Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 1

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winter Olympics 2026

Wp:not Eyui 03:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for crystal balling. If Connemara doesn't already have a mention of its potential bid, it might be a useful inclusion there (although I'll leave a decision about including a sentence of speculation backed up by a not-entirely-seriously-written website up to someone else). BigHaz 03:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. »ctails!« =hello?= 04:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, recreate in some years. Punkmorten 08:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Connemara! The futures market in snow has just exploded at the news. Dlyons493 Talk 11:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Subwayguy 21:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until there is a bidding process or something to write about. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Cynical 22:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete until there's something more substantial. In the unlikely event of it being kept, move to 2026 Winter Olympics as per all similar articles. I strongly suspect hoax, though. Connemara's hardly the winter playground of Western Europe. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete —Khoikhoi 01:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete way too soon to have an article like that... --Hectorian 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Premature. (Wasn't this already AFD'd a few weeks ago?) 23skidoo 01:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, way too far ahead. Perhaps later. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 03:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for now. Prolog 20:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CozyBoots.com

Spam Eyui 03:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. No notability is asserted whatsoever, and it reads like an advertisement. But did we really need to bring this to afd? A prod tag would've done the trick, in my opinion. Picaroon9288•talk 04:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Advert Nigel ^(Talk) 13:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM - Blood red sandman 15:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funkitron, Inc.

See prior AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funkitron

• non-notable company Eyui 03:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Wickethewok 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• PLEASE Do not delete. This is one of the major publishers of casual games on the internet. Scrabble was one of the first licensed games to be made into a casual game download. Scrabble Blast is one of the top played games on MSN. Poker Superstars is the top texas hold 'em game on the download sites. Slingo Deluxe is one of the top selling games in the download market. Dave635
  • Comment Dave365 is the creator of the page in question. Sparsefarce 22:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not as per nom, but because the article seems to be more of an advertisement for this company. --Dennis The TIger 05:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Yes. It either needs to be rewritten or deleted. Certainly reads like advertisement.- ResurgamII 12:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Article has been rewritten and added to. Dave635 18:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Article's writing style follows convention found in other companies in space: Silver_Creek_Entertainment PopCap_GamesDave635 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Interview with Founder on Gamezebo - top casual game site: [3]Dave635 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is similar to other companies in the space. Silver_Creek_Entertainment PopCap_Games

A few examples of top selling game status of Funkitron games Poker Superstars: [4] Scrabble: [5] Scrabble Blast: [6] Scrabble, Slingo: [7] Poker Superstars Top Favorite: [8]

One of the top companies in the space and sponsor of Casuality (top convention in space) [9]

PR: [10] [11]

Other places on the net that list funkitron: [12] [13]

Dave635 11:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Same article as the one previously deleted [14], plus two sentences. This is not a rewrite. ~ trialsanderrors 17:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Dave635, you are right to defend yourself, but it would be better form to place the comments in line with people's suggestions to delete. Placing this up top is a bit cluttersome. --Dennis The TIger 04:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I slapped a speedy deletion tag on it. --Peephole 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Article was deleted sometime today. Time to archive this discussion. --Dennis The TIger 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SwapAce.com

non-notable websites Eyui 03:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no reliable/third party sources. Wickethewok 13:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - 3rd party sources include 2 of the biggest business magazines in Australia. References given in article. Actual publication material is held under copyright by the respecive magazines and cannot be reproduced without permission, but can be given as proof of reliability upon request Neverlosty 03:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the site is significant enough to warrant an entry, surely. Add to that the 3rd party sources mentioned above as well as being awarded a government grant. Littlegrasshoppa 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

New Note

I am not quite sure how wikipedia works, but from my breif reading on the policies, wouldn't the following awards and accolades be significant to warrant representation? For example, there are a number of independent sources that have recognised this as being significant (e.g. the Australian Government, business magazines, prominent competitions). I would think that receiving a governement grant and being recognised as one of the "top 10 coolest comapanies" in all of Australia (by a respected source) would be something that would be remembered in the future. Also that fact that there is over 150,000 members from over 140 countries is significant.

Awards and Accolades

• On the 20th of March 2006, SwapAce.com was awarded a grant by the Australian Federal Government (a COMET grant through AusIndustry). ^[1]
• In August of 2006, SwapAce.com was awarded the prestigious title of being one of the "Top 10 Cool Companies" by Australian Anthill magazine. ^[2]
• In November 2005, SwapAce.com was placed as a finalist in the Secrets of Australian IT Innovation Competition. ^[3]
• In July of 2006, SwapAce.com was recognised as part of an elite group of successful e-entrepreneurs by MyBusiness magazine.^[4]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wasy

Non-notable neologism. Google brings up nothing related. Crystallina 03:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article doesn't seem to have done a good job defining it, which seriously challenges its notability. BigHaz 03:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism, nonsense. JIP | Talk 09:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loser-fucker

Delete neologism and original research. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:NOT a list of things made up one day. Resolute 05:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 05:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• 'Deleted*snicker*--ZayZayEM 14:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I had flagged prod. Samw 16:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO and man, if this is the kind of unoriginal insult Gen Y is coming up with, I pity the fools.--Isotope23 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NFT, WP:NEO. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 03:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR, NEO. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• WTF? this should be speedied, as it has less than no reason to exist. In fact, the article's creator is a Loser-fucker.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 15:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DJ SAY-G

This article claims that the subject is an internationally known DJ who plays in Europe and North America. One would think that such a high-profile DJ would have some sort of reliable sources talking about him. Well, a search came up with a total of 260 Google hits, only 18 of which showed outside of the "similar articles" selection. [15] These articles are MySpace pages, the artist's websites, and listings of DJs, as well as a couple of articles in (apparently) German that don't seem to be of substance. Thus, I feel that verification is lacking for this article. Looking at WP:MUSIC, about the only guideline that might be met would be the appearances in North America and Europe - but again, there are no reliable sources that I've managed to turn up referring to them. So, again, I don't believe the artist meets the guidelines at all, despite the claims of notability in the article itself. Finally, the editor who has done most of the work on this article is Most Wanted Club - which happens to be the name of the subject's business. Thus I smell an advertisement attempt, and at very least a failure of vanity guidelines. Delete unless someone can magic up some sources proving anything in it. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"This article claims that the subject is an internationally known DJ who plays in Europe and North America."

THE ARTICLE DOES NOT CLAIM THIS !!! The only point the article refers to is that DJ SAY-G is booked in several countries. This does not mean that he (or whoever worte this text) claims to be internationally FAMOUS or KNOWN all over.

" 260 Google"

My research resulted in more results. However, this again does not deny any fact of the text given. As long as I understand the text, there is no phrase saying DJ SAY-G rules the Google Hits, nore doe sit represent his networking among international club promoters.

"appearances in North America and Europe - but again, there are no reliable sources that I've managed to turn up referring to them"

I don't know the company, but I think you can request a list of club references from Most Wanted Club Ent. with RELIABLE sources, such as telephone numbers to call and ask...

"User Name"

>>> this really lacks proof...anybody can choose any name to edit !!! Imagine you were a representative of the company and somebody judges you because of somebody chose your name.

" Thus I smell an advertisement attempt"

I don't see any advertisement attempt. It is an infomative text.

FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW, IT'S A OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO !!!

NO NEED TO DELETE !!!

James Nickels —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Nickels (talk • contribs) - this editor has two edits, one here and one to the article being considered. I've refactored comments to move them below the initial deletion reason and eliminate an unnecessary header. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The bottom line here is that there's no proof anywhere that we're being informed about a notable individual as against someone who'd like to be notable. It may not be entirely an ad, but it's not the biography of a notable individual, either, and that's what trumps all. BigHaz 05:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - oh, and for the record a randomly-selected sample of the German sources don't add anything much to what we're dealing with here, so we don't seem to be dealing with someone astronomically famous in the non-Aglophone world but totally unknown within it (just in case anyone's worried). BigHaz 05:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I was indeed wondering about that, but the awful Google translation of a couple pages suggested the same thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Urgh, Google translations. You've got my sympathy on that one, you really do. BigHaz 05:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per BigHaz. Smells like vanity. Resolute 05:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I coincidentially read this page: Are you people, who are critisizing really into Hip Hop? Do you really know the industry? Be conscious...go ask yourself if you are a person, who really knows the DJ industry or a person who is good in Google-research? If so, go delete every DJ here, who has less than 500 Google entries (or you as an expert should tell the number)...

"not to be dealing with someone astronomically famous" >>> If so, go delete the 10 % of Wikipedia people !!!

I agree: there is nothing wrong with the text. NO DELETION !

PLEASE DO NOT OVERESTIMATE YOUR RESEARCH TALENT and I agree: ASK FOR SOURCES from the agency....and see his website for International bookings...

I ask myself if the artist even knows about all this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.96.161.43 (talk • contribs) - IP has exclusively edited the article in question. And removed the AfD tag from the article earlier. Coincidental! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Go read the guidelines that I pointed out in the nomination. Sources, in this case, refer to reliable sources - magazines, newspapers, etc., not the company involved. It's the burden of the article editors to prove notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• In response to the IP (over and above Tony Fox's suggestion), a couple of minor points. It sounds from your comments that you believe that Wikipedia exists to document each and every DJ in the world. We don't. We exist to document each and every DJ (or singer, ski jumper, politician, doctor etc etc) who is actually notable. There is no indication on this DJ's article or on Google that he is in fact notable. If there are other DJs listed on Wikipedia who are not notable, then they stand a high chance of being deleted as well - the fact that they're here at the moment doesn't mean that they should be, it just means that nobody's put them up for deletion yet. What I said about "dealing with someone astronomically famous" was because of the fact that some of the pages which Google threw up as results were in German. Therefore, one might wonder if DJ SAY-G was perhaps very famous in Germany but not in the rest of the world (yes, this does happen every now and then, someone very famous in one country is nominated for deletion because he/she doesn't appear famous to someone in another country). However, because I speak German, I was able to read the pages in German and determine that not only is he not notable in English, neither is he notable in German. BigHaz 07:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom (no reliable sources/WP:V). Looks like vanity/spam as well.Wickethewok 13:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator's research and reasoning. To the anon: impassioned pleas (with ALL CAPS and exclamation points!!!) to keep an article rarely work, and indeed can often backfire. Please keep this in mind. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lacks reliable sources WilyD 14:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Deleted Vanity.--ZayZayEM 15:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 'tis but vanity Marcus22 17:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom --RMHED 21:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Oy -- that photo. Robertissimo 02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the very convincing arguments inadvertantly being made by the original author. A DJ, of all people, who doesn't show up on Google a mere 500 times—a weekend DJ I went out with once three years ago has 860 hits, and she's NN—should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a place for people to achieve notability. Comments along the lines of "ask him, ask his agent" miss the point. If he were notable, we wouldn't need to ask his own flack about him. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Pork product - no more, no less. Terminate with eXtreme Prejudice. Cain Mosni 14:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MPickIt

No sourcing, no reviews, no notability TerriersFan 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - No reliable sources given, found. Doesn't sound like a very fun game either... Wickethewok 13:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--ZayZayEM 15:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 but some strong arguments for delete so a future relisting is a distinct possibility depending on other factors relating to the character. Please note this article has been moved to Steel Chambers while the AfD was in progress.Tyrenius 21:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dark Enforcer

The character is not notable separately from the main Who Wants to Be a Superhero? article. There's nothing to the article that isn't already covered in the show's article. If the character should feature in either the comic or the movie based on the series then the article can be recreated but for now the article should be deleted. Otto4711 04:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

the dark enforcer was notable in his own right just as every characher from the show not just feedback the winner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.25.96 (talk • contribs)

• Delete - Not notable enough for an article. A brief mention in the main article is all that is needed imo. Wickethewok 13:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - TV title page is large enough that it does not warrant the inclusion of this article, as this article can stand alone. notable enough subject.--ZayZayEM 15:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Not only a character on the TV show, but also a villian in Feedback's comic.--Unopeneddoor 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-The character stands out from the others because he was the only one who, even after being eliminated, remained on the series. He is probably going to be featured in Feedback's comic book, and therefore, he is noteable. Also, Steel Chambers' created Iron Enforcer, but Stan Lee helped to come up with the idea off Dark Enforcer...therefore, he is a character in the Marvel Comics Universe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colorblinddj (talk • contribs) 21:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The character is not part of the Marvel Universe. If the character even appears in the Feedback comic, something that's far from a settled question and thus irrelevant to the character's notability, he would be part of the Dark Horse universe. Otto4711 21:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per Wickethewok.-Kmaguir1 08:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep He was featured in both trailers of the superheroes, therefore it shows he is a main character.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.150.206 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Assuming he gets mentioned in the TV show and Feedback's comic he is probably notable. Otherwise, I'm not certain that's the case.PaleAqua 21:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, even probably noteworthy outside of the show. Regardless, reality contestants? Absolutely worth having articles, all of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Hate to be a tool and down on someone else's article, but this person is not notible enough for an article. Being on a reality show, especially Who Wants to be a Superhero? does not yield the notibility for an article. Further, he is not a comics villain. The user(s) who made his article simply added the SHB incorrectly. Note that he's classified as a DC comics character. This is likely an error based on the similarity between the villain color and DC's color. (Don't get me started on how wrong that similarity is.) He was in the fake—I say, FAKE!—trailers because they didn't have anyone else to use. Viewers will note the other "villains" "problems" were "Chickman-man" (a giant baby chick) a fake asteroid and several pieces of footage ripped from other sci fi originals. These weren't perspective trailers for their possible sci fi films by any means. Finally, he appeared in his non-villainous costume at the end to congratulate Feedback. Feedback himself doesn't consider him his enemy. Bottomline, all we need is one article for the winner, who is and will be notible. That's not POV, either. These characters aren't even described in the reality show article. Honestly...I hate to say it, but if I've seen fancruft, this is it. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep-there is talk online that he is gonna be in the movie, so keep it—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.143.85 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC).
• Comment: "Talk online"? Where? A forum. Bah to that. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I suggest Feedback has his own page, and all the rest get one "Who Want to be a Superhero? Characters" page. Ace ofspade 20:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Steel Chamber's MySpace has made hints about the movie.

MySpace a credible source? DrWho42 23:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Steel Chambers runs the MySpace.
• Delete--Page about an minor aspect of a reality show actor; would be more purposeful to make a page for the actor, in my opinion. -Shannernanner 07:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Who Wants to Be a Superhero?. Someone will just recreate it if you delete it. But yeah, it's not even slightly noteworthy, and can all be summarised in the main article in a line or two. At the moment this is just a plot summary for a reality TV show. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - He was the second biggest if not the most important character on the Who wants to be a Superhero? show and is most likely to appear in the comic and movie b/c all heros need a supervillain and Stan personally handpicked this man to be that supervillain.
• Comment: New posts at the bottom, okay? Also, it was performance on a reality show. They hired actors as prisons, too. You think they'll call Dot back and draw her into ther comic? Gees. I'm sorry for 'tude here, guys, but am I the only realist around? How old are you people? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I withdraw the nomination, since it's clear that the fanboys outnumber the rationalists. Otto4711 21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Damn. Well, we can always resubmit when their interest dies down. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 22:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No one's explained why his significance to the show makes him notable. The original proposal still stands despite those arguments, doesn't it? It's not a vote. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Good point. He's still just a fictional persona developed specifically for a reality show. There's no solid confirmation he'll be appearing outside that format and, if anything, his finally appearance without the villain costume could imply that they're actually done with him. Whatever the result, I'm game for seeing this through. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 23:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disorders of Sex Development

Copy of [16]. Wikipedia is not a speech repository. Besides, the copyright is troubling; it's licensed as noncommercial, which is incompatible with GFDL. Finally, WP:NOR, and non-notable. Melchoir 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, blatant copyvio. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's a candidate for {{db-copyvio}}. And I'd rather not take it to Copyright Problems, because the author might just change the license. Let's just say it doesn't belong here from the start. Melchoir 04:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research (and a speech, which counts as being an essay and exceptionally difficult to NPOV-ise). BigHaz 05:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there does seem to be some valid content in here but anything worthwhile could be incorporated in current pages. Nigel ^(Talk) 13:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- shouldn't notable disorders have their own pages, and even a category?--ZayZayEM 15:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Category:Intersexuality covers several. Melchoir 15:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete source dump. Gazpacho 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Night Gyr, but also NN, opinion not fact, "etc. etc. etc." (as per Yul Brynner)... Cain Mosni 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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.--Andeh 10:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mack Lunn

Vanity page on non-notable college student Dsreyn 04:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete nn-bio. Danny Lilithborne 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Sppedy delete per Danny Lilithborne. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Sppedy/Speedy delete per Danny Lilithborne. Sens08 07:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Duke Nukem 3D. BaseballBaby 05:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duke Nukem 3D Total Conversions

This article is just regurgitated information that was copied from the main Duke Nukem 3D article. The subject in question doesn't need its own article, the content isn't unique, and the article is orphaned on top of it. Therefore, it should be deleted. TerminX 04:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 09:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Altair 18:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn game mod. Recury 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back into Duke Nukem 3D Cynical 22:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge back Nothing wrong with this in principle, btu there isn't enough content to justify a split. Ace of Sevens 07:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that it isn't verifiable and including that much info in the main article on it would be poor balance anyway. Recury 14:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into appropriate Duke Nukem article --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Ace of Sevens. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 03:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Don't seem to be any third party sources. Wickethewok 20:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South African Theological Seminary

Some type of "distance learning" institution in South Africa. Reads like a diploma mill the way it dances around the question of accredation. There are no sources other than the school's website itself and it doesn't seem particularly notable. It reads like a total advertisement, and that would be fundamentally difficult to cleanup because this article can't be written without using the SATS website as a source. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless rewritten. It does seem to accredited for distance education by the CHE but the article needs to be cut drastically. Dlyons493 Talk 11:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nonnotable vanity page and possible fraud. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 23:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, all WP:V information on this group is already in List of collegiate a cappella groups and there is thus nothing to merge. --- Deville (Talk) 02:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redefined

Non-notable college a cappella group. Only claim to notability is: "They achieved minor internet fame when a video of them performing a medley of Nintendo theme music was released." No meaningful media coverage, no competitions, nothing. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, nothing WP:V to merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups --- Deville (Talk) 02:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iowa Intersection

Non-notable college a cappella group. Best claim to notability is a Valentines Day gig at their own University. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Stereotypes

Non-notable college a cappella group. Only out of campus claim to notability is an alleged sideshow performance an ESPN dunk contest. Page primarily contains inside jokes and an appeal for prospective members to join. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. BigHaz 05:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Some of Wash U's acappella groups are notable, but not this one. Carom 18:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This page has been cleaned up and should no longer be marked for deletion.

The cleanup is an improvement but doesn't address the notability concerns. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result wasDelete, this is a copyvio. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bangalore Hotels

Part travel guide, rest Vanispamcruftisement. Originally prodded, tag removed by author. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 05:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per copyvio [ezinearticles.com/?cat=Travel-and-Leisure:Vacation-Rentals] Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per above. Been on-wiki too long for db-copyvio, unfortunately. Luna Santin 03:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per betacommand. Look how many google hits I get for a search of a random piece of the article: [17]. It is obviously a copyvio and also looks like an advert. GeorgeMoney (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Concept Chinese

Advertisement for a non-notable product line. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 06:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: as lacks independent press coverage or other evidence of independent verifiability. Stephen B Streater 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nightshade (ensemble)

Non-notable college a cappella group. Only claim to notability is having recieved guidance from a member of the marginally-notable King's Singers.savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. No third party reliable sources of any note found on this either. Wickethewok 13:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Since when are the King's Singers "marginally-notable?" They're probably the most famous classical a cappella ensemble in the United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HollyWeis (talk • contribs) .

  That comment would be more convincing if a citation or link to an independent reliable source was added to the article, or alternatively here. GRBerry 02:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence or assertion of meeting any of the criteria at WP:MUSIC and no links to any independent reliable sources. GRBerry 02:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted Thryduulf 08:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anders Kravis

Vanity page of non-notable person. Zero Google hits. Speedy deleted repeatedly and repeatedly brought back, so I'm bringing it here for some permanance. Delete and Protect from Recreation is my vote. Danny Lilithborne 05:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also nominated under this AfD:

• Anders c. Kravis

Not the above is now a redirect to the Anders Kravis page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both, particularly the second one with the middle initial he apparently doesn't have. BigHaz 05:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and protect.TheRingess 05:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, hoax and nonsense, protect the page, and ban the user --ArmadilloFromHell 05:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, as info already in merge target. JPD (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cardinal Sinners

Non-notable college a cappella group. Claim to notability is a dubious claiam that they are "pushing the boundaries of contemporary a-cappella music." savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Merge, if such an AfD resolution exists. otherwise, Delete - Blood red sandman 15:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:BAND. No sources per WP:V. (Entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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/redirect. Xoloz 00:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandy Taal

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability outside a several performances at their own Vanderbilt University. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As I have now added, the group is quite notable and has been contacted by many other groups across the country and the world. The Oxford Alternotives performed a tour in the U.S. and chose Vandy Taal as an a cappella group to perform with. Even though the Alternotives only sing Western music, they passed on the chance to perform with Vanderbilt's other a cappella groups and instead chose Vandy Taal. Other universities have also contacted the group, but because of financial and scheduling reasons beyond the control of Vandy Taal, the group is currently unable to travel for performances while maintaining enough money to record its songs. However, the group is currently working for an increased budget from Vanderbilt University and hopes to attain the financial means to travel off campus for performances. Docatur 23:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of collegiate a cappella groups. Despite Docatur's claims, none of this is backed up in reliable sources. Mangojuice^talk 14:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, info already at merge target. JPD (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Onoscatopoeia

Non-notable college a cappella group. Only claim to notability is hosting a concert for other non-notable groups. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Flying Jazz 23:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Armon 16:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No sources per WP:V. (No need to merge; entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dee Margo

A7, Unremarkable person/vanity page - Subject is little more than a political candidate. Somnabot 05:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable. This is not a CSD A7 because it asserts notability. MER-C 08:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Subject just as notable as several other persons with Wikipedia articles, inluding Robert Arter and John W. Creighton, Jr., if for nothing else than their terms as appointed aides to the Secretary of the Army. Stampedem 09:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

i agree that this is set up as a vanity page and should be completely rewritten without such bias; however, i am not convinced that he doesn't "deserve" a wikipedia entry given his appointments and political clout.Desert boy 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• I dislike pages created because someone is a candidate, because (until they win) they're usually of minor interest and frequently they become targets of people with an agenda. I think it's best for the project to delete such pages in general, and this one in particular. Friday (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete When a candidate for political office achieves that office, they have a good likelihood of being sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Until that time... nn. Marcus22 17:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Dances around the question of whether or not he's the Republican nominee, doesn't it? JCScaliger 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. wikipediatrix 14:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 List of collegiate a cappella groups. Mangojuice^talk 14:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G-Tones

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability other than performing 1-3 concerts on their own campus per semester. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:BAND. No sources per WP:V. (Entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted Thryduulf 08:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chattertocks

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability other than a "high standard of musical excellence." savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - CSD A7. Playing at a "high standard of musical excellence" isn't an assertion of notability at all. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Admittedly, by strict tally, this argument is on the verge of being "no consensus." Considering that the keep arguments fail to engage on matters of policy (deferring instead to personal beliefs regarding the site's quality), the strength of argument weighs in favoring of deletion. The complete lack of reliable sources decides the matter; but, I will happily userfy for anyone willing to search out such reliable sources. Xoloz 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wacky World of Erotic Cartoons

This article features no serious claim to (or proof for) notability for this website as required by WP:WEB. Although it has an Alexa ranking of 20,814, it does not appear to have any noteworthy Google coverage (516 hits, mostly from porn sites). Contested prod. Sandstein 05:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, this is one of the very few nice cartoon porn sites. Most of them are forgettable rubbish. JIP | Talk 09:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What bearing does this assertion have on the site's notability per WP:WEB? As far as I know, we do not judge our articles based on the merits of the subject, but on its notability. Sandstein 11:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen many other, less professional cartoon porn sites steal images from WWOEC. WWOEC seems to be one of the few cartoon porn sites that creates porn pictures instead of simply propagating them. JIP | Talk 16:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, I'm sure, but that still isn't a notability criterium per WP:WEB - and do you happen to have any reliable sources for your assertions? Sandstein 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, I think WWOEC has some notability in certain circles. Absolutely not mine. Not that there's anything wrong with it (actually some parts of WWOEC I think are actually pretty wrong - but its still a bit notable).--ZayZayEM 14:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, everything has "some notability in certain circles", if the circles are sufficiently narrow. We're looking for notability per WP:WEB, however, backed up by reliable sources and not by unsourced assertions. Sandstein 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, seems notable. Google != WP deletion policy Cynical 22:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment these reasons being listed for keeping the article are not good. It really shouldn't be kept unless someone can find reliable sources showing that it meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. I couldn't find any in a quick google search, perhaps someone else can. --Xyzzyplugh 09:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet criteria of WP:WEB, and, more importantly, no "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per WP:V. Also, reads somewhat like WP:ADVERT. --Satori Son 15:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This AfD should be closed already. I would close it myself as "no consensus", but I have vested interest in the AfD myself, as a fan of WWOEC's art (well, some of it). JIP | Talk 17:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose relisting it, as there has been little policy-based discussion so far. Sandstein 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, JIP | Talk 20:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Satori Son. No reliable sources are present to establish any notability. Without sources it fails WP:WEB, but I would be happy to change my opinion if some sources are provided. DrunkenSmurf 20:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Sandstein. Neither notable nor verifiable. Valrith 20:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Google gets alot of hits and the simple size of the community and the fact that it generates art work seems to make it notable for to me. It needs clean up but it doesn't need to get deleted. A solution could be to merge parts of the article and a link into an "erotic cartoons" type article if an appropriate one can be found. NeoFreak 20:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The problem is although it may seem notable, Wikipedia articles require sources to validate those claims. If you found some reliable sources that establish notability for this site from the google hits you are talking about, please add them. Again, I would be happy to change my opinion if you do that. DrunkenSmurf 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Well Google bases its hits ranking off the number of webpages that link to the site which is why Google is often used as a yardstick of sorts to determine Notability. Like I said the sheer number of those hits and the number of participating artists is reason enough for me. Like I said though it's just my opinion. I'll see what I can't do to find some other legit sources to cite to back it up some more. NeoFreak 20:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. It does seem fairly popular, but I don't see any reliable third-party coverage that we could verifably base an encyclopedia article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "The primary criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Regardless of its supposed popularity, it shows no real evidence of that. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and Mr. Lefty. If we have nothing to make an article out of, we have no article. William Pietri 23:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 -- Samir धर्म 05:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noteworthy (a cappella group)

Non-notable college a cappella group. Only claims to notability (other than their name) are competing in (but not winning) the ICCA and the dubious and unreferenced claim that they are the only group that performs original material. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

(The claim, more accurately, is that they perform only original material, i.e. they write everything they perform. This is very different claim from the one you state, Savidan. Please read the article carefully before trying to make a decision, guys.)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (Merge is really a Keep since it allows the author to recreate). Fails WP:MUSIC. BlueValour 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete long and reasonably well-written article, but nn regardless Paul 20:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Armon 16:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Abstaining since as an alumnus I am quite biased, but at least verifying the claim of being the only collegiate group performing all-original a cappella music. See below. (Not a registered Wikipedia user) 19:18, 8 September 2006 UTC

The people responding are experts who would know the state of the a cappella world. They are the president of the Contempory A Cappella Society of America, the founder of Mainely A Cappella, and the executive director of the ICCA competition respectively:

Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 11:16:04 -0700
From: Deke Sharon <deke@totalvocal.com>
To: Don Gooding <don@a-cappella.com>
Cc: Amanda Grish <agrish@varsityvocals.com>, Michael Barrientos <mbarrien@OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: Any college a cappella groups that perform all-original music?

Mike,

Other than Stanford Fleet Street's recent album of all original music (which
I think was a one-time project, not a permanent direction), I know of
nothing in your all-original league. I think you're safe calling yourselves
the first and only all-original collegiate a cappella group. Congrats!

