isn't in question here (the links you gave solved that one pretty thoroughly). The link between emuunlim and UltraHLE is harder, and if I ask Realityman, he will probably say you were influential in the distribution of UltraHLE. Unfortunately, Some of Wikipedia's principles are Verifiability, not Truth and No Original Research, which means that we couldn't use his statements unless they were published in a third-party reliable source. We also couldn't contact Nintendo for this information for the same reason. ColourBurst 02:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:V. If "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" are found I will certainly revise my opinion. --Satori Son 02:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 03:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the N64 emulator did get news coverage, besides the Register article, I found this [12] FrozenPurpleCube 04:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per WP:V. "played a major part of changing history & bringing it into the forefront "??? If that claim were in the article I'd call WP:BOLLOCKS. Barno 12:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Emulators Unlimited isn't even the focus of the story linked by Mr Manticore above; the story is about a lawsuit against another company, with later content describing the subsequent announcement of UltraHLE, mentioning that "it relies on illegally copied ROMs." Frankly, a hack based on illegal copying may easily get popularity among a small niche, but it needs real evidence of mainstream coverage to meet WP's standards. I read references to MIME (another game emulator) frequently, but if I ever heard of "Emulators Unlimited", it was in a throwaway context. Barno 13:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Commment I'd like to second the previous comment. Noone is contesting the notability of the emulators. We are contesting the notability of the website itself. Pascal.Tesson 13:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Satori San. Vectro 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

lol :)

here is the UK's leading PC gaming magazine "PC Zone", covering my website etc in May 1999 just after UltraHLE was released:

(please scroll down to the part that says: "The Fox was interviewed by PC ZONE, the UK's biggest PC magazine. Who gave us the following three pages" and you should see three page scans)

http://www.emuunlim.com/about.php

IGN magazine covered it too, but need to dig that out :)

just as a snippet, Gremlin Graphics officially allowed emuunlim.com to host the back catalogue of their titles online:

http://gremlinworld.emuunlim.com/

and i interviewed Jeff Minter (creator of Tempest, Tempest 2000 and Llamatron):

http://pt.emuunlim.com/interview.htm

ESPN.com LINKS OF THE DAY: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/links/050801

- emuunlim (fox)

• Keep Notable, and one of the bigger emulation sites out there. Also been mentioned in both internet press and paper press. Havok (T/C/c) 06:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Press coverage consists only of trivial mentions to the website in conjunction with the emulator. The articles linked-to only seem to attest to the notability of the emulator, not the site. The website deserves some mention in the emulator article, but there isn't enough independent info on the site to warrant an article of its own. Being "mentioned" and being "one of the bigger emulation sites" does not meet WP's criteria for sourcing and verifiability. Wickethewok 14:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've been well acquainted with emulators and emulation sites since about 1998, and the fact I've heard of UltraHLE but not this does not bode well. Anyway, all the press reports focus entirely on the emulator, with its host site being merely an incidental detail. Garrett^Talk 22:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Havok. ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as an indiscriminant information. Wickethewok 14:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chiki Kah

Non-notable game information from an MMRPG. Not worthy of its own article. Should be deleted. I considered a PROD for this article, but as it appears to be actively being worked on, I figured the PROD would be removed anyways, and so jumped a step. Also, it appears that the original author intends a whole series of articles like this. He should be dissuaded. Jayron32 05:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 23:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• additional information entire article is also a copyvio. Just thought y'all would like to know. --Jayron32 05:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as copyvio, unless Fragrag (talk · contribs) can provide verification that it is licensed under GFDL. Vectro 18:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The article claims that it actually has permission to use the information. I believe it should be deleted as cruft and indiscriminate information though. The Kinslayer 09:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep by default - there are too many issues under discussion here, none of which seems to involve deleting the article, and the subject has shifted halfway through the process with the creation of the environmentalism article. Discussion of the relative merits of a disambiguation page, redirect or move can be discussed on the talk page. Yomangani^talk 17:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bright green

Two problems here. 1) This article, which was created to be about the color bright green, has twice been hijacked by environmentalists who blanked the article without any discussion and turned it into an article about a supposed "subcategory" of environmentalism [13] [14]. 2) The term is a neologism that apparently is in little use even within the environmentalist movement. A Google search on "'bright green' +environmentalism" pulls up only 445 hits total [15], and even starting on the first page of results, most of the hits use the phrase "bright green" purely to mean, well, "bright green", as in "bright green oasis", "bright green in color", etc. Since there appears to be an orchestrated campaign by a certain few editors to hijack the page, I felt it would be best to go for a full AfD instead of simply reverting to the page's original content. Delete. Aaron 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Revert and protect Current article is an apparent neologism. Article should be reverted to the "green redirect" page and protected from further editing. --Jayron32 05:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The Google test is not an accurate measure of notability, especially when you use the wrong search terms. A search for "bright green" environment finds 540,000 results, many of which refer to this concept, including a mention in The Yale Herald. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms for our policies, which don't apply in this case. This article should be moved to Bright green environmentalism and Bright green should be a disambig to that and the color green. At the very least, merge into Green movement or something similar. — Omegatron 12:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; none of the top 10 hits for "bright green" environment finds it fit to actually define the term. Vectro 18:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Bright green environmentalism, then restore old colour page and add a dablink Percy Snoodle 13:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Revert to this version or Redirect to Green and suggest aggressively watching the article to keep it from being hijacked again. "Bright Green" as an environmental term fails WP:NEO and the article is not verified and appears to be original research. Googling "bright green" environment as suggested in comments above does not produce any cohesive information or definition of the term which would justify the version of the article currently at this namespace. I don't have any strong objection to creation of a Bright green environmentalism page if someone can produce WP:V sources showing that this is a widely used term for the type of environmentalism described in the article, but as it stands this namespace should be returned to covering the color.--Isotope23 14:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Bright green environmentalism, then restore old colour page and add a dablink. MGTom 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Revert to this version. If necessary, add Bright green environmentalism or Bright green (environmentalism). –Dvandersluis 19:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Revert and close discussion. This is an edit war, not a deletion question. Gazpacho 22:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Close AfD, content issue unsuited for AfD (now it's about the colour again). If an article on this brand of environmentalism is created, we can assess it on its own merits. Sandstein 16:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article on the color. If the environmentalism stuff comes back it should be on a different page, as the color article is worth having. We can then have an AFD discussion about the environmentalism content, but my current thinking is that it fails WP:NEO due to lack of independent reliable sources about the term. GRBerry 15:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've created Bright green environmentalism. You can now put that up for deletion and close this, as it was never actually about deleting bright green, but about reverting to the color article. — Omegatron 01:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article "Bright green" (color), keep the article "Bright green environmentalism" but change the title back to "Bright green." The color does not merit its own page-- I notice there isn't one for "Dark Green" and "Green" will do. The environmentalism topic is more deserving of the "Bright green" title, and the color article is kind of pointless. --Holdek ^(talk) 02:04, 17 October 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.

I have considered the discussion and the page in question: a delete verdict it is, for reasons best summed up by User:Khoikhoi. —Encephalon 05:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional characters missing an appendage

Because ... uh ... WTF!!??!? Just look at it! --Aaron 05:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• keep Lists are important enough to wikipedia to have their own official guidelines. This list should be kept because a) the content is notable and verifiable and b) it meets the guidelines as spelled out in WP:LIST. Besides, WTF, regardless of how many random punctuation marks follows it, is not a valid reason for deletion. --Jayron32 05:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:LIST, of course, is largely a style guide that says little to nothing about what sorts of lists are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. By Jayron32's standards, any list about anything would get a speedy keep as long as it was formatted correctly. As for me being a little lighthearted in in nomination, guilty as charged. The reason for the nom is self-evident. --Aaron 05:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Actually, only lists whose content is notable and verifiable should be included. This meets both tests. Consider the following from Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Appropriate topics for lists:

  " If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.)."

by analogy, a list of fictional characters would be too long. This is merely a listing of fictional characters by a notable trait. This is hardly a normally deletion worthy article. Check the history. It has dozens of editors and dates back over 2 years. If the page was not useful, it would not show this kind of activity. The list article has proved its usefulness by that standard. Oh, and nothing at wikipedia is self-evident. If you want to delete, make a point that shows this information is a) not notable b) not verifiable or c) redundant. If none of these apply, the article has no reason to be deleted. --Jayron32 05:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Looking at this list, it's simply a lot of characters that share an arbitrary trait. There is nothing to be said about them. You cannot draw any sort of connection that helps one understand their encyclopaedic notability. As it stands, it just exists for the sake of documenting minutiae - not a good thing. I would contrast this with, say, List of fictional pirates, which can be used to draw connections among and typify the portrayal of pirates in fictional works, or something of that nature. This list helps little to not at all with such matters. GassyGuy 07:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: At first, I thought this list might have originally been created as a, uhh, "service" for those with Amputee fetishism. But given that the list skews heavily toward comic-book characters and sci-fi movie heroes who had their limbs replaced with better ones, I can't even figure out what an amputee fetishist would get out of this list. --Aaron 14:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Categorize and Delete Danny Lilithborne 08:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Categorize and Delete categorize for those who might need it for some other article. Delete per WP:NOT indiscriminate information. Mitaphane _talk 08:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Categorize. I find lists of this sort quite fascinating, and not necessarily arbitrary. Of encyclopaedic use for anyone researching disability in fiction, for example. David L Rattigan 10:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with GassyGuy; I'm not in favor of a category but it would be better than this list. Barno 13:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as I concur with GassyGuy.--Isotope23 13:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Arbitary criteria. "It's useful" is not a valid argument. Interrobamf 14:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Actually, "It's useful" is a valid supporting argument, if used to mean "it helps readers make encyclopedic use of the article". But "usefulness" by itself doesn't get a topic past core inclusion policies like WP:V or WP:NOR. Barno 17:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. These categories are ridiculous. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete per Tom Harrison DesertSky85451 17:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per GazzyGuy. I find too many unencyclopedic "articles" are shrouded in the guideline of WP:LIST despite their failure to meet the policy in WP:NOT, as this list does. Agent 86 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Categorize per Agent 86. Vectro 18:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is a useless article. Fictonal people is understandable, but ones with missing legs, arms, ect? --ASDFGHJKL 20:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, but do not categorise. -- saberwyn 23:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lol. —Khoikhoi 02:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, but rename to List of fictional amputees. The motif of amputation in fiction is definitely a worthwhile topic, and such a list is comparable to the real-world List_of_amputees. I'd suggest that this list is well within Wikipedia norms, and can become encyclopedic with some editing: its main weakness, as previously noted, is the skew to SF/Fantasy, and its lack of sourcing. Its contents are neutral, verifiable, and its constituents notable. In certain cases, amputation is a core trait to the fictional character (e.g. Captain James Hook or Six Million Dollar Man). This article does not constitute an Indiscriminate collection of Information; it's clear what the requirements for list membership. Further, it fulfills the suggestions of Lists in Wikipedia.--Leflyman^Talk 02:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In certain cases, amputation is a core trait... I agree with that and believe that should be covered in the characters' respective articles; however, in many of these cases, this does not hold up and, again, it's just an arbitrary trait that they share with other characters. It is of little difference from "Fictional characters with long hair" or "Fictional characters who live in mansions." My test is, after reading through the entries in the list, is there a possible reasonable answer to the question "So what?" If the answer is yes, there is likely an encyclopaedic use for this list. If the answer is either no or is a contrived, strecthed sort of case, as occurs here, then it probably doesn't belong. GassyGuy 23:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• It is quite a stretch to compare a permanent condition like amputation with "long hair" or "living in mansions" -- both of these are transitory states, and not a core physical disability, which is always employed by a fictional creator for a specific purpose. Just because a topic or list is relevant or important to you does not make it an invalid article. Would you make the same argument for List_of_people_with_visual_disabilities, which has a section of "Ancient, fictional, and mythological characters"? Or make a similar claim for List_of_Jewish_superheroes? (Which went through its own AfD with a keep consensus.) --Leflyman^Talk 01:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• List of people with visual disabilities - no, I wouldn't make the same sort of argument. List of Jewish superheroes - I don't read comic books and therefore couldn't tell you how the religion aspect plays into them, so I would feel unqualified to offer any sort of opinion. However, I do make the same sort of case by case basis, and I was not saying that I attempted to find relevance to me - I was saying I attempted to find a possible reasonable answer - as in, something that could be relevant to people even if not me personally. Please don't twist my arguments. GassyGuy 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm still not clear how you view a list of fictional characters with visual disabilities as different from a list of fictional amputees? You wrote, "My test is, after reading through the entries in the list..." that's a pretty clear personal discretionary method. The answer to "So what?", as I gave above, is that the motif of amputation is used for a specific purpose by authors; it is not an arbitrary or accidental trait in fiction.--Leflyman^Talk 01:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The amputation of Captain Hook is similar to the amputation of Frodo Baggins which in turn was employed with a similar purpose as the amputation of Thomas Covenant? Sorry, perhaps you can help me with this one? GassyGuy 02:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the question -- and if you'll allow me to expound on this rather interesting topic, I hope I can answer the "So what?" to your satisfaction. First to clarify: I wrote "amputation is used for a specific purpose" -- not "similar" purpose. The amputations of the characters you've mentioned are central to their characters and story development. Captain Hook's amputation of his hand by Peter Pan, and the subsequent eating of his appendage by the Crocodile are the core axes of his character's arc: because of this, Hook is set on a vendetta against Peter, and is in turn hunted by the Croc (who found the taste of the hand delicious) -- both of which prove to be his undoing: hook is ultimately defeated by Peter and swallowed whole by the crocodile. In the case of Frodo Baggins, the amputation of his finger, by being bitten off by the Gollum, is the climax to the entire course of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It is only through this, that the One Ring is ultimately destroyed. Thereafter, he's called "Frodo of the Nine Fingers" in acknowledgement of his status. Finally, and just as critically, Thomas Covenant was actually created by Stephen Donaldson based on his father's description of experiences with leprosy in India. Covenant's leprosy is discovered after the amputation of his fingers, and becomes the central thread of his struggle to survive. In his first appearance in Lord_Foul's_Bane, his amputation is what identifies him as the reincarnation of Berek Halfhand. You may be interested in reading an article from the April 2001 American Psychologist journal, "Creative Cognition, Conceptual Combination, and the Creative Writing of Stephen R. Donaldson "[16], which notes, "To help himself to avoid the prospect of future amputations, Covenant has developed a rigid discipline of regularly surveying his extremities for injuries... The dynamic tension between the attractions of the fantasy world and Covenant's fear of neglecting the discipline that has kept him well sets the stage for a remarkably compelling story."--Leflyman^Talk 03:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but when you'd said specific, I'd assumed that meant one specific purpose - so, in essence, if I read you correctly, your argument is that these people all have a purpose for having a missing appendage. I never said they didn't. In fact, I'm sorry you wrote all of these explanations, because I not only agree but already found those three amputations important to their respective stories. What I'm saying, however, is that that purpose isn't similar. I think that the missing appendage should be documented in each character's article because it is indeed important. What I am saying is that this list cannot demonstrate much because the purposes and portrayals are starkly different, so that this list, again, becomes a group of characters sharing an arbitrary characteristic. The characteristic is important enough to be documented in the character's articles, sure; but the memebrs of the list are related by any sort of encyclopaedic connection, just a common trait. GassyGuy 03:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think you've just acknowledged why this is a notable list: that the amputations are an important part of the fictional characters. However, it's inaccurate to claim that it's an "arbitrary characteristic" -- as you've just pointed out yourself, it's not at all arbitrary. The choice by an author of making a character an amputee is a trait perhaps more significant even than being visual disability in fiction-- amputation becomes a critical element of change for most of the characters, whereas blindness in fictional characters is either inherent from the beginning or a motif of symbolic significance as an outcome for some wrongdoing (e.g. As in Oedipus and later fiction, eyes being plucked out is a popular theme).--Leflyman^Talk 07:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think we must be arguing different things. I have never argued against the missing appendage being somehow significant to the character or story - I am saying that there is no actual encyclopedic connection among characters who have missing appendages. You yourself said that the authors' purposes are not similar, just that each individual case has a purpose. What you've given is a very good argument for why missing appendages should be detailed in the individual articles for these characters, and I agree. What I still don't see is any explanation how this list helps to elucidate on characters missing appendages rather than simply collects them indiscriminately. GassyGuy 08:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps you have a differing understanding of what an "indiscriminate list" is. There's no need for the authors to have exactly the same purpose in making certain characters disabled -- as you have already agreed, the use of amputation by an author is notable, in and of itself. That's what makes it encyclopedic. How is this list indiscriminate -- or any less descriminate than the hundreds of other Lists_of_fictional_things that make up Wikipedia? Perhaps you might apply the same metric to the dozen other articles in the category Lists of fictional characters by medical condition?--Leflyman^Talk 23:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also note that not everyone on this list is an amputee, so they don't even have that in common. GassyGuy 02:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Per Leflyman. This category is informative and i think it would have taken a lot of time to find all those amputee characters, its just as notbale as most of the other categories! (Neostinker 10:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC))
• Keep Being an amputee or not is important for a character. Interesting for anyone looking into the role of being an amputee. Delta Tango | Talk 02:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I would have supported deletion with this made into a category, but having centralized information on what appendages are lost and how they were removed is useful. Someone researching disabilities in fiction might otherwise have to go to each wikipedia page in the category, and that's assuming such information is on each wikipedia page. Half of these entries don't even have wikipedia pages. This is more than just entries on a list.--Trypsin 10:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --86.140.144.83 11:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: 86.140.144.83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Keep useful per Delta Tango. Carlossuarez46 17:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to List of fictional amputees, a category of this would be impractically large and spammish in their articles, but as a list it is useful. --tjstrf 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That name would be inaccurate. Not everybody on this list is an amputee. GassyGuy 00:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

