Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 23

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

The result was keep. --Coredesat 03:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goatse.cx

Absolutely not a single reference despite great details of its history, no chance of any reliable sources being added, huge linkfarms take up more than half of this article, no notability per WP:WEB, unencyclopaedic, and I am about to remove some WP:BLP material from it. If this topic does merit an article (and I disagree that it does), it needs to be completely re-written with reliable sources (or at least some sources).--Konst.able^Talk 00:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• BLP material removed: [1] - this was pretty blatant potential libel if not true.--Konst.able^Talk 00:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Changing to Neutral - per the recent clean up and the comments ragarding notability below, I see some good points to keep this article even though it is still poorly sourced and needs a major overhaul. So I am changing to neutral. I won't withdraw this AfD because I don't believe it belongs to me in the first place, and because there are still others who feel this should be deleted.--Konst.able^Talk 06:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I know it's not a wonderful metric, but 131,000 hits on google can't be wrong... --User24 13:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

to make it clearer, it's 131,000 for "goatse.cx", there's 1,510,000 for just "goatse". the term goatse (obviously) originated with goatse.cx. --User24 18:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with all the above, I can't think of one reason why it should exist. -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 00:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. This is one of the largest and most well-known internet memes (it arguably IS the most well-known). It's been mentioned in Snopes, and parodied in two video games (both mentioned in the article). I know at least one of those maps (the UT2004 one) was shipped in-game in 2004. There's a lot of crap in there, but it doesn't merit deletion. --Wafulz 00:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • My original thought was to kill the link farms and remove the unsourced material, until I realised that there would be nothing left at all.--Konst.able^Talk 01:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What?? Not only is the information unreliable, but who is ever going to search for that article on Wikipedia? (I know that is not one of the criteria for deletion, I'm just adding my own opinion that does has no influence on my stance) Wikipediarules2221 01:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Almost 2000 edits since creation. I would argue lots of people have searched for this. --Wafulz 01:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. Notable, several references to it in pop culture but the content needs to be cleaned up to fit with Wikipedia guidelines. Derktar 01:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC).
• Strong Keep Goatse.cx is well-known throughout the Internet as a prank site, and I couldn't imagine an encyclopedia aspiring to be "complete" not having an entry on this. In addition, the article already exists, and with quite a bit of detail. I certainly don't object to the so-called "link farms" being removed, but surley that doesn't justify deletion of the entire article? —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's one of the two best known Internet shock sites (along with Rotten.com), a very well known Internet meme and also one of the best known ongoing domain name disputes/sagas. Caknuck 01:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. It's one of the best-known shock sites and has reached a prominence comparable to other web memes out there. At the very least, stub it and expand with reliable sources later. SliceNYC 01:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep, so weak I'm wondering if it should just be a delete. It is a very popular internet meme and widely used shock site, but I'm not really sure if the meme popularity is worth a wikipedia article about it. If only it had better references. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 01:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: It's a well known site. So what if it's not sourced, sure it's a guidline that all articles should adhere too, but if something isn't source but is well known it shouldn't be grounds for deletion. Deathawk 01:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If this should go, everything at List of Internet phenomena should go. Then again, that wouldn't be so bad. wikipediatrix 02:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable website and phenomenon. This article has been around for a long time and I believe has survived several previous AFD attempts. 23skidoo 02:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and cleanup. Sure, the article might suck, but it's notable, and that's what matters. ♠PMC♠ 02:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment a lot of people are claiming "notability" but could someone point me to which part of WP:WEB, or other notability criteria, that it satisfies. I have also removed a whole bunch of those links (still too much left, I just can't be bothered spending more time on it right now).--Konst.able^Talk 02:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:WEB is just a guideline, not a policy. It scores millions of Google hits, has spawned thousands of products, and I've mentioned it before, but two major game developers have parodied it in their prodcuts and snopes has written about it (for reasons unknown, you've removed this from the article), along with The Scotsman. The whole basis of notability is that when something is this popular, people tend to research it and publish information. --Wafulz 02:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment From WP:WEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I give you [2] (Kuro5hin), [3] (Boing Boing) and [4] (Scotsman.com). Caknuck 05:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• The Scotsman is a fine source, but the other two? Nope. Still, these don't even verify most of the article's content. GassyGuy 08:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Sorry, but WP:RS is rather an important concept. If there were reliable sources for this, I'd be willing to change my mind, but it really can't be more than a stub at best, if using Snopes.com as a reference. I would recommend deleting this, redirecting it to shock site, and pare that entry down so that it includes only the sourced material. GassyGuy 02:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest possible Keep and Cleanup. If there aren't any good sources on the page, then go find some. Don't go deleting without even attempting to save the article. --Hemlock Martinis 03:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: finding sources is the task of people wanting to keep the article, not those wanting to delete it. If you feel this is the strongest possible keep, then you shuld be the one looking for sources to show that it meets WP:V and our other policies. Fram 07:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as there's certainly sources on this site [5] and [6] and even [7]. Notability is in this case, established by the same principle. Yes, this article is difficult to write in a proper manner, and you might well be right about the link farms, but that doesn't equal deletion. I could almost support a redirect to shock site but it seems people don't want even that much, thus in this case I'm going to have to err in favor of being overprotective and go with a keep. FrozenPurpleCube 03:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Your links are to a message board, another message board, and a primary source. Not only are those not recommended sources, they still don't verify the majority of the content in the article. GassyGuy 08:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to verify the majority of the content, just show that there are sources. And an official document from a registrar about a problem is hardly objectionable, especially since they confirm already existing information. FrozenPurpleCube 13:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep what? SchmuckyTheCat 03:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep period. Danny Lilithborne 04:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - and I say that about very few internet memes. Artw 04:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 04:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Those that are complaining about sources have clearly not searched for it on google. You should probably do so. Timbatron 05:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the sources I find are message board, blogs, and other sources that cannot be used for writing an encyclopaedia. Please, do help me out by pointing to the reliable sources. GassyGuy 08:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per other Keeps †he Bread 05:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup Extensive use on the internet, extreemly popular meme, many sources. --Mattarata 05:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - I see two reliable sources so far: The Scotsman and Snopes. If this article is kept, it should be rewritten using only the information available in these. Please help keep Wikipedia a place of reliable information. Wickethewok 06:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the only reason this article is listed in Afd is because someone is offended by the content of the website, that doesn't make the phenomenon of this any less notable. Wikipedia is not censored.--MonkBirdDuke 08:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the more I read this, the more I realize how utterly unsource-able most of this is to reliable sources. It's absolute crap, to be blunt. I agree wholeheartedly that WP is not censored, but WP also shouldn't be a repository for in-jokes, which this article admits Goatse is. I am not opposed to that little information which is able to be sourced reliably to be hosted as part of Shock site, but most of this is textbook original research. GassyGuy 08:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep (but Cleanup) A google search for "Goatse" easily demonstrates that this is both a noteworthy and well-documented phenomenon. ReidarM 08:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What is all this talk of unreliable sources? So what if the sources suck... that doesn't make it any less significant. It is unarguable that Goatse.cx is a huge Internet phenomenon, so why all of these attacks on the so-called "sources"? Yes they are absolute crap and just point at like 20 million different goatse sites, but for god's sake, please stop basing your reasons for deleting the article on "unverifiable sources". Is it that surprising that Time Magazine hasn't written an article about some guy holding his asshole open? If you want evidence that this is an important Internet phenomenon do two things: 1) look at the majority of people that voted keep on this page, despite the article being about disgusting material and at first glance appearing "unencyclopedic", and 2) do a google search for goatse and take note of the 1.7 million hits that it generates. Thank you. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So basically, if enough people have heard of it, we should throw Wikipedia guidelines to the wind and not care that there's no reliable citation available? I can't agree with your argument, but I appreciate that you're at least being very frank about it. GassyGuy 09:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, guidelines are just that - guidelines. And if they're not yet perfect, there's probably room for improvement. Guidelines which would prevent us from including a popular phenomenon like this, wouldn't seem very well suited for a universal encyclopedia. ReidarM 14:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

But WP:V is a policy, one of the basics of what is allowed /allowable in Wikipedia. You can disagree with it, but then you basically disagree with what is and isn't Wikipedia. Fram 15:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I just wanted to add yet another useless reference to a highly unreliable source - GARFIELD: http://www.flickr.com/photos/12337576@N00/85983801/ (link spotted on http://www.firstgoatse.com/shock.htm] ReidarM 09:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

another weak source: Anil_Dash and his New York Times Social Hack featuring a "Goatse" t-shirt http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/06/anil_dash_goats.html and http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=anil+dash+goatse&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 ReidarM 14:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep I'm suprised to see this article has content, and even (non-offensive) picures. Could do with some more sources and a cleanup, but it is not beyond saving :D Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Week keep very notable internet meme. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, very notable website, and per above arguments. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as above. Very notable meme and easily meets WP:WEB. Prolog 11:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Goatse.cx is one of the internet's most popular phenomena, and definitely merits its own article; sources CAN and WILL be found. (|-- UlTiMuS 12:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup - despite the site's offensiveness over the years, it is still notable. --Mhking 13:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per all above. One of the most famous Internet memes. Haven't there been several AfDs over this already? - Smerdis of Tlön 13:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep, but Clean Up - It is a well known internet meme. There are even lesser known internet memes, such as Super Hardcore Grandma and Pokemon Kid. It should stay up to let people know exactly what they are dealing with before they get goatse'd. Please keep it. It's an ounce of prevention.

• Keep The topic is notable but disgusting. I am pleased not to have seen the picture. The poor state of the article is not itself a reason for deletion. I agree the content should be restricted to verifiable information. The problem of linkfarms cluttering wikipedia should be addressed elsewhere. I am almost sure the article satisfies 3. of WP:WEB and would be suprised if it does not satisfy 1. Goatse is one of the most famous shocksites, which is an encyclopedic subject, even though it is quite disgusting. Rintrah 16:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• K33p, Goatse is clearly notable as the first shock site on the Internet. The rest of the rationale for deleting this, e.g. the article isn't good, isn't really a criterion for deleting something. --Cyde Weys 17:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Extremely notable website, content not withstanding. EVula 17:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — slap a {{references}} tag on it and be done with it. goatse.cx is most very notable. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 21:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep You may find it repulsive, but Goatse has nevertheless its place in internet history. Gencoil 00:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, This is one of the single most notable internet memes ever, nearly every place of business here in central florida has heard of it and even my school's web filter notes goatse as an example of tasteless/pornography. --Superslash 00:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Something very interesting The only "reliable" source, The Scotsman article cites Wikipedia as a source! So it cannot be used. The Snopes article is not a relible source at all as it is an informal composition based mostly on reader emails, and it is not really about Goatse.cx itself only making references to it - again linking to Wikipedia to explain what it is! Now this whole Wikipedia article is a violation of WP:V which is a policy and really does need brutal stubbing.--Konst.able^Talk 00:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How does it cite Wikipedia as a source? All it says is There are many such unpleasant places on the web and you can find comprehensive details of them on the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia. That doesn't necessarily mean that all of the information he used from there is from here. --Wafulz 01:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • True, but it goes into those "comprehensive details" right after mentioning Wikipeida, and as it mentions nothing else as a source this is a strong implication. If you look at the version of the article the day before the publication it contains all the facts referred to by the Scotsman.com editorial, and out of the hundreds of related links it points out only those mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Somehow I doubt that they did any independent research on this themselves apart from Wikipedia.--Konst.able^Talk 02:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Not that the scotsman article mentions any of the detailed history that the Wikipedia article is describing anyway, there is still no source for that.--Konst.able^Talk 02:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article can be cleaned up; currently it's one of the best "clean" sources of information on goatse and it would be terribly sad to see it go. Crummy 03:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• An obvious keep. Everyking 03:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Ridiculous - keep! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This AfD can't be for real. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Since the disappearance of the original Goatse site, this Wikipedia article has been the most "informative" reference to the background and history. The Wikipedia article remains the top hit for "goatse". For the wider good of the internet, is it preferable that the top link continues to point to a clean source, rather than any of the shock sites directly. While marking the article as citation needed is appropriate, simply removing that information from the public domain for the sake of it is unnecessary. Sladen 11:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Petition rejected, keep I'm afraid :( - Francis Tyers · 12:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Goatsepedia. Teresa Isaac 14:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You mean Encyclopedia Dramatica? It has the full set of Kirk Johnson pictures. Anomo 22:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. as for Sladen --Cyclopia 18:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This page is relevant to the human experience.
• Comment I suspect the nomination was due to someone seeing the image for the first time. Anomo 22:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the nomination was due to what I said. A poorly written article with no sources and probably nothing but a clump of myth and rumours presented as fact. I've seen the image plenty of times before. All happened to be on Wikipedia during RC patrol, you would understand what I mean if you would ever do some.--Konst.able^Talk 23:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Stroke that last statement, did not mean it as a personal attack in any way. Just pointing out that images like these turn up a lot around Wikipedia (and I've seen much worse than Goatse.cx, I'll spare you the details) and this is not why I nominated Goatse.cx.--Konst.able^Talk 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. very (in)famous shock site --Xnobjafnyy 01:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep a notable and very well known net phenomenom. Let's not be squeamish about this. Xdenizen 01:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There's obviously no chance that this will be deleted, but I have to say it's rather frustrating that 2/3 - 3/4 of the keep reasoning is basically "I've heard of it" or "Why was this even nominated?" or similar comments without any real attempt to show how the majority of this content can be verified. Is somebody to purge the original research from this article after it's kept? I would do so right now, but then I'd be accused of vandalism since I still think it can be adequately covered in shock site without its own page, based on the dearth of reliable info available. GassyGuy 03:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is what I'm getting from this too. People seem to be ignoring the issue and shooting the messenger instead.--Konst.able^Talk 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I see your point, but I still think deleting the entire article may not be the best thing to do here. Forgive me for my naive newbie question: the popularity of the phenomenon should be easy to establish through primary sources - wouldn't it be possible to build an article around this? Of course I absolutely agree that pure speculations about persons etc are highly inappropriate, and need to be removed, but I somehow thought the popularity of the phenomenon itself is verifiable without a lot of academic or established print media secondary sources? I also thought some verifiable trivia may be worth mentioning, such as that goatse.cx was one of the earlier domain hacks? ReidarM 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with primary sources is that several uses of them can violate Wikipedia policy regarding original research. Generally, primary sources should only be used if reliable sources have introduced a concept, but the primary source is necessary for proper clarification and/or illustration, or something to that degree. To be specific for this article - look at the entire section about parodies, tributes, and trivia. Not only are trivia sections generally discouraged, but there is not a single reliable source that introduced the idea of parodies or tributes, so that all of these are left without real reference and violate the original research policy. Now look at the Geographic Location section. While the place to which a ".cx" would be easy to verify with a reliable source, the rest of this section appears to be original research. While it may even be possible to have decent sourcing of the date when the site went offline (for section The Site Goes Offline), the reporting on the rest of the content appears to use either primary sources or message board postings - the former aren't recommended, the later aren't reliable. Origin section - completely original research. Etymology - speculation in its entirety. This sort of thing is usually removed straightaway from articles about, say, radio and TV call letters when editors offer etymological possibilities. While I can't argue that the proposed etymology makes sense, there is no sources to document the claim, which goes again WP policy. The lead appears to be relatively harmless, as a brief description of the content is a permissible illustration in my opinion, although it is still a borderline inclusion without proper sourcing. Still, as it is a description of the content rather than any sort of synthesis of it, it may be acceptable. The thing is, if you were to pull most of the information that truly can't be sourced reliably, you're left with just a little bit of information that could easily be housed in the shock site article, with this redirecting there. GassyGuy 04:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I too am concerned about the lack of secondary sources, but I don't think that should stop us from having an article on this (in)famous domain. At some point, some sociology major will write a doctoral dissertation on Internet shock sites and get it published in a journal. In the meantime, we can do our best based on the popular knowledge of the site and the primary sources we do have. Between me and Konstable, considerable changes have already been made to the article, improving it infintesimally from the version we had before. I can't imagine too many people objecting to keeping the article as it is in its current state... it is much better now and can definitely be improved. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Generally, if something is lacking sources, that's a cleanup problem. If something can't be sourced, that justifies the removal of the content. It troubles me that we should keep unsourceable information or "popular knowledge" and assume that it will eventually be reliably sourced because a source will eventually exist. That, to me, is no better than "this band will eventually be notable" or "this person will eventually do something" or "my pet goldfish will eventually star in its own television series." If a source doesn't exist for the information, then it really should be purged from the article. GassyGuy 05:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• The examples you cite all involve speculation about insignificant things becoming significant. I contend again that this article is significant (pretty unarguably, and Google works as a great source for that)... Our problem, however, is an almost complete lack of secondary sources. I would speculate that this is due to 1) the site's content, 2) its lack of publicity in academia (it's popular on the Internet), and 3) it's very "newness". You don't see history books that could properly be called "secondary sources" and referenced in an encyclopedia published about our decade until many many years after it. So again, I argue that the sources are a problem, but that we can make do in the meantime. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• And what I'm saying is that even still, some (most) of the current content needs to be purged as a violation of the original research policy. GassyGuy 06:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'll certainly do my best to look for sources. Has anyone done a real, ie scientific, literature search (as opposed to popular search engines such as google)? Would it be of any help if the goatse.cx site has been cited in scholarly works, such as 䐀Spiegel, Dana Sean; Coterie: A visualization of the conversational dynamics within IRC; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1999)⠀http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~spiegel/thesis/Thesis.pdf ReidarM 08:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It would help if this paper actually did cite it. Unfortunately, it doesn't. It's included in the raw data, which, in this case, consists of logged IRC chats, in Appendix B. There's no mention of goatse in the actual paper, nor does the chat even discuss what the site is, just has the word appear twice. GassyGuy 08:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry, wrong paper. here it's cited: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/20031017hcsub.pdf also, Geoghegan, Bernard; The Other Agent: Cryptography, Computing and Postwar Theories of Intelligent Communication; Northwestern University (?2005?) refers to "goatse, an infamous pornographic web prank" http://www.agentabuse.org/geoghegan.pdf ReidarM 08:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

further - LeBlanc, Tracy Rene; “IS THERE A TRANSLATOR IN TEH HOUSE?”: CULTURAL AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF A VIRTUAL SPEECH COMMUNITY ON AN INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD; University of Louisiana at Lafayette (2005): In response to an off-topic post in one thread, a member posted, "Don't make me unleash the goatse on you!" The "goatse" (short for "goatsex") is an image circulated on the internet that is a favorite of the Pen community. It shows a highly pixilated image of a man holding his anus open, magnified to revolting proportions. Many threats like this surface when someone posts off topic, or tries to change the subject of talk within a thread. The image of "goatse" is used both as a "topic nazi" threat and as a form of thread derailment, both context dependent. http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04072005-145922/unrestricted/thesis.pdf [Note - I never seem to get the wiki markup right, forgive me for my lack of skills. Anyone, fix it if you like] ReidarM 08:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Reply These two certainly seem like better sources. I think they count as reliable under policy, though I'm not actually well-versed enough with theses to give a definitive. Can someone who knows for certain chime in? Anyway, they do look like good sources. Personally, I'd accept them. The problem remains, however, is that here is what these sources confirm: 1) Goatse exists. 2) This one can be used to source some of the ways in which goatse is used, and even now there is a reference for etymology (e.g., "According to blah blah blah, "goatse" is used as a short form of "goat sex" blah blah blah). Nice research. What these two sources do not do, however, is verify the majority of the rest of the content, including the discussion of the origins, the tributes and parodies, and the rest. I'm not changing my vote only because the verifiable content produced by these papers is still the same content housed at the shock site article, but I do think these two papers are certainly better than the current sourcing and should be used in both articles. GassyGuy 09:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me be the first to add that I don't think any of the above are top-notch sources: personally I think they may even be wrong about a lot of things. Still, something at least. ReidarM 10:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Funny, just a couple days ago I was trying to explain to a non-internet-junkie what "goatse" was, and referred them to our article. It's famous, indeed probably the most famous shock site/image in internet history. Finding reliable sources is of course a challenge, but we can do our best. ɜ ɛ, Antandrus (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Typical wikipedia. Some moron who thinks he knows everything is presented with new info, and thinks it's fake. I can't stand this site anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkkicks (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 October 2006

• Strong keep, per the massive number of google hits. This is obviously notable. And what's there to reference? I mean, the validity of the article is easily checked by going there yourself ^{(That's a link to goatse in its full glory, you've been warned)}. In conclusion, this should not be deleted in all. ~ Flameviper 21:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep its a huge and popular mainstream American if not world phenomena that should deserve wikipedia attention. - Patman2648 06:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment it's popular in Europe, NZ, Australia and North America: http://www.google.com/trends?q=goatse,+goatse.cx&date=all&geo=all&ctab=1&sa=N ReidarM 08:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep or Merge with an article on internet memes.--Vercalos 18:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge to shock sites. It's unpleasant, but it's notable. --Elonka 20:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Cleanup if you must remove information, do so, but goatse is definitely notable enough above all other shock sites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.197.38 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 26 October 2006
• Strong Keep I actually found this article quite informative. I had always seen the term mentioned on sites like slashdot, but never truly knew what it referred to. It was interesting to see where this 'joke' has been repeated, such as in video games.
• Strong keep one of the most well known www-sites in Finland. --Zzzzzzzzzz 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Same arguments as listed above. SpectrumDT 20:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It was and still is notable IMHO. --Vlad|-> 22:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it is factual information, to bad if someone finds it offensive—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.28.21.18 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 28 October 2006.
• Keep - Is very notable.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 14:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -It appears that those voting for delete are most likely humiliated victims of trolling taking out their shame and rage on the article. Whirling Sands 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And you're a sockpuppet. What's your point? GreenReaper 03:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • And you're being rude. Whirling Sands 03:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • And I'm telling Whirling Sands to read the very important WP:NPA policy immediately.--Konst.able^Talk 03:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
        • And we all started our comments with "and," a huge grammar no-no! Whirling Sands 03:36, 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. --Coredesat 03:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stick RPG 2

Crystal ball article. Game is still in development, and the article even states it has been in development for a few years and made relatively little progress compared to other game devolopment [sic] times causing great criticism. NMChico24 21:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is unverifiable. ColourBurst 23:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, when I searched the article on Google, the sources are very suspect at best. I highly doubt their reliability. Wikipediarules2221 01:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Re-create once/if its release seems to be concrete Derktar 01:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC).
• Delete as unverified. I wouldn't even recreate if it were released, since I would question the series' notability. I'm wondering if Stick RPG, Stick Arena, and even XGenStudios should be AFDed. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 01:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vaporware needs to be pretty special to pass the crystal ball test. Stick figures don't rank as "pretty special". Caknuck 01:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Seems a bit crystal-ball-ish. Could perhaps be moved to a subsection of Stick RPG, but has no merit for an article at this stage of development. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it is unverifiable. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 17:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Stick RPG and then redirect. - Lex 20:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge — with Stick RPG and redirect, but only if sources can be provided. Otherwise, Delete. Martinp23 21:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above.UberCryxic 02:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The Kinslayer 09:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Stick RPG presuming sourcing can be proved and delete otherwise as per Martin. JoshuaZ 02:11, 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 Speedy Delete as copyvio. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Genocide in Peloponnese

• Delete: One-sided Content, Distortion of History, Fake / Faulty Knowledge, Conflict of Ethnical Interests, Shameful Propaganda Atalanti 00:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

1) If the term genocide applies on the Greek war of liberation, then it MUST be applied on any other war of liberation where the oppressors are eliminated; 2) AND it MUST be applied on all the acts of agression, murder, destruction, deportation, occupation and enslavement committed against the Greek - Byzantine - Romioi - Christian people since AD 634 by the Ottoman Turks, the consequence of which acts can be seen by comparing the map of the East before AD 634 and now. The alleged genocide against the Turko-Albanians committed during the Greek war of independence doesn't compare to this long and brutal genocide of the Greeks and those of a Greek origin, as well as of the Christian Orthodox, which is still carried on until now, 2006, when Greek churches were attacked in Palestine. The Turks have committed hundreds of genocides against the Greek people (not only in Greece) from AD 634 till now with facts about acts of conquest, massacres, deportation, enslavement etc.