On Sep 8, 2006, at 6:08 AM, Don Gooding wrote:

> Hi Mike-
>
> I concur with Amanda - I don't know of any others. But Deke would
> indeed be the guy who'd know, as he's the biggest promoter of contemporary
> a cappella groups doing originals.
>
> At 12:24 AM 9/8/2006, Amanda Grish wrote:
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > There are none that I know of personally. Have you talked to Don Gooding or
> > Deke Sharon? They would be your best resource. Don Gooding is "friends" with
> > many a cappella groups on My Space, so he might have a more recent idea.
> > Don?
> >
> > Good luck Mike. Hope we'll be hearing from Noteworthy this year!
> >
> > Amanda
> >
> > On 9/7/06 6:21 PM, "Michael Barrientos" <mbarrien@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm an alumnus of the UC Berkeley a cappella group Noteworthy.
> > > <http://ucchoral.berkeley.edu/ucchoral/nworthy>. The group is trying to
> > > check if the claim is true that they are currently the only a college a
> > > cappella group that performs only original music without any covers. I
> > > figured BOCA would have the best chance of knowing of any other college
> > > groups that exist that do not perform covers of songs.
> > >
> > > To the best of your knowledge, is there any other collegiate group that
> > > you have run into that is performing only their own original music, past
> > > or present? If you cannot answer this question, do you know of other
> > > resources who would know if this is true or not?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > --
> > > Mike Barrientos - mbarrien@cal.berkeley.edu
> > >
> >
> > ___________________________
> > Amanda Grish
> > Varsity Vocals
> > ICCA Executive Director
> > ICHSA Executive Director

I might also argue in this case that Noteworthy may satisfy the following guidelines of WP:MUSIC:

1. Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. (To date, Noteworthy has written and performed 32 original songs. Whether a cappella counts as a notable genre is up for someone to argue.)
2. Has won or placed in a major music competition. (Noteworthy came in 3rd in their competition, and not every group even makes it into the ICCA competition. Whether the ICCA quarter finals qualify as a major music competition is up for someone to argue.)

Thank you for going out of your way to attempt to verify the "all-original" claim. However, private email correspondences do not meet the verifiability standards of Wikipedia. As for the composing songs, that criteria is in the "other" category, i.e. not a criteria for a musical group persay.

The claim about about reaching the "ICCA quarter finals" is not contained in the article (or sourced online as far as I can tell). I would argue that this does not meet that requirement anyway, as the ICCA contains many, many categories of awards, and 8 different groups would reach quarterfinals in each. I don't think that is sufficient. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What falls under the "other" category? Some may argue that a cappella falls "outside of mass media traditions".

If a local newspaper or school newspaper were to make a mention of the all-original claim (I'd have to research, but I'm sure any article on Noteworthy would have mentioned this), would that qualify for verifiability? Once sourced properly, would the only all-original collegiate group be enough to make the group "Noteworthy" enough? (pun fully intended)

As for sourcing the quarter finals thing (which I'll put in the main article if it's kept): http://www.varsityvocals.com/icca/results.shtml - 2006 quarter finals results, West Region, University of Oregon If quarter finals aren't enough.... I guess they'll just have to make it further in this year's ICCAs. :-) (The same guy as before) 12.191.193.147 01:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, info already at merge target. JPD (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mixed Company (Yale University)

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability other than its alleged "integration of top-notch musicianship and between-songs sketch comedy." savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (Merge is really a Keep since it allows the author to recreate). Fails WP:MUSIC. BlueValour 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Armon 16:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No sources per WP:V. (Entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I have deleted this article under the WP:CSD criterion A7. Regards —Encephalon 10:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass Transit (singing group)

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability other than some low-profile concerts in their hometown. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Wikibout-Talk to me! 04:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (Merge is really a Keep since it allows the author to recreate). Fails WP:MUSIC. BlueValour 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Armon 16:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, infor already at merge target. JPD (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mixed Company (Swarthmore College)

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability beyond their own campus. First nomination was not decided on notability, but was the result of a namespace dispute with other groups of the same name. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (Merge is really a Keep since it allows the author to recreate). Fails WP:MUSIC. BlueValour 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Armon 16:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No sources per WP:V. (Entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 List of collegiate a cappella groups. Mangojuice^talk 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Oxford Gargoyles

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability outside of their campus, except for some alleged low-key tours to other colleges. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This Entry I feel this is a valid entry: 1. I have seen many other entries for college a cappella groups that have developed into useful, well-written entries and I see no reason why the Gargoyles entry will not follow suite. 2. The Gargoyles are an a cappella group at Oxford University, one of the top academic institutions in the world, and I would argue that many outside of the Oxford community are indeed concerned with organizations formed within the context of such an important institution. 3. Merely listing the Gargoyles under the list of collegiate a cappella groups would not allow for much background information to be included such as the group's musical style, history, and other general facts. --68.193.181.153 11:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (Merge is really a Keep since it allows the author to recreate). Fails WP:MUSIC. BlueValour 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This Entry I agree that this is a valid entry fitting many of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in its own right. This UK-based group has undertaken two substantial tours to the US, when it visited several major universities, and during one of which it performed on national television (NBC Today programme). It was the first jazz a cappella group formed at Oxford University, and one of the first of its kind in the UK as a whole. As such it has been at the forefront of UK collegiate a cappella, both at home and abroad. Furthermore, in the UK the Gargoyles have appeared on local television and radio on many occasions, and been reviewed in the press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.203.142 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 September 2006

• Comment: If what you say is true, you really need to cite sources either here or in the article. The problems is that all articles are required to have "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per Wikipedia:Verifiability official policy, and this article does not have any. Thanks. --Satori Son 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Article does not assert sufficient notability, and its contents are not verified by third-party sources. Research on my part failed to locate any reputable sources, and thus far none have been produced here. I will revise my opinion if and when that occurs, otherwise deletion is warranted. --Satori Son 14:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 List of collegiate a cappella groups. Note that unlike BlueValour says, this would actually discourage recreation more than removal of the article. Mangojuice^talk 14:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Testostertones

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to notability outside of their campus except for generic low-profile touring. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (Merge is really a Keep since it allows the author to recreate). Fails WP:MUSIC. BlueValour 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No sources per WP:V. (No need to merge; entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I find the nominator's and User:Satori Son's comments compelling. This AFD is hereby closed and the associated page deleted. Regards —Encephalon 10:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kitty's Dish

About a not-notable animated television pilot. "Even though the pilot tested highly with focus groups it was not picked up as a regular series." Originally PRODDED. Prod removed without comment by User:Lesserredpanda. <200 Google hits, not all about subject. Most are about, well cat food, Nancy Reagan and Kitty Kelly. :) Dlohcierekim 05:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Of all the cockamamie BS listed on this site and you want to remove a real animated short created by Disney? One that exists on imdb and links to actors, writers and directors on this very site? Whatever.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.34.244.66 (talk • contribs) :) Dlohcierekim 12:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I nominated for AfD an article about a not notable pilot that was never picked up by anyone. :) Dlohcierekim 12:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This article has been recreated at Disney's Kitty's Dish. :) Dlohcierekim 14:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Listed for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney's Kitty's Dish :) Dlohcierekim 14:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Unproduced pilots are usually not notable. But feel free to nominate the cockamamie BS. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable and lack of third-party sources per WP:V (the only source is IMDB, which has less stringent publishing requirements than Wikipedia's). For example, how are we to verify "the pilot tested highly with focus groups"? Based on the author's contributions here and here, it also seems like WP:VANITY. --Satori Son 12:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restaurant.com

-- - GIen 06:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC) I was going to speedy this however thought I would get some feedback first (so speedy tagged instead of deleting however creator has removed the tags twice - and no doubt would remove a prod). So here we are. No real notability shown in article, in fact it reads like a commercial. Look forward to others feedback - GIen 06:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to delete tags. I was still editing the article and they must have gotten deleted when I pasted revised copies from my Word document. It is my first article and I'm still not exactly sure how this all works.

How can I make it sound less like a commercial? I am just explaining how the site and company works.

[user:Jennifercifuentes]

• Delete - As the nominator indicates, it does appear to be somewhat on the advertising side. I tagged it with a couple of tags asking for notability and sources to be added, but the tags were removed, twice; a Google search came up with this, but I couldn't see any outside sources referring to it. To the creator: what you need to do is review the policies I pointed out on the article talk page, focusing on verifiable, reliable sources, as well as meeting the website and company guidelines. If you do that, I'll gladly reconsider my vote. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The approach to Wiki is not helpful to their cause. Nigel ^(Talk) 13:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While the concept of company-issued coupons as currency is interesting (see Canadian Tire Money), restaurant.com needs a few more reliable sources, such as newspaper and magazine reviews, before it can get validity via WP:WEB. ColourBurst 15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, needs reliable sources, does not meet WP:WEB criteria, advertsising. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 03:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ClubFBC

Non-notable church youth group. --Haakon 06:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable youth group/vanity. Wickethewok 13:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn —Khoikhoi 01:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity spam. Kill with a vengeance. EVula 04:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - socking is futile.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddha in the Boardroom

Non-notable self-published book, seemingly based on a non-notable blog. The advert for the book linked on the page as a source doesn't even have a picture of the book, it has a mock-up of sorts. 'Delete. Mak (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP this is a notable award winning book as seen in MANY business magazines, Television, newspapers written by two award winning business coaches... the book is available at Barnes and Noble and other fine book sellers. This entry is exactly what wikipedia is all about?? Closermac 07:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Closermac

• Keep It Duh. its a well known book.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Closermac (talk • contribs) - Note Second vote in a row from the same user, the author of the article, whose only edits outside this article are repeated attempt to add vanity entries for the book's author. Fan-1967 13:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's an ad. Delete. GMcGath 13:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mak. Non-notable book, non-notable blog, obvious ad. Does the Buddha recommend sockpuppetry? Fan-1967 13:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete per WP:VSCA. book which could not be found on Amazon is probably not notable. Ohconfucius 15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I found a listing on Amazon here, but they don't have a copy (neither does B&N), only a third-party vendor. Sales rank is "None" meaning they've never sold a copy. Fan-1967 15:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--ZayZayEM 15:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have just reverted vandalism of this AFD by an anon IP. Seems some Buddhists are less Buddhist than others. Fan-1967 17:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have just removed comments by fan and GmcGath for reasons of slander and libel and obvious bigotry. attacks based upon personal religious beliefs do not belong here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.7.221 (talk • contribs)

• Comment They have been restored. Under no circumstances do you ever remove another person's comments. To actually change someone else's comments (as you did here) is the height of dishonesty. Fan-1967 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Not to mention the dishonesty of removing my comment (which has been restored) and making false claims about the deleted comment. To put it bluntly, this sock puppet is resorting to smear tactics. GMcGath 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Sadly, not the first time we have seen such tactics from someone claiming to sell enlightenment. Fan-1967 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I may not know all the proper techniques of wiki but you must be joking to think buddha in the boardroom by two award winning authors and a NY Times Best Selling author T. Harv Eker non-notable? You obviously don't know the business books. Just because I don't know albert camus doesn't mean I would delete his entry. Some of your personal comments show this is an obvious attack based on religious belief. This is no place for your racism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.91.82 (talk • contribs)

• Comment I have the greatest admiration for Buddhists and their faith. I also know that honesty is a guiding principle of that belief, which the editor in question clearly does not demonstrate. I thought my meaning was quite clear. Fan-1967 18:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the award that this book/the authors have received is from a fairly non-notable body, as far as I can tell, and even the ad/article doesn't claim that Eker was involved in writing the book, he just has some sort of hand in selling/marketing it. To accuse Fan of racism is just ridiculous. Please stop the sockpuppetry and trolling. Mak (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Although the author may be notable, it is arguable whether every single pieces of his work is notable by association. If the author's book 'Secrets of the Millionaire Mind: Mastering the Inner Game of Wealth' was listed in AfD, I am certain it would fly past as a speedy keep. This one appears to be a mullet. Ohconfucius 07:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment We seem to be losing focus here. If a heretofore undiscovered book by Buddha himself were presented as an advertising blurb as this one is, the article would have to be modified or deleted. Conversely, if the promoter of the book and article hadn't used obvious advertising, vanity links and slanderous attacks, no one would care nearly as much. GMcGath 11:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable book - DavidWBrooks 18:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (Not that it's relevant to the vote, but I wonder if this alleged scam artist from Nashua [18] is the same Keith MacConnell from Nashua?)

Well, since the person who wrote the article keeps adding Keith MacConnell to the Nashua article, I'm guessing it is. Mak (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nashua's not a very big town. There could be two people by that name there, but it's not that common a name. Fan-1967 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• COMMENT Such an Irish name not common in a New England Mill Town?? You must be joking?? In the larger Eastern-Seaboard metropolitan areas, Irish Americans number over 44 million, making them the second largest ethnic group in the country. The Clan MacConnell or McConnell being among the largest of them..—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.37.96 (talk • contribs)

• It's totally irrelevant to the merits of deleting the article, but just to close off the argument, there is only one MacConnell in the Nashua phone book, and it's not a Keith or K. GMcGath 12:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete self-published book and while there is no accepted guideline for books, the claims that would set this above the run-of-the-mill self-published work are unsourced and unverifed. Our friendly neighborhood anon might want to try a bit of meditation...--Isotope23 19:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• KEEPER and pretty obvious one at that as a very quick search on Google, yahoo, MSN and Other SE's return Tens of Thousands of entries associated with this book. Most notable associations are Tony Robbins, T. Harv Eker, The Napolean Hill Foundation, Zig Ziglar, The Associated Press, Trump University and others.

One of the awards shows to be a "Book of the Year" by Writer's Digest Other press associations are Fast Company (magazine), Business 2.0 Magazine, Success etc.. I also noticed that the paper mentioned above Telegraph of Nashua has a review and schedule of author appearances at Barnes and Noble, Borders Group and other Book Sellers and Hippo Press has several entries.

Doesn't appear to get more legit than this? I wonder if the reason for deletion is not the notabilty issue?? Appears to be motivated by character assasination or religious belief as this seems to have taken a nasty turn with personal insults. Based upon notabilty this is an obvious keeper. Sorry about the anon i'm at work and I'll sign in later.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.37.96 (talk • contribs)

• Comments Let's take a few points in order: (1) As far as "tens of thousands" of entries, I find 639 total, about 50 unique. (2) I can't find any source that associates the book in any way with Robbins or Ziglar, so I have to wonder what that claim is based on. (3) It did not win "Book of the Year" as claimed. Writers Digest gave the book one of five Honorable Mentions in the category of self-published inspirational books. A book called Letters to Luke actually won in that category [19]. (4) Of the other claims above, the only one I can verify is Hippo Press, a free weekly paper in Nashua. Fan-1967 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hippo Press did review it. But there was never a review or story in the Nashua Telegraph, just a listing of the author as one of dozens signing at the local B&N (no other store) during a Salute to New Authors Day on April 30, which featured "more than 30" authors in a three-hour stretch. - DavidWBrooks 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP based on relevence and notability even 690 google references sounds pretty good to me! seems to be a few voting for the delete but taking a closer look it appears only a couple people working to rid this one with sockpuppets.. BTW and OS DavidWBrooks.. I'm a looooooong time telegraph subscriber and I read your stuff man.. I was actually turned on to wikipedia by the piece you did on it earlier this month.. Keep up the good work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.4.192 (talk • contribs)

• Additional Comment As I review this more It seems the people who want to delete argue "it's only listed at Barnes and Noble", It's only mentioned in this publication or that, It's only got 690 google references, it's only reviewed by this paper, the telegraph only mentions it for a writers signing at barnes and noble, it's only listed as a third party available on Amazon.. All these onlys add up to a pretty notable work. Far more notable than alot of entries on this site. You better carefully consider your actions as it is probable the next entry you add here will only be half as notable. It seems that the originator didn't realize the merit of this work but mistakes can be forgiven.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.91.82 (talk • contribs)

• Comment The Barnes and Noble web entry says the book is currently unavailable. GMcGath 22:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment One of the attempts to alter existing comments last night came from 24.61.91.82, the same IP address as the above "Additional Comment". This sock puppet is clearly getting desperate. GMcGath 10:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Realistically, it doesn't matter anyway. We have a vanity-published book, listed but not stocked by the major booksellers, no verifiable sales, no verifiable reviews or significant attention from major press outlets. Even if no vandalism had ever occurred in this AFD, the results were inevitable from the beginning. The repeated vandalism just makes everyone involved feel better about deleting it. Fan-1967 13:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom --RMHED 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Closermac Cynical 22:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom, Fan-1967 and DavidWBrooks. A misleading article on a non-notable book. Victoriagirl 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, advertisement, spam. Robertissimo 02:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:VSCA, non-notable book, advertising. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 03:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, that's exactly what Ken Lay needed: the cause of suffering is desire. Still think he would have done the same thing. This is garbled nutcase business management text that not even the most stonecold of yoga attenders in the Simi/Seemy Valley would pick up. NN, vanity, spam.Delete.-Kmaguir1 08:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Non-notable. Ad. Fails WP:DUMB, IMO. Moreschi 13:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Flying Jazz 02:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - Problems with rampant OR have been identified, the page consists of a set of one-line anecdotes, and WP:OR is a fundamental pillar of encyclopedic integrity. This concerns have not been refuted by the opposition, who want to wait for expansion - The page has been moved to User:Whitesurf/Armed Conflict and Proselytizing for work until a non-OR version can be produced. As with yesterday, angry complaints/inquiries please direct to my talk page.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armed Conflict and Proselitization

Essay, non-enciclopedic abakharev 06:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - I'm not really sure what this article is supposed to be about...? Wickethewok 13:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This article has just been started. Please allow it some time. It is about proselitization during armed conflict, for example proselitization during insurgancies like those in Nepal, Sri Lanka or Myanmar, or during the Korean war. This is an important topic in history and theology. This will be an informative article once it has been expanded.--Whitesurf 18:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Que?--ZayZayEM 15:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This will be a valuable and interesting article when it has more text.--Whitesurf 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I smell original research Cynical 22:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per Whitesurf. The church has fundded such groups as the NLFT and the like. It should be moved to Armed Conflict and ProselytizingBakaman _Bakatalk 04:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Cynical. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR essay. --Ragib 04:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, incomprehensibly not able to stand its own.-Kmaguir1 08:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom TerryJ-Ho 10:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Author has just begun editing. Give him (them) time and monitor for problems.Shiva's Trident 11:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - An encyclopedia would have one entry for Armed conflict and a second entry on Proselytism. An essay writer might then use those entries to write an essay connecting the two. But an encyclopedia wouldn't have an article with this name. Flying Jazz 13:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Whitesurf Kla'quot ^Sound 03:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a valid subject. There are related articles Religious conversion,Religious war, Militant Islam, Church Militant, and several articles that are parts of the category "Religious behaviour and experience" [20]; but none of them cover this significant topic.--Bandyopadhyay 04:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious OR. None of the references provided are of works that make the same argument; references merely back up the background facts on which an argument is constructed. The argument might be true, but is original research as far as WP is concerned. Hornplease 08:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR essay, obviously. Sandstein 17:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete, per nom. Anirvan 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposition H

I've nominated this article for deletion, as the text is written in future-tense, though the dates have already passed. Aside from being orphaned, nothing seems to point to this page, which would indicate that is has no inherent value. Kevin 06:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete undistinguished proposition. Gazpacho 06:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete what?--ZayZayEM 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep controversial and notable enough. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 23:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I linked to a newspaper article stating that the proposition was approved. I also linked to Prop H from Gun control in the United States (by state), which already had a brief description of the ordinance. The article on Proposition H can be expanded to include earlier proposals and drafts, public debate, analysis of voting patterns and other issues that are not germane to Gun control in the United States (by state). An interesting case in passage of a US gun-control law. Fg2 02:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sort of slight crystal ball gazing, but "consideration" is such a flexible way to put things to keep them in.-Kmaguir1 08:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete After waiting a couple of days, I still feel that the content falls in a few places under the WP:NOT umbrella. Assuming the information it contains is somehow valuable, the article should be overhauled. I think the absence of links to it prove that it isn't significant to other articles, and the lack of maintenance demonstrates that it isn't important enough to be maintained. Maybe it could be merged with a list of California-centric proposals, or a list of gun control proposals? Kevin 19:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no basis established for deletion. Google suggests ample sources exist for future development. Pieces of legislation very frequently develop enough sources to warrant an article, this doesn't appear to be an exception. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: independent press coverage and proposition has passed into law. Gun control always seem to be a big issue in the USA. Stephen B Streater 18:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this legislation is important no basis established for deletion Yuckfoo 09:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Stephen B Streater. bbx 19:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 --- Deville (Talk) 03:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Katznelson

Vanity, fails WP:BIO abakharev 06:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN on its face. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 by WP:CSD#G4 reposted material previously deleted. --- GIen 07:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This will destroy you

Article about a band that does not yet appear to meet WP:MUSIC. -- The Anome 06:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC -- The Anome 06:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SISTER --PEAR 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: re WP:SISTER: which sister project do you want to move this article to? -- The Anome 06:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment The Greek Wiktionary --PEAR 13:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Ryūlóng 06:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 test page for userification -- Samir धर्म 08:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the Jews and Their Lies/condensation

Delete. As it says, this is not the article, just a testpage, so shouldn't be cluttering up WP, let alone be listed in a category.

Smerus 07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G2, especially consdering this edit by the page's creator. Luna Santin 07:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - CSD G2. Tagged as such. MER-C 08:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'll userfy this one to User:Mantanmoreland's userspace and decategorize it -- Samir धर्म 08:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jihadifascism

Not notable neologism. Only one google reference abakharev 07:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no redirection, as non-widespread neologism. Punkmorten 08:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Islamofascism Cynical 22:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as noted. Flying Jazz 02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing to merge. One quote from a little-known congressman earlier this week is not a basis for an article. Fan-1967 02:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This is getting to be ridiculous. How many neologisms are we going to incorporate into this project?--Kitrus 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense Bertilvidet 12:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Kla'quot ^Sound 04:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Reza1 08:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• REDIRECT to Islamofascism.--Mike18xx 02:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Generation Stunt Men

It's a bunch of schoolkids doing proto-Jackass. Previously New generation stunt men has been speedy deleted, see User talk:NGSM2000. Budgiekiller 07:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Not notable in any way. Budgiekiller 07:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Liface 07:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (handy when the entry is full of in-jokes). Jackass has an awful lot to answer for. BigHaz 07:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Clark (poker player)

Non-notable poker player. Article is unreferenced, uncategorized and contains POV. Delete Essexmutant 07:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Hasn't won anything or recieved real media coverage. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article completely fails to assert notability --Mnemeson 12:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete, just remove POV. BK is a well-respected poker player and a moderator at the popular twoplustwo.com. --Fudgenut 02:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep He's a notable poker player, and has been covered in the media. 11,200 Google hits. Mugaliens 14:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for the media coverage? If you do, you can add them to the article and that would change things. Otherwise I say delete. Simply being a respected player and twoplustwo moderator don't warrant an article. AFink 01:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Only one tournament finish in the Hendon Mob database (assuming it's the same person) [21]. Essexmutant 01:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice until verifiable sources can be provided to suggest notability as a poker player. RFerreira 20:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Classes in World of Warcraft. The raw totals are 9 Delete, 2 Keep, 4 Merge. Merge preserves the material, so collapse that into 9 Delete the material, 6 Keep the material in some form. That alone is not enough of a statistical edge to make a deletion a no-brainer. The argumentation is about equal. Therefore, no consensus to delete, defaults in this case to merge, since most of the Keep-the-material comments were to merg. Most of the merge votes were to merge the material. A couple of the Merge votes were to merge the material into the separate articles for each class, but these seem not to exist, so I merged into Classes in World of Warcraft. Herostratus 15:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Class Skills (World of Warcraft)

Game guide. Delete just like Warcraft III units and structures (AFD) and many more. Punkmorten 08:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 09:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete TJ Spyke 09:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Not a guide, doesnt tell the player how to play, just lists skills. Has the nominator actually read this, its not guiding anything, this is as basic as telling someone the rook moves vertically and horizontally. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  Disarm- this skill disarm the target, greatly reducing the targets melee attack damage and producing aggro., your telling me that doesn't read like a game guide?--Andeh 11:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  No, it reads like a game mechanics description - a game guide differs from this, in that it would detail the use of game mechanics, normally introducing POV. Seems like we need a formal description of a game guide to me. LinaMishima 02:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Saying a Rook moves horizontally and diagonally is not a game guide, hence stating disarm does XYZ is not a game guide. Stating a good time to disarm is when and it can be used in conjunction with skill Z is a gameguide. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, blatant game guide/fancruft.--Andeh 11:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Peephole 11:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I suppose next they'll just paste the whole manual into an article. Recury 19:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh no, only excerpts from it. That way it's still fair use. :) Garrett^Talk 23:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Warcruft. Garrett^Talk 23:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge details into the associated WoW class articles LinaMishima 02:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge The skill lists could easily be merged into the associated WoW class articles. Hyde_v 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep or merge it is to basic to read as a game guide and if you guys think it reads too much like a game guide, why doesnt someone edit it so it doesn't. However i do agree about merge it into the respective class pages. --Comicdude 12:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Zer0faults --Pinkkeith 23:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wholly indistinguishable from a manual excerpt, how-to file, or GameFAQs page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Listcruft, burn it with fiar. Axem Titanium 01:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. See WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. +Fin- 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Schoen

I'm not sure that having a podcast, and running a message board (even if it is a massive one) is sufficient to make you notable. Searching for his name does bring up lots of google hits, but they are not all references to him. Ladybirdintheuk 08:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - he is a staff member at a top website, host a top podcast, and a bunch of other stuff.--andrew 09:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete This is a fansite, not a top website - he's a senior in high school according to the article. Dlyons493 Talk 11:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. It's not even about the fansite, it's about the teenager who runs it, listing his favourite movies. Completely NN. --Mnemeson 11:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - He actually works at the site, not just a fansite. He is the third employee down --andrew 06:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn as per nom. Marcus22 19:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Vanity page. Not notable.--Getaway 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect - Why don't you just redirect to MuggleNet then? --andrew 06:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scum Beach Polar Bear Club

Polar bear swim club that swims in Long Island Sound in winter. No real claim to notability in the article. Three GHits all from wikipedia or mirrors [22] -- Samir धर्म 08:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Obviously, per nom. Wickethewok 13:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --ZayZayEM 15:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete – Vanity page. Eixo 14:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exit chaos button

Unencyclopedic contested prod, looks like some sort of advertising. MER-C 08:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nigel ^(Talk) 13:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete weird--ZayZayEM 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Leave What could it be advertising? 144.132.45.146 01:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better lending

Blatant spam, prod contested. MER-C 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Better delete savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam Dlyons493 Talk 11:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pure spam Nigel ^(Talk) 13:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam no eggs--ZayZayEM 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam, with a side of opinion sauce --65.16.61.35 18:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 01:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 a-ha, delete! - Mailer Diablo 10:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebecca Lee Leshi

Not a very good article, and I don't believe that she's a notable person. All Google hits for her name (in quotation marks) were for Wikipedia or similar types of site. Dancarney 08:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Despite the fact that she "believes in the power of dreams". Wickethewok 13:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment is her name spelt correctly? Internet available information may not be in English.--ZayZayEM 15:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • AHA - Rebecca Lee REDIRECT/Merge
• Delete - Vanity page. Not notable.--Getaway 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Although it's interesting to see someone claim that the Earth has three poles. --Pagana 21:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Homophobia. There are sources here, but the article is completely and utterly redundant with that article and/or societal attitudes towards homosexuality.--SB | T 23:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-homosexualism

DicDef. Nothing useful here that can't be handled by a Wiktionary entry, to the limited extent that the term even exists as a distinct word. Article is just an exercise in polemics. Herostratus 08:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets see what happened here.

• (cur) (last) 04:51, September 1, 2006 Moriori (Talk | contribs) (Redirect instead of delete)
• (cur) (last) 04:39, September 1, 2006 Herostratus (Talk | contribs) (AfD)
• (cur) (last) 04:15, September 1, 2006 Britcom (Talk | contribs) (Stub)

Hmmm. as we can see here the page was first created at 04:15. I wasn't even done editing it when Herostratus surfed in and posted the AfD on it at 04:39. and then it disappeared altogether when Moriori redirected it to "homophobia", a page with many, many questions of neutrality, not to mention that "homophobia" has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-homosexualism. Why would Herostratus and Moriori be so blindingly quick to judge a page that was not even an hour old and was not even finished being created? I have reverted it now and continue to add more to it. I would appreciate it if everyone would lay off the page until I have had a chance to flesh it out.

I took a look at Herostratus' user page, and now I think I know what his problem with this page is, and it has nothing to do with "usefulness". He states on his user page that he is a Unitarian Universalist, a well known pro-homosexual organization. UU is something that I am quite familiar with. So it appears that he may have a bias against the subject matter of the page, rather than concern about the usefulness of the page. The reason I created this page is because "anti-homosexualism" is a plank in the KKK's supremacist philosophy and the Nazi's final solution and deserves its own article. I suspect that Herostratus' is trying to silence the article rather than add to its usefulness. This is a serious subject, and it deserves serious attention. "Homophobia" on the other hand, is not a political philosophy and is a pejorative created and promoted by pro-homosexual activists for use against those that oppose their agenda and therefore has no relationship to this article. Anyone doubting that should read both pages and judge for themselves. --Britcom 11:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I suggest you attest to the merits of the article, rather than contesting those of the nominator. Wickethewok 13:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

At the time there was hardly any article to speak of yet as 20 minutes was not enough time for me to finish before the AfD was posted on it . I felt under attack by a drive by deletion. I feel that given the circumstances the reasons stated for the AfD were less than honest. --Britcom 16:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Seems sourced and encyclopaedic - although I wouldn't be opposed to a merging, if there's an appropriate target (I have no idea) WilyD 14:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV fork. I have never heard the term, and I get about 120 google hits for "anti-homosexualism" and less than half that for the unhyphenated version. (Weirdly, when I accidently clicked "maps" when googling anti-homosexualism, it found the Academy Awards.) The fact that the author cites the demonstrably false definition of homophobia as "fear" (Anti-homosexualism is a calculated political philosophy ... It is not associated with a fear of homosexuals), as well as his characterization of the UU church above, leads me to believe that this is an attempt to discredit the very common and well-understood word "homophobia" by introducing a near-neologism. I agree that the Nazi and KKK anti-gay activities deserve mention, which is why we have Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered. Some detail could be added there. bikeable (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how anything I have placed in the article could be considered POV. It is mostly undisputed history. Anyway I don't own it, you can edit it if you don't like the way it reads.