True. Well, renaming optional then. Still keep, as this is a case where imo a list is better than a category. --tjstrf 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Who on this list is not an amputee? Amputation doesn't require a surgical procedure; according to that article, "Amputation is the removal of a body extremity by trauma or surgery." Everyone listed here would seem to qualify.--Leflyman^Talk 23:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what amputation is. I also think Wicked is an awesome musical and can't recall any element of the plot that establishes Nessarose Thropp is an amputee. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe her lack of arms was not through amputation, but rather was because she was born without them. GassyGuy 01:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I meant the novel in this case (though the musical was great too) and mistyped. Apologies for any potential confusion. GassyGuy 01:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Um, that single entry has been removed as a congenital birth defect -- although that's correct for the current title, but not the list of fictional amputees. Next?--Leflyman^Talk 03:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Why would you remove that entry? What significance do you attribute to amputees somehow? It still doesn't serve a similar purpose within the story. While I repeatedly agree that the authors have a purpose, I maintain that there's no reason to group them when all of the purposes are dissimilar. I feel as if we're going over the same ground repeatedly and see no reason to do so, so I shan't be adding to this AfD anymore (I pretty much said everything I had to say days ago and have just been rephrasing myself since.) Anyway, at a glance I don't notice anyone else who wouldn't fit the amputee list, but I can't be bothered to study a list I think ought not exist in the first place. GassyGuy 04:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Sometimes this is important, sometimes it's not. Sometimes the character is a cripple, sometimes it's just a distinguishing feature. Sometimes the character had the limb amputated in the story, sometimes it's backstory. Sometimes the character is legitimately limbless, sometimes the character has an equally-efficient replacement, sometimes the character has a superior replacement.
  In short, this hopelessly broad list covers so many dissimilar cases that it isn't illustrating a topic, but merely indiscriminately including anything with a single feature, like a (hypothetical) List of blue things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete utter listcruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Tupac Shakur. - Yomangani^talk 15:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Makaveli Records

It is about a company that would have been created if we were in a differnt universe - Wiki in not a crystal ball ArmadilloFromHell 05:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Tupac Shakur. Everything that needs to be said about this is already mentioned in Tupac's article. Resolute 06:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Useless article, doesn't really provide any relevant information.--MonkBirdDuke 07:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Resolute. It might be the subject of some searches, but everything can be found in the Tupac article. -newkai t-c 11:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tupac Shakur, a label that signed only one artist doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC for its own article.-- danntm ^T _C 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Just continue to work on it, a lot of article start out like this. It's just an initial stub. How can you not have a page about a label one of Hip-Hop's most known artist was going to start? There is a whole theory that points to Suge Knight killing Tupac Shakur because he was going to leave Death Row to start this label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by License2Kill (talk • contribs)

Comment Because this record company really was not started up, everything there is to say is mentioned in Tupac's article, and the theory that Suge killed Tupac is not verifiable, therefore not relevent to this article. Resolute 03:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. it doesn't exist, the plans may have existed, and if so they should be in the Tupac Shakur article.--Buridan 17:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Resolute. A record label that was never functional. Prolog 04:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noot

Contested prod [17]. Dictionary definition/NN neologism. -- IslaySolomon 06:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Consequentially 06:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I am from Australia and have never heard it. It's a neologism and if it is actually used, it's too minor to be on wikipedia. James086 11:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unreferenced neologism, no indication that it is a notable term. --NovaSTL 23:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Retain The term 'noot' is used by an exclusive South Australian sub-culture, and naturally, a user from Western Australia would not have heard of this term. I had expected Wikipedia to cater for all groups, even a relatively small one, as in this case. We are outraged that genuine, factual information is being deemed "too minor to be on wikipedia" by a user who clearly has no knowledge of our culture. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.118.49 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 14 October 2006
• Retain I too, am from Australia and familiar with the term noot. While not having been personally involved in such scenarios, I can vouch for the validity of this wikipedia contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.23.22.151 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 14 October 2006)
  • It's not about personal vouching, it's about verifiable references. Can you point to any credible publications, which verify the notability of the term? --NovaSTL 05:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cedars 09:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. It's a load of rubbish. The word does not exist in Australia. Maustrauser 13:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy close because this is re-opening a closed discussion, that is currently the subject of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 21#Web_operating_system, which review has not yet concluded. Uncle G 14:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web operating system

Previously deleted Sleepyhead 13:48, 23 October 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 - WP:V is of course not negotiable, but the subject does have a good number of hits on Factiva, some substantial, so there isn't enough convincing argument or majority here to justify deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enver Masud

I am concerned that the article cannot be verified and that the subject may not be notable under WP:BIO. All his books are self published and the only web reference for the award is his website. The organization has no web presence but may actually exist as it is listed here. With no website or listing in catalouges of human rights organizations it is probably not notable in itself. Eluchil404 07:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; the article is unverified, but is probably verifiable. Also the HRF's Gold award seems to be enough to confer notability. Vectro 18:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notability certainly appears to be met, verifiability should not be a problem for someone winning an award (page is linked in the article) and the other claims. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment but it is, at least on the internet the only evidence of the award is his own website. Eluchil404 02:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, unless we can get some reliable citations in here. Vectro 21:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete - as has been adequately and coherently pointed out below, despite mass armwaving actual multiple credible third-party sources (i.e. not press releases or passing mentions) are conspicuous by their absence.

The majority for keeping is rendered insubstantial by the fact that a significant proportion of its editors have no reasoning, faulty reasoning (claiming inclusion as an indicator of notability among the least bizarre but nonetheless incorrect) or empty assertions with nothing to back them up. I expect this to be controversial but evidence and policy, not votes, is what decides AfDs. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jurong Point Shopping Centre

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}}

Non-notable shopping mall. --Nehwyn 07:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, one of the largest shopping malls in Singapore. Just needs a little more cleaning-up. —Sengkang 07:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok ok lah, reference added liow lah, satisfied or not? Not happy then boh ban huat loh....Lol —Sengkang 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, write your motivations in English! This is the English Wikipedia. Thanks! :) --Nehwyn 11:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:STYLE: Article have strong tie with the region, and the use of dialect is understandable. Look up the meaning if you are looking so much forward to know what it meant. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 05:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dialect is fine, as long as it is an English dialect. "boh ban huat" is hardly English. --Nehwyn 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Then that is just too bad for you. I dont supposed you know what that means, or do you?--Huaiwei 07:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has English discussions. For article and discussion in other languages, other Wikipedias exist. If an article or comment is posted in another language on the English Wikipedia, it is fair to ask for a translation into English. --Nehwyn 08:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, Jurong Point is one of the major shopping malls in the western area of Singapore. It is one of the largest malls as well, the articles is in need of a cleanup. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 08:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The article, and both of your arguments, are in need of cited sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Neither you nor the article have cited any, not even one to support your assertion that this is a major shopping mall. Uncle G 09:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:LOCAL; Place of local interest. Jurong Point is neither a company, club nor corporation. Its a public commercial complex, and it is the focal structure within the town centre of Jurong West and Boon Lay. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 05:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Just like any other mall anywhere in the world - architecturally insignificant depite the articles' POV claim about 'spectacular' skylight - seems to be promotional. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. And I say this as one who lives in the area. Notable in the local context only. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP, WP:V, and previous consensus on malls. Barno 13:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I've cleaned up the article already. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

... but you haven't cited any sources. Re-arranging the deck-chairs won't help make a case for keeping the article. Sources will. Uncle G 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleting this article will be a great insult to all Singaporeans. This mall is no less notable than Tampines Mall, Suntec City Mall, Marina Square, Takashimaya, Centrepoint Shopping Centre, Sim Lim Square, Raffles City, VivoCity or Shaw House and Centre; all of which have articles. Instead of deleting this article, improve it, addressing any concerns. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. Instead of making fallacious arguments, please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied, as already requested above. Uncle G 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting the article would be "a great insult to all Singaporeans"? You mean this mall has relevance as a national monument for Singapore? If so, please accept my apologies in proposing this deletion, but make sure that statement is included in the article. As for the rest of your argument, as it has been remarked already "if X then Y" is generally not considered a valid point in Wikipedia deletion debates, except for reporting other articles in need of a prod tag. I did propose deletion for some of them; the others did have a claim to notability. --Nehwyn 15:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. (was delete, see below) If the page defenders want to make a run at establishing notability, I would give them a day or two to do it.) Page fans, per Wikipedia's notability guidelines for businesses, you need to come up with at least a few non-trivial articles about the mall in reliable sources. The easiest way is to go to your local library and ask a librarian to help you search newspaper records, or just call the mall and see if they have a press clipping file you can review. TheronJ 15:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Update: after waiting "the few days" mentioned above, I think there are a lot more reasons to delete. I've explained them below. TheronJ 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see more reason to keep this article than the article on Jurong Entertainment Centre. Firstly, it is a more popular mall than Jurong Entertainment Centre. Secondly, Jurong Point had been mentioned on local papers as they are expanding it and building an interchange under it and a Condominium, (The Centris)Andersenhwl 12:27 14 October 2006 (UTC +8)

Note: The comment above is from the article author. --Nehwyn 10:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Again... then "if X then Y" reasoning is not generally considered a valid point in a deletion debate, which should be based on the article in question. Your second point, on the other hand, may meet one of the WP:CORP criteria... any sources for that? --Nehwyn 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Sengkang. 700,000 sq feet, yardstick of other major shopping malls in Singapore. (Business Times Report) Try and beat that! ;) - Mailer Diablo 17:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've worked places with parking lots bigger than 700,000 square feet, and those lots don't get WP articles. Why should size matter unless the mall is notable specifically for being "the world's largest"? I don't see that we should include every nation's largest mall, every nation's tallest building, etc. unless there are verifiable third-party sources featuring that fact. A local newspaper's article saying "mall being expanded" is of little weight by itself, as every mall has probably gotten a two-paragraph blurb in its local paper. Is this one Singapore's largest or just "yardstick of other ... malls"? Barno 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the population density of Singapore? - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this datum to Wikipedia inclusion policies? Barno 20:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• The small land area of Singapore limits the size of architectures, which make Jurong Point one of the largest and most notable in Singapore. Perhaps Jurong Point is insignificant compared to American or whatever standards, but are you saying that we are supposed to neglect local standards when editing articles relating to local events/places and adopt only American standards? Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 05:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• No. I'm saying we are supposed to adhere to Wikipedia standards, including verifiable significance rather than whether a couple of local people claim importance without evidence. Note that at least one other editor claims to be from there and claims it's not more significant than other shopping centers. Freddy's General Store might be the most important shopping facility in a town of fifty people in South Dakota, but that "local standard" isn't evidence of Wikipedia importance. Otherwise WP would be swamped in articles for a hundred thousand malls "one of the largest and most notable in XXX" for which nothing encyclopedic could be documented. Barno 13:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• All well and good, albeit we arent talking about an "important shopping facility in a town of fifty people in South Dakota".--Huaiwei 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Major shopping mall. --Vsion 17:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not limit yourself to "major mall"; give a motivation why the article meets WP:CORP.  :) --Nehwyn 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not about a corporation, WP:CORP does not apply. This article is not about the owner or management of the mall, most people don't really care or know who the owner is. This is about a public place, with tens of thousands of people visiting there each day. It has medical clinics and a public library, etc, and is major part of public amenities in Jurong. --Vsion 18:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Tens of thousands of people visit the mall every day..." - sources? The problem with this article has been clearly stated early on by Uncle G - sources are needed! Without sources, anyone can say that about any place and there's no way to verify what they are saying is correct. If I were more skeptical and hadn't seen the place myself, I'd say the page writer is just making it up. "Major" and "many people visit this place" are what you can hear at the kopitiam ("coffee shop", for non-Singaporeans); (un)fortunately, Wikipedia is not the kopitiam anyone can edit - sources have to be provided. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 02:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea what you are talking about? The nomination said the subject is not-notable, which is false. The source to these facts is already given in the "external link" before the nomination. If the nominator missed it, and someone had to highlight the infor, it is perfectly alright and that is what I was trying to do above. On the other hand, if one editor doubt another's comment for no apparent reason and don't bother to do his/her own research or even follow up with the links, that is not very constructive.--Vsion 05:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The "external link" you mention as a reference for your statements is the shopping centre's own website. I did not miss it; I merely believe that cannot be used as an independent source about the shopping centre itself. --Nehwyn 11:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What kind of "independent source" would you like to see? If I march up to that mall and snap a photo of the crowds, is that "independent" enough in your books?--Huaiwei 14:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What's in my books is of little importance; it is Wikipedia:Independent_sources and WP:V which count in this case. I still think th official website of a commercial venue cannot be considered an independent source for claims about that venue. --Nehwyn 16:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I do expect my question to be answered thou.--Huaiwei 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Note sure I follow you on the last one... doesn't anyone? --Nehwyn 17:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I arent sure what "note sure" means either, but I can overlook that.--Huaiwei 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. What I meant to say is that I haven't understood why you stated that you expect your questions answered. If by that you mean that you feel I haven't answered "what kind of independent source would you like to see"?, I should probably rephrase my answer then: "The kind of independent source I would like to see is the one which would satisfy the definition of independet source found at Wikipedia:Independent_sources. A venue's official website cannot be defined as "independent" from that same venue." Again, sorry if that wasn't clear from the start. --Nehwyn 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You are still not answering the question. I asked about the acceptability of my own photos. Do Wikipedia:Independent_sources make any mention of that?--Huaiwei 04:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The claim was "tens of thousands of people"... So no, I don't think a single photograph can confirm that number. We need factual, written references by third-party sources. --Nehwyn 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

First, you are making the assumption that my photo is meant to support that particular claim. Where did I make this association? Second, your statement "factual, written references by third-party sources" suggests that I am not an independent source, and that only "factual, writtern sources" are permitted. Is this true? Please point out the relevant wikipolicy which explicitely states as such.--Huaiwei 07:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What claim would your photograph be considered a source for? As for my statement on the need for third-party sources, if persons provide direct evidences (in this case, a photograph) of a certain state of affairs, those evidences may be used as Wikipedia sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher. If you edit the article to insert your photograph, the burden of evidence for that edit lies with you (the user who has made the edit).. --Nehwyn 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep if sources can be provided; otherwise, Delete. Vectro 18:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of verification from reliable sources.--Isotope23 20:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per various reasons above. --- RockMFR 22:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above Leidiot 10:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, be more specific as to which reasons motivate you. Thanks!  :) --Nehwyn 11:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup and attempt to expand Matthuxtable 12:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I beg to differ in opinion from Awyong. I live in Hougang, yet I know this mall very well indeed, and have been frequenting it since it opened in the late 1990s. The impact it has on the commercial landscape in the West is pretty obvious, for prior to its existance, the lack of a centralised commercial facility meant it was spread across a far larger area around the various neighbourhood centres. Such an impact is difficult to judge from its physical size, but to say it is non-notable for what it is physically is way too dismissive.--Huaiwei 14:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Huaiwei - what you say is all well and good and would result in a keep, except without a citation what you say is entirely your own conjecture (original research) and can't be put forwards as a reason to keep - can you get a citation to that effect? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sweet. And how nice it is to sit around demanding for citations when practically every person who knows about its existance are vouching for its prominence, which should surely motivate some of you to do some checking up as well? A bit of googling wont hurt. The simple reason why I arent doing it yet is because I arent gonna waste time citing sources to be rejected at the whimp and fancy of some folks here.--Huaiwei 17:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that... but please, do keep in mind that notabiity is not "vouched for" by editors on Wikipedia. It requires sources. --Nehwyn 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Also do be aware that any editor can jolly well be bold enough to help find sources for any article, irrespective of whether they are the original authors or not.--Huaiwei 04:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course they can. Anyone can help!  :) --Nehwyn 06:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Does "anyone" include yourself?--Huaiwei 07:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Highly notable.--Tdxiang 04:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sengkang. SchmuckyTheCat 05:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Points have been cited in my posts above. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 05:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a notable place as already mentioned above. Yamaguchi先生 10:57, 15 October 2006