• Comment Probable bad faith nomination. User Atalanti has no other edits aside from this nom and a similar edit to the talk page of the nominated article. On the other hand, the article smacks of OR and nationalist POV. Caknuck 01:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Reply to user "Caknuck": User Atalanti is a PhD in history and Archaeology, and has no other edits for she is not driven by bad faith, but only by the good faith to prevent distortion of history and make wikipedia a better encyclopedia. She is the one who finally decided to propose this article for deletion after careful consideration (wrong citation, erroneous name ["Tsar Petro"], defamatory qualification ["foaming mouths"] => propaganda, ill-written and one-sided POV essay).
    • Comment for the anon user above. - From WP:AFD... "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith... Creating a user account an hour before nominating an AfD screams "bad faith". In the interest of fair debate, this needed to be mentioned. Caknuck 14:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment quite ironically, the same could apply to the user who created this! •NikoSilver• 20:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
        • If the nominator and the time he/she created an account is much of a problem, declare this voting invalid, and i, myself, will nominate the article for deletion (i am not a new user:)...)-i would had done this anyway, if i had noticed its existance earlier... Also note that all these votes of unregistered, newly registered, sockpuppets and God knows what else, are also invalid. Hectorian 20:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: The article should be deleted. It is in its total a racist nationalist hate propaganda, reproduced by the extreme turkish racist nationalist anti-hellenic organisations (Grey Wolves, and militaristic turkish government agents, opposing the international recognition of he Genocide of the Armenians and West Asia Greeks and other Christians, permitted by the Turks.) It is like as if we had reproduced as a Wikipedia independent article named "Genocide of the Aryan Germans (permitted by the Jews in the 20th century)" the whole Alfred Rosenberg's book "The Myth of the Twentieth Century", instead of the valid articles about 20th century history! There is no such terms in worldwide academic-valid International History as "genocide", "terrorist organisations" as regarding the Greek War of Independence (which is revolution against conquerors). These terms are being currently used only by turkish nationalist propagndists, not by worlwide recognized academic historians.

There is already a valid article in Wikipedia, Greek War of Independence All historic facts of the Greek War of Independence are being examined there. So there is against Wikipedia rules another article to exist for the same exactly issue, just rewriting revisionstically (and full hate nationalist propaganda) the first article.--ΚΑΛΛΙΜΑΧΟΣ 07:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If an article is one sided, or is not written from the neutral point of view, then the correct method is to introduce other points of view (with sources) and to clean up the article. WP:AFD mentions this in the instructions for nominating. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 09:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep & Re-write should be re-written from a NPOV angle, however i cannot judge since someone has since vandalised the page -- Librarianofages 02:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Article should be deleted as POV essay. Well sourced facts can be incorporated into the main Greek War of Independence article or if that becomes too large a separate article such as Massacres during the Greek War of Independence could be created to deal with all such events during the war. Davewild 11:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. PoV, OR. yandman 12:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Davewild. It is indeed only an attempt at an article. Full of typoes, dysfunctional grammar and unencyclopaedic language. I quote: "Then why did the Greek rebellion take place?" Many double "ll"s are spelled "h", suggesting a printed text was scanned, which would also explain why some of the links are hilarious: Peter the Great is linked to the petroleum article. Of course, that does not justify the edit war and vandalism over this article, involving also some of the people here. Some admin must protect this article speedily. --Pan Gerwazy 08:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment OK, it has been semi-protected now. Most of the late damage was done by anons anyway. --Pan Gerwazy 14:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this page. Its history is flavored with nationalistic undertones, turning upside down what social scientists have beem trying hard to do, namely, give genocides their appropriate "light" in history. A revolution and war of independence is defined as a genocide, in which case alll wars and revolutions and rebellions involving the killing of the oppressor defacto become genocides. This compromises the heuristic tool or use of the term genocide. What then is the difference between Holocaust and Armenian genocide on the one hand and wars of independence by people fighting against an external oppressor and conqueror? Thank you. User: Socprof

Comment Excuse me, but could everybody please use the standard procedure and write *Keep or *Delete (in bold letters) at the start of their text? As this page stands now, the administrator closing this discussion will have a lot of trouble distinguishing between "votes" and "comment". Thank you. --Pan Gerwazy 14:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - totally unencyclopedic; anything worth saying can be said in Greek War of Independence and/or Ottoman Greece, although I'm not sure that adding reports of Turkish and Greek atrocities from primary sources will do much for those articles. As noted by the Pan, it looks as if this was scanned, which is worrying. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with Angus McLellan above about where to put anything worth saving. Section headings like "How Lord Byron was exploited" scream unfixable POV. Carlossuarez46 19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it! It is shameless distortion of history! I believe that with this statement will agree every educated Turkish. The article serves as a propaganda of the "darkest" part of Turkish society. - 17:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Gregykapogeorge — Possible single purpose account: Gregykapogeorge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delete! Malicious, distorted rewrite of an already existing wikipedia article. Contains gross inaccuracies and highly inflammatory language. Classic propaganda piece aimed at arousing hatred, and clearly does not belong in wikipedia 64.121.193.126 06:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)ptsourkas — Possible single purpose account: 64.121.193.126 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delete. Comments will be added in the respective article's talkpage. Hectorian 13:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete asap, or... rename all battles of X to 'massacres' or 'genocides'. •NikoSilver• 15:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP! tHE TRUTH must be told! çekiç 6:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.206.24.147 (talk • contribs) 16:54, October 28, 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 172.206.24.147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep. Eventhough I am Greek, I think this article is very encyclopedic and tells the truth about the GENOCIDE of Turks. Not all of us are thinking like Greek Nationalists and hate Turkish people and Kemal :-) Costasgreky 17:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Costasgreky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Αλήθειά; Η μεταφορά σελίδας που έκανες κάθε άλλο παρά το ότι είσαι Έλληνας δείχνει... Θα ήταν πολύ καλό αν μπορούσες να απαντήσεις στα ελληνικά, χωρίς υπεκφυγές και μα τεκμιριωμένη χρήση της νεοελληνικής γλώσσας που να αντανακλά τον ομιλητή της ως μητρικής γλώσσας. Hectorian 17:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I do not know Greek, but I did see that since User: Costasgreky registered (today) he vandalized John Balfour, 3rd Baron Kinross to praise his biography of Kemal Ataturk to seventh heaven and Smyrna to redirect it to Izmir. Obviously, soemthing you'd expect a Greek user to do. Not. --Pan Gerwazy 21:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

U do not know Greek, but u got my point;-). In fact, this is what more or less i say in Greek above, with also an invite to him to say something in Greek (with the note that it is really easy for a native Greek to understand if the other is a native Greek-speaker...). But judging by acts and comments, no Greek would ever say that he is "uncultured" and "racist". In any case, i guess, his vote is invalid and his comments meaningless... Hectorian 22:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I am very happy that Greek people can see the genocide of the Turkish people. These Greek murderers and racists tuvalets are the scum of Earth. This article is a must! Geleceğinin 17:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Geleceğinin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Comment Note that User:Geleceğinin's only contribution since he created his account (today) apart from his user page and here, was ... supporting User: Costasgreky in his vandalism on John Balfour, 3rd Baron Kinross. I hope the closing admin will take good note of this. If the vote of these two users should be counted and decide the issue, I propose an enquiry on possible meatpuppetry.--Pan Gerwazy 21:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You. Trukish people seem to be very liberal and modern people, in contrast to us who are racists killers with NO culture but some ancient ruins and old people. We can not see how cultured the Ottomans were, how deeply modern people like Giza Kemal changed history for all the young, future generations. Costasgreky 17:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Costasgreky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Delete! Per all Aristovoul0s 19:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ditto.--Eupator 21:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hakob 23:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Perseas 07:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV fork of Greek War of Independence, likely plagiarism, and a host of other criteria. But please be prepared to reintroduce some information about any Greek massacres of the muslim population into the main article, to the extent that they can be reliably sourced (from secondary sources, that is). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if well-sourced and neutralized. E104421 11:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in every word of it there is at least one distortion. If I create an article claiming that the sun rises from the west, how long would it take to be deleted as complete rubbish? --Ferrara 11:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Correct: I'm the creator of this article. First of all I'm neither a racist nor a fashist. I have friends all around the world including greeks and armenians. I just wanted to tell everybody what happened in Morea 180 years ago. This article is not written in a hatred manner. Everyone muslims of morea deserve to be remembered. My souces are all writting under the article; a long list of academical papers.

Few words to those who talk about turkish-hate: Well, after 400 years of turkish reign in greece, greeks are still christian and greek speaking. But turks of Morea were totally exterminated after 1-2 years of greek reign. Some people critise the mis-spellings. They're right. I'II correct them.

I see some comments here citing the year AD 634. That is the year prophet Muhammed passed away. In those year Islam was only in Arabian Peninsula, even not in Jerusalem or in Iran. The ignorant greek nationalists have to learn so many stuff about Islamic history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmorgil (talk • contribs) 13:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the comments here. The language u use is by far not academic, unencyclopedic, full of hate. Your spelling mistakes indicate (as mentioned above by a fellow wikipedian) that u scanned a paper. the sources u have added are like footnotes that do not work. all these are suspicious enough concerning the reasons and the validity of the sources (if they indeed say what u claim they do). Lastly, keep Greeks and Islam aside... It was not a religious war, nor a crusade! it was a war for independence against the conquerors. and, btw, have in mind that the Greeks ("nationalists" as u say) have excellent relations with the islamic states. better than any western country, and by far better than Turkey itself. Regards Hectorian 14:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian. Do you mean, that you greeks are so innocent angels? Then please tell me the fate of turks of Mora and Crete. What happened to those people? Where are their graves? If you know it so much then Why dont you write an article about "Turks of Greece after 1821"

You, all greeks in Wikipedia, are so organised and protective. You all seem to be in a panic in a simple logic. If turks kill someone its "genocide", but if there are killed "normalities of a war". Blaming turks in front of the world and maybe gaining some benefits from it. Like you are doing since 180 years. Cry like a baby and maybe super powers give you a candy. Our lovely ridicilous former slaves :-))

Your claims about:"...war for independence against the conquerors" is funny. Greece lost the war in 1825. But England and Russia wrote the fate of war in Navorino. Greeks can never win a war. In its history greece always had a master power controlling it. You were our colony for 400 years then we sold you to Russia. Then England took you. Then USA and today EU. For greece its only about having a master.

I would just advice to open a history book (U know, Grey Wolves' leaflets can poison your mind:)...). Hectorian 21:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I detecting an inferiority complex on the part of our Turkish friend? If so, then it is wholly justifiable in my opinion, I mean the main difference between Greece and Turkey is that standards of living in Greece are significantly higher than those in Turkey (although we must give the Turks some credit - after all, I do hear they do have one of the highest standards of living in the Third World). Perhaps the military dictatorship in place there won't let the economy blossom.

On the other point you raised, I think you should know Greeks really don't hate Muslims, au contraire, they get on together perfectly, and see what happens to Greeks who don't follow that line. Maybe this is why, unlike Turkey, Greece has yet to experience Islamic terrorism.

As for Russia, it's a known fact that Greece is Russia's mouthpiece in the EU, all former communist states in the EU despise Russia now, Greece is their only traditional and actual ally in Europe. This is obviously due to them saving us from dhimmitude (Britain and especially France were more skeptical).

Finally, if you want to know the fate of the Muslims (a term which includes and is not equal to Turks) of Morea and Crete, they were repatriated to Turkey as part of the population exchanges directed under the Treaty of Lausanne. If you really want to compare the situations, see what George Horton in his book the Blight of Asia has to say:

"[o]ne of the cleverest statements circulated by the Turkish propagandists is to the effect that the massacred Christians were as bad as their executioners, that it was “50-50.”" On this issue he clarifies that "[h]ad the Greeks, after the massacres in the Pon­tus and at Smyrna, massacred all the Turks in Greece, the record would have been 50-50—almost." As an eye-witness, he also praises Greeks for their "conduct [...] toward the thousands of Turks residing in Greece, while the ferocious massacres were going on...", which according to his opinion was "one of the most inspiring and beautiful chapters in all that country’s history."

I rest my case.--Tekleni 22:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as POV fork of Greek War of Independence and likely copyvio/plagiarism.--Tekleni 22:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this page still here? I thought that such content was supposed to be speedy deleteed. WP is being ridiculed with such articles and AfD's full of one purpose accounts. I also see not even one legit Turkish user supporting this article (I see no objections either, despite relevant notifications I happen to know of, but that's another story and possibly understandable)... •NikoSilver• 22:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Any admin coming here is probably waiting for a few more experienced users who may be deemed neutral in a Greek-Turkish conflict area. One (yes, only one) of the Turkish keep votes seems to be from an experienced user. The closing admin may actually ignore the "votes" of Turks and Greeks (many single purpose accounts on both sides) but also of Armenians and perhaps even of a "Russian" Belgian like me. Leaves four deletes and two keeps. It does not help that the two keeps were the first votes. But one of them did say (s)he could not see the page because of vandalism. Perhaps (s)he can have a fresh look at the page, now that it is semi-protected?--Pan Gerwazy 11:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as copyvio from http://www.greekmurderers.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=6 (notice the site name). No prejudice against including verifiable information from neutral sources about the events into other articles, but this is a model example of partisan WP:POVFORK. Duja 12:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments. Congratulations on this find. We now know who wrote this thing. But even this Internet site looks like having made a scan. I checked "Demosthehes" (one of the links that does not work), and of course it is there, just like "outside the city wahs". So, I believe this is actually taken from one of the author's books. You can find his (Sonyel's) biography here. Would the copy vio be from The Turco-Greek Conflict? --Pan Gerwazy 12:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - while it can't be said that the nominator does a good work in presenting the reasons for deletion, there is little doubt that this article is WP:POVFORK and a copyvio.--Aldux 12:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: Copyvios are candidates for speedy deletion (WP:SPEEDY). I am applying the relative template in the article right now. •NikoSilver• 12:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific attitude

This is not an encyclopaedia article, it is an essay or opinion piece about what the "scientific attitude" is or should be. Everything it says may well be correct, but it is still not an article. Charles 01:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Essay/OR --NMChico24 01:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just a mess. Caknuck 01:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsalvageable opinion piece. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per NMChico24. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Bookgrrl 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Who is Bloom? This may be very pertinent to the question of whether this article is worth keeping in some form. Is the Bloom referenced here notable as a social theorist or the like? --Christofurio 03:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a reference to Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. It's not directly related to scientific method or attitude, and referring to it is an obvious bit of original research (synthesis) on the part of the article author. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.97.253 (talk • contribs)
  • Just FYI: this isn't a vote, this is a discussion. Saying "delete" without a reason or at least a reference to someone else's reason is the same thing as saying nothing and usually gets ignored when the final decision is made. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Saxifrage. BrownHornet21 04:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agree with the above Timbatron 05:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and all you guys †he Bread 05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per NMChico24, this reads like an Essay, and without references i am compelled to beleive this is original research Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand/ edit So make it an article? 8 million google hits, including 1 hit for a book with that exact title. Looks like a real topic to me. Kim Bruning 10:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC) (did anyone else type the words into google before stating their opinion?)
  • Also 3350 hits for "scientific attitude" in book titles on amazon. A quick runthrough shows some works that are too specific (such as "scientific attitude towards x", "development of scientific attitude wrt Y"), but others seem rather useful ("scientific attitude in the xxth century", "development of scientific attitude over time"). Kim Bruning 10:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Another 2169 hits while searching primary and secondary literature on pubmed. A quick skim through the hits shows several promising titles. Kim Bruning 10:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is a work in progress. When you see an article like this, the correct procedure is to expand it. If you delete all pages that aren't perfect yet, the wiki doesn't get a chance to do its job. Kim Bruning 10:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Begging pardon, but as someone who's actually studying philosophy of science academically right now, the term "scientific attitude" is so vague as to be hopeless. Much better minds than we have tried to define what makes up science, and there is no agreement yet on even whether it is an attitude (as opposed to a societal value system, logical system, or something else), let alone what such an "attitude" might be. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That would explain why there are so many opinions about the subject (as per google, amazon, pubmed above) . Quite worthy of an NPOV article explaining the different views! :-) Thank you for pointing out that this is a notable subject in the philosophy of science. Kim Bruning 19:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, I'm saying the opposite if you'd listen. I'm technically pointing out that the title itself (and hence, the subject) is question-begging as far as academia is concerned. There is so little consensus out there that there isn't even agreement on what is being discussed, let alone the details of it. Every philosopher of science has their own take on how science is done and why, and has their own set of things that they focus on. While concepts like Value theory, Rationality, and Paradigm shift have gotten a lot of attention, there are few treatments on "scientific attitude" out there. In my own search of the literature I get 26 hits, of which (judging by the titles and abstracts) all but one merely use the term without elaboration. (I'm not sure what a search of a biomedical journal repository such as PubMed is meant to demonstrate about a socio-psycho-philosophical concept.) Most of them use the term in mutually-incompatible senses. Undoubtably something could be written, but this is an areas of inquiry that has yet to stabilise in the real world and I do doubt that we humble Wikipedia editors could document something that the real world hasn't even begun to settle on without resorting to original research. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Philosphers of science can debate forever, in the mean time, there's science to be done on the ground. People are showing *some* attitude or other. Are you sure there's no material on that topic? Google and amazon (and even a biomedical search) show hits.

I just did searches in some locations I use regularly. Each gave quite a number of hits. I think scientific attitude has probably been discussed to death for centuries. I'd be quite surprised if there was no literature on the subject. Once again, if people are discussing the topic, and the subject is unstable, you can report which main ideas have formed over time.

You yourself state that there is material on the subject, but that people are still all confused. Then that's what we report. And mutually incompatible senses you say? That's where NPOV can really shine! :-)

Kim Bruning 00:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you until you say "you yourself...". Yes, there may be material. I doubt it, and for the reasons I state. People are free to go do that research and create a new article at this title. Where you lose me and my patience is when you attribute words to me I haven't written. I have specifically said that, to my knowledge, there is not literature on the subject. What I have said is that there is literature about something that some people could label "scientific attitude" if they were to engage in original research, but that such a term is not in currency that I am aware of. I said that there is debate about science in general and what it means to do it, so much so that there is no agreement (not "disagreement") on the terms used. Simply put, to my knowledge what constitutes the "scientific attitude" is not under debate because the debaters on the topic of science are busy with other things and haven't begun considering the colloquial term in any academic way. Again, I may be wrong, but using a mistake about what I'm actually saying (or at least trying to say) in your persuasion is not going to convince me of that. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough on misunderstanding, my apologies. But if what you say is true, how does one account for so many hits, sometimes for the literal phrase? Kim Bruning 20:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There are two ways to account for it: (1) the term has a lot of common currency but isn't treated on as a topic of discussion (i.e., it's just a common term and not a solidified concept), or (2) that I'm wrong, and there is treatment of the topic in a focused way with common premises. I believe (1) is the case, but I recognise that the reality may be between the two. (That being wrong isn't a fatally-bad thing is one of the joys of consensus decisions.) — Saxifrage ✎ 21:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 15:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deserves an article, genuine academic sources can be found. Dave 15:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources, provided, and the article is an essay. -- Whpq 16:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this is POV, no sources. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSmack (talk • contribs)
• Delete as an unverified essay. If it does deserve an article, it deserves better than to be written in this manner. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 00:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - POV essay meet WP:SOAP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Whoever wants to start an article on it might as well start from scratch. ~ trialsanderrors 06:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crucible Red

Delete. Local band that does not meet WP:MUSIC. No full length albums, only demos that appear to be self-produced. All the comments supporting the article on the talk page are made by apparent single-purpose accounts. The name brings up about 6 or 7 relevant pages in the first 50 results. Contested speedy. ... discospinster _talk 01:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as insufficiently notable high school band. No assertions of notability that meet any of the twelve criteria listed in WP:BAND. No credible, third-party sources as required by WP:V. -- Satori Son 01:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Being the house band of a record store doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Caknuck 01:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BAND? Check. Obvious WP:AUTO and WP:COI? Check. Single purpose accounts? Check [8][9][10][11]. Sock puppetry? Check [12]. Myspace link? Check[13]. Unreleased demos? Check. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hm, Appears to be a vanity article from the way it is written, not a notable band, (WP:BAND) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The term "vanity" is strongly discouraged in such cases, the appropriate term is "conflict of interest", see WP:COI. Xtifr _tälk 04:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity article, not notable. no sources. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 17:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC -- Librarianofages 02:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As usual, I wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors and hope they will be succesful enough to one day merit an article. In the meantime, they fail basic notability and verifiability criteria. JoshuaZ 20:49, 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. --Coredesat 03:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elitegames

Non-notable per WP:WEB. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 01:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN browser game portal. Alexa ranking: 1,169,766 Caknuck 01:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Per nom. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, and with spam like undertones. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 17:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable vanspam page. The Kinslayer 09:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the homepage.jpg in the article got speedy deleted by someone. Anomo 22:02, 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, since the claims were never sourced or verified. --Coredesat 04:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avni Abazi

Vanity bio of actor trying to break into US showbiz. Includes two headshots and a lot of breathless prose. Was prod tagged, but tag removed without comment by anon IP whose contributions almost all focus on this article. Calton | Talk 02:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is duplicated in Abazi Avni. - Evv 02:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• User:69.121.55.31 has been blocked (24h) for repeated removal of the AfD template. Deizio talk 16:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• User:69.121.55.31 has been blocked (48h) for repeated removal of the AfD template. - Evv 23:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BIO, I've also redirected the dupe to the original article. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough in the article to assert notability. Needs independent sources to corroborate the State Department award and presidency of Union of Film Artists of Kosovo. Also of note, the primary contributor to the article, Benitrimi, has been blocked for removing prod/AfD tags & vandalizing another editor's user page. Benitrimi also did most of the work at The Association of Culture and Art Development in Balkans – ACADB, which probably should be added to the AfD because it can't satisfy WP:V. Caknuck 05:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. Resolute 13:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if true. Sounds as notable in Kosovo as, say, Alec Baldwin is in the US.
  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave (talk • contribs) User:Zoe|(talk) 17:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, but, if the claims can be verified, he does seem notable, as Dave says. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:V & per nom. Deizio talk 10:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but only if user can provide verifiability, otherwise Delete. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMG International