I did not say "homophobia" is a fear of homosexuals, the homophobia Wikipage says that, and I didn't put it there. I was saying that the terms are distinct from each other.

I have sourced the term back to at least 1957 on the internet. I don't believe that there is another term that describes what the Nazi's policy was with regard to homosexuals and that was many years before 1957. I would not consider it a trivial event either. For example: "The extermination of homosexuals during WWII was as a result of Nazi ______________." What else fits in this blank?

About the UU, I can source what I said if you like. They are not afraid to admit that they have many openly gay leaders and members. I have met some of them.

Anti-homosexualism does not just encompass violence, it also encompasses political opposition, rhetoric, activism and institutional and religious opposition.

I don't think this time frame for AfD is fair. I am new at this and this page is being scrutinized even before it is a day old. Don't you think that the first editor of an article should be given 24 hours, not 24 minutes before someone slaps an AfD on it? --Britcom 16:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the rapid AfD, but it's common practice to get an early start, partly because it's easiest to find new articles and partly because it'll save the authors a lot of time in the long run. In any case... the word "homophobia" fits in just fine in the sentence you propose; or a variant, like "national homophobic policies" or something perhaps more strongly worded. The first sentence of the homophobia article says, fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals, which overlaps pretty much completely with the definition you posit for "anti-homosexualism". I see that you found a 1957 reference (good work), but I still do not think the term is notable or widely used, even if it is occasionally used. (I find many more google hits for a term I thought I just made up at random, anti-Big Mac. Just because people string words together does not require us to have an encyclopedia article on them.) As for the UUs, of course they are open to gays, but I wouldn't call them a well known pro-homosexual organization. Finally, I suggest again that Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered is an appropriate (and existing) article for some of the detail you have included. bikeable (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but so far I am not being overwhelmed with logic or reasoning as to why groups are being diagnosed with a mental disorder (Homophobia) rather than simply use the obvious term for their contempt (Anti-homosexualism). --Britcom 13:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Homophobia, <strikeout>at beast</strikeout> - Unsure - there does seem to be a mounting and convincing argument that they are slight difeferences in teh terminology. It is certainly NOT A NEOLOGISM--ZayZayEM 16:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

ZayZayEM also stated on my user page that; "Homophobia...is a neologism". I think he may have a point. --Britcom 19:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect. There are only 316 google hits for "Anti-homosexualism" so it appears to be an original research type of word. Not permitted.--Alabamaboy 16:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I have shown and sourced that the word predates the www and Google. Homophobia is not that old of a word. What word do you suppose they used back in 1957, or is no one old enough to remember that here. Are we engaging in sponging history away here? More sources are coming up.

But homophobia is an accepted word in the dictionary and has 9 million plus google hits. Your word falls under Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. --Alabamaboy 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this word is more like a Protologisms but the neologism prohibition still stands.--Alabamaboy 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Look again, I have shown that the two words are not synonyms and I have sourced literary usage in 1957 and 2000. The definitions are totally distinct and without similarity. The word and its meaning are unique. One word refers to philosophy the other to a neurosis. You are just angry because I put a link on "your" page. Grow up.--Britcom 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a neurosis, and no one claims that it is. You may wish that everyone should "simply use the obvious term", but in fact there is a word that everyone does use (homophobia), and there is a word that essentially no one uses (anti-homosexualism). Wikipedia is not here to advocate for which words ought to be used. bikeable (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is based on comparing apples and oranges. I am saying the terms are unrelated, distinct and should be understood that way. "Homophobia" describes an attitude within the mind of the individual. "Anti-homosexualism" is the political targeting of homosexuals for attack or opposition by a political or religious group. According to your logic, "Xenophobia" and "Terrorism" would mean the same thing.--Britcom 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect. I think pushing for an AfD if the article is only 20 minutes old is a little OTT but, assuming that a Redirect covers the same ground, it was only inevitable. Marcus22 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A new article that includes verifiable instances of usage. It's true that the google hits on "antihomosexualism" are in the hundreds, but "antihomosexual" has over 18,000 hits, and there are over 100 wikipedia articles that use the term. From a word-usage perspective, a sound argument could be made that there is a clear distinction between antihomosexualism and homophobia. A sound argument could also be made that there isn't. But since there are verifiable instances of people making the distinction, the article should be in Wikipedia so people can read and learn about it. Flying Jazz 23:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • See below, new opinion from me also. Flying Jazz 01:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I see references and an establishment for the validity of this seperate to homophobia. In many respects, it is technically homophobia that is misnamed. It is worth noting that you can't campaign "for homophobia", but you can campaign "against homosexuality". LinaMishima 02:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • See below, new 'vote' LinaMishima 16:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

An excellent point. --Britcom 06:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Whoa There. Yes when I nominated this article it was just a stub, and that happens sometimes. But even so, this is not a keepful article because there ain't no such word, it's a neologism made up by the author to try to tie together the Nazi Party and the Westboro Baptist Church (!) together into some kind of unified movement, which is about the silliest idea I've seen today. Sure the word "anti-homosexualism" is properly formed, but you can add "anti" to most any English word. "I really only like to have sofas in my house, I'm pretty much anti-chair" is a meaningful English sentence which has not doubt been uttered. Does that mean that "anti-chair" is a real English word that should have a dictionary definition or a Wikipedia article? No, and neither is "Anti-homosexualism". The whole unsaid but obvious WP:POINT of the article is: Don't like gays? Well you're a Nazi of a Klanner then. But look. First of all, the Nazis hated lots of people, they weren't primarily an anti-gay organization and neither is the Klan. Second of all, everybody was anti-gay until about 1960 or whenever. Third of all, you'd have include the Catholic Church and the FBI and God knows who else if you want to list anti-gay organizations, if you're going to reach back into the 1940's or whatever. I mean since we're talking about organizations who showed "organized hostility toward or opposition against homosexuals as a group" but not as their primary thrust, you'd have to list practically every social organization and private company that existed, since we're going back into the 40's. Finally, the writer's contention that I'm against this article because I'm a Unitarian is just bizarre; I'm against it in spite of being a Unitarian, a denomination sympathetic to the writer's WP:POINT (hey, my minister is gay), but, here, I'm a Wikipedian first. You can't tie the Nazis, the Westboro Baptist Church, and Islam together with your original research and neologism into some kind of non-existant movement, and you can't hijack Wikipedia for your own ends, no matter how noble. Herostratus 07:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the dispute shouldn't be about personalities, but your contention that the word is "a neologism made up by the author" surprised me when the author of the article cites verifiable usage of the word from 1957 and 1971. WP:POINT is about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Adding an article to the namespace is not disruptive. It is a good-faith attempt to contribute. Your objections seem to be based on WP:NPOV, that the author has written an article with a biased point of view to "make a point." The cure for that is to edit the article to make it NPOV--not to delete the article. http://www.yale.edu/history/faculty/chauncey.html is a faculty web-page at Yale by a man who uses the word in describing his field of study. It is unlikely that the word "anti-chair" appears in a similar context. Flying Jazz 12:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Good arguments from Herostratus, unbelievably bad ones from Britcom. This is just making an essay up from legitimate composite parts, like putting baked beans and pulled pork together to make baked-pulled beans and pork.-Kmaguir1 08:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I redirected this because that is what it deserved. But I now change to delete after seeing Britcom say "homophobia" has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-homosexualism. He should read the intro to Homophobia, which says "hatred or disapproval of homosexual people, their lifestyles, sexual behaviors or cultures". Moriori 08:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus and Moriori (as shown above) are the two responsible for the "drive by" AfD and redirect. The two of them are just trying to defend their attack on the page that I am trying to work on. Moriori violated the AfD rules when he redirected the page to "Homophobia" 12 minutes after the AfD box was posted on the page. In light of their zeal to delete this page, even violating Wikipedia rules to do so, I think their opinions posted here are suspect. Remember, Wikipedia's code of conduct says "Assume good faith". I have no Wikipedia violations, and I have no axe to grind. This is my first page and I have done my best to be neutral with a topic that generates lots of emotions. The examples I chose are the most obvious examples of "Anti-homosexualism" that I can think of. I would love for other Wikiedians to add more or edit what I have written for accuracy. But that does not seem to be the agenda here. The agenda here is to attack me and my edits as worthless or underhanded. If they are so bad, then why not just edit them instead of jumping straight to deletion? Why not discuss it on the talk page? No, that’s not good enough for them they want to get rid of it so no one can read what it says. I thought we were supposed to be neutral here, and not favoring one side of a controversy. It seems to me that the word has a history and now apparently a controversy because some seemingly want to control what you read by forcing a proverbial square peg (political or religious hatred or opposition to homosexuality) into a round hole ("homophobia"). (See how many words I had to use to say what it is without using the one word "Anti-homosexualism".) Apparently we have two schools of thought here. One that says: "Oh the author has an agenda and that's the reason he set up the page." and on the other hand there is: "Oh the author just doesn't understand that we all have decided to change the definition of "Anti-homosexualism" to a word that makes it sound like those who are against homosexuals are suffering from a "phobia", and well, he must not have gotten the memo." Not one of them has addressed the glaring hole in their reasoning. Namely that "Anti-homosexualism" always refers to the ACTIONS of organized groups, and "homophobia" always refers to the MINDSET of individuals. The words are clearly not synonyms. Everybody can understand this when they read it. But some don't seem to want it put into print. That means they think they own Wikipedia. That also means that they think they know better than you what you should be reading. They are trying to slant Wikipedia's content, and by the same token, limit your access to knowledge they don't "approve" of. Is this what Wikipedia is about? Do these people represent a "neutral" viewpoint? It seems that I am getting a better education here than I bargained for, and unfortunately, its all bad. What a black-eye this is for Wikipedia. What a black-eye this is for the Internet. Sickening. --Britcom 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You should take your own advice and assume good faith. I attacked the page? I have a zeal to delete even tho I changed delete to a redirect? My opinion posted here (is) suspect? Instead of giving me a right old bollocking you should be thanking me because my redirect allowed you to make such profound statements as "Anti-homosexualism" always refers to the ACTIONS of organized groups". Yeah right. Moriori 22:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote from the AfD box "the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed" Redirecting before the AfD discussion period ends is not allowed. That's all I'll say. The rest is below. --Britcom 10:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration and I agree with much of what you've written. But frustration isn't a reason to make personal attacks against individuals or against Wikipedia as a whole. You might want to step back a little from the AfD page, keep working to improve the article, and let new folks come to state their opinions. Flying Jazz 13:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right of course. --Britcom 14:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Goldfritha 18:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep

1. This is a new article only a few days old. It has not had enough time to develop.
2. The reasons given above are listed as: "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed" on WP's deletion policy. WP:DEL. They don't qualify as valid reasons for deletion of a new article according to the policy.
3. Quote: "Before nominating a recently-created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." WP:AFD This article was less than an hour old and no discussion was made on the article's talk page either for deletion or redirection.
4. The article that some have voted to redirect this article to, (Homophobia) has been described as a Neologism WP:NEO (see above) and may not be allowed. Also, its neutrality is currently marked as disputed. Anti-homosexualism has been sourced in the article at least as far back as 1957, and 1971, and 2000 with hundreds of quotations currently on the internet, so it can't be a Neologism. Both articles also clearly identify conflicting differences in their respective definitions. Even if one does not agree, clearly there is a dispute and dispute is enough for keeping the article according to policy. The dispute can also be verified on the homophobia talk page.
5. "Don't bite the newcomers." WP:BITE. The author is a newcomer to WP and WP policy states that editors should help newcomers develop new pages when possible, not just delete them.
6. Its a good article compared to many. It has potential.
7. The subject matter is current, controversial and has been a factor in world events and world history.
8. The subject matter is likely to be a factor in future events. (the author) --Britcom 10:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:BITE does not pertain; no one has treated you inappropriately, we are simply discussing the suitability of an article. Nor does anyone dispute the importance of the subject matter. And how is it that the disputed term "can't be a neologism" with its hundreds of google hits, but you think homophobia can be, despite 100,000 times as many google references? bikeable (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Undecided On the one hand, it appears to be neologism. On the other hand, being against something is different than being afraid of it. Much of the content in the homophobia entry has nothing to do with fear, and should be instead moved into this artical. Perhaps a rewording of the title might suffice so it's no longer neologism. Mugaliens 15:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Much of the content in the homophobia entry has nothing to do with fear: that's because the common usage of "homophobia" has little to do with fear, despite what you might expect from the suffix -phobia; see extensive discussions of this subject at Talk:Homophobia. I am fearful that this AfD will result in wikipedia's homophobia article being split into two, and putting the extremely well-known term homophobia (10 million google hits) on par with what I still believe to be an uncommon word or neologism anti-homosexualism, with a few hundred google hits at most. bikeable (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Bikeable is right that homophobia is a much more commonly used term than anti-homosexualism. However, the uncommon word was used in the 50s while the common one was coined for its current definition in the 60s. The neologism argument is unsound. The idea of having two or more articles on two or more related but not identical topics should not instill us with fear because there are precedents for this in Wikipedia. For example: Judeophobia, Anti-semitism, Anti-Judaism and Persecution of Jews are four closely related, non-identical topics. With verifiable citations (and still a lot of argument), the differences in meaning and article scope that you'd expect from an encyclopedia get worked out. Flying Jazz 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Note also that Wikipages Linuxism, Raelism, and anti-Turkism all have Google hits in the hundreds, and ineffablilism has only 14 hits on Google. I don't think Wikipedia has a policy about Google hits though. --Britcom 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep For the reasons listed by Britcom above. The article has potential and should be given a chance. Eecon 02:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• The article is beginning to show signs of being encyclopedic, but its title is very poorly chosen. MERGE with most of of Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered and RENAME to Persecution of homosexuals (currently a redirect to the above), and develop from there. -- The Anome 09:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many forms of Anti-homosexualism that don't include persecution or violence. Protesting by the Westboro Baptist Church for example. --Britcom 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A perfect example of homophobia, according to the Anti-defamation League. "Westboro baptist church" homophobia OR homophobic gets me 28,000 google hits. Using anti-homosexualism instead, I get only a few hits... the very first of which is the wikipedia page for WBC on which you added a link to Anti-homosexualism. The usage is quite clear. bikeable (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to Persecution of homosexuals (or LGBT), merge some content to Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered. Peaceful protesting against LGBT matters is persecution, just with a nice fuzzy coating. Persecution of homosexuals has a good changce of winding up as a very well done entry on historical events. LinaMishima 16:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

First, anyone who wants to know what persecution is only needs to ask a survivor of Auschwitz or visit the Holocaust page. It is not federally protected speech.

Second, there is a logic problem in comparing the words Homophobia and Anti-homosexualism. Anti-homosexualism is a more general term. Homophobia, as defined, would be correctly classified as a form of Anti-homosexualism; but not all forms of Anti-homosexualism are Homophobia related and some are non-violent. Some forms are moralistic, some are political, and some are traditional. For example, not all forms of Anti-Americanism include persecution or violence against Americans. To use the logic stated above, you would have to say that all "peaceful" Anti-American "protests" are a form persecution. That just doesn't fly. Therefore, the title of the article should not be limited to just "persecution". Anti-homosexualism is the most logical form. --Britcom 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not federally protected speech. …Which assumes that 1. a US POV is entirely acceptable here on wikipedia, and 2. speech that incites hatred is perfectly acceptable. Even if your point is correct, I suspect that the retitling to a more obvious title might be a good idea - campaigns against homosexuality, for example. It should be noted that persecution is not defined by the scale of the act, but the intent. LinaMishima 22:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the Westboro Baptist Church is a church in the USA, therefore United States law applies to it and The US Constitution protects it, and everyone else in the USA, the right to peaceful demonstration and freedom of speech. I was referring to WBC's anti-homosexual demonstrations as federally protected. I am aware that other nations do not recognize a right to demonstrate. The US Constitution guarantees all of its citizens the right to freedom of speech. Both positive and negative speech is protected. It has been that way for over two hundred years. I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear. --Britcom 22:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And to clarify a minor point of law, wikipedia, along with all non-government websites, classes as a private forum, and so the first ammendment does not apply. LinaMishima 00:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The above comment seems to imply that I have somehow invoked the First Amendment within Wikipedia; that was certainly not the purpose of my comment. I referenced its protections with regard to WBC's speech, which it has exercised while standing on a public street corner or other public place. The real point of my comment was that anyone standing on a public street corner in the US exercising their Constitutional rights cannot legally be considered engaging in "persecution". While their speech is definitely anti-homosexual, it is also lawful. The discussion or documentation of that subject within Wikipedia is not the same as the (above implied) claiming of any rights within Wikipedia. I don't see how one could make that assumption from what I said. Discussion about others use of the First Amendment should not be construed as attempting to claim a personal right under it in Wikipedia. --Britcom 09:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Regardless of the merits of your other arguments, the en: Wikipedia is written in English, and "anti-homosexualism" is not common English usage. The phrases "homophobia" and "persecution of homosexuals" have clear meanings in common use, which seem to be understood by every other poster here. If you want to redefine common English use, please do it elsewhere first, and when the English-speaking world adopts your usage, we will be able to do so as well. -- The Anome 23:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't speak for "every other poster here." Speak for yourself only. I'm a poster in here and I've never understood that the word "homophobia" has a clear meaning. The section dedicated to etymology and usage at the homophobia article indicates a huge amount of confusion and debate over that term and its usage. "Common usage" is not a requirement for an article in Wikipedia. "Verifiable usage" is. Words and ideas are not like corporations or products which must be very well-known before Wikipedia has an article on them. You are setting a standard that is different from Wikipedia's standard. Flying Jazz 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Update Some new references now appear on the Anti-homosexualism page, including one from an official Israeli government website. --Britcom 09:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment from nominator. Obviously this article is very much farther along than when I nominated it. How about removing all the non-Nazi material and renaming it Nazi persecution of homosexuals. That would be a good article (although more sourcing is needed). Otherwise my objection still stands. Also, if there is not an article along the lines of State persecution of homosexuals (which I'd be surprised if there isn't) that would be a useful article. Herostratus 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The article you suggest already exists at History of gay people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.--Alabamaboy 13:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: I am keeping my vote to delete. That said, I wanted to point out to editors that Britcom is attempting to replace the word homophobia with Anti-homosexualism in a number of articles on Wikipedia, such as Ku Klux Klan. I believe this type of POV pushing is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Finally, while I understand why some people would want to use Anti-homosexualism over homophobia, this is a debate that--yet again--does not belong at Wikipedia. If Britcom can convince the world at large to accept the term, he/she is welcome to come back here and restart the article. Otherwise, delete it.--Alabamaboy 13:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed I noticed that in the end…LinaMishima 13:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I should add that Britcom's contributions overwhelmingly suggest he/she is trying to promote the adoption of this word at Wikipedia. See [23].--Alabamaboy 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's always a good idea to search through Wikipedia and create links to a new article at appropriate places. This is a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia even though I understand it could be regarded as POV-pushing by someone who believes the article should not be included. An AfD shouldn't prevent someone from doing this. I think it is part of Wikipedia's mission to spread knowledge about concepts and their associated words regardless of whether the word is in common use. This is particularly true for a word like antihomosexualism that has existed and been used for decades. My impression is that debates about word choice and word usage occur at Wikipedia all the time in talk pages and AfD discussions, but I agree with Alabamaboy that they usually don't belong in the articles themselves. The "Modern usage" section of the article was POV-pushing when it said one word "should not be confused" with another and I've edited this. Better to provide footnotes to verifiable citations where the usage is discussed and leave it to the reader about what should be said or written. Note: I am keeping my vote to keep. Flying Jazz 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, I changed my mind about this. Flying Jazz 01:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL, if one scratches the surface of Alabamaboy’s conspiracy theory one will discover that all of the recent links that I have placed on other pages were to wikilink the existing unlinked word "anti-homsexual" to the 'Anti-homosexualism article and not (as he suggests) changing all the Homophobia links, to Anti-homosexualism. I challenge anyone to take a look at my edits and see the truth for themselves, and while they are at it, they should also go and read the vitriol that I have had to put up with from Alabamaboy on "his" Talk:Ku Klux Klan page after I put a link on that page (which he promptly deleted). If that is what Alabamaboy is accusing me of, then I plead guilty! I repeat my above statement of Wikipedia policy; “Don’t Bite the Newcomers” WP:BITE. --Britcom 15:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read that page and I do not see vitriol there. You are being unreasonable and uncivil with these challenges and accusations. Being a newcomer does not give you special rights in debates, and when a newcomer is unreasonable and bites, it is perfectly understandable for someone to bite back within reason (although maintaining civility is always the best policy). Your posts above about another editor's religion were way out of line and in many other ways you've been unnecessarily and foolishly confrontational on this page. Stop it. Also, see my most recent comment here. Please respond to it on the talk page. Flying Jazz 16:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's get back to the discussion about the article and quit antagonizing and the author. --Britcom 17:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaking disagreement and the occasional mistake from other users for antagonism. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Please_do_not_take_it_personally and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground. Flying Jazz 20:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge most of this information into homophobia or Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered and redirect the article accordingly. The discussion here from the creator of the article is enough for me to throw assume good faith to the wind. Notice how assuming good faith is NOT encouraged in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Let's review. Britcom has 'attacked' Herostratus through his religion, claiming that it has a 'pro-homosexual' agenda (note how Britcom uses this AS an attack as if it were a BAD thing. Is it unreasonable that this leads me to question his motives?). What would we do if an editor who made an arguing point based upon the fact that their 'opponent's' Userpage had a "This user is Christian" or "This user is Catholic" userbox on it? Of course, we would begin to assume BAD faith (as we should). Britcom also says that the homophobia article has a 'pro-homosexual' POV push. These are red flags to me, personally, and are enough for me to assume that this article was CREATED as a bad faith POV-fork of homophobia. That being said, there IS some good information here, and rather than being spent in a POV-fork article, it should be placed where it belongs, in one of the two articles I suggested. The forthing at the mouth that continues from editors who claim that homophobia does not include opposition to homosexuality or is limited to a FEAR of homosexuals (even though all common sense regarding the usage of the term in actual language would have us believe otherwise) is rather disconcerting and, in my opinion, damaging to the wiki. CaveatLector^Talk 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment OK but that's not really an argument about the content of the article or the merits of the term though. Armon 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have to say keep. The word homophobia has a bad history, and in spite of user:bikeable's continual assertions to the contrary, the coiner of the word has been quoted as intending the "fear" component (which quote can be readily found in a Google search). Diverting the discussion specifically of anti-homosexual bigotry over to a term which we can now see is not simply a contributor coinage affords the possibility of being able to discuss that with a WP:NPOV. The big dispute about homophobia per se is that the word itself is POV-pushing; therefore it is impossible to keep the article stable excepting that the enforcer squad for one POV makes sure that the article doesn't say much about that issue. I personally would move all the discussion of prejudice to anti-homosexualism and have homophobia point back to it as a main article, but keep both articles. Mangoe 13:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• I totally see where you are coming from and the issues with the usage of "homophobia". However, the plain fact is that "homophobia" is used for a great variety of meanings, and "anti-homosexualism" is hardly used at all. It would be nice if we could, as you suggest, "move the discussion of prejudice" to anti-homosexualism, which I agree would make sense based on the apparent etymologies and what the words ought to mean. However, this would be original research. We cannot be prescriptive about what words should or should not mean; we can only report what people use them for. I would recommend the article on Linguistic prescription and I would argue that only a descriptive attitude is WP:NPOV. A true description of usage is that many people use "homophobia" for diverse meanings, and very few use "anti-homosexualism", so we may not move the discussion from the former to the latter. bikeable (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems to me that all your words here do not add up to the actuality of the homophobia article. It is in fact used for POV-pushing as a matter of course, and its content is original research as a matter of course, because while we refer the daylights out of it in order to keep the various POV Patrols from reverting, the synthesis of those references into an article has to go beyond simply referring to an authoritative analysis. Without that, the article cannot be written.

For you to label one usage as "true" is, in the sense you prefer here, original research, for it is surely your sense of the world you are expressing here, and not some dilligently researched monograph on how the word is used. It is not my sense that the situation is so (if you will pardon the oxymoron) cleanly obscured. The article is being held hostage to the POV-pushing that the word suggests, for Wikipedia is not really distinct from the rest of the world in the issue of the supposed meaning for the word.

It isn't really true that people looking for anti-homosexual prejudice need be confounded by two articles. Indeed, were I editor-in-chief I would have the -phobia article point back to the other, prominently, above the text. But what you're saying here is that because a lot of people use the words in a muddled and inconstant fashion, that Wikipedia's discussion of the topic likewise must be muddled and inconstant, because it cannot be allowed to structurally reflect the real distinction between talking about that prejudice and speculating about the causes behind it. So we're to be stuck with an article that is structurally POV-pushing, because it doesn't permit a clear distinction.

Finally, NPOV is dead as a doornail if we are going to commit to a term which is the subject of POV bias in the real world. The suggested "new" term is perhaps uncommon, but is demonstrated to be not unknown, and it is certainly neutral. I say that this is good enough, and that the division between the two articles affords the possibility of real neutrality. The single article does not. Mangoe 21:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What we seem to have here is a failure to communicate (no seriously, I think this is the problem). Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of all knowledge, right? Since knowledge is inherently based upon its perception and uses within society (i.e. there is no 'TRUE' knowledge, only what people percieve that they know) and since homophobia is used primarily within society to refer to a variety of things including 'anti-homosexualism', the Wiki should reflect this knowledge. Anti-choice redirects to Pro-life, and so it should. Even though it is quite arguable that they are two completely different things they are essentially the same thing, it's just that one is used more frequently than the other (Pro-life, that is) so the one used LESS frequently used redirects to the one used MORE frequently used. Why is this debate not turning out the same way? Probably because some people feel a linguistic imperative to associate homophobia with an actual FEAR, even though the common use of the word does not play out this out. Let's take the word hydrophobia as an example. Hydrophobia does not refer to a FEAR of water (yes, it goes to a disambig page, but if Wikipedia wishes to stay consistent, it really shouldn't). It's the medical term for rabies. Should we create a hydrophobia article or redirect the link to aquaphobia because we must insist that hydroPHOBIA MUST refer to a FEAR of water? Certainly not. This article is a POV fork resulting from an insecurity some people have with being called homoPHOBIC if they have a prejudice against homosexuals (for WHATEVER the reason). The fact is that common parlance has used the term in this fashion. Therefore, Wikipedia should reflect that. Not some idea of a 'correct' term or definition based upon its linguistics. No such 'correct' definition exists. As I have said, some of the content of this article IS valuable. But it should be merged and redirected, not kept as a fork. CaveatLector^Talk 23:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying that there is no true knowledge is merely a commitment to yet another POV, and in this context, a bad one. And you've neatly skipped over one of the two central objections: that the assertion of "common parlance" is original research-- namely, it's you presumably appealing to your own experience. I don't have that experience; I have the "it's the pet phrase of one faction and rejected by the other" experience. The homophobia article, most of the time, admits of this, though it is heavily edited to keep that mention to the slightest possible.

Your counterexamples are bad and misrepresent the coinage of homophobia-- which again I must point out is a matter of documented fact; the citation is, at this instant, in the third footnote in Weinberg's very first sentence. He intended it to mean exactly what the naive reader would guess; he states this bluntly and without room for equivocation. The dispute and POV-pushing from that point on are familiar, leading to the current situation in which Weinberg's meaning and a supposedly more general meaning (but which critics would say is contaminated by the original meaning) try to live side by side in the article.