• Delete Malls are businesses, so WP:CORP is the relevant standard. The article and discussion here produces no evidence from independent sources that are reliable that the mall meets the standards of WP:CORP. GRBerry 15:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment You conveniently lumped an essay (WP:INDY) with a guideline (WP:CORP) and treat them as thou they are policy. There has been contestations that a shopping centre, which is in reality a piece of real estate, is not a corporation, nor a singular business, and does not fall under WP:CORP. One also notes that sources deemed non-independent are not in themselves ample criteria for deletion. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Company_and_organization_websites clearly indicates that company or organization websites should be treated with caution, but makes no mention that this amounts to outright rejection of the said source and hence, deletion.--Huaiwei 15:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The presence of non-independent sources is indeed not a deletion criterion. It is the absence of independent sources that is. --Nehwyn 16:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If that is true, it will not make logical sense. How is it possible for non-independent sources to be permissable, yet non-permissable at the same time? And mind telling us if all articles in wikipedia who base much of their content on an "official site" are now worthy for deletion?--Huaiwei 16:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My statement above does not regard "permissibility". It regarded deletion criteria. From a logical point of view, it is perfectly possible for "presence of non-independent source" not to be a deletion criterion, and for "absence of independent sources" to be one. As for your observation on other articles, again I must state that I prefer to judge each article on its own merits. --Nehwyn 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

An article can have both independent sources and non-independent (related) sources. A good article will use both independent and related sources. The issue isn't whether or not the related sources are used. The issue is whether the independent sources are available and used. If the independent sources are not available, the article should be deleted as a consequence of WP:NPOV and WP:V. If the independent sources are available but not used, the article should be improved by using them. The best evidence that the independent sources are available is their use, but pointing out other sources that cite such independent sources is sometimes adequate. The opinions of individual editors that something is significant enough to cover carry no weight compared to the opinions of independent sources. We ignore related sources in discussing notability because related sources are inherently biased.

I also think it is obvious from my comment that I said WP:CORP was the standard. Links to essays are perfectly acceptable as longer explanations of an opinion given in discussion. The failure to use independent sources is evidence that it is impossible to write an article adhering to WP:NPOV without violating WP:V or WP:NOR, all of which are core policies. GRBerry 22:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I started an enquiry in [19] on the application of that guideline on shopping malls.--Huaiwei 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For completeness' sake, let us report here that said enquiry has been answered. See the link above for the discussion. --Nehwyn 16:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Reiterate WP:LOCAL; Place of local interest. Jurong Point is neither a company, club nor corporation. Its a public commercial complex, and it is the focal structure within the town centre of Jurong West and Boon Lay. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, WP:LOCAL is a proposed guideline. It has never been accepted and really has no relevance other than as an essay statement to summarize a particular point of view.--Isotope23 16:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That dosent stop others from using WP:INDY, also an essay, as a reasoning for deletion.--Huaiwei 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There is a major difference between the two. WP:INDY leads with a one sentence summary of the essay that is an argument from policies. No such summary of WP:LOCAL exists or is possible. To top it off, WP:LOCAL says in the section entitled "Creating articles about places of local interest" that references should be included in an article about a local place of interest. So I can also argue "Delete because the article does not have the references required by WP:LOCAL." WP:LOCAL is a reason to delete the article, not to keep it, because the article is not up to the level that WP:LOCAL expects. GRBerry 16:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Whether there is a difference between two essays isnt for a single wikipedian to define, however. We are concerned about policy implimentation here, not about writting styles. If both are indeed essays, then both should be treated with equal weightage.--Huaiwei 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: The defenders of this mall have now had several days to provide verifiable references of notability, and have failed. I think the page should be deleted, for the following reasons.

1. Notability: Whether you think this page is controlled by WP:CORP or the general notability guideline, notability has not been established. WP:LOCAL is not helpful, as the proposed guideline explicitly states that it does not establish notability requirements. There is no verified statement anywhere that establishes why this mall is notable, other than that it is a large mall in Singapore. The basic requirement of most notability pages -- two non-trivial references in verifiable and reliable sources is not onerous, and has not been met.
2. Verification: Not one statement on the page is verified by any reliable source. As written in WP:NOT, "all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small 'garage' or local companies are not likely to be acceptable."
3. Advertising: The page as it is written reads like advertising copy, and its only function is to advise readers of the amenties available at the mall, and to direct readers to the mall's website. This fails for several reasons: (a) Advertisements masquerating as articles are not only inappropriate, they may be speedy deleted; (b) Wikipedia is not a directory; and (c) Wikipedia is not advertising.
4. Incurable: As I've said, the page's defenders have had several days. I don't see that any of the problems above are curable, much less all of them.

Thanks, TheronJ 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with the article, Jurong Point is notable and verified. The article is referenced, NPOV, not disputed, informative, and has a picture. --Vsion 00:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment May I point out, that the conclusion "notability is not established" is no longer governed by whether this comes under WP:CORP or not, but whether the sources which are already listed are Independent enough to be considered reliable. As is the case for many above, I dispute the notion that non-independent sources are always assumed to be unreliable. None of the stated guidelines above explicitely rule out the possibility of reliable non-independent sources, and not one person here could proof that those sources are indeed unreliable.--Huaiwei 11:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not change reason for nomination: To clear up the confusion the last post engenders, as the nominator I state again that the proposed reason for deleting this article is that it does not meet the relevant notability criteria. In this case, WP:CORP applies, so multiple, non-trivial, independent sources must be quoted by the article to establish its notability. As it stands, the article contains only one such source, whose reliability I have not questioned. As for non-independent sources, whether they are reliable or not, the article can of course contain them, but they are not eligible as notability criteria under WP:CORP. --Nehwyn 14:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There are multiple such sources. In the above, Mailer has already given another source from the Business Times. Let me add another one from a govt. agency [20]. So, any remaining problem? This Afd is already a futile effort, we are just entertaining each other here ;), which is alright. But basically, if the article was to be deleted, it would just be wasting the contributors' effort and reducing the comprehensiveness of wikipedia (although some editors don't care about shopping malls, but the majority do.) We can discuss forever, but in short, the reason cited for deletion is really very weak. --Vsion 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The webpage quoted by Mailer above mentions Jurong Point Shopping Centre when stating that a new large mall may be built near it in 2008-2009. That is not a notability assertion for the present mall. --Nehwyn 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the Verifiability policy: "Material from self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as it is relevant to the person's or organization's notability." Does this apply here? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, non-independent sources can be used as sources, sure; they just cannot be used as notability criteria under WP:CORP. This being a debate on notability, that concern indeed does not apply here. --Nehwyn 04:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intermix (store)

Article about a small store chain does not establish notabilty or contain encyclopedic information - Wikipedia is not a business directory Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - spammy. May be speediable. MER-C 09:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Vectro 18:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete just looks like the chain owner did it. --ASDFGHJKL 20:59, 13 October 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 whether to delete or merge. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pokémon types

This article is entirely original research and violates Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:NOT, which states that Wikipedia is not a venue for game guide information and is not a dumping ground. I suggest that this be placed in an interested party's userspace to transwiki it or keep for personal use and then delete it from Wikipedia hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 23:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I just had to slash Legendary Pokémon down for the same reason, and, frankly, all of this is pure game guide, full of bad advice and a total lack of real-world perspective. Whudda mess. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - original research, Wikipedia is not a game guide, fancruft. MER-C 09:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. However, I'm going to take the nominators advice and save the article under my user space. User:The Hybrid/Types. Merge per below. THL 09:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Pokemon game mechanics. The bulk of the article (the entire "list of pokemon types" section) is sort of useless. But the paragraphs on STAB, Physical/Special attack, and effects on gameplay are worth keeping. There actually a whole bunch of other very similar pokemon articles (similar as in they would fit quite nicely on a place like gamefaqs), basically everything in Category:Pokémon video game mechanics. Considering there is a main Pokemon game mechanics article, it's probably better to merge the good bits of these articles into it, instead of simply deleting. --`/aksha 10:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per `/aksha. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 11:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Trim, trim, trim, trim, and merge the rest into Pokemon game mechanics in agreement with Yaksha. WP:NOT a game guide nor a collection of trivial details. Barno 13:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I gave Pokémon game mechanics a weak keep because it helped in understanding the games, but wow. This is ENTIRELY original research original research, and it's way more detailed than just an "aid understanding" article would be. As previously mentioned, WP:NOT a game guide. -Amarkov ^babble 13:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge: This page doesn't deserve its own space, but saying stuff like "There are seventeen different Pokemon types and all that" is better off in the Pokemon creature articles. It worked for Bulbasaur and Torchic. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 17:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- United961 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the mechanics article. That AfD looks like it's headed for a keep. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 20:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Pokemon game mechanics --ASDFGHJKL 21:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or delete per above. If there is any useful, externally verifiable, non-OR information, salvage it. Wipe out the rest of the game guide by any means necessary. -- saberwyn 23:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR. —Khoikhoi 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Pokemon game mechanics per several suggestions. I've heard rumors of past attempts to AfD Pokemon articles, so I was very surprised that this attempt hasn't started a firestorm. Good to see mature heads prevail. - Lex 03:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's not like there's anyone who actually thinks it should be kept... -Amarkov ^babble 04:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Coverage of popular game/anime series seems to have improved vastly recently; it seems that the wikiprojects are now taking maintenance as seriously as expansion, and simultaneously the deletionists have stopped being so aggressive (no references to notability so far here, only one mention of cruft, etc). I think it's safe to be optimistic. :)
  As for this article, merging the details that pokemon experts consider useful and well-established is the way to go. — Haeleth Talk 11:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Pokemon game mechanics There's a lot of important information in terms of the Pokemon franchise, however it does belong with the game mechanics section.198.213.57.8 04:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Makoeyes987
• Strong Delete - No sources, original research, fancruft, seems to be yet another in a long line of pointless cruft articles that have been put on by someone so they can say 'I have an article on wikipedia.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kinslayer (talk • contribs)
• Merge per above. --- RockMFR 14:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This goes into even more detail than some of the Pokémon walkthroughs I've used! Oh, and redirect to Pokémon game mechanics to discourage recreation. If the game mechanics article can't efficiently hold all this info it's a good sign that it shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Garrett^Talk 22:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I visit this page regularly when I can't remember certain types. Most sites think it goes without saying, but no one else really shows this info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.156.161 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Another comment that supports deletion. WP:NOT a game guide. Go to gamefaqs or somewhere similar instead. The Kinslayer 13:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Bulbapedia already has all of this, except better explained. Go there if you need the info so much.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 01:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Cynical 11:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The information contained HAS been published by reliable sources. Just check out your old copies of Pokemon RBY manuals. It's simply being reiterated. --Pasajero 16:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a dumping ground. Number 4 on that list: Instruction Manuals. The Kinslayer 17:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Wikipedia also should contain information about basic elements of a game series, which is what this article and Pokémon game mechanics are doing. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 17:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Andre (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coffee Cartel

Article was prodded and expired its duration. Thought it deserved an AFD so listing here. No Opinion from me. Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 08:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• i think it looks fine (despite that it needs to grow more). i think we should leave it. but you'd probably know better than me. Tmaty 10:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable/unencyclopedic. WP is not: a business directory. A single listing in a local newspaper "Best Of" is not enough to establish notability under WP:CORP. Leuko 16:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 18:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'd give it the benefit of the doubt thanks to the local "Best of" rating. Those sources are usually unbiased. However, there was nothing else. And per WP:AFDP "Bars, pubs, cafes and hotels should be listed on WikiTravel" --Marriedtofilm 23:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. Nothing here that doesn't flow naturally from the title ("Digimon Wii is a Digimon game for the Wii"). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digimon Wii

Article doesn't adhere to Wikipedia policies, specifically that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If and when the game is actually made, the article can and should be recreated hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Not much context either. MER-C 09:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing of value here, just a "placeholder" which isn't needed. -- Ned Scott 09:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE both. -Splash - tk 19:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whitecross Systems

Also nominated is Netezza. The nominated articles were created by a corporate vanity account, Kognitio (talk · contribs). The two articles that share the username have been tagged for speedy deletion as spam. Both show no indication of meeting WP:CORP. MER-C 09:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both, no mention of notability. Vectro 18:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Both. Neither article meets the notability requirements of WP:CORP or the sourcing requirements of WP:V. -- Satori Son 05:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Chris Wallace interview of Bill Clinton

This is an article about an interview. We generally do not have articles on press conferences, interviews, talk show appearances, and the like. Rather, important material from such events is added to the relevant articles either on substantive topics or on the participants. Any important new points that Clinton made should be merged into the relevant articles on those topics. If it is important that Clinton accuses Wallace of bias, that should be merged into the Wallace article. Derex 10:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete & merge anything important elsewhere, as nom. Derex 10:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This article originated only because, in the aftermath of the interview, some people were hot to debate the respective Clinton and Bush records on terrorism. They kept trying to do so within the Chris Wallace article. When the material was repeatedly removed from that article as being off-topic, it ended up here. By now, I think the furor has died down. A separate article on one specific interview is pointless. JamesMLane t c 10:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge elsewhere. Its (marginal) notability will only decrease with time. --Alcuin 11:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews and WP:NOT a debating forum. Barno 13:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. Merge any relevant information that isn't already in other articles jaco♫plane 13:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It was a one time interview. It's notable because of what happened, but it certainly can be explained at Chris Wallace and Clinton articles. RobJ1981 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I concur, except I'd note that what should be explained in the Chris Wallace article is the material relating to Wallace's conduct and alleged bias. The Wallace article isn't the place for rehashing the substance of U.S. anti-terrorism policy in the 1990s. I mention this because I wouldn't want deletion to be read by the Clinton-bashers as a license to go back to trying to turn the Wallace article into an off-topic conservative hit job. JamesMLane t c 21:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Response It's not rehashing policy, it's talking about Clinton's response to Wallace's question, which Clinton provided in the same breath that he accused Wallace of conducting a "conservative hit job." Gee, if Chris Wallace were here, what would he say in his defense? Juliandroms 05:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete an indicidual interview is not notable, unless it ends or starts a career, which this certainly did not.-- danntm ^T _C 15:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. But a possible article of value would be "Famous Interviews" - in which this, and other interviews (such as Frost's interview of Nixon) could be listed and briefly discussed.PaulLev 16:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not significant by itself. Gazpacho 18:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --ASDFGHJKL 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. Part of a disturbing trend of making articles about every "incident" briefly in the news instead of covering the event in the relevant preexisting articles. Gamaliel 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Thank you Derex for failing to notify me of your request to delete this article. (I originated the article.) (1) In response to the comments above, there is no explicit attempt to "debate the respective Clinton and Bush records on terrorism" on my part. There was however, an attempt to discuss Clinton's response to the question that was provided part & parcel with Clinton's characterization of Wallace as a "Republican hit" man. Given that Clinton raised ire and accused Wallace of engaging in a "conservative hit job", whether or not Clinton was factually incorrect or evasive in answering the question is certainly relevant information for someone to know, if they want to know whether Chris Wallace is biased, or just doing his job. Otherwise, the report is just heresay. My opinion, so long as the discussion talks about what Clinton and Wallace actually said during the interview, which is the topic of the section in Wallace's biography, then it's fair for inclusion, on-topic and relevant.(2) I certainly did attempt to include this information "merged" with the article on Chris Wallace, but Derex and a few others repeatedly removed that material from the Wallace entry, claiming it was "off topic." Suffice it to say, certain people wish to characterize Wallace superficially as having committed a "conservative hit job" without any counterpoint or in depth discussion. Boogers.(3) Also note from the history, that it was Derex and not I who added completely extraneous material about Napolitan. I tried to delete it numerous times, but it was Derex who kept adding it in. (It's included in the wiki entry on Napolitan anyhow.) Juliandroms 05:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Okay, so let me get this straight. If we add this material to wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_clinton#Fox_News_Interview_with_Chris_Wallace , then you're all going to be quiet and stop complaining, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliandroms (talk • contribs) 06:07, 14 October 2006

Comment: No way. You just have to get off your fixation with this interview. The interview is only one piece of "Clinton administration anti-terrorism actions", which in turn is only one piece of "Clinton administration", which in turn is only one piece of "Bill Clinton". If the article on Bill Clinton tried to cover everything at the level of detail you want for this tiny piece, the article would be book-length.

