Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 20

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 01:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wellington Region Japanese Role-Play Contest (2005)

Non notable event. Lived in Wellington all my life, never heard of it. No references, no links from other articles. Very few relevant google hits, most of the top ones are wikipedia and its mirrors --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 23:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Seems a little bit marginal - SimonLyall 12:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Arbusto 21:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable. Mukadderat 17:06, 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 between merge and deletion; those wishing to merge are free to pursue that in the usual way. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interracial Miscellaneous

A redundant list - see List of multiracial people - with style problems. Not much point in a redirect since I can't imagine anyone ever referring to this particular title, so I think it should be deleted. Crystallina 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge This and sundry articles was created by User:Americanbeauty415 as a fork of List of Black/White people. My opinion is that they should be re-merged, since "Interracial" doesn't solely describe black/white couples, at least in modern usage. Also listing Interracial Actresses/Actors, Interracial Athletes, Interracial Historical Figures, Interracial Singers/Vocalist. The fork also destroyed all the old references (they don't show up in the new articles) but that's easily solved by readding the references section. ColourBurst 00:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into List of interracial people if there's a considerable amount of information in this article that isn't already in the other. I can't image a situation where we'd ever want an article with "miscellaneous" in the title, and this certainly isn't one. However, the content of the list itself may be salvagable. -Elmer Clark 01:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Do not merge into List of interracial people (which is a redirect to List of multiracial people), this is specifically forked from list of Black/White people (see my comment above), it uses the "old" definition of interracial (black/white couplings). ColourBurst 01:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't understand your comment. Is this meant to be a list of Black/White people? Then the article should be under a different name than 'Interracial Miscellaneous', and it should have an introduction about who should and shouldn't be included in the list. Chip Unicorn 01:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think I understand either. Surely all black/white people are interracial, and therefore it's fine to merge them into list of interracial people? Or am I misunderstanding? -Elmer Clark 01:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment See my very first Merge comment. This is a fork from List of Black/White people, and thus is not a list of multiracial people. ColourBurst 01:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Addendum: a "fork" means somebody copied the content from the original article onto the new one, and (in this case) deleted the old content. Unfortunately there's very little context in the list itself. ColourBurst 02:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge: As I commented in Talk:Interracial Miscellaneous, I think that this should be brought in with List of multiracial people. Chip Unicorn 01:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Per above. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all interracial or "black/white" lists, not suitable for Wikipedia. Punkmorten 09:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment So who is not in some sense interracial? Instead of listing 6 billion people, just list the few who are somehow absolutely pure blooded and can prove it.Gobawoo 16:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment To me it sounds equally nonsensical. Someone already tried this and look what happened. --Ouro 16:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Even if you do not believe in the concept of race, there are many people who believe in the concept, and there's still a social construct by that name, so to say it's invalid is ignoring the many people who still believe in the concept and act accordingly, and ignoring those people is dangerous. And Ouro probably violated Godwin's Law. ColourBurst 16:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I do not believe so, the article on Godwin's Law states there must be a comparison made involving the known topics. Mine was merely a reference. And as for the subject of the discussion, I wouldn't say I don't believe in the concept of race, I was merely saying that listing absolutely pure blooded people... now it's got me thinking. What would be the point, really? --Ouro 18:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete pointless racist nitpicking. Whole Brazil is "multiracial". Mukadderat 17:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete redundant list. Arbusto 23:58, 25 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. Anyone wanting this information included again should show a reliable source for it. Mangojuice^talk 17:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bolohoveni

del. the article is 100% false. There is no such English word. There is even no such Old Slavic word, contrary to the article. This is a Romanian ignorant mutation (quite possibly, quite recent) of the Old Slavic word: "Vlach" in Old Slavonic is "Voloch". "Volochove" is plural from "voloch". "Volohoveni" is a brainless Romanian coinage similar to "Moldoveni" (Moldovans), seen only in Romanian websites. `'mikkanarxi 00:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It it is interesting to mention that a similar confusion happened with Ingrians, and quite very recently, too. There was land of Ingria. A person from Ingria was called by Teutons "Ingerman", and their land is "Ingermanland". The latter was borroved into Russian during the times of Russian Empire and Russified into "Ingermanlandia" And finally, some English-speaking smartass coined "Ingermanlandians" ! (thx G.d, no one wrote this article yet :-) If you don't beieve me, check google. `'mikkanarxi 00:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep The article cites use in ancient chronicles, which makes this of some historic interest, and there are quite a few incoming links. A Google search for "Bolohoveni" -wikipedia searching only English results yields only 9 unique hits. It's certainly an obscure topic, but that still does seem a suspiciously low amount. Also, I don't think it really matters if this word is a "mutation" -- many words start out that way, including, I'd hazard, the majority of the English language. What matters is if the word, in this form, was the primary name for the topic described in the article, which I'm not sure of. I'm very much on the fence on this one, but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution here. -Elmer Clark 01:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• I tested them here before putting in the article.

• • You totally missed my point: there is no such word in ancient chronicels. This is a corruption of the term by internet ignorants. Obviously, you didn't care to look into these "9 unique hits". They are in no way reputable sources. `'mikkanarxi 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Google searching picked up a few non-Wikipedia-based references to the subject. PKT 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I like the fact that Wikipedia includes obscure topics like this one. Deet 01:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This can be handled without having a freestanding article for the subject. Mention the word in the Vlachs article, and you are done. In fact, that will be much more helpful to those who know little about the subject and search on the word. - Mauco 15:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article has more than that. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is FALSE, for crying out loud. Did yoo care to read my explanations? `'mikkanarxi 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I could find a few instances that suggest the word exists.[1] EVula 17:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Either a somewhat spread spoof or an ignorant mutation of the term Vlach/Voloch, contrary to the spelling accepted in academia. --Irpen 18:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Definitely a romanization of an old slavic word, and thus the description is totally false. Errabee 13:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep EvilAlex 14:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the all of Mikka's explanations (see Comment below). Those who say "keep" have a civil duty to explain to the rest of us why. Just read what Mikka says, and then give an intelligent rebuttal if there is one. I personally can't see any and the article has to go. - Mauco 15:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I was someone who originally put in some praise for this article and said Excellent about it somewhere else. But then, on that page, when the situation was explained I could understand it and I now see it well. It is a fallacy and has to be deleted. - Pernambuco 17:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is very usefull as to disambiguate between the various mentions of vlachs -from southwards as the Haemus, to northwards as Halici-, prior to the foundation of any statal entities. As for the existance of these people in chronicle, see at comments. Greier 10:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and rename - Since the article deals with a kind of Vlachs (ie: living in a certain area, as per use of the term in Romanian historiography), and the article on Vlachs tends to lists generalities, the best solution is to keep the current Bolohoveni as a main article linked in a section of the Vlachs article, and the name in use be the original used in the chronicle (transliterated using present-day rules), and not the creole term that has come to be used in Romanian (the final "i" is especially intriguing, and does indeed display the provincial interests and superficial knowledge of the article's creator). Dahn 18:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT: it is not an "obscure topic". It is internet-spreading ignorance. The term is an ignorant Romanian corruption of an old Slavic word. This is English-language encyclopedia, which is not supposed to describe ignorance of Romanians. The article text is false. Thre is no such word in old Slavic chronicles mentioned in the article. `'mikkanarxi 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Is not internet spreading ignorance. In Romanian historiography this term is used. I was used before the aparition of internet.--MariusM 14:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're saying the article is an outright hoax/lie? Would you care to provide some evidence? It seems verifiable, albeit barely. -Elmer Clark 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote in nomination? It is not hoax/lie. It is ignorance. The evidence is the mentioned Slavic chronicles available online in the internet. There is no such word in them. There is old Slavic plural word "volochove" (волохове) (findable even in google in slavic manuscripts), which means simply Vlachs (singular: волох, modern Russian plural: ru:волохи; and as I see even some Russian internet posts don't understand the word волохове, because it is an archaic form of plural noun).

And it is not verifiable via reputable sources (because it cannot). `'mikkanarxi 18:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

...do you have any evidence of these claims? -Elmer Clark 21:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Which claims? That the article is bullshit? Why do I have to have an evidence that it is bullshit? It is the job of bullshit perpetrators to prove that they are correct. If it was not your question, then please ask exactly what you want. `'mikkanarxi 21:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Except Google seems to indicate that this term is in use. What I mean is you seem convinced that this is some kind of hoax, what is the reason for this belief? -Elmer Clark 22:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Cna you read my lips: it is not hoax. It is confusion. Vlachs in various latin and greek and slavic manuscribts were named by many names. There was no internet in these times, you know. Everything was by the word of mouth mostly. I may list you "Vlachs (also called Vláhoi, Βλάχοι, Wallachians, Wlachs, Wallachs, Olahs or Ulahs" (fom wikipedia), also волохи/волохове/волоховцы/болохове/влахи/власи, moreover Blazi (Latin), Blokumenn/Blakumen/Blakumenn (norse),... you want more? I am sure Arabic authors had more names. In summary, again, "bolohoveni" is mutation in Romanian language of what was written in slavic chronicles: "volohove", i.e., Vlachs, and not some new mysterious ethnos at the roots of Romanians. Does someonne want to write the "blokumenn/Blakumen" articles as well? they collect quite a few google hits as well... I'd say even more than "bolohoveni" (if kill wikipedia mirrors) `'mikkanarxi 01:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if I'm understanding you right, wouldn't moving the page to a more accurate name be a better idea than deleting it? -Elmer Clark 01:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There already exists the page, Vlachs. And there is absolutely nothing to move there from the discussed article, because it is false: "bolohoveni" are not mentioned in old slavic chronicles. Moreover, it is highly disputable whether "volohove" (Volochs) were used specifically to refer to population of moldavian/transylvania/etc. lands and not simply vlachs from anywhere.

On the second thought, it occurs to me now now that it would make sense to turn this article into a redirect to the article I've just noticed, "History of the term Vlach", which may be expanded with what I wrote in this discussion. `'mikkanarxi 01:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd still prefer if you could find some citation other than your own assurances confirming that this is in fact a simple mistranslation. -Elmer Clark 02:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not mistranslation either. Let me put it in a yet another way: is is a telephone game: (1) in slavic chronicles there were "volochove" mentioned. Romanian books qouting the chronicles "romanized the word into "bolohoveni", a valid Romanian word. (2)And now someone tries to enter into wikipedia an English word "bolohoveni" , which, (3) if translated directly from slavic chronicles according to English grammar, would be "volochs". How can I give you qoutations to prove that item (2) moronic? I can give you quotations for items (1) and (3), the rest is pure logic. `'mikkanarxi 04:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Mikkanarxi is right. Illythr confirmed it in Talk:Transnistria. He checked the original chronicle which is available here here and it doesn't contain any "Болоховень"(or anything similar). There is a mention of "Волохове"(Volohove) in the list of "western peoples" there, which is what Mikkanarxi says, but no indication that "volohove" (Volochs) were used specifically to refer to population of moldavian/transylvania/etc. lands and not simply vlachs from anywhere which is what Mikkanarxi also says. So he is correct. This is why I support a delete with redirect. - Pernambuco 17:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the existance of these "Bolohoveni" in chronicles, they definetively appear. For example, I could give The Tale of Igor's Campaign where it says: "Thou didst shatter the Galicians on the Vistula, Yarosláv; thou sittest high on thy gold-forged throne, supporting the Hungarian mountains with thy iron-clad regiments, barring the road against the [Magyar] King, closing the gates of the Danube, hurling thongs amid the Vlakhs, judging and ordaining as far as the Danube!" [2]. This is just one of their mentionings. There are more, but most of them have yet to be translated into English or to be published on the internet. If this population didn`t exist, then how come there is even an article on the Eencyclopedia of Ukraine [3]??? What reasons would they have to make such an article, if the bolohoveni didn`t exist??? The article says that they were actually slavs, and took their name from the city of Bolekhiv. However, a polish document from Lvov from 1472, still adreses that city with the name of "villa valachorum dicta". At the same time, the geographic position of the area where they were mentioned, in the Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast, Chernivtsi Oblast, Vinnytsia Oblast and Khmelnytskyi Oblast, coincided more or less with Northern Bukovina and Herta region, to this day with significant vlach populations (see also Hutsuls). But what if they were afterall slavs: another reason to keep the article. It`s still a stub, and certainly need attention from an expert. But it would be a mistake to delete it, because the very existance of it, albeit a stub, can`t do absolutelly no damage, and more than that, it stimulates further research on this matter... Greier 10:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of Bolohoveni in the quote from The Tale of Igor's Campaign; rather I see Vlachs mentioned. This supports the reasons why this article should be deleted. Also, the Encyclopedia of Ukraine gives Bolokhovians as entry, which is the current name. As such, the contents of the article Bolohoveni are very much in error, as they claim in the defining sentence that Bolohoveni ("Volohove") is the name used in the early Kievan chronicles, which definitely is not true, as you've proven yourself. And even if it were reason enough to keep the article, it should be moved to Bolokhovians. Errabee 11:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why rename it? Only to be re-renamed when another source calls them Bolochovians instead of Bolokhovians??? As for arguing the deletion of the article because the Bolohoveni are identical to Vlachs, then that is not what the point is about. The article already admits the the Bolohoveni are Vlachs: "Bolohoveni ("Volohove") is the name used ... to designate the Vlachs... ". The arguments in keeping this article are 1.the article is used as toC in that time period, situated in very different geographical positions. 2. The term "bolohoveni" is already present in Romanian historic works, separate from the term "vlach" (and as you can see, even in Ukrainian histography) 3. What if the Bolohoveni/Bolokhovians/Bolochovyans/Volohovinians/etc. are not Vlachs afterall, as the EncyclopediaofUkraine article claims? Like I already sayd, the article needs an expert... For point 1, I could also argue that sources give much more info, which distinguish this population (both from the rest of the Vlachs or the rest of the Slavs, depending on their origin). For example, the Ipatievskaia lietopis mentiones a couple of rulers of this populations (e.g. a certain Stefan), as well as their relation with the Mongols (they were subdued and forced by the Mongols to cultiuvate the land, as to assure provisions for the Mongol army). Now if we would to make an article about that ruler, and say that he was a "ruler of the Vlachs", then question arise: Of which vlachs? Had he powers over all of the vlachs? Why of vlachs and not of slavs (as the Enc.ofUkraine claims)? etc... Greier 12:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unsourced articles have no place on wikipedia. Arbusto 21:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is about a branch of vlachs, not about all vlachs. A redirect at vlachs is not a solution.--MariusM 02:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • False. there was no such branch of vlachs. This is a piece of ignoirance. `'mikkanarxi 04:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if these guys who vote Keep have even taken the time to READ what this page is about? It is a two-sentence article which shouldn't have been created in the first place. Where are the historical sources? They don't exist, because this "people" that they talk about never existed. This is really not something we can vote about. It is plain common sense, guys. Do we vote on whether 2+2 equals 4, or 5, or something else? - Mauco 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The article is proved false by at least two people who went thru trouble of doing some real research, and no one who voted "keep" provided opposite proof. User:Greier only proved that indeed Vlachs were mentioned in Latin texts as "valachorum". In order "to disambiguate between the various mentions of the vlachs" you don't have to have a separate articles. Wikipedia disambiuguates between different meanings, not between different spellings. I didn't see any article with such ridiculous purpose. Spellings are disambiguated using redirects.

But I see little reason to redirect from foreign language, unless one can provide, e.g., a 13th centrury chronicle with this spelling. Then it would make sense for researchers. We don't gave redirects to Germans from Nemci, Alemanes, Alemaes, Deutsche, Saksalaiset, Germani, Alman, Tyskar and 200+ more translations. Mukadderat 17:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• I vote for keeping this page. The fact that it is not more elaborated and documented now, does not mean someone whould not take the pain to do it in the future. We must connect it to Vlahs, Romanians, Proto-romanians, etc, and in time, but only in time it can be merged. I am affraid some people want to rushly erase it, and I am affraid they might have an already strongly biased POV. It would be advisable to avoid decisions based on bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc76 (talk • contribs)

Why did you add a bunch of maintenance templates to this page? Did you mean to add them to the article itself? If so go ahead but I've removed them from here. -Elmer Clark 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I tested them here before putting in the article.

• I tested them here before putting in the article.

All right, but you really ought to use the Sandbox for that kind of testing. -Elmer Clark 02:26, 25 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Seven Worlds

This reeks of OR and lack of notability. I'm no Kabbala expert, but without sources… Avi 00:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed, this certainly isn't in proper Wiki format, and Google doesn't really turn up much evidence that this exists at all, and the total lack of sources sure doesn't help. As an aside, this article's previous AfD attempt seems rather odd, keep was the unanimous consensus, but the only reason I can find was "I can sort of see where it's coming from." -Elmer Clark 01:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The issues of possible original research and unsourced statements are serious. The article says this appears in several books of Cabbala, but fails to mention even one source. Nonetheless, the material appears to be notable in the context of Cabbala and should be kept. Note the two links in the article to Adamah and Arqa. 129.98.197.86 01:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw where Adamah was also proposed for articles for deletion, and it is not a very good article itself. OfficeGirl 06:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It utterly lacks context and is unsourced irreparably. JFW | T@lk 11:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the Kabbala article until it warrants it's own article through sourcing. Does that work as a reasonable compromise? --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 02:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the Kabbala article as noted by Brad unless someone can clean-up the article and expand it. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  02:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE. Since December 4, 2005 there has been no new information added to the article, only some formatting and re-arranging of text, but not enough to bring it into proper wiki format. In June 2006 it was proposed for deletion and the proponents of keeping it all gave the reason that they believed that more information and further development of the article would make into a worthwhile article. It appears that after four months no one is available to bring us the requested further information, and without that further information there is no justification for keeping the article. Perhaps someone can offer a good article on the topic at a later date, but this doesn't belong in Wikipedia. OfficeGirl 06:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. TheRingess 06:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Doesn't read like OR to me, it's citing Kaballa's opinion, not the author's, but doesn't currently deserve its own article. --Dweller 08:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Which Kabbalah? Zohar, Sefer Yetzirah, Kavvanoth, Henoch? See my example about "science" below. JFW | T@lk 11:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because this qualifies as a violation of Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Do not merge this trash into the Kabbalah article which is fairly well organized. IZAK 08:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If this conceptual framework exists at all in Kabbalah (which is not quite clear to me) it is not worth its own article. Presently it is unclear why it is titled this way, it is unsourced (just blindly citing Kabbalah as a source is like saying that "smoking causes cancer, says science"). No merge candidate, no context available for a good merge. JFW | T@lk 11:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As unverifiable. WP:NOR and WP:V requires those who wish to keep an assertion to produce verification when challenged. The prior AFD should have been viewed as such a challenge. Four month later, with no sources, we should view the article as unverifiable. Merge is only appropriate for sourced material, so no merge is right to do, even if the perfect target to merge to was found. GRBerry 14:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable original research. May even be a hoax. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Into Kabbala.Gobawoo 16:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment – This concept appears to have validity. I have found the following sites which mention the "Seven Worlds":

• Hebrew Wikipedia, at he:שלמה (Solomon), where it claims (unsourced) that these worlds are mentioned in a book he wrote (The "Book of Worlds"), and
• this Kabbalah Centre site (also Hebrew). The Kabbalah Centre site gives these sources:

• ספר הזוהר, תיקוני הזוהר, כרך י"ז, עמוד צ"ו סעיף רט"ז
• ספר הזוהר, כרך י"א פרשת ויקרא, סעיף קל"ז-קמ"א, קמ"ד

Also, there are some few details mentioned in English at the following sites:

• http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/zohar/the_book_of_zohar/heavens_and_earth.htm
• http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_1/115000/115523/1/preview/Legends_of_the_Jews_Volume_1.pdf

Finally, the Kaballah Centre site makes it seem that these worlds are physical planets, which I assume is not the only interpretation.

So the question is: Is this a notable concept that deserves mention? I have found very little actual information aside from the Hebrew Kabbalah Centre site, which is very similar to the information in the article. The four sites above were not easy to find, either. --Eliyak T·C 19:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete – Based on the above, the seven worlds concept, although real, seems to be non-notable, and would not be appropriate in the context of the Kabbalah article or on its own terms. --Eliyak T·C 19:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per User:OfficeGirl, above. Smeelgova 20:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC).
• Delete per nom and OfficeGirl. EVula 06:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete per WP:RS. A source request was issued months ago, no sources have been provided. Most of us editors don't know enough about the field to tell if this is reliable material or total hooh-hah. That's why thesourcing policy is there. If no sources are provided in reasonable time, the article should be deleted, and that should be that. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete don't merge. if the topic is recreated with source we can review it again then. Jon513 12:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete not verifiable. Mukadderat 17:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adamah

Other than the translation, everything else is unverified or original research Avi 00:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. All other statements lack good references-- lack ANY references. Agree that this looks like original research. Also, what little is present doesn't make very much sense, and may be nothing but a personal spiritual agenda from someone who has an ax to grind about obscure religious questions.OfficeGirl 04:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Adam. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Adds nothing to the Adam article. --Dweller 08:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. OR. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Dictionary or OR Arnoutf 21:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete as OR. Beit Or 20:03, 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. MCB 19:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of words meaning outsider, foreigner or "not one of us"

This is a list of related words, and, per common practice and WP:WINAD, it has been transwikied to wikt:Appendix:Words for outsiders. This list has no encyclopedic potential. It is therefore ready to be deleted. (For more information about this practice, please see the outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Lists of words, hich was that: "Article about "Words of <foo>" may be okay. "List of words of <foo>" to Wiktionary.") Dmcdevit·t 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Keep but move to Wiktionary. As a person who travels to many foreign countries, I find this to be an extremely useful list. The only problem is, I wouldn't have been able to find the article in a search for its unwieldy title. -Amatulic 01:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The nom has said it has already been transwikied. Resolute 01:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oops, you're right. I have struck out my initial comment accordingly. -Amatulic 01:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Resolute 01:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Lists of words -Elmer Clark 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep one of the most encyclopedic and useful pages in the project, always ready to be added to with more helpful information for travellers. I will be sorry to see it go, since I really don't spend any time at transwikt. or whatever it is. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but liking an article does not make it encyclopedic,a nd certainly not "one of the most encyclopedic". Please provide an argument. That "transwikt. or whatever it is" (did you even click the link to Wiktionary?) is our dictionary sister project. It is for words and lists of words and their definitions. Wikipedia is not. Dmcdevit·t 02:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Am I required to "provide an argument" that meets your satisfaction? Isn't my vote going to be counted anyway, and can I do without the hectoring for voting the way I did? Are you trying to get my vote disqualified on some specious grounds, or are you just trying to intimidate future voters who might not want to be raked over the coals for speaking their honest opinion? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote but a discussion. Of course you do not have to justify your opinions, but they will be given much more weight by the closing admin if you do. It's not a simple headcount. -Elmer Clark 03:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah... one of those deals where "some" people "count" more than others... Actually, I'm kind of sorry I got involved... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A crude way to phrase it, but sure. "I like it" does not trump policy, which WP:WINAD is. At any rate, the article is not actually being deleted, simply removed from Wikipedia as it has already been moved to Wictionary. Resolute 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No one counts more than others. In fact, no one counts at all. Only sound reasoning counts. This is why I asked for an argument. Dmcdevit·t 05:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, how about because only a tiny fraction of as many people are going to bother keeping up with it, or ever even see it, at its "new" location? This is the kind of policy that can be ramrodded by a small number of people with an agenda, that just sickens me about wikipedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in spite of (or maybe because of?) vocal support above. Danny Lilithborne 09:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds like "spite" was more like the right word... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination.Umlautbob 10:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete especially since it's already at Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, also it does have a ridiculous title, probably making it very hard to find if you were looking for it. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination since this has already been transwiki'd. Beyond that, the title is misleading as many of these terms may be applied to foreigners, but don't actually mean "outsider, foreigner, or 'not one of us'" literally.--Isotope23 14:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thi is the reason for cleanup, not for deletion. A "title" may easily become misleading, if someone adds a buhcn of nonsense. But the solution is deleting the nonsense, not the whole article. Mukadderat 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep because the transwikied version has many red links, and therefore the whole thing has NOT been transwikied. That probably means that since most of the words in the list have articles on Wikipedia instead of Wiktionary, this article also belongs in the Wikipedia.--Endroit 13:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• DeletePeople are never going to search for this title in an encyclopedia.Merkinsmum 19:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 20:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep. Useful, informative. Mukadderat 17:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTE to closing admin: if the article be deleted (seems like) please make a good name for a category and place all list items into this category, because this classification is useful. Mukadderat 17:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• keep. Seeing side-by-side terms from different cultures is helpful. I don't quite understand how wiktionary would handle the article. Keeping it "as is" is not a dictionary way. Splitting into zillion word articles loses the cohesiveness of the info. `'mikkanarxi 03:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

comment It is very insigtful to see that there is much more defenders of the List of sexual slurs. Tells something about the prevailing mindset of wikieditors... `'mikkanarxi 03:10, 24 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 --Tone 07:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of words to denote religious opponents

This is a list of related words, and, per common practice and WP:WINAD, it has been transwikied to wikt:Appendix:Words for religious opponents. This list has no encyclopedic potential. It is therefore ready to be deleted. (For more information about this practice, please see the outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Lists of words, which was that: "Article about "Words of <foo>" may be okay. "List of words of <foo>" to Wiktionary.") Dmcdevit·t 20:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Can hardly be any useful. Furthermore, looks like an inaccurate original research ("infidel" isn't used just for those who aren't Christians).--Húsönd 02:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If it is inaccurate, please write comments. Not everything in wikipedia is accurate. Mukadderat 00:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, and it's our job to transform inaccuracies into verifiable content. I see that you corrected the statement "infidels are non-Christians", but still the article is vague and lacking sources. The information contained therein seems more suitable for Wiktionary.--Húsönd 02:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Husond. Danny Lilithborne 09:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination.Gobawoo 16:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mildly interesting to read, but "mildly interesting" doesn't equate to "keep". EVula 19:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Religion is an impoertant phenomenon. Of course this list is less interesting for an average internet kid than List of sexual slurs, which survived I don't know how many votes for deletion. But this list is useful and has encyclopedic potential. Colleague Dmcevit acted hypocritically. First he moved the article under the name "list of..." and then suggested for deletion. THe article is not a simple alphabetial list; it classifies terms in certain categories. Potentially elements may be commented, i.e., made in a kind of glossary. It is confusing to understand these words in different cultures, and the topic has rights to exist. Mukadderat 00:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You haven't addressed the reson for deletion. Is it not a list of words, with no potential to become more than that? "Useful" does not "equal" (That is quite an insult to all of our other non-encyclopedia sister-projects, Wiktionary included.) Dmcdevit·t 00:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The only reason for deletion I see is the opinion "has nio encyclopedic pootential" I addressed it by equalliy strong opinion "does have potential". As for insult, funny. I am not saying to delete them from wiktionary. Wiktionary may benefir for some structuring/classification as well. (Although I must note that unlike wikipedia, wiktionary is doomed to be dubious, because (a) it does not provide sources for word defitinions and (b) it seeems has way less eyes. But this is a separate story.) Mukadderat 00:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Again, why? The contention is that this is not encyclopedic because it is only a list of words and/or definitions (and not about a class of words), and is thus only appropriate for a dictionary. Could you please address this concern? Dmcdevit·t 01:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment It is very strange for me to point people from chrictian culture (or even possibly christians) to sources that clearly see the encyclopedic nature of this terminology/glossary. For starters I suggest you to look into the"Disparity of Worship" article from Catholic Encyclopedia. I started this article execting it attracts some attention and be expanded. Therefor I myslef did not call it "list of..." But evidently in wikipedia the major interest is sexual slang and barioous bilateral political bickering.