I don't think we must be trapped by this state of confusion into writing something that is similarly confused. The other term may not be widely used, but it is there and it offers an opening for clarity. (The claims that it is a neologism have been demonstrated incorrect, after all.) It's easy enough for someone who is used to using "homophobia" in the more general sense to be directed to the other article. And I think the implication that there's something wrong with Wikipedia somehow influencing readers to stop using homophobia in the general sense is unjustified. Right now you are essentially settling for the position that we need to reinforce the confused usage by respecting it-- well, not rigorously, because the end result certainly isn't rigor, but out of sense of mechanical principle rather than out of sense of superior explanation. Mangoe 05:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the usuage of homophobia in common parlance is 'confused' is outright linguistically descriptive nonsense (sorry, but it is). Words do not have ESSENTIAL meanings, they only have the meanings that the society they are used in gives them. This is NOT a POV. This is a linguistic and literary FACT. To suppose that there is some sort of 'right' usage of a word and that a COMMON usage of the word is somehow 'wrong' or 'misguided' or 'confused' reeks of a philosophy guided by some sort of cultural superiority complex. The idea that recognizing a word's definition in common parlance is original research is complete bollocks, considering the comparative results from a mere Google search, much less a search through scholarly databases and journals, of homophobia and 'anti-homosexualism'. Also, Weinburg should not enter into a discussion of what homophobia MEANS other than to acknowledge why and how he coined it (NOT to proclaim his coinage as some sort of 'correct' definition of the word. His authority there expired as soon as the word entered common language). The fact of the matter is that there is no superior explanation in creating TWO articles, ONE for 'homophobia' and one for 'anti-homosexulism'. All this does is serve to CONFUSE the readers of the Wiki and advance the POV that these two terms somehow describe two different things (when common parlance has it that they do not). In the end, I am afraid I just have to state my belief that you are just resolutely incorrect when you say that Wikipedia should 'influence readers to stop using homophobia in the general sense'. There are plenty of WP:NOT pages, but one thing that an ENCYCLOPEDIA certainly IS NOT is a dogmatic excercise in pushing particular views of what words mean. It is meant to 'encircle all knowledge'. To split something that is seen as ONE concept within most of the English speaking world into TWO articles is to push the POV that the common use of the word is somehow 'incorrect', and is, to be flatly honest, downright ridiculous. CaveatLector^Talk 06:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You say "FACT"; I say, your evidence for "common parlance" is your own, one-POV-identified community. I find people using homophobia in both ways, and I especially see people using it with the denotation you assert and the connotation of what the etymology implies and the coiner intended. And I find a lot of people avoiding the word, for this very reason. Talking about "most of the English-speaking world" is at best dubious and at worst a refusal to acknowledge sociental divisions that are measured with great accuracy at every election.

Wikipedia cannot avoid being "a dogmatic exercise in pushing particular views of what words mean". The very basis of the conflict here is controlling whether Wikipedia authorizes anti-homosexualism as a name for one phenomenon. Mangoe 12:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I don't think it would be very civil of wikipedia to take a stance that gaybashing is acceptable, either. Which is infact one of the big reasons that people avoid 'homophobia', a desire to not admit that they think homosexuality is wrong. Despite, y'know, the bonobos, and the general failure of 'corrective' courses. LinaMishima 13:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So let's hold on a moment here. You just said that you find people using 'homophobia' in BOTH contexts...so isn't creating an entirely different word in order to split off one of those meanings a POV fork? You also now claim that Wikipedia IS a place that pushes a particular VIEW of what words mean. Doesn't that very idea violate WP:NPOV? I am NOT arguing that 'anti-homosexualism' does not mean 'being against homosexuals' (I mean, to be frank and French, no shit...), what I am saying is that concept is already described by the word 'homophobia', and to say 'No no no, all of you who are using that way are WRONG' by creating a seperate article for the concept is to push a POV. CaveatLector^Talk 15:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Thank you, CL. I've never argued that there was only one meaning for "homophobia"; there are many usage, as is true with many words in English. Wikipeda should be reporting on those. Mangoe accuses us of thinking that somehow influencing readers to stop using homophobia in the general sense is unjustified. But this is precisely the point of WP:POV and WP:OR. Clearing up lingustic confusion is not our goal (never mind that the "coiner" of a word has no control over how it is used later!). Reporting accurately on the meanings of words (read: usage, of all stripes, not the meanings we think they should have) is the best we can do. bikeable (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a POV fork. Yes, Wikipedia is an agency in the control of the meaning of words, and no, this isn't intrinsically a POV issue (although in this case we both recognize, or should, that it is related to one of the POV divisions). If public discourse is dominated by weasel words on the one hand and/or slurs on the other, it's bloody obvious that a supposedly NPOV reference has to avoid popularly understood language. Since the controversy over the article consistently centers on exactly those concerns, it is entirely reasonable to fork the current content into two subjects-- NOT points of view, because they aren't. If your point of view on the subjects is to prevail, it can do so when they are kept distinct. People would approach two articles with distinct POVs, and would argue about each as before. I think the argument in anti-homosexualism would probably relax some because the fact of bigotry and its expressions are more or less a matter of simple historical documentation. Conversely the argument over the phobic origin of antipathy to homosexuality might increase, but it might also improve in quality when it cannot hide behind the more general issue.

The sentence that you, User:Bikeable, quote is not the clearest thing I've ever written, I grant you, but in any case you've parsed it out incorrectly. If I'm accusing you of anything (and can we Wikipedia:Assume good faith?), it is of believing that "there's something wrong with Wikipedia somehow influencing readers to stop using 'homophobia' in the general sense." If we use parlance here which is clearer that popular discourse, and popular discourse evolves to reflect the change, that's not a bad thing. Mangoe 16:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Mangoe, I didn't mean "accuse" in any particularly bad way; sorry. I understood you properly, I think. I agree that wikipedia should help with clarity, of course: we can make sure people understand what a word means (although this is really the function of a dictionary, and wp's purpose goes deeper). However, when a word has multiple meanings in common use, we should not be attempting to reassign one (or more) of those meanings to another word, even for the sake of clarity. For example, "moot" has two nearly opposed meanings ("open to debate" and, more recently, "not worth discussion"). Even if the latter is a confused usage of the former, it's not our place to correct the usage, but only to report on it. I think the is the issue we have here. (Incidentally, we should copy this discussion to Talk:Homophobia after the AfD, as it's an interesting recap of a lot of points regularly brought up there.) bikeable (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In the case of "moot" the discussion would of necessity have to split, but within a single article. But the issue here is beyond simple definition, which is the entire issue with "moot".

In effect you are advocating that Wikipedia commit to what you claim (and lots of people dispute): that homophobia means anti-homosexualism, and without the connotation of mental disorder as a cause. In practice the article is and is not edited this way, because it tends to reflect the connotation attached to phobias, and because the considerable denunciation of the term as reflecting this connotation is played down as much as can be gotten way with. What we get is an article which tends to assume that fixing homophobia-- which is to say, opposition to homosexuality-- is a matter of psychological treatment or at least conditioning.

That's where the POV-pushing comes in, and why people who object to homosexuality see a biased article. It's a subject of controversy whether the word even has two distinct meanings, or whether its generalized meaning is simply people who believe it is a phobia getting sloppy and political. At any rate, I disagree that people are going to be so confused at going to homophobia and finding themselves directed to another place to read about one aspect of it-- even one which they consider the primary aspect.

Compared to the mess I'm having to deal with in railway signalling, this is a piece of cake. In that subject, American and British practices have evolved so separately that term-for-term substitution often isn't possible (as in the rail siding versus passing loop issue). Earlier in the summer, we had a big battle because the category of "locomotive engineers" had been created-- to tag people who designed locomotives, and not people who operated them (the American meaning). When I tried to change this to a more universally intelligible label, "locomotive designers", there was an uproar from some of the British contingent, who would not give up their term. Eventually, the need for an unambiguous term prevailed, leaving us with the possibility that Wikipedia may lead Brits to switch to American usage, but it's something we'll just have to live with. Mangoe 18:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though you feel that the term homophobia in all its uses will always and forever be connected with a psychological condition. But, then again, so is racism in some aspects (being an '-ism'), and that does not even have a 'phobia' attached to it. Should those who object to such a 'negative' term for their beliefs be allowed to create an article entitled 'anti-African-Americanism' because they view an article on 'racism' as biased? This is a very simple issue, Mangoe, and your example actually clarifies what must be done here. What we have here is a group of people who are upset that a word that might be considered disparaging and its common usage (also disparaging) might refer to them. Now, the goal is to split this word into TWO words, and pretend as though the first word does not refer to what it actually refers to in common knowledge. I will say this again, because it bares being said over and over again. Wikipedia is not the place to push for a particular meaning for a word. One side of this debate wishes to acknowledge that a word has multiple meanings in common parlance. Most of the other side of the debate is getting red-faced at the possibility that they are inherently being called this word, screaming 'POV' and trying to create a fork that doesn't even come close to reflecting knowledge and usage. (I would like to make a special note here that not all of those who support this side are homophobic. I tried to say that with 'most' but I realize it might be interpreted that way. It's entirely possible some want to include the fork based on a difference in philosophy regarding WP:NPOV and not because they are homophobes.) One of these sides is POV pushing. It is not the first one. In your example, you would not abide the creation of two seperate catagories to express the same profession because one group was upset by one of the terms. That is ludicrous. NPOV does not mean that the wiki should be modified from what it is meant to encompass (knoweldge and uses) in order that some people might not get offended. CaveatLector^Talk 19:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No amount of you repeating it is going to get rid of the reality that entries in Wikipedia are going to be used, and more or less correctly as that sort of thing goes, as a normative authority on what the words mean. Therefore it is not possible to assign names to articles and at the same time avoid pushing for particular meanings.

In your abandoment of good faith you've asserted that the rewritten homophobia would not even mention what you claim is the most common meaning of the word. I don't see you you can successfully defend that claim, if only because (in the event you don't prevail) you and a host of others are going to make absolutely sure that the one article refers prominently to the other. And so will I, for that matter. Splitting the issue across two articles is not going to prevent anyone from getting his or her points in, except for the connotation issue which you claim isn't really there anyway, so it wouldn't hurt your POV to have a structure which discouraged it.

It isn't just myself who refused two categories in the locomotive designer incident, but the rest of the community. It went up for a RfM, and my position prevailed. I don't recall whether two (redundant) categories was considered, but I suspect that if it had been proposed someone would have shot it down as a POV fork (which it would have been). Mangoe 21:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

CaveatLector hits the nail on the head when they say that homophobia really is an "ism", only named as such due to the complete awkwardness and lack of clarity in any possible names (homosexualism? Sexualitism? high-kinsey-scoreism?). This is what homophobia is recognised as, not a phobia. Yes, the word sucks, but anti-homosexualism is even more disjointed (anti-race? anti-coloured? anti-women?), and it really is not wikipedia's place to try and promote society to find a new word for something. As I've already hinted at, POV pushing runs both ways in this matter. Homophobia is seen as being "pro-gay", or at least not supportive of the voiced objections to sexuality. And quite frankly, Racism takes a similar, correct (civil, non-attacking stance. Anti-homophobia seems to be a term prefered by those who are seemingly "anti-gay", who would rather avoid the negative consequences of such a title. That's not to say that the current article is not nuetral, it's been well written. Whilst it is wrong to arbitarilly label peple as homophobic, I can see that if this article remains, attempts will occur to change any mentions of someone being 'homophobic', often even those straight out of a reference, over to the far kinder and less inflamatory (and hence more accepting) term of anti-homophobia. To finish, I'll repeat: homophobia is an 'ism', just like racism LinaMishima 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per User:Flying Jazz and Mangoe -it's certainly not a neologism (or at least, it's an older one than homophobia) and given the debate than Mangoe points to regarding homophobia, maybe this should be the main article. Armon 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Struck thru user:Flying Jazz as he/she has changed vote to Weak Redirect. Marcus22 08:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, if it weren't a neologism I'd say redirect to Homophobia. HGB 22:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Redirect I am changing my opinion from Keep to Weak Redirect. The primary (actually, the only) editor who contributed to this article has left Wikipedia without replying to my suggestions for improvements on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, without this editor taking suggestions from the community or even replying to them, I think this article will stagnate in its current form, and in its current form it is too POV to continue in the encyclopedia. For now, the word should redirect to homophobia. I hope a future editor creates a new anti-homosexualism article that is encyclopedic. I copied the article's content to User_talk:Britcom/Anti-homosexualism. My apologies to the administrator if this was the wrong thing for me to do. Flying Jazz 02:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep, seems verified and npov. Seems a debate that the closing admin will have to really look into. ~ct.e 21:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Votes Well I make it 7 for Delete (including Nom.); 5 for Keep (which includes one weak keep and two votes from 'unknown' (red) users); 3 for Redirect (including one weak redirect); 1 Merge; 1 undecided and 1 Rename. Divisive huh? Anyone I've missed or anyone care to change their votes to get a clear consensus? Marcus22 08:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rich Cleveland

Founder of the website Moab World (which has no traffic ranking), and the "not so famous" Moab band, "The Shed" says it all. Punkmorten 08:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO. Wickethewok 13:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Typical nn- vanity. -- RHaworth 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 List of collegiate a cappella groups. Mangojuice^talk 15:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zumbyes

Non-notable college a cappella group. No real claim to notability. The closest it comes is: "The New York Times has reportedly called the Zumbyes "the most dangerous acapella group" but this has yet to be confirmed." savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge — per above. clearly fails WP:MUSIC as most of these college groups do Peripitus (Talk) 13:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No verifiable sources per WP:V. (No need to merge; entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 List of collegiate a cappella groups Mangojuice^talk 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Williams Street Mix

Non-notable college a cappella group. No real claim to notability other than a trivial reference to some of their lyrics in an alleged book about college culture. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No sources per WP:V. (No need to merge; entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 List of collegiate a cappella groups. Mangojuice^talk 15:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Williams Octet

Non-notable college a cappella group. No claim to any notability at all outside of their campus. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, a lot of girls at Dartmouth know the Octet pretty well, savidan...
• Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No third-party sources per WP:V. (No need to merge; entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 List of collegiate a cappella groups. Mangojuice^talk 15:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WPI Simple Harmonic Motion

College a cappella group which fails WP:MUSIC. Travelling with the school's glee club and collaborating with other non-notable groups is not a claim to fame. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ok for an entry in the list above and/or in some part in university page, but IMHO it is not a merge. Cate 15:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No sources per WP:V. (No need to merge; entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 TO DELETE. Herostratus 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tonic Sol-fa

College a cappella group which fails WP:MUSIC. Claims to have sold 100,000 cds but there is no verifiable, third party source for this. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that this is not a collegiate a cappella group. Did you read the article? Jesuschex 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I did. It's in Category:Collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 16:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It is also in Category:Professional a cappella groups, and as far as I can tell, those two are (or should be) mutually exclusive. It was put in collegiate by an editor who was removing a copyvio. I'll fix it. Jesuschex 03:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't think WP:MUSIC is a problem; they've toured, they've been independently reviewed. They have one album on a label, and some self-released ones, but A Capella is somewhat out of the mainstream, so I think we could stand to be flexible. I don't see this article making Wikipedia more indiscriminate in its selection of topics. Mangojuice^talk 15:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Where are you getting this "independently reviewe" claim from? There are no sources in the article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. While notability might be sufficient, I am more concerned about the complete absence of any reputable third-party sources to verify. I just feel that any group worthy of its own encyclopedia article should have at least one good source other than its own website and a nearly blank listing at AMG (which is not restricted to notable bands). If someone can provide, I am happy to change my opinion. --Satori Son 14:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't see an issue here. They have an amg entry, all of their cds are in stock in amazon[24], 8 hits about them on google news. Doesn't seem like a random garage band to me. - Bobet 14:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 List of collegiate a cappella groups (might as well). Mangojuice^talk 15:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The New Blue

College a cappella group that doesn't even attempt to make a claim that would satisfy WP:MUSIC savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This page contains no false information, and as a specific independent organization I think The New Blue merits its own individual page. The New Blue already has an entry in the list of collegiate a cappella groups, so merging it with that list would simply mean deleting this page. That list functions as a portal to other wikipedia pages and websites that elaborate on each a cappella groups. Such elaboration may be larging lacking on The New Blue page at this time, but as a stub it is implied that in the future more information will be added to the New Blue page. I don't agree with WP:MUSIC so I will not attempt to explain why this page should exist according to those guidelines. Why limit accurate, non-distracting, non-overlapping information?

As long as you are not disputing that the page doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, I won't argue with you. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making any claims about this article's validity according to WP:MUSIC.

• Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC, and even stubs must have third-party sources per WP:V. (No need to merge; entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 List of collegiate a capella groups (might as well). Mangojuice^talk 15:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On a Sensual Note

College a cappella group which doesn't meet the standards of WP:MUSIC. The first nomination, which was closed as no consensus, contained such gems as "Sorry if you Wikipedia snobs think that it is unworthy." savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to List of collegiate a cappella groups. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 10:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, unless every collegiate a cappella group is deleted as well. The "some are more notable than others" argument is exceptionally weak, even in the case of the Whiffenpoofs. No one outside of a cappella and New Haven knows who they are, even the presidents they've sung for. --SparqMan 16:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a rationale for keep. I've nominated a lot of less-than-notable a cappella groups for deletion. If you think there are others that don't meet the standards, nominate them for deletion. If all the other articles jumped off a bridge...you get the picture. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Armon 16:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. No sources per WP:V. (No need to merge; entry is already listed at List of collegiate a cappella groups.) --Satori Son 12:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. JPD (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of construction equipment manufacturers

List cruft. I did begin to wikify this article, but none of these companies have articles about them that I could find (I only looked for the first 40 or so!). I don't feel this adds anything, unless someone feels like writing articles for all the companys. Ladybirdintheuk 09:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• The article was deleted via proposed deletion in May 2006 on the grounds that Category:Construction equipment manufacturers did the task better. Uncle G 14:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing beyond the category. Pavel Vozenilek 19:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does nothing that the category can't do. --Richhoncho 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. DOES do something the category can't do: encourage new articles we don't want. Mangojuice^talk 15:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mario Bucolo

Article written in Italian that has not been translated despite being tagged on 6 August. There is a note on the talk page to say that a corresponding article on the Italian wiki was deleted as self promoting spam. I guess we don't really need to keep this as it is and there seems to be no effort to improve it so I suggest we Delete it. Spartaz 09:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 11:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Victoriagirl 23:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The page fails to meet the “Verifiability” and “Reliable sources” requirements of the encyclopedia. I have deleted it. —Encephalon 11:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Blog Blog

Prod removed by anon without explanation. My original prod said "Probably a vanity creation. In any case fails WP:WEB quite clearly." Pascal.Tesson 10:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - No reliable sources given. Googling is less than helpful. Wickethewok 13:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maplewiki

Contested prod; a reason for contesting was given on Talk:Maplewiki (effectively the Pokemon test), but I disagree; Alexa worse than 1000000, no real assertions of notability. --ais523 10:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - No secondary sources given/found. Less than 40 unique google hits. Wickethewok 13:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable sources WilyD 14:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If I were to reattach this to Mapletip.com, the maplewiki.net domain was RECENTLY purchased as you can see on Whois, therefore the Alexa ranking is DEFINETLY low. And also, unique google hits will also be low due to the newness. When Maplewiki was attached to Mapletip, it obtained MANY articles with many people helping every day. But now, you are going with a new domain that was recently purchased for Maplewiki. Please reconsider. Sources, are of coures in the Maplewiki itself.

 Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
 Domain Name: MAPLEWIKI.NET
  Created on: 18-Aug-06
  Expires on: 18-Aug-07
  Last Updated on: 19-Aug-06 

Source

-- Mapletip 15:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that still fails WP:V - which cannot be overcome by editor's concensus. WilyD 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, so you mean the articles itself are unreliable as in no sources? If you're talking about the monster database the source is Mapletip itself, which is very relibale as we have built it ourselves. Please before you delete tell me what is 'unreliable'. 68.78.148.16 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:RS and WP:V if it's unclear to you , but the articles doesn't cite any reliable, third party sources. In general, Maplewiki is not an authenticating source. WilyD 16:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Very well, delete it for now, I will remake the article when we fix the issue. Mapletip 18:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black River House

It is impossible to verify any of the details prevented on the Black River House website and other pages written by the site's owner through independent sources. No other articles on the Marchant case, even eleven years after the site claims the news broke upon the public, despite the highly sensational nature of the incident. No other articles on the dramatic and enigmatic disappearance of the band The Secret Method. No other articles on 2005 suicide at the house, aside from a PDF copy of a BBC article which may not be written in a professional tone and cannot now be located on the BBC website proper. Town of Kildubhan, Ireland does not appear to exist outside of references to the site. Book which the site's author claims to have written, published by Random House, does not appear to exist; should be some reference even if the edition was limited. Very probable hoax or publicity stunt. -- PegasusGrrl 11:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable, and probable marketing gimmick --Aim Here 10:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands. However there is so much in it if anything were true and verifiable it might make an article of some sort. Nigel ^(Talk) 13:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pretty clear hoaxvertisement. Robertissimo 02:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cerebral process outsourcing

Contested prod (no reason given for contesting). Neologism and blatant advertising; needs serious cleanup if kept. --ais523 10:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Ridiculous advertising. Wickethewok 13:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - with that number of links to their own website 100% pure. Nigel ^(Talk) 13:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, complete and utter ad-copy based on vendor buzzword/neologism. There's quite simply no such term. Kuru ^talk 13:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - pure spam. --Quiddity 20:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Roberts

delete as failing WP:MUSIC. I also nominate his band Smash-Up Derby. The band does not appear to have toured or had any records released per criteria laid down in WP:MUS. Only trace is a demo record. No entry on allmusic. The entry for Smash-Up Derby was created by Adrian Roberts. Ohconfucius 10:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all - Would you mind throwing in DJs Adrian & the Mysterious D in this nom as well? Wickethewok 13:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• I also nominate DJs Adrian & the Mysterious D. Three for the price of one. Ohconfucius 15:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all as vanity. Recury 19:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete no notability as a musician asserted. Pascal.Tesson 11:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Sombrero Galaxy. JPD (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M104 group of galaxies

This object may not exist. A detailed explaination is presented on the Sombrero Galaxy page under "Environment". Basically, some papers using one group identification method have determined that M104 is part of a group (references include the Nearby Galaxy Catalogue by B. Tully, Groups of galaxies within 80 Mpc. II - The catalogue of groups and group members by P. Fouque et al., and Nearby Optical Galaxies: Selection of the Sample and Identification of Groups by G. Giuricin et al.) whereas other group identification methods have determined that M104 is not (references include General study of group membership. II - Determination of nearby groups by A. Garcia and Nearby Optical Galaxies: Selection of the Sample and Identification of Groups by G. Giuricin et al.). The creator of the article used this page within the Atlas of the Universe website to create this page but misunderstood the reference, which did not place M104 within a group. The Atlas of the Universe website itself does not definitively state whether M104 belongs in a group; two different pages within it contain contradictory information. (Note that the Atlas of the Universe website uses the Tully, Fouque et al., Garcia, and Giuricin et al. references given above. The original references are more useful than the Atlas of the Universe website.) Since it is unclear as to whether a "M104 group" exists and since this is already discussed thoroughly in the Sombrero Galaxy article, the M104 group of galaxies article should be deleted. George J. Bendo 10:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect If its discussed thoroughly elsewhere than the article should point in that direction/ --Spartaz 10:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect the whole group of galaxies (presumably to Sombrero Galaxy). Could we relocate them as well? Dlyons493 Talk 11:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting M104 group of galaxies to the Sombrero Galaxy would be OK, but the other galaxies in the tenuously-identified group should be left unchanged. NGC 4487, NGC 4504, NGC 4802, and UGCA 289 are different objects from the Sombrero Galaxy; redirecting searches on those galaxies to the Sombrero Galaxy would give the incorrect impression that those galaxies' names are valid names for the Sombrero Galaxy and would thus cause confusion. George J. Bendo 12:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Since those articles don't exist, it shouldn't be a problem. Yomangani^talk 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - the Sombrero Galaxy article discusses whether that galaxy should be regarded as being in a group - it isn't directly analogous to this article as it has no discussion of the legitimacy of the "M104 group" title. Redirecting would not be correct as it would suggest that the M104 group was a recognised entity (plus it has no main space links and isn't a likely search term anyway). There may be a possibility for a valid article about the existence of an M104 group to be created, but this article is poorly titled, uncited and factually lacking. Yomangani^talk 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above. (I should have voted earlier. I guess it is implicit in the nomination, but it is good to be explicit.) George J. Bendo 14:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect if the topic may be looked up by someone, we should point to a place where the existence is disputed, otherwise, the article will probably just get created again in the future. This way we keep the history of why no article. WilliamKF 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sombrero Galaxy per WilliamKF. Chaos syndrome 19:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per WilliamKF.--Planetary 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. We are not yet become Binky, destroyer of galaxies. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect somebody could redirect this into Sombrero Galaxy or Destroyer of galaxies. That would be good ideas to redirect into those two I've mentioned. Daniel's page ☎ 01:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disc makers

Consider this may effectively be advertising. Speedy delete removed as was prod. Although improved and has Ghits still reads like PR for company, opinions sought Nigel ^(Talk) 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonnotable record label. It's mentioned just once (The Toasters) in the whole encyclopedia. No backlinks. (The "Main article: History of Disc Makers" is a joke, right?) No demand for an advertisement with personal histories and a detailed listing of services that parrots http://www.discmakers.com/music/whydm/history.asp. Femto 13:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. I do like how they linked "in-house graphic design" though. Now I know what a house is! Recury 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I am afraid that this subject simply lacks the reference base to support an encyclopedia article. Thus, delete. Regards —Encephalon 11:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malaysia Students

Contested prod about a non-notable blog. MER-C 11:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless proof can be provided of it gaining in popularity (I'm not fussed, anyone who can translate a Bahasa Melayu source is welcome to do so and I'll take it in good faith). BigHaz 11:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity spam advertisement. --Ageo020 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• This is not spam blog since it has helped answering questions from both local and foreign students. Some recent examples include Scoring 1A in SPM Chemistry, Reign226's Guide to Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. Read the comments in Contact Us page to read the questions posted by readers. Visit forum post 1 and forum post 2 to read recent questions submitted by the readers although they are unanswered at the moment. However, I can assure you that we try our best to answer questions from the readers as soon as possible. The increasing number of questions asked by the readers indicates that this blog is gaining popularity. Moreover, there are several useful blog posts or original helpful articles on the blog. For example, Post-STPM Guideline, How to Score SPM EST, Updates from the STPM UPU front, STPM Science and Mathematics Subjects – You can answer in Malay until 2007 and Kuok Foundation Undergraduate Awards. Cupid9 15:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - obviously no assertion of notability in the article, and I guess there is no notability guidelines for blogs, as they are non-notable per se.

PS. God forbid we start featuring articles on "notable blogs". Pokemons are enough. Bravada, talk - 17:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Staple, Phone, Cheese Flavour Twists

Probable hoax, google turns up 0 hits for the show and the alleged actors. Riley O'Harris, created by the same user, has been speedied already. Cactus.man ✍ 11:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, a variety of searches on variations of the title and the actors turned up nothing. Would be delighted to see any actual verification of any of the article. Kuru ^talk 19:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mangojuice^talk 15:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The European Council (TEC)

Probably a hoax. Most of the text of this article is copied from http://www.eurocouncil.org/, which doesn't look like website of serious international organization. I can't find any other reference to this group. When you google "The European Council" TEC – it turns up a lot of results, but TEC means Treaty establishing the European Community, so it seems that all the results refer to the European Council. --Filemon 12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Philemon is clearly excessive in his highly biased "entry-cleansing" zeal: to me, this looks like any other European think-tank albeit an embryonic one, because it was founded quite recently. Plus TEC clearly claims to be "independent and research-oriented" which removes all ambiguity and/or risk of it being confused with an official EU ministry or department. I think we should definitely keep this entry. Maybe Philemon (who seems to be a rightwing Polish irredentist...) doesn't like these guys because their vision of Europe includes Russia?.

I’ve just read some of Filemon’s “contributions”: qualifies as overtly rightwing and nationalist.

Hence the distrust for perceived enemies of Greater Poland such as EU “bureaucrats” and Russian “Cossacks”.