What Wikipedia does instead is to use a hierarchical "daughter article" system. See generally Wikipedia:Summary style. For example, the Clinton bio article contains a reference to the Cole bombing, with a wikilink to the article USS Cole bombing. The latter article includes a mention of the different POVs about the Clinton and Bush administration responses (or lack thereof) to the Cole bombing. That section could be expanded with information from different sources, including but not limited to the Wallace interview. Other parts of the interview, of course, related to other subjects. The interview itself just wasn't such a significant event in Bill Clinton's life that it deserves that much space in his bio article. By way of comparison, note that the current version of the Bill Clinton article gives much more attention to this fifteen-minute interview than to Clinton's own autobiography of several hundred pages. The treatment of the interview in that article shouldn't be further expanded; it should be reduced substantially or eliminated. JamesMLane t c 07:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: Someone responds to Chris Wallace's question by criticizing him as a "conservative hit" man and that goes in his Wikipedia entry. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton can say whatever he wants, and Wikipedia is expected to parrot this at face value, with no contarty viewpoints to express. Does not adhere to an overal neutral policy, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.234.11 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Response: I just looked at the text on the interview in the Chris Wallace article. It does present Brit Hume's critique of Clinton's claims. For want of a better phrase: it reads pretty fair and balanced to me. First, in the description of the interview. Next in the Media Matters (pro-Clinton) and Brit Hume (con-Clinton) paragraphs.PaulLev 05:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My response to the anon: No, you haven't gotten it straight. Whether Chris Wallace is biased is a subject that's about Chris Wallace, so it goes in the Chris Wallace article. Whether Bill Clinton, when he was President, acted appropriately after the Cole bombing is not about Chris Wallace and does not go in the Chris Wallace article. Where that subject is properly addressed, i.e. in the USS Cole bombing article, we should report all notable points of view. That means we report what Clinton has said on the subject but we don't "parrot" it (if by that you mean that we assert the truth of one side of a contested issue). We also report any notable criticisms of Clinton, though again without adopting them. The same is true of the other aspects of the underlying disputes about the Clinton administration's and the Bush administration's respective responses to terrorism. JamesMLane t c 05:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination, but open to the idea of a list of famous interviews. GChriss <always listening><c> 16:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge transcript into Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks --Tbeatty 05:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - content more appropriate to Wikinews. Having an article seems like politicruft. -Kubigula (ave) 02:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per above. This may have been an important news item, but I don't see this still being important 10 or 20 years from now. More likely than not, it'll be forgotten once November passes. AuburnPilot^Talk 00:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Although I originally felt the interview was notable in itself to have a separate article devoted to the controversy, with the passage of time I now believe it would be better addressed in the Wallace article. This off-shoot article seems redundant.-Hal Raglan 00:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• This article is very heavy on the Fox News "side." There should be an article about this interview, but it should be based ONLY in facts about the interview itself, not about the ideas disputed within the interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.125.85 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. --Coredesat 23:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pokémon game mechanics

Clear example of failing Wikipedia policy in regards to no game guide information. The title alone lets us know that policies are being violated (game mechanics) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 10:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 22:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 10:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, unless a valid argument can be made that all the information in the article is a violation of policy. Deleting this article would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, Burden of proof is on you to prove why this article should be kept. The Kinslayer 14:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Much of this article has to do with the anime. The title is deceiving. THL 11:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  I actually disagree. See Pokémon_game_mechanics#Power_Points and Pokémon_game_mechanics#Pok.C3.A9tchi for the more glaring examples of pure game guide info. What's more is that the Pokémon game book is actually cited as a reference. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 11:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as per nom. PJM 11:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep game guides are not allowed, but descriptions of the way a game works (ie descriptions of the game, not instructions on how to play the game) are allowed. Cynical 11:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Cut the cruft and merge the rest. -- Ned Scott 12:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I need to think about this more... -- Ned Scott 12:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Pokémon is one of the most popular francises ever, and this article analizes the entire game peice by peice. Also, I can't see how someone who was playing the game would turn to this article as a game guide. Joiz ^A. Shmo 13:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. If you don't know how the battle system works, it's much harder to understand the games. -Amarkov ^babble 13:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep: It has some useful information (without getting technical) that would be hard to put elsewhere. --Brandon Dilbeck 15:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is not at all crucial to one's understanding of Pokemon at the level of coverage appropriate for a general encyclopaedia. Besides this, "[analyzing] the game peice (sic) by peice (sic)" would be on the wrong side of WP:OR. Perhaps a few sentences worth merging into the main article, but largely unnecessary and game guide-ish. GassyGuy 17:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Changing to weak keep now that the article has been significantly cleaned. GassyGuy 23:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Yeah, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, so this article is a wart. ^_^ This sort of thing fits much better on Bulbapedia, the Pokemon-centric Wiki with thousands of Pokemon-related articles. Besides, descriptions of how a game works can be dealt with in the articles on the games themselves any day. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 17:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Bulbapedia is mish-mash of losely related sub-stubs, something like this covers concepts featured in a game series that is quite possibly the best selling in the world, also being discussed in hundreds of articles. Would renaming the article to something like Pokémon key game concepts? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 18:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Heh, I'll admit that I wasn't fully aware of things when I made my vote. You seem to know how to fix things, so I'll save my vote for later. Cheers, Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 18:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Article was created to declutter the main Pokémon article, and goes into detail about a lot of the concepts non-fans glaze over. Things like EVs and PP should be removed, with key concepts remaining only, something I will do now. Cheers, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 18:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have removed large portions of fan/game guide info from the article. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 18:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Question If the information would not be of interest/necessary for non-fans, wouldn't that make it better suited for a specialized project like Bulbapedia than for a general encyclopaedia? GassyGuy 20:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't say it wouldn't be of any interest to non fans, I said quite the opposite really, the article discusses concepts like Gym Leaders, Natures and Starter Pokémom, things that are often mentioned in creature article, but are quite hard to explain in those article. This article allows them to described in the required detail for non-fans to understand them, and to keep the article on topic. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 09:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying that point for me. This revision is much better than the article I originally read and I have altered my original commentary accordingly. GassyGuy 23:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- United961 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per HighwayCello. Core article at WP:PCP. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 20:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be somewhat insightful --ASDFGHJKL 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Highway's edits. - Lex 03:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article is mostly fine. It will also serve as the article which will soak up all the useful bits from other deleted articles in Category:Pokémon video game mechanics. There's enough to say about pokemon game mechanics that's not original research or game-guide-y to deserve an article. --`/aksha 04:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per HighwayCello. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 05:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While it's most likely that there's room for improvement, Highway's edits and strong keep rationale are very sound. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 06:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Imperfect, but imperfection is not a reason for deletion. In its current state, it's not original research and it's not a game guide (describing basic gameplay elements is not the same as telling people how to play), so this doesn't seem to violate any policies any more. — Haeleth
• Delete Needless, can be covered in the articles of the games themselves. As if we didn't have enough Pokemon junk clogging up the WIkipipes in the first place.ABigBlackMan 16:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this IS useful and gives info. NO REASON TO DELETE

Talk 11:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wow. What a compelling arguement. I can only assume by 'useful' you mean 'useful to people playing the game' therefore falling foul of WP:NOT a game guide. The Kinslayer 14:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The only two sources are a a review of Ruby and a review of Yellow. Tottaly irrelevent sources for the type of article this is trying to be. The Kinslayer 09:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep unless you want a 2Mb long Pokemon article. This information is certainly worth having, so unless you want everything in the one article these sub-articles are necessary. Cynical 11:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome (talk • contribs)

[edit] Eichmannphobia

A sick joke, and a WP:OR. Please recategorize as you see fit. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep A verifiable condition. Personally, I think it's contemptable that you would claim that the condition does not exist. Are you a scientologist? In my opinion, the article should be kept until more research is completed. --64.121.58.61 11:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's not a sick joke. You're the joke. It's a real condition that has been under observation by at least two American universities, and a university in Krakow, Poland. Amazing how you ever got to be a Wikipedia admin.--MonkBirdDuke 11:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If universities have studied this, they obviously have never published anything on it as there are zero results for this term on Google, including Google Scholar. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. -newkai t-c 11:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Apparently unverifiable. Either a sick joke or WP:OR (in which case ir deserves an Ig Nobel Prize). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasell (talk • contribs)

• Strong Delete Sigh, a sick joke...no a stupid joke, delete this nonsense. Wildthing61476 12:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete -- unverifiable, hoax, zero Google hits. -- The Anome 12:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, freightening [sic] hoax. Sandstein 12:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. --Coredesat 06:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knox Glass Bottle Company

For your consideration, a non-notable local bottlemaking company, which was bought up by another non-notable bottlemaking company now defunct. An attempt has been made to show some kind of notability - an apparently ground-breaking decision involving the company in Mississippi. Nuh-uh. It's just corporate cheerleading from the lawfirms website ("define in detail" is the relevant weasel phrase). This fails WP:CORP. Eusebeus 10:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's informative. It's not promotional. Someone has written an entire book on the company's long history, beginning in 1775. A neutral third party taking time to write about a topic is a stong indicator that some other people will also find the topic interesting and informative. So, what's the problem? Derex 11:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I believe the book was not an independent project though; rather it was a commissioned piece. Eusebeus 12:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if the article can be expanded to make a case for the company's notability. Since there's a book about the company, and since it started in 1775, it may have notability for some reason or another. Alternatively, if the court case makes it notable, then there should be more information about the court case. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 15:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability can be shown. Vectro 18:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The company appears quite notable in both the glass business and with regards to the court case (cited in a surpreme court decision [21]). I learned there there is a sizable community interested in glass markings, and Knox seems to be a popular mark ([22],[23]. The jars are apparently a collectors item too [24]. All in all, for a company who's time came and went before the internet, it seems that plenty of people are still talking about them. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 21:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets the Pokemon test. Gamaliel 01:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radiohead overview and influence

• Delete or Merge and Delete: Fancruft and almost completely unreferenced. WP:NOR violation to a large degree. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW, please scan through recent history because an IP is going through it removing content. Since it's all unsourced and edit summaries are being used, s/he is pretty justified IMHO but maybe something salvageable can be found in the deleted content. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom: WP:V and WP:NOR. PJM 11:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge and Delete. An overview and the influence of Radiohead belong in the article Radiohead. -newkai t-c 12:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as almost wholly Original research that shouldn't exists as a standalone article anyway; anything verifiable should be at Radiohead.--Isotope23 14:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

yes People, I am the one who is deleting the majority of the aritcle. I am the one that wknight94 was talking about, and yes untill you can source whatever it was that I deleted, I'm afraid it will stay deleted. 71.236.225.50 03:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom political polls

Mainly repeated infoormation from Opinion Poll Rob.derosa 11:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as useless fork. --InShaneee 14:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Rob.derosa 00:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The anydays

Non-notable band, 23 Ghits. Speedy delete tag removed twice. - TexMurphy 12:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. They do not appear to satisfy WP:NMG. PJM 12:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not Notable. Harvestdancer 19:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 02:20, 14 October 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 Tenendum est, designatione revocata, nullo suffragio deletionis. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lucius Caecilius Iucundus

Subjectus de articulus anti-notabilis est - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Io concedo. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The house of Caecilius does actually exist in Pompeii, and as Caecilius is the subject of Cambridge Latin Course book 1, he seems fairly notable to me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression this is about the person, not the character. Having possessed a house is not a criterion of notability! - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• [www.cafepress.com/caecilius istum] atque istum atque istum atque istum atque istum videte legiteque! Uncle G 13:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Tene Civis Pompeiianus notabilis. Fan-1967 13:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Eepkay erpay aboveway. PJM 13:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • JAODNBAY! - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Teneatur! Nomen notum duo mille annis post mortem. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Veritas est! Puncto bene. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. Normally I might relise, but the nominator and participator are right; view this as a kind of PROD-esque thing adn speedy-restore with relist if contested in good faith. -Splash - tk 19:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mastercare

Tagged for speedy deletion with the explanation "advert". I don't think it's speedyable; let's try it here. (No opinion from me) – Gurch 12:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It's not an advertistement, exactly, but it sounds like a self-written corporate profile. There are many companies called "Mastercare," and I'm not sure if this one is the most important of them. Mangojuice^talk 12:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Karate organizations

I was tempted to speedy delete this under criterion A3. This page is a spam magnet that doesn't work: it does collect linkspam, but it doesn't keep it off of any of the other martial arts pages. There are no established editors watching this page: I couldn't find any examples of an organization being removed from the list, so this counts as "indiscriminate information", advertising, and a web directory, all in direct violation of WP:NOT. Furthermore, having a list of all Karate organizations is just a bad idea: there's no selectivity implied in the title and there are hundreds of thousands out there, ranging from single dojos to international federations. Nothing in this list is worth saving. Delete and quickly. Mangojuice^talk 12:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- United961 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - list of indiscriminate information. MOstly external links, few internal links but they don't really help wikipedia navigation. --`/aksha 04:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, basically a collection of external links. — Haeleth Talk 11:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conversational publishing

Non-notable neologism (WP:NEO) that gets all of 56 Google hits – few indeed for an Internet-related concept. The only source cited is a blog. Contested PROD. Sandstein 12:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• New citations and references have been added to validate concept. Reference to original blog has been replaced with more credible sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.137.185 (talk • contribs)
• The notability of this concept is still not proven. One source is a web-published interview that mentions the term once in passing, another source is a blog, and the third source doesn't even mention the term. Sandstein 14:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with nom that the sources now in the article do not qualify as non-trivial coverage by "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:V. And with only 13 unique GHits excluding "Wikipedia", I was unable to locate any. As such, article should be deleted and resubmitted only if and when it achieves verifiable wide use as required by WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms. -- Satori Son 18:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - NN Neologism. BlueValour 00:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ah quelle surprise

juvenilia - trivial, unsupported by sources, appears to relate only to a single school in Istanbul. Rbreen 13:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Reinstated comments as deleted by Osmancan:

osmancan- it is important for it's users, also other high schools in that district use it besides it is something symbolic for students of that school and that school is the best school of turkey.An encyclopedia is a source of knowledge and this is knowledge. İt may be treeitorial however there are some territotrial informations and it is a commonly used idiom that is why i found the the proposal for it to be deleted is riddiculus. This article is not something made up in a school in one day. It's been using for a long time but was not carried to wikipedia untill now and if it was something made up in one day then it would be forgotten in one day. It was born in a schoollike some other traditions burt it is not used only by students that makes it is out of categopry WP:NFT. [ —The preceding comment was added by Osmancan (talk • contribs) .

Osman, please do not delete comments made in an AfD discussion, even if they are your own. It's important to leave them there so futiure contributors can follow the discussion. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

osmancan- However I am boycotting this article now because of political acts of france[ —The preceding comment was added by Osmancan (talk • contribs) .

• Originally prodded by me with the rationale "Essentially a non-encyclopædic dictionary definition of a French phrase". Delete as that hasn't changed. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V and WP:NFT. This article could never be sourced because no reliable sources exist. Srose (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dict. def. —Khoikhoi 18:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Dictionary defintion, made up in school one day, unverifiable. -- IslaySolomon 04:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 06:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Botardz and Stunts performed in Botardz

This appears to be a borderline-vanity/advertisement page for a non-notable group of stunt performers. A Google search "Botzards" yeilds only four results, none of which reference the group, movie, or YouTube clips.