PROD tag removed, so I've brought it here. The article reads like spam, doesn't assert notability, is poorly written and needs more reliable sources. ♠PMC♠ 02:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Reads like a vanity advertisement to me. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 02:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Removed prod but didn't do anything about lousy article. WVhybrid 02:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I was initially unsure about this one. The article reads like a pure vanity piece, and evangeical outfits are not my thing, but the real question here is surely notability and (secondarily) verifiability.
  AMG's own website says that the organisation runs a 220-bed hospital and some smaller "medical outreach" programs; its IRS return shows that it has a £6million annual income from public donations. AMG's history page claims that the organisation's founder was very notable in Greece in the early 1960s.
  To my mind, those elements might meet the notability criteria of WP:ORG and WP:CORP if they were verifiable, but no other sources seem to be available. So I reckon it has to go. If anyone wants to start a decently-written and properly-sourced NPOV article about AMG, I wouldn't rule it out as one to keep, but this article is a definite no-no.--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Reads as an advertisement, (WP:SPAM) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Mhking 13:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ditto. Dave 15:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - oof, delete, as per nom. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 17:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — At the moment, it violates WP:SPAM, reading like a complete advertisement, but, like BrownHairedGirl, I agree that it is notable enough to merit its own article, if written in an encyclopedic tone. Also, more, direct sources are needed (WP:RS) - we can't just have a link to the organisation's website (hardly a neutral source....) Martinp23 21:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep, Verify & Stubify per above AMG would appear to be a notable organisation per both WP:ORG & WP:CORP however, this needs to be ascertained. Librarianofages 02:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Protect from Recreation Jason has pretty much admitted that it's impossible to find another source to verify they're as "international" as they say they are. I don't know why he won't come to vote here like a grown man.--Rmky87 22:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Information not verfiable. CloudNine 12:50, 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. --Coredesat 04:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of arsonists

This list isn't necessary given the entire category for arsonists already available. There is little annotation or benefit to having this list as an article while also maintaining the category, and therefore, per the cons of a list vs the benefits of a category given in the WP:CLS guideline, I nominated this list for deletion. ju66l3r 02:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Listmania. Inclusion of Göring into the category is dubious. Every Swedish and Imperial general in Thirty Years' War should be then included as well. Pavel Vozenilek 03:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Some lists just arent needed in a good encyclopedia Cdcdoc 05:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It is not needed when we have a ctegory for the purpose. It's a redundant page. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Only need either category or list. -- FaerieInGrey 19:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only needs a category. Hello32020 19:54, 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. --Coredesat 04:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herman Cares

This was submitted for proposed deletion, but the PROD tag was removed. Apparently "Herman Cares" is some kind of slogan used at a school in Maryland, but I can find no relevant Google hits. The only source provided is just a link to the school's web page with no clear reference to any "Herman" there. The subject appears to be unverifiable. Note that at least two editors and two anons have been editing this article, with one of the anons describing "Herman Cares" as a "world-encompasing philosiphy" but the other people trying to explain it as a local joke, which is probably more accurate but still does not suggest notability. In either case, I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 02:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. WP is not things invented in fourth-period study hall.Montco 02:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, made up in school, etc. Edward Wakelin 02:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete textbook WP:NFT. Danny Lilithborne 04:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing to assert notability outside of a schoolyard. Caknuck 05:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Not only is this unverifiable, it improperly uses the term 'philosophy,' it seems to be written in a (very bad) satirical/tongue-in-cheek style and seems to be a possible slang term from some small group of kids in one school in the US. Danny is write, this is a textbook example of what needs NOT to be included in the Wikipedia --The Way 06:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day. -- Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced and unverifiable. NawlinWiki 14:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unencyclopedic, unsourced, unverifiable JoJan 15:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete VORNFT CITERS cares.-- danntm ^T _C 19:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as complete and utter crap, plus probable hoaxing. - Corporal Tunnel 19:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I created the article, so my vote may come as a surprise here- just a warning, the explanation here is about to get long-winded. I created the article, which is indeed a local joke, and had figured that by notifying a number of friends we together, with our collective memory of 2005 could retrace more or less the history behind Herman cares and explain what particularly about it appealed to the community's sense of humor. (Just a random sign saying "Herman Cares" doesn't make much of a joke, so some explanation is needed.) However, someone or other vandalized the page and turned it into.... I don't even know what to call it, and now is reverting it back whenever I (or any one else) tries to fix it. So, I propose we kill the article for now, wait a while, and then repost- with luck, we can then productively build the article up and fix it.

As for the verification thing, that is an issue, and the Poolesville web page really doesn't make sense as a source- so, until we dig up some references that are actually worthwhile, I'd say that year it really ought to go in the dustbin.

• Sorry all- had no idea the trouble this'd become, I figured it'd manage to build up gradually into a decent article if I laid down the basic spine of it and let other locals familiar with the joke know, I didn't expect we'd spend all our time fixing vandalism. That said, I do take exception to the "made up in school one day" comment- as this isn't something made up in the sense of just a new "hey that'd be fun to post on Wikikpedia" but rather a running, well established joke that's become a part of Poolesville culture. The other troubles I had anticipated would be fixed very rapidly with a number of people working on it, but as I said, we all got sidetracked by the vandalismNullius in Verba 01:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Nullius, the wikipedia is not a repository for inside jokes, period. There are literally millions of running jokes out there; any decent sized city will have thousands that are shared by various cliques. A 'well-established joke' from Poolesville is nowhere even remotely close to being notable enough for inclusion in the wikipedia. --The Way 06:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I've heard of "Herman Cares", but only because it's a massive inside joke at my sister's high school. I'm fairly certain that doesn't meet notability standards -- unless some newspaper or such outside PHS wrote about it. If you can find such a source, awesome. --Alynna 05:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Based on previous votes, Herman does not care. Anomo 22:04, 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. --Coredesat 04:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Night

Unsourced article, with no further contributions other than from its creator (apart from categorisation). google throws up no other references. BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 02:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:V. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 02:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Complete rubbish. Churchill lost office in 1945. His education ministers were Ramsbotham and Butler. See Secretary of State for Education and Skills. Speedy Delete Emeraude 11:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:V, and from what Emeraude says, I'm thinking it may be a hoax. Anyone? Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete RA Butler was President of the Board of Education in the wartime coalition [14]. Ken Night, if he existed, can only be a junior minister who history has forgotten. Not notable, not verifiable. I wonder if this article was created as a red line edit from Worksop College? QuiteUnusual 12:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have checked Leigh Rayment's lists of peers and MPs, and can find no trace of anyone called Ken/Kenneth Knight/Night who was an MP or peer in that period. Since ministers need to be a member of either the Commons or the Lords, that pretty much rules out any possiblity that a "Ken Night" was a minister, unless this omission is one Rayment's occasional omissions, which I think unlikely. The most likely explanation, to my mind, is that someone called Ken/Kenneth Knight/Night may have had some role at some point as civil servant or special advisor or head of some commission in wartime, and that the ministerial tag is a misunderstanding … but that is not what is being claimed here, and no sources have been offered to support any such explanation. -BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, looks like a hoax to me. NawlinWiki 14:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. - Corporal Tunnel 19:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-Churchill lost office in 1945, so seems to be a false information.Joshygeorge 05:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astute Technology

• Delete: WP:VSCA. No reliable sources given for verification. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete See article talk page, it seems no "important organisations" have written about this company. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable, google news turned up nothing [15]. contains unencyclopedic content. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - can find no verifiablity other than the company's own website. Unfortunately even the conference page for the claimed notability only references "a pilot program" and does not name Astute Tech by name in any way. On top of that, the page suffers from autobiographical conflicts since the creator is likely to be the CEO of the company given the same/similar username-real name connection (jmerril = Jonathan Merril?). ju66l3r 19:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable and not verifiable. Hello32020 19:55, 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. KrakatoaKatie 08:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anystream

• Delete: WP:VSCA. No reliable sources given for verification. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: A lack of reliable sources seems like it would require {{sources}} rather than deletion. VSCA is an essay, not a guideline. ju66l3r 03:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• PS - I added a reliable source for the Apreso software since nomination. ju66l3r 03:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Lack of reliable sources indicates lack of verifiability - and that indicates deletion may be in order. Read the first paragraph of WP:V#Burden of evidence. If reliable sources can be found, I'll be happy to end this early. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW, that reference is for the software, not the company. Maybe the article should be for the program. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I hope that the newest reference I just added satisfies your request for a reference that gives this company verifiability (including a more explicit declaration of notability as the 2004 Market Leadership Award winner from Frost & Sullivan). It's from a 3rd-party news source on tech companies. The two references should satisfy WP:RS and WP:V making the grounds of this AfD somewhat moot. ju66l3r 16:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Per ju66l3r, lack of sources is not a reason for deletion, lack of verifiability is. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, verifiability is not a keep criterion. Provide those reliable sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe it wasn't clear because I added my response inline instead of at the end of the AfD section: I have added 2 sources (1 from an online tech news source denoting the company's notability as a market leader for its field, 1 from a city newspaper article denoting the company's latest software package being used in academic settings). I did not create this article, but saw the AfD and felt that this company was notable enough to stand as verifiably notable and the article could be reliably sourced (as it is at this time). ju66l3r 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How about Astute Technology? That was deleted with {{db-spam}} a couple times before the author basically used Anystream as a template to re-write Astute Technology. What is the difference between the two? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I have addressed the AfD nomination of Astute Tech on its own AfD page. The difference as it relates to Anystream is that Anystream has reliable sources (that have been added since your nomination) for its technolgy and company's notability and Astute Tech does not (that I can find). Each article should keep or delete on its own merits (given no proof or evidence that they are a series of articles or anything like that). ju66l3r 19:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Sounds good. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — The references added are good enough for me. Google spits out about 80k. I say keep. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 21:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm leaning towards keep because of the first source, but when I click on the second source it says "the article that you requested is no longer available." - Lex 20:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough. Macworld did a big write-up of them. [16] --Marriedtofilm 03:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, that's nice. That should be added to the article somewhere. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • This AfD is to discuss if the company is worthy of an article, not to knock the editors for not placing a certain reference in it. --Marriedtofilm 03:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Huh? I'm saying someone should add that reference to the article somewhere. How is that knocking anyone? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • The "oh, that's nice" came accross as a little flippant to the article editor who didn't use that Macworld reference. --Marriedtofilm 04:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
          • No, that was meant as "that's the best reference yet". —Wknight94 (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
            • My apologies, then. --Marriedtofilm 06:02, 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. --Coredesat 04:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mid-Atlantic Conference

NN conference Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 02:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Speedy Delete (A7) There's not a single Ghit related to it. Perhaps this should be speedied before Google picks it up and Wikipedia becomes their first reference.--Húsönd 03:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• I had it as a speedy per A7 but it kept on getting removed. I reverted it and then was reverted back, I didn't want an edit war so I moved it here. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 03:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per CSD A7. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A7, unremarkable person or group. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, high school conferences are generally not notable. NawlinWiki 14:37, 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. --Coredesat 04:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ideal PR

• Delete: WP:VSCA. No reliable sources given for verification. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Clearly fails WP:CORP, and does not even try to assert notability. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:CORP Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Working for notable people does not make a company notable by association. Fan-1967 14:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — should have been marked <nokwiki>Template:Db-sapm</nowiki>. delete. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 05:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • {{db-spam}} implies that the article is so extensively POV and spammy that it would need a complete rewrite. That's not the case here. It would need expansion to demonstrate notability but the content already there would be suitable. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:04, 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. --Coredesat 04:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop albums that have consistently appeared in top lists

Pure POV. No set criteria for what's included. Pianoshootist 03:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - i've been watching this page for a while now, and even tried deleting all claims that hold no cites. Not only does this remove half the article, but people revert/readd their favorite albums. In a perfect wikipedia with the most candor of prose this article could still not be done. Delete. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 03:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete guess why. Danny Lilithborne 04:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• "In a perfect wikipedia with the most candor of prose this article could still not be done." Well said. Delete. Andrew Levine 04:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Top what? Too ambiguous to be encyclopedic. Note: It would be a shame not to keep this article in some form, because at the least, it's a great starter list for someone putting together a music collection. That being said, it's still not "encyclopedic". Caknuck 05:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As a matter of fact, this article has gone through AfD before as Albums that have been considered the greatest ever. Some said to try and keep the article in some form for similar reasons. Obviously it didn't work out. I think this whole she-bang should be 'nixed. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 06:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, didn't slog through the history far enough to see the move. I was hoping for something more along the lines of a transwiki, but I'm not sure what project would suit it best. Caknuck 08:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Inherently POV; no discrimination as to what constitutes a 'top-list,' solely focuses on an arbitrary boundary of albums centered in western world, has no encyclopedic value, talk pages illustrates that it is simply a vehicle for individual editors to get the name of their favorite albums out there... There are also far better, more objective ways of discerning what makes an album one of high acclaim and/or quality (best-selling albums, grammy and other award winners, etc). Need I go on? --The Way 06:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Let's get this right - a list of things which have been in lists. POV. Arbitrary. Emeraude 11:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft that is, by its own title going to be ever-POV Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JoeSmack above, the topic itself is NPOV and any struggle to maintain it will run into that underlying problem. -Markeer 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sure, a lot of the entries are NPOV, but remember, the article is articles that have consistently appeared on top lists. These are just albums that are critically acclaimed, and the article should be kept as a quick reference to people that wish to find out what albums have appeared on top lists. BurningZeppelin 09:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment How is 'consistently' defined in this context? How are these 'top lists' chosen? Does a 'top list' from a Japanese magazine get equal weight with an American one? (Certainly not as the article is severely biased towards the West, America in particular). All these questions point out valid problems with the article, this combined with everyone elses arguments points to deletion. --The Way 17:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. "Considered by many", "often been described", "is regarded as"... weasel words, all of them. Wholly arbitrary, wholly unhelpful. 15:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not enough tildes. That last one was me. BTLizard 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep I don't see a reason, really. The article is severely biased towards the West, because the West because every album on the list is a rock album, and rock was created, developed, and pioneered in the west. I do agree that the article uses quite a few weasel words yeah, and maybe the genre-creating albums section should be cut, but I think once a good number of accolades are provided, and artists who site the albums as influences and all that, it should be kept. Instead of searching all over to find where to start with a decent music collection, readers can just quickly access this list, look at different genres and start to build their collection from there. It's very helpful. ClashingZeppelin 20:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Wikipedia isn't allmusic.com. I think helping the kids find good music is a poor reason for keep. It's POV, it's unsourced, it's biased, it is a fanboy MAGNET and it is unmanageable. I've been reverting changes on it for days from people who want their favoritest-bestest band to be up there without a cite in sight. excuse the pun. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 05:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You and the very similarly named BurningZeppelin up there wouldn't happen to be cousins would you? JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 05:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Not only is it severely biased towaords the west, the number of citations to Rolling Stone indicate that it is biased towards a particular conservative - one might say reactionary - view of western popular music. The suggestion that somebody would use a list in an encyclopaedia to start a music collection is somewhat risible, too. It implies that he or she would know nothing about music and had no opportunity of hearing any - in which case why would they want to start collecting it? BTLizard 09:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a topic devoid of encyclopedic legitimacy. The Literate Engineer 04:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hutt International Boys School Stallions

NN high school team. Húsönd 03:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: looks like vanity Pianoshootist 03:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - FWIW, this is one of the ten top collegiate gridiron teams in New Zealand (not that there are many more than ten collegiate teams in the country) - they have some notability even if only for that reason alone. For that reason, I'm neutral about it. Grutness...wha? 04:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

With two wins and two loses against other teams within the Wellington region, I seriously doubt that they are one of the top teams in the country. --GringoInChile 10:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Grutness...wha? 04:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Would a merge and redirect to the team's base school be appropriate in this case? -- saberwyn 04:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's worth a merger. The school article already mentions the team. If it is deemed NN then I guess there's no need to stuff the school article with names of NN team members. A redirect would be harmless, but it also doesn't seem that necessary.--Húsönd 04:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • By merge, I mean add the top line of the article, to state that the team exists. Possibly with the addition of the website. The rest can go to oblivion. At the mo, the only mention I can find in my quick glance is the wikilink itself. -- saberwyn 04:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Yep, that's fine with me.--Húsönd 05:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. An insignificant sport in New Zealand. Non-notable. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 04:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - why was this even created in the first place? --Nick Dowling 08:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN --GringoInChile 10:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Schools are inherently notable. Their teams are not. Emeraude 11:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Emeraude. Also the article is mostly only a list of members. JIP | Talk 15:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotion; inconceivable that it could be of use to anyone else. BTLizard 15:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Xdenizen 01:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn team from nn school. It seems to me that the "All schools are notable folks" are beginning to see the logical consequences of that (IMHO wrong) position: if a school is (inherently) notable, isn't its perhaps most well-known public face - it's sports teams also (inherently) notable, and would be their principals/headmasters, etc. etc. Carlossuarez46 19:07, 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. --Coredesat 04:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] College Crescent

A street in Melbourne. Currently the stub makes no real claims for notability, so it's either show them or delete. Grutness...wha? 04:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 08:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - pointless trivia - Peripitus (Talk) 10:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• I have just edited it, perhaps it is notable now? Raffles mk 11:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You'll make a more convincing case by citing sources that discuss this street, such as history books that give a detailed history of it (if it has one). Uncle G 13:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. At the moment, there's nothing notable listed in the article. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 17:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — there are a lot of streets in the world.... i doubt enough room for all of them on wikipedia. give a sourced reason to keep and it should, otherwise i don't see whats notable about it. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 21:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- not notable. - Longhair\^talk 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per JoeSmack. Article does not even try to assert notability. "it's a street, with lots of traffic" (I paraphrase, but that's the substance of it) does not amount to an assertion of notability. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's part of a major through-route between Melbourne's eastern and western suburbs, as the article makes clear. Not sure whether that makes it notable (is there a set of notability criteria for roads?), but the Eastern Freeway (part of the same route) has a page. Raffles mk 12:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Having said that, I doubt that the street is notable. You'll note I haven't voted. Raffles mk 13:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A street containing residential colleges at the University of Melbourne although the University of Melbourne claims that some are of significance see [17]. While it has been mentioned in news articles in Ebbsco's Australia and New Zealand Database, most are in reference to traffic accidents and so forth. Capitalistroadster 02:39, 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. --Coredesat 04:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Button

Sub-stub article on non-notable failed election candidate in the last UK general election. BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 04:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable politician. TJ Spyke 04:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Cdcdoc 05:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, by WP:BIO Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NawlinWiki 14:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Hello32020 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable as I can tell. --Marriedtofilm 04:05, 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. --Coredesat 04:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fashion Blogs

A list of fashion blogs/linkspam Mattarata 04:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The article as is now has no sources and consists of original research (even if it's somewhat intuitive). Furthermore, in the article on blogs a mere mention that there exists such a thing as 'fashion blogs' should suffice, the term is self-defining. Not very encylopedic. --The Way 07:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Linkspam-farm, Wikipedia is not a mere collection of external links. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the linkspamfarm. -- Whpq 16:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Trebor 17:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. If the term is found to be in wide use, a sentence or paragraph under Blog#Types of blogs will do. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 00:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — spam/linkfarm. i hate linkfarms - they do not belong on wikipedia! JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 05:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above Hut 8.5 15:03, 28 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. W.marsh 18:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] African American Theme House

Delete since notability is not asserted and source is inadequate basis for notability. Cdcdoc 05:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't assert notability. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. Trebor 17:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all of the houses listed in University Students' Cooperative Association into the University Students' Cooperative Association article.

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani^talk 23:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hunting in the Wild

Non-notable book published by vanity press AuthorHouse. A Google search for "Hunting in the Wild" Brach produces 33 unique hits. Article gives no indication that the book is notable. Elmer Clark 05:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing to indicate notability. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable self-published book. NawlinWiki 14:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Trebor 17:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to hunting NN book, but notable topic. Anomo 22:05, 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 Merge into American Idiot (song). KrakatoaKatie 08:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Idiot EP

Was on speedy. I think it should go to AfD Alex Bakharev 05:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The speedy deletion nominator (User:68.114.92.56)'s comment was "This is not an EP, it is a single, I have tried to find information about this as an EP, but everyting links back to this page, I have asked people to show evidence that this is listed somewhere as an EP and no one can." No vote from me. -Elmer Clark 05:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but Rename I looked into it; the argument that the thing isn't an EP has merit; amazon.com calls it the American Idiot single, but the track name and the rest of the info is correct. Simply rename to American Idiot, Single and take the bit in the (stub) article about it being an EP out and its truthful. --The Way 07:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Rename The official Green Day webpage [18] which lists all EP's, does not list an EP titled American Idiot, and thus could be a violation of WP:LIVING, which while not a speedy criteria, strongly suggests speedy action. --RoninBK_ETC 07:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think listing a single as an EP is a case to invoke WP:LIVING, which is more about potentially negative, libelous, or privacy-breaching material (or that's at least my understanding). Aprt from that remark: if no reliable source lists it as an EP, then the article should be renamed. Fram 07:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• The official website is incomplete; it doesn't list any singles or EPs after 2001. Checking amazon, this is the release in question, I think. It appears to just be another version of the single, and so should be merged to the song article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge — as per above. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 21:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge It is not listed as an EP on any site besides here.. It's simply a two-part single, like some of Linkin Park's songs. Hello2112 23:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into American Idiot (song), and get rid of any mention of it being an EP. -Hoponpop69
• Keep to preserve the proper chronology. Typical action is that bands get albums, and many highly notable ones get their singles and EPs, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What proper chronology? There is no EP with that title, only a single. No one claims that singles don't deseerve their own articles, and certainly for very well known bands like Green Day. But a minimum requirement for an EP to be listed is that it exists, as discussed by almost everyone in this AfD until now. Fram 11:21, 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 delete, only assertion of notability is obviously fake. NawlinWiki 14:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Osama American in Bondage

Non-notable book published by vanity press AuthorHouse. Author claims that the book won the "Pulitzer Prize in Letters for the American Experience," but no such Pulitzer Prize exists. A search for the book title or author's name on the Pulitzer Prize's website produces no hits. Searching "Osama American in Bondage" -wikipedia on Google produces only 64 unique hits, and the only ones that mention this "Pulitzer Prize" are postings by the author on blogs and whatnot. The book has an amazon.com SalesRank of 2,578,291. Elmer Clark 05:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete A7. No claim of notability besides a made-up award. --Daniel Olsen 05:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction to User:Elmer Clark: Actually, he doesn't claim it won a non-existent award. He claims it was nominated for a non-existent award. So, absolutely non-notable. Defintely delete. Emeraude 11:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of verifcation. I have no problem with a speedy.-- danntm ^T _C 14:07, 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. W.marsh 18:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Analog Circuit Design

Not notable book. Was on speedy Alex Bakharev 05:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Online book that does not assert notability. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sounds like a fine idea for an online book, but there is nothing shown to be there yet to justify an article.Edison 15:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Book sounds like it's yet to be written and WP:NOT crystal ball. Trebor 17:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Hello32020 19:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• #REDIRECT Circuit design. Not exactly equivalent term but could serve as an anchor for future article. (Design of analog circuits is interesting topic and I am suprised nothing is on WP yet.) Pavel Vozenilek 23:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The article should be made after the release of the book - not before. --WikiSlasher 10:03, 3 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 delete. No proof was offered, and the talk page is just a summary of the article. --Coredesat 04:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carpetrade

NN store. Speedy is contested Alex Bakharev 05:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Can any sources be offered for this as proof? Delete if none are forthcoming. (aeropagitica) 09:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete following full-text searches of Lexis-Nexis in national and local NY papers with zero matches. Pan Dan 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability can be sourced. Trebor 17:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — I found this hit: [19] which is their listing. i called the store and they said they do not trade old carpets for new ones. this article is bupkis, delete it. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 21:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is very legitimate! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.124.112.230 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 25 October 2006.