Plus ça change…. --DrVega2

The two user accounts (Solferino and DrVega2) were created today, slightly after user Saint Germain (creator of this article) tried to remove AfD notice from the article. Solferino and DrVega2 removed AfD notice too, making completely false allegations. It is quite obvious that these users are sockpuppets of user Saint-Germain, who tries to defend his hoax. --Filemon 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete. There is nothing I have found which would allow me to distinguish between this alleged think tank organisation and the Council of the European Union. There is no evidence whatsoever it would pass WP:ORG. Assertion is not properly asserted IMHO: the only hint of it is when the author inserted "dedicated to innovative research and analysis" without substantiating how innovative it actually is. The org's own website is but a holding page. I would consider that at best, it clearly fails WP:V. Ohconfucius 08:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, completely non-notable. —Nightstallion (?) 19:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly no organization would in their right mind choose such a misleading name. Hoax. All three users should be banned for weak attempt at sockpuppetry and defamation of Filemon. Pascal.Tesson 22:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyril August and C.A slider

Strong suspicion of a hoax per lack of Google hits. AfD instead of prod because I want more eyes on it in case this is real. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both as failing WP:V - I can't find anything on either. Yomangani^talk 14:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per above. The purported invention sounds like a Pocket door, and they've been around since long before the first westerner set foot in New Zealand. Fan-1967 02:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Tyrenius 00:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wutai (Final Fantasy)

Non-notable (even optional) town from Final Fantasy VII with little relevence to the overall storyline. Also contains a fair bit of fanon. Exists in as much detail as really needed on List of Final Fantasy VII locations Made2Fade 12:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete List of FF7 locations blurb suffices as mention. ColourBurst 14:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tyyu6 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I love FF as much as anybody but this is pure cruft.--65.16.61.35 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The stuff in the list article is plenty. Recury 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. If there aren't any other articles on FF7 locations, there's no reason for Wutai to be singled out. The existing List article is good enough (although I'm voting Weak Delete because there is precedent set by Star Wars, Star Trek and Doctor Who articles for separate articles to exist for locations. But unless someone does all the FF7 towns, having just one featured doesn't make a lot of sense (and whether FF7 is notable enough to warrant location articles is a matter for another debate). 23skidoo 01:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually there is an article for Midgar, and I think it's a notable enough location to have an article of its own, in that quite a large part of the game happens there and it's a big place of which you can write a lot of stuff about; Wutai, however, is hardly as important location as Midgar. (Scene of two optional subquests - as opposed to some other locations like Nibelheim or Cosmo Canyon that are much more integral to the storyline...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Final Fantasy VII locations. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 12:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friendship Industries

This horribly formatted article appears to me like an advertisement/press release for this organisation. A Google search for the exact name puts out 647 results, which is very little; ergo, I think the relevance of this organisation for an encyclopaedia is very low. Since its inception, the article had 19 edits, all but two of them by one user, MGBlankenship --Florian Prischl 12:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Straight copyvio of chunks of a website, such as this. Site claims "Copyright 2006 Friendship Industries". Too late for a {{db-copyvio}} tag. Since it's here I won't go the {{copyvio}} route. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above Subwayguy 03:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. My reading of the debate is that there is a good case for an overview trilogy article that covers all three films, but the previous text on this page did not fulfil that adequately, so the article should be deleted as it stood. As it happens, it was turned into a disambig page during the debate, and there is a need for a disambig page. However, this is not really suitable as no one is likely to search for "Scream (trilogy)". I have therefore added Scream 2 and Scream 3 to the existing Scream disambig page to meet the need more usefully. If I have misread this and there is a need for a "Scream (trilogy)" disambig, then I will undelete it. As it stands, it can be recreated with good content, if anyone wishes, for an overview article. Tyrenius 00:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scream (trilogy)

Redundant of Scream (film), Scream 2 and Scream 3, all of which are more developed than this article. I didn't notice anything new worth merging. ccwaters 12:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as duplicate of existing material. Yomangani^talk 14:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as duplicate... could also be disambiguated to the movies if anyone cares to do so.--Isotope23 14:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, I'm fine with the dab page that currently appears.--Isotope23 15:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Change - we could change the article into a disambigua page about the films. If not, then delete.--andrew 15:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• There is a reason to have articles like this, see WP:LIST and WP:SUMMARY, but .. it needs work, that's for sure. WilyD 15:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per reworking. A stub that could use expansion, but quality is fine. WilyD 19:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think converting it into a disambiguation page is a particular good idea - hardly likely that anybody will search for Scream (trilogy) when looking for one of the films. The second and third films could be listed on the Scream page if it is necessary to disambiguate them. Yomangani^talk 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Disambiguated. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't think removing all the content and turning the page into a disambig-only page was a good idea. Whatever unites the movies as a trilogy should be the topic of the article as was done for other films. See The_Lord_of_the_Rings_film_trilogy and Star Wars. Flying Jazz 00:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If you're interested in adding good content, go ahead. WilyD 14:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Heh. No thanks. I've never seen one Scream movie and never intent to. Flying Jazz 14:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, alright - but they're surprisingly good. WilyD 15:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep disambiguation page but as Flying Jazz notes, there are already articles on overall film trilogies (as well as many literary trilogies) so if someone writes an article is isn't just a rehash of the existing articles, then it should replace the disambiguation. 23skidoo 01:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all four into Scream (trilogy) with redirects from their original entries as well as a disambiguation page. Mugaliens 15:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Network of Crackers

No reliable sources for this information. All of it seems to be from a single site which doesn't seem to carry any legitimacy with it. Delete as not verifiable through reliable sources. Wickethewok 12:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete there are sources, but they're all from a site called defacto2, which doesn't appear to be a reliable source by our standards (WP:RS) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the sources are actual text files and interviews from the group... if that isn't reliable, then I honestly don't know what would be. Defacto2 is a pretty large and decently known site about the warez scene as well... ZoeF 00:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• WP:RS outlines what reliable sources typically tend to be. If we were doing an article about some arbitrary guy, would his website describing himself be a reliable source of information? Wouldn't he be able to say anything he wanted about himself without regard to whether or not its true? Thats why we need reliable secondary sources, such as something like a computer magazine article or Eweek.com or something like that. Wickethewok 02:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Things written by and about oneself or one's group are never truly reliable sources. Even if one tries to write completely neutrally, bias always arises because they're too close to the subject. I could spend the next few seconds writing a text file that says I'm 9 feet tall, come from Mars, have titanium buttcheeks, and have telekinetic control over pasta, but that wouldn't make it true and likely wouldn't convince many others, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep INC was the first major cracking network, as the name implies, for the IBM PC. This article is well referenced by authorities on the subject, namely Defacto2, textfiles.com, and direct interviews with those who ran the group. Furthermore, it later led to the formation of the now notorious Pirates With Attitude. Not to mention the fact that all of this data is clearly verifiable with a copy of this book.  ALKIVAR™ 03:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

AND your interpretation of WP:RS is flawed as the sources in this article clearly fit our policy.

Self-published sources in articles about themselves Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is one of the following: relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation or not contentious, such as basic biographical information. All information of a self-published nature should be looked at with a critical eye.

• Keep per Alkivar. --Myles Long 03:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Alkivar, important warez group. bbx 04:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Obviously, as per my essays on the subject, I don't get involved in Wikipedia issues on the actual Wikipedia much, but I started getting contacted by a number of people about this particular debate, and wished to make a clear and concise statement. I run textfiles.com. I spend a large amount of my waking hours downloading, acquiring, and sorting through primary sources related to bulletin board systems, warez groups, online culture in general and a wide range of related subjects. I hand-scan printouts, transfer original floppy disks from dusty boxes, and travel to interview people who were involved in the various aspects of online life that I have on my site. I am in communication with other archivists doing similar work, or at least also collecting primary sources and information, and verifying, and doing all the proper background work one does when one collects history. Defacto2 is one of many groups doing this. We (defacto, myself, archive.org, Temple of the Screaming Electron (TOTSE) and many others) consider this information important, relevant, and we work to make it accurate and represent "what really happened". This is not the first time Mr. Lenahan has decided to put his mark on deleting aspects of this culture in the name of relevancy, and his statements in the past bear out a lack of perspective on the whole matter of inclusionism vs. deletionism. Focus on improvement, not destruction. I'm sorry to hear about your cat but there are better avenues to vent your sadness. --Jscott 04:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP are you kidding? INC was the largest English PC Games Cracking Group I have ever seen (and I have seen quite a few during the last 15 years). At some point 1991/1992 did they absolutely dominate the PC Warez scene and ALL major english game titles were released by INC first, crushing all competition. Okay, there might have been 1-2 slip-throughs, but that makes it statistically still ALL. This would be like deleting the Brockhaus article if you would compare encyclopedias with PC warez groups. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this group was very notable and should be documented here Yuckfoo 01:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jason Scott's comments. For a collective of pirates that operated solely in the underground in the 1980's and early 1990's I'd say their existence is AMAZINGLY well documented. The efforts of online archivers of bbs culture (underground or public) should be greeted with appreciation, not disdain.--Sodium N4 06:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shuchita Prakashan Pvt. Ltd.

Spam, does not assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 12:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Aksi_great (talk - review me) 13:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Name+industry+products+web site+short blurb. Three classic business directory entries combined into a single article. Given that the "key person" of all three listings is the same person, and that the blurb describes one of the companies as "the only organization which is dedicated to the quality in education in India" (something which I'm sure that the Department of Higher Education, the Department of School Education and Literacy, and the various education boards would strongly dispute), at the very most this article requires a complete rewrite from scratch. I have not located anything that could be used to do so, however. The only things that I can find are business directory listings and self-publicity. The WP:CORP criteria are not satisfied. Get thee to Yellowikis! Delete. Uncle G 15:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete business directory listings. _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unadulterated spam. --Antorjal 05:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete.--nids(♂) 02:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 so keep. Tyrenius 00:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lone Wolf Real Estate Technologies

Obvious ad for a non-notable company. WEVZ 13:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup looks notable to me. --CFIF ☎ 00:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nicely put together, but doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. William Pietri 09:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This company doesn't quite meet the notability requirements of WP:CORP, and the sources provided are not up to the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. --Satori Son 01:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well written, informative, and verifiable article about a business with more than 3,000 offices. The last part is what makes it notable. RFerreira 20:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, the people from SA say so, and they should know. It gets 100 google news hits in the last week so it's hard to argue with the media coverage angle. - Bobet 12:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neotel

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

New company, launched yesterday. Looks like a startup with hopes of becoming a major competitor to the existing telecom monopoly in South Africa. Most of their services won't actually be available until next year. Google for neotel "south africa" doesn't turn up much, mainly press releases (there are other Neotel's in multiple countries). At this point, they've got investors and a lot of plans. Seems to me this isn't up to WP:CORP yet, and is rather crystal-ballish as to whether it will become a major company. Fan-1967 13:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The company isnt even offering any services yet, remains to be seen if they will become a major player in the region yet. If they ever meet WP:CORP and article can be created but as of now it does not. DrunkenSmurf 14:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment See below comments about it offering services: it is offering services. Re: "remains to be seen if they will become a major player in the region yet" -- that is not grounds enough to disqualify the article. Neotel holds significant economic interest to the region as well as being widely reported on by the media. There hasn't been a single 'advert' to my knowledge from Neotel, just dozens of press articles. Rfwoolf 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It is too grounds for deletion. Otherwise I could write an article on the bodega on the corner; it is most certainly offering services, and it "remains to be seen" whether they'll grow to rival 7-Eleven.♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Advertisement. Sparsefarce 16:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Dozens of independant press articles (see below). Rfwoolf 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per nom. This company is notable because it is the first non state telecommunications network, and just because it happens to be new doesn't make the page an advertisement.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tertrih (talk • contribs) Note: First edit from new user.

• Comment "per nom" is an abbreviation commonly used here to mean agreeing with the nominator. I don't think that's what you meant. On talk pages and in discussions, please sign your posts by typing four tilde's (~~~~) at the end of your entry. It will translate to your user name with the date and time. -- Fan-1967 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, borderline: is it crystal ball gazing when they're launching but not providing services? I don't think jumping the gun is always a bad idea, but here, it seems as if they should provide some nominal services first before they get onto Wikipedia.-Kmaguir1 08:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Following the end of AT&T monopoly in the US 20 years ago, Sprint and MCI were formed to compete. So were a whole bunch of other companies that failed and have been pretty much forgotten. We'll need to wait and see on this one. Fan-1967 14:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Surely it should qualify as an entry because it is both newsworthy and because it will provide coverage of an event that is in progress? Furthermore it does offer some services that have not been rolled out to the public yet. I can completely see the logic involved that would outlaw all businesses from having an article on Wikipedia because that would be tantamount to advertising. But this business holds significant national and regional impact on both the economy and the telecommunications industry. It may not have properly launched yet, but a wide cross-section of the public is aware of it because of the press. Rfwoolf 17:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. The company is already in business, however they are not yet dealing directly with the South African public (these services will be available in April 2007), currently wholesale international bandwidth is being sold to ISP's and other enterprises. Furthermore they will become the first company other that Telkom to offer fix-line access to companies/consumers in the South African market (a market that is currently heavily over-priced due to Telkom's monopoly). In addition to that this company represents the liberation of the South African telecommunications market. If this page is to be deleted, I recommend deleting the Telkom page as well.
  • For more information on Neotel and what it represents visit Hellkom or MyADSL and their external pages, namely [25] and [26].
  • Note that the name "Neotel" was only announced on 31 August 2006, before that it was known as "SNO Telecommunications", their website is still operational at [27] --Cs007 10:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Note Cs007 (talk · contribs) has no edits outside this AFD and their user page.
    • Comment Telkom is a company that has long existed and is already providing service to millions of people. Whether Telkom is a horrible monopoly is irrelevant. Neotel is not even up and running yet. Wikipedia is not for promoting new ventures. Fan-1967 14:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment "Neotel is not even up and running yet." this statement is wrong, please see [28] or [29], Neotel is already providing bandwidth/services to MWeb, Internet Solutions,MTN, Vodacom, Cell C and Transtel.
        • Comment Neotel's been operating under a different name for the past year, and as mentioned previously. --Cs007 14:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Per those links, SNO has been operating since December, offering limited (and somewhat unspecified) broadband service. Fan-1967 15:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that strictly speaking in terms of being a company it doesn't seem to be up to WP:CORP standards yet, however in terms of being a historical landmark for the South African ICT market, doesn't that justify staying (I do however believe that the article is still fairly incomplete) ? --Cs007 15:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Do NOT delete the Neotel entry. It complies with at at least one WP:CORP criteria: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.". Click here for one news source. Neotel will also have economic impacts on the economy of the Republic of South Africa because it will completely change the telecommunications industry. Finally, last I heard Wikipedia was an encyclopedia; I specifically searched for Neotel to find out facts about the company, and the only reason I was ever aware of the company was because of its extensive coverage in the independant media -- NOT in an advertising context (see link above). As a South African, I am adament, the article has got to stay! Rfwoolf 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Last I heard Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not a list of every corporate entity in the world.♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to sign♥ «Charles A. L.» 18:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. I might have voted for deleting it if I didn't believe that this article will just be recreated in a few months time due to increase in information and interest in the company. Currently it is borderline but I expect it to expand. SumDude 16:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Note: First edit from new user
• Keep: The company can be considered notable primarily due to its political interest to South Africa. Because of notoriety of Telkom, the subject is controversial and thus interesting. However the article should follow very strict NPOV, remain factual and keep in mind that the company hasn't really proved anything yet. It will be a good idea to focus on the historical facts (related to the establishment of the new company) rather than the services or products of the new company. Errantkid 07:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep — Regardless of the company's future fate, they represent an important landmark in South African telecommunications. --Piet Delport 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I use Wikipedia regularly to either make sense of terms I don't understand, or to get some basic information about organisations / people that I have been hearing about and want a 'factual' update on. I am not aware of the various policies and guidelines referred to above, but the vast media coverage it has been garnering over the last many days prompted me to check the info on Wikipedia - and the current entry gave me a quick basic overview. I also understand that the company, being the second operator in South Africa, breaking decades of monopoly, represents a historical landmark - enough for the President of the country to comment on its launch. I think therefore, that the entry should be retained - any material discerned as 'advertising' must of course be removed. 196.207.40.213 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto. G.A.S 06:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 so keep. Nom withdrawn, no other participants. Tyrenius 23:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Industrial nameplates

Advertisment, disguised as an article -- TexMurphy 13:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Withdrawing nomination as author has removed the link to the company. I'll add a cleanup-tag to the page instead. -- TexMurphy 14:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 PZ Myers. The raw total were 6 Keep (1 being Keep or Merge), 3 Delete (1 being Delete or Merge), and 8 Merge. 1 Keep vote is that editor's only edit so far, so if we disregard that and elect to read both the "...or Merge" comments as Merge leaves 4 Keep, 2 Delete, and 10 Merge. That seems to be quite a clear consensus to merge, and although the comments regarding the non-notability of the article subject are well taken, they don'd seem to be enough to overcome the general consensus to merge, in my opinion. Herostratus 17:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PYGMIES + DWARFS arguments

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

POV article, poorly written article on non-encyclopedic content.

A semi-supported half-joke argument against creationism. Possibel internet phenomenom. I'm putting more under Things made up in school; teachers can make things up too. PZ Myers and Jim Pinkoski deserve articles, but not this one-part-of-the-joke concept.--ZayZayEM 13:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Created by User:Outeast, whose only edits thus far have been this article's creation, and craete a link from dwarf (disambiguation)--ZayZayEM 05:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Google the statement "If you doubt this is possible how is it there are pygmies" (the plus sign stuffs it up) - I got 72 hits just now. Note: people can't agree on wether it is Dwarfs or dwarves.--ZayZayEM 13:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A Google search isn't going to give accurate numbers on this. From the citations I've collected so far, many people don't quote the first part of the phrase (instead, they finish a sentence with some variation of "PYGMIES + DWARFS!!"). Even those who attempt to quote the entire quostion usually don't do it accurately. I'm not asserting that the phrase is common, but I am asserting that your proposed search string (and the results from it), don't reveal whether the phrase is common or not. Sanguinity 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopedic topic for an article. Flying Jazz 23:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into PZ Myers. Sanguinity 15:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. At best it's a neologism, at worst it's a joke referencing an event on a single website. eaolson 21:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to PZ Myers Guettarda 21:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • After further reflection, it could stand alone, and doesn't really fit all that well as a subset of the Myers article, so changing to Keep. Guettarda 12:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it It's a valuable piece of information about a common topic. Hank Fox 20:14, 3 September 2006
  • This incorrectly signed vote by 72.224.41.177 00:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to PZ Myers (provisional). But before that is done other problems will need fixing. It needs to be trimmed down. The stuff on Jim Pinkoski's POV might belong in his article instead. Some POV problems need fixing. The claim that Pinkoski is a "noted authority on biblical interpretation" should be justified or deleted. Citations would also be nice. If some of these are not addressed then my suggestion changes to delete. And in response to Hank Fox, I don't think it is all that common at all. MichaelSH 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to PZ Myers, if possible, otherwise Delete. --Kristjan Wager 10:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Jim Pinkoski, since he made the argument. Link from PZ Myers. Moioci 14:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That which is interesting about the argument, however, isn't the argument itself -- there are plenty of equally bizarre fallacies in his guide, none of which anyone is proposing as it's own article. The noteworthy thing about this one is that it has become a generalized tagline to label nonsensical rhetoric. I don't see that getting explained properly in Pinkoski's article. In fact, this may be one of the best reasons to keep this article where it is without merging it -- neutral ground, free of the inherent POV that would come with merging it to either place. Sanguinity 15:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please cite some sources of its use as a "generalised tagline" that are notable--ZayZayEM 05:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice, please, that my vote was and remains to merge with PZ Myers. As far as I'm aware, the tagline is notable only within the circle of Pharyngula's readers, and not far beyond that. Sanguinity 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What exactly can be merged? Unencyclopedic content does not belong in any article. This article is completely unencyclopedic. PZ Myers already has as much about this as is needed.--ZayZayEM 02:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Already has as much as is needed? I haven't compared the Myers rev-history to the date of your comment, but what's over there right now is... nothing. Except the link to this article.

As to your question about what, in my opinion, should be there.... I'd throw out the statement about "criticising at length Jim Pinkoski's comic books". It was only for a relatively short period that he was having a go at Pinkoski's books, and unless you were Pinkoski, about the only thing that ultimately mattered from that go-around is the persistence of "PYGMIES + DWARFS". I'd replace the Pinkoski-sentence with a statement that: One of Myers' creationist criticisms, the satirical use of "PYGMIES + DWARFS", has become a memetic tagline used by other science and political bloggers to highlight perceived logical fallacies of (insert NPOV wording here indicating that this is typically used by the political left when talking about the political right). Cite the original post, perhaps Pinkoski's comic, and however many additional citations that wolud be needed to demonstrate that it's been used 1.) by other people, 2.) to criticize science arguments, and 3.) to criticize political arguments. Sanguinity 21:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Myers did criticize Pinkoski at length. He tore apart him in several posts back in Sept 05. After the original post he set about totally ridiculing the poor bastard. Then recently he reposted the lot on the new server, with an explainer post. While it mentions that his motivation was people querying about P+G, it still fails to establish greater notabilty outside of a select insular group/club (see WP:SKOOL). Its also never referred to as an argument. Actually more appropriately, the term "PYGMIES + DWARF" logic is used. The setting behind the movement needs to be explained, or its really useless to the average reader.--ZayZayEM 01:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge, reading up on this topic (Evolution-creation debates) just now, I didn't understand this phrase then it was used. Therefore, even though this is a very short article, I'd argue that the information is useful to the encyclopedia in that it highlights a part, if small, of a very important/common debate which people might not understand. Article does need some work, though. Barnas 11:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has extensive information already on the alleged (my POV) Creation-evolution controversy--ZayZayEM 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Cleanup and Merge Rich Farmbrough, 12:13 5 September 2006 (GMT).
• Having done some research, it's really not worth being part of anything, but it is worth a very mini-artciel in case someone looks it up. Rich Farmbrough, 12:33 5 September 2006 (GMT).
  • That's not exactly WP:WEB or WP:TRIVIA; I have stat-counting software on my website, people look up all sorts of weird crap, I don't think that's a reasonable case for notability.--ZayZayEM 13:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge (preferable) with PZ Meyers this has become a common phrase on Evolution/intelligent design boards by science supporters to tag nonsensical arguments. Goatan 11:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • User:ZayZayEM has asked for some examples, Try looking at

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ or www.pandasthumb.org/ or www.talkorigins.org

It is definitely most popular on Pharyngula but appears in message boards on all three I have also seen it on others that are less well frequented by me.

Here are a few to start you of with from pandas thumb

"But how does this explain PYGMIES & DWARFS? ;)" http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/latest_fossil_f.html#comment-96276

"I haven’t read the full thing yet. I’m hoping it explains pygmies and dwarves." http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/finally_someone.html#comment-90893

Pandas thumb readers are certainly used to it. “That calls for another round of “how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??” …http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/super-mutant_ki.html#comment-39593 www.pandasthumb.org/

• Delete. I echo the judgement of Ealson- it just isn't notable. If an explanation is necessary within the ID page, it should be made there. Gabrielthursday 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with PZ Myers. It's notable. FeloniousMonk 15:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to PZ Myers I'm not convinced of its notability by itself but some of this makes sense to go in that article. JoshuaZ 15:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to PZ Myers, and ditto what Josh said. •Jim62sch• 15:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Just merge it with PZ Myers, btw is it PeeZed or PeeZee? — Dunc|☺ 15:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and/or Delete per MichaelSH and Kristjan Wager. Armon 16:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say Keep. It's notable as a meme, probably because it's a funny way of ridiculing a nonsensical argument, especially if a defense of creationism is the target. Merging it anywhere would reduce the quality and probably lead to bias that isn't wanted here. --Switch 04:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "because its funny" is not grounds for notability, meme or otherwise. --ZayZayEM 06:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fernando Montoban

De-prod by article creator. Article was expanded substantially after de-prod but none of the revisions address the lack of verifiability. Only 4 unique google hits. Irongargoyle 13:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Apparently a character in fanfic, which itself isn't even notable enough that I can find it anywhere. As far as I can tell, this name has only ever been mentioned in passing in Metallica fan forums. Geoffrey Spear 14:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh, he's mentioned on forums. We should definitely have an article on him then. Recury 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, this is a canonical example of a WP:POVFORK. I'm sure some (a small subset) of this material can be merged into Sweetest Day. I will userfy the article since the author put much work into it, and again I think that some of this information can be moved to Sweetest Day if it is done in a NPOV way. --- Deville (Talk) 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sweetest Day Hoax

This is a WP:POVFORK of Sweetest Day and the creator moved the content from here, apparently because he was unhappy with the edits being made at Sweetest Day. Essentially this article exists to advance the notion that the popularly attributed creator of Sweetest Day was not truly involved in its creation, but rather it was created by a cabal of 12 candy makers. Calling this a "hoax" is an inference based on the primary source The Cleveland Plain Dealer October 8, 1921 and October 8, 1922 editions (see photos here). There simply is no concrete evidence of a hoax here and stating that as fact constitutes original research unless an external source is produced that clearly advances this idea. The only source I've seen so far that supports this notion is the article creator's own website. I've no objection to the factual information from this newspaper article being Merged back into the Sweetest Day article (and as can be seen here I think we were very close to a good version of the article incorporating the newspaper source), but this POVFORK should be Deleted.--Isotope23 14:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect, I agree with Isotope23 in that the "hoax" part should be dropped. "Popular myth" may be more suitable. This info should go under some sort of "Versions of the origins" section in the main Sweetest Day article. Dismas|^(talk) 14:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Sweetest Day is one of the most notable hoaxes of the 20th and 21st Centuries. October 8, 2006 will be the 85th anniversary of the first Sweetest Day, which was staged in Cleveland by the Candy Industry on October 7th and 8th 1921. In the beginning (1921), Sweetest Day started out as simple consumer manipulation by the Candy Industry, wherein the 12 Confectioners who constituted The Sweetest Day in the Year Committee co-ordinated advertising, news stories and editorials published in The Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper in order to (A) convince Clevelanders that a new candy-buying holiday was occurring nationally and (B) that they should buy candy for everyone they loved and cared about because everyone else was doing it nationally. The manipulation of Clevelanders' candy-buying habits continued over the first few years, and by 1924 editorials were being published in The Cleveland Plain Dealer informing Clevelanders that Sweetest Day had become a National Institution, and advertisements were calling Sweetest Day National Candy Day. What is perhaps most notable about The Sweetest Day Hoax is that the hoax is still ongoing today, being perpetrated and enhanced by companies such as American Greetings, Hallmark, and Trade Organizations such as Retail Confectioners International. Evidence of the continued attempted manipulation of American Consumers' candy and gift-buying habits are clearly visible in the articles posted on these companies' websites 1 2 3 with the introduction of the phony Herbert Birch Kingston story during the 1990's. The attempts at manipulation can also be clearly seen on the current Wikipedia Sweetest Day site by viewing and comparing the former edits of the Sweetest Day page. The Sweetest Day Hoax has influenced millions of Americans and is a multi-billion-dollar effort on the part of Industry to manipulate the buying habits of Americans over the past 85 years. Wikipedia should allow the new article, The Sweetest Day Hoax, to replace the Sweetest Day article currently posted on Wikipedia. Miracleimpulse 16:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Miracleimpulse, this article is a WP:POVFORK and the whole basic premise of it is original research, inference based on primary sources, and unsourced conjecture. The problem is that there are multiple sources purporting a version of events and it is not the place of Wikipedia, or wikipedia editors to decide which one is "right". Wikipedia is here to report what has been written elsewhere. The problem with this article (beyond the fact that it should never have been created; verifiable information should have been left in the Sweetest Day article and editorial concerns worked through on the Talk page... which is what we were doing) is that you've inferred a hoax with no concrete evidence that one exists. You have presented circumstantial evidence and while it is certainly an interesting hypothesis, there are no secondary sources presented that point to anybody else supporting your hoax hypothesis. If there was a body of work out there that supported this hypothesis it would be one thing, but the only source for this that I see is your own website... and the Primary source you've provided only suggests there was a Sweetest Day committee of 12 men in 1921. It in no way suggests a candy-peddling cabal out to push a day of tooth-rotting sales.