Only two of the words in the article are blue links -- the year 2008, and the language "English" in the film's infobox. I might be hopelessly ignorant on the topic, however, which is why we're seeing this debate here. Consequentially 23:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Completely non-notable film. ... discospinster _talk 23:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No sign of notability. Pure advertisement/vanity. IrishGuy ^talk 21:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --NovaSTL 05:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if wikipedia is going to keep excessive notes on "Make love not warcraft" or "Leroy Jenkins", might as well keep this, afterall it is real —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.40.34 (talk • contribs)

Leroy Jenkins is a pop-culture phenomenon, to the point where it was mentioned on Jeopardy. Google it, and you'll find dozens of imitators and hundreds of mentions. This movie, on the other hand, has zero Google presence, and no pop-culture notability. There is a large difference between the two. Consequentially 21:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Lack of notability, and WP is not a crystal ball. An upcoming film in 2 years? Come on. Also, I'd like to add Stunts performed in Botardz to the nomination for essentially the same reasons. AfD notice placed. Leuko 02:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Can (band) - Yomangani^talk 15:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Johnson (musician)

Contains no information that isn't in the main Can article already and the Internet in general does not seem to contain any information about this guy either so there's no point in keeping this stub.--HisSpaceResearch 14:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Just a few more keywords get very low Ghits, thus nn.--Jusjih 13:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Can (band) GassyGuy 17:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per GassyGuy - Lex 04:04, 14 October 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 redir per Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia (AfD discussion); no need to repeat this waste of editor's time for a slightly different spelling. `'mikkanarxi 08:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia

WP:OR or WP:NEO, either way, I gave up looking for genuine references for this word after the first 15 pages of Google hits. I don't think every "jocular" (i.e. something someone made up) definition deserves a unique page anyway. Earle Martin [^t/_c] 13:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The properly spelled term (hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia) does exist, but this article is merely a dictdef. The word already has an entry on Wiktionary, so it should be simply deleted, unless someone can add encyclopedic material (which, judging by google search results, seems improbable). Srose (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia (AfD discussion) redirects to -phob-. Uncle G 14:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for spotting that. -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 14:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, incorrectly spelled (I think) dicdef. PJM 13:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hippo-what? Shadow1 (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Srose and because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The Wictionary entry on the word is very nice, so there is no need to transwiki. TheronJ 15:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Srose. *drew 15:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to -phob- to prevent anybody recreating it by accident, as a mispelling of hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia which is redirected to the same place, and because if anybody does type that all out they deserve an article at the very least. Yomangani^talk 16:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Yomangani. I do wish this was notable, the word is awesome!! Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Crush with a hippopotamus! I mean, an elephant. Errr, seriously, redirect to -phob- per above. It's dicdef that doesn't warrant it's own article. Misza13 20:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Dicdef that already exists on wictionary. Resolute 04:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart

The edit wars over this article appear to be out of any kind of proportion to the subject's verifiable importance. With under a hundfred unique Googles and none which appear to meet the test of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent media of known authority, I'd say the importance tag which was the subject of the latest spat was more than justified. In fact, I see no credible evidence of importance at all here. Guy 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: as the subject has changed her name several times over the course of her life, this search for Morning Glory Zell would be more accurate. It returns 82,900 hits. Also note that Morning Glory Ravenheart, her name before marrying Zell, returns 15,700 hits. -999 (Talk) 14:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Those searches are invalid, because the names are not quoted they return all articles containing the word morning, glory and zell. Quoting the text gives 238 and 21 unique hits respectively - the 238 will include the zell-revenheart ones. Guy 15:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you may have a point, but I have to agree with 999. The search '"Morning Glory"+pagan' returns 39,300 Ghits. I've also added references to the article of mentions in such publications as Hinduism Today, Salon and Nerve, among others. She is notable. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Further results: "Zell-Ravenheart" gets 34,900. "Zell-Ravenheart"+"Morning Glory" gets nearly 2000, and that doesn't include references to her as either "Morning Glory Zell" or "Morning Glory Ravenheart". Unfortunately, she tends to get mentioned only by first name in articles which refer to her husband, so restricting to the full name in quotes is not a fair test. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. RedRollerskate 13:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject is well-known in the pagan community and is high-priestess of Church of All Worlds which was founded by high-priest Oberon Zell Ravenheart. The Church is certainly notable and has been written about by Margot Adler. Certainly the high-priestess of the church is as notable as its high-priest. -999 (Talk) 14:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• The pagan community would, then, appear to be too small to generate significant coverage. Where are the multiple independent non-trivial articles? Guy 15:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• That's discrimination. As I am sure you know, the notablity guidelines are guidelines. If a person is notable within their religion, they deserve an article. Otherwise I'm sure there are many minor figures important to Islam, Judaism, Bahai, Sikhism, etc. that should be removed, because you probably haven't heard of them either. Bah! Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, well known neo-pagan, been written up in books by Margot Adler and Hans Holzer. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per 999 and Smerdis of Tlön. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, prominent, nationally-known figure within the Neo-Pagan religious movement since the early 1970s. "...the importance tag which was the subject of the latest spat..." is the fruit of, yes, a spat, a fit thrown by one individual person who would appear to have negative intent. The tag should be removed and ignored. Davidkevin 23:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per 999, Smerdis of Tlon, and Davidkevin. —Hanuman Das 01:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an important figure in Neo-Paganism and a pioneer in the polyamory community as well. The fact that some people have not heard of her does not render her an unimportant figure within the Neo-Pagan community, which is itself a fast-growing segment of the US religious demographic. She is High Priestess of the Church of All Worlds, one of the earliest public Neo-Pagan organizations, and may have coined the term "polyamory." In fact, her article A Bouquet of Lovers is widely cited as one of the seminal works on the subject. "Non-notable?" It is to laugh! Septegram 13:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for reiterating some of the statements above. I'm still kinda new at this.

Septegram 13:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above-given reasons. Justin Eiler 00:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naruto: Ninja Chronicles

Non-notable Half-Life mod. --InShaneee 13:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 23:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, most mods arent notable and this ones does not hold any special claim to notability, at least not one expressed in the article. --NuclearZer0 14:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hahaha, are you f*cking kidding? A game mod at the internal alpha stage? -- Kicking222 15:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- United961 19:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --ASDFGHJKL 21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kicking222 (minus the profanity). --NovaSTL 02:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nothing special about this mod, not notable --`/aksha 04:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Self-promotion of a non-notable mod. The Kinslayer 08:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep (no arguments other than the nominator's for deletion, redirection etc is up to the usual workings of consensus). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minmatar

This is a cruft-heavy article that almost completely duplicates information in some of the other, better-written articles about EVE Online. As one of the major contributors to the better EVE Online articles, I think the EVE Online category as a whole should stay small, and that articles aren't needed about each of the major races... because then we'll get articles on the bloodlines... then the ship classes... then the individual ships... and so on. I am also nominating Amarr with this. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 14:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I, for one, found this article useful and informative if not wholly accurate. I also think that using the word "cruft" in an opening line of a thought is shooting yourself in the foot. I'd prefer an expansion and revision of the article or a merge with the main EVE article, but an outright deletion does not serve a useful purpose. Bulbous 01:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Bulbous
  • But the main article already has nearly all the information in this article. I didn't think there was much to merge, as the main article already has summaries of each race's history, and the Spaceships of EVE Online article has listings of all the ships of each race also. It seems completely redundant. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 12:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• (SMerge &) Redirect both to EVE Online, it's better covered there. --Eivind^t@c 04:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Vectro 21:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani^talk 15:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Didge (acronym)

Neologism. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Delete. —Brim 14:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 14:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• It's not an acronym (It's apocope.), Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is an unexpandable unsourced sub-stub that contains rubbish. Delete. Uncle G 14:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark hearts

non-notable band. They haven't released an album yet. Delete. —Brim 14:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, A7. No assertion of notability. As there is no album (yet) not notable in any case.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy as per Nilfanion. The Dark Hearts has been multiply-deleted and salted, so this one is the new attempt. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars Fanon

Non-notable wiki for Star Wars fan fiction. Fails WP:WEB. I don't have a problem with Star Wars pages, but this is just a site where fans make up their own stories and characters. No mention in any independent third-party sources I can find. Kafziel ^Talk 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I had an edit conflict with you in creating this AfD. :-P EVula 14:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While it's great to promote the wiki spirit and all, Wikia alone hosts over 1500 wikis. They aren't all notable, and only a handfull pass WP:WEB, and this doesn't seem to be among them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Oh, and don't group us altogether as "kids". I take that as an insult! Jasca Ducato 18:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You need to give a reason for keeping it. This is not a vote. Sorry about the "kids" bit; no offense was intended and I have removed it. Kafziel ^Talk 18:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 19:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JoshuaZ. There are many more popular wikias than this. Plus, Jasca Ducato is an ass. Ramiro Rivarez 22:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  WP:CIVIL. Read it. EVula 22:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'd also like to point out that Mr. Rivarez has been banned from Star Wars Fanon for vandalism and has vandalized my userpage and talk page here on Wikipedia numerous times in retaliation. Just a note to take into consideration when an admin decides to close this...StarNeptune 03:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nothing particular about the site to give the slightest sign it passes WP:WEB.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fictional wikia made up of fanfiction characters, non notable. As per nom. Darthgriz98 01:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established and currently written in an unacceptable tone. Khatru2 06:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable wikia. Pages about more popular wikis than this have been deleted as well. 82 20:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: In response to the nominator's comment, this wiki has, in fact, been mentioned on Rebelscum forums. 82 21:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, it still fails the notability requirements. EVula 21:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ThePete

Appears to be one staff member of a small, local radio program from a small market, who is only known by a pseudonym. Doesn't assert notability, and doesn't come up anywhere of consequence unfortunately on searches. Recommend deletion. · XP · 14:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, hardly any verifiable information on this obscure staffer. No content to merge to Race to the Right (which isn't a great article in itself).--Nilfanion (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. thadius856^talk 18:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 01:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I talked with the webmaster of the radio station that broadcasts the show...his (and other members of the show) profiles were supposed to be on the station's website. The pages were left in a "pending" status and never published. This should be getting corrected in the next few days. This would address the verfiability.

My question is, should this be a stub instead?tony garcia 14:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's still a primary source, and that would not be sufficient. There are no outside 3rd party WP:RS sources talking about them, to establish notability. · XP · 14:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete staffer of radio program. Doesn't meet WP:BIO by a longshot.--Isotope23 20:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the arguments that is attempting to be made is related to St. Cloud's status as a "small market" and KNSI's status as a "small local radio program." St. Cloud is hardly "small market." St. Cloud is the 8th largest city in the state with a population of 64,308 (as of 2000), and KNSI's broadcasting is not limited to the city limits, as well as online. Could you please give us your qualifiers for "small market" and "small radio station" so we may reference these qualifiers with other Wiki articles? As a member of the staff, who has an influence on what is put on the air of Race to the Right, I would also like qualifiers that you are using for "obscure staffer." From what I understand (according to Wiki's own definition, "there has been controversy over Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy with the site receiving criticism for its (among other things) preference for consensus or popularity over credentials." Members of Race to the Right staff are not going to win an argument about popularity. But the staff for this radio show can hold their own when it comes to credentials. Articles from the Always Right Usually Correct blog have been featured throughout the blogging community as well as sites that track the notability and popularity of articles ( http://www.buzztracker.com/ for example). Would it not be also good to know of decendants of notable historical figures as well? (Jean-Baptiste Faribault for example) If needed, I can provide birth records. Pete Arnold 22:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The issue here is that it appears the subject of this article does not meet the guidelines for biographical articles (please see WP:BIO for the criteria). To answer your other question, that applies to the decendants of historical figures as well; besides, Wikipedia is not a genealogical project.--Isotope23 13:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the Wiki guide on Notability, personality notability can be determined by: A large fan base or Name recognition (ammong other things) What would you consider a "large fan base"? Also by what do you define "Name Recoginition"?

[25] has had over 76720 visators since 3/17/06, with an average of about 360 a day. The name recoginition leads out of this as well.Pete Arnold 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment those criteria are intentionally ambiguous to allow editors to make a judgement call; there is no hard number. Still, the number of hits a website gets is an argument for the website being notable, not "a researcher and contributor" for the radio show tied to the webstite (and personally I don't think it really demonstrates notability for the website... my blog gets roughly the same number of hits). Again, the relevant notability guidelines for a person are at WP:BIO and that is what you should be basing your argument on. I don't think being a researcher for a show, where the host has a blog that gets a certain number of hits meets any of the WP:BIO criteria.--Isotope23 20:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The Ambiguous nature of Wiki's rules not only allows editors to make judgement calls, but allows preferencial treatment of some articles, and exclusion of others based on editorial opinion. If rules are going to be cited as criteria to be meet inorder to be allouable in Wiki, then Ambiguous or not, of something meets those criteria, it would be expected to be kept. Race to the Right meets the notability guidelines by having 1. A large fan base and 2. name recoginition. The entires on the contributiers to Race to the Right (Tony Garcia and Pete Arnold) show what makes Race to the Right what it is. Pete Arnold 20:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment as I stated at the Race to the Right AfD, even if the show is proven to be notable, that does not confer notability to Pete Arnold. Pete Arnold needs to meet the WP:BIO guidelines and it has not been demonstrated that he does, as of yet.--Isotope23 00:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mega Man weapons

Essentially a game guide, and perhaps of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. Combination 15:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 23:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This article does not function as a game guide, if only because the information contained in it is inapplicable to the games. It is a article on the technical specifications of the weapons used in the game, which are actually un-selectable for most of the games, and more of a storyline concern than any kind of hints page.

As for having less citations than normal, this is because the information for the weapons is mostly contained in the japanese sourcebooks and in-game dialogue/captions.128.211.254.142 16:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete total fancruft. wikipedia is not a gaming guide. DesertSky85451 17:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge - I would say to keep it and turn the stuff that would be from a game guide into actual encyclopedic information. It really doesn't look that much like a game guide to me. It doesn't seem bad to keep and article for the main weapons of a well selling series of games (like the Zelda article). Or the info could just be merged to the specific character or game articles. Nemu 18:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- United961 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Mega Man article. --ASDFGHJKL 21:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP. Way too large to merge with the main article. There are dozens of Mega Man articles- killing this article would cause all the info to spread out over many many articles. This nom doesn't make any sense... Also, this article is currently a Good Article, which would be difficult to obtain if the article was non notable, right? --- RockMFR 22:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment No, it's not at all difficult to get a Good Article rating: GA ratings require only two people, one to nominate the article and the other to review it and decide whether it meets the criteria or not. There is no vote and there are no formal restrictions on who is allowed to review articles. — Haeleth Talk 11:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Into parent. · XP · 22:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:NOT a game guide. Too much content for a merge, and most content would have to be totally rewritten to conform to WP:WAF anyway. Sandstein 16:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEPIn what way is it a game guide? Absolutely none of the information is applicable to the games! It's pure story information, that at most indicates that different characters hae different methods of fighting. It could be made shorter by removing the extra weapons of the same type (the sabers, specifically), though.
  • Comment The parts of the article like the MMBN and ZX sections can be taken as game guides, but the info can easily be removed or rewritten. It doesn't seem like a good reason to delete the article. Nemu 01:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this mess. Nothing here is verifiable; it's all just interpretation and supposition and speculation and sometimes fanon based on direct observation of the games themselves, with game guide content (the ZX and Battle Network stuff) added for flavor. You can tell from the cited sources; they're all GameFAQs or fanpages. A yeoman's job was done merging awful stubs into this mess, but there's nothing here to save or worth saving. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Long and does not meet critera Cs california 06:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE This is a huge amount of cruft. Look, I'm a MM fan, too, but can't we just put a link to MMHQ or something at the bottom of the Mega Man page instead of having a gigantic article about ultra-specific obscure game storyline information? Also, I'm confused at some of the arguments here. Nemu, are you saying that the only useful stuff on the page should be deleted?TheWarlock 19:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply - No, I'm saying to just rewrite or remove the game guide type of info. I really think there should be some sort of limit to the whole verifiability and notability guidelines, or any sort of fictional information beyond the main work and absolute main character should all be deleted. Nemu 19:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maxwell Chump

Fictional band created by university student who produce mock videos- --Nehwyn 15:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC. In fact, probably a Speedy candidate under A7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I tagged it as such, but author removed the db tag.