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

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

The result was keep, no consensus to delete. --Ezeu 20:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Henriett Seth-F.

This article has existed for some time, unsourced and without describing the subject's notability. –Outriggr § 05:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone can provide clear sourcing of her accomplishments, which I didn't even realize were attributed to her in looking at the article the first time, I am certainly willing to withdraw this nom early. –Outriggr § 23:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, if sourced Though essentially a stub, if the info in the article is true it probably is notable enough to keep. Having one multiple awards and being a savant is notable. However, clearly this needs sources. --The Way 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think probably notable. There are lots of available sources, but most seem to be Hungarian. Is there a Hungarian Wiki this could be transWiki'd to? Might be more suitable QuiteUnusual 12:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It would be good if there were more sources in English however. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above it is would be better if it had more English sources, but per WP:RS non-English sources are fine, also per avoiding systematic bias --pgk 18:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm all for ... systematic non-bias ... but I don't think this concept, in itself, can be a reason to keep or delete an article. Also, if there is an implication that I nominated the article based on such bias, it's not true. –Outriggr § 23:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I wasn't trying to imply you were basing it on such bias, consciously or otherwise. The point was really couple with the other regarding lack of English language sources, there are many people in this world who should meet our standards for inclusion who don't have a single word in English written about them elsewhere, so although it would be nice to have English language sources it is by no means necessary and deleting merely on the basis of a lack of those sources could be a part of systematic bias. The comment was really intended for anyone else reviewing this deletion concerned about the lack of English language sources. --pgk 10:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The article is constantly being edited by her (at least it's the same kind of broken English that I see on her website) and she's created stubs of people for the sole purpose of linking back on herself - see Krisztina Stefanik, Miklós Győri and Anna Balazs. I've tried to improve on some of the stubs, but now she's deleted their content entirely. Also, the article on her is getting more and more inaccurate - eg. "Autizmus - egy másik világ" was not published by the University of Pécs, it was published by Kódex Nyomda Kft. in a vanity press anthology, "Új Galaxis". To my knowledge, she has written no "novels", only an autobiography and a few short stories. I'd still say "Keep" if not for her actions that border on vandalism, and for the lack of hope that the article will be improved upon in the foreseeable future (mostly because of the autobiography which did attract an amount of media attention). prezzey 07:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki I looked at the sources and the content and I have to agree with Prezzey – she's using this article and creating others to amuse or occupy herself. There are lots of people who are subjects of documentaries about autism, weight, medical conditions, and the like who aren't notable and shouldn't have articles. I think this is one of those non-notable people. KrakatoaKatie 09:11, 3 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 delete. Notability not asserted (unverifiable, vanity press). - Mailer Diablo 18:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bowie Ibarra

Non-notable author. Has written one book (which I am bundling with this nomination) and has another in the works. His book was published by vanity press AuthorHouse and has an amazon.com SalesRank of 101,565. Searching for "Bowie Ibarra" on Google produces 177 unique hits, not all of which concern his books. -Elmer Clark 05:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

==== The book "Down the Road: A Zombie Horror Story" was originally published by vanity press AuthorHouse, but was subsequently picked up by Permuted Press and reprinted. The sequel "Down the Road: On the Last Day" is also to be published by Permuted Press.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaire26 (talk • contribs)

==== The Amazon sales rank fluctuates between 15,000 - 150,000 depending on the day. Please clarify the significance of the amazon.com sales rank in regards to deletion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaire26 (talk • contribs)

==== The google search has over 500 hits, some concerning his run for Texas Comptroller and his role in the Texas Rollergirls. However, there is a significant number of links to discussion groups and forums where his book is being discussed. Please clarify the significance of the Google search in regards to deletion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaire26 (talk • contribs)

I am also nominating his book and the sequel which is in production:

• Down the Road: A Zombie Horror Story (novel)
• Down the Road: On the Last Day (novel) -Elmer Clark 05:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

==== Please clarify the reason for deleting the books.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaire26 (talk • contribs)

• Deleteas per nom., and including the books. An article on an author which tells us all about the author's family, hobbies, interests etc and nothing to assert his notability as an author. Emeraude 11:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all of them per nom. Trebor 17:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

==== In regards to 'notability', is this in reference to a lack of reviews or perhaps a verification of his educational background? Is there a question as to whether his book is valid? Please clarify.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaire26 (talk • contribs)

• Delete all Biography does not claim to meet the WP:BIO standards, much less evidence it through use of independent reliable sourcing. Book articles do not claim to meet the WP:BOOK standards, much less evidence them through independent reliable sourcing. GRBerry 17:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper.--Kross^Talk 01:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• keep. Entry can be modified to satisfy WP:BIO, WP:BOOK and WP:INDY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaire26 (talk • contribs)

  Comment The best evidence that it can be so modified is actually doing it. Please see WP:INDY for a discussion of the types of sourcing we are looking for. Please see WP:FORGET for semi-humorous advice about how to write articles on subjects you have personal knowledge of. GRBerry 12:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article has been revised in an effort to comply with Wiki standards User:Elaire26

  Comment: I find this doubtful...the amazon.com SalesRank and lack of Google hits indicate that this author and his books simply are not notable, something that can only be changed if the book gains popularity, which is unlikely to happen before the end of this AfD... -Elmer Clark 00:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  comment: In regards to the amazon.com Sales Rank, as of this writing, the rank indicates #88,470 in books and 52% of the people who look at the page purchase the book. The sales rank has certainly not been in the 1,000's, but can be considered notable for a first novel. However, please clarify the amazon.com sales rank standard for Wiki.

  comment: In regards to the Google search, as of this writing, a search for "bowie ibarra" has 598 unique hits, all of which, as noted before, do not relate to his book. But what is the Wiki standard for Google hits to be considered relevant.

  comment: 'Popularity' - the novel has gained a popular following among zombie fans around the world, with the first review of the original vanity printing coming from England (http://www.amazon.co.uk). It has also been discussed on zombie themed forums across the internet. Does Wiki define 'popularity' as 'mainstream'? user:elaire26

• Comment There are no set-in-stone standards for SalesRank or number of Google hits, each Wikipedian will probably have his own opinion on how low is "too low" to really call a work notable. 88,470 (or 101,000) is probably well below anyone's threshold though. Should all the 88,469 books with a higher SalesRank be listed as well? As for Google hits, they just serve to give a broader picture of how much buzz this guy and his books are getting, how much they're being discussed and reviewed, etc. The generally-agreed-upon guidelines for notability in books can be found at WP:BOOK. -Elmer Clark 20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom and GRBerry' main article still not encyclopedic in tone, none of them demonstrates any notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  comment: The article has attempted to take a neutral tone, providing only facts without embellishments.

  comment: If Google searches and Amazon.com sales ranks are a standard Wiki uses in determining notability, then the reviews of Brian Keene and David Moody need to be reconsidered. Author Brian Keene has a sales rank (as of this writing) for 'The Rising' at 10,164, a four star rank for his book (published two years ago) with 145 user reviews, as well as being awarded the "Bram Stoker Award" for this story. His sequel 'City of the Dead' is currently at 15,336 with a 3 and a half star rating. His Google search results in 123,000 hits. Brian Keene also has his own Wiki page. The information provided in his bibliography is comparable in tone to the article being discussed.

  comment: David Moody, who also independently reviewed the book "Down the Road" has an amazon.com sales rank as of this writing for his zombie novel "Autumn" of #36,471 for his novel published last year. A google search of "david moody" provides 119,000 hits, with not all of which relate to the author. user elaire26

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Local Yolk

Restaurant ad; no claim to notability given. Nehwyn 06:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed; nothing to make this notable. Delete. Emeraude 12:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ad-like, reads as if it is to promote the topic of the article, and Wikipedia is not an advertising service Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable.Obina 16:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No claim to notability. Trebor 17:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't seem to be notable and somewhat spammy. Hello32020 19:58, 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. --Coredesat 04:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shanghai Girl

Non-notable book published by vanity press Xlibris. Claims to have gotten "favorable reviews" in the US but cites amazon.com as one of the sources (amazon.com allows anyone to submit reviews of anything). Google produces only 41 unique hits for "Shanghai Girl" "Vivian Yang". The book has an amazon.com SalesRank of 2,135,407. -Elmer Clark 06:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity/spam/nonnotable book Bwithh 12:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VAIN, WP:BOOK. Consequentially 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Trebor 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 per WP:WEB. Those arguing for keeping the article do not bring up any sources verifying notability. --Coredesat 04:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retarded Animal Babies

Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEB. Doesn't seem any more notable than any other Newgrounds cartoon from the given information. Delete per lack of independent reliable sources. Wickethewok 06:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is one of the most worked out internet cartoons, it's even sold on DVD, on top of that the article is well written. If we have an article of Xombie, why delete this one? Supreme_Bananas

Keep This is a unique cartoon that deserves an article about it. To my knowlege Happy Tree Friends is the only similar cartoon making Retarded Animal Babies quite diffrent from most other newgrounds cartoons. Also Retarded animal Babies has 16 episodes which is more than can be said for many internet cartoons. --Dr.-B 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I actually came here from the Weird Al article. A very big article for the topic, but certainly keepworthy. toresbe 03:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Newgroundscruft. Danny Lilithborne 07:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no verifiable sources to prove that it satisfies WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 15:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article is well written, and it sounds like a fine cartoon, but there appears to be no well founded assertion of notability. Find where it is discussed in mainstream news media, or print magazines or papers, or whre it has won significant awards, and cite that to validate why it should have a Wikipedia article.Edison 15:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Edison. Consequentially 16:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Edison. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 00:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is much more significant than just the run of the mill flash cartoon. Not only does it have a DVD release, it is also featured on G4 Television as well. It's right up there with Happy Tree Friends, and if that has an article, then this should, too.Helltopay27 19:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a long running internet cartoon that's currently on it's 17th episode. It's no run-of-the-mill cartoon. If we're going to allow any internet-related things on Wikipedia then this ought to be one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.204 (talk • contribs)

Comment. Being unique isn't a criterion for inclusion. I'm unique -- there's only one of me in the whole wide world -- but I haven't done anything worth writing about, and no notable third-party publication has published an article or review about me. The same can be said for Retarded Animal Babies. In the absenece of verifiable information that establishes notability, this article should not be included. The fact that it's lasted sixteen episodes is a testament to the creator's willpower, not its notability. Consequentially 20:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Edison unless we can establish notability. Heimstern Läufer 14:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Edison. Is there another wiki that would want this ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's one of the most notable flash cartoons on the internet --Dieboybun 02:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not just a notable Flash cartoon but a notable long-running series of Flash cartoons that have branched out into DVD sales and television appearances (on G4) RedSox1981 03:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability is not one's subjective feeling that the subject is important. For a good essay about WP:N, see User:Uncle G/On notability. Find a way to objectively document the notability. Edison 18:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Let me add to what Edison, et al. have already said and point out that the references to the DVD in the article have an advertisment-esque feel to them. The Literate Engineer 04:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep: This really helped me understand the series a lot better. Keep: This article gives good discriptions about the DVD selling Flash series and is way better than some articles that are one sentence long.

Keep: RABS rock and this article shouldn't need to cite its sources. They are all newgrounds.com/the DVD Keep why delete it? It is an accurate article about an important internet cartoon. By its very nature you are unlikely to find any print references to it

• Delete Notability has not been established, and I for one, hadn't heard of them until this AFD. If they gain notability then it can be re-created, but for now, delete. SunStar Net 23:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep! Why delete it? It describes the antics and goings-on of a group of animals. It's an animation- so it's not for kids. The article on wikipedia isn't rated R, just because the toon might be. Wikipedia is a source of information, and that's exactly what this is doing- informing everyone who cares to listen about RAB and it's contents- that doesn't mean they're going to go off and show it to a bunch of kids.

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile Weapon

Non-notable flash web video game. Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:WEB. Delete as such. Wickethewok 06:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I see a lot of work has gone into this article, but I'm not convinced that the game is notable, nor its article verifiable. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. In addition to all of the concerns above, it's very much a game guide. ColourBurst 18:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I think this is a vanispamcruftisement page, and on top of the previously stated reasons, keeping it starts a bad precedent for online flash games. If this is kept, there is an arguement to keep others, and there are a LOT of flash games on the net. The Kinslayer 08:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Anomo 22:09, 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 keep. —Xyrael / 13:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The New and Improved Carl Morrissey (The 4400 episode)

4400 has an individual article for each episode. The articles each contain a single quote from the episode, and a brief summary. The articles contain nothing else but an episode summary.

At worst, the articles are just repeating the 2-line summary from List_of_The_4400_episodes (for example, The Home Front (The 4400 episode). All articles for season 3 are like this). At best, the articles contain a scene-by-scene synopsis (which is something that's supposed to be avoided).

They contain nothing about the episode's relevance in the ongoing story arc, nothing about how the episode was received, its impact on popular culture, or any other commentery or real world context. All the broadcasting information can be added to the table at List_of_The_4400_episodes. The summaries there can be expanded a little, or an article could be created for individual seasons when there's actually something to say about them.

We certainly don't need an individual article for each episode if the article is just summarizing what's happening (and there's really nothing else to say about them). Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes does say to create episode articles "Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes..." which really isn't the case here.

The rest of 4400's episode articles:

And the season 3 episodes (these are the ones which just say what is already on List of The 4400 episodes

--`/aksha 07:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate quote - "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." - From WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information --`/aksha 03:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Be bold and merge—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the list of 4400 episodes.--MonkBirdDuke 08:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all - All have good quality content worked on by the 4400 project, not all are out of stub status either, but lack of content is not justifcation for deletion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 08:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep too many to merge, each is worth its own article. --Alex (Talk) 09:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because they all are serious violations of WP:NOT, namely Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point 7. These article sare nothing more than plot summaries, and thus should be deleted. Make an article per season, and only majke an article for a separate episode when that episode has enough outside references and discussion from reliable, verifiable sources.IF you can't teel anything but who acted, what happened, when was it shown, and what ratings did it get, then don't make an article for it. Fram 10:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all and expand all. They could be useful. SergeantBolt (t,c) 10:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• KeepEach will be added to as time goes on and each will have enough information to warrant its own article. --Mjrmtg 10:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Could you give an indication for the kind of info and source you would use for any of them (well, perhaps not the pilot, that one should be easier, but some episode in the middle of the series)? If that info is not available yet, then the article shouldn't exist yet. So, anyone has any indepth articles fom a reliable source about any (let alone each) episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 11:08, October 23, 2006

Uncomplete != criteria for deletion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable = criterium for deletion. WP:NOT = criterium for deletion. When you remove the plot summary, there is nothing left. IF no one can give me even an indication of what sources can be used to add some kind of external, verifiable information about a specific episode, then this means that there is nothing to fill an article with at the moment. Stating that "each will have enough information" as a reason to keep it is baseless crystal ballism, similar to "my band will one day be famous". Not one of the keep voters have given reasons within the policies as to why the articles as they stand should be kept, and not one has given a shred of evidence that they can be remade according to Wikipedia policy. While "uncomplete" is of course not a reason for deletion, it still is a huge non sequitur from my comment. Please indicate how and where you'll find more out-of-universe info for these articles per WP:V and WP:NOT, instead of just stating that they have "good quality content" (which ones?). Fram 11:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, without going back and watching the episode and tracking down additional verifiable information, I have little doubt that it could have a references to other stories section and a trivia section, similar to several of the Doctor Who episodes (e.g., The Girl in the Fireplace). For example -- and I'm making this up, but bear with me -- "This episode marks the first appearance of a 4400 outside of NTAC's direct supervision," or "The pain Lily suffers on her eldest daughter's doorstep foreshadows the attack on her daughter in As Fate Would Have It" or "This is the first episode in which Mickey Mouse appears in the opening credits."

WP:NOT, which you've quoted yourself, states, "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." I concur. The solution, however, is not to delete the skeleton onto which this analysis and detail will hang, but rather to flesh out the skeleton and give it life.

As for WP:V, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Could you clarify? Travisl 01:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What I mean with WP:V is the examples you give (and I know you made them up, but you'll get the idea): "The pain Lily suffers on her eldest daughter's doorstep foreshadows the attack on her daughter in As Fate Would Have It": is that an idea you have, fans have on a forum, or is it an idea, an interpretation given in some reliable source (a newspaper, a documentary, ...) as defined in WP:V? I fear that most of this kind of info would come from not-reliable sources (not meaning that it wouldn't be true!), and thus should not be included in Wikipedia. In the end, if all you have is such info, then you don't have an article, and it should be deleted until such scholarly info is available. Since it seems that not much of such info is available, the best idea seems to me to get an article per season, and delete the individual articles. Fram 05:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What is verifiable in an episode is an interesting subject. As a normal viewer, I am aware of various things the director can do to advance the plot non-verbally. They'll linger on someones eyes, while they have an angry look, to show that person's displeasure over something that was just said, for instance. I think a case could be made that these things are obvious to a normal viewer and therefore verifiable by watching the episode. I can also hear objections to a "normal viewer's" existence. - Peregrinefisher 05:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that is original research (WP:OR. Even if "everybody knows" something, if it isn't written down (or said out loud) in a reliable source (as defined in WP:V, so no primary source), then it isn't acceptable. Again, it is not about truth, but about verifiability. Now, a plot summary is verifiable (look at listings in TV magazines and so on), but an article which is only or even mainly a plot summary is not acceptable either, per WP:NOT. So in the end, it doesn't matter how many people have an opinion about an episode, or even if they all agree: if no "scholarly studies" (reviews in reliable, reputable magazines, books about the series from an outside perspective, ...) exist, then no article following Wikipedia policies is possible, and they should be deleted (I have no problem with an article about a whole season as a compromise: I don't dispute that the series exists, has been shown in many countries, and has gotten a lot of viewers and so on). Fram 08:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Just want to point out that in an article about a TV episode, the actual episode itself is considered to be a primary source. --`/aksha 08:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep for the most part, but merge the especially bad ones to the list. I just wish people would write about episodes of shows I've actually heard of. — CharlotteWebb 11:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - perhaps following the example of other television series entries with episodic listings, and having a single page for each season's worth of episodes. --Mhking 13:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all into List of The 4400 episodes per point 7 of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, which states "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Extraordinary Machine 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• comment it's not so much a lack of content, but a lack of potential content. None of the articles demonstrate any evidence of there being anything more to say than episode summaries. Is there any point keeping tons of articles just because some day they may be expanded. I mean, what's next? 300 individual articles with summaries of a few paragraphs long for each Law and Order episode? Or god knows how many articles for each pokemon episode that's ever aired? --`/aksha 13:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all: There are wayyyyy to many articles and each of them are wayyyy too long to be merged in any purposeful manner. Separate articles make sense here. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I don't recall ever seeing WP:TOO HARD as a justification for leaving bad articles in the encyclopedia. Consequentially 16:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There's something called "common sense." -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

But there is WP:SIZE, which, admittedly, is merely advisory, but it's good advice. Travisl 01:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all and expand all, per SergeantBolt. Also note that Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes states, "Generally, articles on episodes of television should not be listed for AfD (unless they are completely unverifiable, original research, etc.)." Shannernanner 16:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. I agree with `/aksha on this one -- this isn't about a lack of content as the article stands now. Instead, we're asserting that the odds of these episodes generating significant outside discussion on themes, motifs, etc. are slim at best. Consequentially 16:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per MonkBirdDuke.--Isotope23 16:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Yaksha. GassyGuy 17:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • O.o merge as per me? I nominated them for deletion. Although it does look like things are leaning towards merge. --`/aksha 02:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per above Bwithh 23:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all: Several television series have pages for every episode. If an episode is incomplete, it can be expanded. Adding episode related information to the the main page will certainly push it over any reasonable size. (And Yaksha, here's the List of Pokémon episodes you were fearing.) Travisl 23:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The notion of having 500+ articles like this is quite frankly terrifying =P. --`/aksha 02:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• If the main article is too long, trim it. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per SergeantBolt. -- PKtm 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. The mere existence of other TV-show episodes says nothing about these -- even whether those others ought not to be nominated themselves -- so a moot argument. Two lines per episode in an episode list (separate or in the main article) is sufficient. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not saying it's 100% impossible that those can turn into decent articles. But just that...given there is currently nothing to say about them except summary, why should we bother to keep the articles around for the off-chance that they may be expanded in the future? I mean...wikipedia has information about tons of TV (including cartoon/anime) series. Does that mean if someone went out and created articles like this for each and every episode of each of the more popular TV/cartoon/anime shows, we would keep them all? That'd be thousands of articles, many would never be expanded. I mean, i understand this "Generally, articles on episodes of television should not be listed for AfD (unless they are completely unverifiable, original research, etc.)", but the same page also states to create articles for each season (or other logical division) when there's enough independently verifiable information and THEN create articles for each episode "independently verifiable information included about individual episodes". In this case, i'm doubtful there's even enough independently verifiable information for season articles (lenght isn't a concern. Seasons in 4400 are only 13 episodes long, or 6 in the case of season 1), so why give individual episode articles a chance? --`/aksha 07:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all - Some of the pages are only a few months old. They seem to be growing quickly. The standard progression is from 1) a list, to 2) a list linked to a season page, to 3) a list linked to individual episodes. We may have jumped the gun on the last stage, but it was probably coming soon anyways. - Peregrinefisher 03:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all—I'd never even heard of this show before, but I see no reason why its episodes shouldn't have their own articles. That's standard practice, and for good reason. Everyking 04:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