For example, an average person does not really see much difference between terms "heretic/schismatic/infidel/apostate". This article could have been a comparison of attitudes.

It would also be interesting to read why some dictionaries put the words "sectarian" and "true believer" as synonyms. In summary, this nomination clearly shows misunderstanding and neglect of the topic, but I am unfortunately not an expert in theological linguistics, and I canot say more. If no one else steps in to defend the topic, I will not loose my sleep. Thank you for attention. Mukadderat 00:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. We have articles on all these terms. This seems a useful way of getting people to those articles. Could certainly be expanded with a longer introduction and more annotation. --JJay 02:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and Dmcdevit·t's reply to a keep vote. No sources or context to top it off.Arbusto 20:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a glossary, and it would be hard to keep NPOV with the different connotations. bibliomaniac15 03:36, 27 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of surfing terms

Wikpedia is not a usage or slang guide. Lists of dictionary definitions are not appropriate for Wikipedia, but are appropriate for Wiktionary. Per common practice, this page is now transwikied to wikt:Transwiki:List of surfing terms and is ready to be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 23:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Any of these terms notable enough to have articles can be put into Category:Surfing, the rest should not be here at all. -Elmer Clark 01:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. TheRingess 06:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Elmer Clark. Danny Lilithborne 09:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Johnbrownsbody 10:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination.Gobawoo 16:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. EVula 19:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Wipeout per nom. Anomo 02:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG keep. This is a 100% example of a glossary for a very specific area of expertise, surfing. The nominator, by calling it "slang guide" pushes a wrong POV. This terminology definitions is highly useful for non-experts.
  • I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This quite plainly isn't the sort of thing that needs to be here, and has already been kicked over to the Wiktionary, where it should be. EVula 17:46, 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 back to userspace, as supported by the author and in keeping with a near-unanimous consensus that this doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. No need to drag this out any longer. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elephant (wikipedia article)

I agree with User:Piet Delport, who said:

--nkayesmith 00:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: The article has now been put in BJAODN. There should be no reason to extend this vote any further. --Piet Delport 14:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. A fine and useful article on a topic of some note and weight. It also is funny, although as its main author I am perhaps not qualified to judge that. john k 00:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Since the info is already covered (and I like that, I enjoy reading about that sort of thing) let's let this one go, WP generally strives not to get too self-referencial, for good reasons. Better that the few articles on WP itself get very long than the whole project get too meta Dina 00:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sorry, it's a great idea, but it has to go. If it's any consolation, it will go on my sanctuary page.--Planetary 01:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  I was figuring on moving it back to my user space if the consensus is for delete (which I assume it will be). But some day, we will look back on the couple of days in October 2006 when Elephant (wikipedia article) was on Wikipedia as a golden age. So, not enough keep votes? I say not one keep vote more. If it is marked to be deleted, we are enough to do our cause loss, and if to survive, the fewer keep votes, the greater share of honour. He that shill live this day, and see old age, will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbors, and say "Tomorrow is Elephant Day". Old men forget, yet all shall be forgot, but he'll remember, with advantages, what feats he did that day. And Elephant day shall ne'er go by, from this day to the ending of the world, but we in it shall be remembered. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for the to-day that votes to keep with me shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition; And gentleman on wikipedia now a-bed, shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Elephant (wikipedia article) day! john k 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unencyclopedic, self-referential. Not notable or useful in itself Bwithh 01:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A Wikipedia article cannot, in and of itself, be notable enough to warrant yet another article. PKT 01:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  Surely, even if you disagree that this particular article is such a case, one could envision the possibility that a wikipedia article is in and of itself notable enough to be its own article. john k 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, I can't envision such a circumstance. This isn't the forum for such a discussion, but if you can enlighten me pls. post on my talk page. PKT 15:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. I agree it's funny (nothing wrong with that, see cow tipping for example), but redundant. I don't know how anyone would find this article, though; no other article links to it, not even the disambiguation page. -Amatulic 01:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  I edited Elephant (disambiguation) to mention the article - somebody must have removed it. Presumably the Wikipedia culture article could be edited to add a link to it. And obvious several people have found it, presumably through recent changes. john k 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a toughie, but the self-reference is too self-serving. Better to appear self-effacing and self-regulating, and thus preserve our self-esteem. A note in Stephen Colbert might be appropriate -- or it might not. I think the litmus test has to be: If you asked a regular watcher of Colbert about him, would she include "wikiality" (without you prompting her) as part of his bio? I think not. This article is only of note to us because it is about our encyclopedia. (That's what I meant by "self-serving" above.) --N Shar 01:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  Note: this AfD is not a question about the content being notable; the incident is already covered in more detail at the appropriate place (Wikipedia in popular culture#Wikiality). --Piet Delport 15:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as self-referential nonsense. The Stephen Colbert thing is already mentioned in several other places, all of which are more likely places one would look. Resolute 01:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per PKT. Montco 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The whole idea of this gives me a headache. Even if the Colbert/Wikipedia/Elephants thing were notable enough to warrant its own article (it's not), this would not be the right way to go about it. Self-reference and original research. -Elmer Clark 01:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• What the Hell? Delete this crap now. Why does this even need a nomination? The very three-word title is grounds enough for immediate expulsion.UberCryxic 01:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Perhaps merge with one of The Colbert Report pages.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. You know Wikipedia has spun out of control when there's a Wikipedia article about another Wikipedia article. Seriously, you've GOT to be kidding me. The relevant info should be merged to the article about elephants (i.e. create a section about "History of this article" in "Elephant"). 129.98.197.86 01:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  The material is clearly inappropriate for the Elephant article, as the history of a wikipedia article about elephants is not information which is notable to know about elephants. It would be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Avoid self references to discuss the wikipedia article about elephants in the wikipedia article about elephants. This is why we need an article about the wikipedia article about elephants, so that we can discuss this important material. john k 01:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps a page in the WP namespace would be appropriate? I agree that the material is important to Wikipedia users, which is what the Wikipedia namespace is for. --N Shar 01:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, there is one already: Wikipedia:Wikiality and Other Tripling Elephants. --N Shar 01:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Stop wasting our time and SHAME on Colbert for inciting vandalism. L0b0t 01:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep our sense of humor about the whole thing. If Wikipedia ever becomes such a serious enterprise that this article is egregious for its frivolity, then we can all get on our high elephants about it. In the meantime, I found it more pleasurable to read than 99 44/100 % of Wikipedia articles; surely that counts for something? Michael K. Edwards 02:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Try Encyclopedia Dramatica Bwithh 03:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You miss my point. This article, though somewhat "meta", is at least about things that happened in the real world. It's also a gentle reminder that, not long ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elephant&oldid=248857 was about par for WP in the absence of vandalism and PoV pushers. When the fancruft, vanity pages, and spam are gone, then it will be worth retiring the elephant that we can talk about.

• Strong Delete Wikipedia articles are getting Wikipedia articles these days? Stop it before it spreads. WP:Avoid self reference, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, then write an article about the AfD about the article about an article... Opabinia regalis 03:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per pretty much everyone advocating same. The information is better served by being in other articles (including those already cited) than this particular one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, any newsworthy information belongs in the Colbert article (if anywhere}. The Wikipedia "Elephant" article is not notable in itself. NawlinWiki 04:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE. it boggles the mind to think how much time this person spent on something that they had to know would disappear. Maybe they can put it on their own personal website, if there are no copyright issues.OfficeGirl 04:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" so yeah, they could pop it on another website. Craighennessey 23:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Bold text that suggests a vote of deletion. I love metahumor, but this belongs in WP:BJAODN or something like Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica. Too bad. Snurks^TC 05:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not everything stephen colbert makes a joke about automatically deserves an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete ....seriously? A Wikipedia article about a Wikipedia article? No....no, no, no, no. Konman72 06:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - first, in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that the quote at the top is from the original prodder, User:Piet Delport, not me. I merely posted a prod2 in agreement. That said, I still agree with the sentiment. While I'm a big fan of the Colbert Report (in fact, I'm watching it right now, as I type), the bit in question was a throwaway segment on one episode. Hardly notable, unless you're overly interested in Wikipedia. While I do not automatically object to the idea of Wikipedia article about a Wikipedia article, it would have to be in a far, far, FAR more notable context than this. Xtifr _tälk 07:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Avoid self-references Jpe|ob 07:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. You've got to be kidding me- an article about an article in Wikipedia! Eliminate this article. No self referencing. If you have to, merge this into a page about Wikipedia pranks. Sr13 08:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and place in BJAODN. Good for a chuckle, but this violates several guidelines as pointed out above. Andrew Levine 08:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Quick (not Speedy) Delete and Close AfD before it becomes a circus. Danny Lilithborne 09:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's OK as a joke but if we go down this road the project will become encrusted with this sort of thing. BTLizard 09:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it so hard Colbert feels it.An article about a Wikipedia article? TIME PARADOX. Save it in some form, though-very funny. Either put it in Bad Jokes or merge it with the Colbert article-not notable enough for its own. Umlautbob 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I've been watching this whole charade, and been wondering... what policies does the article not abide by? WP:ASR isn't the problem, if you read the actual wording of it, and WP:V is definitely satisfied. The only problem I can see is a notability concern. I agree it should probably go, but there doesn't seem to be any Wikipedia policy that justifies the deletion. It might be there and I'm missing it, of course. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-reference. *drew 11:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Although articles about Wikipedia's notable aspects don't necessarily violate the relevant self-reference guidelines, I don't think every Steven Colbert joke deserves its own article, even if it does get mentioned in a newspaper article or two. I think this might deserve a paragraph or two in another article, (such as Wikiality but not its own article. (So "non-notable/not encyclopedic/comedy cruft," I guess). TheronJ 13:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and I guess if Colbert talks about this article on his show then we'll need an article about this article too? Recury 13:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  Of course, but let's cross the Elephant (wikipedia article) (wikipedia article) bridge when we come to it. john k 16:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete/BJAODN. --Piet Delport 13:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; pointless self reference & really only exists to cover a one-off Colbert joke.--Isotope23 14:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia:Elephant, label it as an essay, and keep it. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with related Colbert article.Gobawoo 16:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or move to Wikipedia namespace. Wikipedia should not have articles about its own articles, no matter how famous they become. Wikipedia internals have no place in main namespace. JIP | Talk 16:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  What about Wikipedia, Wikipedia in popular culture, List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia, Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia? Also see Category:Wikipedia people. john k 16:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would just like to note that, as others have said, the potential problem with this article is not that it violates WP:ASR. Mentioning this material in the Elephant article would of course be a self reference problem. But a separate article is not. A wikipedia article about wikipedia is allowed to talk about wikipedia. The question, then, is whether the wikipedia article on elephants is a notable topic for an encyclopedia article. It seems to me that, what with the Colbert reference and its easy verifiability, it is at least as notable as, say, the Empire of Atlantium, which constantly survives deletion votes, or, say, Victreebel. There is an unfair prejudice against wikipedia-related fancruft! john k 16:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

An admin invoking WP:POKEMON? Tsk tsk... -Elmer Clark 18:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, that was pretty lazy on my part. john k 18:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have to say... this article will obviously be deleted, and it should be, but it's an awesome concept. So very meta! -- Kicking222 17:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete BJAODN maybe, but this is not appropreate for the mainspace. As isotope put it, a self-reference to a lone colbert joke. Kevin_b_er 17:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Shadow1 (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I love Colbert, but this is an encyclopedia first and foremost. EVula 19:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Awesome. --- RockMFR 21:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge content to Elephant (Wikipedia article) (Wikipedia article). --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Has this article attained sufficient notability to be the subject of a wikipedia article? That would be exciting, as it might suggest that I have attained sufficient notability for a wikipedia article to be written about me, as the author of said notable article. I think, however, that it would be confusing to have a wikipedia article about another wikipedia article that no longer exists. If Elephant (wikipedia article) (wikipedia article) is to be created, I think it can only be in a context where this article is kept, or I fear its notability would be questionable, and it might itself be subject to deletion. john k 22:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • "Originally authored by John Kenney (Wikipedia user), Elephant (Wikipedia article) was an encyclopedia entry which described notable information about the history of the Wikipedia article on elephants. Deleted in mid-October, 2006 following the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephant (wikipedia article) (Wikipedia articles for deletion debate), it has since been recreated at User:John Kenney/Elephant (Wikipedia article) (Wikipedia user subpage)" --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, there should be some kind of policy that says you cant create an article about an existing article.--Taida 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy would like a word with you. In other words, if it were truly the main subject of multiple media coverages, an article may in fact merit an article about itself. Probably not in this case though. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The Colbert joke became a notable Wikipedia event. As such, the article about the joke should remain. WVhybrid 23:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The event is indeed notable, and it's already covered in more detail in more appropriate articles. --Piet Delport 14:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Super strøng nude høuse of wacky peøple keep. How can this article be denied? It meets WP:V; see, here it is! It meets WP:N; just look at all the people above me talking about it! I think this entire thing is nothing more than a blatant bad faith attempt by Democratic operatives at smearing the proud symbol of the Republican Party mere weeks before an important election. Maybe I'll just go slap a {{db-spam}} tag on Donkey; see if I don't! You might have gotten away with this, if it wasn't for us meddling kids! Signed, Rear Admiral Lionel "Knuckles" Ellis (Mrs.) --Aaron 23:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I dont think it passes WP:V. While a lot of non-trivial sources have commented on Stephen Colbert encouraging people to edit the article, I cannot find a single non-trivial source focussed on the Elephant article itself. As such, the comments on this gag belong where they already are, on the pages for Colbert and for Wikipedia in the media. Resolute 04:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It is perfectly verified, and I've never heard the use of the term "non-trivial source." The term we use is "reliable source," and surely the wikipedia history of the article Elephant qualifies as a reliable source on the wikipedia article about elephants. And the elephant article was certainly mentioned in mainstream media, just only in context of the elephant remark. I think the reason for deletion you are looking for is notability. john k 10:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's already in BJAODN. Too funny. --Húsönd 01:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I know this is going to get deleted, but I would like to preserve it by moving it back to its original location in my user space. I suppose I could just undelete if I wait too long, move it, and then redelete the page in the main space, but I suppose it'd be easier if I knew ahead of time when that would happen. When's the deadline on the deletion? john k 02:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Whenever an admin closes it, I don't think there's a "set time." You might want to consider closing it yourself so that you can be sure it gets moved, or you could just copy it -- do you really care about preserving the history? I don't think it matters if it's to a user page...-Elmer Clark 02:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:TRUTHINESS Anomo 02:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  This is an unfair accusation. The article is not merely verifiable, it is verified, in that it has footnotes and cites the source for all information provided. It is perfectly truthy. john k 03:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete and protect from re-creation, self-referential and unverifiable with reliable sources. This article exists only to draw Colbert-related vandalism toward it. I strongly urge the closing admin to disregard the simple "votes" in this AfD discussion ("awesome" is not a reason to keep an article, for instance). AfD is not a vote. --Coredesat 05:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment you do realize those were mostly joke votes, right? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 05:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article exists because, back in August, people were trying to get the stuff about Colbert into the article Elephant. I determined that while this material was inappropriate for the article on elephants, it would be perfectly appropriate for an article on the wikipedia article "Elephant," and created such a page in my user space to do that very thing. Then, a few days ago, I moved it into main name space, judging that the time was right for a wikipedia article about a wikipedia article. Sadly, I seem to have been mistaken. Also, the article, while self-referential, does not violate WP:ASR, in that it is an article about wikipedia, which is allowed to talk about wikipedia. It is not unverifiable, either, in that the Colbert material is referenced to news sources, and the material about the article itself can be checked against the Elephant article history, which is surely a reliable source for the history of the Elephant article, I think. The only potential problem, as far as I can tell, is notability, or the question of whether the Colbert incident (which is apparently considered to be notable) should be described in an article about the wikipedia article on elephants. And isn't protecting from recreation a bit strong? john k 10:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If Elephant (wikipedia article) (wikipedia article) is created, it should obviously say, "The number of Elephant articles on Wikipedia has tripled in the last six months." :) Xtifr _tälk 09:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply Not necessarily, how long have Indian elephant, African elephant, Crushing by elephant, etc. existed for? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 09:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that such a claim would be untrue, and simply a sneaky way of trying to get Mr. Colbert's evil, wikipedia-hating falsitude into wikipedia through the back door. Only verifiable, well-sourced information about elephant articles on wikipedia should be included in this article, not "hilarious" jokes inspired by known wikipedia-hater Stephen Colbert. A true piece of information, I believe, is that the number of elephants editing wikipedia has tripled in the last 6 months, but I'm not sure that comes under the purview of this article. john k 10:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a first choice, or, if this somehow survives AfD, strong merge to relevant articles anyway. I'm usually pro-fancruft, pro-self-reference, but heck, this article pushed me wayyyyyyyyyy past the edge. There's no excuse for this article; its contents have already been covered to adequate detail in other articles, and in the Post. I enjoyed reading the Signpost bit, but sure don't think this is notable enough for an article. We simply don't need this; All we need is a reference in Colbert and WP critique/history articles, and whatever self-referential documentation we have done. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  The material on the early history of the article is not covered anywhere else. Where else can we learn that in 2001 the article described elephants as a "Large, grayish mammal"? john k 10:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  I think most people are voting this be deleted because of the precedant it sets. All other instances of articles about articles are about the incident, not the article itself. As I humourously attempted to point out above, allowing articles of the format Pagename (Wikipedia article) is essentially opening the door to a system of endless self-reference, as Pagename (Wikipedia article) is itself a Wikipedia article, and hence a suitable subject for another article, which could then be the subject of a 4th article... This idea might make an excellent joke on uncyclopedia, but on Wikipedia it is probably not the best plan. Though if someone wanted to write an "Editors of "Elephant" (Wikipedia article) (Wikipedia article) in the news" (Wikipedia article), I'd love to see it. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 10:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  Many people are voting on dubious bases like verifiability. And I don't think that avoid self reference actually deals with this issue - articles that are explicitly about wikipedia subjects are allowed to mention wikipedia. As I've said several times, I think the only clear issue here is notability. It seems to me that, having been discussed in various mainstream media outlets, the wikipedia article on elephants is arguably notable enough to have its own article. Certainly the information about Colbert has been judged to be notable for discussion in other wikipedia articles. This article, then, provides more context on the elephant article which was Mr. Colbert's target, thus allowing people to more fully understand its history before the Colbert incident, for instance. Now, this is arguably ridiculous (clearly everyone else seems to think so, and if I am honest with myself, I suspect that I think so as well), and if we want to have a policy banning wikipedia articles on wikipedia articles, that might be a prudent idea, and this deletion discussion might provide a good precedent for enacting one, but there is, so far as I am aware, no specific rule of that nature at the moment, just the normal notability requirement. As to Uncyclopedia, it sucks. A few days of this article being on actual wikipedia is far more amusing than just about anything on Uncyclopedia, which is almost universally prevented from being funny by the "too many cooks spoil the broth" problem. john k 12:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not questioning whether this article is verifiable or not (it probably is), or if the topic is notable (based on news visibility, it probably is). All I'm contesting is whether we need an article of its own on this topic, and I'm not citing any other criteria in this debate but common sense. My view is that this is mergeable material at best. Not every newsworthy incident is worth a new article. I'm definitely against deleting articles by policy-pounding, but I'm also against keeping articles just because they satisfy some criteria. If the article sparks "Who gives darn in 100 years? Isn't this really insignificant?" reaction, we should really consider the need of the article and think that it's probably mergeworthy. Let's compare: Seigenthaler case essentially sparked the big media debate about Wikipedia's reliability and editor responsibility, and contributed to the development of WP:BLP policy. That was a major news event that had implications. Elephant case was a minor segment where some random... TV guy or something... tells folks to vandalise Wikipedia and Wikipedia takes normal precautions. In the end of the day, nothing new has happened, except that now we have an injoke. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I had no expectation that this article would survive for very long on its own, and most of my comments here have been more playing the devil's advocate than anything. I'm satisfied that there's a consensus to delete. Would it be acceptable if I move the page back to my user space and then delete the redirect? john k 15:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: prehaps such be renamed/merged to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense:Elephant (Wikipedia article) and added to this category Category:Wikipedia_Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense,there are april fools jokes among others mention also there is this Wikipedia:Wikiality_and_Other_Tripling_Elephants --Sirex98 16:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete & #redirect: Just had skimmed through the long list of votes and comments earlier, Feel a little embarrassed I didn't notice Piet Delport comment above that it was already in BJAODN :),I have to say the article is funny but this is an encyclopedia, I'm not against humor which why I believe it should be locked & redirected to it's BJAODN entree, for us to keep it is saying that in the future we sanction such articles as being valid, People can still read it, just in another location. It wouldn't be proper as a standalone article. ~~=Sirex98= 12:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  It's already been added here. --Piet Delport 02:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete but giggle I think the sentence "Elephant" is a Wikipedia article about elephants. is deeply funny. I urge the community to keep this somewhere, not in the mainspace of course. But I think it's a refreshing meta-comment. Pascal.Tesson 22:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This is so fucking awesome, I can't believe its been on Wikipedia for months. - Hahnchen 01:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, for less than a day, when you exclude the time spent on John Kenney's user page. --Piet Delport 02:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  Well, that's a crying shame. - Hahnchen 02:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  It has now been on wikipedia main space for approximately 5 days. After 1 day, a proposed deletion notice was put up. I took that off a day later than that, and somebody almost immediately nominated it for proper deletion. It has been up for deletion for three days now. Wikipedia springs into action fairly quickly on such matters, it would seem. john k 03:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ahahahahahhahaha! Sorry, delete. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 11:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• As much as I love the hilarious self-reference, delete. WP:POINT at its finest. - Sikon 17:57, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antoine Spiteri

Delete. There is nothing particularly notable about this person in terms of WP:BIO. ^{[Check Google hits]} Google gives 92 results (40 "unique"), not many of which refer to the Spiteri in question. Publications proffered are a journal article in press and a paper presented at the Canadian Psychological Association. Impressive by "regular people" standards, but not quite up to Wikipedia standards. Prod was removed by author. ... discospinster _talk 00:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity article. -Amatulic 01:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see evidence that this person meets WP:BIO. --N Shar 01:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of Google hits or claims to the contrary in the article lead me to believe that this guy does not pass the notability criteria for academics. -Elmer Clark 01:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. A no brainer. 129.98.197.86 01:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. EVula 02:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not sufficient evidence of prominence in field.Gobawoo 16:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Shadow1 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above (suspect of self-bio posting) Arnoutf 21:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, vanity post. Xdenizen 01:25, 25 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 02:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is the better boxer?

Subject is a single episode of a minor comedy/reality show. Main article Kenny vs. Spenny provides adequate coverage for the series. PKT 01:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not sure I see the point of this article's existence, especially if it's redundant with the other article. -Amatulic 01:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although this is sort of interesting. No one questions South Park's right to have articles about every episode. Where do we draw the line? If a show is notable enough for an article, are its episodes as well? Is there another, higher, bar a show has to meet for its episodes to be worthy of articles? I doubt there's any written policy here, so I'm going to have to go with my gut, which says that whatever the criterion is, this show doesn't meet it. -Elmer Clark 01:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete actually some of us DO question having so much damn fancruft in the encyclopedia (articles for EVERY South Park and Simpsons episodes) but little fanboys keep making new articles. L0b0t 02:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. (copied from KvS episode discussion page) Agreed. To warrant its own page, I think an individual episode of a tv series must have specific cultural meaning (ie. was highly controversial and caused great public debate, contained a significant television "first", etc). This episode was very funny, but not significant in any way. Wolfchild 06:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No documented notability, in terms of multiple press articles.Gobawoo 16:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete While I'm generally for episode articles (I loves me some Firefly), the show doesn't seem notable enough to warrant an article. EVula 18:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Kenny vs. Spenny main article Arnoutf 21:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. Arbusto 21:27, 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 02:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future Lovers (Madonna song)

Yet another article for a Confessions on a Dance Floor album track from Madonna. There are no plans for this to be released as a single, or as an A-side remix, nor is there any music video. The song is not notable enough for its own article; it should at the very least be merged into the album's article. eo 01:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. There's nothing to merge, once you remove the unsourced speculation. EVula 02:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft. L0b0t 02:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As mentioned, if it's not a single, it shouldn't be included as an article. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  02:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 11:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:28, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa Milano

No evidence that subject meets Porn actors notability guidelines. Prod tag was disputed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No sign of notablity is given in the article. Quite amount of movies, but that's how pornographic actors/actresses are. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  02:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article needs to be expanded, however she is very notable and passes the Google image test bring over 1000 related images. Only issue is that she lacks a homepage. Valoem ^talk 04:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I still fail to see how she meets any of the guidelines. Note this quote from Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic_actors):
    • The "Google Test": The adult film industry uses Googlebombing to influence rankings on search engines for current performers' names. As a result, the Google test is not suitable to determine the notability of a performer. This is especially the case for performers whose work antedates the Web. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I understand it seems Google test is not applied to Pornographic performers, however she does pass an image test which many less notable performers do not pass and has respectable filmography. Valoem ^talk 07:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm neutral on this one, but please note that Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) is a proposal only, not a policy. There are therefore no real guidelines to meet apart from WP:BIO, which she may or may not meet. -- Necrothesp 09:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. Un referenced. Is very probably a vanity page. Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 13:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough evidence of notability.Gobawoo 16:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Alyssa Milano? Melissa Milano looks like Alyssa and her name sounds close to Alyssa. Anomo 02:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And the relevance of that is ... what exactly? Valrith 21:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I suspect he was suggesting it could be the same person! -- Necrothesp 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors), this is what it is for. Having a lot of images on the web is common for porn stars, and 21 or 34 films is not that much, considering that most take 3 days or under to film, and half will be compilations from previous films. Back when it mattered, the dividing line for notability for modern US mainstream porn stars was 100. Find some articles about her, and she'll meet WP:BIO. Otherwise, follow the IAFD or AFDB links, and you will find not hundreds but thousands of other stars just like her. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:52, 24 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 02:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mystic Council

The article is fan-created lore, that does not exist what so ever in the game world, and is presented as if it is in the game. The articles numerous grammar mistakes not withholding.