• Delete per WP:NMG, obviously. I guess the author feels the bit about having "an extensive cult following amongst the students of the University" is enough to assert notability. Wrong. PJM 17:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wickethewok 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Demented Cartoon Movie

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}}

Non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (web). Vectro 15:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS, all the usual suspects. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note. This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 April 30. The result of the discussion was no consensus. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as there appears to be no non-trivial third-party coverage of this Flash series by reliable sources, meaning it fails WP:WEB. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 01:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable animation. Characters and scenes from this work have appeared in other animations. (See the previous discussion for a partial list.) --Billpg 02:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How is it notable according to WP:WEB? NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 05:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I supplied a list of justifications in the previous AfD. --Billpg 11:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You just listed a bunch of Flash cartoons that reference this series and Google hits. You didn't show if it was given nontrivial coverage by reliable sources; you didn't show if it won any notable, independent awards; and I would hardly say every site that hosts this Flash series would count as "distributing" the series. I can't see how this series at all meet the guidelines for notability. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 17:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
        • My opinion is that this work is worthy of a wikipedia article by itself and I backed it up by listing some take-offs that I know of. If the admin closing this nomination wants to disregard my opinion, so be it - this is not my website. --Billpg 20:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as this Flash cartoon has had a large effect on the internet culture. Phrases such as "Zeeky Boogy Doog" and "Kamikaze Watermelon" have become known on their own. Of all the junk articles on Wikipedia, this isn't one of them. --Ridesim 07:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you provide a citation showing that this cartoon has had the "large effect" that you claim? If so, please add it to the article and make a note here. Thanks, Vectro 06:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I listed some of the repeated use of catch-phrases and characters in the last deletion discussion. I'll add them to the article if it survives this round. --Billpg 11:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you could repost them in here and get them on the article page. I'd like to see how it looks in the article. I think the list he had was a good indicator of the type of impact it has had.--Ridesim 07:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Citations
        • For example, although user-submitted, there are 15 definitions on the Urban Dictionary having to do with one of the film's catchphrases. ^[1]
        • "Zeeky Boogy Doog" has shown up in numerous YTMND pages (url removed by Vectro because of blacklisting)
        • Fooby, the Kamikaze Watermelon makes an appearance in this short, user (not me) created video. ^[2]
        • Or there's this Garry's Mod rebuild of the first Fooby appearance ^[3]
        • I'm sure a Google search could find more, but these tidbits from this cartoon have bled into other media forms. If you wanted, you could argue that YouTube is a film media. Either way, there's a clear impact on the internet world. If anyone would like to do hitcounts on Google, they can, but evidence such as this helps more.--Ridesim 07:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Ridesim. This movie is one of the more well-known Flash animations, and as he said, some of the phrases used in the movie are used elsewhere. Not to mention it's simply hilarious. --Xbolt 05:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Xbolt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep In fact, furthermore, deleting this article would be like deleting the article on Monty Python, or the Three Stooges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.188.16.20 (talk • contribs)
  • No, it would not be, for the simple reason that both of those articles provide substantial citations to reliable, independent sources providing critical analysis and coverage of the works in question. Vectro 23:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I know that the opinion of a guest is moot, but this article is long enough, has at least 5 ciations & has mutiple links. PLUS it has a crazy fanbase and its cool!***** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.57.107.1 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 17 October 2006

• Comment What references? What citations? All the links given are either mirrors of the Flash series or (in the case of Urban Dictionary) are not reliable sources. Also, media that make references to a subject are not a guideline for notability; 20,000 Flash animations can make a reference to an obscure in-joke but unless the joke has coverage from an independent source, it's not notable. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 22:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Would you like to see the article improved with a section on the impact of the cartoon? It seems to me that there is none right now, but we have some information for starting a section on it. --Ridesim 03:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No. Let me repeat myself, "impact" is not a criteria for notability. Read the notability guidelines for web content to understand what constitues notability on Wikipedia. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 04:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • In that case, the article complies with the notability standards. Chriterion 3 indicates: "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." The subject gained notability after being published on Albinoblacksheep.com, a "well known" website whose publishings are made by webmaster, rather than by simple user publishing. The creator (Brian Kendall) does not own or operate said website. This qualifies the article as compliant and should be decided as keep due to Albinoblacksheep's notability as an "online publisher." --Ridesim 07:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and swift Burn it with fiar. I've seen it before and it's funny but it fails every notability test, is completely unverifiable and looks a lot like original research. Axem Titanium 23:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Also, please note this tag from the article's discussion page:

	Animation Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] References

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 nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suntec City Mall

Shopping mall. The only claim to notability, being the largest in Singapore, has expired since a larger one was built. --Nehwyn 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's appeared on an international Emmy Award-winning television show (The Amazing Race 3), which makes it notable enough. – Chacor 16:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Any source to that claim? --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Amazing Race 3 Official Site - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Suntec is the second largest mall in Singapore and houses the world's largest fountain. It was in the same complex as where the IMF/World Bank meetings were held. It has international mention by several sources and definitely notable. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 16:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As written below, the largest fountain claim is contested, and no independent source has still been found to resolve it. As for the Singapore 2006 event, according to its own article, that has been hosted in the nearby Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre (built by the same company, but not a mall). Any source on the fact that it was specifically the mall, and not the congress centre, that hosted the World Bank meetings? --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, second largest mall in Singapore, sister building of Suntec Singapore where Singapore 2006 is held. Extensive coverage on mall by Channel NewsAsia during that period [26] proves this. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The article you mention states that a drop in sales occurred during the Singapore 2006 event due to security restrictions because of the meetings going on nearby. Hardly a claim to notability per se. --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep This nomination is ridiculous. This is the first afd I've seen, where the nomination statement itself prove that the subject is notable. --Vsion 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have not made myself clear. I meant to say that currently there is no notability claim, although it may have been notable in the past (when it held the "title" of largest mall). :) --Nehwyn 17:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that many hold by a "once notable, always notable" attitude. Certainly, most guidelines seem to take that for granted. JoshuaZ 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Any specific statement on that? --Nehwyn 11:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per diablo.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Terrnece and Mailer diablo. Wow, finally a mall that has something resembling a plausible claim of notability. JoshuaZ 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Possible withdraw AfD: It has been brought to attention that this venue holds the world's largest fountain. This is more than an acceptable claim to notability. The article makes no mention of that, so in its current form is not notable; however, were that fact to be added to it, I would happily withdraw this AfD. I have tried Googling for it, but the claim seems to be contested by another fountain in Illinois, and the Guinness page about the fountain is no longer supported by the official Guinness of Records website (Google has a cache copy). Anyone with the actual book able to help? --Nehwyn 20:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Singapore Book of Records (2005) still assert this as world's largest. [27] - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in a Singapore vs USA contested record, the fact that the Singapore book of Records supports Singapore is not really a surprise. Any independent source? --Nehwyn 10:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per above. --- RockMFR 22:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a silly nom. · XP · 22:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep; Chinese: 坚决保留; Hokkien: Mai4 dir3 siow2 lah4. —Sengkang 02:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, do write your motivations in English. This is the English Wikipedia. Thanks! :) --Nehwyn 11:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Hosted World Bank meetings Leidiot 10:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the Singapore 2006 page, that would be Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre (still Suntec, but not a mall). --Nehwyn 11:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, asserts its notability well enough. It seems that the nominator has been trying to get Singapore shopping mall articles deleted. Do I smell WP:POINT here? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I smell something too...But I'd rather assume good faith here. :) - Mailer Diablo 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated them all together because they were brought to my attention all together after I nominated one. As for the rest, I too smell something fishy: it seems to me that far too many of the "keep" comments come from Singaporean editors, and it is conceivable that they may have contacted one another to try and lobby the debate page... although again, WP:AGF applies, so let's assume that is not the case. --Nehwyn 15:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And so I suppose you expect most of the "Keep" comments to come from Italians, for something less fishy? It is a no-brainer why most of comments are coming from Singapore. And if you wondering why most of them are "Keep" votes, have you considered the fact that not every mall in Singapore has got an article? How sure are you that I will not question an article about a truly insignificant Singaporean mall?--Huaiwei 17:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would prefer if comments on the inclusion or deletion criteria for any given article were not based on the editors' area of residence, but only on the article itself. For an example of what kind of reasoning I'd prefer not to see, try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jurong Point Shopping Centre, where the deletion of the article has been defined by one editor as "a great insult to all Singaporeans". I wish this kind of reasoning would not become a factor in Wikipedia debates. My concern is not really that being a resident in the area might colour a single editor's judgement on differentiating between local notability and Wikipedia notability (although that is certainly possible); my concern is that some editors with a common interest or characteristic (in this case, residence) may have rallied privately to "lobby" the debate in disregard to the Wikipedia public. But again, let's assume good faith and deem it not the case. --Nehwyn 17:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep One of the most ridiculous nominations I have yet seen. And I do also sense something fishy in this multi-nomination of Singaporean malls on no other criteria than physical size. So VivoCity, a mall a week old, gets to be kept while all other malls who were around far longer and made a far bigger social impact gets deleted?--Huaiwei 14:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, there's no way that only 1 Singaporean mall can have an article at any given moment. That's certainly not the case with New York, or any other major city. - SpLoT 14:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because any arguments otherwise border on ridiculous. SchmuckyTheCat 15:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Amazing Race 3 and Singapore 2006 to its name. Ridiculous to favour VivoCity, which only has size to its name, over this. Could be expanded, though. - Ouishoebean 15:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed for the AR3 mention, but as far as the Singapore 2006 page, please note that would be Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre (still Suntec, but not a mall). --Nehwyn 15:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, Suntec City Mall is one of the most recognisable retail icon in Singapore. Apparently this nomination is done without familiarity with Singapore, above all, the mall is well-visited by tourists due to the tax rebate scheme that made the venue popular among visitors. As per abovementioned, the mall is noteable internationally, represented in a couple of advertising regimes to promote Singapore as a tourist destination and retail haven. The corporate site: Suntec City Mall. Absurb nomination. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 03:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Highly notable.--Tdxiang 04:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Hildanknight has withdrawn his Keep vote. The original vote and reason for withdrawal are available in the page history.
• To substantiate my post earlier: Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), a Singaporean government statutory board cites that Suntec City is one of the largest commercial developments in Singapore to date at [28]. Suntect REIT, developer of the Suntec chain of commercial complexes, cites that Suntec City Mall is Singapore's largest shopping mall at [29], further stating that Strong branding of the Suntec name and Fountain of Wealth is recognized domestically and internationally, and Fountain of Wealth attracts half a million visitors a year, while quality tenant base including oreign institutions, prominent local corporations and multinational companies provides enhanced stability of rental income. The Mall along with the exhibition complex, was awarded two FIABCI Prix d' Excellence awards for excellence in all aspects of real estate development (Overall winner and Commercial / Retail winner) in 1999 and the Outstanding Contribution to Tourism award in 1998 from Singapore Tourism Board. The site too states that the mall is a one-stop shopping, fashion, dining, recreation and entertainment destination that attracts about 24 million visitors a year. Notable enough for you? Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 03:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Now this is what a Wikipedia reference should look like. Kudos to Silvester. The Suntec reference cannot be considered "independent", but the URA reference and the awards definitely are. Personally, I think that if the AR3 and this one are added to the article, that would be referencing it enough for a speedy keep. =) --Nehwyn 07:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that Nehwyn considers a Singaporean statutory board acceptably "independent", while a publication called the Singapore Book of Records (2005) is not.--Huaiwei 07:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the URA is a governmental entity, not part of Suntec, and thus considered independent. Suntec, having built the venue, cannot be considered an "independent source" about the venue itself. As far as the Fountain record goes, on the other hand, the Singapore Book of Records statement currently is contested, and the Guinness World Records (generally considered the standard authority on world records) has withdrawn mention of the Fountain of Wealth as the world's largest fountain about a week ago. They might in fact be checking the claim, for all we know. As soon as the record is re-listed by Guinness, I'd say that will solve the problem. --Nehwyn 07:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Still, even though this entry has been withdraw by Guinness, it once appeared in the book for a period of time. Even if it is disputed, the fountain is still notable, and is still the largest outside North America. Is that notable for you? Singapore Book of Records is an independent source and what's wrong with it? --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 12:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I don't see the point of this deletion request. If you delete Suntec City Mall, then you might as well delete all other pages on shopping malls in Singapore, such as Ngee Ann City and Junction 8 Shopping Centre. Unkx80 07:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't get us started on that.  ;-) --Nehwyn 07:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Being the largest mall in Singapore is a valid claim for notability; this nomination is a bit dumbfounding. Yamaguchi先生 10:55, 15 October 2006

Note: Suntec City is not the largest mall in Singapore; that claims does not apply here. --Nehwyn 11:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Withdraw deletion nomination - Given the fact that deletion debate has brought forward new sources, allowing for sufficient improvement of the article to the point that it now provides satisfactory evidence of notability, in the absence of further dispute, as the original nominator I change my stance to keep and request early closure of this debate page. =) --Nehwyn 17:41, 16 October 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; despite SPAs, and despite the armwaving nature of some of the arguments for keep, there isn't a sufficiently coherent case for deletion - some of the links presented are passing mentions, but crucially not all.

It goes without saying that insufficiently-sourced 'controversies' (forum posts do not meet reliable source guidelines) should be reverted on sight. That's not a judgement formed from this AfD, that's cornerstone encyclopaedia policy. Perhaps those personally involved with the site should avoid editing the article - and if that leaves no interested editors to work on it, perhaps this would merit another AfD in the near future to form a clearer consensus from outside editors, without prejudice from this one. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boxrec.com

WP:NN ,fansite which only claim to fame is a nationality dispute Gnevin 16:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Its not a fan site it is supposed to be the biggest compliation of Boxing facts and records anywhere on the net. Maybe you need to look around the site to get more of an appriciation for it. Secondly, this nationality dispute my be a very hot topic at the moment and should be reported but there is no need to delete the article because of one crazy editor who has just joined the site today! Beaumontproject 16:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you could establish that it's the "biggest compliation [sic]" through a reliable outside source that might help sway some editors (such as myself) to share your opinion. If it's so large then surely there are outside sources such as prominent boxing and sports media that mention the website, right? We need something other than just your word or the word of those who operate the website to establish that it's noteable. --ElKevbo 17:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• CommmentHey...I have no problem with the Criticism, but if it is to stay up then so should the Comment about the Criticism comment only being the view of a couple of people and certainly not the view od all wikipedians...that's a clear way to resolve the issue. You want it up fine, but I want it to be clear that it is only the view of a couple of people...can you live with that, or is your grudge just too bad to have a opposing voice...after all, wiki stresses opposing views in an article! And Beaumontproject joined only a few days ago also and the boxrec page and the John Duddy page is the only thing he has edited. And also for the record...I belong to several boxing organizations...what kind of orgs do you two cats beloing to to make such claims about boxing...are you the press?--Ozzwald35 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Commment I welcome criticism as long as it is constructive! Just stop making wholesale deletions. I have been following Wiki for months and only recently started editing after I got the hang of how the place works - maybe you should have done the same. You really have caused havok here today. Beaumontproject 16:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Google search for (link:www.Boxrec.com) returns 100 unique hits out of 171 [30]. All return links seem to be directory or profile listings instead of mentions in 3rd party press. The website has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Fails: Wikipedia:Notability (web). --  Netsnipe  ►  16:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia is not a web directory. Has anything about this website ever been newsworthy? All I see are some trivial statistics about the website and meaningless wikilinks to male, female and a bunch of countries. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• CommmentNetsnipe - you obviously havent looked around the site - boxrec is quoted in countless boxing articles, you obviously have no knowledge of the subject and should probably stick to subject that you do know about. First you said it was NN, that was proved wrong, then that it was a directory- thats wrong - what next?? In fact if you search Wiki for "boxrec" you get over 800 hits!!! Vintagekits 19:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Commment*Whereas a Google search just for "Boxrec.com" turns up about 527,000 hits. While this is obviously a very flawed methodology that's a significant number of hits. --ElKevbo 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: non-noteable. --ElKevbo 16:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but cleanup. The links presented below by Ozzwald35 seem to be from a diverse set of sportswriters and make a decent argument for notability at least amongst sportswriters. --ElKevbo 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:Also...for the record...Boxrec is the biggest records source in boxing history and it is the most popular boxing website on the internet. Boxrec administrators attend Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC)meetings every year. Boxrec also has a brother/sister wiki site, Mediawiki, which the page on that site would be ideal for the Boxrec page here:

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/BoxRec.com

Anything else, that is irrelevant to describing Boxrec, should be made in the Talk area!!--Ozzwald35 17:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN fansite. --InShaneee 17:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Websites that refer back to using Boxrec as they’re source…I don’t know how long the links will stay up, but below are a few! There’s a lot more…everyone in the boxing community refers back to Boxrec for fighters records from promoters to reporters to researchers to fans! But the information on the page needs to be correct and accurately backed by valid sources--Ozzwald35 17:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.inthecorner.net/story.php?id=696 http://www.fightnews.com/hoffman119.htm http://www.realitytvworld.com/index/articles/story.php?s=3441 In German http://www.ingogazelle.homepage.t-online.de/homepageboxen/reportagen/boxrec.htm Honolulu http://starbulletin.com/2003/04/14/sports/story1.html Rochester, NY Newspaper http://www.rochesterdandc.com/sports/general/0606story2_general.shtml Savannah, GA Newspaper http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/062803/SPTguideraboxing.shtml

• Comment Actually if you search Boxrec.com on Google you get 1/2 million hits. Obviously those who are looking for deletion are not sports fans and without doubt not Boxing fans - have you even visited the site or done any research? Vintagekits 17:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep therefore for the above reason I say keep Vintagekits 23:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Definitive source of boxing history and statistics. How anyone could dismiss this as a 'fansite'.. I don't know, kind of scary. Look at the depth of data that they have.. SubSeven 00:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: I own boxrec.com and don't need all the emails and aggravation that I get about it's Wikipedia entry JohnShep 17:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Commment You could be Hitler and not want a page about you but you get it, but its not your choice unfortunately that not how wiki works! The article was put up for deletion for the reason of being NN - that has been shown to be untrue so its a Keep Vintagekits 18:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia should stick to notable/interesting/relevent facts, their BoxRec article is just about an argument that is completely irrelevant to 99.99999999% of the population. What next another article about the article about the argument and then another article about that, it's ridiculous. You should take a look at the BoxRec Wiki 40,000 articles and not one page of crud, delete please.JohnShep 20:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone here is disagreeing that the current article sucks. But that's a poor reason to delete the article entirely. Clean it up, yes. Delete it, no. --ElKevbo 20:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Commment if this issue is causing so much debate then it is obviously notable - racist and racism should be tackled head on in my opinion Vintagekits 23:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I originally said keep, but if the proper material and data about the page, according to Wiki rules and standards as listed in the links below cannot be met and irrelevant material is allowed then it should be deleted!--Ozzwald35 19:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Reliable_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB

• Commment This page was put up for deletion on the basis that it was NN - however, pretty much every boxers profice on wiki was a link to their Boxrec Vintagekits 12:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Closing admin: PLEASE pay close attention to the arguments laid down here. Keep votes seem primarily to represent the view that this website needs to be 'outed' in its criticism section. --InShaneee 14:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Incorrect the criticism of the website should only be only section of the article, however, the article just need adding to and expansion. Vintagekits 14:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This site is the premier depot for boxing-related information, especially fight-related information. I suggest everyone on Wikipedia focus their efforts on removing more worthy BS this site occupies BoxNut83 15:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep Its a strong well known tool for boxing data. Why not delete Google page while you are at it? I had originally thought that Wikipedia would only delete pages, that are non-sensical, hoaxes, or self promotional. If anything it needs editing/some rewriting. Maya Levy 16:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Definitely Keep - Boxrec is the only site on the net which has the records of pretty much all active professional fighters (and thousands of retired boxers!). It's a vital source of information for ALL boxing fans. How can you even consider deleting this vital boxing website from Wiki? Many professional boxers have a boxrec hyperlink on their personal websites to show everyone their career results, which merely emphasizes how important Boxrec is! - LAWLLB

If Boxrec is all it's saying, surely it wouldn't be too hard to rectify it's mistake and change Duddy's nationality.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suburban (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page has only two items in it. I added Chevrolet Suburban as a toplink to Suburb. G Rose 16:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom. Vectro 18:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. --- RockMFR 22:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not needed. Punkmorten 10:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't qualify as speedy though --RoninBK_TCE# 10:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethan Rosenfeld

Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable local theater actor. Delete. —Brim 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete vanity page for NN-child actor, fails WP:BIO DesertSky85451 17:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• speedy delete per nom. Vectro 18:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. NN Vanity Lack of notability is not a valid reason for a speedy delete. Resolute 04:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. You guys must have missed the memo on not using the word "vanity" in AfDs anymore. - Lex 04:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed I did. Revised. Resolute 05:24, 14 October 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.

I have considered the discussion, and am inclined to view deletion of these two pages as appropriate for the moment; equally, I should not be surprised if a well-sourced article may be written on the subject before very long. —Encephalon 05:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil as an emerging superpower

Information essentially duplicated from Brazil, I can't see the need for a seperate article on this. Contested prod, so sending to AfD to get consensus. For my part, Delete as duplicate material. Akradecki 16:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As of Oct 16, I am adding Brazil as an emerging great power to this AfD, based on the fact that it is OR copied from other deleted articles, and essentially duplicates material found in the existing Brazil articles. Akradecki 22:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete essay/OR-like, poorly sourced DesertSky85451 17:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Basic premise (that Brazil is an emerging superpower) not properly sourced. As a result this is little more than crystal balling. It seems to be a re-creation (in spirit, if not yet in substance) of Potential Superpowers—Brazil, which was recently deleted for violations of WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:V (deletion debate). Xdamr^talk 17:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above: WP:NOR. PJM 17:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete speculation. Gazpacho 18:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; OR. Vectro 18:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The other "... as emerging superpower" articles were at least well written. Pavel Vozenilek 22:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Clear Delete at this point, the only emerging superpower articles which should exist are the China, India and EU ones which already do exist. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 02:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant Delete:While India, China and EU are stronger candidates for future superpowers, Brazil has made remarkable economic progress and some sources have quoted it as a possible economic superpower.However, the sources are few and far between and often the tone of the source is more rhetorical in nature than definite. If the article cannot be expanded further or more reliable sources provided that explicitly list reasons as to why Brazil is an emergent superpower then the article should be deleted.Hkelkar 02:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There are other possible emerging superpowers which have sometimes been mentioned in these pages, these have prominently been Russia and Brazil, but there have been examples of Japan, the UK and even Pakistan sometimes being mentioned by some users as emerging superpowers. If we let such unilateral decisions made by users stand then we'll have way too many emerging superpower articles. Brazil's rise is not as widely documented as that of India, China's and the EU's. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 02:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The concept is out there. I've put in a couple of references. JASpencer 12:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I've put in a couple of references. And I change the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by João Felipe C.S (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Okay, the sourcing does improve things, but I still don't see why we need a seperate article. Seems to me that this information is better placed in Brazil or Economy of Brazil or both. Having too many articles that cover slightly different aspects of the same subject fragments things and makes the research of our "customers" too difficult. Akradecki 19:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This stub mainly contains Brazil's GDP rankings, a fact that is already mentioned in the Brazil article. The rest is speculatory OR. Signature^brendel 19:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• 'Comment - Brazil is the most powerful nation in South America.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but South America isn't exactly a continent which is noted for its decisive influence on world events, nor does this affect the primary issue, the lack of any real sourcing for the basic premise.

Xdamr^talk 02:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment...we need some consistency. The article Superpower defines such a country as "A superpower is a state with the first rank in the international system and the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale". The article provides no quality references to demonstrate in an academically acceptable way that Brazil is anywhere close to being able to project power anywhere in the world, at any time. Yes, Brazil is growing, but there's no verifiable sources to say that it's actually emerging with that ability. Akradecki 04:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely a regional power, but it is not in a state of growth to an extent to which it seems likely that it will become a superpower, or a nation that is likely to contest the United States and European Union. Note that much of the article is copied from the history of Major power, which was deleted per WP:NOR. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - It does seem that the concept or idea that Brazil is an Emerging Superpower is out there in the academic world, and the article does now have some citations to back-up it's claims. I say if the China and India articles can exist then this one can too, it's not about whether we think Brazil can be a superpower or not, it's whether the concept is out there, Wikipedia is about Verifiability not Truth, right? --Hibernian 14:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

But the point is that it isn't verified. The facts such as GDP etc are easily enough sourced, but the main premise most certainly is not. The Jonathan Power article is the only source, a source which in itself fails WP:RS.

Xdamr^talk 22:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This whole series is riddled with OR, but this article in particular is very problematic. The only source which actually addresses the subject of the article is the Jonathan Power one, and that is a very flimsy source upon which to base an article. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Question - Should the article Brazil as an emerging great power be added to this AfD? It appears to be suspect, as well. Akradecki 22:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy about that. Xdamr^talk 22:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, added above under my first del reason for the original article. Akradecki 22:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe… what you they want? At least one emerging great power or global power Brazil is. João Felipe C.S 22:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply I've said it already: put this information where it belongs. We don't need multiple articles on the same subject. Secondly, I think there's folks here who'd say that they want to stop the recreation of OR that has previously been deleted. The definition of "Great Power" includes: "is able to exert power over world diplomacy." Brazil certainly isn't there yet. It's not even in the G8. And, the article that I've added, despite its title, makes no case with verifiable refs that the country can actually do this. All it does is rehash stats on the country without showing how the country influences world diplomacy. (On a side note, I think it's amusing that the article includes a pic of Brazil's lone aircraft carrier, a used boat bought from the French...hardly sufficient "power" to project around the world.) Akradecki 23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok… I give up. You seems here to be very ignorant to understand… We will see in 2050… João Felipe C.S 23:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Well, we can't deny that, can we? --Pikolas 00:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't deny what? Xdamr^talk 00:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate, otherwise I suggest your vote be disregarded. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete Brazil is NOT a emerging superpower. Yes, their are reason why some time in the future it could become one but I can also make those reason for some 30 other nations. Also the article is unsource and unverified. Aussie King Pin 06:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Idea - Instead of having some articles on emerging "superpowers" and emerging "great powers", why don't we just have a page about the international status or power status of any country that editors feel it necessary to write about. Leave it up to the editors to some up with the facts (keeping within the WP:OR policy), and let the reader decide for himself! Kevlar67 02:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment umm...I think that's what I've been saying all along, including in my original nom...we already have existing articles that deal with these subjects (in the case of this country, we have Brazil, Foreign relations of Brazil and Economy of Brazil, among others, all of which would easily accomodate the issues involved in the international status of the country). Akradecki 04:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with Chris. —Encephalon 05:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Wickethewok 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sim Lim Square

Shopping mall; no claim to WP:CORP notability given. --Nehwyn 16:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, that was fast - just as your were nominating it for deletion, I was actually adding a reference to a two-page broadsheet newspaper feature report on the mall that appeared just three days ago on Singapore's computer history. - Mailer Diablo 16:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, the article states that it is the "most established IT mall [in the country]". Why did the nominator choose to ignore that? The place is very notable, well-known to foreign visitors also. --Vsion 17:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not ignore that - I just do not consider that (unsourced) statement to meet the WP:CORP criteria, as specified in my nomination. --Nehwyn 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep, Sim Lim square is notable. I will try to find sources. Vectro 18:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Any success? And please note, the fact that the square is notable, does not automatically imply that the venues on it are. --Nehwyn 11:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added some citations to the article already. It may be difficult to add more without a physical presence in Singapore. Also, if the square is notable, then it makes sense to mention vendors in the Square's article; the vendeors only have to show separate notability if they want their own article. See e.g., WP:CORP, WP:C&E, and WP:BIO for examples of this principle. Cheers, Vectro 16:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:CORP. JoshuaZ 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It has several non-trivial published sources independent of the mall. Can you expand on your reasoning why it still fails WP:CORP? - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that WP:CORP states that media sources should be centred on the subject, and not cover it peripherally, such as on a survey of prices. Two of the references in the article fall into the "trivial coverage" category. The other two, on the other hand, seem to be legitimate. --Nehwyn 10:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep lah. —Sengkang 02:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"lah" is hardly a valid argument in a Wikipedia debate. :) --Nehwyn 10:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Sim Lim is a very well known shopping mall in Signapore, with tons of computer and electrical stores. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 05:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay... but any claim to Wikipedia notability? --Nehwyn 11:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the article for goodness sake... Leidiot 10:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"for goodness sake" can hardly be considered a valid argument in a Wikipedia debate.  :) --Nehwyn 10:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, its a well-referenced article. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A mall which is clearly well known in a country satisfies wikipedia notability. Satisfying an Italian hermit across the planet isnt a wikipedian criteria.--Huaiwei 14:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per the Suntec City Mall entry above. - SpLoT 14:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, not that "if X, then Y" is generally not considered a valid point in a Wikipedia debate. :) --Nehwyn 16:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that you apparantly applied the same formular when nominating them for deletion.--Huaiwei 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I nominated each article individually. Group nominations are possible under Wikipedia policies, but this is not the case. An individual nomination, like this one, is best evaluated individually, based on the article it refers to, and not on others. --Nehwyn 18:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So how did you come to the conclusion that people arent exercising their votes "individually"? Just because the same logic applies in one topic happens to apply in another doesent mean it is a collective vote. Mind sharing with us how different each of your "individual" nominations are, then?--Huaiwei 07:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather assume good faith and hypothesise that no "anti-national conspiracy theory" has been formulated, and that no reaction to that has been discussed out of Wikipedia channels on the concern that said discussion would have been unsuitable to the general public. As for nominations, nominations are termed "individual" if each article has a separate nomination; they are termed "multiple" if a group of related articles is listed in one single nomination. Personally I prefer the former option, as each article should be assessed on its own merits. --Nehwyn 08:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Vsion SchmuckyTheCat 15:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, per Vsion.--Tdxiang 04:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as mentioned above by many this is a notable place. Yamaguchi先生 10:56, 15 October 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 was keep. Noting that I've participated in this AfD, closing on the basis of WP:SNOW and WP:IAR given that this has been left open for more than a week. - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jurong Entertainment Centre

Shopping mall; no claim to WP:CORP notability. --Nehwyn 16:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep major entertainment centre in Singapore. I believe it houses the only ice skating rink in the country. --Vsion 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but I'm not sure that would satisfy WP:CORP. --Nehwyn 21:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to explain the local context. The name "Shopping Center" can be quite misleading. But these "shopping centers" are actually major service, commercial, and entertainment hub, located at the center of a large residential district serving hundreds of thousands of people. These are not just business corporations. The supermarket in the mall is a business, but the "center" is the hub for many activities in that community. You may still think it is not worthy for wikipedia, that is a fair opinion. But WP:CORP does not apply here because it is not a purely corporation or business entity. --Vsion 06:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough! :) Any source on the not-for-profit activities? --Nehwyn 11:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a need for not-for-profit activities in this mall for it not to be classified as a company or a corporation? Now since you insist on using WP:CORP, kindly tell us just what is the name of this "company" or "corporation", who is its CEO, where is it listed, and where is it corporatised?--Huaiwei 17:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The existence of non-business activity has been mentioned by another editor. Since that may be an important fact to include in the article, I have asked whether there is any reference on them. As for WP:CORP, please keep in mind that, despite being called "corp", it does not apply to corporations or companies only, but more in general to commercial and economic entities. --Nehwyn 17:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Which part of WP:CORP implies that it's rules applies to all commercial and economic entities? Kindly quote the exact line which explicitely states it as such.--Huaiwei 05:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The very first line in the page. --Nehwyn 06:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"a product, company, corporation or other economic entity". Explain in what way is this a "product, company, corporation or other economic entity"?--Huaiwei 07:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

To quote the article "has a net lettable retail floor area of ...". Malls are in the business of renting (letting) retail space to chains. This is a company and the letting of space is economic activity. GRBerry 15:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Only major shopping mall serving Jurong East New Town, a major public housing establishment in the western part of densely-populated Singapore. —Sengkang 03:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment, IMM Building is the other major mall in Jurong East. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 05:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment, oops forgot about it. —Sengkang 05:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• 'Keep, mall has a huge ice skating rink and it's one of the very few major malls in Jurong East. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 05:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As per above Leidiot 10:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Jurong Entertainment Centre is the first major shopping centre in the West prior to the arrival of Jurong Point, and thus served as the main focal point then. Jurong East Central is the location for the Regional Centre in the Western Region, but the delay in development plans for the area meant the centre remained the sole shopping mall and largest commercial entity there, although it pales in terms of size and tenent mix in comparison to many contemporary malls. Still, this does not mean it has no place wikipedia just because it is past its prime.--Huaiwei 14:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Huaiwei. - Mailer Diablo 14:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Vsion. SchmuckyTheCat 15:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep.--Tdxiang 04:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the comments above, no real reason presented for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 11:24, 15 October 2006
• Delete Malls are in the business of renting (letting) retail space to other businesses. WP:CORP is the relevant standard. There are no citations in the article or above to independent sources to establish that it meets the WP:CORP standards. (I.e., the nomination was exactly a valid reason for deletion.) GRBerry 15:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment The gist of Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) is to act against advertising by companies and corporations for services and goods. Taking the sentence "a product, company, corporation or other economic entity" literally as meaning every single entity with any remote sense of "economic" activity will result in Human being deleted as well, for who else is responsible for and engages so actively in it? I do not think it that difficult for anyone to take a step back and realise just what is the core intent of wikipolicies and guidelines before attempting to blanket-apply them all over without much consideration for common sense.--Huaiwei 16:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As it has been pointed out to you on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(companies_and_corporations)#Application_of_this_guideline, your understanding of this particular guideline is fallacious. The gist of WP:CORP is to set notability criteria for economic entities, so as to avoid non-notable economic entities showing up in Wikipedia. There is another guideline which acts, as you say, "against advertising by companies and corporations for services and goods", and that is WP:SPAM. --Nehwyn 17:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Huaiwei and other above, the article looks fine to me. RFerreira 00:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy close, this article is already covered under the AfD that I closed here as delete (I must have missed it). Deathphoenix ʕ 19:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Marapets