These aren't articles. They're plot summaries. If there were more encyclopaedic content out there to be used, I would agree completely that these should be kept and expanded. But there isn't. It makes much more sense to merge them, then break them off iff scholarly material becomes available. GassyGuy 05:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all and expand. per above. Room for expansion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You would expect that at least one of all the people saying this, would at least try to give one example for one episode, just to show that it is indeed possible and not just wishful thinking... Fram 11:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was some kind of vote - when we vote for people in political offices we don't give reasons why we voted that way ;) --Mjrmtg 11:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

- I was just kidding - geesh - everyone takes things so seriously on Wikipedia --Mjrmtg 12:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, AfD is a discussion by arguments intended to reach a consensus, not a vote. See Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, section "How to...", which says (first line): "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." That is why I ask people voting keep to show us some evidence that their arguments are based on something more than wishful thinking. If you can't convince other people that there are for the moment (not in the future) ways to make the articles good enough (with regards to the Wikipedia policies) by providing good sources, then a thousand people can say keep and it still will be worth nothing. When there is discussion if the sources given are good enough, then you can have a no consensus (defaulting to a keep of the article in reality): when there are no arguments for keeping (only "votes" with unsubstantiated claims), then the article should be deleted. Fram 11:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pilot at tv.com has a number of things that could be added to Pilot (The 4400 episode). Atlas II missiles are no longer used by the military, and the episode misuses latitude and longitude, for example. - Peregrinefisher 19:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, this part of TV.com is a wiki as well (notice the "edit" buttons, so I don't know if it counts as a reliable source. Furthermore, there is a lot of discussion if trivia sections are what we want/need at Wikipedia as well (they are one reason to refuse a FA status). But at least it is a source with info, so thank you! Fram 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[ign.com] has a review of the pilot. That might be an acceptable thing to talk about. I know you can't cite tv.com because it's a wiki, but one could watch the show as a primary source and do some research on Atlas II missiles and if it all works out, credibly add that info to the page. - Peregrinefisher 21:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Having only seen the first 6 episodes, I'm not really interested in looking at each and every one as I don't want to spoil myself. To use "New and Improved" as an example, that's a perfectly legitimate stubbish article to start out, and this show doesn't suffer from a lack of being written about it, either. If I, personally, could expand them, I would. I'm sure others can. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete. Episodes are not encyclopedic. This goes beyond our scope as an encyclopedia. --Improv 14:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all and expand all. Definitely room for expansion. Funkadillo 16:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge All: If the single article grows too large and shows that has enough content to justify separate articles, then the separate articles could be recreated. --Jabrwocky7 00:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge for reasons listed above. Xdenizen 02:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Ryūlóng M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 05:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all: I'm Worried about a Slippery slope what are we going to do next delete all the Simpsons episodes???, Well no of coarse not, because they are developed, unless you look into thier episode histories before they were.(from 2002 looks rather cruft at that point). I would hate to see wikipedia be nothing but a clone of the Encyclopædia Britannica. ▪◦▪=Sirex98= 10:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment it's a valid point. But i'm also very worried about the same Slippery slope in the other direction. As in what we would do when people start making articles for each individual episode of all the TV series that we have on Wikipedia; resulting in tons of stub articles for each TV episode. We'll have to drawn some kind of a line somewhere. --`/aksha 12:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Would that be a bad thing? We have a decent general working consensus when it comes to albums from artists - all musicians get albums, but the songs only get them in certain circumstances. If a TV show got all the episodes, but certain aspects of the episodes don't get broken out except in specific circumstances (think Saturday Night Live and "Lazy Sunday" as an example of an aspect of an episode), that would be entirely worthwhile. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of information. To quote "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." The problem with these articles is that they often end up being merely episode summaries and nothing more. Once there's enough to say about a TV series beyond the main article, we expand into smaller articles, including articles about plot and seasons. That should come before expanding into individual episodes. There's no point having articles for individual episodes if all they're going to do is repeat a two-line summary from the main episode-list article. If a dedicated fan wished to expand the articles about that TV series, they can start with decent season articles, then expand into episode articles when season articles get too big. Albums are different, because you can't sensibly group them into larger articles. I suppose something like "all albums by X" is sort of possibly, but doesn't seem to work. Where as "season X" instead of many "episode X" articles seems to work fine. --`/aksha 12:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All 5082 episodes of Neighbours their own article? The horror! Let's add all 6409 episodes of Coronation Street, all 5000 or so episodes of Newsnight (before someone accuses me of focusing on soaps), and so on... Artists make one album a year (on average), not 26 or 200. Every album by a major artist gets tons of professional reviews: I don't think many episodes of Neighbours have gotten even one professional review or analysis. The Simpsons, to come back to the argument, are one of the most discussed long running TV series ever, and even so, the article referenced (the very first long episode) is after three and a half years still pretty bad (though a lot better than the 4400 episodes we are discussing here). When there is really enough independent, out-of-universe, verifiable material to write articles about any episode, please do so: until then, why bother? Those articles are only describing what you see when you watch such an episode, and aren't giving any insight, and more importantly aren't acting like a tertiary source reproducing and condensing the comments of secondary sources, which is what all Wikipedia articles should do. I don't see a reason why TV episodes would have different rules than all other articles on Wikipedia which are defined by policies. Fram 12:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

i should add, i remember seeing on a policy page before (forgot which one) that said the purpose of summaries on articles isn't to replace the real thing. As in it's not supposed to serve people who can't/won't watch the episodes in real. --`/aksha 12:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

To repeat my previous post: because they don't have any contents per Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NOT: they don't sem to violate WP:NPOV, but you have to follow all policies, not just one of them...). I repeat once more: Wikipedia is a tertiary source; not a secondary source. If there are no secondary sources (according to WP:V) with material deemed acceptable (per WP:NOT), then those articles have no place here. So why are you defending them anyway? Fram 13:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Because they can follow those policies with a little love and tenderness. I'd rather see them improved than deleted, and it's something I'm currently not able to do, but would be glad to when it is possible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The articles are a skeleton, there suppsoed to be built up, we are only a few suers at present, a skelton gets added to until its up to a good standard, you dont delete an article because its not "finished" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they should be deleted because they are not "fnished" (or even because they aren't really started), but because they can't be "finished" at the moment due to a lack of sources, despite the apparently unfounded belief to the contrary of those wanting to keep. Looking through the 129 distinct Google hits[20] for "The New and Improved Carl Morrissey", I see not one source which is giving anything beyond either a plot summary, amateur reviews, or cast info (IMDb type). No profesional reviews, analysis, ... Of course, even for recent things, not everything can be found via Google, but it is the task of those wanting to keep an article to provide sources and to show that the articles can indeed be written according to Wikipedia policies. Fram 14:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

And we're telling you that they can. They're stubs. They gotta start somewhere, and they meet the basic standards as is and can continue to when expanded. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Jeff, do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Because without evidence all it is is your personal hope/opinion. Fram cites evidence to show that the articles do not and currently CAN NOT meet various criteria, your counter-argument rests on the fact that future third-party resources will become available (i.e. "someone will write a review someday"). This is pure and simple crystal balling and doesn't strengthen your position. Zunaid ^(T•C) Please rate me at Editor Review! 15:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any readily available to present that can be Googled, sure. The problem is twofold - one, as a sci-fi show, it's certainly covered in sci-fi magazines, which can be useful to epxand these if the right editors come along. Secondly, they don't violate WP:V now or do they have to violate WP:V later. My position doesn't really need to be strengthened on that regard, because the article is generally okay as currently stated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all (preferably) or else Semi-merge and redirect all to an appropriate list/summary article. User:Fram gives excellent deletion rationale in all of his/her arguments above (backed up by equally well-reasoned arguments by User:Yaksha), and I have not seen a decent counter-argument refuting their points from any of the "keepers". This is how consensus (as opposed to vote counting) on Wikipedia is supposed to work. Fram and Yaksha make the best case of anyone here. Zunaid (T•C) please rate me! 13:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'm hearing people say that good info doesn't exist for this show. I got 613,000 hits for "the 4400" review on google. A link on the first page led to this quote "With well over 7 million viewers on tap, the pilot episode of USA Network’s sci-fi/drama series, “The 4400”, was the highest rated and most-watched new series premiere on basic cable. By the time the last episode aired, the series has notched an average of almost 6 million viewers throughout its entire 6-hour run, making “The 4400” the top-rated original series in basic cable’s history." This is a very notable show that should be written about in detail. - Peregrinefisher 18:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply: I don't know where you have heard that "good info doesn't exist for this show", I certainly haven't read that in this AfD. What I (and others) say is that for many individual episodes (e.g. "The New and Improved Carl Morrissey", the one which started all this), there is for the moment not a shred of evidence that there is enough reliable, non-trivial coverage (i.e. reviews, analysis, ...) to write individual articles. I have also explicitly stated that I assumed that an exception could be made for the pilot, as those often do get more attention (although the link you give is not an acceptable one, as this is just a kind of Wiki, the opinion of some reviewer, not a peice written by any journalistic standards or published by a reliable publisher). No one is arguing that we shouldn't write about the show, in fact I think everyone here agreed that an article per season was quite acceptable. You are just using a strawman. Fram 19:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply - I'm not saying that's a good source. I'm just saying that a show with this many viewers can support individual pages. - Peregrinefisher 19:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I don't have a problem with individual episode articles, provided the information is verifiable. They can be useful. On a related note, though, in examining this I did put Category:The 4400 up for cfd, since the unique parent category for the show doesn't appear to be necessary, and generally it's a bad idea to have a seperate unique category for individual shows and films. Since this discussion is related, I'd recommend taking a look at the cfd for that category and giving input, one way or another. Dugwiki 22:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all These episodes will most likely never contain enough real-life information to ever be considered more than a summary. The impact of the individual episodes is very insignificant, which is not always the case for other articles, like Trapped in the Closet (South Park). -- Ned Scott 00:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all : None of these episodes will ever be notable enough to maintain their own articles, and as Ned Scott above me says, none are likely to create any kind of media controversy like South Park or the Simpsons has numerous times in the past. --90.192.92.91 02:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Reasonable amount of room for expansion IMO. Tubechallenger 07:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Plot summaries alone is not acceptable expansion. -- Ned Scott 07:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • "Expansion" - I think that obviously means imo that he thinks it needs more outside the brief synopsis. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep ~ why? there good articles that will likely get better given time. --Mattythewhite 16:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I see no reason to delete these articles. It is common practice to create articles for episodes of television shows. All these articles have at least an info box and some additional information. They should be expanded, but deletion is not the answer. --musicpvm 17:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep good content, could use some work tho user:wossi
• Keep all. Though I agree that we shouldn't have individual episode articles on every television program out there, Wikipedia should follow the lead of how outside sources are handling it. In the case of shows such as Star Trek and The Simpsons and Lost (TV series), there are definitely individual discussions going on about different episodes, and fans routinely refer to the episodes individually, rather than as a grouped set (such as with a soap opera like General Hospital). In the case of 4400, the show has millions of viewers [21], and is clearly notable. It has garnered multiple Emmy nominations, survived multiple seasons, and has a substantial fanbase. Further, it appears that the fans discuss not just the show as a gestalt, but individual episodes by name. As such, it makes sense to have a separate article on each episode. However, I will add a caveat, that I do see a difference between current notability, and longterm notability. 4400 is definitely popular and notable now, but 20 years from now, it may be little more than a footnote. As such, it would make sense to me that Wikipedia learn to adapt to these changing levels of fame, such that a show which does deserve dozens or hundreds of articles today, might in the future (a generation from now?) be better served by merging these articles into a more concise general summary of the entire arc of the show. But for now, while interest is high, I say keep the articles separate and let the information flow. --Elonka 21:44, 26 October 2006(UTC)
• Keep all. We can have individual episodes for other TV shows like Babylon 5, Doctor Who, and all five live-action Star Trek series. Yet we can't have them for The 4400? Why, because they're incomplete? Nah, that doesn't sound right. --From Andoria with Love 21:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a weak argument. As others have mentioned above, some articles only exist because they haven't been nominated for deletion. Per [WP:NOT], Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for inormation, and that includes plot summaries that do not reference the episode in the context of the real world. That is, unless these individual episodes have garnered the attenetion of significant third-party sources -- forums and fan bases do not qualify as such -- there's nothing worth writing about. We can't have the articles on 4400 Episodes because they're only plot summaries, and offer no [WP:V|verifiable] discussion on their motifs, symbolism, themes, technical achievments, controversies and so on. The burden to prove their verifiable notability and connection to outside discourse lies on the "keep" voters. That the show is popular and generates major amounts of notable discussion is a good reason to keep the main article.' But the same level of interest must be discovered for an individual episode if we are to allowe them to propegate. Consequentially 22:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep All If one television show deserves to have individual pages for all episodes, then every show has that right. Unless we're going to delete every episode page ever created on Wikipedia, we can't delete 4400 episode articles. Plus people need to help improve these articles, not just delete them because they're not to your particular quality standards. It takes TIME and EFFORT to improve articles. --The Radio Star 22:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, this is an extremely flawed logic that has become a huge problem on Wikipedia. When, via Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, it was decided that it was okay to include episode articles, the rational was not for all TV shows. The idea that any TV show can get episode articles if someone is willing to write a huge summary on the episode is a major misconception and violates policy and guidelines. The fact that this is a big problem and that lots of other articles do this too does not make this okay. Some, not all, episodes should get articles. That even means that not all episodes of the same show should get articles even if one does. -- Ned Scott 00:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all per previous merge arguments. Dr Who/B5 are poor comparisons: Amazon will sell you episode/(dis)continuity guides and the like, so you don't need to rely on taking notes, you can use secondary sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I imagine these growing into healthy quality articles --PrincessCaitlai 22:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above - Also, this would set a precedent for episode pages, and a single episode can be a quite substantial article. tiZom_(2¢) 01:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • can being the keyword. When there's no evidence of people attempting (or being able) to even make some "substatial articles" for entire seasons, why should we keep a whole bunch of episode articles around to strew? If someone's serious about writing dozens of decent episode articles that are more than just summaries, then they should have no problems putting together some season articles first to show there's more to say than only summaries. Once again, i use the "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic" quote. --`/aksha 02:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The 4400 pages seem to be pretty active. Pulling the plug on pages that are 2 months old doesnt' seem like giving them much of a chance. - Peregrinefisher 02:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, two months seems like it would be plenty of time to find an article -- any article, even -- that offers the kind of information that we're asking for. With the show's popularity, finding an issue of Entertainment Weekly or a similar publication that brings significant information to light shouldn't be an issue. The problem that's popping up here is that such information doesn't exist. People seem to think that we write an aritcle and slap what we "know" into the pages, and then come back to source it later when we find something that backs up the claim. That's completely wrong. If you can't source it per WP:V, then it shouldn't be in the article. And if not being able to source it doesn't leave you with much of an article, well, you've got to roll with that. Consequentially 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The writer, date, etc. all have a reliable source. The episode itself is a primary source. If you think its written in too much of an in-universe style, thats something to fix, not delete. How to do it is explained here. - Peregrinefisher 04:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We are not supposed to use primary sources, and the rest of the info (writer, date) can easily go into an article about a season, with a table of episodes. See e.g. Carnivàle, where all the info is still in the main article, for an example of such tables, and the decent amount of info one can put into those. Apart from that, you still don't have any WP:V sources to get more info from, so either delete these or merge them. Fram 05:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If the only information fit to include is the writer, date, and plot summary, then the episode doesn't need its own article. The four-sentence blips can fit into a list, by season if that's the better option, and be expanded into their own articles when there are appropriate sources for more substantive additions. I don't mind the "in-universe" problems as much as I do the unnecessary branching of a topic that has generated minimal third-party discussion. Consequentially 05:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Googling "the 4400" returns millions of hits, so someone is talking about it. - Peregrinefisher 05:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This, my friend, is a straw man. You're misrepresenting my argument. A Google search for "The 4400" does in fact return a few million hits, but a Google search for this episode generates only 414, with the first five being IMDb, Amazon.com, Wikipedia, TV.com, and a fan-run 4400 site. This only supports my original statement: the series is noteable and deserves its own article, this individual episode does not. Consequentially 05:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And it's the second time you used the same straw man in this AfD, Peregrinefisher. Please don't. 05:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, just the Carl Morrissey episode. A quick google search brings up things like where parts are filmed, what songs are featured and geographic errors, on the first page. Now I'm not saying use these as sources, but this is stuff you can easily come up with by viewing the episode and doing a little research. - Peregrinefisher 05:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The first link is to a blog with a non-notable author. The second link is to a wiki-style fan site, with no references of its own. The third link provides one piece of trivia, which, while interesting, is by no means encyclopedic. I pointed that out in my last response to you -- the one that used this same search. Fan-run sites and the TV.com wiki do not count as reliable sources, and IMDb should be used on a case-by-case basis. Are suggesting that each episode is notable because it has a piece of trivia attatched, or that its covered by a 4400-specific fan ring with no journalistic credentials?Consequentially 06:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I said "I'm not saying use these as sources." I'm just saying that there's enough info that it is best formatted in single pages. - Peregrinefisher 06:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

But there isn't. Each season of The 4400 has thirteen episodes. If we assume the kind of content you're suggesting, that gives us roughly five sentences per episode. Multiply that by the season, and you get a list that is somewhere in the neighborhood of sixty-five sentences long. Nothing unruly or horrible about that, and again, that's if we assume that trivial content is worthy of inclusion. I already disagree with you there, as does WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOT, and WP:FICTION. One list is better than thirteen stubs that, due to a limited amount of acceptable reference material, will never be expanded. Consequentially 06:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Very well said. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A reasonable plot summary (like these pages have) is longer than what you're talking about. - Peregrinefisher 06:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If we don't have real-world info to put the the plot summary in context then it won't matter how reasonable or well written that summary is. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The real world context is it's a tv show episode, X people were involved in making it, X songs were featured, it was filmed in X and the significant features of the plot were X. - Peregrinefisher 07:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The first two points can much better be included in a season article / episode list (since the TV show info stays the same, and most of the people involved don't change between episodes): featured songs seems to be a very minor point (and the theme songs are usually the same for every episode anyway), location usually as well (and will often be the same across most episodes anyawy, so again better suited for a list), so the main discussion is the length of the plot, which seems in the current articles way too long for the amount of other info available, the WP:V attention these episodes have received, and per WP:NOT. The plot summaries as they stand now are hardly comprehensible for someone not familiar with the series, so should either be way longer (which is totally unacceptable per WP:NOT), or way shorter (not focusing on particular details, but giving a very general story line). So I don't see why your previous post can be adressed by a season article? Fram 09:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a large part of our disagreement centers on formatting. Our goal is to answer a users questions, and I think we should make them do the least amount of scrolling and clicking as possible. An infobox with complete cast and crew info just won't fit nicely on a season page, and that's verifiable info that we can all agree is important, and it changes episode to episode. You could make it 1 click away, but why not 0 clicks away? As far as the level of plot detail, the best way I've seen to do that is in the Buffy pages, for example Nightmares (Buffy episode). A shorter summary answers very general questions, and a longer one explains the context. Another thing that doesn't go well with season pages are external links. Imdb and tv.com have individual pages that should be linked to. You could link to their lists, but then you've added maybe two clicks and some scrolling/reading. - Peregrinefisher 16:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Or, conversely, if a user is trying to learn more about the series and wants to see what information we have on individual episodes, they'll have to make at least 27 clicks to read the same sixty-five sentences per season. Many of those sentences will be duplicate information, as per Fram's comment above. Less scrolling, more clicking. And that's if we grant that navigational concerns are grounds for keeping an article from being merged. There is no Wikipedia policy to support that belief, especially when it conflicts with other needs. Consequentially 19:31, 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 without userfication. --Coredesat 04:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Nedunthally

Bio of a student. Fails WP:BIO. 11 Google results. Userfy to User:Theknighted and Delete. utcursch | talk 07:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Obviously a delete Tintin (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Absolutely ridiculous page probably written by the person himself. The article even asserts its own non-notability rather plainly -- "[Nedunthally] is yet to accomplish anything that could affect peoples lives. "--MonkBirdDuke 12:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for example He first started off school at the age of 3 in Don Bosco School Wow !!!  Doctor Bruno  08:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete, pretty sure it's a vanity non-notable biography. Daniel.Bryant 08:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to userfy. These are that editor's only edits. Tintin (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Complete non-notable. "... if you would like to know more about him do read on." No thanks (but I did and wish I hadn't.) Emeraude 12:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable autobiography. --Metropolitan90 23:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete- non-notable biography seems to be a joke.Nileena joseph 13:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --  Doctor Bruno  02:33, 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. W.marsh 18:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic Leak Check

Contested speedy. Might be a notable software product Alex Bakharev 07:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless it establishes some kind of notability. I couldn't find anything conclusive on Google. Trebor 17:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't seem to be notable. Hello32020 19:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, original csd was mine, author justifed it's existence only because there were other bad articles of similar software type. --Steve 04:10, 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. W.marsh 18:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elfride Heindl

Was on speedy as nn-bio. I think she should go to AfD Alex Bakharev 08:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable person who took part in a beauty contest once. Interestingly the link on the page points to a page about Csilla Molnar who does look notablebut has no page here.Obina 17:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability has not been established. --Metropolitan90 07:46, 3 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 delete. W.marsh 18:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ermelinda Manos

Was on speedy. Put her on AfD instead Alex Bakharev 08:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - candidate doesnt seem to meet requirements of WP:BIO (yet). As such I'd recommend deletion. MidgleyDJ 08:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a nice person, and taking part is a good thing, but does not make her notable. (I'm not even sure winning a minor pagent like this is notable but that is for another day).Obina 17:05, 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

[edit] Louise Crisp

Keep Alex Bakharev 10:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

From speedy. Does not seems to be very notable Alex Bakharev 08:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 08:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, not many Ghits ([22]), but the ones there seem relevant. I've no idea how legitimate "The Thylazine Foundation" is, but she seems to have a few published works of borderline notability. Lankiveil 13:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC).
• Keep A fair few published works. This page could use some clean up and more sources etc.Obina 17:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete (note thylazine seems to be a private charity/community org with a free webzine -in answer to Lankiveil). One book on Amazon ( with low sales rank ). I can find 4 books with her as the author/coauthor listed in the national Library of australia catalogue but no independant reviews of them. No news articles (although someone with University access may have more luck). Nothing that seems to meet WP:BIO although poets are unlikely to generate much of the web-activity I've been looking for. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Her works have been published in Meanjin and other quarterlies. Capitalistroadster 02:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - as per Capitalistroadster and Lankiveil. JROBBO 03:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - note to everyone who whishes to gratuitously interfere in subjects they know nothing about, pls leave them to people who have some interest/knowledge. article lists several publications etc. the area (contemporary poetry) is marginal enough in itself (ie 'i've never heard of this', from computer geeks on the other side of the world isn't a good criteria for deletion) but you could claim that about entire generas of entries on this site. once again, is it just self-importance that motivates people to interfere in areas they are ingnorant of? User:Bsnowball