The origins of this day are murky at best, with the Kingston 1920's version being widely promoted as the "official" version (and I daresay the popularly accepted version). Leigh Eric Schmidt traces it back to 1910, which also doesn't jibe with your version of events. The Sweetest Day article is small enough to easily take on a section on the origin controversy provided we stay with sourced, verified material and stay away from conjecture and promoting theories or conclusions not supported by the source material. There simply is no reason for a WP:POVFORK here just because you don't want to work on a collaborative version at Sweetest Day.--Isotope23 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC) [Note: Recury and Antaeus Feldspar have deleted the article published in The Cleveland Plain Dealer dated 10/15/2005 which states "Dozens of Cleveland's top candy makers concocted the [Sweetest Day] promotion 84 years ago" 3 times from this discussion page (see history). Miracleimpulse 10:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)]

• Delete, obvious POV fork by disgruntled editor (as his comment, above, shows). The existing article makes ample mention of the widespread opinion that Sweetest Day is a Hallmark holiday. NawlinWiki 16:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:OR, the Plain Dealer article cannot possibly support many of the claims in this article. This is also a good time to point out that having multiple sources are preferred to just using one for everything. Recury 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as clear a POV fork as they come. Weregerbil 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above arguments. Although Sweetest Day should go as well. Oh, well.-Kmaguir1 08:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remerge and delete per Isotope23. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It took less than 2 hours at my local library to find all the information and photos contained in this article. Hallmark has been selling Sweetest Day cards for half a century, and only recently started using the premise of the Herbert Birch Kingston story. American Greetings (which has been located in Cleveland for the past 100 years), like Hallmark, has never reported any of this information about the origins of Sweetest Day. The Herbert Birch Kingston story has zero primary source references. Zero. A Google search for Sweetest Day returns half a million results. A Google search for Herbert Birch Kingston returns 254,000 results. A Google image search, however, returns zero results for Herbert Birch Kingston. Is America really ok with the idea of Hallmark and American Greetings re-writing American History in order to sell greeting cards every 3rd week of October? Miracleimpulse 20:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The salient questions here are:
    1. Is Wikipedia really okay with you deciding that, even though it is debated in the real world which of the stories of the origin of "Sweetest Day" is accurate, you will choose for one of those stories to be presented on Wikipedia as "the truth"? (Hint: read WP:NPOV.)
    2. Is Wikipedia really okay with you deciding that, if other editors will not let you present the side of the debate that you favor as the "truth" of the matter, you will start a different article that basically exists just to let you assert as "the truth" what you were not allowed to assert as truth at Sweetest Day? (Hint: read WP:POVFORK.)
  • By the way, I'd like to point out that you're not only violating the above policies, but Wikipedia:Avoid self-references as well. "The attempts at manipulation can also be clearly seen on the current Wikipedia Sweetest Day site by viewing and comparing the former edits of the Sweetest Day page." Aside from all the other policy violations this assertion represents, there's no reason why it should be assumed that the "current" Wikipedia Sweetest Day article will be "current" when the reader reads it, or that Wikipedia will indeed be relevant and of interest to the reader (since it may not be Wikipedia they're reading it on.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion is invalid because Recury keeps removing comments (see history). Miracleimpulse 20:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • So if I started going off on a complete tangent about, say, clowns and seaweed and red balloons, would you say that my tangent cannot be removed without making the discussion invalid? No? Then we are agreed that irrelevant comments can be removed without invalidating the discussion, and what we disagree on is whether the comments that Recury removed are relevant or irrelevant. Obviously you think they are relevant, or you would not have made them, but all I saw was you arguing yet again that your position on the origin of Sweetest Day trumps what everyone else has to say -- and even if that was true, it would still not be relevant to the question we are discussing here, which is what we should do with almost a textbook case of POV forking. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Why did the textbook POV fork occur? Answer: Because the editors on the Sweetest Day page insisted on giving a story with zero primary source references (the Herbert Birch Kingston story) predominance on the Sweetest Day page. (text deleted) Both of these sourced arguments completely justify the POV fork. So let's bring the relevant discussion back to this page, shall we? Miracleimpulse 00:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (I deleted text here because POV forks are not justified by being "in the right" and the material removed was entirely devoted to proving Miracleimpulse to be "in the right".) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why did the textbook POV fork occur? Because you were neither willing to accept the consensus or to use legitimate dispute procedures, neither of which (contrary to your assertions) justifies creating a POV fork. End of story. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Saying the candy & card companies are perpetrating a massive fraud because your sources and their story doesn't match is a "novel narrative or historical interpretation" and thus original research. --Transfinite 04:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• My sourced arguments have now been removed from this discussion 3 times by Recury and Antaeus Feldspar. Transfinite has also removed sourced information regarding the first Sweetest Day (October 8, 1921) posted on the 1921 event page. At this point I will remind the reviewing administrator of the Wikipedia guidelines for discussion:

<<Discussion>> <<Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith (unless the user has been banned from editing the relevant pages or is making a blatantly offensive personal attack). >>

Comment The actions of Recury and Antaeus Feldspar on this discussion page constitute the exact type of deletion/editing of sourced material which caused the POV fork on the Sweetest Day article in the first place. Deletion of sourced material on a discussion page or in a Wikipedia article should be frowned upon and discouraged. The only just solution in this dispute is to allow both pages, Sweetest Day and The Sweetest Day Hoax to remain on Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia is not paper, so why not allow both articles to co-exist in peace. Miracleimpulse 09:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Miracleimpulse, what this all boils down to is that you feel your sourced material is superior or "more correct" than the more numerous sources that do not agree with your assertions because your source is the older, or perhaps more "primary" source. That simply is not how it works at Wikipedia. If there are 20 sources that say "Apples are Green" and one older source that says "Apples are Red", then the article on Apples needs to present both pieces of information without making a judgement which is the correct color of apples. We also don't write a Green Apples and Red Apples article just because those supporting Red Apples don't like the way Green Apples are portrayed in the Apples article. The only solution is for this article to be deleted and for a discussion to start at Talk:Sweetest Day about what is the appropriate and factual amount of information to be included from The Cleveland Plain Dealer along with the "Kingston" version and Leigh Eric Schmidt's version. Right now, much of The Sweetest Day Hoax is assumptions, conjecture, and original research that is better suited to your own personal website than a Wikipedia article. I'm willing to discuss the Sweetest Day article content, but Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so WP:POVFORKing is never the answer to a content dispute. There are other avenues that can be taken to resolve content disputes and if you are interested in pursuing them I (or any other longtime user if you don't trust me) can tell you what these processes are (Antaeus Feldspar alluded to them below).--Isotope23 17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Response Personally I like yellow apples: the skin on red apples is often too tough and green apples are too tart. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia: <<This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. There is a kind of feasible limit for individual article sizes that depends on page download size for our dial-up readers and readability considerations for everybody (see Wikipedia:Article size). After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, and since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, etc. This also means you don't have to redirect one topic to a partially equivalent topic that is of more common usage. A "See also" section stating that further information on the topic is available on the page of a closely related topic may be preferable.>> Why does anyone have a problem with both articles co-existing on Wikipedia? Hmmm... Miracleimpulse 18:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Hmm, I've always found Yellow to be meally... too overbred... again, read WP:POVFORK. You are quoting from Article size and Summary style, neither of which are the case here.--Isotope23 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Further Comment Please temporarily protect The Sweetest Day Hoax article from deletion of all sourced material and photos. Thank you. Miracleimpulse 10:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, put it under vandalism protection when nobody has edited the article other than you and Dismas (who simply formatted some dates)? Sorry, but that makes no sense.--Isotope23 13:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Response Hoaxes often involve suppression and management of information, which is exactly what was happening with the edits on the original Sweetest Day page resulting in the POV fork. Although all information posted in The Sweetest Day Hoax article is readily available at many Public Libraries, none of it has ever been published before to help make people aware of the methods used by advertisers and the Candy Industry to engineer the beginnings of Sweetest Day. The relentless deletions and re-wordings on the original Sweetest Day article constitute just such information suppression and management. There can be little doubt that Industry will continue their efforts at insidious deception and information management on The Sweetest Day Hoax page just as they have on the Sweetest Day page. The request for protection is fully justified. Miracleimpulse 17:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Commment No, my edits were to put the article in line with WP:NPOV and remove assumptions and conjecture that were being made. I've said this multiple times, but I will say it once more: you are drawing conclusions from the newspapter article that are not explicitly stated in those articles you've used as sources. The fact that none of the information you've cited has ever been used by anyone writing a piece using these primary sources as the basis for an article advancing the idea that Sweetest Day is a hoax started in 1921 makes this whole contention a text-book case of original research and thus not suitible for a Wikipedia ariticle. Furthermore, you are requesting protection for an article under the assumption that at some point someone is going to come along and engage in, as you've called it, information suppression and management when this has never happened in the article. Pages don't get protected against the assumption that at some point someone may edit them; that is the whole point of Wikipedia. You've created an article and now anyone can come alone and edit it provided they cite sources. Please read WP:OWN. Articles don't even get protected against the assumption that they may be vandalised. Protection is only used if and when it has been demonstrated that an article is being repeatedly vandalised and protection is the only way to stop that vandalism. Since the only edits to this article have been by you (other than me nominating it for deletion and User:Dismas doing minor wikification) there is no reason to protect this. Calling for protection is another exercise in jumping to assumptions and conclusions that are simply not justified or supported by the relevant data available.--Isotope23 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Response <<The fact that none of the information you've cited has ever been used by anyone writing a piece>>The October 15, 2005 article from The Cleveland Plain Dealer which states that "Dozens of Cleveland's top candy makers concocted the [Sweetest Day] promotion 84 years ago" has been edited out of this discussion 3 times. So let's put it back in again right here:

Idea behind Sweetest Day was to push candy, not love Saturday, October 15, 2005 Bill Lubinger Plain Dealer Reporter - Today will be sprinkled with cards and flowers, dinner dates and sex toys. - Except Sweetest Day wasn't supposed to be a day for lovers, but a day for lovers of sweets. - Dozens of Cleveland's top candy makers concocted the promotion 84 years ago and it stuck, although it never became as widely accepted as hoped. - "Sweetest Day is extremely regional," said Van Billington, spokesman for Retail Confectioners International. "It basically follows a path from Detroit to Buffalo." - The candy men of Cleveland proclaimed an annual "Sweetest Day of the Year" as a touching way to spread happiness -- not just for family and friends, but orphans and newsboys, too. - What better way to give 'em some sugar than with -- big shock -- candy, "because it has an appeal for everybody, rich and poor, old or young." - Chocolatiers delivered thousands of candy boxes to the needy. To the rest, they sold their product with outlandish claims. - In a special four-page Sweetest Day spread in The Cleveland Plain Dealer on Oct. 8, 1921, they pitched the benefits of confectionery delights. - They promoted everything from almond creams to fruit-centered milk chocolates, as if touting seaweed extract and fish oil. - "Scientists Say Man Can Walk Mile on Power Furnished by One Ordinary Caramel," reads one of the headlines. And did you know, the manufacturers fudged, that animals love candy, too. "Furthermore, most authorities agree that it is good for them." - Horses and dogs are especially keen on chocolate-covered varieties, they insisted. (No mention that chocolate can be toxic to a dog - even chocolate Labs.) - Candy makers wisely used the event to dispel popular myths that apparently hurt sales: Glucose doesn't contain glue, they informed readers, and the product isn't made from horses' hooves or coal tar. - Maybe they got one fact right, though. - "We are known as the greatest nation of candy eaters," the masters of marzipan bellowed proudly in print. "It has been said that all the rest of the world combined eats less candy than we do." - How sweet. - News Research Director Patti Graziano and and Deputy News Research Director Mary Ann Cofta contributed to this story. - To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: - blubinger@plaind.com, 216-999-5531

The Cleveland Plain Dealer, being the instrument by which Sweetest Day was foisted upon Cleveland by the Candy Industry, is the ultimate source on Sweetest Day. Who would know better that Sweetest day is a concocted promotion than The Cleveland Plain Dealer? They helped concoct it!

• Comment OK, and this could be referenced in the article, but again your current version makes assumptions and conjecture that is still is not backed up, even by this article. Even then, it can't be "the only" version represented in the article because this is not the universally accepted version of events. WP:NPOV makes room for all versions to be represented. This should be moved to the discussion page of this AfD... just to make it easier to focus on the discussion here.--Isotope23 19:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Miracleimpulse, you are like a motorist who has been caught speeding and who thinks that as soon as he explains that it was entirely the fault of that idiot in the Chevy Nova he was stuck behind for twenty minutes, who made him so late he had to break the speed limit to catch up, the traffic cop will say "Oh! You're clearly right! The need you were put under by someone else's wrong action completely justifies your own violation of the speed limit!" and tear up the ticket. The motorist is not being realistic and neither are you. Even if things at Sweetest Day were exactly as treyf as you claim, that's a reason to seek mediation or to file a Request for Comments. It is not a justification for starting a POV fork. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Response Right Feldspar. Just like Sweetest Day was founded by candy store employee Herbert Birch Kingston and his small group of friends doing good deeds for the forgotten. It's all in the wording and context, isn't it. There are two distinct points of view about Sweetest Day in our society: one held by those making profit from the event that it is a legitimate holiday, and one held by others that Sweetest Day is a made-up Hallmark Holiday. These two points of view cannot co-exist within the same article without one being cancelled out, because one is true and the other false. The truth does not attack a lie; it simply replaces it. Wikipedia is not paper. Both points of view should be allowed on Wikipedia until one just disappears. Miracleimpulse 17:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Miracleimpulse. Both points of view should be allowed on Wikipedia, if they are both significant points of view. However, the place for both points of view, contrary to your assertion that they "cannot co-exist", is Sweetest Day. Other projects, like Wikinfo, are free to make their own choices about giving differing POVs their own articles; Wikipedia has already made a choice to disallow such things. "Wikipedia is not paper" does not overrule "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" or "Wikipedia is not a free host" or "Wikipedia is not a directory"; I fail to see why you think it overrules WP:POVFORK. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment These two viewpoints must co-exist within the same article because they are both sourced to varying degrees. "True" and "false" in this case are subejctive statements of a certain point-of-view. Neither can be objectively proven with the data and sourcing that has been provided at this time. I'm not trying to be unWP:CIVIL here, but I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works as well as how a logical, factual, neutral article should be created.--Isotope23 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Response Is it really possible to have a neutral point of view on a hoax? We will never agree on this issue, which is why the topic of Sweetest Day deserves two articles on Wikipedia. By the way, how is it you can watch this site all day and respond within minutes? Don't you have a job? Or is this your job? Just wondering... Miracleimpulse 19:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Miracleimpulse, that is a violation of WP:CIVIL and you would be well-advised to apologize for it immediately. Comment on the content; comments about the contributor are frowned upon and scurrilous insults like "Don't you have a job?" and insinuations like "is this your job?" are not permitted. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Response Kind of like your comment comparing me to a wreckless deceptive weasely motorist? In bartending we say "What goes around comes around." I am willing to go public with my identity on this page. My name is Robb Thomas and I live in Chicago (where we never heard of Sweetest Day until Hallmark started marketing Sweetest Day cards here). Are you and Isotope and Transfinite willing to do the same? Miracleimpulse 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• No, there is no equality between your scurrilous innuendo and the comments I made earlier today. My comments concerned your behavior, not unfounded speculation about you having a financial motive affecting your editing. As for your "deceptive weasely motorist", I would not say that the motorist in my example was deceptive or weasely -- he honestly thinks that it is all right for him to violate the speed limit, if someone else did something they should not have which "forces" him to speed to make up for it. If he has a flaw, it is less deception than self-deception. In contrast, you made a clear accusation of dishonesty. That is a violation of WP:NPA. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, yes it is absolutly possible to have a neutral point of view on this topic... and since you seen to be insinuating it is my "job" to edit this article... <start sarcasm> I created a user account here over a year ago, racking up a number of edits on a myriad of articles, and learning the policies and guidelines here just because I knew you would come along and create this article and my whole history of edits is a machavelian attempt to hide my true purpose... to edit this article! How did you ever figure it out</end sarcasm>. I know that wasn't WP:CIVIL, but I couldn't resist. No need for an apology... I have a thick skin... like the chocolate casing on a Rollo candy...--Isotope23 19:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion Until I began editing the Sweetest Day article on Wikipedia, the article was a basic copy (nearly word-for-word) of the Industry Spin used to sell this holiday on countless websites across the internet. Once I began posting actual facts and photos about the subject, editors appeared out of nowhere to contradict, alter and delete what has turned out to be primary sourced information and photos. To date, the only source referenced on the Sweetest Day page is The Cleveland Plain Dealer and that reference is to the information I posted which remains on the site. To my knowledge, American Greetings, Hallmark, and Retail Confectioners International have never been listed even as secondary sources on the Sweetest Day page. Lacking any type of primary source reference whatsoever, it can only be concluded that the Herbert Birch Kingston story of the origins of Sweetest Day is a cleverly crafted industry-generated hoax, the purpose of which is mass deception about the true origins of Sweetest Day in order to increase sales of candy, greeting cards and other Sweetest Day-related products. This being the case, the Wikipedia article entitled The Sweetest Day Hoax is indeed a distinct new topic on Wikipedia which will provide accurate and sourced information on the real origins of Sweetest Day to Wikipedia readers for years to come. I would like to thank Wikipedia for the opportunity to post this information on their site and offer a word of caution: that Wikipedia can be and has been used by industry to promote disinformation about topics such as Sweetest Day. I also look forward to working with other interested Wikipedians to present all new information which comes to light regarding The Sweetest Day Hoax.

Thank you again and best regards,

Robb Thomas Miracleimpulse 22:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"it can only be concluded that ..." Once again, incorrect. Someone who looks at the evidence might indeed conclude that the official story of Sweetest Day is an industry-concocted hoax. But then again, they might not. It is neither your duty nor your right to try and step in and declare which they will do -- declare your own view "the truth" and everything else falsehood. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• CommentAntaeus has it exactly right. This conclusion is yet more unsourced conjecture and misrepresentation of the facts (for instance, Sweetest Day draws on many sources listed in the External links section, they are not listed in the "Sources" section because it would be redundant to do so. At this point I'm tired of reiterating the same points over and over and too many editors have spent too much time on this discussion. Bottom line, this is a clear WP:POVFORK and should be dealt with as such.--Isotope23 03:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Final Comment All primary sourced information shows Sweetest Day to be an industry-generated hoax and the subject should be reported as such on Wikipedia and elsewhere. RT Miracleimpulse 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "All" meaning 1 newspaper article (that is a primary source) and "industry-generated hoax" being your interpretation of what was written in said article... you are filling in the blanks here with your own views and interpretations and that goes against WP:NOR. Beyond that, you keep harping on this "primary source" thing... please read Primary source. Having supporting secondary sources is preferable. The one secondary source you've supplied (the Bill Lubinger article) is interesting and should be incorporated into the Sweetest Day article, but in this case too you are reading more into it than it actually says and using it to "support" a hypothesis that it does not support.--Isotope23 16:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Response Incorrect, Isotope23. All means All. You are assuming that all primary source information has been posted, and it definitely has not. The Cleveland Plain Dealer provides a treasure trove of primary source information on the origins of Sweetest Day beginning in 1921. The Sweetest Day Hoax article can and will be expanded exponentially using these sources. As is stated on the first edit summary, The Sweetest Day Hoax article is a work in progress (like all Wikipedia articles). Also, you are overlooking the US Census documents which have been posted that are primary sources of information. Meanwhile, the Herbert Birch Kingston story on the original Sweetest Day page (and all the other countless places it appears on the internet) remains unsourced in any way, primary or secondary. As a matter of fact, it seems like all editing on the original Sweetest Day page has stopped at a rather pathetic stage. What's up with that? Miracleimpulse 19:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment well, by all means... if you have "primary source information" that has not been posted here or in the article yet, that specifically proves this day was a hoax created by the 12 individuals you feel are responsible for it and refers to them as "founders" of Sweetest Day, then what are you waiting for? I for one welcome you to produce this evidence if it exists so I can stop wasting my time here... As for the census data, I'd already seen all that during the original AfD of Sweetest Day and I'm at a loss to see what you think that proves. It shows that he exists, that he resided in Cleveland, that he worked in advertising, and at some point he apparently owned a confectionery shop. How is that at odds with the popular mythology of "Herbert Birch Kingston, a philanthropist and candy company employee..." Candy companies employ advertisers. Anyone can be a philanthropist. The census data proves nothing either way... other than his exsitence, residence, and employment. As for sourcing, the current article is sourced by primary and secondary sources. I'm tired of explaining this... so I'll leave it at that. If you have problems with sourcing of information on other websites, I suggest you contact them. The original Sweetest Day page has stopped because it is finally to a point where it contains only information that is verified. You may think it pathetic, but IMO this is probably the best version of this page that has ever existed at this namespace... though it would be improved by Leigh Eric Schmidt's version of Sweetest Day from his book.--Isotope23 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• What a brief, concise statement by you Miracleimpulse. Possible sockpuppet or imitator, maybe? Wait, he said that was the final comment so all of these after it don't count. Recury 16:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Response It says final comment Recury, not final response. Casting doubt on my identity will not work, since I am the only one of us proud enough of my contributions on Wikipedia to reveal my identity. Who are Isotope, Feldspar, Transfinite and Recury? Who knows. Robb Thomas Miracleimpulse 19:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't think you can boss us around just because you are the singer for Matchbox 20. Recury 19:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead singer of Matchbox 20 is Rob Thomas, only one "b." I do wonder, however, if he also thinks Sweetest Day is an industry-generated hoax. Someone should take a poll. Sweetest Day, Holiday or Hoax? What do you think the results would show? RT Miracleimpulse 19:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Overwhelming indifference? Recury 19:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment, It doesn't matter who I am. I have a public record of contributions here at Wikipedia that speaks for itself. My real identity has no bearing on this discussion, and frankly, this isn't nearly important enough of a topic that I'm going to suddenly reveal my real name. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm having a bit of a labor problem; lazy Oompa Loompas...--Isotope23 20:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 12:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian International Student Services

advertisement -Nv8200p talk 14:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Clearly an advert, written in the 1st person. Wickethewok 18:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above -- No Guru 20:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by RexNL. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark LeBlanc

Prod was removed. This person is a non-notable politician. He hasn't won any of his campaigns. Delete. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO... not an office holder and additionally I'm having trouble finding any WP:V information about this particular Mark LeBlanc.--Isotope23 14:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep if verifiable, per notability as a 23-year-old standing as a candidate for a senior citizens' issues party, established asserted on Grey Party of Canada. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. He fails WP:BIO. He doesn't hold any office in government; he just merely ran for an office under the Grey Party of Canada. --Nishkid64 15:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see no allowances for "candidates for local or general elections on unusual platforms" in WP:BIO Ohconfucius 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. He fails WP:BIO. He has not won an election. Wikipedia does not include every person who runs for office.--Getaway 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Blanked by author, so deleted by RexNL. Could an admin close this, please? Tonywalton  | Talk 12:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airi Ayase

Not notable. Would not meet the proposed WP:PORN BIO or a Japanese eqivalent, having no notable awards in Japan, or notable mainstream work, notable magazine appearances, etc etc. Would definitely fail WP:BIO if that were applied instead. Delete. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tyyu6 14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Even with googlebombing she only generates <800 hits on Google. --Nishkid64 15:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Googling for non-English names with English characters is somewhat biased. A google for her name in kanji yields significantly more (125,000) hits. Neier 01:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Regardless, Google has been determined to be an inaccurate way to determine notability of porn stars, so the point is moot. --- Hong Qi Gong 04:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The point is not moot, so long as others try to use the lack of English material to disprove notability in this, or any other, AfD. My point applies equally to google as well as other online resources such as Amazon or whatever. For articles with the name in native form in the article, I don't think that any special knowledge of Japanese (or Arabic, or Chinese) is necessary to copy/paste it into google to get a more accurate representation. Whether or not the numbers mean anything is another matter. I hope that people do a modicum of research before voting on these discussions; but, if the research has a basic flaw or inherent bias, then it needs to be pointed out. Neier 06:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete My above comment notwithstanding, she does not appear to be notable. Neier 06:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable band, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 09:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aurko

Prod was removed. I can find no evidence that this band is notable. A search for "aurko" produces nothing on amazon [30], "aurko+Naadiya", the name of its album, yields 1 google hit, "aurko" alone yields 352 unique ghits, many of which are unrelated to any band. Delete, unless reliable sources are provided. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Probably qualifies as a speedy under A7; I doubt a claim to mostly play at corporate events counts as a claim of importance. In any case, the article certainly reads like a review by a fan (if not a band member), and the NPOV stuff that makes up 95% of the article needs to go even if it stays. Geoffrey Spear 14:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I too think it may qualify for speedy - I have tagged it as such - Blood red sandman 22:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Non-notable and POVs. - 24.20.69.240 09:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of transgender-rights organizations

This isn't so much an article as it is a big list of links. Surely, it's all well and good to have proper articles on various transgender related topics, but I don't see that Wikipedia's mission includes hosting a directory of these groups. Whatever such organizations are verifiable and significant could have their own articles, and there could be a category for these, I have no problems with that. Friday (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep please see WP:LISTs if you don't understand the purposes of lists, why categories cannot replace lists, and why individual articles cannot replace lists. Admittingly it does need a fair bit of work, but AfD is not cleanup. WilyD 15:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've read it, and I'm aware that lists can do some things that categories cannot. I still think it should be deleted, as it's mostly just external links, and the people editing it obviously want to use it as a list of external links, so I don't see that cleaning it up by removing them would help. Friday (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is a low quality article, but I stand by my claim that AfD is not cleanup. WilyD 15:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Do you think this can actually turn into an article? I'm not even saying a good article, but just an article. It seems to me like any encyclopedic purpose served by this is already covered by LGBT social movements and possibly others. Maybe I just lack imagination, but I can't see this becoming a proper article. If anything, maybe this is a holding place for material that could be worked into a different article? If that's the case, let's unlink it from article space and move it to LGBT social movements/templist or something. Friday (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, why not? Take a look at a lot of the lists in Wikipedia:Featured lists for an example of how something like this can turn out. WilyD 15:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - To my mind, this is exactly the kind of thing that someone could come to Wikipedia looking for. There is no format violation to speak of as far as I can tell but if someone was to put forward a reasonable merge candidate, I'd look at it. Ac@osr 22:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — I'm very concerned about the process this has undergone. Firstly the article was "speedy" deleted by User:Friday without discussion, warning, or listing here. By the rationale given for the above nomination, and the discussion on User talk:Friday#Deleted page, this administrator seems to feel that any "list of..." pages are eligible for speedy deletion. Even just narrowing the objection to "list of X organisations" there's a whole category (Category:Lists of organizations) that would have to be deleted, including such articles as List of Kurdish organisations, List of veterans' organizations, etc. etc. I'm also concerned that Friday suggests there was a consensus for the speedy delete, and that "saying you want to follow a democratic process is, well, quite at odds with how things work here. Afd is not a democracy" (see user talk page). ntennis 23:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Not sure why you'd say it was deleted without discussion. As I said on my talk page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of transgender-support organizations was about an article nearly identical to this one, and someone mentioned this article as being deletable for the same reasons. I'm also not sure why you're continuing to go on about "process"- since there was a disagreement, I undeleted and brought this to Afd. Is that not exactly what you wanted? Can we use this Afd to talk about the merits of the article and whether or not it should be deleted rather than talking about process? Friday (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm "continuing to go on about 'process'" precisely because you don't understand why it's important, and because you say things like "Not sure why you'd say it was deleted without discussion." For an administrator to believe that a speedy deletion consitutes discussion and consensus is very worrying. I encourage you to reread the policy page Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. I wanted to answer your question, but you are right that this discussion should be focussed on the article. I'll keep further comments on topic. ntennis 00:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: are the people saying keep aware that Wikipedia is not a directory? This page belongs in a directory, not an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you using this as a test case against "list of..." articles? Because there are well over 100 articles in the sub-category Lists of organizations alone. What is the difference between this and the articles I linked above, or even list of sign languages? If there is a reason that these pages are less objectionable to you, perhaps we can modify the article. Would you be happier if the external links were moved to footnotes? ntennis 00:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not remotely. Some lists can become decent articles. I'm only talking about this particular page. Friday (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what can be done to this article to make it a decent article? Can you be explicit about the difference between this and the articles I linked above? ntennis 00:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now removed all the weblinks, support organisations, and associated dreck, and turned it into a standard list of links to other articles. There should be no excuse for deletiong this now. Trying to delete this on the basis that the "support groups" page was utterly disingenuous - while the other list was full of non-notable grounds with no public profile (and no intention of getting one), many of the groups on this list are well-known and very much deserving of individual articles. Rebecca 04:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I do not agree with the statement that the list's purpose could be fulfilled by a prospective category. There are uncountably many instances on Wikipedia where there exist both a list and a category about the exact same subject. I find the list useful and encyclopedic in its current state, I think that it should be maintained and improved, and that it will naturally transform from a list of external links into a list of Wikipedia articles as these organizations get to have their own articles. You should realize that not every single noteworthy organization has an article on Wikipedia yet, and this list also serves the purpose of keeping track of these related organizations until they might be covered by an article and put into a category. I urge you to also check the guideline of direct relation to this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 00:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly useful list. Rebecca 04:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I like how this list and the "support organization" list distinguish between service and advocacy. certainly over time, some of these groups will stand the test of time and have pages in their own right and some will not, but this list has the same red to blue ration I see in many political and geographic articles. Scarykitty
• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or a repository for links. Additionally, the insane number or redlinks make this a pretty useless list. The main article namespace is not the appropriate place to make a list of articles that one believes should be created. If someone wants that kind of list, they're free to make it within their userspace. While redlinks are sometimes acceptible in lists for the sake of completeness, this list is almost nothing but redlinks. The few that are blue could easily be put into a category (either one that already exists or a new one). --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:List guideline, which invalidates the above claim that "Wikipedia is not a directory or a repository for links. According to the List guideline, embedded links in the list contents are even recommended, provided they take the user to the appropriate resource. The links needs some attention, but that's a reason to improve it, not delete it. Mugaliens 14:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:NOT is policy. WP:LIST is guideline. Some external links and some redlinks can be useful, but this is a list of nothing but 41 redlinks with 8 bluelinks and 1 external link. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 16:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The redlinks and external links are now removed. Additional information has been added. Would you consider changing your vote? ntennis 02:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • comment internal redlinks to subjects of worth are why lists are good, not a reason to delete the list. The redlinks point out deficiencies in wikipedia, not within the article itself. LinaMishima 11:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and categorise articles. WP:NOT a directory. Lists can occasionally be useful, bit this one is not. If the organisations are not worthy of articles, they're not worthy of noting in a list. If they are worth of articles, there's no point having a navigation list to reach them until they articles exist. Use the article request framework. Sub-categorise to achieve appropriate corss-reference by topic and location. Far more functional than this simple directory list. (I know, WilyD - we don't agree on this one, either.) Cain Mosni 13:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • At least on the point of If they are worth of articles, there's no point having a navigation list to reach them until they articles exist. WP:LIST smashes this argument so hard it should be illegal. The rest of the arguments are poor to none-existant as well - they essentially boil down to "some people might prefer another, inferior method of organisation." WilyD 04:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with List of transgender-support organizations into List of transgender organizations (or of similar name). Most rights groups point people at support, and most support groups do campaigning, hence makes sense to have one list. Would be easier to bring it up to Featured List quality this way, too, in my opinion. LinaMishima 14:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rebecca Chris M. 11:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • How can you "keep per Friday" when Friday is the one who nominated it for deletion? --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Fix...wrong name, thanks. Chris M. 04:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per rebecca the list is useful erasing it makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 22:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep per Rebecca -it's a bunch of redlinks now but hopfully it will get people to make the articles. Armon 16:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tilman Hausherr

Is he notable? Per WP:BIO What proof? We need more proof than his Wiki friends saying so.