I deleted Marapets per this AfD. I believe this article is also covered under the same topic. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete per DeathPhoenix DesertSky85451 17:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - was mentioned in the original nomination; I see no reason to not go ahead and delete this as a subsidiary article. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, you're right. For some reason, I missed it. Thanks, I'm going to speedy-close this AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete - verifiability is non-negotiable, and all research in this AfD into verifiability counts against it. The existence of other sources is asserted, but their details have not been given so we can form no judgement on them (and as the credibility of the sources which have been given have been cast into doubt, such assertions count for even less than usual). Bear in mind that if a sourced article can in fact be written, this deletion of an unsourced article does not prejudice against it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis Corporation of America

non-notable [31]--Syunrou 08:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Weak delete - the corporation does seem to have been involved in a fair number of legal cases surrounding cannabis use in the US, so may be borderline notable (despite low number of Google hits). However, the article is utterly appallingly bad. — QuantumEleven 09:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as what appears to be a notable part of the history of cannabis legality in America. The article needs a lot of work. --Hyperbole 20:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Hyperbole, appears notable, however severly clean it up and if its not in say a month delete it. Also some sources on that case would be nice. --NuclearZer0 15:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - while the assertion of notability is made, this entry is entirely devoid of sources. Tewfik^Talk 04:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• No sources whatsoever, and 26 non-Wikipedia Google hits. I would have a hard time proving that it exists, especially if we wanted reliable, notable, and verifiable sources, much less proving its importance. It's a badly written article in any case. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 02:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Relisting following remarks that this corporation might not exist. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; possible hoax? Vectro 18:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • AOL user 64.12.116.203 (talk · contribs) left the following message on my talk page. Vectro 00:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I know virtually nothing about Wiki, and less about HTML and so I'm sorry to barge in, but this is Laurence McKinney and Cannabis Corporation was not only real, there are plenty of references to it. That was a bad little paragraph, I have no idea who wrote it, I cleaned it up, added a ref ... why didn't you just drop my name into Google? You would have found lots of stuff .. try Google image ...there too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.203 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 21 October 2006

• Keep and cleanup. Not a hoax. Some of the sources in the linked Google search are reliable, non-trivial, independent coverage of notable events in the biomedical, legal, and legislative fields. The sources need to be added and relevance explained. I'd start work on it now if I weren't behind an overly censorious filter that blocks most of the legitimate sources for this topic. Barno 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you give an example of one of these reliable sources? Dmcdevit·t 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • [//www.dpna.org/resources/trends/peekpandora.htm] is an academic paper presented at the Maxie Richards Foundation Conference, Glasgow, Oct 2003. The reference to CCA is in passing (and thus not sufficient by itself), but it refers to a noteworthy attempt at getting the USA federal drug-enforcement regimen changed in how marijuana would be controlled. There are also mainstream-media (and less-citeable special-interest media) reports which feature CCA's efforts at legal change and research into synthesis of the active component. Barno 20:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of non-trivial independent coverage. Cynical 11:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: AOL user 64.12.116.133 (talk · contribs) added two offline citations to the article, but researching them failed to show them as valid. I have moved the questionable citations to the talk page; see my comments there. Vectro 15:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cynical. Valrith 20:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James W. Walter

Was previously nominated and headed for delete until substantially rewritten towards the end of the process. A second trip to the dancefloor seems like the way to go. No vote from myself. Deizio talk 16:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Walter meets WP:BIO as he has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial news reports. --Hyperbole 02:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Let me restate the reasons given for deletion from the first nomination:

"Fails WP:BIO, person is notable only for offering a 9/11 conspiracy theory reward. This article is part of a walled garden of 9/11 conspiracy theory articles. Fails to cite to reliable sources, violating WP:NOT, WP:RS and WP:NOR."

A few Wikipedia:Reliable sources were actually in the article, though admittedly, hard to see under the thick cloud of unreliable sources. The other problems, I suspect, stemmed from that. I rewrote the article focusing on the reliable sources: New York Times, Reuters/Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Der Spiegel, and (with thanks to User:Ohconfucius), ABC News. Notice from some of the most influential media entities on three continents make the person pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) (WP:BIO) in my opinion. True, he is mostly notable due to spending millions on an advertising campaign, but that is not the silliest thing for which people are notable. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as previously, an ad campaign doesnt make someone notable, especially since its during the 9/11 rush where everything related to the twin towers had articles about them, including a pizzaria that appeared on channel 9 and the NYTimes. Being mentioned after 9/11 for anything should be weighed heavily, its one of the most publicized events in the US history and everyone down to janitors around the location were interviewed, starting an ad campaign asking for evidence obviously gets you in the news, however it does not make you notable. WP:BIO is a guideline and this person is obviously not notable. --NuclearZer0 18:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep If you want to refactor this AfD nomination to list some reasons why it should be deleted, please do so. Otherwise, it just passed AfD on the same criteria, there's no valid reason to go through it again. *Sparkhead 18:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  What are you talking about when you say "it just passed AfD on the same criteria" --NuclearZer0 18:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just had an AfD, closed with no consensus. There's no new nomination reasons at the top of this one, there's no reason to believe this nom will end up in anything but a keep (consensus or no). Not a vote, based on policy. *Sparkhead 18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• You are obviously mistaken, it was closed to reopen, not because there was actually no concensus. Please read more carefully. --NuclearZer0 18:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• I saw it was closed and relisted. Doesn't seem productive to do so and it'll just get the same votes from the same people. If it was clear to delete in the last AfD, it would have been deleted. *Sparkhead 19:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Not so. I personally even stated on the last AfD that I needed time to consider the latest revision, and now that I have done so I have reversed my previous vote.--Rosicrucian 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Good, glad to see honest reconsideration of the article (even in the case if your vote did not change). However, even when the evidence is obvious for a keep, there are some who will still vote delete simply due to the topic. It's always the same editors, the same who bring forth what might be construed as bad faith AfD's. *Sparkhead 01:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Given that the article was substantially rewritten but the original AfD had passed the five-day threshold and could easily have been closed as delete, it was closed and relisted so the article could be considered on its revised merits. This nomination is entirely different to the first AfD, being made by myself as a neutral admin on a technical basis rather than by an editor who objected to the content of the article. There appears to be no criteria within WP:SK which allows for this to be speedily kept. Deizio talk 19:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, as the merge of the information from Walden Three makes a much more well-rounded article. The trimming of non-reliable sources and sticking only to verifiable claims has improved the article greatly.--Rosicrucian 19:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The reporting about him is trivial at best. His only "accomplishment" seems to be his ad campaign and a money award.--Peephole 21:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. He's pretty clearly the subject of the articles, and they're long, non-trivial articles for purposes of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. With all due respect, only one reference in the article may be considered either trivial or non-reliable for those purposes, ... and that was just added by yourself, after my rewrite, and before your vote. AnonEMouse
    • Comment It used to be in there, until the person who rewrote the article deleted it. I'm just saying that the only thing he did was fund some ads which did get some attention but is probably the only thing we will ever hear about him.--Peephole 12:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

^(squeak) 22:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Peephole and NuclearUmpf. Em-jay-es 21:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete His bio can be re-written any numbre of times. It doesn't make him more notable.--Tbeatty 22:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Again Still fails WP:BIO, person is notable only for offering a 9/11 conspiracy theory reward. This article is part of a walled garden of 9/11 conspiracy theory articles. Morton devonshire 22:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notability has been established per various amounts of international media coverage. Keep. · XP · 22:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm changing my vote from the previous nomination because the rewrite has persuaded me that this is useful and notable information that can be presented with a NPOV. Per the argument that 9/11 nutcases are non-notable, I would respectfully note that the whole concept of 9/ll conspiracy theories is now notable. I would suggest an umbrella nomination for merging, or an acceptance that this article is effectively a spun-out part of the larger (and notable) topic of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I ask myself: will people now and in the future want to read articles about the topic of 9/11 conspiracy theories? I can only answer 'yes' to that question, so the point here is to keep the material, but find the right home for it. Carcharoth 22:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - technically this is not a second nomination. It is a re-listing of the first nomination. The page has already been created, but if this comes up again at some future point (if the article is kept), then that future case will be the second nomination. Carcharoth 22:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Okay, let's see, three assertations of notability. 1) He's so-and-so's son. No, fails WP:BIO. Next. 2) Bought an ad campaign (about as notable as buying a pack of gum) and was humiliated in passing on a single episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. No, fails WP:BIO. Next! 3) He was a founder of the Walden Three. Well, the Walden Three article was just deleted for being non-notable, ergo his creation of it is non-notable. Three strikes, you're out. Bye bye. --Aaron 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The Bullshit! paragraph was added by someone voting Delete just above you, I agree with you it is trivial, and Walden Three and the "son of" are not notable in and of themselves. However, the assertion of notability is not any of those things, and not even the award or campaign itself, rather WP:BIO "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." - separate articles for the ads, and the site, and the awards, by the New York Times, Der Spiegel, Reuters, and ABC. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Still not notable. The ABCNews article didn't even spell his name correctly. GabrielF 23:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I have to agree with the others about the issue of an ad campaign making someone notable. That was easy for Walter to do by the way – offer to reward someone for accomplishing the impossible. This like some common person offering a $100,000 reward for proof that man has not set foot on the moon. Any takers? If Charlie Sheen did this, big deal. He was notable before the reward offer, unlike this crackpot. Fails notoriety. Maybe if he did something really worthwhile he could have an article. Delete as nominated. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • When news sources like these write non-trivial articles about him, he becomes notable. It doesn't matter why. By the way, we have a whole category of articles about ad campaigns, conveniently enough Category:Advertising campaigns. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Just say no is notable, unlike this person. However, "Just say no to non-notables" does apply here in AfD. JungleCat talk/contrib 23:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough media coverage to justify inclusion. Gamaliel 01:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as above. New York Times and Reuters found him notable enough. Let me repeat, the New York Times devoted an entire article to this man, yet we at Wikipedia, who devote thousands of articles to minor characters in minor video games, find him so unnotable that we believe it's unlikely that anyone out there would be seeking neutral information on him. Derex 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This now is in line with WP:BIO. Useful and well sourced info. Good re-write. Jpe|ob 01:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Aaron --rogerd 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as I previously stated, just one more non-notable conspiracy theorist. Brimba 02:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JungleCat. Akanksha 04:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Do we have an article on every tom, dick and harry that has been in the news briefly...no. I'll now start my effort to become notable by stating that anyone that can prove that the official facts about the events of 9/11 are grossly inaccurate will get not one million, but 1 trillion dollars from me...I have my checkbook handy. Now all I need some airtime.--MONGO 05:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Simon Pulsifer and Amos Urban Shirk. I realise that simply saying "but those articles are just as bad" is not a valid argument (so please don't repeat it back at me), but the concern here is that AfD should be consistent about the articles it keeps. Otherwise it becomes a laughing stock. Carcharoth 10:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, get the (paper) New York Times to devote an article to you and I'll start the Wikipedia article myself. I think you'll find that's tougher to do than you might imagine. Derex 17:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but my claim isn't notable since it is preposterous, while the million is because it's not...and he paid to advertise anyway. If other articles are nominated for deletion and I see that there is a criteria that supports keeping or deleting, then I will vote accordingly.--MONGO 04:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Rachko, tell me who he is without looking at the times. If you cannot then you only prove that simply being mentioned in a paper does not make you notable. --NuclearZer0 18:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? Can you tell me about the 14th Earl of Someford, in England, who lived to the age of 30 in England and died circa 1520 AD, and did nothing notable in life, yet has a Wikipedia article that is uncontested? Because your statement is a hollow one. Notability is established in policy. Published or written about in multiple non-trivial works. This man qualifies. Any opposotion to our policy therefore, and all above deletion "votes", as that is all they are in truth, can be safely disregarded by the closing admin as politically motivated. Non-policy based reasons to delete should have no validity (and it is from following this all on multiple articles) past time that the AfD process by permanently in writing modified to reflect that. Note that this is not a lapse of AGF, but simple fact, based on observed AFD behaviors and pattens by certain Wikipedians. · XP · 18:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but WP:BIO is not a policy, hence it is your statement that is hollow. Since you do not know who he is my point is proven, news coverage doesnt prove notability. --NuclearZer0 23:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Also try to assume good faith per WP:AGF, which actually is policy. --NuclearZer0 23:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

XP...be careful with your accusations.--MONGO 04:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep seems slightly notable. Cedars 09:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Hyperbole (first participant). BIO requires multiple, non-trivial published works. Walter was the subject of articles in the NYT, on ABC, in Der Spiegel, and Reuters. Clearly meets the guideline, which I see no compelling reason to ignore. Merging this article and trimming a bit might be a viable option.--Kchase T 10:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Still not notable.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  14:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per AnonEMouse and Hyperbole ... this is now a well referenced article Mujinga 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have an important point to make, being the subject of an article in more then 1 news source does not make you notable. Thomas Rachko is not a person with an article here, nor does he deserve one, however he has been mentioned on Fox News, New York Times, New York Newsday and Drug War Chronicle & North Country Gazette. Being mentioned in a newspaper or more then one does not make you notable. --NuclearZer0 18:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that mention in a paper or news source doesn’t make one notable automatically. Take a look at this list of executed criminals in Texas. There have been dozens of newspapers if not hundreds covering these people, and yet we do not have an article for each one listed. Do we need to write a page for each one as per the "keep" arguments here? JungleCat talk/contrib 19:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom, Aaron, and JungleCat. - Crockspot 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per numerous above arguments. The rewrite doesn't change that fact that he is a non-notable wealthy person with a lunatic fringe conspiracy theory. Wikipedia better order a couple extra hard disks if they want to include everyone who is rich and / or has a conspiracy theory. --Dual Freq 19:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per numerous above arguments. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Finding an unusual way to waste his money does not make him notable. CWC(talk) 11:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This AfD has been the subject of what could be the definitive case of Wikipedia:Spam#Votestacking. Please take a look at Morton Devonshire's contributions before his opinion here. He went down the list of contributors to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter, in that order, and informed all the ones who wrote Delete, and left out all the ones who wrote Keep. Informing everyone could have been useful - informing just the ones who share a point of view is abuse of AfD. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The AfD prior to the re-write was closed with this final statement which every participant saw. Morton sent invites in plain view of everyone, including to a contributor who has changed to a "Keep", if that is OK with you. Also see Wikipedia:Spam#Friendly notice. JungleCat talk/contrib 00:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Replying to AnonEMouse: Isn't it lucky that some of the people voting delete changed their vote to keep. I agree that everyone (or no-one) on the original vote should have been informed, though at the end of the day, it is an individual's responsibility to keep track of what is going on here. Carcharoth 11:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in light of the recent rewrite; please note that I originally motioned to delete in the first AFD. RFerreira 00:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notability has been well established by several different MSM articles. NBGPWS 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm from italy and "confronting the evidence" is been fully broadcasted on the national TV on september 24th 2006 (09.00 p.m., RAITRE channel, during "REPORT" TV show). according to this source (http://www.report.rai.it/R2_popup_articolofoglia/0,7246,243%255E1068103,00.html) it's been broadcasted on malaysia, venezuela and holland television too. this guy and what he's done is notable and this is out of discussion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.117.200 (talk • contribs)
• Keep per many of the fine arguments above. --Myles Long 20:09, 18 October 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.