Comment As I said on both of your talk pages: Be civil and most certainly do not make personal attacks. People can make mistakes. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 23:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Peripitus and WP:BIO Point 7: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 23:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - I think there are many Australian poets who are more significant than Louise Crisp, and who do not have articles, and in a rational world their articles would have been written first. On the other hand these other articles may be written some day, and this article may have its place.--Grahamec 01:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Obina. JamesMLane t c 08:19, 30 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. KrakatoaKatie 09:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle Hinn

From speedy. Does not seems to be notable Alex Bakharev 08:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Scattered mentions on Google, none asserting her notability.--Húsönd 17:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Very few mentions, gaming magazine mention seems to be a list rather then an article, can't find any other notable mention. Changing vote to keep after addition of enough source material and establishment of notability. Seraphimblade 18:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Save? Sorry, I'm a newbie and I don't know how this system works. The gaming magazine was a list and everyone on the list had a paragraph about them but they were not placed in any nummerical order. I realize that this is about the same issue but [this article http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/oc/news/displaynews.html?source=y2vK4.iJRv-rvWinwbnhgQ==&year=hTs0L3zJE5-LUovrFiob9w==] does tell more of the story than the gaming magazine. There's also [another source http://www.igda.org/community/volunteer_mvp.php] mentioning the IGDA most valuable player 2006 award, which is not on the same "top 100" topic. vrgrrl
• Keep. Number of Google hits is one factor to consider but isn't dispositive. Cited sources show her recognition within the field. JamesMLane t c 08:25, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape weaponry

Appears to be a game guide and little else. Does not comply with WP:NOT (lists of information). I fail to see how this is encyclopedic material (or proportional to it's value). MidgleyDJ 08:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep or smerge into main article. This article was nominated for deletion about 2 months ago, and it appears they have worked very hard to try to make it less of a game guide since then. I was very surprised that it wasn't pure fancruft, after reading it. However, its still full of unverified information and lacks citations. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP! This article is extremely useful for any RuneScape user, I myself being one, and since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone, you just make articles that reference to everyone - even though you may have a different oppinion on the game, leave the article here because it is not about the game, it's for the users of the game, if you don't like the game leave the article here, because it will be most likely re-written, and as you can see there was a lot of time and effort put into this guide. Wikiwookie01 9:15, 24 October 2006 (EST)

• Delete or merge Percy Snoodle 10:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article is accurate although could do with some citations to appease those who don't play runescape themselves and satisfy WP standards. -- timdew (^Talk) 11:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep! Accurate article, fancruft being ko'd day by day, and otherwise, meriging is out of the question (RuneScape is too large for more), and too many durastic changes will wreck the article. I even thing Wikipedia:Ignore all rules might apply. → p00rleno (lvl 87) ←ROCKS^C_RS

• Delete, game guide. This sort of information doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Recury 13:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment; what happened to that merge proposal with this article and RuneScape armour into RuneScape combat? Last time I looked, it was ticking over nicely. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 13:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Trim and merge into RuneScape combat. It has some good information, but too much is just fancruft, and a game guide, for that. -Amarkov ^babble 14:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Transwiki to a gaming wiki. Wikipedia should only have one article for RuneScape, and it's RuneScape. Everything else is just game-guide-class material and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It should be on a gaming wiki. See every List of (insert game here) (insert information type here) that's been AFD for all the precedence. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Such as the 493 Pokemon creature articles, not one of which has been deleted? -Amarkov ^babble 02:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, I would fully support the deletion of every one of the 493 pokemon! --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 02:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't ask if you would support their deletion. My point is that they haven't been deleted, so you can claim no such precedent. Now, if you listed a few on AfD, and they actually got deleted, I might accept that it's just nobody cares enough to nominate them.-Amarkov ^babble 02:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft III units and structures & and all AFDs referenced in this decision, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in the Halo universe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Battlefield 2142,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Battlefield 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 and Yuri's Revenge units and structures, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicles in Unreal Tournament 2004. Yes, I can claim precedence. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 03:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Precedents work only if there are no precedents that lead to the opposing opinion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon game mechanics, I didn't need to do any research to get. Precedents lean both ways, so they are irrelevant. -Amarkov ^babble 03:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Except that the precedence that you're citing is for game mechanics, not lists of game items. Your precedence does not directly counter the precedence that I've cited. What will matter is whether this article falls under game mechanics or lists of game items. I think it's a list of game items, and that's why I'm sticking to my decision. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 06:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay then, let's assume for the sake of argument that my precedent is entirely irrelevant, and all of yours are. What if I disagree on the validity of the arguments used in those AfDs? -Amarkov ^babble 14:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Nothing I can really say about that. That's your decision. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 23:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What if we were to rewrite this article, either on its current page or in RuneScape combat, not as a simple list of weapons, but describing the types (ie, shortswords, longswords, battleaxes) of weapons available, the materials they can be made of, and their real-life historical context? See here, I've already started a bit of it. Not perfect but it's a start. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Vote changed to Rewrite after seeing CaptainVindaloo's version. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 23:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems like a notable and reasonable topic. Everyking 04:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Cribcage 05:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. No references (WP:NOR), too many gratuitious fair use GIFs (can readers really not imagine what shooting two arrows rapidly looks like without a visual aid???), too much detail, indiscriminate collection of items (WP:NOT). There have been many weapon lists deleted of late, and this is no different. None of these weapons scream notability at me. Having interesting names and strange powers does not make them notable outside the fanbase. As amazing as an axe with +20% damage is to a RuneScape player, to anyone else it's just a flippin' axe. If the axe played the Star Wars theme when swung or something, yes, then I could say it's notable. As it is, these weapons are the same as any magical/enchanted weapon in any number of RPGs/MMOs. Garrett^Talk 07:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - My feelings on this are more or less the same as Garretts. It's too much of a Walled Garden that no-one who is not already in the know is going to want to look at. (And if your already in the know why would you be looking up what you already know?) Besides, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The Kinslayer 08:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, belongs on the runescape wiki and/or GameFAQS. Unlikely anyone but the fans of the game would actually read this game guide article.--Andeh 13:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - The Runescape guys have been cracking down on indiscriminant info added to articles which is great, props to them. However, a complete lack of independent sources can't really be overlooked. Wickethewok 16:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Slowly getting towards acceptable standards, give the article and the editors some time. J.J.Sagnella 11:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but work hard to improve.Hemhem20X6 18:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, wikipedia is not a substitute for a game guide. Combination 19:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to RuneScape_combat - even though I want the RuneScape series to stay, this is cruft and belongs better in the combat article, with some considerable work done to it. Agentscott00^(talk) 02:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to RuneScape_combat as above. Otherwise delete. I mean, why would I look for this information in an encyclopedia instead of looking for it in GameFAQs? --Alan Au 16:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• I say Rewrite, then keep on its own page or merge into RuneScape combat, depending upon the resulting length. However, as a part of the combat article (which itself could be merged or turned into a RuneScape gameplay article), it will keep the article count down. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, entire article is complete fancruft. For example the article goes into complete detail of special attack modes of something called a "Seercull bow", not encyclopedic -- Coasttocoast 05:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unsalvageable, being an indiscriminate collection of information and for missing the point completely. Instead of fitting the weapons available in RS into some sort of context, this article merely lists some of them in such a way as to bore readers to tears or confuse them with impenetrable RS gabble. Most of the relevant information has already been ported to the RuneScape armour article, in preperation for a renaming to RuneScape equipment or something of the like.

Whilst that article is neither perfect nor complete, at least the information therein is organized in a way which might actually mean something to someone who doesn't log into RS on a regular basis. The weaponry article gives undue space to weapons which are scarcely used in RS because of the way the combat system is geared. Entire classes of weapons such as claws, warhammers and shortswords are redundant because they are either too slow in attack rate or do not offer the same damage potential of others. Devoting paragraphs of text to items which the vast majority of the game's players wouldn't touch with a bargepole seems to be slapping information into the article for the sake of it.

The sheer volume of edits continue to happen because the article is not set out as a WP article and the emphasis is on indiscriminate listing instead of actually giving information to non-players. Despite protestations that the article is undergoing clean-up (and I had a darned good go myself at one point), the article is still a mess and would need rewriting from the ground up (with most text deleted) in order to go anywhere. The armour article is there for improvement, I suggest this problematic fifth wheel is removed and put back in the trunk where it belongs. QuagmireDog 16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keepis baisic over view although citing would be nice!Timator6 (lvl 25)Timator6

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 04:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mister Marvel

Previously deleted by Prod, obviously contested Alex Bakharev 08:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per prod reason: Toss-off character introduced in a single issue of a comic book just long enough to lose his powers. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Why use more space on a Wikipedia entry than was ever used on the character itself? Characters that only ever appear in one issue are non-notable. JIP | Talk 15:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per prod and nom, non-notable fictional character -Markeer 16:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable character... sounds made up, actually. EVula 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "the power to have a superhero life" is a superpower? Wha? I think the prod delete reason is perfectly sufficient. -- Scientizzle 22:03, 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. W.marsh 18:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sector Five Records

Contested prod for a very non notable record label. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CORP Nuttah68 08:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No notable artists, no entry on Discogs [23] and very few Google results. Prolog 17:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Hello32020 20:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a notable record label. It is a group of friends that 1) rarely bother to seek out press in the first place 2) pool their money in order to release records their way 3) the biggest and most important record label in Madison (despite their almost completely non-commercial nature) 4) and most importantly, the label is a reflection of the new independent music culture in this internet age. Press and record sales aren't what they used to be...most indie labels now operate like tiny major labels looking to sell songs to Grey's Anatomy or something. True independent music is now entering a currently directionless age where labels like Sector Five are feeling out the new territory. Bands now break over blogs and the internet (see: Beirut (band)).

No one from Sector Five is involved in the creation of this page...it is NOT a publicity stunt...it is difficult to prove to you, but they ARE notable...times are just changing...it's a bit reminiscent of the directionless beginning of the very early '80s. To marginalize this label is to be short sighted. Fifteen releases in 3 years is nothing to sneeze at.

Bottom Line: Does recording a far reaching and sizeable musical community for posterity really do Wikipedia more harm than good? I understand your policies, but might this be an exception to the rule? Let me know what I can do to save their page, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minotaur029 (talk • contribs)

• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Interesting what the above editor says, though. Unfortunately, doesn't pass by our boring traditional policy or guidelines. Ohconfucius 10:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The traditional policy makes nearly perfect sense...but if there's any organization that is capable of recognizing where policy might fall short occasionally, I'd imagine that Wikipedia is that organization. I've seen some instances of press for this label with my own eyes. This may be the internet age, but even now, not all press makes it onto the internet.

If I might speak a bit recklessly right now though...it is irritating for me to see bands touring through Madison, accepting Sector Five's hospitality, and then going on to be able to make their own Wikipedia page (not to mention sometimes being rude to a gracious community when they come back through town "bigger" and "better" than they used to be). As a lifelong amateur historian in my own right, I would not put something on Wikipedia that I felt was not legitimately worthy of being catalogued (I took into consideration Wikipedia's current standards when I made the original page). I cannot help but expect that you will tear this entry down, but I take music history (and this encyclopedia) seriously, and this label is deserving of an entry in Wikipedia.

You can take this page down, but I think that it will be back up within a matter of years anyway...your policies will have probably evolved by that time on their own. Even if said policies do not evolve, in a couple years (just by virtue of sticking around) Sector Five will probably satisfy Wikipedia's 2006 requirements for having a page. The next Nirvana (band) is not only possible, but I feel that this band will almost certainly become huge by word of mouth (blogs, the internet) and not through the standards that Wikipedia has set pertaining to "notability" at the present time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minotaur029 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Redirect to White Teeth. KrakatoaKatie 10:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FutureMouse

FutureMouse is a fictional project referred to in Zadie Smith's novel 'White Teeth'. All the text on the FutureMouse page (a few lines) appears on the 'White Teeth' page. There doesn't seem any reason for having a separate page - it's not a concept that is explored or explained deeply in the novel, nor is it particularly complex or likely to have references beyond the novel. Fauxvegan 09:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect as per nom. hystericalrealismcruft. Bwithh 12:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

By all means, delete this entry. Totally pointless. Charlie Pekarek, reader of literature.

• Redirect to the book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • redirect is fine too Bwithh 19:14, 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. W.marsh 18:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shibala

Unsourced article about the rules of a dice game; no relevant Google hits found for "Shibala game" or "Shibala dice". --Nehwyn 09:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything in here is true, I can link it to a Taiwanese site. http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/?qid=1405110214037 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwillyc (talk • contribs)

Note: the previous comment is from the author of the article. --Nehwyn 11:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete until more sources can be found than just a Yahoo Knowledge article (which is user-submitted). Searching English Google will not reveal a Taiwanese exclusive dice game. However, I couldn't find relevant hits searching for the Chinese keyword either. ColourBurst 18:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So what do you want me to do to prove that what I wrote is legit? I swear to God that I didn't make this up. The only trouble is that this game has no English name and I used this as the article title because it comes from the Taiwanese pronounciation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwillyc (talk • contribs)

Essentially... yes, to write on Wikipedia, you have to prove that what you write is legit. Don't be discouraged, it's not so hard: read WP:V and WP:RS for more on that! --Nehwyn 07:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete – I can't find evidence of this game anywhere either. KrakatoaKatie 10:27, 3 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 delete. W.marsh 18:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Planet Boinng

Relatively small (about a thousand members), non notable website / forum (only 26 distinct Google hits![24]), fails WP:WEB quite clearly Fram 09:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete, clearly fails WP:WEB.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Planet Boinng is often referred to as just Boinng, so you might want to include that in the google search? Venullian 13:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Spoilsports - seriously, if you feel that the removal of this factual and imformative article would improve Wikipedia in some way, then go ahead, but I'd argue that Boinng's seven year history, appearance in two UK magazines, and contribution to the PHP Nuke/Postnuke community is as worth a mention as most of the rest of the website categories here. Boinng 14:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. --- RockMFR 06:01, 3 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 delete. --Coredesat 04:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mirage Source

Also nominated:

• Mirage Online
• Secrets of Mirage

Non-notable game engine, and two non-notable CRPGs written with it. All three fail WP:SOFTWARE and WP:WEB. Prods removed by Shannara, who considered them "vandalism". Percy Snoodle 10:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Two obscure online games. Google searches for every term bring up the Wikipedia articles first or second, with no reliable sources for verification. None of the games had any particular longevity either. --Wafulz 23:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete for all 3 of them. Fails WP:N and WP:V as far as I can tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kinslayer (talk • contribs)

• Delete - per nom. Wickethewok 16:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom --Pak21 09:16, 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 Speedy Delete G7 (user requested deletion) by User:Deepujoseph. ColourBurst 18:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MC Fruit Stripe

Yep, fell for it. Followed a trick link from another wiki and ended up creating my article here. Har har, funny times indeed. Please delete this nonsense. Paxosmotic 10:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have added {{db-author}} to the article. Mr Stephen 11:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, as the author requested it. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 11:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nom. Emeraude 12:07, 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. W.marsh 18:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RPG Toolkit

Non-notable game engine, fails WP:SOFTWARE. Prod removed by Shannara, who considered it "vandalism". Percy Snoodle 10:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Interesting project, and certainly a fun program, but definitely does not conform to WP:SOFTWARE.--Rosicrucian 14:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I wrote most of the current text for this article and I am involved with the software, so I will only comment. I would argue that the software in question passes the first test of the proposed guideline on software notability, WP:SOFTWARE:

The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.

The RPG Toolkit received brief treatment in Game Pro magazine in 2003. (I have no evidence of this, and a quick search found only broken links to an image of the page. But it's true.) An older version of the software has an editor review with a rating of five at download.com [25]. Additionally, it has supposedly appeared in several other magazines. The software is affiliated with none of the sources mentioned.

However, proposed guidelines aside, I doubt whether anybody would actually look up the Toolkit in Wikipedia, except somebody who already knows of it. As I am involved with the project, I will leave it to others to consider the arguments I have mentioned. Colin 03:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Doesn't seem to meet WP:V/WP:RS. Wickethewok 16:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Anomo 07:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If The 3D Gamemaker survived deletion, surely this could? DotDarkCloud 22:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And it looks as though more work went into this page than The 3D Gamemaker's stub of a page DotDarkCloud 22:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment the 3D gamemaker wasn't deleted because "it's just a stub" isn't a reason to delete pages. "it's not notable" is. Percy Snoodle 14:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. As a professional in the game industry, I am aware of this product's existence, but I just can't find any proof that it's genuinely notable, aside from the fact that it does have a good presence via Google.[26] However, most of that looks like "marketing" hits, instead of bonafide reviews or acclaim. If it could be shown that this software had had some reviews in major game industry press, I might change my mind, but until then, I'm afraid I have to side with the "Delete" crowd. For now, this product might be worth mentioning on some larger list of game development software, but it's not appropriate for it to have its own article. If more acclaim becomes available later, the article can be re-created. --Elonka 18:18, 2 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 delete. --Coredesat 04:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MRPGe

Advertisement for NN online CRPG engine. Percy Snoodle 10:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete reads like Advert to me QuiteUnusual 12:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hardly advertising in the usual sense, since it seems to be free/open source (with several variants mentioned), but no evidence of notability. Also fails WP:V. Switch to keep if verifiable references are provided that demonstrate notability. Xtifr _tälk 04:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — 25 google hit and reads like an ad. it doesn't matter if its free/open source, it's still a chocolate-covered spoon. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 05:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: did I say it mattered? And I don't agree that it reads like an ad: "The engine began as a game, poorly designed and poorly programmed by...." is not the sort of thing I usually see in ads! I was actually startled by how much the article didn't look like an ad after reading the initial description here, which is why I even mentioned it (even though it doesn't matter).  :) Xtifr _tälk 06:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Anomo 07:16, 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. KrakatoaKatie 10:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Worlds Project

NN online creative writing project; fails WP:WEB Percy Snoodle 10:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Sounds extremely interesting, but not yet up to WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I know the people behind the project and if it is determined to be deleted I'd like it to be userfied under my name so that people can continue to edit it until such time that it meets any criteria put forth in this AFD. EnsRedShirt 05:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is unfortunate that New Worlds Project has been put for potential deletion. At this rate, no play-by-post game will ever be listed on Wikipedia giving Wikipedia users a unbalanced view of our community. I wonder why New Worlds Project has been nominated but Alleria has not. I respectfully submit that New Worlds Project does meet the WB:WEB. Falling under the play-by-post games category, New Worlds Project is one of the leading examples of play-by-post games and is the only one to actually be incorporated both in Belgium and in the US. See [Belgian Monitor] and the [Utah Business Entity Search]. Likewise, it is the only play-by-post game that actually produces reference materials and full-length novels available for purchase. See [New Worlds Project Reference Guide], [New Worlds Augusta], [New Worlds Project Nalnath Cluster]. In the light of these examples, one can see that New Worlds Project is certainly well on its way to becoming some much more than a game and of relevance to the Wikipedia community. I plead that the article on New Worlds Project should remain part of Wikipedia, offering an excellent example of play-by-post games, and new efforts to bring play-by-post games (and their positive results) to an ever growing community. --Kimmetje 10:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Anomo 07:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Kimmetje above. Though it may be shaky ground to allow a PbP game to have its own article, the fact is that the community has become large enough to warrant listing, and produced external material available beyond their game. It is a game, but it is a notable one that has established its own non-profit organization to promote PbP games as an educational tool for use in real classrooms. It is not a personal project and deleting it would be a mistake due to lack of information. However, the article should be reviewed and edited. --Frugen 07:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Kimmetje pretty much sums it up. The New Worlds Project is a serious (i.e. they've even registered themselves as a business) online collaborative creative writing project that is well known (read: notable) in the Play-by-Post community. I think this article should be kept since the argument of Non-Notability doesn't really stand (even doing a Google search lists the RPG New Worlds on the front page...) --Rambutaan 01:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- Just in case My comment earlier wasn't clear enough I think it should be on wikipedia. EnsRedShirt 04:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This article should be kept, for the reasons Frugen and Rambutaan cited. 70.161.233.42 05:16, 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 delete. --Coredesat 04:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ligue de Football de Îles Kerguelen

Fails WP:V. Not a single thing mentioned in the article, including the existence of the said federation, is sourced. Common sense implies there is no organized football on the Kerguelen Islands, uninhabited except for a small number of scientists. The article contains a cross-namespace link to Antarctican Association of Football (on the user page of the article's creator), an article apparently deleted earlier. Proposed deletion was contested by an unregistered user. Sue-Tomi 10:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Going on some of the ideas thrown up by the linked article, methinks this is a hoax. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, couldn't find any info, very probably a hoax. Delete as unverifiable unless sources are found. Recury 13:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: In real French, wouldn't it be "des Îles"? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Even if it wasn't, it would be spelled "d'Îles". Unless those footballing scientists made their own dialect of French. 8|. Recury 17:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

never "d'Îles", should be "des Îles". Carlossuarez46 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as obvious hoax. The people mentioned as administrators (Louis Devereux and Jacques Decroix, if we take care of spelling errors) do not google well in connection with soccer. Note that on Norfolk team talk page the author more or less confirmed the hoax (but claims he was duped himself...)--Pan Gerwazy 09:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete hoax. Carlossuarez46 19:09, 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 delete. --Coredesat 04:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of oldies musicians

Contested prod. A subjective, inaccurate and unmaintainable list Nuttah68 11:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. "Oldies radio" has always struck me as a subjective format definition, and basing an article on that kind of thing is a recipe for disaster - there's also a strange division between "Oldies" and "Classic Rock" which doesn't jibe with several examples I could think of. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unmanageable, and arbitrary. How can the Rolling Stones, still touring in the 21st century, be in a list of oldies musicians? Similarly, The Who, Status Quo, Elton John, etc etc. How can Elvis Presly, still at #1 a while ago, be there? Why are individuals who did not have solo careers in the period listed (e.g. Jagger)? No, it's nonsense. Emeraude 12:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-a-mungous mate! Guy 22:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BigHaz. --Metropolitan90 23:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unmaintainable list with no context and, per BigHaz, arbitrary criteria for inclusion. --Jamoche 00:22, 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. W.marsh 18:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RPG World Online

Non-notable online CRPG, fails WP:SOFTWARE and WP:WEB Percy Snoodle 11:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. yandman 12:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Note also that ol' standby seen in so many bad articles about online topics: a list of admins. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Anomo 07:18, 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. No sources have been provided to attest to the notability of the subject (criterion #2 of WP:WEB). Guild websites aren't enough, because they aren't independent sources - the players publish them (criterion #1), and RhyDin is not "broadcasted" or "published" by AOL or its users, as it is a chat room RPG (criterion #3). --Coredesat 04:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RhyDin

Non-notable online RPG, fails WP:WEB and WP:SOFTWARE Percy Snoodle 11:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. yandman 12:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This is, if anything , even worse than the other similar article nommed today, because it's mostly a long list of "satire" which is neither funny, interesting, or understandable to those who don't already play the game (and, in all probability, not to those who do play the game, either). "Every building has rafters ." Stop, you're killing me! Oh, the hilarity! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There are several thousand roleplayers over the course of over a decade who would most certainly agree that this role-playing realm is notable. The article is in its infancy, and needs a great deal of elaboration, but it does NOT deserve to be deleted. If anything, the satire section, which is NOT the entire article (or even most of its substance) could stand to be removed. But the entire article? No way. Besides... this meets criterion point number 3 in the Web criteria for notability, being distributed by Dragonsmark.com AND Ringsofhonor.org, let alone its solid place as a part of AOL. Also, I have been tagged as a single purpose account, yet the fact is that I am new to the wiki community, and this is simply the first article I have edited. One of Wikipedia's principles is "Do not bite the newcomers", correct?Sacredepitaph 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sacredepitaph (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delete. As someone who's actually played within this universe, I might be able to offer something unique to the discussion. RhyDin is nearly synonymous with text-based role playing on AOL, and has been since the eariest versions of AOL. It dominated the Arts and Entertainment section of AOL chat rooms for nearly a decade, and remained the prominent role play setting within AOL until four or five years ago. An overwhelming percentage of current AOL role players started within the RhyDin universe, and you can still find rooms open that play RhyDin-style games.