Let's leave aside for now the fact that this article was concidered for deletion a while back. He and his supporters cannot demonstrate enough notability for this article! What TV show or programme has he been on? Potters house 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, "never heard of him" is not a good deletion reasoning. I'm unsure how he meets WP:BIO though as the provided sources mostly make trivial mention of Herr Hausherr.--Isotope23 14:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete He is no one special. I for one have never heard of the guy. If he can prove his notability then maybe, but just what is he notable for?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Potters house (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Did you actually read any of the Wikipedia guidelines?? Did you read the first AfD? There were many strong compelling points proven there. --Nishkid64 14:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Just because you haven't heard of someone does not mean they are not notable. He meets WP:BIO and he is considered one of the strong critics of Scientology. His article is linked in various other articles, as well. Apparently, from reading the first AfD, he is a very influential anti-Scientology figure in Germany. --Nishkid64 14:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Commment Here is the first AfD for interested parties to read... and how does he meet WP:BIO specifically? I don't see anything that shows he meets WP:BIO, though I think this may be a case where someone doesn't meet WP:BIO, but the article should still stay because a compelling deletion reason was not given.--Isotope23 15:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." He's not part of an enduring historical record, but he has made widely recognized contributions. --Nishkid64 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think that this AfD by User:Potters house is in bad faith, and is related to my participation in the editwar for Potter's House Christian Fellowship. --Tilman 15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, this is a nomination made in bad faith by User:Potters house in retaliation for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Lee Clary (2nd nomination). Even though Mr. Clary already has an article illegitimately created under his stage name (Johnny Angel (wrestler)), Potters house thinks that Mr. Clary should be entitled to two articles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Relevant comments only. Don't turn this into some edit war over bad faith nominations or retaliations. We will proceed with nominating for a consensus in a civilized manner. --Nishkid64 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm willing to give a pass on WP:BIO for now because this nom makes no case for deletion and the last AfD was a consensus keep.--Isotope23 15:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Clary has this type of notability but it was claimed that he had none or very little:

Oprah, Montel, Jerry Springer, Rikki Lake, Phil Donahue, Sally Jessy, Pat Robertson's 700 Club, Billy Graham's Radio show, Geraldo Rivera, Queen Latifah, Carol and Marilyn Real Friends, Montel Williams, A&E Investigative Reports, ABC World News Tonight, Bertrice Berry, Rolanda, The Today Show, A Current Affair, NBC's Donny Deutsch The Big Idea, TBN's Praise The Lord show, many national and international Newspapers and National TV Shows in Australia, England, Holland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, and Wales. He has appeared all over the Nation of Australia on ABC Radio as well as ABC's "Enough Rope" hosted by Andrew Denton also appeared with the Australian KKK leader on the Today show in Australia.

If Tilman cannot provide at least half of the notability of Clary then he should be deleted. Potters house 15:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (moved from the talk page, which we do not use for AfDs)

• Comment Sorry, that is not the way it works. We don't do comparative notability at Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines and each is applied to articles individually. Besides, last time I checked being on "daytime talk TV" wasn't much of a case for meeting WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no new arguments from previous AFD other than "I'm mad about some other AFD". Please don't use AFD to attempt to prove points. Kuru ^talk 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - There are thousands, and thousands of critics of Scientology. He is not notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Getaway (talk • contribs)
• Keep - notable. Flying Jazz 02:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Regardless of first AfD and questions of retaliation, sounds pretty nn.-Kmaguir1 08:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Yeah, I have heard of him outside of Wikipedia, so nyah. =) I don't see anything particularly distressing in the previous AfD either, and what has changed its notability since then. At worst, this is merge material. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep one of the more outspoken critics of scientology.  ALKIVAR™ 14:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Alkivar. Please be mindful of WP:POINT; not liking an AfD's result is not in and of itself a reason for a new AfD. --Myles Long 22:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Having an article makes him feel good and it doesn't do anyone any harm. If he had complained about having one I would have voted to delete. Steve Dufour 17:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That's ... not really the basis on which we decide AfDs. The feelings of the subject are almost wholly irrelevant to whether they have an article or not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed many articles where the person or the fans of the person are the only ones who think he/she is notable. Steve Dufour 13:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If he was the first to coin the word "sporgery", there is no reason why he shouldn't be here.Yandman 10:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep His own feelings on the article are irrelevant, as are comparisons to other marginally related examples, but the article seems to establish notability. Robertissimo 11:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep He is well known as a scientology-critic person. Redecke 11:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment But where is the proof of his notability? I think he is promoting himself to be someone who is is not. Who says he is notable? Antaeus Feldspar claimed the Johnny Lee Clary wasn't notable enough even after being on Oprah, Donahue, and about 10 other major TV show major newspapers etc. Johnny scrapped in on notability so I straight away thought that this guy doesn't stand a chance! Potters house 12:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Nick, I would be surprised if you could provide any evidence of your accusations that Tilman is "promoting himself to be someone who is is not ^[sic] ". In fact, I would be highly surprised if you could provide evidence that Tilman is promoting himself at all. This is in stark contrast to Johnny Lee Clary, who if I'm not mistaken created the original article on himself and (quite obviously) has been the recipient of heavy promotional efforts since. Johnny Lee Clary is not the first aggressive self-promoter we've dealt with. He isn't the first to try and demand his own article that reads like a press release; he isn't the first to interfere with the AfD on his article by erasing other people's words, and he surely wouldn't be the first self-promoter on Wikipedia to exaggerate modest indicators of notability and describe them as if they were proof (i.e., to use a notable example that I'm sure sticks in many Wikipedians' minds, "featured in the New York Times" turning out to mean "mentioned as an example in a single New York Times op-ed piece".) Clary may choose to make paranoid allegations about neo-Nazis on Wikipedia trying to oppress him (and you've chosen to go along with him) but in reality he has himself to blame. When Clary has shows that he has no moral scruples against making vicious, slanderous accusations against people who disagree with him,[31] and shows that he has no moral scruples against tampering with a discussion to try and force it to come out his way,[32] no one is going to take vague claims like 'he appeared on Oprah, at some point, and on Donahue, at some point, and that's proof that he's notable' at face value. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Administrators? Can we close this discussion? I think the nominator has made it clear that this AfD is not about the merits of the article under discussion but about punishing anyone who doesn't agree with the nominator about Johnny Lee Clary. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Tilman is self promoting http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tilman_Hausherr&dir=prev&action=history and also clary has notability. He is the head director of Operation Colorblind, has appeared on Billy Graham's Radio show, Geraldo Rivera, Sally Jessy Raphael, Jerry Springer, Rikki Lake, Queen Latifah, Carol and Marilyn Real Friends, Montel Williams, Phil Donahue, A&E Investigative Reports, ABC World News Tonight, Bertrice Berry, Rolanda, The Today Show, A Current Affair, NBC's Donny Deutsch The Big Idea, and The 700 Club, TBN's Praise The Lord show, many national and international Newspapers and National TV Shows in Australia, England, Holland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, and Wales. He has appeared all over the Nation of Australia on ABC Radio as well as ABC's "Enough Rope" hosted by Andrew Denton also appeared with the Australian KKK leader on the Today show in Australia. What has Tilman got? Nothing. He is not notable. Also this deletion is warrented. How come one person JLC can be nominated for deletion by you Antaeus Feldspar but if your best friend Timan is nominated on the same grounds it is unwarrented? Pleae PROVE his notability or delete this article. Potters house 22:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
        • sigh You know, it's really not necessary to copy and paste the entire laundry list of everyone who has ever purportedly deemed Clary worthy of attention every time the subject comes up. We've heard it all before and strangely enough, we don't really need to see it again on an article that has nothing to do with Johnny Lee Clary. As for whether this article was nominated on "the same grounds", that's obviously untrue: this is the only article on Wikipedia about Tilman Hausherr, unlike Johnny Lee Clary who had his article Johnny Lee Clary nominated because it was redundant with the already-existing Johnny Angel (wrestler) article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Forget clary then and just provide some proof that Tilman is notable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vanity_page Please PROVE IT! Remember this is not a vote page but a dicussion about whether he is notable or not. I see no proof whatsoever! Please stick to the subject at hand. IS HE NOTABLE if so PROVE IT. Potters house 09:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
            • You know what? I'm not going to bother answering that. I'm just going to let the absurdity of you, of all people, suddenly issuing a command to "stick to the subject at hand", hang in the air. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Don't get all emotional about it. You won't answer because you CAN'T. Like Harry said below "He is just a little computer guy in Germany obsessed with with celebrities and hatred against minority religions." If not PROVE otherwise. Potters house 14:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete Tilman Hausherr is a nobody. He is just a little computer guy in Germany obsessed with with celebrities and hatred against minority religions. If Wikipedia portrays such people, it loses credibility. Hausherr is a bore. If you give him a Wikipedia page, you have to give one to thousand other Usenet loons too. Harry Turner 6:57 — HarryTurner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Speedy keep. This is a transparently bad faith nomination. The previous debate closed as a consensus keep, and the only people in favor of deletion are single purposed accounts with less than 10 edits. RFerreira 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. This article is only one sentence, which gives no reason why this book is of any note. Tyrenius 23:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Words And Memories

Contested prod. Non-notable poetry collection. Geoffrey Spear 14:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. BigHaz 22:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bogan

I am sure that this nomination will be hotly contested, so I will explain my reasons carefully. Most of the article at present is either OR or unverifiable. I recently edited it to remove all this OR/unverifiable material, after which it looked like this. The remnants of the article were basically a dicdef. In short, I think the only thing that an article about 'bogan' can be is a definition of the usage of the word, encompassing its etymology and the full extent of its usage, to be sure – but this is what an entry in a major dictionary looks like. In short, this is one for the Wiktionary and not for Wikipedia. I am of course open to persuasion on these points. mgekelly 14:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral Neologism. There is quite a bit of stuff written on the subject, which is quite surprising for an article on a word. I personally don't know its notability in Australia and New Zealand, but it links to quite a bit of things on Wikipedia (nearly 100). However, according to WP:NEO, we try to avoid writing articles on neologisms because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This could be a candidate for a move to Wikitionary, but I think apparently that it's notable enough for Wikipedia. --Nishkid64 15:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The amount contained in the article isn't a good guideline. Articles on pejorative stereotypes are original research magnets, that, unless given attention, just grow and grow as editors add their favourite personal novel contributions to the stereotype. It's exceptionally tempting for people to add their own personal views of what the stereotype is to such articles, or to use it to make sly (and not so sly) digs at their friends and enemies. Editors regularly have to throw out such additions to chav, for example, insisting upon sources. This article has not had the same attention paid to it, and cites no sources at all. How do we know that bogans are "prone to the use of marijuana", for example? How do we know that that wasn't simply made up by some editor who wanted to use Wikipedia insult their marijuana-using friend? The place to look to see whether there is a lot of stuff written on the subject is outside of Wikipedia. Uncle G 17:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • But if you actually check out those 100 linking-to articles you'll find many are talk pages, are other class-based pejorative stereotypes like Riff Raff, Redneck and White trash, and for some reason several characters of soap opera Neighbours, like Sindi Watts, have bio articles that use the term. Article The Comedy Company describes how the word became popular. Asa01 23:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Bogan is a term used very frequently in Australia, esp in the Southern parts like Melbourne and Adelaide. Just as much as America has head bangers and the UK has Punks Aussies have Bogans. Potters house 16:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. Whether a word is in use isn't a relevant argument here. That's an argument for Wiktionary. The question to answer for Wikipedia, which you haven't addressed, is whether there is scope for an encyclopaedia article about the stereotype that the word denotes. Uncle G 17:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Bogan culture in Australia is unique and has been often mocked on comedy TV show etc. It is the mullet culture, and are basically the opposite to surfies. In Northern Parts of Australia they are called "Westies." Skeg is another term often used, and is equivilent to a surfie. For cultural trends bogans are described in a hit sone "No body likes a Bogan." How people in nothern Australai don't know what a bogan is and thus don't really get the song. But when I explain the "Westie" connection they understand compleatly. Perhaps the "Westie" could also be incorporated. Terms like "bogan mobile" refering to certain old trashy holden cars, a bogan hair cut - similar to the Mullet, these are cultural terms and shoud be revealed for wikipedians. Potters house 23:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Article Westies (people) exists in WP already. Asa01 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Come to think of it, that article has been the source (indirectly) of a recent AfD to do with Parochialism in Sydney, so perhaps this one (being the broader term, i.e. I've heard it used in Queensland) is the place to roll the entire thing up into. BigHaz 00:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as the culture described is certainly notable in Australia (the word itself is a neologism, but it describes a cultural phenomenon, much like "goth" or "emo" IMO). That said, the article needs work - there'd have to be sociologists who've written on this, for a start. BigHaz 22:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Google Scholar turns up nothing (except for a lot of people with this surname who've written journal articles) and searching Amazon turns up nothing. The nearest that I've found so far is this, which is anonymously written and has no evidence of having been fact checked. Uncle G 02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll admit to being very surprised, but who am I to disagree with the facts? BigHaz 02:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The places where I expect that this will be covered are newspapers. Please search The Age and others to see whether you can come up with anything. Uncle G 10:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
        • If we're looking for scholarly articles, Melissa Campbell, an academic at the University of Melbourne has written a thesis and other articles, and given talks, on bogan culture. --Canley 10:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
          • This comment seems to be based on [this http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/15/1026185158244.html] newspaper article. Campbell appears to be a graduate student, therefore only an 'academic' in a rather broad sense. The only evidence I can find of her work on 'bogans' is an abstract [here http://www.emsah.uq.edu.au/mia/issues/miacp104.html] which does not provide material which would raise this article above the OR/dicdef level. mgekelly 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't wish to inflate Ms Campbell's academic credentials at all, but that reference that she was a grad student is from 2002. I believe subsequently she was a staff researcher for the Cultural Studies Dept, possibly not "academic" enough for some people's definition. Also, I was not intending to cite Campbell's MA thesis as a source, more to check her bibliography for these elusive "reliable sources", which I will do tonight. Should provide more info than an abstract and a couple of web links. --Canley 05:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - completely agree with Uncle G, this article is a magnet for editors to try and shoehorn in any old descriptions of people they don't like, or describe any tacky or trashy behavior. I keep trying to take out the long list of unverified exmaples, but any such deletions are regularly reverted. I was even called a vandal for deleting various things, even though each individual deletion was small and had a clear description to each edit. But maybe the only solution is indeed to move the entire thing to Wiktionary. Asa01 23:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per BigHaz. DXRAW 23:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Widely used word for a significant and verifiable subculture in Australia. There might be case for this as a disambiguation as there is the Bogan River, Bogan Shire Council and poet Louise Bogan. However, the culture is the equivalent of the chav. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable subculture. Lankiveil 02:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC).
• Delete, one for wiktionary until reliable sources have more than a dicdef on them. Andjam 02:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Neologism?!?!? People really ought to actually do the most cursory of Google searches before nominating articles for deletion. Rebecca 04:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And people really ought to look at what the nominator did and didn't say... Andjam 04:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - if not speedy keep - this is NOT a neologism - the term is a well-known word that has been around for quite a while. Get your research and facts right before you nominate stuff for deletion. I'm sick of commenting on articles where people just haven't got the facts right. (JROBBO 05:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC))
• Comment - the nominator did not claim that bogan is a neologism. Asa01 05:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Too right I didn't! I claim that this article is a mix of OR and dicdef, which no-one seems to be disputing, so I'd like to know what rationale they are following for asserting that it should be kept. This word is in very wide usage in Australia, but that does not imply there should be an article about. 'Bogan' is a slur, not a subculture per se. mgekelly 08:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The fact that it's a slur isn't necessarily here or there. One could argue that chav is a slur, and yet the subculture which is associated with the slur is notable. The same is true of other subcultures, the names of which are seen as slurs by some/all members thereof. BigHaz 08:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the Mullet (haircut), location (e.g., Elizabeth, South Australia), obsession with cars/motor bikes and anglo background are characteristics associated with Bogans in Adelaide. Paul foord 06:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per BigHaz. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete The article really is a mess. It is a magnet for origional research and nothing more the a dictionary definition. It is not encyclopedic. --WikiCats 09:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikitionary is that way, furthermore the article in its current form has a lot of OR with a lack of sources. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons mentioned above. QazPlm 03:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Must Keep JC807 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.222.222 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. I feel deletion is too strong an action here, as the "bogan" as an Australian cultural phenomenon is beyond doubt. I am also sceptical of the application of WP:NOR here, but we are perhaps interpreting it differently. I will work to improve this article as I have found a significant number of references in the media and other publications. We can at least bring it up to "white trash" standard(!). I think some of the more personal or regionally-specific observations could be pruned back, and uncited naming of "famous bogans" should definitely be removed except for fiction characters such as Kath & Kim (CUBs), Kylie Mole and Michelle Grogan and Ferret from Fast Forward, which should nudge it above the dicdef standard. --Canley 10:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment it seems to me that no-one in this 'discussion' has managed to assert how this article can be more than a dicdef, which was my original reason for nominating the article. My use of WP:NOR was merely to point out that most of the article is at present OR, and that that's all that pads it beyond a dicdef. Even the assertion of fictional characters as bogans is largely unverifiable, except in a couple of seminal cases where the word 'bogan' was specifically used. The wide currency of a word in no way indicates that there should be an article about it. mgekelly 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment agree with Mgekelly comment. No one wanting to keep the page seems to be coming up with any external references, which is what will save the page and its content. Deciding that Michelle and Ferrett (or any of these other fictional characters) are bogans is original research unless an external source can verify that they are bogans. (Personally I thought that Michelle and Ferrett were intended to represent anachronistic Mod Revival types with Michelle's platinum bob, black lipstick/white foundation combo and tight connie jacket and miniskirt - they are not like bogans at all.) It might be true that there are oddly dressed people around, and there are some commonly seen fashion trends visible, but for a Wikipedia editor to decide that these people are bogans or that a fashion look is that of a bogan is original research if there are no external references that designate the said people or fashion trend as that of a bogan. Asa01 08:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment OK, I've posted a list of references to "bogans" I've found in the media on Talk:Bogan, so please tell me what you think. Point taken re: Michelle and Ferret, and I agree this is a large problem with the article - that much of its content is subjective categorisation. I'd be interested to know what people think of Melissa Campbell's (see above discussion) work or opinions on the matter (and she does by the way, class Michelle and Ferret as bogans [33]). Does she count as a reliable source (given that she was just a grad student)? Does the publication of her views and research in The Age make it more reliable or citable? Maybe post on the talk page as I don't want to clog up this AfD any more. --Canley 11:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Stong Keep. I can't believe this is up for VfD, this is the Australian equivalent of Redneck (which also doesn't cite any of its sources by the way, for the stereotype list or anything else) and a valid article for the exact same reasons (unless you think Redneck can't be more than a dicdef). Some sections, such as "Contemporary Evolution", could do with massive cleanup or complete removal, and it could probably be better structured, but calling for its deletion is absurd. The current citation-needed spam is also pedantic beyond belief for an article of this type; things like the stereotype of bogans being "Culturally blue-collar" is not remotely contentious to anyone even familiar with the term. I found this within 20 seconds of searching. Others will probably be more difficult to cite directly due to the nature of the phenomenon we're covering here, but the principle is the same. I seriously question the possible agendas/motivations behind people who want this article deleted or are attempting to discredit it by spamming fact tags after each and every sentence no matter how non-controversial it is. --Rankler 17:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but what 'agenda' could we possibly have in wanting this deleted, other than a stringent interpretation of Wikipedia policy and an aesthetic dislike of this article in particular? mgekelly 22:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianized myths and imagery

Delete Original research. Is covered in better detail on other wikipedia articles without the original research and PoV twist Dominick ^(TALK) 15:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now. This is an interesting case because at least part of this article is sourced from what I can see, though it could be seen as redundant with individual articles on saints and iconography, but I can see the benefit of having some of this information centralized so one doesn't have to go around and find individual articles; it's hard to know there is any sort of historical controversy about Saint Veronica, Brigid of Kildare, or others since there doesn't appear to be a category for this. What part are you asserting is original research and POV Dominick? Preferablly I'd like to see this dealt with as a content issue where we edit or source anything that is not sourced or that promotes POV. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see this as a good candidate for the nuclear option.--Isotope23 17:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at the articles on individual saints. Original publication of research for a specific PoV in one place is not what Wikipedia is for. The lead of this article and the assumption that these people are mythical paints the article into a PoV box. I am not of the opinion that AfD is nuclear. Just good sense pruning. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment actually, it looks like this is an acceptable WP:FORK from Christianisation due to the parent article size. I still don't see what you are asserting is OR... just becuase this doesn't agree with the articles on the individual saints doesn't mean it is OR; most of the assertions are not OR but are in fact based on externally written sources. The article just needs to be better sourced. As for PoV, there is nothing PoV about the lead in of this article. It states that "The historicity of several saints has often been treated skeptically by most academics..." and this is a true statement... there are many academics who question the historicity of Christian figures. Whether you agree with the contention or not doesn't change the fact that there is a significant body of work out there that explores the connection between mythological figures and traditional Christian figures. As long as the article doesn't "pick sides", IMO this is fine. I don't think this is painted into a POV box (and POV isn't a deletion reason anyway)... If there are NPOV concerns with the title than a Move is in order and should be discussed. If there is wording that is POV, then edits should be made. With a move, some editing, and some better sourcing, this could be a decent article.--Isotope23 18:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Part original research . part fact. --Ageo020 00:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup Claims of this type have certainly been widely made. Much better sourcing is needed. If I recall correctly, about 25 years ago the Roman Catholic church deemphasized (or something stronger) a batch of saints whose historicity couldn't be adequately proven. Not that this behaviour was unique to Christianity - almost everywhere the Romans went they merged local dieties with the Roman pantheon. The article needs better sourcing and, if anyone can find a reliable source balancing these claims that way, or some other way, then it should go in also. GRBerry 02:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and provide sources. This is one of the sections that have been divided off Christianization, I think. It is certainly a familiar subject: everyone has heard of Jean Seznec, The Survival of the Pagan Gods, even if they haven't actually read it (it's in paperback). No reason to suppress this material as "original research" . Even commonplaces and cliché seem original when one first comes in perfect innocence to a subject. --Wetman 07:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. I don't doubt the veracity, just the importance. It is an interesting slice of history but only asserts minimal and local importance. It it had any wider impact the article should be recreated to show this, but at the moment, I'm afraid it doesn't merit inclusion. If it can be shown to be mentioned in histories of the period, that would be a different matter.Tyrenius 23:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captain PJs Disco

Nice vanity piece, but still looks like vanity, as I can really find nothing that meets WP:BIO or WP:V -Nv8200p talk 15:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Its about a business, an entertainment organisation, a bunch of performers, a slice on a country history, its nothing to do with a BIO, so i can see the knives are out - but really, who cares that much? Its just more of the same. The pictures are evidence of reality, do you think they are false? just do your cleansing, I'm probably the only one who will notice.moza 09:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Photo of Captain PJ (aka Paul Moss), taken by employeee on my camera and my film, processing paid for my me! and uploaded by Kiwi Musician. Captain PJ's Disco was the name of a musical group entertainment business, based in the Waikato, New Zealand from 1970 to 1981. Programmes was the name of the light-show operated in conjunction with the disco, and live bands. The company name was Grafix Programmes Limited. The disco operation started out operating under the name Spectra Studios. The photo was designed and commissioned by the company, and created by a contracted disc jockey. The copyright was owned by the company, until dissolution in 1983, and the original company owner and managing director, Paul Moss, has released the image to wikipedia, for free use. The business was widely advertised for many years in the local newspaper The Waikato Times for this business, and is verifiable at any library holding copies. The business belonged to the managing director of the company, and still exists in all the records of the period, the Telecom_New_Zealand phone books, newspapers, entertainment diaries. The image has been published since 2001 at nzreward. More info about Paul Moss can be found at User:Paul_Moss and User:Mozasaur. Further verification has been published at Paul Moss CV for 6 years, last update Dec 2004. all content moved here Captain_PJs_Disco I think its called wikifying/userfying/jibbajabba.moza 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails [WP:V]] -- Whpq 13:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Vanispamcruftisement fails WP:V - badly. ...Its. A. Frickin'. Advert!!! Short of a telephone number, this should be in a catalogue, it has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. And I'm certainly not happy about the inclusion at the top of the "Mobile DJ" section of "DJ" article. Unless Captain PJ was the first mobile DJ to work New Zealand (which by the articles own admission, he wasn't)... remove this immediately!!! ----Thumbsucker-UK 13:20, 09 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing.. NOT

This isnt a debate, a few votes is a completely meaningless process, how can it be an advertisement for something that existed more than 30 years agoo and was dissolved 25 years ago? wierd notions but then smashing a country's history is meaningless to most of you guys, look at the record (pun). Why dont you go and do some really important stuff.moza

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

The result was Keep. Catchpole 10:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peachcake

The band was created by User:Shnuffers with an admission that he was creating this article and Screaming Illiterate for the sole purpose of hyping the two bands in question. While it seems that there's scattered bits of notability in their's bio, I'm not sure it amounts to enough for WP:MUSIC. The article was speedied but contested by Shnuffers. Screaming Illiterate will be dealt with in a separate AfD. ColourBurst 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It's just a vanity page. Also fails WP:MUSIC. --Nishkid64 15:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'll look into the matter, and after some research, I might change my mind. --Nishkid64 21:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Changed vote to keep. --Nishkid64 17:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - An article I was going to get around to writing to myself. Yes, the tone is horrible, but AfD is not cleanup. Still, I changed the tone and added references. They have won music competitions and toured nationally, so they meet WP:MUSIC. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I can see more clearly the notability that the original article was trying to address. However, it seems that they edge the notability barrier on several points (they went on a national concert tour but it was an opening act for another band, won several awards but not sure if they'd be called major, they have a sponsorship for a regional soda brand) but I don't want to withdraw quite yet, I want to wait for more opinions before withdrawing. ColourBurst 18:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - looks like a pass to me in its current form. Ac@osr 22:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screaming Illiterate

This article and Peachcake was created for the sole purpose of hyping the two bands in question (as Peachcake's talk page admits to). There's no notability at all except for the chart single #1 listing, but I can't actually find them associated with the charts, which means I have no idea if it's a fabrication. Without that, it doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC. ColourBurst 15:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and the author fabricated the #1 listing for a single. --Nishkid64 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• This looks like a speedy delete under A7 to me. It's clear that chart is in error. Erechtheus 18:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - clear fabrication, band has existed less than a month. Ac@osr 22:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chance's Big Movie

Nonnotable and apparently homemade movie; prod tag keeps getting removed so here it is. Not on IMDB. NawlinWiki 15:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --Nishkid64 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination.Some P. Erson 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ST47 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MikeWazowski 16:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anomie (band)

Not a notable band. Only self produced CDs. Ghits for anomie are numerous but Anomie and "stuart barton" gets 50 unique hits, but most are from wiki mirrors or promotion pages. Pascal.Tesson 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• A7 speedy delete. Erechtheus 18:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per WP:CSD A7 ST47 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juggalo revolution

This article seems to be about friends falling out over a non notable website. (There are a few google hits, but mostly Wikipedia, the site they're talking about, and posts they've made about it on different message boards/blogs) Ladybirdintheuk 15:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity page. Creator of the article is Azrael1985. It's non-notable in any light, and fails WP:WEB. --Nishkid64 15:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:VANITY ST47 20:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N, as I fail to see how a fan website created a couple of months ago could be notable yet. List of admins with thier L337 H4x0r names smacks of vanity. DrunkenSmurf 20:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 06:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 so keep. I have not given much weight to new users, but have to later point made by editors in good standing. As this is a debate, it is a pity that those who joined in earlier have not returned to answer the later points. This consequently gives those more weight and undermines the earlier statements. Tyrenius 23:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prodea systems