Originally mistakenly posted by 69.139.67.186 on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mystic Council on October 16th, so reposting it here for him. Derktar 02:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

Oh and Delete per original research and uncyclopedic content per Talk:Mystic Council, Derktar 02:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

• Delete Badly written fanfiction? Oh, there's nowhere else on the Internet to put that. Opabinia regalis 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article belongs in Wikistory, not Wikipedia. Exir Kamalabadi^{Join Esperanza!} 13:16, 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 Speedy keep Nominator withdraws nomination given provided verification from Bartleby's. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zig (Judaism)

Unverifiable; relevant Google hits only lead back to Wikipedia. Either very obscure or made-up. For what it's worth, "Zig" is also the name of the spaceship in the the popular meme All your base are belong to us. Either this is an obscure Talmud legend or a hoax. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Google for "zig rooster eclipse talmud" led me here, which seems to indicate that it was in Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable as far back as the 1890s. Does that make it notable? Not sure, but it's definitely not a hoax. DS 02:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep That's good enough for me. However, I'm still trying to figure out how you found that....I tried that Google search again and didn't get the Bartleby hit. (I do get that hit if I remove "rooster" from the search, which never occurred to me). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:49, 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 Speedy delete, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki 03:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonic Felon

Hoax and total gibberish. Prod added and removed by article's creator (!) after someone added more nonsense. Andrew Levine 02:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete nonsense / obvious silly hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete swiftly as utter nonsense. --71.141.247.213 03:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to log in! This is my comment. --N Shar 03:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete complete nonsense. Opabinia regalis 03:19, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zegunder

Does not meet WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 03:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE- this appears to be a vanity article, more suitable for MySpace than Wikipedia OfficeGirl 05:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC T REX_speak 01:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. EVula 03:57, 25 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. Mangojuice^talk 14:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stripey Zebras

Does not meet WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE This appears to be nothing more than a memorial to a deceased friend. Neither the band nor the deceased lead singer qualify to be included in an encyclopedia. May he rest in peace. OfficeGirl 05:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Borderline, but the one link suggests that there was a sufficient amount of music media coverage for their time. The Google test is less useful for 80s era bands. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree its harder to judge with news articles or google, since by definition the subject matter is no longer current. It appears though that Stripey Zebras was important at the time. Alpharigel 19:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete far from meeting WP:MUSIC, and delete Autumn Poison too. ~ trialsanderrors 21:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I was a member of Stripey Zebras but didn't create the article (so its certainly not vanity on my part). It was some anonymous contributor, I have no idea who, presumably an old fan, so somebody obviously thought us notable or interesting enough for inclusion in wikipedia. I have however edited the article, mainly cleaning it up gramatically and adding a photo from my own collection. I've also had people get in contact with me who remmeber the Stripey Zebras who I hadn't heard from in over 20 years becaiuse of this article who remember us fondly. My personal take is that although we never sold loads of records, we were an important part of the cassette culture scene and had quite a cult following at the time. We were part of a pre-internet era (early 80s) that would otherwise be undocumented apart from dusty fanzines in peoples attics, and otherwise forgotten. Isn't (part of, at least) the point of wikipedia to keep such history alive and accessable? Besides one can read about 'notable' bands like U2 or Queen anywhere... quercus robur 21:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Really, no, although I just noticed that The Deep Freeze Mice got an article (so far uncontested), so there is still hope. You should probably dig out those old copies Sounds and Smash Hits and transcribe the articles on SZ and AP. I don't really care about WP:MUSIC as long as the article is sourced. And R.I.P. to Bwithh's crab. ~ trialsanderrors 21:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thats the sort of thing I like to see on wikipedia (Deep Freeze Mice)! As for Sounds and Smash Hits, we did feature in a minor role in both of these publications (in the latter a 'chart of crap band names' I think...), but we were far more featured in various fanzines of the time. I agree that it would be nice to cite sources, but unfortunately I cleared out my rather vast collection of fanzines when 'decluttering' a few years back... Most of them ended up at Dial House so maybe next time I'm there I could have a dig through and find a few references??? quercus robur 00:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Reminiscence Ah... Southend-on-Sea... I have so many icky icky memories of the "water" and the "beach". The crab we brought back to live as a pet in our London garden was very much doomed. Sorry, crab. Though you were probably doomed anyway. Bwithh 21:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on comment above, although I can't judge notability. A couple other articles link to this one, though, so it's probably worth keeping. -Amatulic 21:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Keep nothing in AMG, but the reference to cassette culture is intriguing. If the assertion that they were "important in cassette culture" can be verified in any way, I would consider switching to keep. Ok, I'm willing to be swayed. I'd still prefer better documentation, but I'm willing to give people more time to track some down. Xtifr _tälk 22:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Week Keep On the border too. Early punk history is difficult to pin (there wasn't alot of scholarly documentation done of this genre at the time). There seems just enough historic evidence of notoriety. And as this band doesn't exist anymore, it's not another band publicity attempt. --Marriedtofilm 05:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. This movement is under represented on Wikipedia anyway. Cassette culture, so much more exciting than file sharing! - Coil00 20:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:29, 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 no consensus. Mangojuice^talk 14:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Les Sectes

Non-Notable, book in French language. It does not even have an article in the French Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, let's give this article some time to develop. It's a definitive work on the subject in France, by experts and leaders in their field. Smeelgova 03:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

Note:Smeelgova is the creator and primary contributor. Yomangani^talk 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

then perhaps Smeelgova will heed the message that the article needs verfiable references and will go get them for us. Can't we assume good faith? That's no reason to negate his or her participation in this discussion.OfficeGirl 19:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

*Keep, but it really needs some work. There needs to be some information on how the book has been received by the public, by other experts in the field, other works that have used this book as a reference, etc. OfficeGirl 05:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

comment: the above user is editing Wikipedia since Oct 17, 2006. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

counter-comment indeed but I see no evidence that it is a single purpose account. Pascal.Tesson 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

further counter-comment: the "above user" has spent considerable time reading and becoming familiar with Wikipedia before joining and contributing, is a published author and an attorney (and there will be no Wikipedia articles proposed with me as the subject). Being a new member is not criteria for excluding someone's participation or suggesting that the person's votes and comments should be disregarded.

As you may note from the history, the Kabbala article entitled "The Seven Worlds" was proposed for deletion in June, 2006 and it was kept for the very reasons that I have suggested here, though from aught that appears there was no hope at all for the article. I think there's good hope for the Les Sectes article. In years past I have worked on cases with a skilled exit counselor. In my exposure to the field I learned the marks of a reputable resource, and this one looks legit. There's a very good possibility that this book is indeed a leading resource in the field, depending on how it is actually being used.

And aside from the two articles "deprogramming" and "exit counseling" which are duplicative and desperately need to be merged, and the article entitled "cult" which is a cesspool of competing definitions and agendas, there isn't enough cogent information about this rich and active field available on Wikipedia. It's a topic which has affected our society and culture, what with the Jim Jones tragedy, Heaven's Gate, and the controversy that surrounds groups like the Unification Church and the Church of Scientology. It's good to have more information like this, and I think the article deserves a chance to be developed. We can always revisit the question of the article again if the requested documentation doesn't turn up soon.OfficeGirl 19:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I can't see any reliable sources to prove this is notable. Yomangani^talk 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep since the book has not been translated (as far as I know) it's clear that there is little chance of finding reliable sources in English that discuss the notability of the book. In French, however, you do find some [4] [5] [6] among others. It's also worth noting that the author has some notability in France as the guy to interview when you want an anti-sect sound-clip. Because of this, I would tend to believe that the book barely meets the proposed criteria of WP:BK although I don't feel particularly strongly about it. I am however puzzled by the purpose of this article: this book does not have an English translation and is very much about the situation of sects in France so its overall value in the English Wikipedia is pretty low. Furthermore, the translation of chapter titles should be considered as original research. Pascal.Tesson 18:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. It has only been created 14 days ago; allow it some time to develop Arnoutf 21:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. (Unless valid sources are provided.) Sfacets 06:22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radisson Hotel Admiral

Notability not established on a "low level" hotel. Metros232 03:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless some claim to notability is added to the article. This doesn't seem to fall under CSD A7, as "an article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content," but it should really be a speedy candidate. --N Shar 04:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No claims of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jpe|ob 07:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 11:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not even notable in its neighbourhood, let alone in Toronto or Canada. --Charlene.fic 15:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not a notable hotel.Gobawoo 16:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just another hotel in downtown T.O. Non-notable. PKT 19:31, 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 02:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hectic watermelon

I don't think this band has asserted notability. Previously speedied, author contested on talk page of article so I'm bringing it here to make sure. Great band name, though. NawlinWiki 03:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hectic Watermelon is a featured band & album on Abstract Logix (see http://www.abstractlogix.com/features_view.php?idno=92 )
Furthermore, the band has also worked with the prominent Jerry Goodman of The Mahavishnu Orchestra.
Before you delete, do some research on Abstract Logix & Jerry Goodman/Mahavishnu Orchesrta. --Pencilbox-production 03:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Leuko 03:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC states: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Wouldn't Jerry Goodman cover that area making them qualified for Wikipedia? --Pencilbox-production 04:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Their debut album "The Great American Road Trip" was also mastered & engineered by John Cuniberti who works mainly on Joe Satriani albums.
--Pencilbox-production 04:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This appears to be nothing but a promo sheet for the band. There are no secondary references used and no references are given for what little is there. This material belongs on a MySpace page. This article is not a Wikipedia article. OfficeGirl 05:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not sure that a producer connection (e.g. Jerry Goodman) has the same notability weight as an actual member of the band being notable in some other area. Fail to see any other way in which they fulfill WP:MUSIC. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my argument. By request of the band Hectic Watermelon, please remove the Hectic Watermelon page.
--Pencilbox-production 19:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per db-author. Leuko 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nonnotable. Mukadderat 17:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Knights

Non-notable online browser game. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Less than 1000 Google hits, most of which are forums or unrelated. Delete as such. Wickethewok 04:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - doesn't assert notability. MER-C 09:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anomo 02:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Combination 19:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 16:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertions of notability, no third-party sources and reads like a poster chil for WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The Kinslayer 10:31, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loick Pires

Non-notable biography; 6 Google hits Nehwyn 04:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as per A7 of WP:CSD. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 06:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - hopelessly non-notable. Completely unsourced. Speedy, anyone? MER-C 09:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Kill it with fire. Umlautbob 10:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability. Also, no way to tell what country he plays in. Sounds like copied from some publicity blurb which made sense to the original target audience.Gobawoo 16:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

May I also add that this article seems the work of a new single-purpose account that contains the player's family name in the account name. --Nehwyn 18:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:31, 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 02:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon's Fury

Appears to be the subject of a vast astroturfing campaign. It was written in large part by the author, User:Jeff Head, and created by a user whose only contributions deal with it (User:Killa Dilla) -- just take a look at the history. It read like an advertisement before it was NPOV'd. I don't think it's notable enough to be here, though it's hard to tell because of all the self-promotion and astroturfing on Google. I don't know what the policy is when it comes to something so vigorously promoted by the author, but something tells me this is not notable, especially considering that neither the author nor his publisher have articles, nor do the so-called bestselling authors that wrote the foreword. If someone can prove that this is notable, fine, but it seems like marketing. Andre (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Interesting campaign of self-promotion. According to the author's website he is the "best selling" author of Dragons Fury. Yet the series ranks at 765,271 in books at Amazon[7]. It has numerous blog posts and reviews at sites of unknown provenance that read like adverts—there's an online review by none other than the author at some site called allreader[8] (popups). Appears to be heavy self-promotion. Searching Worldcat, no book in the series is in more than 3 libraries, which is very low [9]. The real kicker though is when you Google the publisher, Alpha Connections, and you find that that is the author's name for his web development service from his personal website. Not only does not meet WP:BK, but trespasses on multiple grounds listed there as indicia of non-notability.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No independent non-trivial third-party reviews. The writer is not himself notable. No non-trivial literary awards. Self-published, as noted. Fails WP:BK. Also, I point out that all his Amazon, B&N, and Chapters reviews are by "customers" who have never reviewed anything but Jeff Head books. Nice Astroturfing there. --Charlene.fic 15:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete glad to see people using WP:BK! But you have to add to it a very strong vanity concern. Pascal.Tesson 18:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:31, 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 merge. I did a sloppy job, just a redirect; the old text is in the edit history if someone wants to figure out a better way of merging.

[edit] Silas Sterne

Not notable. Guideline at WP:AFDP#Literature says "Characters from books should be compiled to lists per book, unless a large amount of information is written on a character." See also AfD for the underlying two books. Bejnar 05:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Actually, just be bold and do it. No need for an AfD process. Pascal.Tesson 18:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as above Arnoutf 21:37, 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. Daniel.Bryant 06:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Day My Bum Went Psycho

Not notable. Although this is a published book (2001), and appears to have a sequel, there is no evidence of notability. No prizes were won, no new literary schools were begun, etc. The guide at WP:AFDP#Literature indicates that "Books are notable if well-known, and should be listed under the author if not." I note that WorldCat shows that two libraries in the US possess this book, and eight in the UK. Bejnar 05:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep US Amazon sales ranking is about 15,000 which is pretty good for an Aussie children's book. (The US editions use "butt" instead of "bum".) Seems to have been widely reviewed, especially in Australia. Looks like a well-selling, pretty popular book, whether award-winning or not. Fan-1967 05:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment The authors of these books is Andy Griffiths. His article is not long at all, and any comments about his literary style are appropriate there. Sales rank of 15,000 is very, very good for an Aussie children's book, but that does not convey notability. Compare a sales rank of 10,000 for The Random House Book of Poetry for Children which hasn't gained notability, it is not even mentioned in the article on Jack Prelutsky its editor. Bejnar 06:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Your opinion of the author's literary style or ability is quite irrelevant. (Otherwise, surely we would delete Jacqueline Susann.) Significant sales are, in and of themselves, notable. Fan-1967 13:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I did not mention my opinion of his literary style. It is not the relevant consideration. The author's notability is not in question. Bejnar 20:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I've certainly seen it in stores around the UK, with a title like that you tend to notice it around the place. Seems to be selling reasonably. Ben W Bell talk 06:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the book is (or was, at least, it was published a while ago) very successful in Australia and I'd suggest that the average school library would have a copy. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep believe it or not, this book, and the series it is part of, is notable. New York Times Best-seller alone should be enough, maybe you're being fooled by it being a Children's book? FrozenPurpleCube 06:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I am not suggesting getting rid of the Andy Griffiths article. I do agree that a best-selling children's author deserves a place in the Wikipedia. However, I don't think that every book he writes deserves its own article, or maybe even not any particular book. Read the literature criteria. Bejnar 06:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd have no real problem with making a single article for the series, but I do think that it's better form to have an article for the books seperate from the author, especially when they have more than one series. Call it a style preference, but it just looks better to me. FrozenPurpleCube 13:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• What's wrong with just merging this to the author? I see no reason to get rid of it (or a redirect from the title), but where is the advantage of having an article on a children's book apart from the stubby bio of its author? As it seems to be going to be kept, I suggest that the nominator boldly makes the merge after the AFD has closed (you could have done so without the AFD). You can keep the categories at the redirected book title, to make sure it is found more easily. up+land 07:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment It may be that the book is more notable than the writer in this case. It's one of those ubiquitous children's books - every niece and nephew has his or her own copy.

• Keep Successful book from a major publisher, found in just about every general-interest bookstore, library, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep That book is pretty successful in Australia, we were told to read it in year 7 at school also I know that the library in the shopping centre near me has at least 2 copies. It did win the Children's Choice Award [10] which is included in the article that it won (but without references).
• Keep for now although I wouldn't oppose a smerge and redirect to Andy Griffiths. According to Griffiths' web page, the book has won several awards - if someone can document those by a reliable source, the page should be fine. TheronJ 13:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable enough per Amazon sales ranking. How many copies sold?Gobawoo 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This was a best selling childrens book in Australia see [11]. A Google News Archive search shows reliable sources see [12]

Capitalistroadster 00:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've heard of the book, but didn't know who the author was, which'd suggest the book may have as much notability as the author. Andjam 00:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Book is extremely well known in Australia.Raffles mk 06:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, highly popular children's book. I even still have a "The Day My Butt Went Psycho" keychain! --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Andy Griffiths. Lankiveil 12:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
• Strong keep. Well-known Australian children's book. Cnwb 04:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, prize-winning book. Natgoo 09:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable book for children--Golden Wattle ^talk 10:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- notable book. - Longhair\^talk 10:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable book in Australia. It was a 2004 bestseller (over 100,000 copies sold in Australia), with sales on par with The Da Vinci Code in that year[13]. Previous versions of the article list some Children's Choice awards the book won, but the current version doesn't. No literary schools founded on the book I'll grant you, but I'm sure this will happen soon - is this really a criterion for notability? --Canley 00:46, 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 keep. There is significant consensus for this when you count the keeps and merges together, but no clear idea of how exactly it should be merged. But that can be worked out by ordinary discussion, no need to come to a verdict now. Mangojuice^talk 14:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bumageddon: The Final Pongflict

This book is not notable. It won no prizes, it started no literary or cultural movement, and apparently even in Australia it is not well-known. Like its predesessor The Day My Bum Went Psycho it is nothing special. Wikipedia is not a fan-space for every book published. Bejnar 05:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Matlock would not be impressed. Merge per discussion below. Though Matlock is still unimpressed. Fagstein 07:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Why do they bother? BTLizard 09:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but someone should write something about this book into The Day My Bum Went Psycho, which is up for deletion above. This article is not really suitable to be merged but the book deserves a small writeup on the aforementioned page. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Could be mentioned in article about author.Gobawoo 16:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into article about the author or the The Day My Bum Went Psycho. Alpharigel 20:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This book like its predecessors was a best seller in Australia. A Google News Archive search shows that there are reliable sources available about this book see [14] Alternatively, merge with Andy Griffiths or develop a page on his Bum series which was a trilogy consisting of this, The Day My Bum Went Psycho and Zombie Bums From Uranus. [15] Capitalistroadster 00:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (or merge) sufficient news coverage and sales to be notable. I hope that the use of scatology, or the target age of the audience, hasn't influenced people's opinions on notability. Andjam 00:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There is noone in Australia who hasn't heard of these books. Raffles mk 06:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, except me, obviously. Lankiveil 12:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
  • How?? This series of books has been heavily promoted in pretty much every bookshop in Australia for decades. Now that TDMBWP has been kept, perhaps WP:POKEMON applies. Raffles mk 13:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, well known sequel to two highly known children's books. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, book is not notable enough to have it's own article, but maybe some of this material could be added to an article on the author. Lankiveil 12:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
• Delete, don't merge. This book is not notable enough to keep (unlike) The Day My Bum Went Psycho. And frankly, there's nothing there to merge. Worth a redirect to The Day My Bum Went Psycho or to Andy Griffiths. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 23:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep debuted at #9 on the New York Times bestseller list (as Butt Wars: The Final Conflict), shortlisted for the Australia Children's Choice awards (which haven't been presented yet). I think this is notable enough on its own, but would not object to a merged article on Griffith's "Bum Trilogy". --Canley 01:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Mukadderat 17:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as it's a notable book. Maybe merge it, but don't delete. - Lex 16:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - as per Canley. JROBBO 03:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge merge article into one on Griffith's "Bum Trilogy", per Canley Bejnar 17:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to article on trilogy. For those Australians who haven't heard of the book, I think they need to look at their own demographic profile. Have you heard of any children's books (other than Harry Potter) - is it because you have little to do with children? If you are over 12 or have no children yourself, please check with some (Australian) friends or relatives who are or have children before commenting on Australian children's literature topics or perhaps qualify your response. More or less on the same line as 'i've never heard of this', from computer geeks on the other side of the world isn't a good criteria for deletion at AfD for Louise Crisp [16] The "I never heard of this" argument needs to be tested against, are you in a position to comment, with respect nationality would probably not be enough. For people on the other side of the world, on what basis are you commenting, what research did you do?--Golden Wattle ^talk 21:36, 29 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. If there is anything salvageable here, I couldn't pick it out. Of course a well-sourced criticism section could be added to Major League Baseball on FOX, provided those sources exclude blogs and forum postings... but merging from here is a terrible way to achieve that. Mangojuice^talk 14:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of MLB on FOX

This article is a complete mess of POV, OR, and unverifiable information. Nearly all of the "sources" and "references" are internet forums and blogs, such as the MLB.com forums and GameFAQs' Sports and Racing board. It's beyond help, and should be deleted. WarpstarRider 05:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Well, it has a lot of sources, which is good, but as the nom pointed out they are mostly to forums and other non-reliable sources. I am hoping that it can be salvaged, but that is a slim hope. Konman72 06:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, posts by random fans on blogs and message boards are as bad as no sources at all. Remove that, and you have nothing but OR. Andrew Levine 08:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - POV City. I'd almost vote for deletion just for the article not defining what "MLB" stands for. Astonishingly, there are some people in the world with internet access who are not American. --Dweller 08:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Very POV. There are just random criticisms, honestly you could have an article like this about everything. Blogs are not reliable sources.--BoyoJonesJr 13:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge anything good to MLB on Fox, as there are some valid portions, but I'm not sure it's a whole article. However, that it is criticism is not a good reason to delete, as that alone does not mean it is not fair and balanced. FrozenPurpleCube 13:24, 20 October 2006
• Merge anything salvageable to MLB on Fox. A lot of this does ring true, and I know I've seen print sources that echo some of the complaints in the article. Just found this, for example. Zagalejo 14:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
• Merge with Fox article.Gobawoo 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge everything (reliably) sourced. It's completely true that a lot of people complain about Fox's sports coverage... and with good reason, because it sucks. But that's not really a reason for keeping the info- the fact that multiple well-known sources have spoken of their hatred of Fox's coverage (especially of baseball), however, is. Hell, we could write a huge article just about how much Bill Simmons despises them. -- Kicking222 17:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete total POV fork, overly cited, we don't need 5 cites (or even 1) just to say someone is pregnant. Tony fanta 21:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge I laugh at all the citations to non-reliable sources in an attempt to make the article look like something other than one long biased rant. TJ Spyke 21:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge. FOX'S MLB COVERAGE SUCKS! Make no mistake, it is awful. But that doesn't make an unreliably sourced rant Wikipedia material. As heartened as I was to see this article written by people who I assume are like-minded fans, there's only a handful of salvageable stuff. Whatever's available from reliable sources can be included in a paragraph in MLB on Fox. SliceNYC 00:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom or merge. Arbusto 21:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OsFan 21:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Kicking222. Although I've generally liked their broadcasts, MLB on FOX is still definitely not without its controversy. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:31, 31 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 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Bragg

Non-notable actor, appears to have only three bit parts in movies. Previous version of article was redirect to The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement, expanded a little without actor information and speedy deleted (tagged by me), returned with more information, tagged for speedy and denied. Gogo Dodo 06:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I am the one that tagged it for speedy, but that was before more information was added that clearly warranted the removal of the speedy tag. That being said, this person still fails to be important enough to have an article and fails WP:BIO. Indrian 06:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Classic case of non-notability. Yes, he does appear in the IMDB database, but not as anything more that a bit player starting out. Maybe in 20 years he will be a well-known character. Bejnar 06:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Indrian and Bejnar. Article fails WP:BIO. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 06:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Make sure to protect deletion. Arbusto 21:33, 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 Speedy delete, this is stupid. (g1, a7) NawlinWiki 02:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Is Stupid! Pain, Lame and Crude

Total crystal balling, no net searches back up the existance of this film in production, and just to really annoy people the "Temporary site" becomes a pop-up magnet full of spam and porn sites. Ben W Bell talk 06:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources. Unverifiable. Fagstein 07:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable hoax. if not then its crystal balling. Storm05 13:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Most likely hoax Arnoutf 21:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Hasn't happened, or else is a hoax. PKT 19:23, 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 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oswaldo Castillo

Like the firs time: Non notable regular movie reviewer on a radio show, fails WP:BIO. Oswaldo Castillo + Carolla (of the radio show) gives 16 distinct Google hits... The movie is a new element, but it is only scheduled, and is not WP:V verifiable: [17] gives 5 hits; Wikipeda, IMDb, and homepages of the movie and Carolla. If and when the movie gets released, reviewed, ..., then this person may become notable: untill then, the same reasoning as the first AfD applies, and this should get deleted. Fram 06:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Scattered mentions on Google/Yahoo results, most of those unrelated.--Húsönd 12:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough to satisfy WP:BIO.Gobawoo 16:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:34, 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 October 26 2006...Live from the Wikipedia Headquarters, this is the AfD and delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Daily Show contributor appearances

Original research. Cruft on top of cruft. No sources. Fagstein 07:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oh for the love of God! Nuke it from orbit: kill it as original research, and if it's tied to a specific source, kill it as being utterly redundant. But kill it before it metastasizes. --Calton | Talk 08:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree with you, but there might be better ways phrase AfD !votes in the future. - Lex 16:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non encyclopedic fan obsession --Dweller 08:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - pointless fancruft. BTLizard 09:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 11:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Cruftcruft.--Húsönd 12:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ugh. --MonkBirdDuke 13:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Daily Show cruft. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. --Charlene.fic 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Useful info.Gobawoo 16:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, please. It gave me a headache just looking at it. No one will learn anything from this garbage, and besides that, it's garbage.OfficeGirl 21:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Appears to be an article of trivia with no encyclopedic value of any kind. --tgheretford (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Love the show but this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Dimitrii 16:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree that this article isn't encyclopedic. - Lex 16:09, 25 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 merge to Texas Tech Red Raiders, minus the lyrics. Mangojuice^talk 15:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fight Raiders, Fight

Test AfD to see if other school anthem articles should follow the same fate - Doesn't need its own article as per WP:SONG. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, it doesnt merit its own page. burn it. Amists...
• Merge and redirect to Texas Tech Red Raiders. WP:MUSIC doesn't cover lyrics and WP:SONGS says that there are currently no specific guidelines for the notability of songs. So we're left a little without direct policy to follow. I guess I'd point at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bouncing Off The Ceiling (Upside Down) and note that it resulted in a delete and redirect, although that's not fully applicable in this case as the Texas Tech Red Raiders article doesn't refer to this song at all. I figure the best bet is to merge and redirect.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BradBeattie (talk • contribs) 08:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC).
• Delete As per nomination. Pursey 09:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the school's article.Gobawoo 16:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per BradBeattie. ENeville 17:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirect. ColourBurst may be right and the lyrics aren't terribly encyclopedic anyway, but keeping the redirect makes sense. ENeville 01:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• MErge as above Arnoutf 21:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The current content is unmergable because of copyright violation of the lyrics (my guess is that the school would still hold it). ColourBurst 22:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - I think the paragraph above the lyrics could be merged into the Texas Tech Red Raiders article, if the lyrics can't. - Lex 16:12, 25 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 02:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Playerworlds

Non-notable software; prod removed because "software was released in 2002 and is still being updated". Pak21 08:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Player Worlds is an identical page --Wafulz 22:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Percy Snoodle 08:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Uh ... that makes absolutely no sense. Shannara
  • What would you like explained? --Wafulz 22:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Shannara has been going around deprodding and removing afd notices from articles claiming that they are vandalism. Please note that I've marked the identical article Player Worlds with the AfD bundle. --Wafulz 22:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no reliable sources to back up any of the information in the article other than the website itself, a primary source (which means it fails WP:SOFTWARE). Shannara, AfD tags are not vandalism if they're made in good faith. However, removing them before the nomination period ends is vandalism (see the subsection "avoidant vandalism"). ColourBurst 23:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Mukadderat 17:43, 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. Mangojuice^talk 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PostalWatch Incorporated

Non-notable -- and probably defunct -- group. Media references dredged up are all trivial -- the group is NOT the subject -- and all but one from trade publications, to boot. Calton | Talk 08:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. While PostalWatch was active, it was taken seriously by the United States Postal Service and other advocacy groups, which is why a journalist researching a story on (say) letter carriers having to work into the evening would find it worthwhile to interview PostalWatch's Rick Merrill for the story. As for the reference to trade publications, these publications have the same commitment to accuracy that daily or weekly newspapers do, and often have circulations larger than many small-town daily newspapers. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• it was taken seriously by the United States Postal Service and other advocacy groups, which is why a journalist researching a story on (say) letter carriers having to work into the evening would find it worthwhile to interview PostalWatch's Rick Merrill for the story.. Noo,that's not how journalism works -- one also has to wonder about the source of your glimpses into the mindset of journalists in general, but never mind -- being a quote mine for a few stories =/= important organization. --Calton | Talk 06:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Has sources and would be interested to postal service employees. Alpharigel 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• As an ex-postal employee, I say no, not really of interest. --Calton | Talk 06:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Fails WP:ORG. No non-trivial sources showing encyclopedic notability Bwithh 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Reliable references and sources (independent trade publications are not trivial) and shows notability. --Marriedtofilm 05:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Without even touching the question of whether trade publications are notable, "trivial" here is referring to the coverage. --Calton | Talk 06:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • According to WP:CORP, "trival" coverage refers to the like of simply reprinting directory listings, "announcement of club meetings" or "store hours." The articles on this company are long and involved and credit a reporter... not just "store hours". And per WP:ORG, these are not "internal documents". --Marriedtofilm 14:58, 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. Mangojuice^talk 15:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transversal Corporation

non-notable corporation. Been around for < 10 years, few google hits, no claim to fame or anything that passes WP:CORP - tried WP:PROD on this one first. Peripitus (Talk) 08:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I believe it should not be deleted, as Transversal Corporation has existed for 8 years (1998-2006) and is part of 'the Cambridge Phenomenon'.Djcmackay 08:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC) David MacKay
• Keep - Why should a company have google hits to pass WP CORP?? Transversal has been featured in newspaper and magazine articles about the Cambridge Phenomenon. 'No claim to fame?' How about 'a dot com company that is still going strong?' In my opinion, Wikipedia should be inclusive, full of factually correct content. Deleting this article will upset me, and I'm a fairly hard-working Wikipedia contributor. Why does Peripitus push for a slim low-content Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcmackay (talk • contribs) 2006-10-20 08:46:12

Comment. You can't make two identical contributions to the debate. ... discospinster _talk 12:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My fault - I moved the first comment from the article's talk page... the second keep is his bit - Peripitus (Talk) 10:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. The article reads like spam, although they have won an award. I can't find much more than that. If there are newspaper and magazine references, they need to be stated in the article. ... discospinster _talk 12:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to make the article seem more like spam by adding 'transversal featured prominently in a Grauniad article about the Cambridge phenomenon', but for people who want this information, here are scans of the Grauniad magazine:

page2 page1 Grauniad Monday 29 November 1999.