With that said, though, I'll be the first to admit that it's going to be a pain in the ass to reference. Because RhyDin began as an AOL-only universe and developed in a quasi-evolutionary way into its current form, you'll be hard pressed to find information on its history. This is mentioned on the talk page, although not much has come of it. No new editors seem to have arrived, and my own attempts at finding non-trivial references that would meet WP:WEB -- WP:SOFTWARE is inappropriate, as the game merely uses AOL -- have met with futility.

Shame to see it go, but what can you do? Consequentially 17:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment perhaps the article could be merged with AOL Senate Sim and AOL chatroom game to make an article on AOL online games? Percy Snoodle 11:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment While I appreciate that a merge suggestion saves all the work I've done on the RhyDin entry from being a complete waste, I still have to assert that RhyDin deserves its own dedicated entry. It only began on AOL, and has since evolved far beyond it. Although the AOL chatroom game entry is also something I've got a considerable amount of experience with, so that may become one of my next targets for editing. Yes, RhyDin is difficult to chronicle, but I am willing to do every bit of research necessary. As I stated before, this article is in its infancy, and it is only recently that I took up the reins and decided to flesh it out. The Satire section has since been deleted, and my focus with the article is in the process of shifting. What it comes down to is the fact that this world has a huge amount of relevance and was a huge contributor to the formative years of literally thousands of people out there. Most people have since laid their characters, and their RhyDin experience, to rest, but the fact remains that it literally meant the world to many, many people. I feel very strongly about this, and I can't just let it all be for naught.Sacredepitaph 14:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment my advice in that case is to copy the article to a subpage of your user page, and work on it there until you have some verifiable sources which establish RhyDin's notability. Once you do, recreate the article. Percy Snoodle 15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Oh, but of course. This article is not going to go away for good, even if it is deleted now. As long as Wikipedia exists for the reasons it is supposed to exist, I will give RhyDin the documentation it has always deserved. This is not about a personal agenda. This is about the preservation and distribution of knowledge and information. Sacredepitaph 18:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Original research, or, at best, failing WP:V/WP:RS. Wickethewok 16:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Anomo 07:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment My legitimate entry has to go, but useless entries like Wikipedia:Avoid_using_preview_button are allowed to remain? Is Wikipedia really open and welcoming to all people willing to share free knowledge, or is it some elitist clique I have to somehow muscle my way into in order to be accepted? Sacredepitaph 11:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not an encyclopaedia entry. Anything beginning with "Wikipedia:", "User:" or "User Talk:" aren't part of the encyclopaedia itself. yandman 12:00, 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. W.marsh 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernhardt coat of arms

I fon't know about this one. Page was created by USer:Gustavobernhardt, so a personal interest piece. Article gives no explanation of how the coat of arms was awarded or designed. I have been unable to find any information elsewhere in Wikipedia or though Google etc. It is possible that this is a historic coat of arms; it is equally possible it was bought from any of a myriad of artists and companies that will give you a design for a fee. In the absence of any sources, I recommend deletion. Emeraude 12:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable, vanity. yandman 12:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless sourced; it should be simple enough to document an actual coat of arms. ergot 15:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Well, there is something vaguely similar here, awarded in the UK in 1997 (article says these arms are German). There is something armorially identical (but a quite different image) here; unfortunately, I can't find any information about it beyond the image itself. The image in the article looks like it was scanned from an old book; if this is in fact the case, it would be to the article's credit. (If nothing less, the image does not look like something that came from one of those heraldry "bucket shops".) I'm going to have to think about this one. I definately don't like the idea of keeping something unverifiable, but I don't like the idea of deleting what could well be a legitimately granted coat of arms, either. Does anyone have any books on German heraldry? ergot 00:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, NN vanity. There's no information even who the Bernhardt's are. WP doesn't have CoA articles for old noble families and likely won't have. Pavel Vozenilek 00:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually, we have material for a great part of the Polish nobility, and we probably have for a few British families as well (unfortunately, the heraldic material is still very underdeveloped). Interestingly, we at WP:HV have never discussed this scenario, but I don't think this family is particularly notable. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of articles about noble coats of arms completely, provided the holder (and/or the arms) was famous enough. No vote, but it might be an idea to ask WP:HV if anybody knows more about this one. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (also Image:Bernhardtcoatofarms1.jpg) unless sourced. Smacks of vaniheraldry. ~ trialsanderrors 00:17, 3 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 delete. --Coredesat 04:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splecks

Reference to unimportant shape with its importance not asserted properly. Contested prod, the tag has been removed but reverted due to bad edits. i.e. "they are fucking awesome" Fails pretty much everything. No reliable sources or references for actual info. I could go on but I personally think it has nothing really going for it. WikiSlasher 12:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. --WikiSlasher 12:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:Complete bollocks QuiteUnusual 12:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• CSD as nonsense: The spleck is quite a new discovery only found on the 16th October 2006... (|-- UlTiMuS 13:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• I believe the CSD only applies to patent nonsense. But otherwise your point is perfectly valid - I forgot to mention it was original research. --WikiSlasher 13:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Total nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense thought up on a dull day. Emeraude 15:34, 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. --Coredesat 04:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camspotting

Totally non-notable per WP:WEB; just one look at the linked forums confirms. Advertising for a service/game that frankly isn't even up yet, apparently. (|-- UlTiMuS 12:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete, maybe even speedy... yandman 12:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Speedy would probably apply, as it doesn't assert notability. Natalie 12:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per the website: "We have 1 registered user." They (quite literally) don't get any less notable than that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, pretty much self-admitted neologism/vanity article. JIP | Talk 15:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — as per nom. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Anomo 07:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• I have removed my name and the link to the non-developed forums. Can 'JoeSmack' and 'Anomo' please give a reason for a deletion request? --Gizmoguy 12:59, 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 'speedily deleted by Joyous! as vandalism. --ais523 12:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mucky

abusive Teh tennisman 18:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This AfD was never listed in the logs. I am about to list it for the record (although I am closing it now, as it has been speedied already), --ais523 12:51, 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 Speedy delete a7, notability not asserted. NawlinWiki 14:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carsten Froehlich

Non notable person. Article was prodded and de-prodded, so I'm bringing it here. Natalie 12:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Speedy Typical schoolboy vanity page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 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. W.marsh 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rudolf Erich Raspe and Baron von Münchhausen

Chaotic. There are separate entries for both Attilios 13:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (may be even speedy delete?). This is a personal essay (signed, even), and the user who created it has only two contributions. JIP | Talk 15:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:SPEEDY (it's not really nonsense, which is the closest applicable criterion), but this is an aunsouced, unreferenced essay on two subjects, each of which already has a substantive article. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced and duplicative of other articles. --Metropolitan90 07:47, 3 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 delete. --Coredesat 04:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey Abbott

On the fringes of notability, I would say he is below the threshold. And as an aside, a definite WP:COI article. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, completely unsourced and unencyclopedic. NawlinWiki 14:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC QuiteUnusual 14:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability is proven by reliable sources, and redirect to Jeff Abbott. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete He has a youtube video. So what? Wavy G 06:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. FWIW, this article was created by user Jeffrey abbott (talk · contribs). --Ed (Edgar181) 15:35, 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. --Coredesat 04:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nbino records

Non notable company; fails WP:CORP. Prodded and de-prodded, so here it is. Natalie 13:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nbino records meets the first Criteria for companies and corporations listed. It has published and released records that are in internet stores and are credited for it. Nbino is also a registered company name in the state of NJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazemachine (talk • contribs) 2006-10-23 13:57:01
  • Wikipedia is not a directory of all registered company names in the world. And the primary criterion requires that other people have written things about the company. Things that the company itself has published are not relevant to that criterion, nor are things that aren't even about the company. Uncle G 14:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • nbino records is written about on the Daze page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazemachine (talk • contribs) 2006-10-23 14:23:31
      • Your writing another Wikipedia article and linking it to this one does not qualify, for obvious reasons. See also Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas, incidentally. Uncle G 14:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. -Runningonbrains 15:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. No indepedent evidence of notability. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:44, 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 close because this is re-opening a closed discussion, that is currently the subject of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 21#Web_operating_system, which review has not yet concluded. Uncle G 14:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web operating system

Previously deleted Sleepyhead 13:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD criteria G11 and A7, and we don't need a bruising debate for the creator. Guy 22:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Last Alliance Website

Nonnotable website, Alexa ranking of 1,010,839. NawlinWiki 14:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Merge into Games Workshop Online Community (not the whole article, just relevant sourcable information). The style of this article is very worrisome, and far too informal. This article does not link to any other articles, which would normally merit deletion automatically. The current article lacks sources, is written in the first person and goes against Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutrality and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Grimhelm 14:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No merge. Fails every policy/guideline applicable. Wickethewok 17:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G-11. This is spam and should be removed post-haste. The editor's contributions have only covered this website,[28] a possible violation of WP:COI. EVula 18:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Is now no longer in first person (though there was only one sentence anyway...), uses internal links, has had the supposed 'vanity' sections removed, and other various suggestions incorporated. Some, yet not conclusive, sources have been added. And the only reason why this is the only article I have edited is that I joined only yesterday; since posting this I have had to constantly update it to try and get it accepted. ChrisWilliams1000
• Delete fails to meet WP:WEB (yet). MidgleyDJ 19:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Page now meets wiki notability criteria WP:WEB It demonstrates it has won indepedant awards and shows that it has been published in independant and verifiable sources. Madusmatus 21.25 23 October 2006
• The content has been distributed through both an independent online website and publication, meeting notability criterion (3), the most obvious example being in WD 300 as mentioned. It has also been the subject of 'non-trivial published works' (White Dwarf) in which it has been described as 'great' with a 'huge wealth of material' as also mentioned. Added to that the award for 'Best LotR SBG website', a contest of note amongst the Games Workshop Online Community when it was taking place with many categories, it could be argued the site fits all three notability criteria. Also, whatever happened to This guideline?... It's not as though I am deliberately setting out to destroy the site... - ChrisWilliams1000 21:32, 23 October 2006
  • I haven't seen anyone attacking you, so I'm unsure of why you're citing WP:BITE. The closest thing has been from me stating that pushing The Last Alliance on Wikipedia has been practically your sole activity here, which is a true statement. EVula 22:32, 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 It was a dictdef and a list so I merged it and will replace with a redirect. If anybody wants to merge the content in elsewhere per Guy's suggestion feel free. . kingboyk 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magic Roundabout

Obvious Prank, as far as I know there is no offical name of "Magic Roundabout" in the Uk. Secondly, "Magic roundabout" dies not direct to the far more notable TV show and/or Film Jayteecork 14:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination
• Delete The Magic Roundabout name is shown in the picture in the article and is referred to as such locally [29]. However, I think it is not notable enough to justify an article QuiteUnusual 14:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Um I am torn here: both Hemel and Swindon have "magic roundabouts" and both of them are a source of local notability. This has, I think been mentioned in a secondary source but "Bollocks to Alton Towers" is not exactly reliable... I'd hate to lose the content, so in the end I think merge and redirect to Roundabout or traffic circle or whatever we call it. Guy 15:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - very common term for these things, very notable. Dave 16:05, 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. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!^{Join Esperanza!} 08:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windhexe

Wikipedia is not a site to announce your future products. --Pjacobi 14:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I actually saw a lot of news coverage of this when it was first announced, even if I didn't recall this specific name. FrozenPurpleCube 15:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you see any product becoming availale in the three years since then? --Pjacobi 15:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't actually looked, since I'm not involved in waste management. However, they do seem to have something going on, since they claim to offer quotes on their site, and have photos. Besides, it doesn't matter, it made the news once, that establishes notability and verifiability. And that includes MSNBC [30], the New York Times [31] and the Washington Post [32]. Even if it never came out, it'd still be part of the historical record. FrozenPurpleCube 16:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep WP:NOT crystal ball doesn't not apply here, which is what I'm assuming what's being argued. From WP:NOT, It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. The item in question has been covered by 3 reliable sources and article makes no speculative statements about it. —Mitaphane _talk 23:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Best available info is that it exists, it works, it does something useful. Murray Baker. --210.84.59.171 12:00, 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 SPEEDY DELETE as obviously mistaken and/or inappropriate. Someone is trying to duplicate the German Wikipedia help pages in the English Wikipedia article namespace. I can't understand why, but it certainly has no place here. JIP | Talk 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiSyntax

This is not an English-language article Jvhertum 14:47, 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. --Coredesat 05:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rule of the Dumb

Unverifiable. A Google search only turned up two results for "rule of the dumb" spongebob, and they were both in German. WP:NOT a crystal ball: when the episode airs an article may be appropriate, but not now. Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 15:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Húsönd 17:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fake episode from a very bad source. --Caldorwards4 20:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as crystal ball, (though I'd support redirect to George W. Bush) --RoninBK_ETC 05:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC) _{The preceding user, Roninbk is going to hell for this post.}
• _{Comment This is not a fake episode and the episode is really called Rule of Dumb (click on the external link and at the end of the episode, the credits will appear and it says that it is called Rule of Dumb). Squirepants101 23:53, 28 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. W.marsh 18:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)}

_{[edit] Telebiometrics}

_{unreferenced essay-like article on bizarre (possibly nonsense) sub- field of biometrics, only 626 google hits DesertSky85451 21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)}

• _{Delete without prejudice to recreation in an encyclopedic form. The Google results indicate this is a (rarely used?) bona fide academic term, but this confused technobabble about Swiss Army UAV IMINT ops (German) and wetware has nothing to do with it. Sandstein 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)}

 _{AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Trebor 15:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)}

• _{Delete: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NEO, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, all the usual suspects. Vectro 01:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)}
• _{Delete per Sandstein. This essay doesn't have anything to do with an encyclopedic article. KrakatoaKatie 10:34, 3 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 Delete. ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)}

_{[edit] List of packaging companies}

_{Since the weblinks and spam were pruned a while back, this is now largely a list of redlinks - only three have articles. And one of those is up for deletion. Guy 15:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)}

• _{Keep I'm doing research for a potential job and this page was a lot of help, in spite of all the redlinks. 2150, 29 October 2006}
• _{Delete per nom. EVula 19:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)}
• _{Delete — linkfarm/spam/redlinks. delete. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 05:53, 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 delete CSD criteria G11, A7 and possibly A3.}

_{[edit] Lab X Records}

_{Non notable company - fails WP:CORP. Prodded and de-prodded, so listed here. Natalie 15:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)}

• _{First off I am new to this please tell me what I am doing wrong.}

_{Lab X Records is not a company it is a underground org that produces records for under ground bands in the Dayton area.User:Robotx5}

_{You should probably reading WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, and WP:ORG. Wikipedia has standards of notability, and these three policies detail those. If your organization does not meet the criteria in those policies, than it is not notable and doesn't get an article. If the organization does meet the criteria, then that information needs to be in the article, sourced. Natalie 15:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)}

_{ok, after looking at the rules it really just made me confused. But here it goes lab x records has produced and sold albums for 10 bands. This is some [lab x records in the news] articles Please be kind I am trying. User:Robotx5}

_{This discussion is getting kind of long for an afd page, so I will post on your talk page. Natalie 16:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)}

_{ok i added some dates of some releases to the history. ... does this help? i will add more laterUser:Robotx5}

_{It doesn't matter how many things Lab X has published. Notability has to be established by other people publishing things about Lab X, like newspapers or magazines. Natalie 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)}

_{lab x is mentioned in this article}

_{[link to Dayton City Paper] User:Robotx5}

_{The notability standards for both companies an organizations states "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". The two key words in that segment are subject and multiple. The linked article does not establish notability because it is 1)not about Lab X Records, but rather merely mentions it in passing, and 2) is only one article. Hope that helps!Natalie 16:58, 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. W.marsh 18:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)}

_{[edit] Snow coverage}

_{No sources, doesn't seem to be verifiable—probably original research. Runningonbrains 15:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)}

• _{Delete. Snow coverage is coverage of snow. Whoopee. Don't we all have better things to do? Hey, guess what: foot coverage is coverage of feet. And - wait! cool! - I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'll bet that media coverage is ... nah, never mind, it's a stretch. - Corporal Tunnel 18:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)}
• _{Delete. It is unverifiable, original research. Even if properly sourced, it can't be more than a dicdef. Were historical examples to be introduced, they would make more sense on the individual snowstorm's page (if there was one.) SliceNYC 00:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)}
• _{Sources cited. There are references and sources for this article that have been posted. This is not original research, but clearly something that has become a part of American culture during the winter season. I respectfully disagree with tagging this for deletion and ask the wikipedia "powers to be" to remove this as a candidate for deletion. --Wac01 13:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)}
• _{Delete. Simply not encyclopedic. Kafziel ^Talk 18:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)}

_{[edit] Addressing the Specific Delete Comments}

_{Now to address the two delete comments in detail above:}

• _{"Snow Coverage is coverage of snow. Whoopee...": Ok, this is someone's opinion. They have a right to that opinion. That doesn't say this article doesn't have encyclopedic content. The references and sources from all over the United States say otherwise that this is a part of American Culture.}

• _{"It is unverifiable, original research. Even if properly sourced, it can't be more than a dicdef. Were historical examples to be introduced, they would make more sense on the individual snowstorm's page": In fairness, there were no references and sources posted at the time of this comment. This has been changed. As for the "historical examples", this is tricky. Snow coverage is often "overhyped" (as the sources point out) and the individual snowstorms aren't encyclopedic enough to warrant being in here. However, there is an example of John Bolaris' "Storm of the Century" that should suffice.}

_{--Wac01 13:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)}

• • _{Comment Even if specific storms aren't encyclopaedic on their own, a brief mention in the article would help its encyclopaedic value. Media circus is on the same level IMHO...borderline encyclopaedic, yet benefits from reliable sources including OED, with specific quotes mentioned to back up the phenomenon's existence. If there are no real historical examples (aside from The Blizzard of '96 as quoted in the media circus article), then the phenomenon isn't really significant enough to warrent its own article. Merging some info into Media circus may strengthen that article, however. -Runningonbrains 16:50, 30 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. W.marsh 18:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)}

_{[edit] Ntl:hell}

_{Delete Forum websites are not aloud on Wikipedia London UK | talk 15:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)}

• _{Keep there is not a policy on the wikipedia that says articles about website forums can exist (see Something Awful Forums); most website forums are not on here because they haven't received sufficent outside attention to meet coverage by reliable 2nd hand sources. In this article's case, the site has been mentioned in 3 seperate articles. Plus AFD doesn't not mention what policy this article violates. Mitaphane talk 23:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)}
• Delete While the reason offered by nom is not a valid reason for deletion, failing to meet requirements of WP:WEB is. --RoninBK_ETC 05:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Can't find that WP policy. But anyway, independant write-ups of this company shows notability. --Marriedtofilm 04:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This article isn't about a company. It's about a web site. The article on the company that you appear to have mistakenly thought this article to be about, and to which arguments about independent write-ups apply, is NTL. Uncle G 09:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I should've typed "forum" instead of "company." But still, independent write-ups about this website forum shows notability. --Marriedtofilm 20:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Speedy Keep. ntl and its attitude towards customers has gained notoriety in UK. If it the most popular website dedicated to very important (notorious I would say) issue, it deffinetly should stay. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 12:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The issue of NTL's relations with its customers should be discussed in NTL. For having an article on this web site, the issue has to be this web site itself. Uncle G 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid that issue of ntl's customer relations is bigger than ntl itself :)). And I'm guessing there would be enough ntl customers to pass RfM from ntl to ntl customer relations, leaving redirect link at what is now main article. :))). As to website discussed, my 2 cents would be, that if ntl workers, have found this website relevant enough to hack, I think it is important enough to stay in Wiki Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. ntl:hell is already an external link from NTL, so those who are interested in discussing NTL in a forum will still be able to find out about this web site. --Metropolitan90 07:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable site. It's badly written, plus it already has a link in NTL – that's enough. KrakatoaKatie 10:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Passes WP:WEB on first criterea - multiple non-trivial published works (Guardian + Register). akaDruid 14:22, 3 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. Daniel.Bryant 10:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debbie Schlussel

Not noteworthy Pozole 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Ms. Schlussel is quite a well-known pundit, I know her from her many appearances on the Bill Maher and Howard Stern shows. - Mcasey666 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. She is famous, unfortunately. ... discospinster _talk 18:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — 478,000 hits on google, and the article is actually pretty par. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — JonMoseleyI think it is a significant weakness in this process that we are not advised of the basis or category under which deletion is being considered, in order to better evaluate and respond. However, I think that throughout Wikipedia discussion of events and organizations and activiteis of interest is frequently greatly enhanced by knowing something about the actors involved. It is a very common, and very helpful, aspect of Wikipedia to not only know what happened but also who it was who had a hand in it. Furthermore, just as a stand alone proposition, people often want to know "WHO IS X, anyway?" if they hear a name. Indeed, explanation of persons is a common feature of a true paper encyclopedia. Therefore, I do not see how it can be appropriate to remove any information about anyone on the public scene. I see far less important and more trivial entries on Wikipedia. Unless space is an issue, in which case you should try a few SMALL VERY FEW ads to cover costs, I cannot see any justification for limiting people's knowledge of who is who and what they are doing on the national or even sub-national stage.
• Speedy Keep Yup, she's famous. --Marriedtofilm 03:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as primary author of current rewrite, highly noteworthy. I'll note that one of the reasons this article exists is because Jimbo requested a rewrite [33].
• Speedy Keep - no question this should stay, suprised its even under debate 4.18GB 01:25, 28 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 again. --Coredesat 05:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Phelps Jr.

Fixing nomination that pointed at old AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Phelps Jr.. JBKramer 15:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Verifiable portion of article contains no information. JBKramer 15:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete he isn't notable and most of the information can't be verified. -- Ashadeofgrey 16:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Being the asshat son of a noteable asshat does not make you noteable. Consequentially 17:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of notability, fails WP:BIO. Mitaphane _talk 23:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Xdenizen 01:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All relevent information about him is already in the asshat article. Koweja 01:08, 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 ~Kylu (u|t) 05:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Jackson Jihad

This article has the sort of procedural history that makes me want to crawl in bed and hug my teddy bear. Suffice it to say, it has been deleted at AfD, kept at AfD, and sent to DRV in the interim for reasons of sockpuppeting, vote soliciting and other improprieties several times. The most recent DRV consensus results in this relisting. I'd suggest everyone consider the article anew, without reference to any previous discussion. This debate will be semiprotected to prevent IP spamming; in addition, because of prior complaints of "vote soliciting" on every side, notifying other Wikipedians en masse of this relisting is strongly discouraged. I'm sure most interested folks have the article watch-listed by now, so extra notification, besides the AfD template on the article, shouldn't be needed. Let's try to get a final resolution here, if at all possible. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete For me at least this band is just BARELY missing the mark here. Wildthing61476 15:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the media mentions push it over the edge on this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Let me point out that I like indie bands, before I start, so this isn't an anti-indie vote or anything. But I've looked this over several times, and these guys don't meet the necessary mark. Badlydrawnjeff mentions the media mentions; an analysis of the four mentions in the article would indicate that one is a mention in a calendar listing, another is a blog with a passing reference to the band in an article about a local club, and a third requires registration, so I've no idea what it is. The article in College Times is about the only potentially solid reference to the band that I can track down, and I waded through several pages of Google listings as well. To me, that suggests they fail on the multiple, non-trivial mentions. And a look over WP:MUSIC indicates that they miss the mark on all suggested guidelines. I'm sorry, but that all adds up to a delete, with absolutely no problem allowing a recreation down the road if they meet the guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • But aren't you overlooking the HeartattaCk, Phoenix New Times, and Arizona Republic articles? And don't those meet WP:MUSIC? (Not to mention the AP mention, but in fairness to you, I hadn't found that at the time you posted this comment). PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I used to edit a weekly newspaper. We used to list about a dozen or so events every week as a calendar, including neat little writeups about the bands. They looked exactly like the New Times mention. It's a calendar listing, not an article. The AP (which, for anyone who doesn't mouse over the link, does not stand for "Associated Press") mention is a part of a band list, and is not an article. The HeartattaCk piece looks like an editorial of some sort to me, and mentions the band name once, waaaaaay down at the bottom; is the whole thing about AJJ? I can't honestly tell. And I'll give you the AZ Republic article - but it still fails multiple, non-trivial coverage. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tony Fox. —Chowbok 17:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And I've refuted your reasons (or, Tony's, anyway) above. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I find your refutations unconvincing. —Chowbok 03:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • How can you not be convinced by what's right in front of you? Have you clicked each link to each source, read the articles for yourself? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. As per my previous point-by-point explaination from WP:Music, repeated below:
  • Has not had a charted hit on any national music chart.
  • Has not been certified gold in any major country.
  • Has not gone on an international concert tour. Has performed in other states in the US, but does not qualify as a full national tour.
  • Has not released two albums, hasn't released any albums on a major or indie label. They are releasing a split EP on a relatively small indie label, but this is far cry from the two albums.
  • No reliable cited sources. There is a minor mention in a Phoenix New Times, a local paper, but this is not a major article. The AZNightBuzz link is a blog, therefore not reputatable. The eCollegeTimes has only 50 unique hits on Google, not reputable. The State Press is a bigger article, but is only a small college paper and part of a news page . Does not hit "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media". No national press whatsoever
  • No major members from other bands
  • Not a notable style for a city or a local scene of a city. If it were, they would have received more verifiable press mentions.
  • Has not won or been placed a major music award. Won one "Best of Phoenix" award from a local paper, and was nominated for another. These are nowhere near "major".
  • Not performed performed music for a work of media that is notable, or been on radio
  • 172 hits on Google, 126 listeners on last.fm. Does not pass either as notable. Also isn't mentioned on AllMusicGuide.

This does not fit WP:MUSIC, it definately does not fit the spirit of WP:MUSIC, they aren't a notable band. This is an article that should be deleted. Halo 17:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My citations, noted several times now here, in other AfDs, in deletion review, and on the talk page directly refute your erroneous claim that this article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And I respectfully disagree, and not enough evidence has been rpesented to change my vote or opinion. Halo 11:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You say no national press, yet I clearly listed below that there is. There are opinions, and then there are FACTS. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about that Heartattack thing wouldn't call a small music 'zine national. If you're on about the Alternative Press mention, it wasn't a non-trivial mention. I copied/pasted that a while back. The facts are that the press at best misses the _intention_ behind multiple non-trivial reliable sources, if it hits it at all. Either way, I'm happy to cite WP:IAR - I believe even if it does meet WP:BAND, something I contest, it's against the spirit of the thing and that's what matters more than getting into petty particulars. My reasons are clear, and no amount of to-the-letter pedantry is going to change that or the fact this article misses WP:MUSIC, if not by the Wiki-Lawyering letter but certainly the spirit of the thing. -Halo 22:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, why have I had to repeat this !vote four times, now? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Because enough people disagreed with you to keep the article up, but other editors on the Wikipedia did not respect that, and have abused policy to keep trying to knock this article off, for whatever reasons or personal prejudices. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi, can you please be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? Accusing people of "abusing policy" isn't good karma, whether true in your opinion or not. Halo 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Isn't in incivil to deny the article when it is properly cited with accurate assertions of notability? Doesn't that speak to a personal agenda rather than improving the project? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't want to get into bickering, but I'd like to reiterate my call for WP:AGF and state that the second AFD was a borderline "No Consensus" and _not_ a keep (not that it's relevant in any way to this AFD whatsoever), and that everyone has their own opinions and that there isn't a big PT conspiracy/vendetta. Halo 11:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Here are the reasons this article should stay: the band has toured through the United States; the band has been covered in multiple non-trivial publications (Phoenix New Times and Arizona Republic, significant in the fourth largest city in America, are certainly reliable enough sources for Wikipedia); the band has been covered in zines and blogs that cover the sub-genere (including HeartattaCk); the band is a prominent representative of a genre and ethic in their area; the band has won accolades and placed in awards, competitions, etc.; and all these assertions of notability are cited in the article. I believe the article meets the letter AND the spirit of WP:MUSIC. (By the way, as far as it pertains to previous discussions, I recall no accusations on either side of sockpuppetry.) PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, I can second that there has been no accusations of sockpuppetry from either side Halo 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note that User:Parsssseltongue is the creator of the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Phoenix, Arizona is not fourth, but sixth (and likely soon fifth if not already as it has been gaining quickly on Philly) in the List of United States cities by population. Still, it is a large community by any means. -MrFizyx 21:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete After running as broad Lexis search, I found a grand tI otal of sixteen references, all passing references (including schedule of bans) and all from Arizona publications. There is not charted songs or albums, or no national exposure as contemplated by WP:MUSIC. I'm sorry, but we should have articles for every local act in the country, even if they are top notch acts.-- danntm ^T _C 19:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • But this isn't just a local act. Sure, every act is local to somewhere, but this is a band with national dates and media coverage. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:MUSIC clearly contemplates an act with a national presence, while there is no indication of touring outside of the west coast. Further, the reliable media coverage largely come out of the Southwest United States.-- danntm ^T _C 19:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. EVula 19:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Read my comments above and below, as well as on the talk page. I have shown why it does not fail WP:MUSIC. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I have done so, and found your argument wanting. I've also reviewed the four sources provided in the article; one doesn't exist, one has a whopping two paragraphs about the band, and one requires people to log in before accessing the site. The other links you've provided elsewhere only show that the group has toured in various cities, a claim that (a) wasn't being denied and (b) doesn't exactly validate the article as per WP:MUSIC. Sorry, but my vote remains the same. EVula 16:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • One doesn't exist?! What do you mean? So what if you have to log in? Just because you won't take the time to look at the sources doesn't mean they are not existant or reliable. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
        • [34] I clicked the link, and see absolutely nothing that suggests its an actual source. I've even looked at the page's source, and see nothing there, so it can't be a browser issue. As I said, it [effectively] doesn't exist. As for the site that you have to register for, I (as a rule) do not register for sites that require accounts just to view the content, and I'm not particularly inclined to change that behavior. If that upsets you, so be it, and I apologize. EVula 19:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I went to the New Times site and was able to get to the article. I have reprinted the text on the Talk page for your perusal. As for the ASU site, it wasn't a login required site when I originally cited the article, but it is representative of a printed material. I'm sorry if you don't want to take the time to check the sources, but that kind of discounts your comments about them not being reliable, since you're not taking the time to really look. I, on the other hand, have taken plenty of time to find these sources and cite them accurately within the article, as to verify all assertions of notability. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
            • *sigh* I never said that the ASU source was unreliable; I merely said that, of the four sources in the article, one required you to log in. That's all. As others have done, I'm going to direct you to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL (and, while we're at it, WP:OWN). You've yet to prove to anyone's satisfaction but your own that the band is notable; the majority of the links provided have only shown that they have toured, which in and of itself is not a particularly notable accomplishment. The few articles you have provided that actually do cover the band either do so in passing or are non-notable in and of themselves. If I may make a suggestion, the spread-out nature of this AfD is also making it almost impossible to follow; I would suggest consolidating all of the sources that you've provided onto the talk page, where we can quickly and easily see them all; I'll be willing to admit that perhaps a noteworthy and reliable source has been lost in the mess of all this, and consolidation might fix that. EVula 14:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
              • You need not bother directing me to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Do all the editors pointing me towards that REALLY think I've never read them before? Could it be that you just dislike my manner? So be it. As far as proving to anyone's satisfaction the notability of this band, you will see in the last THREE AfDs and the deletion review, as well as this AfD, that there are many editors who are convinced. And they did not need me to consolidate all the sources provided, they merely read the article and saw the sources and external links mentioned at the bottom of the article. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 16:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Heh. You know, if you've noticed a lot of editors pointing you to WP:CIVIL, perhaps there's a conclusion to be drawn. Just sayin'. —Chowbok 19:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • The conclusion I draw is that some editors like to cite "civility" and "good faith" when someone they disagree with is passionate about their position. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • Friend, have you considered that there are ways to argue with passion wilst not insinuating that others are lazy or abusive or biased. Giving others cause to become defensive does not improve your case. You know, "you catch more bees with honey...". -MrFizyx 20:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per danntm and WP:MUSIC --NMChico24 20:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please refer to my comments to danntm. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unsigned, no releases on any label, no evidence of n on-trivial coverage (i.e. nothign more than the occasional gig guide and such), as close to an A7 as you can get without actually being one. Guy 22:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There are actually two releases on labels, but that's not the only WP:MUSIC criteria you need to meet. I have shown PLENTY of evidence of non-trivial coverage. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Without bias or prejudice - I support the indie scene and this outfit might one day 'make it'. But for now - this article is not warranted due to non notability. Encise 23:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Encise
  • But I have shown exactly why they are notable. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 00:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because of touring and coverage in a number of reputable publications. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• re: national press; touring - As already mentioned in the article, there is the HeartattaCk column about their lyrics. Also, their appearence at Denver Fest is mentioned in AP. Their tour dates have been mentioned in the press, and you can see they've played in Los Angeles, Eugene, Oregon, Portland, Oregon, and Washington. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • observations/queries:
    1. I'm no punk rocker so I'd like to know if the list of Denver Fest artists contain many examples of artists that clearly meet WP:MUSIC.
    2. In a number of the above they appear to be 2nd or 3rd on the bill.
    3. One venue that they have played, Luckey's Club Cigar Store, does have an (orphaned) article, though it is not an obviously notable club.
    4. One venue does seem obviously notable to me, The Nightlight Lounge of Bellingham, Washington. -MrFizyx 01:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The question is up to the reader whether these qualify as "multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" and a "national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country" according to WP:MUSIC. I think that's what this essentially comes down to. Halo 11:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, PT, I have checked all the links that you have supplied, but you have not quite persuaded me that this article meets WP:MUSIC. I'm not persuaded that the series of gigs in the south and West of the USA counts as a "national tour", and their presence in listings doesn't count for me as non-trivial coverage. The other articles are all local (to their state of Arizona), and most time out or require registration to read, so I can't rate them. Not appearing on allmusic.com doesn't help their case, and nor does the paucity of ghits. As others have said, they may become more noteable in future, but they aren't there yet. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm a little surprised that people are discounting the sources as unreliable because they don't want to take the time to read them. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • PT, this discussion would be much more productive if you were to try a bit harder to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, as requested above by Halo. First, most of the "references" you supplied are trivial, which doesn't encourage anyone to pursue the whole lot; secondly, the two which were unavailable were both local to the band's home town. If you reread my comment, I did not dismiss them as unreliable, but based on their loaction, I do question their relevance as sole planks for a notability claim. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 08:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not quite yet meet the notability requirements of WP:BAND, and the sources provided are not of a quality and/or quantity that would meet WP:V. -- Satori Son 01:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Certianly some of the sources meet WP:V, the article in the Arizona Republic for example... -MrFizyx 01:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... again. Sorry, PT. No go. -- Kicking222 01:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete They seem close, sort of near the grey area of WP:MUSIC, but I can't really find evidence that they meet the spirit of the guideline. GassyGuy 02:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, seems marginally notable and is referenced. Everyking 04:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, this one really is on the razor's edge, almost-there in numerous ways, and I almost feel they're being penalized for living in a country that's too large (they've toured in an area much larger than most "medium-sized countries"). But I also see no reason why they can't wait a little while to have an article. Unless something unexpected happens, they'll surely qualify soon, and the article can be recreated at that point. I counsel patience. Xtifr _tälk 05:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cribcage 05:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails the last.fm test with 131 listeners. They seem to be a hardworking local band. Maybe next year. --Dhartung | Talk 07:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Last.fm is not Wikipedia policy; WP:MUSIC is, and I have demonstrated how this article meets it. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Erm... WP:MUSIC is not policy - it's a notability criteria guideline. People are able to completely ignore it if they wish, and judge the band on their own merits and criteria for notability... it's just that a lot of people /do/ follow it as it usually makes life easier. Also please consider WP:IAR. Halo 22:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Isn't that having it both ways? For an editor to tell me the article must be deleted because it doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, and then when I show how it does, to be told that WP:MUSIC isn't a policy, so we should delete it anyway? PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
        • • It's a well established /guideline/ for establishing notability, something that is key to Wikipedia. However, it's not policy - indeed, you can cite reasons outside WP:MUSIC. It's just that /a lot/ of people use WP:MUSIC for establishing notability, and if you don't reach it you're likely to get a lot of delete votes as it's a fairly reliable catch-all even if it's not perfect. That said, you're right - it can work both ways and someone is perfectly entitled to vote Keep despite a band not reaching WP:MUSIC. -Halo 20:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:MUSIC is not fufilled to my liking. Someone seems to be having some WP:OWN issues... Daniel.Bryant 09:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be the case if I were trying to stop people from editing it. I'm not. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• [Leaning Delete (ed. Fzx)]: Doesn't really meet the music notability guidelines. My main objection is the lack of an album, which I think is a good benchmark for judging a band's visibility. I'm leaning towards delete. --Slowking Man 09:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Vyse 13:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh... the nominator abstained. MrFizyx 16:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • True, pardon me. per Tony Fox Vyse
• Keep - I think the media attention and presence of national dates is sufficient in this case. Hard to say why we have to keep dealing with this, just letting it be would sure save a lot of our time, and also, be in the spirit of Wikipedia. snug 15:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "The spirit of Wikipedia" does not cover "let non-notable entities have articles because its easier than having repeated AfDs". EVula 16:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • But the entity is notable, as defined by WP:MUSIC. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Obviously, that is a point of contention, but my statement still stands (divorce yourself from your emotion investment in this particular matter and imagine it addressing a different article entirely, and you may see the validity of what I said). EVula 19:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
        • This has nothing to do with emotion. Please don't try to provoke a bad faith argument. I have citations, sources, and WP:MUSIC criteria on my side. I am not certain the motivation for deleting this article, when all the reasons people bring up are proven untrue by everything I have actually put in the article. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
          • *sigh* I'm not trying to provoke you into anything. I'm just going to end my involvement in this particular fork of the discussion, rather than actually risk provoking you. EVula 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
            • That's fine. All I'm trying to provoke here is for people to actually read the article, note the citations, how they verify assertions of notability, and investigate the sources if they're still dissatisfied for some reason. See WP:OSTRICH for a further explanation of this. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Notability here is borderline. I can understand and respect those wishing to delete, but if the spirit of WP:MUSIC is to weed out little brats with MySpace pages and not to marginalize indy music then I feel we are being overzealous. Still, they should meet the letter of at least one of the criteria, here is my read at this time:
  1. Their tours fail as they have yet to travel the entire US...though a similar region in any "medium-sized" country would be "national".
  2. Their albums fail because they are not on a label...though they are part of a collective and are reported to soon have a release on a significant label (the last bit being unsubstatiated).
  3. "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media...(university newspapers are usually fine)" This one I think they may pass based on the article in the Arizona Republic and the award in the Phoenix New Times. There are also other borderline press mentions in various college papers and offline content that I can't review in the popular zine heart attaCk.
  4. All other criteria, they clearly fail at this time. Thus I would suggest we pass them based on # 3 alone. This may seem very generous. The alternative seems to be to delete now and return to debate 1, 2, 3 and possibly other issues all over again. I can live with either of these, but as snug suggests, why spend further time. -MrFizyx 17:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Assuming MrFizyx's analysis is correct, the Arizona Republic "article" is a calendar entry appears to be a concert review, which is not a non-trivial article and the Phoenix New Times article is a local "best-of" for a year for an undetermined categorization "BEST HOLY LOCAL BAND". Who knows if there's more than one? (I read the article and some of this AfD, but not all....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The AZ Republic article is not a concert review. I don't know where you're getting that. It's an article about the band. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It is possible I'm very wrong about this, but I thought the "Holy" in the "title" of the award was to fit their Best of 2006 theme and because of the "Jihad" thing. I cannot say for certian whether or not this was a continuation of a series that included Best local band 2003, Best local band 2004... -MrFizyx 19:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe you're on track with the theme of the issue being the reason for the designation. They chose a few different sorts of bands and awards, I believe they are expanding to be more like the paper they just bought out, the Village Voice. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per BrownHairedGirl, Arthur Rubin, Halo, et al. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, based on the MrFizyx analysis, except that I consider criteria three to be a fail instead of a pass. Even with one more source on top of the one bit of nontrivial coverage, I would tend to disagree that multiple has to mean two. It would really depend on the quality of the extra source, though. Erechtheus 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • LINKS TO BORDERLINE PRESS COVERAGE--I left these out in my statement above: (1)Here is google's cache of the ASU News article that now requires log-in. (2) PT has copied content from another article that was no longer viewable here. (3)This was in College Times whatever that is. (4)The zine, heart attaCk has a better distribution than some small newspapers, but unless someone has a copy of issue #49.... I'll let others decide if these are trivial/non-trivial, just take a deep breath, keep an open mind, etc. -MrFizyx 23:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Thank you for sharing that information. I had seen items 1 and 3 and do not find them compelling. Now that I have seen 2, I do not find it compelling, either. I don't have this offline source in question to say anything about it. For me, this article is still in delete territory. Erechtheus 23:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: You're welcome. I'm not sure what the criteria may be for "compelling" press coverage, but the author has included more than three cites to sources that are verifiable secondary sources (several having paper and online avialability). I still count at least three that are not "schedule mentions" (as the ones cited by Tony Fox) nor concert reviews (as claimed by Arthur Rubin).[35][36][37] Hence, I'm still willing to extend a "keep". There does seem to be some growing consensus here that the limited geographic scope of the sources is problematic and that WP:MUSIC is intended to focus the encyclopedia on acts of national stature. I disagree, but realize this is a perfectly reasonable position. It is not, however, part of the current guideline and I would encourage those who feel it should be to take it up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). -MrFizyx 19:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - My opinion that this article's sources meet WP:MUSIC has not changed. And, just for the record, no one told me about this new AfD. - Lex 23:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per everyone above, viz.: fails WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus 13:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Media mentions are trivial, fails WP:MUSIC. Comment PssssT, it's great to be passionate but sometimes you just have to let it go. Backchatting practically every opinion, especially ones from time-served battle-hardened veterans who know the chorus and verse of WP:XYZ off by heart, does not an edifying spectacle make. Much love, Deizio talk 22:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why should I let it go? After four AfDs and a deletion review, other editors haven't. All I have done is follow the rules, write an article based on WP:MUSIC, and see it targeted for deletion again and again. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Here's a run-down of the paragraphs in the article, and whether they meet WP:MUSIC: 1. No; 2. Changing line-ups → No; 3. Scraping for scraps → No; 4. weasel words → No; 5. No; 6. I'm guessing opening slot here → No; 7. "Western U.S.", "basement" → No; 8. No; 9.-Discography. No; Notes. If local college dailies and alt-weeklies is the best ocverage they got → No. In summary: not notable. ~ trialsanderrors 03:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I find these comments a bit snarky, T&E. "Scraping for scraps"? I really don't understand the mean-spiritedness of those editors calling for deletion (not all, but most). PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This does not fulfill WP:MUSIC. It is a clear case. --BenWoodruff 17:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If it's such a "clear case," this wouldn't be the fourth AfD for this article. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not really accurate... the first AFD was voted "delete", the second was "No Consensus" after recreation and the third was voluntarily withdrawn. -Halo 20:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The band isn't just notable enough, according to WP:MUSIC. It's only an article at the end of the day. Recreate when there are enough references and the band is more notable. CloudNine 18:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. As for reliable sources, I really don't see one. The ASU article is expressly out per WP:MUSIC: "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)." The AZ Night Buzz is a blog. And the College Times? Definitely not something I would consider reliable. The article in the Phoenix New Times is not displaying for me, so I am unable to judge the content of the article itself, but the publication as a whole is a local paper for a large city, but it is still not a far reaching paper, leaving its value rather limited as well. Even if these articles were considered to be reliable sources, the next question is, would this band meet WP:MUSIC? They have not gone on a national tour. They have toured a portion of the U.S. They don't have two or more albums on a major label, no major music competition, no major award, they aren't getting radio time, and they don't have any independently notable members. As for "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city...", I see nothing to support that argument, even with the sources given. So with or without the sources given, I believe this band does not meet WP:MUSIC and should be deleted. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 18:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • From what I understand, "school newspapers" means high school papers, not university ones. Phoenix New Times and Arizona Republic should definitely be considered reliable. They do happen to be getting radio time, but I didn't bother including that since I don't know how I would find a source for it (Los Angeles radioplay, from what I understand). The New Times awards should be support enough for the last argument you mention. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Parsssseltongue blanked the article and talk page and marked them for speedy deletion. I've reversed this even so this discussion can be continued here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As with the previous commentations and of WP:MUSIC, this band just doesn't have enough publicity to warrant its own article.--WaltCip 13:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)