Seriously, I think that it is worthwhile for some site on the internet to document what it is that makes for successful internet companies. In writing the article I was not trying to write spam. Rather, the point is: 'transversal are a success because they came up with an internet product whose value is similar in value to human staff, so companies are willing to pay for that product at a rate similar to human salaries'. If wikipedians genuinely don't want this sort of interesting information, where else should it go? Djcmackay 13:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC) D MacKay

• Delete I don't see anything in the article or in a quick check of the company's Web site that would indicate that it meets WP:CORP. I'd be glad to change my mind if there is evidence to the contrary. ScottW 22:41, 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 02:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Companies listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange

Unmaintained list of redlinks and badlinks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-20 08:27Z

• Delete - I think this is best suited for a category. MER-C 12:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed. And the category should include only "notable" companies, not every last one. -Amatulic 21:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C. I agree that the category is sufficient to tag notable companies. ScottW 22:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and categorize the notable companies. ColourBurst 23:02, 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 NO CONSENSUS defaulting to keep. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost ramp

To the best of my knowledge, "ghost ramp" is a term only used by roadgeeks, so this violates avoid neologisms. It may also violate no original research; see Wikipedia talk:No original research#Ghost ramp. --NE2 08:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I'd also never heard of this expression, but it's irrelevant who uses the term, only notability of the term is relevant. Not many people who don't follow cricket use cricket's jargon (see Leg bye), but the words are notable nonetheless. I found 60,000+ Google hits for "ghost ramp freeway" and another 18,000+ for "ghost ramp motorway". Notable. --Dweller 08:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC) I stand corrected. Neutral per Night Gyr below. --Dweller 09:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Your google test is flawed. The words "ghost" "ramp" and "motorway" are all common, but don't necessarily refer to ghost ramps. a search for the specific phrase "ghost ramp" (with quotes) only turned up about 1200 hits, and with "-wikipedia" added (to remove mirrors), only left about 400[18]. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, there's no clear sourcing for the definition of the term beyond being a roadfan neologism. Only 400 online occurances with no reliable sources readily apparent to define it, rather than simply use it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Perhaps then the article can be renamed "Abandoned Highway Segments".... or something along those lines... Route 82 14:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

it still faces the OR issue, though, because the only source for a lot of these is a photograph of the ramp in question, which says nothing about whether it is actually abandoned or why it is in the current state. It's a shame, since it's an interesting article, but I don't see proper sources for almost any of it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The main issue is more the lack of sourcing than the impossibility of sourcing, IMO. When I put in the effort to find sourcing for the Houston items, I had to drop one (out of five) because I wouldn't be able to produce a source. (One more was dropped because it has gone under active planning for completion.) --Mr Wednesday 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment since I am working at a computer that rejects cookies and therefore cannot sign in. The terms "ghost ramp" and "stub ramps" are synonymous and have been use long before there was an Internet (the definition can be found here, for example, in addition to several travel books; the State of Washington uses the synonym here). As far as WP:NOR is concerned, those ghost ramps/stub ramps mentioned in the page that have external links most definitely do not constitute original research in the Wikipedia definition. This this the most liberal interpretation of WP:NOR I've seen in my time with Wikipedia - if this interpretation is upheld, then 90 percent of the road articles (and 100% of those with current exit lists) violate the policy as well. Furthermore, if we are now defining neologisms as terms being used by only a certain segment of the population, we'd better be very well consistent in that interpretation... and delete about 99% of the technology articles - or anything dealing with a very specialized topic - as well. From this person's viewpoint, this is right on the edge of a bad faith nomination, particularly in light of over 150 external links and references in the article.147.70.242.40 19:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Count of references means nothing if none of them are reliable or support what the article is actually claiming. List of YTMND Fads had hundreds of linked YTMNDs but it was still original research to identify things as fads. Unless you have sources documenting that these ramps are in fact abandoned, it's original research to link and satellite photo and claim it as proof that the ramp is abandoned. As for the glossary, all it says is that "some definitions of commonly used words and phrases on AARoads," it doesn't say it's an accepted term beyond that website or with any particular history, or even that it's the best term. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: (Before I even get to my reply, I should point out that its synonym "stub ramp" has been used/cited in legal opinions, including this one from Australia). Now, are you saying that photographs showing their existence are OR without the documentation of their history? If that is the case, all this article would need would be a more emphatic presentation of the references to their histories. This can be done without having to resort to an extreme measure of an AfD... as quite a few of them are already there, just not presented in a fashion that seems to be preferred by some editors.147.70.242.40 19:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: If Stub ramp is the accepted legal term, I'd place the article under that title and have no problem with keeping it. It just needs a greater trimming to emphasize the identification in other sources of these ramps as abandoned. Most of them don't have that sourcing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that the article should be moved, but not deleted. The article needs to be pruned and renamed. There is some interesting stuff here, like the I-70/I-95 interchange that got cancelled and the ramps that were partially built. Much of this is not relevant. Now as for claiming there's a stub ramp, IMHO aerial photography to show out-of-use ramps and whatnot is fine, pictures are neat to, but to claim where a half-built ramp would go would need a source. For example "There are ghost ramps on I-65 in Huntsville for both north- and southbound" or something like that, Google map it. To continue "these ramps were to be I-365, but was cancelled" needs to be sourced. There are no ramps there, it's an example I made up. --MPD01605 (T / C) 22:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, but rename and fix up. There is interesting information here which probably desrves an article - the main problems seem to be verifiability, OR and neologism. If a better, non-neologistic name can be found, and the other issues can be addressed, then this could make a reasonable article. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The page was nominated IIRC for a renaming and it failed due to a lack of consensus and argument. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for the simple reasons that it is both interesting and informative. A few more sources would help, but I don't see any need for deletion. --Chris24 04:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep: This is an informative article that contains sources (e.g. aerial images provide documentation and cannot be considered 'original research'). Now if the entry lists a reason why the stub exists (outside of where it is at), then a proper cite should be attributed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• • How are they not original research? Looking at a photo shows something that looks like a ramp, but saying that it's abandoned is our own analysis of that photo. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The photos are a pretty clear indication of ramps that lead to nowhere. There's obviously a reason that all of these ghost ramps exist and the fact that they do exist (with associated proof in the form of satellite pictures) is not debatable. For someone to say the ramp was built and the project was cancelled is not original research, though it may be unsourced. Unsourced statements are not necessarily original research. Just request sources ({{fact}}) on anything that you think is not properly sourced. Sparingly use the {{OR}} tag for speculation only. Ufwuct 18:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

They are not original research because an aerial image clearly indicates that the ramp is no longer used and is abandoned. It doesn't take a genius to see that if you see an abandoned ramp, or a graded path, that it was to be for a purpose. That itself is not original research.

Now if you go on and state, "This ramp was abandoned due to XXX factor and this XXX factor" with no sources, then that IS original research. Big difference. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

A graded path could have been a railroad, or a power line access road, or an underground pipeline... --NE2 20:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. There is enough indicators for the most part that one can determine if it was to be part of a ramp. An inspection via a topographic map usually helps in this respect, as does careful analysis of the aerial image. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If it gets into "careful analysis" you're doing research. We need reliable sources that come out and say it, not expert eyes looking at photographs. We're not here to reanalyze cold war spy photographs and write our own numbers for the size of the soviet arsenal. No one can verify the information without duplicating the expert abilities, and even then they could end up disagreeing, which comes down to a battle of credentials--exactly the sort of problem that we're trying to avoid by requiring WP:V and WP:NOR. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep because the article contains informative and interesting information, for road geeks at least. Again, maybe we could come up with a better name for the article, but if we can't, that doesn't mean that the information within the article should be discarded. The alternate names for ghost ramp are given in the first line of the introduction, so a reader unfamiliar with the term ghost ramp should recognize one of the other terms. Ufwuct 18:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It looks like there might be consensus to rename the article and remove all unsourced entries. Do people agree or disagree with this? --NE2 20:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

And we can't come up to what kind of "source" you would require. An aerial image is enough of a source for the vast majority. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

An aerial image will not show whether there are current plans to build anything there. --NE2 20:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nor does it need to. A ghost ramp is a ramp that is abandoned, no longer used. Why would we need to list 'current plans' for each one when it is unknown for most? If there are plans, good, cite them and include it. If not, no worries. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that that is the definition of a ghost ramp? Do you have any reliable sources that define it? However, even accepting that definition, how does one know from aerials that the ramp is abandoned? --NE2 20:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no set defination outside of several articles that have stated "ramps to nowhere" or "stubs" or "ghost ramps." But I suppose it is a descriptive title that is far easier to manage and state than "Highway reminants that are no longer in operation". One can tell from aerials when a ramp is abandoned, it doesn't take a genius to see that [19] contains a ghost ramp. Or that [20] was originally a terminus just by judging from a topographic map (the article contains a factual source as well). If you can't tell what's abandoned/disused and active from an aerial image, perhaps that indicates you are just pulling for air here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read avoid neologisms. --NE2 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities... and if the term has been in use for over four decades, it might not have "recently been coined," unless we wish to argue and nitpick on the definition of "recently" (while we're at it, shall we also debate of legitimacy of the Wikipedia definitions of "obscenity" and "smut"?). The terms "ghost ramp" and "stub ramp" predate the Internet by decades - and, unless there has been a change of definition in the last few years, neither involved the abandonment issue. AARoads.com summarized it best: they are roads (and ramps) to nowhere.147.70.242.40 22:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep rename if necessary. Seattle was full of "Ramps to nowhwere" before I-90 was extended and they were used as landmarks for directions and traffic reports. It's a recognized phenom in most places. SchmuckyTheCat 21:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

So you would list any "ghost ramp" that exists or that used to exist? --NE2 21:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, this article will be a very large list, listing every single place that a road once ended temporarily, and every place a small piece of pavement exists or existed from a former alignment. I don't see that being a good article, not that the current article seems good to me. --NE2 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There's obviously a lot of work gone into this article and I have to say that I found it rather interesting (and I'm not a "roadgeek" in any shape or form - in fact, I didn't know they existed until I read this AfD!). If it's a neologism then it's probably a rather apt one for the subject, and I really don't think it's OR; these things either exist or they don't, and I would suspect that the whole list has not been made up (particularly given the references) - if they exist then it's not original research. -- Necrothesp 22:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sheesh, looking at aerial images and drawing your own conclusions is totally silly. The funny thing is he says that citing the year and the reason it was abandoned (presumably from a newspaper report), then THAT would be original research? Wow. I've never done this before but this article needs to go simply because of the bafflingly clueless reason being given for how we should research this article. --W.marsh 22:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is he says that citing the year and the reason it was abandoned (presumably from a newspaper report), then THAT would be original research?

Who said that? Ufwuct 14:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

More seriously, this term seems to be not used outside of roadgeek forums and Wikipedia mirrors [21]. Nothing is turned up in a news search nor in an academic journal search. Serious WP:V problems, closer needs to take this into account. --W.marsh 22:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Seems like pure WP:OR. WP editors scouring aerial photos for apparently abandoned highway ramps is classical research work. I think this article should be a poster child for explaining what WP is not and what no original research is all about. Notability of the subject is also unproven. Crum375 23:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Where's your evidence that they obtained their information by "scouring aerial photos"? Looks like a bit of a leap to a conclusion on the basis of not a lot of evidence. Gathering together information for an article is in no way original research. The detail of the information provided on the page certainly does not imply that these are merely assumptions of the existence of ghost ramps based on aerial photographs (which would be original research). -- Necrothesp 00:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I can't find any items listed where the reference is anything more than a link to an aerial image. Thus it seems like that's exactly what's going on here... Wikipedians looking at Aerial images and drawing their own conclusions. This is what critics mean when they say Wikipedia is just a group blog. --W.marsh 00:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Well, all I can say is that if they got all that info from an aerial photograph they must be psychic! -- Necrothesp 00:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
        • To be fair, the Houston items (only, AFAIK) do have some references, but reading them did not lead me to conclude they are actually abandoned, as there was discussion about future plans. Crum375 00:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Again, this brings us back to the scope of what this article should be. Is it about ramps that for which the connecting road will be built + ones that may be built + ones that will almost certainly not be built? What Wikipedian is in the position to interpret what "may" or "almost certainly not" mean? If Wikipedians try to determine the difference themselves, without reliable sources, that would constitute original research. Determining the difference with reliable sources is good article writing. Regarding the ramps in Houston, I think a 20+ year period before construction continues on ramps is notable (like Spur 5). Ufwuct 00:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Then why is the only reference the image, in nearly every entry? As Crum is pointing out, there seems to be a real scarcity of any reliable sources calling these things "ghost ramps", which is why this article has real verifiability issues. --W.marsh 00:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
          • There are many unsourced articles on WP. That's not a good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp 00:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
            • If sources can't be produced, it is. Read WP:V. "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." --W.marsh 00:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure sources exist for many of these ramps. State DOT offices would have information on proposed freeways and local newspaper articles would, in many cases, explain why the project was cancelled. Let's work on sourcing some of the major ones, possibly keeping the unsourced ones on the talk page until sources can be found. Ufwuct 01:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the sources earlier for the Houston area ramps and also a few non-satellite sources for the Saint Louis area ramps. I would think the Embarcadero, Mt. Hood Freeway, and I-70 extension into Baltimore would have reliable sources explaining the reason for the cancellations as these were contentious routes. Ufwuct 22:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Earlier I stated that the article should be kept, and I still feel that way, but that does not mean that I think the article is fine the way it is now. The article states that a ghost ramp "is an incomplete onramp or offramp which does not connect a freeway or expressway with another road" and on a cursory look it appears there are numerous entries do not meet the definition. Some examples from the region I live in are the 2 entries for Louisville. The first entry is a highway section that is partially complete in anticipation of being completed, has no ramps that do not connect to another road, and has no 'ghost ramps'. The second Louisville entry is on a completed intersection, so it should not included either. A Cincinnati entry has its reference as a page on 'Never-Built Cincinnati Expressways'... if it was never built, there is no 'ghost ramp' there either. In contrast, I've driven through Memphis several times and have seen these ramps to nowhere and, being the curious person that I am, looked it up online and found that the partially constructed highway was stopped mid-construction due to a lawsuit that was won by neighborhood groups. I would be the first to say that the article does have inaccuracies and is in need of cleanup, but that does not mean it needs to be deleted altogether. Ghost ramp is a valid term and this could be a good article if it only included true ghost ramps (which I would guess would be about ⅓ of what is actually listed) and had more references than just links to aerial photographs, but instead of throwing the good out with the bad I find it preferable to make the mediocre better. --Chris24 01:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's mediocre - I think it's totally unacceptable as it stands. I think it has to be deleted and if it ever comes back, it has to be strictly based on verifiable data. The Google aerial photos can be used as additional support - they should never serve as sources. The notability of the actual title and concept also has to be established - we don't accept neologisms. Crum375 02:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If your reasoning is convincing, & the closing Admin decides that this article should be deleted, we should then turn our attention to deleting roadgeek. That term is obviously a neologism, & that article also lacks the sources you are demanding. -- llywrch 17:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per above. --Masamage 05:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe that any claims that this is "original research", is a case of observing the letter of the law but killing the spirit: there is no novel interpretation or explanation here. We are not dealing with a case along the lines of "Atlantis is in Brooklyn" or "Christianity is based on racism" here. The article attempts to document a phenomena that exists in many places: off ramps that lead nowhere. A glance at the Page history & its talk page will show that it is currently under dynamic development, & all of the objections I have so far read in this AfD can be handled by simply working on the article. -- llywrch 23:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Working on the article...Exactly. Thank you for voicing what I could not. This article is not a completed work but a work in progress. Ufwuct 14:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I think that claims of original research are based upon the false assumption that the information was gathered only from aerial photos...when in fact, in many cases, the information is common knowledge in the area in question, but is hard to cite because it has not been reported on in many years, and would have only been reported by local news sources, if anything. Besides, I always thought that the purpose of the aerial photo links was not to cite sources, but to illustrate the ramp being described. And before I forget, I do think the term is common enough. — Lastusernameever 13:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Despite my previous comment, I can't vouch for the title of the article, as it does seem to be a term that only roadgeeks use. However, as the length of the list shows, ghost ramps are clearly a common phenomenon(in the US at least), and are notable IMO. If this is kept, maybe the name could be changed ("List of abandoned highway ramps", perhaps?) However, I have not changed my vote. — Lastusernameever 15:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think you can be more descriptive and short than "ghost ramp". Anyone (incl. non-roadgeeks) can clue in on the terminology quite fast. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rename: Move this to the proper civil engineering term (I don't know what it is). If there is none, move it to a generic description like "Abandoned highway ramps". Include only those that are definitely known to be part of a former proposed highway that got cancelled. --Polaron | Talk 15:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Aye, but there's the rub. Most of these are merely supported by a WP enthusiast's GoogleMap aerial photo of what seems to fit the criterion (with possible added comment "trust me, over here everyone knows it's abandoned"). A little short on reliable sourcing, to the say the least, and a little long on original research. To meet the criterion you suggest, we would need definitive information showing the stub in question is truly abandoned, not just a work-in-progress with some possible delay. And I have yet to see a single such reference that clearly shows abandonment for any of the items in the article. And even if there are a couple that I missed, the vast majority are pure WP:OR and speculation at this time. Crum375 15:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So you can't tell that from this image, you cannot see the stubs? Perhaps we should all don on reading glasses here, because it seems as if the majority of the nay-sayers are doubting these are really abandoned and are doubting the credibility of said publishers who worked on this article! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue is the future, not the present. The picture only shows us the present - not the future. If there are plans afoot to continue construction next year, it would mean the project is not abandoned, yet the aerial photo won't tell you that. If you have glasses that can see the future, I'll buy a couple of pairs from you. Crum375 16:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, we have not decided on the scope, so it is the present phenomenon that we (many editors) are trying to describe (with, in some cases, information about past construction plans). I brought this up before, asking what the scope should be. Some editors have suggested that it only be about ramps that were built with the intention of connecting to another freeway which were later cancelled. However, there was no consensus. The scope of the article could be to-be-constructed freeways or "abandoned" ramps. Many of the naysayers seem to be using this one case (that the article should only include "abandoned" ramps) so that they can make a half-credible argument of original research. All of the satellite photos show non-completed ramps and that is not debatable. If we eventually decide to limit the scope to only abandoned ramps, and editors add unsourced information claiming that a ramp is abandoned based only on a satellite photo, then you can make the claim of original research. Ufwuct 17:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to invoke the spirit, thogh not the literal reading, of WP:AAGF. No one is calling anybody uncredible. (Incredible?) --Masamage 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

True - my own remark about "trust me, everyone here knows it's abandoned" is only to highlight the fact that WP does not recognize an editor's "say so" as acceptable source. Crum375 16:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Then an amendment can be added when it is (if) constructed. Wikipedia is a work in progress, nothing is finalised. Contributors come and go, and so will entries for this article. Therefore, if you have any evidence to prove that it is being extended or whatever, you should add it rather than try and blast down the entire page based on the pretense that "something could happen." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

'Abandoned', as in a public project, has a negative connotation, that reflects poorly on the community and/or its local government. At WP we only make a negative comment about a community or a government if it's well supported. In this case, if you see an incomplete project, you cannot call it 'abandoned' until you have reliable proof that it had been given up on. We assume innocent till proven guilty, not the other way around. Crum375 17:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're stretching here. "Abandoned" is not necessarily perjorative: in the case of the ghost ramps (or whatever you want to call these things) along I-5 in Portland, they were built for projected highways that not only were never built, it took local grassroots mobilization to stop them. Making government officials listen to the people is sometimes a good thing. And saying that these projects could be restarted any time is much like saying that the USA is not definitively independent of the UK: after all, the UK could always raise & send an army to end their "rebellion". -- llywrch 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling a project, that has a visually unsightly ramp leading to nowhere, 'abandoned' is making a judgment, not just a visual observation. That judgment requires proof, per WP:V and WP:NOR. Crum375 17:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to use the black-and-white term "abandoned" in every paragraph if the article is kept. There are many options:

• Where proof and reliable sources exist, use "abandoned".
• Where the status of the ramp is unknown, but proof exists that it has never been used, we could say "unused"

• Or "unused for X years".

• Where the satellite picture shows an obvious ramp that is unusable (e.g. because it dead-ends in mid-air) leading to nothing, we could say "currently unused stub ramp". (Again, this depends on the scope of the article that we decide on).
• etc., etc.

However, if the article is deleted, there will be no chance to convey these differences or subtleties. Let's have a little faith in future editors that they will be able to word the text properly (and of course, provide reliable sources as well). Ufwuct 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. So let's just remake this article into one that is just all rosy and cheerful by calling them "unused highway ramps" is okay, but your whole argument about "WP makes negative comments if its well supported" is quite laughable. Labeling a ramp "abandoned" is not "negative" but clearly states that the ramp is abandoned, no longer used. Now tell me how that is "negative" against the "government"? A rerouting could have occured, or the ramp may have been realigned, or there was community opposition. You have no idea, so don't go out and label all "abandoned ramps" as negativity towards this "government." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Anything that is ugly looking and seems like a waste of taxpayer's money (if truly abandoned) is negative. To say that it is for sure abandoned, hence negative reflection on the community/government, would require proper proof. An aerial photo doesn't prove abandonment, only lack of completion at a given point in time. Crum375 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Who said ugly? Not me. Where in the article (except for the one road in Quebec talking about striping) does it say ugly? Or unsightly? Who said "waste of taxpayer's (sic) money"? Where in the article does it say this? Nowhere that I can see. For someone to make the leap to say it's "ugly" or a "waste of taxpayers' money" takes, well, ... a leap. If you have a problem with the wording, change that. But let's not scrap the article. Ufwuct 18:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, in some cases, building the intial ramps is probably cheaper if there is a high probability that the connecting road will be built. If you're doing a construction project on one freeway, it's likely a lot less expensive to built the connections (the ramps) from road #1 to road #2 while doing construction work on road #1 so that road #1 doesn't have to be partially shut down again when road #2 is eventually built. If the DOT of that state and leaders were under the impression that building road #2 was a virtual certainty, then building the ramps first makes more economic sense. Ufwuct 18:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought this was one of those things that are obvious, at least to me it was. Are you saying that to you the abandoned stubs are not ugly, nor a waste of money? Crum375 18:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So it's obvious, but POV? Maybe your POV? Has anyone else used the words ugly or waste of money other than you? I'm suggesting that we describe a ramp as ... (see my bulleted list above)... as it is. If you make the leap that it's ugly and a waste of money, that's your prerogative, but not the result of wording in the article, nor any editor's words on this talk page. Ufwuct 18:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that to you the clearly abandoned ones are not ugly nor a waste of money? Crum375 18:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• First, no I'm not saying that and did not say that.
• Second, regarding ugliness: who cares if I think it's ugly?!? If a reliable source shows significant community opinion that it is ugly, then we can mention it. Otherwise, it's totally irrelevant and should be worded in a way that prevents making a judgment regarding the aesthetic qualities of these structures in a general or on a case-by-case basis.
• Third, regarding "waste of money": It depends on the case. Construction projects in general have contingency plans based on the difficulty of construction or significance of (environmental, social, economic, etc.) impacts based on different alternatives and also on the future political atmosphere (e.g. Who will be in office X years from now when the project will require important permits? Are there any politically powerful people (or "squeaky wheels") in the path of the proposed project, regardless of the significance of impacts to those people)? They make the best decisions possible based on the information they have at they time regarding whether or not a project will proceed (in this case, road #2 (see above)). If there's an 80% chance that road #2 will be built and the costs of building the ramps (from road #1 to road #2) now are less than the costs of building the ramps later once the area has grown in population and traffic (keep in mind that you have to shut down road #1 once again), then I would say it probably makes sense to take the gamble and build the ramps now. Nowadays, schedule analysis in construction projects is much more sophisticated than it was 40 years ago, so there's not as much "gambling" inherent in this scenario. So, to sum up, it depends on each circumstance. If we have reliable sources that analyze the costs in depth or that show that significant community opinion (in the area of the ramps) believes the ramps were a waste of money, let's add it. Otherwise, my opinion and your opinion are irrelevant, as this is an encyclopedia and not a blog. Ufwuct 19:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(outdent)My point is not that we need to say in the article that "ghost ramps are ugly" or waste of money, although I am sure we could get a reputable source to say that if we wanted to. My point is simply that calling a structure or a construction project 'abandoned' is negative, at least to most people, and hence can only be done on WP article space if there is proper sourcing for saying so. Crum375 19:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't say things without proper sourcing regardless of whether they are negative. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as I said thirteen edits ago, the wording depends on the circumstances. These statements don't need sources because some people might think they are negative. These statements need sources for the simple fact that they are statements in an encyclopedia. Wouldn't you agree? Ufwuct 19:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Night Gyr, it appears we are saying the exact same thing, but I didn't see your comment first because of an edit conflict. Ufwuct 19:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The negative aspect of the statements does have some implications in WP. Yes, everything needs good sources, but we tend to be more strict and require better sources when a negative statement, that can be perceived as offensive to someone or some group is made. Also, in the case of non-negative statements some have made the argument of "let's leave the statement in the article, and hope that some future editor will add a source". I personally don't buy that, but in the case of a negative statement it's even more unacceptable. So yes, they all require sources, but negatives require better sources, and they stay out unless well sourced. Crum375 19:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a Biography of a living person. The ramp will not get offended and it is extremely unlikely that the builder or designer of these ramps or highway projects will get offended either. It's just an abandoned ramp, not an abandoned area, or an abandoned person or group of people, or an abandoned city. So I would be surprised if residents of the areas in question get offended either. In some cases (e.g. Portland or San Francisco), people see these "abandoned ramps" as a source of pride...a neighborhood "saved", sticking it to the man, etc., etc. "Abandoned" ≠ a negative statement. So far, you are the only one making this argument. I have already proposed removing some of the unsourced and least credible statments and putting unsourced statments on Talk:Ghost ramp. Those statements can remain there and gradually be readded as we get sources. I would hope that this should satisfy your desires to get "negative" statements out of the article space, not that I think such a thing is necessary because the statement are "negative". Rather, they should be stored on the talk page because they are simply unsourced. Ufwuct 20:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the offensiveness and liability to WP are not BLP-like and fairly minor, so I agree that temporary storage of unsourced items in Talk space is fine. Crum375 20:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good. We may have to put 90% of the items on the talk page (or perhaps a sub-talk page) to start out, but if that is necessary to save the article, I wouldn't have any major objections. There are a few sources as refs, a few other non-satellite embedded references, and a few articles that have wikilinks to other sourced articles, so the entire article would not likely disappear. Perhaps I will propose this as an alternative to deletion. Ufwuct 20:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: How about "unused provisions for highways"? It could also mention unused underpasses that were verifiably meant for highways. I was thinking about the provisions for the North-South Rail Link under the Big Dig, but of course that's for a rail line rather than a highway. --NE2 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Actually, if it's to be moved at all, it should be to stub ramp, the synomym that has been used in legal cases (see above), and refer the term "ghost ramp" as a synonym for "stub ramp." The list has gotten longer since this was put to AfD, and the problem is not the verifiability issue as to whether a picture of a ghost ramp/stub ramp is OR (if it's a stub, it's a stub regardless of history) but whether the picture actually shows a stub/ghost ramp in the first place as I've had difficulty seeing actual stub ramps in some of the linked pictures, even at great magnification. 147.70.242.40 22:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I found many references to the use of "ghost ramp" and some definations. Yeah, they may not be straight out of a dictionary, but for all intents and purposes, they work. If not, then I can list a lot of Wikipedia articles that would need to be deleted: dict useage useage useage useage dict useage, etc. The list goes on an on. The sheer amount searched in the Google Groups archive, at over 5800, is enough evidence alone. 911 for stub ramp alone, 322 in MTR alone [22]. 421 for dead ramp. The uses not only in "roadgeek" and transit related groups, but from many general forums, web-sites, etc. showcase the widespread terminology outside of the strict confines of said "roadgeek" - which itself is a loose term. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If I do a groups search on the phrase "ghost ramp" (rather than the individual words), I get 127 hits (with another 421 for "ghost ramps"), which are almost entirely from misc.transport.road or rec.sport.pinball (different topic), 7 for "stub ramp", and nothing on-topic for "dead ramp". I guess that shows that the m.t.r folks preferentially use "ghost ramp", but I'm not sure that's a persuasive argument as to the name of the article here. --Mr Wednesday 06:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The other uses of ghost ramps outside of the groups on numerous web-sites should indicate that it is commonly used. Not to the greatest extent, but it is referenced on numerous web-sites that deal with transportation, highways in specific, where anyone who is reading the body of the text can find contextual clues as to what "ghost ramp" indicates. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Let's consider this discussion closed. No new points have been made in several days as all possible options have been exhausted. 5 for delete versus 9 for keep. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Full tally:
  • 1 for Weak Delete
  • 3 for Delete
  • 1 for Strong Delete
  • 1 for Weak Keep
  • 6 for Keep
  • 2 for Strong Keep
  • 1 for Neutral

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Mangojuice^talk 15:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VbGORE

Non-notable online game engine, fails to meet both WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE Percy Snoodle 08:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• WP:WEB states "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.". This project won the "Code of The Month" award from Planet Source Code by over 20 votes (48 votes total) vs hundreds of other codes (reference). Might be best to research before making assumptions. As for WP:SOFTWARE, it is stated "The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.". This argument may be weaker, seeing that many of those using this software are far from complete or want to remain classified until completed, but the vbGORE website clearly states on the front page groups that are using this product. Note that this is only those who have publicly announced their products, and have made a page for their product. --Spodi 05:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know where this came from, do you have a vendetta against VB based games and engines? It seems so. I dont know where web part comes in, but it is clearly software. Please quit trying to delete things you do not understand Shannara
  • Wikipedia is not Sourceforge. Everything that can be verified as 'clearly software' doesn't have a place here. Valrith 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If that is the case then World of Warcraft, Everquest, Ultima Online, Microsoft Windows would be marked for deletion. This sounds like a double standard. Shannara
      • No double standard here. You want to compare the notability of VbGORE to that of Microsoft Windows? You don't honestly believe the two are even remotely on the same level, do you? Valrith 04:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • We're discussing notability, not whether or not the software exists or even is software at all. Please see software notability criteria. WoW is played by tons of people and is a cultural phenomenon. Everquest did great job popularising MMORPGs. Ultima Online is a great pioneer of the genre. Millions of people swear by Windows, hundreds of thousands of people swear at Windows every day. The article on VbGORE, however, doesn't exactly have similar claims of fame listed, nor can I find any with a cursory search. If you do have some that may help prove the notability of the software, please do add that to the article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Valrith 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This article reads like a promotional piece and has no supporting 3rd party references at all. OfficeGirl 21:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, doesn't appear to meet WP:SOFTWARE really. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 16:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Reads like a sales pamphlet. The Kinslayer 10:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:rs, etc... Wickethewok 16:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I just changed some things around and it doesn't fail those standards in any way anymore; there shouldn't be any problems now? Nexarcon
  • Looks to me like your changes indicate no change in status wrt WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE. So, while the additional information is good, this software still fails both. Valrith 11:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6] - Check this is here. The other is NOT relevant as it's only a proposed Criteria, it is not actual Wikipedia Criteria. Nexarcon
      • Can you cite a source which establishes that the award in question is a well-known one? I'd never heard of it, but perhaps I don't move in the right circles. If you can, then the article does meet the above criterion, and I'll happily change my vote; if not, then I don't see that it does. Percy Snoodle 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - The award clinches it for me, although I still have reservations about it sounding like a sales pamphlet. The Kinslayer 11:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Also remember this is Free software, it's open source and the programmer is not trying to sell it. Remember you cannot really mention WP:SOFTWARE as it can't be justified as policy right; it's just proposed. Nexarcon
  • I'm aware he isn't selling the software, my concern is that the article appears to me as though he is. The Kinslayer 11:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that wasn't aimed directly at you, I was just mentioning it :), I would also like to mention it has releases too. Not directly at you either, sorry. Nexarcon
    • If you think it sounds too much like an advertisement, feel free to change it to sound more neutral. ;) --Spodi 22:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• I have been editing this page to help out a bit, trying to make it sound more neutral as I do not want this page to go. Thanks - Nexarcon 08:56, 26 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 wasshowball delete hoax. `'mikkanarxi 17:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Ó Ceasaigh

Also included in this nomination:

[edit] Kányé Of The West

[edit] Celtic Legacy Records

[edit] Through the Gap of Dunloe

I'm 100% convinced these articles are hoaxes. I came across the top article yesterday whilst RC patrolling after an IP blanked it. I immediately saw it needed work and proceeded to remove POV, format it correctly, correct red links, stub, categorize and general fix ups. Ten minutes later when done it occured to me that there were no sources, or external links at all so I started searching, and searching, and searching. In short here's what I found (or didnt)

1. A google search for "Sean Ó Ceasaigh" produces zero results
2. As does "Sean O Ceasaigh", or even just (no quotes) Sean Ceasaigh. Even Ceasaigh produces less than ten!
3. Through the Gap of Dunloe is an irish expression it seems for travelling through a certain provence, however a search for the, ahem; "song [and album of the same name] made famous by Irish musician Sean Ó Ceasaigh" produces less than ten results - none of them an actual album or song (I searched both)
4. Zero relevant results when searching for "Kányé Of The West" - the Irish musician, and a search for his hit song ""Bean as Dearg" produces one result, Wikipedia.
5. Oh, a search for Sean's and Kayne's joint hit song "Ba Mhaith Liom Bris Amach" produces one result, Wikipedia.
6. Finally, as one would expect, I could not find a single trace of their record label Celtic Legacy Records either.

In short, Delete Glen 09:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as obvious hoax. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 10:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Hoaxes. Catchpole 11:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. His father's name is Lúpé? ... discospinster _talk 12:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hoaxalicious. Kanye of the West is slightly amusing, however. hateless 20:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Good investigation work to uncover the hoaxes. -Amatulic 21:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete them all, as hoaxes. Kanye of the West is probably not a plausible redirect to Kanye West. My guess is a spammer trying to increase pagerank to his record company. ColourBurst 23:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as hoaxes. The creator also went as far as to make up a fake source to divert suspicion. --Wafulz 23:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I nominated this article a couple of time ago for deletion for reasons above, I still agree with deletion. Tulkolahten 14:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Arbusto 21:36, 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 02:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featuring Percy

A fake article about a fake thomas the tank engine episode on youtube- Delete-- Storm05 16:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as an article on web content that fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Gobawoo 16:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. A youtube video [23], not a TV epsiode. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:36, 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 slight merge the Jonny Greenwood, redirect the Kurt Cobain: that way, anyone wanting to merge information back can do so. Mangojuice^talk 15:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of musical equipment used by Jonny Greenwood

Also nominating:

• List of musical equipment used by Kurt Cobain

I can't see how this is possibly of encyclopedic value. If there is a particular instrument he used which was of note, that should be mentioned in his article. But this? What's next? List of pens used by Isaac Asimov? Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. - Che Nuevara 00:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't List of musical equipment used by Kurt Cobain be up for deletion as well then? -Daisy-berkowitz 00:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that there are a lot of these? I really hope not. I'll multi-nom the Cobain one too, but if there are a bunch of these then I'm afraid this'll turn into a mess. - Che Nuevara 01:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weakish delete I've seen magazine articles cover what gear a particular musician uses... in fact, FutureMusic and ComputerMusic sometimes run features covering the wntire contents of a particular artist's studio. I agree with the nominator though, that with the exception of truly famous or unusual cases (like Laurie Anderson's self-invented tape violin), which artist uses which particular piece of gear isn't comething an encyclopedia can reasonably be expected to cover. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT. Recury 13:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with article about musician.Gobawoo 16:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Both useless indiscriminate information of little or no value. Put it in the musician's article if you like.--MonkBirdDuke 02:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge each to their respected articles. --FlyingPenguins 05:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to the respective musicians, although I don't think Cobain's is that interesting. Ac@osr 09:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge each to their respected articles. Sockigami 19:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete, merging important information wherever possible and just deleting the rest.--the ninth bright shiner ^halloween 22:11, 31 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 02:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of vehicles in Battlefield 2

Doesn't fit into wikipedia. A list of info that is only helpful to a person who plays or has played battlefield 2. Similar list have been deleted in the past.All relevant info is found within the main article.--M8v2 01:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. Be sure to nuke all the fair use images too. MER-C 12:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a game guide. Recury 13:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability.Gobawoo 16:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  Er, you are aware that Battlefield 2 was at the top of the game sales charts for three months? Cynical 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per the massive precedent. Punkmorten 17:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. -Amatulic 21:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 22:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nothing here that is of any use either in its own right or in relation to the game. Especially since it discusses the real-life versions of vehicles, not the in-game versions. Cynical 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per what happened to List of Vehicles in the Halo universe and the massive precedence set by similar deletions. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 00:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Combination 19:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 16:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and precedent. Garrett^Talk 00:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Yet more BF2 fancruft. The Kinslayer 10:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Sensenmann 16:34, 25 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 02:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of weapons in Battlefield 2

Doesn't fit into wikipedia. A list of info that is only helpful to a person who plays or has played battlefield 2. Similar list have been deleted in the past.All relevant info is found within the main article.--M8v2 01:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. Be sure to nuke all the fair use images too. MER-C 12:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a game guide. Recury 13:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the massive precedent. Punkmorten 17:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. -Amatulic 21:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 22:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the same
• Keep You're all monsters.--Hellogoodsir 19:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

reason as the list of vehicles

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and precedence. Garrett^Talk 23:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Yet another in a long-line of pointless Battlefield 2 fancruft. The Kinslayer 10:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, but if the article would look like Weapons in Half-Life 2, I would vote keep. -- Sensenmann 16:37, 25 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 02:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Halstead

Martin Halstead was nominated for deletion on 2005-12-20. The result of the discussion was "speedy keep because nomination withdrawn". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Halstead.

• Delete- I would like to ask, why are we making this page about this wannabe John Caudwell/Richard Branson. I mean this attention seeking shyster called Martin Halstead when he hasn't done anything remarkable yet. My advice for this Halstead dude is, don't comeback writing about a page about yourself unless you won a Nobel prize, even if user 213.40.67.66 is actually you, well check the variations of this page by this user, another one is that, he done most of these vanity edits himself, and appears to not be able to take any criticisms by deleting the discussion bit. BTW, IN CASE YOU DO ANYMORE, I AM WATCHING YOU, MR MARTIN HALSTEAD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey Gaybot (talk • contribs) 2006-10-18 16:03:37

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not sure that I understand the ranting above - sounds personal - but in any case this article is about someone, much over-hyped, who failed to start an airline. The article about the airline was, I believe, deleted. If his failed business plan is not in Wiki, why is he? Emeraude 14:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This guy is an 18-year-old who got some press about "starting up his own airline". He has a website [24] and was interviewed by the BBC [25] but if you look at the website the airline doesn't seem to be actually operating. All subsidiary pages on the website are 404s. He's now a DJ in Oxford. I see nothing notable in this. Had he actually started up the airline, he might be notable due to his age. --Charlene.fic 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Judging by Joey Gaybot's previous edits to the article [26], and by the infantile tantrum above, this appears to be a bad faith nomination. Wavy G 17:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nothing worth keeping. Arbusto 21:37, 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 speedily deleted as a short article with no context (CSD A1). -- Merope 14:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metal amy

There is no Metal Amy! This is fanmade GrandMasterGalvatron 17:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - lack of context, e.g. which video game? So tagged. MER-C 12:26, 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 speedy close. This is a problem that doesn't require deletion. Please use the move function or request one at requests for moving if it may be controversial or it can't be done. MER-C 11:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership equity

should be called "Owners equity" Octopus-Hands 11:44, 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 and discuss elsewhere. — CharlotteWebb 17:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum theory

The article's talk page contains under Talk:Quantum theory#expert needed discussion of whether "quantum theory" or "quantum mechanics" is the more general category.

That discussion appears at this time to favor the view that QM is the name for the general theory, which makes a page with this title inappropriate.

David R. Ingham 23:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no such consensus on the talk page. A suggestion on the talk page to merge with quantum mechanics was rejected with only one vote in favor. This AfD is raised in error and should be summarily dismissed. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I could have waited longer, but the discussion showed no sign of justifying the page. David R. Ingham 06:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You should have waited longer. This AfD is in violation of the the guidelines which say that talk page resolution should be sought first. And, as I said, the merge vote went against any change. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at a text book for guidance, I find in Bjorken and Drell (1965), chapter 11 (page 2 of the second volume):

Our approach is best illustrated by the electromagnetic field, The potentials A(x) satisfy the Maxwell wave equations and may be considered as describing a dynamical system with an infinite number of degrees of freedom. By this we mean that A(x) at each point of space may be considered an independent generalized coordinate. To make the transition from classical to quantum theory, we must, according to the general principles proclaimed in Chap. 1, elevate coordinates and their conjugate momenta to operators in the Hilbert space of possible physical states and impose quantum conditions upon them. This is the canonical quantization procedure. It is a straightforward extension to field functions, which obey differential wave equations derivable from a lagrangian, of the quantization procedure of non-reLativistic mechanics. When it is done, there emerges a particle interpretation of the electromagnetic field-in the sense of Bohr's principle of complementarity.

If photons emerge in such a natural way from the quantization of the Maxwell field, one is led to ask whether other particles whose existence is observed in nature are also related to force fields by the same quantization procedure. On this basis Yukawa predicted the existence of the meson from knowledge of the existence of nuclear forces. Conversely, it is natural from this point of view to associate with each kind of observed particle in nature a field (x) which satisfies an assumed wave equation. A particle interpretation of the field (x) is then obtained when we carry through the canonical quantization program.

They find nothing revolutionary about this. It is just proceeding to fields, according to the standard methods of quantum mechanics. The first volume is called Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and the second Relativistic Quantum Fields, but there is no suggestion that these are distinct theories. David R. Ingham 01:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Contrast this to Messiah's text (that might precede this in a curriculum) in which chapters are spent discussing the surprising and fundamental differences between QM and classical physics. David R. Ingham 06:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Messiah makes the point that if electromagnetic fields were not quantized, they would allow measurements to violate the uncertainty principle, so the underlying physics of field theory was already present in early QM. QFT is an approach to making quantum mechanical calculations. David R. Ingham 14:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And yet quantum field theory and quantum mechanics are taught in separate courses. I wonder why... :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, PLEASE READ THIS!

Nobody is coming here to LEARN Quantum Theory. People just want to learn about it! The history of it, or brief history of it. We just want to read and get a general idea of what it is. When I come to the page, and see all of this nonsense about it being deleted, I can't really learn ANYTHING about physics because I don't know if any of it is real or not, when MOST of it is! The person that made this page, never said that what they wrote down and reported here was the end all be all about this subject. Just RELAX! You are putting seeds of doubt in everyones head. That is wrong. Or maybe you are just upset and jealous that he/she got here first, and YOU wanted to do the physics page. Thats just great, "nerd fights". Just relax, and go watch some Star Trek TNG.

I'll watch it with you. ;)

• Delete and replaceReplaced with disambiguation page brief historical account, etymology, and comment on current usage including Quantum mechanics, Quantum field theory, Quantum chemistry, etc. The current "quantum theory" page is not up to the standard of other Wikipedia physics pages (quantum gravity is "third quantized"?) and effort spent trying to fix it would be better spent on the topic pages themselves better than it used to be, IMHO, but may still not satisfy everyone. The disambiguation page will of course have to be patrolled to remove pseudoscience links as soon as they are added, but that's rather easier with a disambiguation page because legitimate edits to it will be infrequent. Cheers, Michael K. Edwards 06:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC) (edits Michael K. Edwards 02:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment The term "third quantization" exists -- including its use at the physics e-archives e.g. arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606021 arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9611057. Making it a pure disambiguation page is a good idea (in fact I raised this suggestion on the talk page shortly after its creation). --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Have you read those papers? I find both of them quite incomprehensible in detail; neither is peer-reviewed (although that hardly means anything anymore); and they use "third quantization" in two different, equally nonsensical (in my book), ways. Ioannis Raptis has transcended mere manifolds and spends forty pages of verbiage (and precious few equations) quantizing something he calls "Abstract Differential Geometry - Vacuum Einstein Gravity". A. Zhuk, on the other hand, seems to think that solutions of the Wheeler-deWitt equation need quantizing, and writes: "Similar to the quantum scalar field theory in the curved space-time we can expect that the vacuum state in a third quantized theory is unstable and creation of particles (in our case, universes) from the initial vacuum state takes place." If you have some sort of insight into this and can demonstrate that they are one and the same, methinks it would be WP:OR. If not, you probably don't want to be using the phrase "third quantization". Michael K. Edwards 07:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • No I haven't read those papers :-), I just picked the first two that came up. There are others on the arxiv, have a look. My point was to demonstrate the term is in use. BTW google yields 11,400 web hits for the search string ("3rd quantized" OR "third quantized" OR "3rd quantization" OR "third quantization"). --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I am concerned that some of the definitions and used in this article are either entirely non-standard or else do not reflect universally-used physics terminology. It's not clear to me, really, that "quantum theory" has a precise and universally-understood meaning. Likewise I believe that QFT can (and is) described as "quantum mechanical," which would seem to negate the stated division between the two. This article needs to cite sources and clarify whether terms are universally used, if it is to exist at all in its present form. I'm not advocating a particular course of action yet, but this clearly requires discussion. -- SCZenz 06:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This should be thrashed out on the talk page instead of a knee-jerk AfD. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The word "quantum mechanics" cannot be used to mean both the set of all theories and one of them. While useage seems inconsistent in various text books, wikipedia must make an editorial choice between the 2 possible meanings. Pcarbonn 07:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Historically speaking (in my unqualified opinion), "quantum mechanics" is the class of rather ad-hoc semi-classical Hamiltonian-based techniques which preceded QED, and QFT as the term is now understood (action-principle-based gauge theories) was only one of many possible successors to quantum mechanics. Many alternatives were explored between about 1927 (when Pauli and Dirac started fitting spin and special relativity together and identifying the proper form of the electron current) and 1960 (when experimental confirmation of the Ahanarov-Bohm effect validated the gauge potential as a physical field). Bohr/Heisenberg/Schroedinger style quantum mechanics is still taught to undergraduates, not least because it provides some insight into atomic physics without the forbidding mathematical machinery of QFT; and a sort of hybrid QM-QFT semi-classical technique still has a lot of value in computational chemistry and plasma physics. Trying to cram all that into QFT, or vice versa, wouldn't work very well. Hence the need for a disambiguation page at quantum theory. Michael K. Edwards 07:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think editorial choice is acceptable. Wikipedia does not define words; if there are ambiguities in the definitions, we report them—anything else is original research. -- SCZenz 14:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- I'm very much in favour with keeping the lemma. Look, e.g. there's old quantum theory which definitively isn't quantum mechanics. But the current content of quantum theory looks rather weak. --Pjacobi 08:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• CommentDoes that mean you just want to keep it until the end of the week?  :)--Isotope23 14:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment corrected. Fuzzy orthography at work... --Pjacobi 14:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now, as this appears to be a content dispute. Suggest interested parties open an RfC or RfM... Even if consensus was Quantum Theory = Quantum Mechanics, this should be a redirect, not deleted; and even the DAB suggestion above requires no deletion, simply a consensus on the talk page.--Isotope23 14:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Precisely, the whole AfD is a mistake. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Terminology creep often occurs over the course of time. We should not, on that account, favor the growth of imprecision in terminology and in thinking. P0M 14:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but move to the more widespread Quantum physics. Gazpacho 17:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Quantum physics, and keep redirect. I think this discussion makes it pretty clear that (as I was taught by a former regional chair of the American Physical Society / assistant editor of the American Journal of Physics) QT and QM are not the same. - Che Nuevara 19:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Is it too much to ask that people read the article and evaluate it against the standard of major physics topics in Wikipedia? Or that they check an actual encyclopedia for the historical usage of "quantum theory", "quantum mechanics", and "quantum field theory"? Not that encyclopedias always get it right, either; but "quantum theory" does not appear to have any value other than as an umbrella term when describing developments later than about 1927 (when the observation of electron diffraction validated de Broglie / Schroedinger / Heisenberg "quantum mechanics" over the original Planck / Bohr / Einstein ansatz in which only radiation was quantized). Michael K. Edwards 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. "Is it too much to ask that people read the article" - Please assume good faith and give people the benefit of the doubt that, if they're voting, they have read the article. This comment sounds very derogatory and, in my opinion, inappropriate.
  2. "and evaluate it against the standard of major physics topics in Wikipedia?" - That isn't an issue for AfD. Poor writing or organization is not a reason to delete an article -- it is a reason to rewrite it, and those kind of issues do not belong on this forum but on the article's talk page.
  3. "Or that they check an actual encyclopedia for the historical usage of "quantum theory", "quantum mechanics", and "quantum field theory"?" - If we deleted things on the basis of "an actual encyclopedia", then we would be Britannica. We're not. This comment is not likely to gain favor with the Wikipedia community at large due to its apparent (whether you meant it this way or not) characterization of Wikipedia as "a not actual encyclopedia".
  4. ""quantum theory" does not appear to have any value other than as an umbrella term when describing developments later than about 1927" - That sounds like a useful value to me. - Che Nuevara 06:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment...I read the article and as I said above, this is a content issue. Even if this term is commonly used incorrectly it still should be a redirect or DAB with an explantion at the target (in case of a redirect), or on the DAB page outlining the historical and current misuse of the term. In any case, that is an editorial and content issue which should be discussed on the talk page & is not a reason for deletion. Particularly if there is inconsistency in relation to the usage of this term it would be valuable to document that, provided that inconsistancy is well sourced.--Isotope23 20:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep as disambiguition overview, maybe new as Quantum Theories andrej.westermann 22:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not the place for this debate. It should be on the talk page and maybe at the WP Physics Project. --Bduke 23:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This is a content dispute move it to the articles talk page. Whispering 23:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The AfD is clearly erroneous -- I have suggested on the talk page that we vote on whether or not quantum theory should become a pure disambiguation page. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Keep --Ancheta Wis 13:11, 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 Speedy keep. Nominated by an apparent single-purpose account, fixing NPOV issues does not require AfDing, and debate is highly snowbally toward keeping anyway. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tablighi Jamaat

Biased and very untrue comments. Streetfighter23 15:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep on the basis of this nomination. If the article contains "biased and very untrue comments" then this should be sorted out on the its talk page, which already contains considerable discussion. The article is already flagged for neutrality check; the right thing at this stage is to leave it at that and let the authors get on with it. BTLizard 10:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - not adhering to npov isn't a reason for deletion by itself. MER-C 12:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - not adhering to npov information is accurate, and neutral Peacekeaper1 12:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep organisation is very notable (although the article doesn't say so, it was associated in the media with the conversion of Mohammad Yousuf). Further, NPOV issues are a reason to talk them out, rather than kill the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

NB: Disregard my edit summary. I'm saying "keep", regardless of what I inadvertently typed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:43, 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. Catchpole 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vijayanagar Metropolitan City

Obvious Hoax. Pretty amusing to know that ancient cities in India were called "Metropolitan City" ! Google returned 872 hits, with almost all of them referring to Bangalore. The purported name is mentioned in only one book. Seems to be obvious Original Research. Delete as per WP:OR, WP:VAIN and WP:NON. Trish Kalakar 12:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)This was users first edit

• Be careful before calling the work of others a hoax please. The person who marked this page for deletion is obviously not an avid reader of history. The concept of "Metropolitian City" is not a new one. Please read the book which I have referred to and you will see that the authors themselves call it "The Greater Metropolitian Region". The work has been reported by Carla M. Sinopoli and Kathleen D. Morrison. Instead of adding hasty tags, the reader should have been sensible enough to contact me and ask his questions and concerns. Perhaps request a rename of the page. Obviously this user must be novice at wikipedia. Please remove the tag immedietly before I bring in an admin.Dineshkannambadi 01:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

More info on source for Vijayanagar Metropolitian City

1. Carla M. Sinopoli, 1993, Pots and Palaces: The Earthenware ceramics of the Noblemen's Quarter of Vijayanagara, New Delhi.
2. Kathleen D. Morrison, 1993,Supplying the City:The role of reservoirs in an Indian Urban Landscape, Asian Perspectives.

The work of these two scholars and several others at Vijayanagara lasted over a period of 20 years funded by various organizations including the Archaeological Survey of India, Karnataka Directorate of Archaeology amd Museums etc. The work in fact goes on as of today. The work done by many scholars has been put together into the book referenced on the concerned page by well known historians John Fritz and George Michell.

Google search!!! way to Go Trish Kalakar—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dineshkannambadi (talk • contribs) .

• Keep - Vijayanagar and this page are two different things. WP:INCITIES Also the afd nominator made this as his first edit. I smell sockpuppetry.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Extremely Strong Keep - This is ridiculous. The existence of metropolitan cities like Rome are never disputed but an Indian city comes up and immediate AfD? I smell more than just sockpuppety here. I smell some good old fashioned 19th century Indophobia. The cosmopolitan nature of the Vijaynagara Empire is well established by (guess what) western historians themselves.Hkelkar 05:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with Indophobia. The nominator is Indian. By the way, there is no article on Rome Metropolian City. utcursch | talk 07:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well given the self-hatred and negationism rampant in my country (I am also Indian) that doesn;t surprise me at all.Hkelkar 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I support renaming.Hkelkar 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

95 % of "Indophobes" live in India  Doctor Bruno  13:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but Rename to something more appropriate. The city was not known as "Vijayanagar Metropolitan City". utcursch | talk 07:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - The Vijayanagara city was probably the New York of its times. It was the capital city of the empire which changed the course of history of entire South India. Without it, history of India and S India in particular would have been very very different. And it'd be a travesty of WP policies to even think of deleting this article. But like Utcursch says, maybe the title can be changed to something more intuitive. Sarvagnya 07:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename only keep if it is renamed to Vijayanagar or merge with Kingdom of Vijayanagar.Nothing more nothing less - raking up new names to add to percieved importance is a bad practice.TerryJ-Ho
• I have no problem with renaming. Merging with main page would only lengthen the page further and readers may loose interest, especially since I am going for copy edit/FAC peer review shortly. What is the best choice? "Ancient City of Vijayanagara", "Imperial city of Vijayanagara", "Royal Vijayanagara", "Medieval Vijayanagara", "The Ancient capital of Vijayanagara Empire". Lets us not forget the Hampi, the religious/royal core of Vijayanagara is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Suggest pleaseDineshkannambadi 12:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but Rename useful article, but yeah, the name appears to be a WP:NEO. Vijayanagara is already such a large article that a fork article about the historic city is a good idea here. Dineshkannambadi suggested several good names that should be discussed on the talk page (I'm partial to "Ancient City of Vijayanagara"). I imagine there are more books than just the one referenced in the article that have covered the historic Imperial capital of Vijayanagara... it might be beneficial to see what other researchers have called it.--Isotope23 14:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - The article is not WP:OR. So, the reason itself for marking it Afd is not valid. While keeping this article after renaming is a good option, the current name is as good as the names suggested by Dineshkannambadi above. Also, this name is used in the published book by the researcher. Either way (rename or dont rename), that should be discussed in talk page of the article. - KNM ^Talk 17:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If only used in the one book it fails WP:NEO and probably shouldn't be used as the title for this article.--Isotope23 19:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong and Speedy Keep

1. This is NOT vanity. The city was there centuries ago
2. This is NOT original research. I can list 50 book on this topic if I go to Connemera
3. This was the capital city of an Emperor

Rename and remove the word Metropolitan  Doctor Bruno  13:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Vijayanagara - This is a more popular name than "Vijayanagar metropolitan area." --Gurubrahma 18:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep First of all, I'm very troubled by the nominator's opinion on the English translation of the Indian designation of "Metropolitan City." Maybe the nominator doesn't know it, but major cities existed in Asia and most other continents in historic times - even by Spanish accounts, Tenochtitlan (now Mexico City) was considered the largest city in the world in the 1500's - An excellent example of an ancient city being different than the contemporary successor. Secondly, there's enough unique information here to make a merge to Vijayanagara impractical as the latter's article would be too long. --Marriedtofilm 23:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Extremely Strong Keep - User Utcurschji is opinion is thought provoking. The existence of metropolitan cities like Rome are never disputed but an Indian city comes up and immediate AfD? Why someone think that Indian cities are so much under-rated. I consider this AfD discussion as a humiliation towards Indians.Nileena joseph 14:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. All what is mentioned is notable, and though the History section of the Vijayanagara article can do with more from this article, it is notable enough to stand on its own. In addition to it, I believe that the article might need a renaming if this is not the way it is referred to in references. BTW, this article was orphaned, so I added a link to it from the Vijayanagara article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:07, 26 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 02:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W. Jarrett Campbell

W. Jarrett Campbell

• Vanity article about a pretty non-notable person.

Delete, self-written vanity article. Λinfo 01:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Woop woop, boring alert! Almost pure vanity, highly concentrated, with hints of spam. Delete. BTLizard 09:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote this article about myself but only after I found my name linked to a blank page from Carolina RailHawks F.C.. I thought it was better to have a self-written page than a broken link. The article is factual and unlike BTLizard I do not think it's self-aggrandizing but I guess others should judge that. To say this is Spam is a bit much imho. The page is linked now from several other articles and serves the purpose to give detail on a person referenced in other WikiPedia articles. But if you guys don't think it has a purpose, feel free to delete it. --Wjarrettc 10:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: better to have no link at all to a non-notable person than a red link. I'd also be very dubious about the notability of Triangle Soccer Fanatics. --Pak21 10:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Only shot at meriting inclusion would be the professor test, which he seems to flunk. Would the author object to userfying the article if deleted (ie making it his userpage or a subpage of his userpage)? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete...sorry! Schmiteye 05:56, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In My Heart

Unsourced and probably unverifiable speculation about the future release of an album and its contents. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Donald Albury 10:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.Gobawoo 16:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:38, 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 close non-debate and add a {{merge}} tag. — CharlotteWebb 17:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kinsarmar

completely unnecessary, can easily be merged with Aetherius. calaiermiant 10:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is articles for deletion. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. Do not nominate articles for deletion when deletion is not in fact the action that you want to be carried out. Uncle G 11:29, 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 02:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rock paper Scissors slap!

Invented game with no significance Kamiawolf 10:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Can't hide my admiration for an article which actually admits it was made up in school one day, but delete obviously. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fys. . Imagine how easy it would be if everyone did that - someone could make a bot that just crawls through pages looking for the phrase "we made it up in science class". Dina 11:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Make that a "laughing delete" per nom. --GoodSamaritan 12:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete beats rock, paper and scissors per nom. MER-C 12:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V as well as WP:NFT.--Isotope23 14:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons given above. I also don't believe it was created in a science lesson one day (rather, ONLY created in a science lesson one day, as it seems like something that's simple enough that people would think of it pretty easily), I've played a game like this; it's the sort of thing that people break out when drinking has been going on. Edward Wakelin 16:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable game.Gobawoo 16:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete duh. Danny Lilithborne 19:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or possibly merge as variant to RockPaperScissor article Arnoutf 21:53, 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 no consensus. Mangojuice^talk 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YAM (Yet Another Mailer)

Yet another mailer. Literally. No evidence of significance, user base or being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Guy 11:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ironic delete - fails to assert notability. MER-C 11:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would say "The 2.2 version was then also rated as the best e-mail client for Amiga computers back in 1998." is an assertion of notability. Cheers --Pak21 12:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Rather a small pond, that. And by whom, anyway? Guy 12:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That's why it isn't an assertion of notability, because I can say that without revealing that I made it up or any evidence whatsoever to back it up. If it were sourced, yes.MER-C 14:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• this is a full-length magazine review in Svet Kompjutera by Nikola Smolenski. this is a personal review by Adam Hough. this is one paragraph in AMIGA-Magazin by Uwe Röhm. this is third-party documentation for YAM written by Jérome Chappuis in March 2002 and published in Obligement. this (see pages 24 and 25) is a medium-length magazine review in issue 3 of Total Amiga. Uncle G 14:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The program has been mentioned in several Amiga magazines as the best Amiga mail client ever. JIP | Talk 16:46, 20 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, JIP

• Delete notability is asserted, but not evidenced. We need more precise references than "mentioned in several Amiga magazines", and I'd happily reconsider if the evidence is produced. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It has already been produced, and is right there immediately above. Uncle G 15:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep b/c i have heard of it. PFA 01:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. No one wants to delete it and there's no consensus to merge. If someone still feels like it should be merged, it's an editorial decision that anyone can do (or revert). - Bobet 12:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical_criticism

Biblical criticism is redundant with Criticism of the Bible. They are exactly the same topics. Doesn't really matter which on goes. Any text thought salvagable can be dumped into the other. GoodSamaritan 11:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Now merge based on the discussion below. GoodSamaritan 05:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Criticism of the Bible and merge anything sourced and relevant... this probably could have been boldly done without an AfD.--Isotope23 14:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge due to redundancy.Gobawoo 16:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Wait! Biblical criticism is not the same as Criticism of the Bible. Sheesh! You cannot merge these articles!!!
  • Do not delete or merge! Biblical Criticism is an important academic field in theology and religious studies. It is not the same as the Criticism of the Bible. Criticism of the Bible is an interesting and useful Wikipedia article, but it is about philosophical and ethical objections to the contents of the Bible. Biblical criticism- which is an important and recognised academic field in both religious studies and theolgoy- is criticism of a literary or historical nature: it is about recovering the original text, understanding the history of the text and its transmission, understanding the background to the text. This is a quite different set of concerns to what is mentioned in the Criticism of the Bible article- as, indeed, the introduction to the 'Cricitism of the Bible article notes: This article is about criticisms which are made against the Bible as a source of information or ethical guidance. This is not the same thing as Biblical Criticism, which is the academic treatment of the bible as a historical document. Enough said, I think! Slackbuie 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Your defence seems to be that this article is a WP:POVFORK (which are not allowed). If the two articles are honestly something different, one of the the article's titles should relect this. "Biblical criticism" and "Criticism of the Bible" mean exactly the same thing and that is confusing. GoodSamaritan 05:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Slackbuie the percieved redundancy soes not exist and merger wouldn't require an AfD anyway. Eluchil404 10:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Biblical Criticism is one of the critical elements in the study of the Old Testament Theology. The terms Biblical Criticism forms part of the dictionary of theologians whereas Criticism of the Bible does not. I have included further readings in Biblical Criticism to show how important this topic is. For personal opinion about Biblical Criticism, you may consult any Old Testament Theologian teaching in a Seminary or a University near your location. Please do not delete this article and maintain status quo. In course of time, this article will be developed by consulting Old Testament Theologians.Pavani 12:05, 31 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 02:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of gay and bisexual people in video games

Article is not noteworthy and has no real use. Most of the information displayed is debatable at the least and unverified. Removing the factually questionable material would leave a short list of little use to the Wikipedia user. Wolf ODonnell 11:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete because there isn't a single source on the article, and a lot of it appears to be original research. jd || talk || 11:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete what do you know, someone beat me to the nomination. this article is full of "suspected to be gay" entries. I only see about three that are known homosexuals. --Philo 13:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete better covered in Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender characters in video and computer games (although that article has its flaws too). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 19:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's OR, which is not allowed. TJ Spyke 22:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Part unmaintainable list, part original research. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for outing video game characters. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Besides the fact that its OR, do we really need to see what sexuality some characters are? We don't care!!! Also, this article opens itself up to vandalism. guitarhero777777 17:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete many issues with this article. Andre (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Rubbish. Too many "presumably gay" entries. And many entries don't state all the facts (for instance Asuka Kasen later goes on to say sleeping with men is just business). Garrett^Talk 23:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Seems to be 100% original research. The Kinslayer 10:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - That's not a notable article. -- Sensenmann 16:47, 25 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 02:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SeeNx

Tiniest of tiny pages for non-notable company. Alexa.com traffic places it somewhere outside the top million (though I know this isn't enough in itself). Google has only 4,800 hits. Interestingly one of the top 10 pages happens to correspond to one of the usernames that made an edit, which says advert to me. No one has updated it in months. It's non-encyclopaedic. Andymarczak 12:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. OfficeGirl 21:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although I have a feeling this article may have been created to avoid a red link in the videoconferencing article. -Amatulic 21:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:39, 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 02:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot holes in Harry Potter

Barely encyclopedic fancruft, intrinsically and irreparably original research. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 12:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-encylopaedic. --Andymarczak 12:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced original research. -- Whpq 13:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 13:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only 2 examples are given, and neither are really true plot holes in the sense that neither of them shows contradiction or paradox or breach of internal continuity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Even if I thought this WP:OR merited an article in some fashion, there apparently really aren't any major plot holes in the books, therefore rendering it doubly deletable. Dina 16:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If an actual source (like Rowling's website) can be found for these plot holes they deserve the briefest of mentions/links from the main harry potter articles. --Coroebus 16:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteOR. Gobawoo 16:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Dina hit a bullseye with his/her take on the matter. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dina. Danny Lilithborne 19:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until some proper content can be found for this page (although there are accusations of plot holes in Harry Potter, neither of the two examples on the article are plot holes) we shouldn't have it. Cynical 17:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 21:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All the arguments against seem to be based on fancruft not fact, if the article is small it should be expanded not deleted.Simondrake 02:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment On the other hand, you are the creator of this article, yet have not expanded on it. If this information is worthy of entry at all, it should form part of the main article about the book. Andymarczak 07:23, 24 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 02:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sleuth (Internet RPG)

Non-notable online game; fails WP:WEB Percy Snoodle 15:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. All the links make me suspect it is spam, so I removed the ones that only supported the game [27] but weren't official. EVula 19:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - If this isn't a poster child for an advert, I don't know what is. The Kinslayer 09:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Wickethewok 16:03, 24 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 02:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apotheosis Publishing

Non-notable RPG publishing company; fails WP:CORP. Prod contested. Percy Snoodle 12:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 13:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I originally put up the prod tag which read "Non notable publisher. Amazon knows one book that was published by them. Does not come close to meeting WP:CORP." I stand by those comments. The prod was removed by Cryogenesis (talk · contribs) who claims that this company published books in the 80's which are now out of print. This, as far as I can tell, is utterly unverified. Even if that is true, these books were not significant enough for them to leave any sort of trace today on the web. Pascal.Tesson 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

extra comment while I'm at it, let me shamelessly plug the WP:BK proposal. None of the books they published in the 80s (if any exist!) come close to meeting the criteria of that proposed guideline. Pascal.Tesson 15:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge I don't care whether this is kept or not. Apotheosis Publishing's only claim to fame is that they own Spellbinder Games, a very popular book with a newsworthy history in the game industry. Thats it. I vote that it be rolled into the Spellbinder Games entry, which should be kept. I only gave it its own entry for completeness. I don't know that much about the company so I can't really add anything to the discussion.--Cryogenesis 13:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Robbstrd 23:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sadly cryogenesis is alone in his opinions on Apotheosis, Spellbinder and Dreadmire. If they had some level of identity seperate from Randy it would be worth exploring further but they do not. All three are linked, remove one and the rest fall.Quode 04:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Ironically I came to this debate because I was going to start a Wikipedia entry for Dreadmire. I don't know why people want to trash the book because of some petty jihad against the author. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! Dreadmire is one of the best d20 books I've ever read. Sorry to be a spoil sport.--68.11.44.88 23:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The above user, like User:68.222.23.153, is likely another sockpuppet of Randy Richards/Cryogenesis.--Robbstrd 00:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Wouldn't sock puppets all have the SAME IP address??? Different IP addresses could indicate possible meat puppets which, ironically, is what user Robbstrd is. Or they could be - egads - fans of the company and its books.--Cryogenesis 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Not necessarily. As for meatpuppetry, I'm working at the behest of no one, Randy.--Robbstrd 18:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per pascal. Arbusto 21:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable publisher that has published only a single book. That book was judged as non-notable by a previous (and lengthy) AFD, and its article was deleted. Same sock-puppets showing up on that AFD, as well as the one for Spellbinder Games, and the same person (Cryogenesis) accusing long-standing Wikipedians with very long edit histories of being meat puppets. Crazy. Fairsing 02:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, I guess its just an amazing coincidence that Fairsing belongs to the "Greyhawk Wiki Project", just like Robbstrd, and that Quode is a known cohort of Robbstrd, who in turn is also a self-proclaimed hater of the author of the Dreadmire book. No, there are no meat puppets here. Its all just a coincidence. These are not the drones you want. Move along.
• Comment Also, AfD nominations are considered independent of each other, and thus your AfD reference has no bearing.--Cryogenesis 16:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: publishers of non-notable books aren't notable --Pak21 09:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There is relevant discussion at Necromancer Games, a publishing company of similar in size and scope to Spellbinder Games. Many of the people voting here "delete" are voting "keep" there, indicating the bias of this group. Spellbinder Games/Apotheosis Publishing has four books published (one recently) and two books coming out with 6 months. Necromancer Games has four books.--Cryogenesis 16:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• AfD nominations are considered independent of each other, and thus this has no bearing. Beyond this, Necromancer games has 37 books, so your claim is simply inaccurate.--Rosicrucian 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The other books were actually developed by other companies and then later released (under license) by Necromancer Games. Not the same thing as publishing your own books. "Necromancer Games has only published four books" is a true statement.--Cryogenesis 15:50, 24 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 keep as nominator has since supported keep and there are no other people supporting deletion. Capitalistroadster 00:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tibia (computer game)

NN online game; fails WP:WEB, WP:SOFTWARE. Percy Snoodle 12:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - "Tibia is one of the oldest, longest-running graphical online computer role-playing games (MMORPGs)", alexa = 1466: [28]. Dominating ghits, even though there's a bone by the same name. MER-C 13:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. I've included that information in the article. The article definitely needs a lot of attention. Percy Snoodle 14:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, popular. Percy, You put this up for AfD and then voted to keep it? --Ouro 20:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Default to speedy keep?--Wafulz 23:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This game, as MER-C said, is one of the oldest graphical online game, with thousands of players around the planet. Dreyesbo 00:25, 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 speedy deleted by User:CambridgeBayWeather at 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC). Metros232 15:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DIMITRIS ANDRIKOPOULOS

Doesn't meet WP:BIO, being a son of an Olympian does not constitute notability. Contested prod. MER-C 13:03, 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. DS 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Ferro

Notability not established with reliable sources. Article is pretty much unverifiable. A Google search for "Frank Ferro" + Panama returns 26 hits almost all of them from MySpace or unrelated links. Metros232 13:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The fact that the only source referenced is MySpace is pretty telling in itself. Look at the creator's contributions, User:Calderon01 and the reading of the first few sentences make me believe that this article is also WP:VAIN. Mitaphane _talk 02:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: 201.224.34.195 (talk • contribs • count) deleted the contents of this article; this IP hails from Panama (same location as the subject), and the user who originally created the article was temp-blocked. It looks like the user who created the article is giving up. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as per my comments above. Author has blanked page; I believe policy says somewhere that this is a go-ahead to assume the author has given up and delete an article. This vote stands as long as the author does not put the material back. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:16, 24 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. - Bobet 12:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spinach with Chocolate Sauce

Delete. This subject does not pass the proposed WP:BK criteria (although it does seem to be on some elementary school reading lists). It has an Amazon rank of over 1.4 million. ^{[Check Google hits]} 340 Google hits (41 "unique") mostly from vendor sites. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 13:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No notability asserted. Eluchil404 10:44, 25 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. - Bobet 12:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spellbinder Games (USA)

Prod contested. My original prod rationale was "Not notable per WP:CORP. As far as I can tell they have never published a children's book or at least none that Amazon ever heard about. So it seems they have published one book. One." User Cryogenesis (talk · contribs) claims that this company and its parent company Apotheosis Publishing published books in the 80's which are now out of print.

• Comment This claim in unverifiable and doubtful. Moreover this user has a very particular interest in all things related to Randy Richards who is the author of the one book published by this company: Dreadmire. Incidentally, that book is also up for deletion. Pascal.Tesson 13:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Not everything is verifiable online. There is a real word out there with a lot of information that isn't online at all. As to my "particular interest in all things related to Randy Richards", so do you Pascal.Tesson, Quode and Robbstrd as you can see by their edits. I was only mildly interested in the subject, which is NOT Randy Richards, but the popular book Dreadmire and all things related to IT. My "particular interest" occured when meat puppets called in by sock puppet Quode appeared out of the woodwork and started editing my articles mercilessly, trying to show the author in a bad light, violating all sorts of Wikipedia rules and guidelines in the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryogenesis (talk • contribs)

• Comment My interest in this subject came when I noticed (doing Newpage patrol) that you had created 10 separate articles about types of oozes and advised against it. I would also note that I have edited all over Wikipedia but yes, when I see signs of vanity editing I tend to follow the trails so that the necessary cleanup can be done. Also if this publisher has published children books I would be happy to have a title. We could then look it up in the library of congress and actually verify that it exists. Pascal.Tesson 18:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Percy Snoodle 15:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The argument is now in a cycle. Randy has yet to prove one thing and makes spurious claims. He has no idea what Wiki is all about and assumed he could just walk in and make whatever claims he wished. Wiki is edited by people who have invested a large amount of time to ensure the information displayed is correct. Quode 17:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Which is something you should do yourself. Your sole purpose for creating a user name was to nominate the Dreadmire article for deletion. I have asked Randy Richards to come here and defend the book but he seems in agreement with you, that D&D has no place on Wikipedia.--Cryogenesis 16:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The notion that D&D has no place on Wikipedia is absurd. Considering its fanbase and its inspiration to the Computer Gaming industry, as well as two Motion Pictures and a Cartoon Series, it unquestionably a part of our Culture.--RobNoxious 01:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment My apologies to Mr. Richards. He did not say D&D had no place on Wikipedia. According to this link,[29]he said D&D, its co-creators Gary Gygax and Dave Arenson, WotC/TSR, World of Greyhawk, Dragonlance & authors, and Dungeon/Dragons magazines, SHOULD be on Wikipedia - and then added later that Len Lakofka might should be there too.--Cryogenesis 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep They may be low on the scale of notability, but they do have a product, and there is also Spellbinder Games (UK) which might one day get an article, and I'd hate for folks to confuse them. I am however, troubled by the obvious acrimony between the various parties here, and I suggest that the folks involved take a step back and cool off.FrozenPurpleCube 21:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I can assure you I have not lost my cool. But I'd like to point out that WP:CORP is pretty clear: having a product does not make your company notable. Pascal.Tesson 22:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, but no, your line below this belies that attitude. It is obvious that there is a bit of personal feeling in this debate, and that's a problem that should set off warning bells in your head. Consider this a chance to be a good person.. Plus WP:CORP is not pretty clear. It actually starts off saying it is only a rough guideline. But that doesn't even address my real concern, which was confusion with the UK Spellbinder. That's reason enough on its own to have some information. (In fact, I'd say that the disambig page at Spellbinder probably needs this information, but I'll leave that to others.FrozenPurpleCube 05:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• With all due respect, that sort of thinking leads to disambig pages which are so large that they are useless. And WP:CORP is clear: while it's not prescriptive it does indicate that corporations who fail to meet the criteria are likely to be deletable. Since this particular corporation is well below any of the criteria then WP:CORP is in fact very relevant. As for what you perceive as my negative attitude towards this company, again, it is nothing personnal but yes, I do tend to get ticked when an article is being supported by essentially one user and his sockpuppets (well, plus you!) and when the arguments for keeping it involve what seem to be desparate lies. I'm surprised to find you completely unphased by the concern that the content of the article is unverifiable. Pascal.Tesson 00:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• First, you're not exactly making a good case with me by simply citing policy pages. Sorry, but I find it hard to discuss things with people who just throw those out. Anyway, I've never seen a disambig page that's useless due to size, and frankly, I can't even imagine one. Maybe if it were poorly sorted, but that's a slightly different problem. In any case, two entries isn't that much. More if we move it to Spellbinder (currently at 9). And no matter how annoyed you get, the important thing is to be civil. Annoyance tends to lead to the situation becoming aggravated, not resolved. It certainly distresses me, especially given And no, the entire contents of the article are not unverifiable. Dreadmire at least is listed on Amazon.com and various other sellers. So I'm satisfied with that. Anything else is merely questionable. And they aren't any less notable than many of the minor companies listed in the RPG publisher's category(which is where they should be placed IMHO, so I'm going to do that). Whether or not most of those articles should go through an AfD is something worth considering though. FrozenPurpleCube 14:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Per Spellbinder at the NG discussion board we get this quote" I am going by memory so don't quote me on this. Keep in mind these were children's fantasy books along the same lines as Harry Potter. I believe there was The Persnackety Dragon, The Dimadon Lantern, and My Magical Maguffin. There was also a coloring book called Fantasmagoria. Sadly all the remaining copies of these long out of print books were lost in the storm." Link http://p105.ezboard.com/fnecromancergamesfrm17.showMessageRange?topicID=145.topic&start=201&stop=220Quode 21:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment ha ha ha. Is that the best evidence they have? "Yes we published books but we don't remember their titles and we lost our copies in Hurricane Katrina so you'll have to trust us on that". This is even more laughable than I first thought. This has got to go if only per WP:V. Pascal.Tesson 22:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Your "ha ha ha" shows you are gleeful at the prospect of getting Spellbinder Games deleted. You should take Manticore's advice and pull back from this "jihad," as one user put it. Also, your comment "is that the best evidence they have" indicates you think this is some sort of game or contest. The 20-year old books existed, and no it may not be proveable online, but not everything is online. There are several books from my own childhood that I cannot find online anywhere, including Library of Congress online and WorldCat online. The online record is not complete.--Cryogenesis 17:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep For what its worth I enjoyed the trilogy, The Persnackety Dragon, The Dimadon Lantern, and My Magical Maguffin. I wish I still had my copies so I could verify all this for you but I lost them in (you guessed it!) Katrina. I do remember them at a place called Spellbinder Books in Mississippi. Not sure if SG is one and the same. Don't know anything about the coloring book.--68.11.44.88 23:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• CommentHow convienient. The above user, like User:68.222.23.153, is likely another sockpuppet of Randy Richards/Cryogenesis.--Robbstrd 23:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Amazing how Katrina wiped out the whole Spellbinder Games and Apotheosis Publishing section of the library of congress. That hurricane sure was something. Also note that WorldCat has no trace of either of these books. Pascal.Tesson 00:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Per spellbinder there was a book store that was destroyed in the storm. Spellbinder Books was not listed in any private, consumer or goverment listing. See:http://www.gamingreport.com/print.php?sid=19359. As an aside Spellbinder Games never showed up to any conventions. Just Randy and his books. Per Randy, this company Spellbinder Games, just happened to have offices in one of the dance studios he worked at.http://www.dancebackwards.com/RandyRichardsBiography.html. They are everywhere and nowhere.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quode (talk • contribs) .

• Comment For what its worth, Spellbinder Games was at Dragon Con and Gen Con.--Cryogenesis 15:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment They may have been there, but not as dealers/exhibitors: GenCon-[30]; DragonCon-[31]--Robbstrd 20:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Robbstrd 23:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable publishing company.--Rosicrucian 22:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The company has published only a single work, which itself was judged non-notable by a (lengthy) AFD and its article deleted. Same sock-puppetry mess on that AFD as well. Fairsing 02:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: The article on this company's alter-ego, Apotheosis Printing, has now been deleted. Given that Spellbinder and Apotheosis are one and the same company, this article should also be deleted. Fairsing 04:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: publishers of non-notable books are not notable --Pak21 09:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There is relevant discussion at Necromancer Games, a publishing company of similar in size and scope to Spellbinder Games. Many of the people voting here "delete" are voting "keep" there, indicating the bias of this group. Spellbinder Games/Apotheosis Publishing has four books published (one recently) and two books coming out with 6 months. Necromancer Games has four books.--Cryogenesis 16:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• AfD nominations are considered independent of each other, and thus this has no bearing. Beyond this, Necromancer games has 37 books, so your claim is simply inaccurate.--Rosicrucian 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: And Necromancer Games have won significant awards. Is there any evidence as to the awards Spellbinder Games has won? --Pak21 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Trivial awards do not count, sorry.--Cryogenesis 16:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment FYI for those that don't know, the "EN World" website was originally created as a message board to support a community project to design a campaign world for 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons. The "ENnies" started in 2002, hardly enough time to become "significant". They are currently the equivalent of a bowling trophy, albeit in the gaming community. I am sure they are very important to some people, just like a bowling or dance trophy is to some people. No offense to the people at the EN World website, who I am sure are good people that work very hard, but the ENnies are indeed a trivial award. A Pulitzer is a non-trivial award. A little perspective, please.--Cryogenesis 16:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You're not up on the biz, are ya? People are putting notice of nomination on their product. Maybe if you actually had anything to do with RPGs...mythusmage 23:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Some people put dance and bowling awards on their resumes. If its all you've got, hey, its a great thing. Unfortunately, bowling, dance, and ENnie trophies are all trivial, as Wikipedia defines it.--Cryogenesis 15:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please advise as to where Wikipedia defines trivial and non-trivial awards and trophies. Regardless, It is not the equivilent of a Bowling Trophy, it is the equivilent of winning a championship in the Professional Bowling Association. There is absolutely no more prestigious and recognized award in d20 gaming.--RobNoxious 01:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Same as a championship in the PBA? Really. A 50 year old contest that has thousands of contestants? You may need to step back a gain some perspective.--Cryogenesis 04:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Hunter103 01:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep So long as related pages are merged so as not to create volumes of material for a publisher with only one book, I personally see no reason the page should be deleted entirely. As I understand it, the WP:CORP is a guideline, not an absolute. Various vanity pages, however should be eliminated/merged.--RobNoxious 01:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Very little in this article is verifiable, other than that Dreadmire exists as a product on Amazon. It is almost entirely the claims of the subject of the article, as relayed through the website and forum posts.--Rosicrucian 03:58, 29 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. Merging, cleanup, etc. might be an option to discuss elsewhere, but there obviously no consensus to delete this. — CharlotteWebb 18:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time Cube

This has previously been debated for deletion a couple of times and kept (see Talk:Time Cube/Delete), but I would like to revisit it, not least in the light of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aetherometry (second nomination). What we have here is presented as a scientific theory, which it clearly is not. No scientific theory can possibly claim as immutable fact that pi=3.20. Because it is so patently absurd it has not been discussed in any reputable peer-reviewed journals, which makes it pretty close to impossible to balance the absurdity without venturing into original research. There is no doubt that the idea has a certain degree of notability, but the theory itself is simply unsupported by any credible peer-reviewed evidence, so is fundamentally unverifiable. What we can verify is that Gene Ray expounds this twaddle, and we can and should document it at Gene Ray, but not here.

Obviously redirection is an editorial action which requires no Super Powers^TM, but I don't want to just do that, I want to stimulate a proper debate on the issue and hopefully achieve a consensus view that this subject is one we cannot cover separately, which would ensure that we don't have to have the same debate again in a month form now. Guy 13:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"JzG" and/or "Guy", see the following link, [32], for a peer-reviewed Academic journal contribution discussing Time Cube. Yes, it's been published in a university academic journal, and was peer-reviewed. So already, we're seeing how much of a monumental, massive and important theory Time Cube really is.

That's not a serious academic article. Bwithh 17:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious keep. Article is about a web site, not a scientific theory. — Omegatron 13:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Except it isn't. It's about a theory - Time Cube is the proposition that time is cubic. Why else would it go into detail about why the theory is wrong? See the problem? Guy 14:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Don't use AfD for content disputes. The web site and the "theory" are notable and encyclopedic (even being presented at universities). If you have an issue with how the article is presented, discuss it on the talk page, not here. This AfD is inappropriate and should be closed. — Omegatron 14:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's here because I think there should be no article with this title. That is a proper matter for AfD to decide. Merge and redirect is also a valid outcome of an AfD debate. Guy 15:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• So you think that an article about the "Time Cube" website is appropriate, but it should not be called "Time Cube"? — Omegatron 21:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I think an article specifically covering the Time Cube as a website would be a clear delete per WP:WEB. It's as a theory or meme that I'm still undecided about the notability. If anything the website is only notable as media tied to what is possibly a notable crackpot theory.--Isotope23 00:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, Agree, this article is less about the website (which I don't see any evidence it meets WP:WEB anyway) than about the theory itself. The question here really is, it a theory that nearly every legitimate researcher and academic discounts to the point of virtually ignoring it notable as a theory? How about as a meme if the theory has been roundly parodied and ridiculed? No opinion yet, but if this was just about the website I would say the article is eminently more deletable per WP:WEB than if it is considered as the theory being a meme.--Isotope23 14:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly. It's almost impossible to work out fomr the article exactly what we're claiming it is, or its claim to notability might therefore be. A redirect to Gene Ray would at lest have the virtue of making it unambiguously clear that this is about one man's absurd theory and the ridicule (and flying-spaghetti-monster stylee popularity) it has attracted. Guy 15:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, the theory is ludicrous. So what? That doesn't make it any less deserving of an article. — Omegatron 16:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, but the fact that the article doesn't comply with Wiki guidelines for original research does. -- Moondigger 17:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment well to that I would say it is not deserving of an article unless there are enough notable sources to establish it as a well known crackpot theory. I'm less concerned with if it is factual or not and more concerned with if it is notable. The website itself fails WP:WEB pretty roundly with most of the references to it in non-WP:RS blogs. I'm still undecided about the notability of the theory itself though. If kept this article needs a good hard whack with the no original research stick.--Isotope23 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Probable keep We don't delete articles about theories just because they're wrong, or even because they're too incoherent to figure out what the theory even is. If this, for lack of a better word, idea, has a following, and is discussed apart from the person of Gene Ray, than it's plausible to have an article about it. (I don't really know whether it does have a following, which is why I said "probable".) --Trovatore 15:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The vast majority of the article constitutes original research, and as such does not meet Wikipedia standards. What little content exists that doesn't amount to original research can be included in the article (or a section of the article) about Gene Ray. -- Moondigger 15:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I agree with Trovatore's arguments, except that I see little evidence of a following. As a website, it doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. As for the argument that it's presented at universities: this was following an invitation of students, and I quite see university students invite some weird guy for all sorts of reasons (to brag about it, to practise debating, for entertainment). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd like to add that in the previous AfD discussion, many people asserted that it is a wide-spread Internet phenomenon. However, I haven't found much evidence for this assertion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, they invited him to the university to make fun of him. So what? That doesn't make the appearance any less notable. — Omegatron 16:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, AfD is not for content disputes. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 16:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. An article about the website, which is notorious, I had heard of it and seen it long before coming to Wikipedia, is necessarily going to get mixed up with the crank theory that the site serves to promote. This is the fourth AfD for the article, and there comes a time to give up. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep I have rewritten the artice to be aboute a notable website, as opposed to a non-notable theory. JBKramer 16:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Delete unverifiable in current form. Needs to start from scratch. JBKramer 17:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Subject is notable on the net, although no one has really written anything serious about it which makes the article imposible to comply with WP policies.Tranqulizer 17:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Which therefore means it should be deleted, not kept. The difficulty of adherence to Wiki policy is not a valid reason to keep such articles. -- Moondigger 17:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I will admit my reason for voting keep has more to do with my own interest in the subject than any objective atempt to follow WP policies. I agree with the delete camp's argument that if policies are to be followed strictly the article should be deleted. However I urge people to consider the amount of work that has gone into the current version of the article and that it has survived AFD before. I hope a consensus can be reached.Tranqulizer 18:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment The amount of work that has gone into this article isn't really something that justifies its existance. I've seen some wonderful pieces of original research that obviously took the author(s) a considerable amount of time to create. It's a shame to have to delete something that people spent a considerable amount of time on, but if an article does not (and cannot) meet relevant policies and guidelines then it has no place here no matter how much work went into it.--Isotope23 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
        • They're not policies, by the way; they're guidelines. We can decide to keep it even if it doesn't meet WP:WEB. — Omegatron 21:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I was speaking in a general sense about policies and guidelines; point being that time spent on an article isn't a reason to keep it. Of course guidelines can be ignored but personally I need to see a compelling reason why a subject should be given a pass on the relevant guideline (i.e. how does it benefit the Wikipedia project to ignore the guideline and retain a specific article).--Isotope23 00:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• No vote. I wrote my "probable keep" above before going to the website. As far as I can tell, there's no theory at all, not even an obviously false or obviously meaningless one. That is, there is no exposition, no argument, no explanation, just a stream of apparently disconnected one-liners. The article gives the impression that there's a collection of unifying ideas that connect things together, but if there is, it doesn't seem to be on the first page of the website; it seems that the authors of the WP article must have done a bit more synthesis than is really permitted, unless there's another source somewhere. That said, if it's a notable phenomenon it should be kept. --Trovatore 18:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  It's definitely notable, though it was most prominent before Wikipedia's time, making it a little harder to find references. If you think there's too much original research, it needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. — Omegatron 21:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete/redirect to Gene Ray (possible very cut down merge) When I was at MIT, some people invited [Gene Ray to give a lecture on his "Time Cube" idea]. I hadn't really heard of it before but some people I knew were going and said it would be funny, so I went along out of curiousity. The whole event was basically Gene talking about his ideas and a crowded auditorium of MIT students (and a few profs) laughing at him and asking him smartass obviously mocking questions for 50 mins. Gene just didn't seem to be aware at all that people were laughing at him and treating him as a freakshow event (I mean, he was invited by MIT students who fully intended in advance that he would be an object of derision). This was not a high point in MIT culture. The whole thing event made me uncomfortable. Schizophrenia is a very broad, vague, contested and perhaps not so useful term but Gene clearly had some problems in that general area. (and his "unique" website style is not so unique. There are other sites on the web where people with apparently similar problems post totally incoherent rants/conspiracy theories/crank ideas in a similar strange website format style... it seems to be something of a symptom.). My problem with this article is that I can't see any purpose to laying out Gene Ray's Time Cube ideas in such detail except to mock someone who may well need professional mental health help. Gene Ray / Time Cube may be widely known (okay, so keep the Gene Ray article), but what's the seemly, non-smirking purpose for this kind of detailed exploration? Bwithh 21:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  That's sad, but even if he's completely sincere in his "theories", "protecting" the mentally ill is not a good reason to delete an article about a notable subject. If you think it needs to be cleaned up, recommend that it be cleaned up. — Omegatron 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already pointed out that Gene Ray already has his own article, which I have not suggested should be deleted. Time Cube can be (and is) mentioned in that article. Fine, if its widely known enough. What I'm saying is that the Time Cub e article seems to have no encyclopedic value and seems to exist merely to mock Gene Ray's ravings. This is not an "educational" article, its a mockery. Bwithh 00:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's clearly a joke scientific theory, but it's definatly worth keeping due to the publicity made on the subject. If joke theories shouldn't be used as articles, someone should delete the article on the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Klosterdev 21:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for him, Gene Ray doesn't understand the joke Bwithh 21:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Plus, the FSM si clearlyt intended to be a joke and is described as such. Guy 22:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering what publicity you are refering to. Could you please clarify? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Jitse Niesen", Time Cube has been debated on two separate occasions at two separate universities: MIT in 2002, and Georgia Tech in 2005. In 2003, Dr Ray was interviewed on TechTV's "Unscrewed" television programme, hosted by Martin Sargent. He has been interviewed on numerous Internet radio programs, including FreeTalkLive, RantRadio, RadioKOL, EYada (now defunct), and he was interviewed about one day ago, I take it, on a New York "WHRW-FM" radio channel, on a show hosted by one Charles Berman. TimeCube.com has been mentioned on a vast quantity of websites, as a Google-search will reveal. An Academic paper was written on the subject of Time Cube by a Taiwanese university student, Bei Dawei. In short, there has been a huge quantity of publicity. So yeah, that's the publicity.

The MIT lecture (and I suspect the Georgia Tech lecture and these other "publicity" events) as well was not a "debate". It was a freakshow. Bwithh 12:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of wether he made a fool of himself it was still publicity.Tranqulizer 16:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"huge quantity of publicity" is abit over the top. But yeah, I agree that there is enough publicity for an article on wp. Tranqulizer 12:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a widely renowned bit of Internet crankery, not a scientific theory. Trying to evaluate it as an article about a scientific theory isn't meaningful. There are far less prominent websites with articles of their own, I see no reason why this one shouldn't have one. Bryan 01:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Notable internet crankery. Joshua Nicholson 01:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep High Weirdness by Wikipedia. Notable crank theory, someday I hope Time Cube can give me immortality so I can visit the pyramids on Mars. SchmuckyTheCat 05:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Gene Ray. Even assuming arguendo that the crank theory as such is notable, the article does not conclusively indicate that the website, which is the subject of the article, meets WP:WEB. We shouldn't keep it as an article on the theory, either, because the bulk of the article is an unsourced synthesis of the theory, meriting deletion per WP:NOR. What remains can be merged to Gene Ray, if deemed necessary. Sandstein 07:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge-and-redirect is incompatible with delete for GFDL reasons - we need to maintian the article history as attribution if we keep the material within it. Which do you mean? Bryan 08:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I assumed a reference to the original article in the merging edit summary would do, as the exact article history is recoverable in the unlikely case of an actual copyright dispute. If this contradicts established GFDL wisdom, just redirect. Sandstein 09:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Crank, maybe; famous crank, definitely, practically a household name in web-meme circles. AfD Is Not Cleanup™®©. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Time Cube on TechTV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Comment Well, if we're going to have junk pages like shock site (currently up for deletion as well), might as well have junk pages like this one. Can't have it both ways, friends. Word to the wise: You want one, you also get the others as well. metaspheres 20:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia works on principle of "unless you create an article that's clearly not a remarkable idea, you can create any article you want; however, the notability will be determined later and if it's found lacking, the article will be deleted." Nothing, apart of speedy criteria, suggest AfDs set strong precedents. AfDs are always case-by-case, even when we have guidelines. And specifically, in this case, I fail to see how the notability of the topic of shock sites has any bearing to case of Time Cube. Are you suggesting Time Cube is a shock site and these two AfDs are, thus, somehow related? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You should read my comments there to understand my argument (which is why I provided the link.) These types of articles share one thing in common - they are essentially useless information. They don't educate or inform or increase our understanding of the world or existence. In other words, they don't fulfill the aim of an encyclopedia. If you and others argue that Wikipedia is not to be compared to a traditional encyclopedia (i.e. Britannica), then you know what? Wikipedia should stop promoting itself as an encyclopedia and simply refer to itself as a "knowledge base" or "information repository" or something along those lines. Every time Jimbo gets out there and gives a lecture on Wikipedia, he promotes his vision which clearly defines Wikipedia as a potential competitor to traditional print encyclopedias. This promotional campaign, spread by word of mouth and the media, has been so successful that most people come to this site expecting a free alternative to Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia. For heavens sake, Jimbo talks about a print version of Wikipedia that can be given to every single child in Africa and other poor regions. Again, this is the man who started this thing in the first place. Most people here seem to agree with Jimbo, otherwise they wouldn't be contributing. And yet why is it that most people refuse to take a stand when it comes to defending this vision, so that Wikipedia does not degenerate into a useless repository of junk and pop culture? Yes, Time Cube is junk. This article is junk. "Shock site" is junk, and so are many, many, many other articles here that do nothing to add to human knowledge, but like television, have only the effect of numbing the brain and lowering peoples' IQ. It would be better and more informative for people to watch a full 24 hours of Fox News than to spend only a single hour to wade through these crap articles. Again, if anyone cares about the competency and legitimacy of this project, especially it's credibility factor in the light of so many attacks in recent times, then this will require more stringent guidelines and factors for inclusion. It will have to happen at some point, otherwise Wikipedia will no longer be able to gain enough financial support to survive. Remember, Wikipedia relies on donations, and if Wikipedia is no longer fulfilling the aims outlined in it's mission statement, people will cease to support it with their hard-earned cash. metaspheres 15:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh... I have a lot of sympathy for Metaspheres' views, even if I don't share his conclusions (maybe in a year or two, depending on what happens to WP) Bwithh 17:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I get what you mean; I have a little bit of hard time generalising it. In fact, I have a little bit of hard time generalising my counterargument. Here's my counterargument in its purest, unedited form: "One man's junk is another's treasure!" and "where exactly do you draw line between junk and factoids that are interesting in some contexts?" ... My problem when generalising your argument is this: Yes, trimming stuff no one is ever interested about is important. I just don't see how it applies to "shock site" or "Time Cube", as those are probably within realm of topics that are, marginally, worth discussing. My problem generalising my counterargument is this: I'm not utterly comfortable defending these two articles vigorously, and admit they're on the very boundary between plausible and not plausible. All I'm saying is this: WP:UA is an example of Wikipedia's strengths. Wikipedia's strength is that we can cover a little bit more eccentric topics. "Eccentric" can not only mean "a bit unusual choice for a topic", but it will also mean "information about computer topics that isn't 3-4 years out of date". (If the "real" encyclopaedias ignore the "worthless" net culture topics, exactly how the heck do they cover it at all?) Sometimes the topic is a bit fuzzy one. It's entirely different matter whether or not that stuff is junk or not. In closing: I concur that Time Cube or shock sites could be discussed elsewhere, in some other article, as a section or something; I disagree that they'd be entirely worthless topics to cover. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or fundamentally restructure with stronger documentation. There are two cases which would justify an article on this topic under the guidelines. First, the "theory" could meet verifiability (and other requirements) in and of itself. There does not seem to be a strong sense that this is the case; the theory is known because of the author. The argument for deletion or merger in that regard is the same that finally prevailed in the CTMU debacle. Alternatively, an article could meet WP standards by being about the website itself, under the WP:WEB requirements. This article does not appear to meet those obligations: it is a long article focused on the content of the site (including a substantial list of claims that amounts to little more than contextless quotes). The given references are directed towards the site's content and its creator, not towards the site in and of itself. If there has been appropriate independant coverage of the site, cleanup and document accordingly. If not, follow CTMU precendent and delete (or merge, if determined desirable). Serpent's Choice 04:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's exactly the point. The theory is unverifiable, but any attempt to remove the theory and discuss only the website is apparently reverted by the time cubers. The website's notability is sufficiewntly borderline that I would merge and redirect to Gene Ray, but delete and redirect is an option as is keep in a wholly different form, with credible references to support the popularity of the website as a website (absent right now). At the moment it's "keep the non-notable website, it's a notable theory" and "keep the unverifiable theory, it's a notable website", but I have yet to see the evidence of this being the primary focus of mutpile non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Guy 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Extremely strong KEEP!! Time Cube is proven to be the absolute truth of the universe beyond the faintest iota of doubt. We now know that humanity is in a dire state due to Cubeless ignorance and nihilistic brainwashing. Dr Gene Ray tells us that 1-corner Academia and singularity-religion are brainwashing the populace with evil-fraught lies: yet, Wikipedians (some of them at least) insist on suppressing Time Cube.
  
  Now if we examine the Talk:Time Cube/Delete talk-discussion page, we will notice that the Time Cube article has previously withstood the VfD process not once, not even twice, but THREE ENTIRE TIMES. And based on the "Keep" votes on this page that have been made by strong, noble, rational-minded sane sensible people, it appears that Time Cube will again prevail victoriously for the FOURTH time. (Four is the supreme number of the universe.)
  
  Let us all acknowledge the Cubic truth. Dr Gene Ray is the greatest thinker and wisest human. There are four simultaneous days in one rotation of Earth ([33]) and Time is Cubic, not Linear. Without Time Cube, humanity could be destroyed by a nuclear armageddon, or by volatile nihilistic cannibalism. Do we really want humanity to self-destruct, taking much of nature with it? We must all seek Time Cube, and PRESERVE THE TIME CUBE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE!!!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.5.186 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Above poster is a single-purpose account editing only Time Cube related articles. Stylistic elements imply that the same poster may have also editted Gene Ray under one or more other IPs as well. Serpent's Choice 12:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Serpent's Choice", yeah I pay great attention to Time Cube related articles on Wikipedia, for the reasons I outlined above in my comment. See also my [34] 31337 website—on which may be found valuable Cubic discourse to stimulate 4-corneristic thought.

above poster is an IP address. Please assume good faith, you know nothing of his motives, intent, or purposes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the above IP address and the contents of what he posted match the pattern of User:Time Cube Guy perfectly. He's exhausted whatever good faith was warranted him long, long ago; the ArbCom once rejected a case brought against him by describing him "an incoherent POV-pushing anon" who could be blocked on sight without need of their approval. We don't actually block him since that IP range is from a dialup ISP, but his edits and comments on Time Cube articles are usually just reverted without comment these days. That said, I still think the article should be kept; the attention of this one particular loon is irrelevant to that. Bryan 21:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No Bryan, I think I'm still acting in good faith, and have previously acted in good faith many times. I view that "ArbCom" decision as unfair and unjustified, especially as they merely dismissed me cursorily with a "summary judgement" as it was called, not even bothering to weigh and consider the detailed evidence. But I feel that I am a considerate and productive Wikipedia contributor, and that whatever controversy or disagreements I may have caused were not of excessive proportions and were acceptable under the Wikipedia guideline of "Be Bold".

• Keep. We have a lot of articles on bogus "scientific theories". Mere absurdity is no reason not to have an article on something if it has achieved a sufficient degree of notability. *Dan T.* 13:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Keep"--I need a good laugh/remove myself from my evil world view. Strong Keep Notable, per everyone else. --Vaergoth 11:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but notable what??? The theory is formally unverifiable, the website is not sufficiently widely discussed to count per WP:WEB, the author already has an article. It's really hard to see how we can cover this subject without violating at least one fundamental poilicy, and some revisions violate WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. WP:IHEARDOFIT does not trump these policies and neither does WP:ILIKEIT. Guy 14:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The theory itself may be original research, but it has gained sufficient notoriety to be notable it its own right. – ClockworkSoul 14:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't understand the issue. This is a well known piece of internet culture. 198.138.40.146 22:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or possible Merge - I'm fairly certain that Gene Ray's only bit of notability comes from Time Cube (haven't checked his article), but in any case, it's easily verifiable as the canonical example of a crank theory. Whether it is one or not is not the issue. -- Anaraug 22:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: - All this article needs is strict content enforcement. It's notable, but the article is rediculous becuase of the anon user's persistence in keeping it that way. Mgw 00:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Look at the edit history. Changes to make the article about a website propounding an absurd theory, rather than about a theory of everything, are swiftly reverted. Guy 10:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Cribcage 05:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I am -- honestly -- curious as to how the supporters of keeping this article feel it meets current policy guidelines. What references for this article are being considered reliable sources? And, frankly, what is this article about, from a category perspective? If we cannot agree whether we are talking about a pseudoscience theory, a website, a misguided attempt at humor, or simply a meme, then the article probably does not meet the verifiability standards. If this is, as was mentioned, "the canonical example of a crank theory" then surely something verifiable addresses it as such. Otherwise, why would this not be better served merged with Gene Ray into a single, more cognizant article? Serpent's Choice 05:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed the reliability of each of the the sources over on the article's talk page. If you have specific problems with these references, by all means bring them up. I suggest using the article's talk: page, though. AfD shouldn't be for an in-depth discussion of article contents like this, and general assertions about how the references as a whole are reliable/unreliable aren't terribly useful. Bryan 05:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Serpent's Choice", we have plenty of external links in the Gene Ray and Time Cube articles, and while it's possible that some of them may contain a few erroneous sections that are unreliable, I feel we have a sufficient wealth of information on the subject to make the articles adequately accurate. I agree with Bryan that it's not helpful to simply make vague blanket assertions about possible reliability and to not provide specific pointers that could be used to resolve the issue.

• Keep. It's notable. Could perhaps be better. Take it to the talk page. Abeg92 09:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep so long as the linkfarm at the end can be converted into references to show the article isn't OR. Percy Snoodle 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment my weak keep was deleted by Jitse Niesenand replaced by his weak delete[35]. I'm going to assume that it was an accident, but please don't do it again. Percy Snoodle 13:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My edit indeed removed Percy's comment. I'm terribly sorry about that. I certainly did not intent to do this, and I have no idea how it could have happened. Thanks for assuming good faith. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It is our only way to collect the $10,000. —ptk✰fgs 23:19, 25 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 weak consensus to delete - if the term is successful enough by itself to continue existing and being used without the article, then eventually someone will re-create it. For now, it goes. DS 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kryder's law

This article violates WP:NEO and WP:NOR, at the very least. The concept is identical to Moore's law and has not been given its own name by anyone outside of Wikipedia. The article itself states that "Kryder's Law probably wouldn't even exist if it weren't for Wikipedia". One of the first Google results for the term "Kryder's law" (of which there are less than 500) is a blog criticizing Wikipedia for inventing the term. The rest are mostly mirrors of Wikipedia or the Scientific American article.

Delete and mention the concept of hard drive density and the appropriate numbers in Moore's law without using the neologism "Kryder's law". — Omegatron 13:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep or Merge, Perhaps when that wikipedia quote was written it was lightly used, but at this point I seen enough references and cites that it exceeds WP:NEO. I don't think WP:NOR applies here either; there are references cited and anything that isn't referenced can be removed without nuking the article. WP:ASR is a concern, but that can be remedied through editing.--Isotope23 15:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The only "reference" which uses the phrase "Kryder's Law" is the original Scientific American article, in the title. The other references are about disk space, but are not references for the term. Ken Arromdee 17:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I see sources that use this term in relation to disk space. That to me justifies the article.--Isotope23 17:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Except in the Scientific American article title, the references cited in the article do *not* use the term. Ken Arromdee 17:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there are other references out there that do use the term. I did some due dilligence and investigated outside just what is linked in the article.--Isotope23 19:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

But they got the term from this article; it did not exist previously. — Omegatron 21:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

but it exists now... where it came from is irrelevant. The time to delete this would have been before external sources picked it up and began using it; when it was still a Wikipedia-only protologism.--Isotope23 00:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what it is. No one is using this term outside of our article, and when they are, it's to criticize us for inventing it. Omegatron 04:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. You're trying to save WP face, but your VfD is the equivalent of a cover-up.

Wikipedia must pay for its crimes. The time to have prevented this thing was months ago, and the cat, nor those criticisms, are never going back in the bag again. Yeago 05:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Err... huh? WP:AGF, but that made no sense.--Isotope23 16:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? — Omegatron 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Needs to be edited to properly address the self-reference concerns, but if other outside sources have used this term, it passed neologism concerns, it is not original research and is verifiable.-- danntm ^T _C 15:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No significant number of outside sources use the term. Ken Arromdee 17:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep, This has come up before and been defeated. The underlying phenomenon, rapid growth in disk storage per dollar, is real, important and distinct from Moore's law, which deals with ICs and CPUs. However tentatively, SciAm coined the term, not us. That we picked it up and added credence does not violate NEO, indeed if we tried to make up a different name on our own, that would be NEO. If the industry settles on a different term, a simple move is all that is required. ASR is an editing issue. Deletion is totally inappropriate.--agr 15:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The term was not coined by Scientific American; it was coined by Wikipedia's article. It was used only once, as the title of an article, without even the implication that the term had a real meaning of its own, and no mention or definition in the text. The Wikipedia article was the first instance of the term being used as if it referred to a scientific law. Even if the term is now in widespread use (which it is not), it is only due to the Wikipedia article. We can't create articles for made-up terms and then deem them notable after others start mimicking our article. — Omegatron 16:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not a scientific law, it's is an empirical observation and rule of thumb, as is Moore's law. The SciAm article identified a distinct phenomenon and gave it a name. If they didn't define it precisely enough, you have a beef with SciAm. --agr 16:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A scientific law is an empirical observation. That's what "scientific law" means. We define it as "a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior". SciAm did not define the term or claim anywhere that it represented the law that they spoke of; they simply used it as the (whimsical) title of their article. Wikipedia was the first to use it as if it were an actual law, and it is therefore a Wikipedia-created neologism that needs to be killed. We are not in the business of creating new terminology; we only report on terminology that already exists. — Omegatron 21:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

See scientific law and rule of thumb. There is a big difference. By claiming it is a purported scientific law you are setting up a straw man. It's not being proposed at that level any more than Moore's Law is. And SciAm did use the term first. You are pushing a point of view that they weren't serious. That is your interpretation. This critique is already mentioned in the article. There is no basis for deletion.--agr 02:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Rules about not pushing points of views apply to the content of articles. Decisions *about* articles, like deleting them for non-notability, are not subject to the NPOV rule. Otherwise, we could never delete any articles, because all deletions imply a point of view that the subject of the article isn't notable. We must decide whether the use of the term is a real use; we can't avoid making that decision. Such decisions don't violate the rule about points of view. Ken Arromdee 05:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

From WP:DP "Please ensure that nominations to delete an article which was previously voted "keep", are carefully considered, and are based upon policy and not opinion." The article proposed for deletion is based on an article of the same name in a reputable, indeed highly regarded, publication. It's subject, the rapid improvement in disk capacity is notable, arguably earth-shaking. Other sources are cited. The bottom line is that you do not agree with the subject and, especially, the name. But it is SciAm's name, not ours. --agr 11:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that since whether something is notable, or whether Wikipedia invented a neologism, are opinions, they violate the WP:DP rule about deleting articles based on opinion? Ken Arromdee 15:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. The Scientific American article didn't give anything a name. Just because the title reads "Kryder's Law" doesn't mean the article is actually proposing Kryder's Law. It's as if I wrote an article about Wikipedia titled "The National Enquirer of Web Pages" and we later had an article which stated that Wikipedia was also known as "The National Enquirer of Web Pages". The article's title is a form of rhetoric which is phrased as if it's naming something; but it isn't really suggesting a name at all.

It's true that disk space growth is a real phenomenon, but it's a real phenomenon that is not in any meaningful sense associated with the term "Kryder's Law". If you want to keep this article because you think we need a disk space growth article, then rename it to "disk space growth" and take out the references to "Kryder's Law". (But I suspect nobody would even think the article was worth creating if it wasn't for the name.)

(Incidentally, this doesn't violate WP:ASR. A self-reference is saying something like "In this Wikipedia article..." Claiming that something is connected to Wikipedia isn't automatically a self-reference, and you're allowed to say "Wikipedia's article about..." as long as you aren't implying that the reader is reading the text on Wikipedia. Ken Arromdee 17:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It used to violate ASR. I reworded it. — Omegatron 21:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ayeum. Yes, but you seemed to have smudged the intent behind WP:SELF. Yeago 05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Agree with all the points Omegatron has made. Suggest that it redirect to Moore's law, and that article have a short mention of so-called Kyrders Law. --Snori 19:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What you are suggestiing is a merge. There are other mechanisms for that. It is not consistant with deletion, which destroyes edit histories, talk pages and the like.--agr 02:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per omegatron. Redirection is fine. BrokenSegue 20:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Omegatron. --Interiot 20:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and comment Omegatron, the article does not state that wikipedia invented the word, as you lead me to believe. You have misquoted the article. In fact, it was someone else claiming the article has created the word. The article includes this claim, per NPOV I guess. I do not see it as violating "neo". The article explains the word, making it "understandable and clearly defined". It is not violating OR because of the other article that the information is cited to. If anything, this article needs to focus more on the LAW instead of the origin and acceptablity of the word.-- ¢² Connor K.   20:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I know Omegatron said it, but whether the article itself states that Wikipedia created the term isn't really relevant. We need to figure that out for ourselves. And Wikipedia did, in fact, create the term as a name for a law. The Scientific American article is titled "Kryder's Law", but that's an attempt to write a clever title, not an attempt to name a law.

Even if you insist, beyond all sense, that Scientific American created the term, it just isn't a widely used term. It's still a neologism, all you've done is insisted that it's Scientific American's neologism rather than Wikipedia's. There's still no reason to write an article about it unless a substantial number of people actually use it. Ken Arromdee 23:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Shorten and delete the self-referencing, and merge the decent bits from "Origin" and "Future of Kryder's law" into Moore's law as a seperate section (e.g. call it "variation of Moore's law" or "Moore's law in regards to hard drives" or sth.) --`/aksha 02:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think the sentiment behind deleting this article is, in a sense, an attempt to right a wrong (if one believes that hasty WP editors were to blame for this coinage). Unfortunately, the foop happened and is done. While the actual term may never be used in reality, the event was newsworthy and relevant to anyone, and the term itself has been discussed in contexts besides WP.

  If it were actually notable or newsworthy, I might agree with you, but it's not. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone significant is using the term except a blog and Slashdot entries that criticize Wikipedia for inventing it. And no, the criticism is not notable or newsworthy. The Siegenthaler Wikipedia controversy is notable and newsworthy; this is not. It's silly and pointless to have this article when most of the content is going to be about how the article itself created its own notability. That's like saying we should create an article about Willy on Wheels. If you really really really think that this needs to be covered as an example of Wikipedia inventing a term and subsequent criticism, then it should be merged with Criticism of Wikipedia; it should not have its own article.

  Of course, the concept of hard drive size increasing should definitely be covered, but probably in Moore's law. If the concept of hard drive size is given its own article, that's fine, but it should not be called Kryder's Law. — Omegatron 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for another version of your headless rant, but you haven't said anything new.Yeago 18:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is deleted, please consider updating Wikipedia and public opinion, or please archive this page and discussion in the WP namespace as it is a prime example of WPs exogenous influence (regardless of how ashamed some editors are of this particular instance). Yeago 05:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Request for clarification. I see a lot of people are claiming Wikipedia created this term, but the article states that "Mark Kryder of Seagate Technology, a former Carnegie Mellon University professor, named the law after himself." Which one is correct? Hiding Talk 14:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the claim that Kryder created the term anywhere in the Scientific American article. The other two online sources don't even mention Kryder, let alone Kryder's law. So I think the article is wrong, and Wikipedia created the term. Ken Arromdee 15:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia created the term, and it has not yet been picked up by anyone else significant. The article needs to be deleted for violating WP:NEO. — Omegatron 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientific American was the first to use the term. I've edited the article to make that clear. The claim that Kryder named it after himself was added in a rather contentious edit on Sept. 12, 2006 [36].--agr 17:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Possible compromise?:I have no problem with a move or merge as Omegatron proposes above. ("Of course, the concept of hard drive size increasing should definitely be covered, but probably in Moore's law. If the concept of hard drive size is given its own article, that's fine, but it should not be called Kryder's Law.") I think the SciAm article should be mentioned, but there is no need to imply that Kryder's Law is the accepted term for this phenomenon. If the material is merged into Moore's Law, it should be made clear that this is not part of the original Moore's Law, but an extension to other technologies. Bandwidth might be included as well to make this clear. The present article should just redirect to wherever the material ends up.--agr 18:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  "I think the SciAm article should be mentioned"

  Of course.

  "but there is no need to imply that Kryder's Law is the accepted term for this phenomenon"

  I'd say we shouldn't use the term at all, except when referring to the article by name.

  "If the material is merged into Moore's Law"

  It's already there: Moore's law#Formulations of Moore's Law. Also, see Rock's law. It might be good to give it its own article; I don't know. Depends how much relevant content there is. It can always be split back out to some other name.

  "The present article should just redirect to wherever the material ends up."

  I think deleting the article would be the best solution. It represents to the world "we recognize that we made a mistake and we have corrected it". — Omegatron 18:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand you think that deleting the article is the best way to go about this. I'd agree with a merge, but the point of this isn't to right a wrong. Wikipedia is never out there to "save face". Wikipedia is not trying to win over billions of people. It has not once made a press statement about it's "credibility".

All that aside, what do you suppose would happen if the law becomes will known by that name? Would you then want wikipedia to never have that article, because it would send the "wrong message". What is the point of deleting this article, Omegatron?

Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research — we don't do that here at Wikipedia. Articles that use neologisms should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policies: no original research and verifiability. Where in there does it say that we should delete all "neologisms". I am not asking for the term to be defined. That would be against WP:OR. I am asking for the article to state it's sources, and say what it is. If "Kryder's Law" is a copy of another law, state it. State your sources. If I say it is a new word, I have to state my sources.

Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Lets not state the term is THE term. Lets not justify the word. Lets be the middle ground on what the term is generally accepted as, and where it came from.-- ¢² Connor K.   18:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we try to cool this down? I don't agree anyone made a mistake. The original editor chose the same name as an article in a respected publication. But Omegatron has a point that we shouldn't imply the name is widely accepted when there is no citable authority that says it is. Should that change in the future, we can adjust. In the meantime, if Omegatron and his supporters can live with a move or merge, I think it is time to move on.--agr 19:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"if Omegatron and his supporters can live with a move or merge, I think it is time to move on."

Depends what you mean by "move or merge". Of course I have no problem with the concept of increasing hard drive size being presented; it's already presented in Moore's law#Formulations of Moore's Law, and it would be great if it was expanded with the relevant content from this article (but not including the term). If people really want to keep the stuff about Wikipedia inventing the term and criticism of Wikipedia, it should be moved to Criticism of Wikipedia (though I imagine the locally-active editors will delete it pretty quickly for being a trivial/unimportant example).

And yes, I would still like Kryder's law deleted. Turning it into a redirect gives the impression that it's a real term, when it's really just the title of a Scientific American article.

"All that aside, what do you suppose would happen if the law becomes will known by that name?"

Create an article about it, of course.

"What is the point of deleting this article, Omegatron?"

It's not a real term. Wikipedia doesn't have articles about made-up terminology. — Omegatron 19:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The full title of the above "made-up terminology" link is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. That is not what this article is about. No one, including Omegatron, seems to deny that this article has content that belongs in Wikipedia. We are only arguing about the name. That is not what AfD is for. Also see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion which gives wide latitude for redirects and specifically suggests redirects be retained if there is a useful edit history attached. If Omegatron insists on deletion of this article, we still have a disagreement. I guess we simply have to let the process run its course and let the moderator decide if deletion is the appropriate course, as opposed to a move or merge, and if there is a consensus for deletion.--agr 20:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The relevant text:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Many articles of this nature describe new words or terms coined by a small group of friends. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. Meanings of words and phrases go in a dictionary, such as Wiktionary; however, adding your own new words and phrases to Wiktionary is also unacceptable. Wiktionary requires evidence that a word or phrase has been attested before it will accept it. A new word that one person or a small group of people have made up and are trying to make catch on is a neologism, and isn't acceptable at Wiktionary. Take a look at Urban Dictionary instead.

WP:NEO is actually mostly about words made up by other people. We're not even supposed to include those, yet this article is about a term made up by a Wikipedia editor. It has even less validity.

If you agree that the term was invented by a Wikipedia editor and is not in wide use or defined anywhere except our own article, then you agree that it should be deleted:

Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.

...

To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.

Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

– Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms

— Omegatron 21:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The article in question is not about the term Kryder's Law, it is about growth in disk drive capacity. That is a notable and verifiable subject. You are proposing to delete the article and its edit history because you don't like the title, which I am willing to change, even though the term was used first by Scientific American, a respected secondary source, not us. That is not a valid use of AfD. --agr 22:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It was first used by Scientific American *as a title for an article*. It was *not* first used by Scientific American as a term for a law.

And while disk drive capacity is a valid topic for Wikipedia, pretty much everything about it worth salvaging from the Kryder's Law article is already in other articles. Ken Arromdee 01:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article in question is about the term Kryder's law.

The growth in disk drive capacity will still be in Wikipedia. The article can be moved to a new title or merged with the info that's already in Moore's law, as we've already said several times. — Omegatron 02:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not the mechanism for moves and merges. I think I have made that point often enough. We'll just have to let the process go forward.--agr 10:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• It isn't? When did that change? Hiding Talk 18:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In theory any useful information in the Kryder's Law article should be merged into other articles that refer to disk space, but there really isn't much, if any, information that doesn't already exist somewhere. So there isn't anything to merge. Ken Arromdee 17:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A recommendation to merge is often the outcome of the AfD process, but if that is all that is needed there was no need in the first place to waste everyones time with an AfD. Just do the merge. There is no need to destroy edit history and the like. --agr 18:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, you're making presumptions here that don't sit well with assuming good faith. Many a time people bring articles here because they want to form a consensus on what to do with them. A consensual decision on merging made in an afd is also more likely to be respected than a being bold edit. The outcome isn't always obvious at the outset and shouldn't be used to prejudge the nominator. Consensus is something formed through discussion, not observation. Hiding Talk 19:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, maybe we did need this discussion, but I don't see the justification for insisting on deleting an article and its history when the result of that discussion appears to be agreement that the useful content should be merged or renamed.--agr 19:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Take the point and support the Merge and redirect. Hiding Talk 20:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Kryder's Law" and the concept behind it are already mentioned at Moore's law. I think a redirect from Kryder's law to Moore's law is a reasonable solution with a continuing discussion of whether or not there are enough external sources to satisfy WP:NEO and keeping the term in the article.--Isotope23 20:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Omegatron. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Omegatron. Xdenizen 01:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Isotope23 and now support Merge and redirect. Let me make one more comment on why deletion is not the way to go. This article has been criticized externally. One of the strengths of Wikipedia in response to criticism is the transparency of its editing process. If someone wants to verify that the term "Kryder's Law" first appeared in Wikipedia only after the Scientific American article, they currently can. If they want to know when criticism of the term first showed up in the article they can look that up too. If they want to follow the debate on the talk page and see who took what postions when, they can. However once the article is deleted all that edit history will no longer be accessible to the public. It will look like we have something to hide.--agr 11:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep While it may well be true that the term was invented by Wikipedia, and that invention did in fact violate Wikipedia's rules, the fact remains the term does now exist and is used. You can't unring the bell. The topic now warrants inclusion in Wikipedia, even if it is Wikipedia's doing that made it so. This sort of thing happens. The OED accidentally invented the word syllabus, but syllabus is now a sufficiently common word to warrant inclusion in any dictionary. --Llewdor 18:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. While I don't object to an eventual merge (which seems to me the most likely outcome of this discussion) I still would like to see hard evidence that the term was coined by Wikipedia. However, I'd strongly object to an actual deletion of the edit history, especially if content is merged into Moore's Law, per GFDL concerns. I may also point out that the term has been indexed by both Web of Science and PubMed (giving as only hit the SciAmer article, but still) so I'd seem contrary to logic to nuke the article completely. It would seem that, if this is indeed a neologism we created, that it is beyond our reach to stop its spread (Google "Kryder's law" -wikipedia). So much for that. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:56, 27 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. — CharlotteWebb 18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cypriot refugee

A highly pov and unencylopedic article concerning the Cyprus conflict. There are already a host of pages which cover this kind of material, and at least those article make some attempt to balance the explanation of the conflict. They include: Cyprus dispute, Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict, Operation Atilla. The article is extremely one-sided, attempts by myself to neutralise it have been met with reverts by the creator. I did plan on rewriting it, but saw no point in yet another article covering the same material. A.Garnet 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is just a blatant POV push by an editor whose bias and nationalism are clearly evident from his past edits. The displaced Greek Cypriots are dealt with in multiple other articles (as noted in the comment from A Garnet) so this information (POV as it is) is redundant. A quick read through of the paragraph '1963 Background' clearly shows the original editors deviation from accepted history. His implication that Turkish Cypriots were living in enclaves in order to gain partition of Cyprus and not, as was the case, becuase they had reason to fear for their lives is just one example of POV. Adam777 14:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The incivility of the deletion-explanation aside, the article is needless. KazakhPol 18:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article depicts “the ongoing strife of internally displaced Cypriots-refugees and their demand to return to their homes since 1974”and as such there is no other article in wikipedia that covers that topic about the current or fairly recent situation. Demonstrations, rallies, Solomou and Isaak case and Women demonstrations. Almost 32 years after 1974 and refugees are still away from their properties, there are still missing persons whose fate is unknown. There have been protests against this status quo by civilians and not politicians. This fairly recent situation is not hosted in other articles.

This user A.Garnet pushing his pov has put ^{[citation needed]} tag in cited statements. An example being the UN briefing under “Turkish Reply to a Demonstration” heading. And I paste my argument below:

In a UN Press Briefing right after the Solomou events New York Congressman Eliot Engel said: “For the first time in many years, the Turkish Government was not secular, and since it had come to power, "we've seen one provocation after another". The recent actions in Cyprus might be a symbol that the new Turkish Government was trying to provoke a war, he said^{[citation needed]}. "The solution is the immediate demilitarization of Cyprus." As soon as the quote ends the statement in the article is cited by this :[37]

Why users deem the UN as POV and one sided since it is the only international organization that has approximately 190 member countries and does not reflect a unilateral foreign policy. The article includes quotes like “according to the UN; illegal TRNC”. A quoted reference that was deleted-edited by the same user here

The aricle has been edited substantially since its creation by users other than myself. see here. Have a look how the user that claims to “have attempted to neutralize”; changes the article here [38] into an intro that has little to do with the articles title, pushing for a political statement such as declaration of TRNC deviating from “Cypriot refugee” into articles that are already in wikipedia ie Cyprus dispute or Turkish Invasion of Cyprus.

This user is POV pushing and I quote his edits: “The attempted coup d'etat in July 1974 by EOKA-B, which advocated immediate Enosis, plus the removal or killing of all Turkish Cypriots on the island, gave the Turkish Military its cassus belli'. Unquote.

Casus belli_= an event to justify war. Turkey to this day states that in 1974 she “intervened” with a “peace operation”. The killing of all Turkish Cypriots? I challenge the user to bring forth evidence and substantiate both arguments for “casus belli” and killed all Turkish Cypriots or is it the users’ interpretation? [39] I reverted user Garnet once here [40] and explained that since the article has a disputed tag, lets talk before you change the whole article. Quote “(RV please dont change the whole article because you dont agree with it...lets talk about the changes you are eager to do) Unquote.

I see that the user made an argument that the article is covered elsewhere. I think the user wants the article deleted because he disagrees with it and not because “it is covered in other articles”. Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict ends (in terms of time) where this article begins. The1963 Background is a link (in the heading) for the referred article. This section was created after user A.Garnet and Expatkiwi insisted in adding background (stating that “Turkish Cypriots were the first refugees in Cyprus) in order to make a political statement and not to add towards the purpose of the article “Depicting the ongoing strife of Cypriot refugees and their demand to return to their homes since 1974”. The article factual accuracy has been disputed by a tag and I have since requested repeatedly for users to substantiate. I have replied with citations to the majority of the initial issues raised. Evidence in the talk page. User Garnet changed radically the article in order to push a POV against UN arguments and not arguments of “nationalism” as user Adam777 suggests. In my opinion the UN does not reflect a foreign policy in any way. And I quote [41] “The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. It does, however, provide the means to help resolve international conflicts and formulate policies on matters affecting all of us. At the UN, all the Member States — large and small, rich and poor, with differing political views and social systems — have a voice and a vote in this process”. Unquote.

As far as the following argument made by user Adam777, I am surprised because this user never raised an argument or stressed a concern in the talk page of the article in question although I have repeatedly requested users to contribute under the POV list that I created as a heading in the talk page: Please read the passage user Adam777 refers to in his own words below: “His implication that Turkish Cypriots were living in enclaves in order to gain partition of Cyprus and not, as was the case, becuase they had reason to fear for their lives is just one example of POV”.

I have NOT in any way stated my personal opinion. The section referred to by Adam777 begins with “The Turkish Community of the Republic of Cyprus holds…” and “The Republic of Cyprus holds …” thus including the two major POV.

Evident in the talk page, I have openly asked and explained that we will collectively discuss a list of concerns that would be drafted collectively so that we can collectively reach an agreement. The only user that has done so; but attacked myself in the process (see talk page) was Garnet. I did not encounter but avoided his accusation and verbal harassment. Instead I asked other users to contribute as well. User Garnet instead of providing some time for others to contribute to the list of concerns he took the step of afd just after he assaulted myself stating that “I have no intetion to sort this” although I repeatedly asked for contributions to the list. The user that wants the article deleted has provided no evidence for his arguments has not introduced references instead went for afd.

Yes the article needs improvement and there are a lot of information that can be included but please read the article carefully with its references before making your decision. Aristovoul0s 21:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Although it needs cleaning up, and has a Greek POV Arnoutf 21:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe cleanup is required, but the striking images and facts about Solomos Solomou and Tasos Isaak do not exist in any related articles. This is a legitimate article, treating a controversial subject, that is not mentioned in the other articles presented as 'related' to it. I also notice that most citations requested in the article are for POV additions of the nominators! •NikoSilver• 22:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, and this article is about as forkish as the "Occupation of Izmir". Although it needs making more neutral: breach of NPOV is not a criterion for deletion, and this article includes information which does not exist in other pages. It's a keeper...--Tekleni 22:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all. --ManiF 22:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Merge NPOV-able material into "Civilian casualties..." article. I must agree with the nominator that this is extremely non-neutral; moreover the topic is ill-defined as the article deals with much more than just refugees but rather re-hashes the whole of the Cyprus conflict; that makes it definitely a POV fork in my book. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict per Future Perfect at Sunrise. Omissions of the latter such as the Isaak and Solomou cases should be added to it but that is beyond the point. Plus, this one has a really really really ugly title. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC) The "Civilian casualties..." needs a lot of cleanup too. I'd also suggest that it be extended to encompass all casualties and displacements relevant to the Cypriot Dispute/Conflict from 1963 to today. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is historical information that should belong in a separate article. In order to be neutral, there must not be changes to the Greek Cypriot argument. Instead, let there be additions to it about Turkish Cypriots becoming refugees in 1974. Also merging the article with the civilian casualties and displacements article will eliminate the word "refugee" and decrease the emphasis on the refugee plight, which is not the point that this article is trying to convey. Please people, calm down, especially A Garnet.(UNFanatic 07:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC))
• Strong Keep per all reasons mentioned above. Mitsos 17:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, for reasons mentioned already. Hectorian 15:44, 26 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 as spam (CSD G11). -- Merope 02:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MobiStax™

Pure advertising, makes no attempt to be more, and a copyvio to boot. See http://www.forestinteractive.com.au/forest/pages/MobileContent.html for details. Emeraude 14:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, CSD G11. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 16:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, or flag as copyvio. The fact they tossed the trademark into the title should be a giveaway. Also, MobiStax is a redirect. --Wafulz 22:11, 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 no consensus. Mangojuice^talk 16:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carol Moore

The subject of this article does not meet the WP:BIO notability guideline --Takeel 15:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced, unverifiable vanity about a non-notable person (who has apparently edited the article frequently). Valrith 21:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as Moore is a rather significant figure in the DC activist community. This article existed for some three years before Moore joined Wikipedia, and started editing it. Going back in the history, this is the last edit before Moore began editing it herself. I think we can certainly salvage the article, perhaps from here, and dig out some sources on some of these things. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

When should we expect those sources? --Takeel 12:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

When I find them. I'll have to do some hunting first. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: To address the "vanity" issue, I've rolled back the article to the aforementioned revision, which is the last revision before Moore began editing the article herself. I have a feeling that Moore was unaware of WP:AUTO, and so I shall fill her in on it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, she is well-known in Waco-activism circles. --WacoKid 13:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't the article illustrate that through a means other than linking to her own website? --Takeel 12:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a LOT of TLC. One thing that needs to be done is to roll the article back to the point that I mentioned before to comply with WP:AUTO, to knock Moore's own contributions out of play. I'm personally hesitant to do any major work on the article at this point until I know how this AFD comes out. I don't want to put a bunch of effort into it and then the article ends up getting zapped. As for sources, I'll see what I can come up with. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• CAROL MOORE SUPPLIES LINKED SOURCES: While obviously it's up to you all whether I currently am noteable enough, I thought I'd provide some links which verify some of the info in the original article, as well as what is missing that I added in my edits. So if anyone is interested in working on my page, here is relevant info!

Moore published article which explains the references to systems theory in original article

AMAZON.COM link to Moore's book THE DAVIDIAN MASSACRE [Please note that the book is referenced on many sites that list Waco books.]

Gun Owners Foundation First Reference and Second Reference to Moore's book the foundation published, i.e., THE DAVIDIAN MASSACRE.

Wrtier's comments on The Davidian Massacre

Moore "Hero of the Week" Link with cool photo

Boogieonline Moore Activism Related Link

Article with Several References to Moore's Libertarian Party activism

Libertarian Party News article mentioning Carol Moore's activism

Description of Moore talk on Waco and Secession

Mention of Moore's libertarian and secession activism

Online radio interview with Moore talking about secession and war

Re-publication of Moore article on war on drugs

Mention of Moore as war tax resister at a year 2000 demonstration

Letter to IRS Moore presented during demonstration above

Mention of Moore as possible Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate for 2008

Article about a 2006 forum Moore sponsored and co-moderated

Carolmooredc (Talk)

Duly copied to article's talk page, at Talk:Carol Moore. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Uncle G (Unsourced biography of a 15-year-old.) - Yomangani^talk 15:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)