Contested prod. Doesn't meet WP:CORP guidelines; only claim to notability seems to be that its founder (who may very well be notable herself) plans to go on a space flight. Geoffrey Spear 15:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete zero ABI/Inform hits, zero bloomberg hits. Uucp 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Erechtheus 18:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Smells strongly of spam - Wikipedia is not... etc etc. Smell confirmed as far as I am concerned by article now being market-speak-up'd by a new user with a prodea.com address. Well, at least it's obvious, I suppose. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per redvers and uucp ST47 20:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Unless shown untrue, this was a reasonable note of Ansari's current company. Having a famous founder *does* make a detail like this interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.68.74 (talk • contribs) 21:44, September 2, 2006
• Keep This article is totally relevant given the current events surrounding this company and it's founder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.59.234 (talk • contribs) 01:33, September 3, 2006
• Weak keep Due to the incredible success of TTI (which was sold for $750 million) and the fact that Anousheh Ansari, Hamid Ansari, and Amir Ansari are all involved, this company is notable. If any other group of incredibly successful businessmen or businesswomen started a new company it would be notable as well.--Burzum 13:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Please Keep After september 18th there will be plenty of press on this company, Prodea Systems officially launches in conjuntion with Anousheh Ansari's (co-founder) launch into space which is currently scheduled for September 18, can't get anymore relevant than that. At least wait longer, it will be proven 10 fold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.169.26 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 3 September 200621:44
• Delete The argument that Wikipedia should have an article because there will be plenty of press on the topic after September 18 suggests that someone is abusing the encyclopedia. AFTER the topic is notable (if it becomes notable), it deserves an entry. Flying Jazz 17:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the company has been mentioned in all the news pieces which have been written since Ansari selection as spaceflight participant.Hektor 07:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The criteria in WP:CORP are that the company is the subject of non-trivial published works, not that it's mentioned in passing in an article about an interesting person who happens to be a cofounder and part owner of the company. Geoffrey Spear 13:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Answer What I read in the news after a quick search is that Space Adventures has partnered with Prodea to develop a line of air-launched suborbital vehicles based in Ras Al Khaimah. For me this is non trivial and makes Prodea a player in the nascent space tourism business. Therefore notable. This nomination is not justified, for instance your statement only claim to notability seems to be that its founder ... plans to go on a space flight can easily be proven wrong : Example of article about the Space Adventures / Prodea deal which is not related to the flight of Ansari to ISS. This MSNBC article fulfills the criteria in WP:CORP. Hektor 07:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per hektor this is a very notable corporation and verifiable too Yuckfoo 17:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 12:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Schuessler

Not notable, vanity article de-prodded by subject's brother. I had de-speedied because he asserted notability with award that is less notable than I thought. Left PROD message on creator's talk page. (Same name as subject.) I really see no indication of notability in the article or in brother's rationale on the talk page. I can't see that we need an article for everyone who appears in a Chevrolet ad even nationally. < 200 total Google hits. I don't see how this fulfills WP:BIO

It is worth mentioning that all American Idol participants have entries and that American Idol is a Fremantle Media production, the same company that produced The Complex. Ean 00:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Google hits for Erik Schuessler

Google hits for "Erik Schuessler" +complex

Google hits for "Erik Schuessler" +brain food . Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Google hits for +"the complex" +fox +reality +erik. More targeted, 65,000+ hits. Ean Schuessler 15:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. Stop adding more searches, Ean. You know that like 5 of those searches would link to your brother. --Nishkid64 15:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment There must be tons of Erik's out there. :) Dlohcierekim 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Further comment The first link listed by Ean opened a pop-up ad playing an audio file. I hate it when that happens. The second does mention an Erik, but I still don't see the role as notable. The third is about Erik(sic) Estrada. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 16:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Further comment Apologies. Obviously, I didn't check those results carefully. Try this search +"the complex:malibu" +erik. Those results are more qualified. The question would seem to be what constitutes a well-known television show. A central character in a nationally syndicated American adaption of a nationally syndicated Austrailian reality show would seem to qualify for documentation. It isn't as if this is cable access we are discussing. People who are interested in researching the reality television phenomena would have an interest, all nepotism aside. Ean Schuessler 16:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Keeping this guy would be akin to keep every contestant who ever appeared on a game show. Uucp 16:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment It would actually be more akin to keeping every actor who appeared on a nationally syndicated major network reality tv show (a very, very small set of people). I think you should provide more clarification as to what does and does not constitute a sufficiently famous reality television show character. The appearance of YouTube.com and other emerging on-demand media distribution techniques will most certainly make this an increasingly relevant question. Ean Schuessler 17:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:V and WP:BIO until someone neutral shows notability ST47 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Vanity page. Not Notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Getaway (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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rec.sport.football.college

This article was previously deleted at this AfD, which had minimal discussion. A DRV consensus overturned this result in light of new evidence, with even those favoring deletion admitting that this was an interesting test case. Please consult the DRV before commenting here. It may be interesting for this debate to consider whether any USENET newsgroup could be encyclopedically notable, as mentioned in the DRV. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete what distinguishes this from the thousands of other newsgroups in the rec.* hierarchy? Many Usenet groups have a long history, many have illustrious contributors, but even then most are essentially just a lot of people shooting the breeze. I don't see any compelling case to have articles on Usenet groups, much as I would love to document the fascinating goings-on at uk.rec.sheds. The sources, such as they are, are almost exclusively self-referential. Even though many of the groups have more contributors over their history than the average web forum, the number of active contributors at any one time is often small. Just zis Guy you know? 16:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't see why WP:V wouldn't apply here, either. Recury 18:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how it's notable, either. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all ST47 19:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "averages 10,000 posts per month" is equivalent to "South Annex branch post office mailbox #4 gets 10,000 letters per month." This has nothing to do with notability, which still isn't even asserted. ~ trialsanderrors 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, nor is notability asserted. And, IMHO, only in extremely unusual cases should a Usenet group be included. So unusual, that I can't think of a good reason. AfD'd once, speedied twice, can we be done, now? Akradecki 21:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Create a more interesting artice that covers the sociological aspects of all IRC Usenet newsgroup channels, and make particular mention of this channel. GChriss <always listening><c> 23:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You appear to have read the wrong article by accident. The article under discussion here is about a Usenet newsgroup, not an IRC channel. Uncle G 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It already exists...see Usenet. Akradecki 16:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• I, for one, would concede notability and accept that this group is more notable than a lot of things on Wikipedia. However, there are no non-self-generated sources of information that I have seen so I can't imagine that a verifiable encyclopedic article could be deleted. Until that changes, delete. BigDT 18:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Mailer Diablo 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aulana L. Peters

Not notable per WP:BIO. Google announces 64K hits, but only 184 unique hits. However none seem to be independent work on the subject.

• Strong Keep. She was the first black person, and only the third woman, ever to serve as a commissioner of the SEC. A quick check of newspaper databases shows dozens of hits in the New York Times, Washington Post, and comparable papers, mostly 1985-1995. Her notability may antedate the web, but she's notable. I've added several resume lines to the article, with references. Uucp 16:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Her service on SEC seems to get her there.--Getaway 21:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per revisions to article. Great job on editing the article Uucp. - DrunkenSmurf 22:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Oh yeah, the SEC stuff makes it a slam dunk.-Kmaguir1 08:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Retracting the nomination, notability has been established. Thanks for expanding the article properly. Pascal.Tesson 15:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 so keep. Tyrenius 23:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myra Wilson

Not notable Mk3severo 16:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but has been on Robot Wars, and is therefore something of a public figure. Uucp 16:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable.--Getaway 21:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Being a judge on Robot Wars pushes her over the notability limit in my view along with Martin Smith (academic) and Noel Sharkey. With all the pokemon characters and video gamecruft in Wikipedia, I'll look for any reason to keep real, living, smart people in here. Flying Jazz 01:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Smith and Sharkey are both Professors and have, therefore, much more notability. Also no references to published works. At the moment I don't see Wilson meeting WP:BIO. BlueValour 03:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Accepting reality TV contestants because they are on a popular TV show and rejecting a successful smart person like Myra Wilson because she is on a popular TV show and is in academia without a tenured professorship seems like complete nonsense to me. I really, really enjoyed Robot Wars when it was on PBS here in the states. I was a fan. I remember the house robots, I remember the spinny-spinny flywheel robot that chewed the place up, and I remember the judges. I want an article to appear that includes some details of my little enjoyable slice of TV pop culture and it might not happen because the subject of the article hasn't gotten tenure. Ridiculous. Flying Jazz 04:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I am with you all the way on Big Brother contestants and the like! However, there is already a substantail article on Robot Wars to which the material in this article can be added. BlueValour 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Flying Jazz, with the hope that this can be expanded. RFerreira 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep judging an internationally shown television show makes her a notable public figure.  ALKIVAR™ 19:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Shocker: Legit

I stupidly thought this was already deleted. It's about a single piece of fanfiction for christ' sakes. No notability whatsoever.

• Speedy Delete no assertion of notability. Uucp 16:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete doesn't work for works of fiction, so delete. ColourBurst 18:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ST47 19:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. -Steve Sanbeg 21:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to MGM Television. Tyrenius 23:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing logos of MGM Television

Yet another article cataloging the logos used by a movie or TV studio. Nonencyclopedic, logocruft. —tregoweth (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with MGM Television and rewrite to mention the logos without obsessing over them. Erechtheus 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above ST47 19:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete. Absolutely no need for this to be a separate article from MGM Television; both of these logos can be mentioned there in a total of four sentences. Picaroon9288•talk 21:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please remember that "merge and delete" is not a valid vote. Per the GFDL, the edit history for merged content needs to be retained. The right thing to do is to follow up the merge with a redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge jengod 21:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article, keep the pictures for the MGM Television article, and block Austin A. (talk · contribs) I'm currently trying to clean up the hot flaming messes he left behind involving the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Animation department(s).--FuriousFreddy 03:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 material into infantilism and recast as a redirect. And uh there is no such vote as "Rewrite". You think I got all night here? I merged the material as is into its own section at the bottom of infantilism.Herostratus 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sissy_baby

Wikipedia already has an article for infantilism. This article appears to be a vanity page for one or more people who identify with this type of paraphilia. The actual term "sissy baby" seems illegitimate, and does not bring any Google results -- it's certainly not relevant for Wikipedia. Grendel 17:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite It isn't the cleanest it could be I agree. But there are 35 thousand google hits. Check again. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 17:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Response How many of these results are actually relevant to the topic? As the article stands, it's just a spin-off of infantilism. It would be like having two seperate articles for both "straight" and "heterosexual." At best, I would propose that we delete this article and have "sissy baby" redirect to infantilism. If not, then the article needs to be trunceted down to a simple paragraph explaining what a "sissy baby" is and instead merge it with infantilism. Grendel 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with infantilism after rewrite to give the fetish its proper scope within that topic. Leave a redirect to that article as well. Erechtheus 18:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per erechtheus ST47 19:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect as per Erechtheus - Alison^✍ 17:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Catchpole 21:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Man and Scythe

Non-notable pub. Created as part of a vanity article for a local bartender. -- Merope 17:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep one of the UK's 10 oldest pubs, that is notable --RMHED 18:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• I withdraw my nomination. At the time of tagging it (which was shortly after its creation), the article was little more than a vanity page and made no assertion of notability. I was suspicious of it because of the nonsense/vanity article created for its bartender. The article still needs clean-up, but I no longer think it needs to be deleted. -- Merope 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep ST47 19:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per RMHED. Erechtheus 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I have deleted some non-notable parts of the article, such as the names of the present bar staff, the price of drinks, and the T-shirt you can buy. These are not suitable for inclusion, even though the pub is notable. DWaterson 22:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 11:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singlegator

This is a non-notable neologism. 3 Google hits Erechtheus 17:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ST47 19:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cabot House

As per WP:BAI point 4 dormitories are non notable _Doctor Bruno_^_Talk_/_{E Mail} 17:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ST47 19:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge to Quadrangle (Harvard). Claim to notability is the number of famous alumni who have lived there. (Whatever happens, Currier House and Pforzheimer House should probably share the same fate.) -AED 00:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to an appropriate target; this article was created mainly for completeness. I don't really care whether the content has its own article, as it stands these articles may be bait for unuseful edits. Breaking off a single article on the houses from Harvard College may be the best solution. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom.-Kmaguir1 08:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (as on the other two) There are twelve undergraduate residential Houses at Harvard, the nine traditional Harvard Houses (south of Harvard Yard) and the three traditional Radcliffe Houses, at the Quad. Only the three Radcliffe Houses have been nominated. Seems to me we should nominate all twelve as a group or none. Fan-1967 15:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You might get your wish. See the AfD for Vindhyachal House, right at the bottom. Hornplease 06:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Someone who knows Harvard should use Template:Pennsylvania_State_University_campus as a model of campus entities worthy of an article and List of Penn State residence halls as a comprehensive list. Flying Jazz 23:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep See reasoning on delete discussion for Pforzheimer House. Ivymike21 17:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge per Christopher Parham; part of a series. RFerreira 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gyron Aether Theory

Great lengths of original research Bm gub 18:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete from nominator. The page is a very long summary of a grandiose Theory of Everything, published in installments in the non-peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays, and including a sad story about how the author tried and failed to get published elsewhere! Also, only 164 Google hits---not even a well-known crackpot. Non-notable, OR, no outside confirmation present or possible. Bm gub 18:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ST47 19:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete, quite a piece of WP:OR. -Steve Sanbeg 20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. - Mailer Diablo 20:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kalisto

Warez group article with no reliable sources. The only thing that seems to be verifiable is that it exists, which is a minimal claim of notability. No reliable news sources or anything. Delete as such. Wickethewok 18:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep I guess the fact that it was RAIDED BY THE US GOVT isnt exactly noteworthy... and the fact they mention the group specifically by name means nothing... "Among the groups targeted by Fastlink are well-known organizations such as Fairlight, Kalisto, Echelon, Class and Project X, all of which specialized in pirating computer games, and music release groups such as APC."[34] </sarcasm>  ALKIVAR™ 16:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Alkivar - all that needed to be said was said. // Gargaj 17:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Alkivar. --Myles Long 22:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Alkivar. bbx 10:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep what is today? National BSA day? Or deleting relevant articles day? First INC (PC) now Kalisto (Consoles). I am sorry for you guys who have only seen Games that came out of a box after a purchase at the local games store, but some did not have that much money when they were teens. Not to mention the being cool factor back in the days when we didn't knew better. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Courtesy blank

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - I'm terminating this AfD because there is a unanimous chorus of two dozen keep votes, mostly speedy or strong, and this debate has dragged on for too long with no possibility of ending in deletion. - Richardcavell 05:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aiden Ford

Non-notable fictional character, of interest only to fans of Stargate Atlantis. Pan Dan 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason, I am nominating each of the other pages entirely devoted to a Stargate Atlantis character: Carson Beckett, Ronon Dex, Teyla Emmagan, Rodney McKay, John Sheppard (Stargate), and Elizabeth Weir (Stargate). Pan Dan 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Keep under snowball clause, user obviously has no idea of notability. Bad faith nom. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

(1) What is the "snowball clause"? (2) Why are these characters notable? Wikipedia is not a repository of pop culture. Pan Dan 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when did they become signers, it's pretty obvious your accoun is an SPA (deletion) you may also like to read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). (PS: Wikipedia:Snowball clause) thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

(1) I have no idea what this means: "Since when did they become signers, it's pretty obvious your accoun is an SPA (deletion)." Please explain. Pan Dan 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

(2) Seems to me, looking at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), it would be appropriate to have brief descriptions of these characters on the Stargate Atlantis page. It is not appropriate to have full pages devoted to each character. Pan Dan 19:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

1=Single Purpose Account, 2=Why "Short summaries"? There main characters which could not be summed up in a paragraph. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: SPA, I don't see why I need to defend myself, but if I must, go to my user page, and you will see I have made substantive edits to "Antonin Scalia," "2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict," "Snow", and others. I am not a single-purpose user. Second, that the characters cannot be summed up in a paragraph doesn't mean they're notable. Pan Dan 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Care to show me whats not notable? thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The show Stargate Atlantis is notable. The characters are non-notable, and the articles don't assert the notability of the characters. The articles are mainly plot summaries. Pan Dan 19:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Plot lines assert character notability. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep They deserve their own pages and the pages are quite large, it wouldn't be a good idea to just list a brief summary of them on the Stargate Atlantis page considering their depth and size. Faris b 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Their depth and size is part of the problem. I could write a deep, long article about my dog, but it wouldn't be notable. Pan Dan 19:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course your dog wouldnt be notable. The fact there main characters in one of the biggest sci-fi shows on air at the moment makes them notable. End of. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to the page you referred me to, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It is very clear: "Major and notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." The problem with the articles on Aiden Ford, et al, is that they are not encyclopedic treatments: they are plot summaries, which do not assert the notability of the characters. Pan Dan 19:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How does it not? It is afterall a character biography. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether you call them plot summaries or character biographies, they're not encyclopedic, they're not notable, and they belong--in greatly shortened form--in the main article on Stargate Atlantis. Pan Dan 19:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to learn what isnt notable (A bio about you, your corner shop, a local unsigned band, et cetera (i can use fancy words as well )) and what is notable (major tv shows, major people, major characters, etc.) thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As I have tried to make excruciatingly clear, I believe it is appropriate to have an article devoted entirely to Stargate Atlantis--a major TV show. It is not appropriate to have an article devoted entirely to each major character on a major TV show. This is plain from Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pan Dan 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Then re-read it; "If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A plot summary is not an encyclopedic treatment. Pan Dan 20:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I simply agree: keep. Cristan 11:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep if nothing else it gives the Sci-Fi nerds something to work on. --RMHED 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not taking the bait of name-calling, but the "fans of Stargate Atlantis," as I shall politely call them, have plenty of fora, I'm sure, elsewhere on the Internet. No need to clog up wikipedia with this stuff. Pan Dan 19:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being a Sci-Fi nerd, we all have our little foibles. --RMHED 19:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do. And we all have places on the Internet to go to where we can enjoy our little foibles. Wikipedia is not such a place. Pan Dan 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think your wrong there. Wikipedia is such a place for a major show like Stargate et cetera; But is not for a deletionist. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Them's fightin' words, Matt! But as I said, I am not a single-purpose user, which you can see by visiting my user page. Pan Dan 20:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As to your comment that was not a personal attack: Yes, "Wikipedia is such a place for a major show like Stargate." But no, wikipedia is not a place for one page devoted to each Stargate character. Pan Dan 20:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination is obviously going to be a Keep otherwise you can delete pretty much every other article on fictional TV characters, and that ain't gonna happen. So come on just Speedy Keep it and be done. --RMHED 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, one fictional TV character deletion at a time, and maybe we can clean the fancruft out of wikipedia. Pan Dan 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe you could cdontribute and make the articles better without your fancruft you speak of? thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

For the third time, Matt, visit my user page, and you will see I have made many substantive contributions to wikipedia. Pan Dan 20:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's OR and uncited and thus you may not of been those IPs. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 20:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Matt, I can't prove those edits were mine. But they are. (Why would I go through the trouble to find those IP's and list them?) Anyway, you can see that as Pan Dan I've done substantive edits on Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. (Still don't know why I'm defending myself--'cause it's so easy, I guess.) Pan Dan 20:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

PS--I don't know what you meant by "OR". Please tell me b/c whatever charge that is I would love to defend myself from it. Pan Dan 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OR means original reasearch. American Patriot 1776 04:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all Major characters in a major television program. I believe their is sufficient content to allow for a separate page, keeping in mind that the article will grow as the seasons of the program move along. DrunkenSmurf 20:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My God, is wikipedia a log of plot summaries? Pan Dan 20:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

For good or ill Wikipedia is what its contributors make it, Pan Dan it's best to reserve your fights for battles that you have a chance of winning. Just surrender and it won't hurt at all. --RMHED 20:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to save Western civilization here, RMHED, one step at a time  :) Pan Dan 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I think you're about 50 years too late, we're doomed, best to just invest your savings in a top grade bunker. --RMHED 20:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Already done, RMHED. :) But seriously, re: your comment that "Wikipedia is what its contributors make it." Isn't wikipedia (1) an encyclopedia, and (2) not a democracy? Aren't the admins sensible enough to delete fancruft? Pan Dan 20:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This was all decided long ago by the community that this is encyclopediac. Whether it is to you is your own business, and none of the community's collective concern. Or else thousands of such articles would be gone. Why on Earth is this so offensive to you? If you don't care for this part of the content, there's another 1,500,000 pages you can busy yourself on. rootology (T) 00:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not offensive to me, and it's not true that "I don't care for it." I find it unencyclopedic--plain and simple. Pan Dan 01:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• The Admins, like all humanity are a mixed bunch. I doubt any kind of consensus could ever be achieved on what defines fancruft, at least this article isn't about bloody Pokemon, that alone is a small blessing.--RMHED 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, most are major characters on a major series. Too much information to merge, and the show is ongoing. Individual pages are fine. Kuru ^talk 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Too much information to merge"? Exactly. The "information" on these pages is mostly plot summary. It's not encyclopedic. Pan Dan 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Even trimming off the cruft would blow out the size of the main article. If you'd like to gain consensus to trim those articles down to reasonable size, then feel free. Work with those editors. I don't really see the need, though. Kuru ^talk 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

(1) The main article on the show is OK b/c the show itself is notable. Not so the characters. (2) Trimming these articles down to size would reduce them to 2 lines each, which should then be merged into the main article. Pan Dan 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You keep forgetting the "in my opinion" part. Most of those articles have a fairly large amount of viable content; random plot summarizations aside. I doubt that you'd be able to cull them down reliably by yourself, and I'm not seeing a great deal of willingness to work with the other editors in that project on your part. If you're proposing an "Othello Rule" for notability and maximum article size, please feel free to join in the policy section at the village pump, or set up at WP:FICT. Kuru ^talk 20:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:FICT main characters get their own articles when they will not fit into the main article. Does anyone read this anymore? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

They get their own articles when the material is encyclopedic. Think Othello. Think Milo Minderbinder. Even the article on Anakin Skywalker has merit. But the articles I've nominated are basically plot summaries with no encyclopedic value. Pan Dan 20:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because you personally feel 1 writers work is more important then others does not mean we should delete the writers you feel are not important enough, I think the above "keeps" speak for the importance and relevance of these characters. I am not sure what led you to pick stargate, but fictional characters from notable programs are deemed important and encyclopedic here, if you feel the article needs to be cleaned up then you should put the appropriate tag not attempt to delete it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the articles are mostly plot summaries. A tag is not appropriate b/c if all the non-encyclopedic material were removed, only a few lines would be left--which should be merged into the main article on Stargate Atlantis. I don't know anything about Anakin Skywalker, but the article on him is fine b/c it shows some depth and notability. But these articles that I've nominated are, again, mainly plot summaries. Pan Dan 20:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are not arguing the subject is unencyclopedic then a tag is appropriate, it really doesnt matter because WP:SNOW anyway. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Try as I might, I am not able to make sense out of the 1st part of your sentence. I am arguing that these articles are not encyclopedic, therefore tags are not appropriate. Pan Dan 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all per WP:FICT; all of these characters, given proper treatment (as they have been) would cause the Stargate: Atlantis article to become inappropriately long. As such, "[those] character[s] can be given a separate article[s]." Given the examples at WP:FICT, it seems rather simple that starring characters for a television show (those showcased in the opening credits, to include others) are not non-notable. Lastly, being of interest to only a select group of people in no way makes it prudent for deletion; excepting only a small percentage of articles — the majority of Wikipedia articles are only of interest to truncated groups of people. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a point there. That these articles are only of interest to fans of the show, is not a good argument as to why they should be deleted. The articles' fan base is, rather, a diagnosis of the reason why, despite their lack of encyclopedic content, these articles can be found on wikipedia. And the lack of encyclopedic content is the reason why these characters should not be given separate articles. The material is mostly plot description; it should be truncated and merged into the main article. Pan Dan 00:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the policy, get the policy changed. Arguing it on AfD is not the appropriate venue and a waste of bytes and bandwidth. As for only of interest to fans of the show, do you have access to the access logs of Wikipedia, and the referals or search logs to see what people are looking up? Or is this some general bias vs. pop cultural items...? rootology (T) 00:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

(1) Do you fail to see the irony of calling this discussion a "waste of bytes and bandwidth"? (2) What is the appropriate venue?--not a rhetorical question, I really want to know. (3) I don't think I need to see access logs to know that nobody who has not seen the show, will ever, ever have occasion or desire to look up Aiden Ford. Pan Dan 00:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would anyone not interested in complexity theory look up NC, for instance? Or why would anyone not interested in being a bad guy look up molotov cocktail? Or better yet - why would anyone who has nothing to hide look encyption up? 207.234.147.96 16:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That said, it seems that your objection is about the quality of the articles as they stand now, not that the articles exist. With nigh on three years of content, there is substantial information that they would be over-sized to be in the SG:A article anyways. Instead of asking/expecting that the articles be deleted, merged, re-written, and then re-forked into their own articles; why not simply annotate the articles as being written in an unencyclopedic tone {{Inappropriate tone}}, express your concerns on the appropriate talk page, and perhaps take a hand in re-working the article to be better written. I still advicate keeping all listed articles, but would also support their bring appropriately tagged for needing work. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all, the nominator apparently doesn't understand the scope of Wikipedia's coverage. Wikipedia isn't paper, there isn't a space shortage or a limit to the number of articles we can have. Bryan 22:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that wikipedia can, and should, cover much more than ordinary encyclopedias. I also understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Lengthy expositions of TV characters' exploits don't belong. Pan Dan 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're entitled to your (extreme) minority opinion. rootology (T) 00:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There are encyclipedias dedicated to nothing but lengthy expositions of TV characters' exploits. The Star Trek Encyclopedia springs to mind. Bryan 21:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep These include good thorough articles. There is no reason to delete them. Kundor 23:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, main characters of successful TV show. Not fancruft! --Andromeda 23:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• (A word from the nominator.) It would be an understatement to say I'm swimming against a tide here. But it seems to me self-evident that these articles do not give the characters the "encyclopedic treatment" required by Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) ("If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article"). These articles are each 2 lines of character description, and the rest is plot summary. That's not encyclopedic. That doesn't assert notability. It's rote description of plot. The solution: the 2 lines of character description should be merged into the main article on Stargate Atlantis, and the rest should be deleted. And, fans of the show, not to worry: I am as sure as I'm typing this that the material whose deletion I am calling for can be found on 10 other websites on the Internet within 2 seconds on google. Pan Dan 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Ill-advised nomination that is ignoring WP:FICT, or only selectively viewing it. Othello is OK, but not TV fiction? Better get rid of the Darth Vader, Frodo Baggins, and Jesus Christ articles whilst we're at it. Sheesh. rootology (T) 00:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

First, (sigh, defending myself once again) see my user page for evidence that I am a contributing member of wikipedia, not a troll. Way to assume good faith, rootology! Second, I have explained why the article on, say, Anakin Skywalker is fine, but the articles I nominated are not. The article on Anakin (and Darth, and Frodo--don't know why you include Jesus, he's a religious figure whether fictional or not) presents a compelling portrayal; the nominated articles are just plot descriptions. Third, my nomination is a straightforward application of WP:FICT, not a "selective viewing" of it. Pan Dan 00:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I revised my comment. Please see: Major and notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article. This article is valid, as this is one of the "main" characters of the show--all of them are. They were all opening credits characters, therefore they are "major" to the show itself, which is certainly notable (4,000,000 odd viewers, etc.). I was making use of hyperbole as well. rootology (T) 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: if you're unhappy with the content, work on that. AfDing them is a bad idea, as this will never pass for any show or film or novel like this. It's established by your peers that this content has merit on WP. rootology (T) 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: See also from WP:FICT: Noonien Soong is an example of a minor, but still notable, character in Star Trek: The Next Generation, who has sufficient content to sustain an independent article. Same for all the major characters of a television show. Per policy. rootology (T) 00:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Pan Dan down here since the page is giving me trouble. Proper venue to discuss is the talk page at the FICT policy, not by mass afding. Your own words indicate you may have done this to make a point about fancruft as you see it--that's not allowed per WP:POINT. I'd advise you to take it up at the FICT talk page if you're not happy with how our rules work currently. rootology (T) 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep All - Per comments above Morphh 01:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• In response to zerofaults, pd_THOR, and others, I should make it clear that what I think is unencyclopedic is the content, not the tone or organization. As I said somewhere above, lengthy descriptions of characters' exploits should be deemed patently unencyclopedic. That's why I feel outright deletion, not a tag, was appropriate. Pan Dan 01:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you then qualify Spock, Josiah Bartlet, Sharon Valerii, Danny Tanner, or Jim Brass under your same criteria for eventual deletion? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Having just taken a quick look at all of these, I would say this: Spock has become part of the broader culture, and the article makes this point. I would definitely keep that. (Maybe in 10 years the same will properly be said of the nominees for deletion.) The article on Danny Tanner is a (somewhat) compelling analysis of the character--not just a summary of his actions on the show--so I would keep that. The Bartlet article is also a (somewhat) compelling portrayal--and, as the actions of Bartlet invite comparisons with real life, the article could potentially be expanded. Valerii and Brass--I would argue those do need to be deleted, as they are not compelling, nor do I see any potential for them to be expanded. Those articles are just a description of the characters' doings--like the present nominees for deletion. A description of the characters themselves could be summed up in 2 sentences, and are. So I would insert those 2 sentences into the main articles for the TV shows, and delete the rest. Pan Dan 01:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• In response to rootology, I certainly didn't make this nomination to make a point about fancruft. I thought it would not be controversial that the nominated articles are fancruft. Wikipedia:Fancruft says: "One of the major aspects of fancruft articles is that they tend to focus entirely on their subject's fictional relevence, as opposed to their place in the real world. Articles on episodes of television series, or fictional characters in movies are more likely to be labeled fancruft if they are primarily summaries, biographies of made-up people, or collections of trivia that relate to the continuity of a series rather than its critical or social reception." This exactly applies to the articles I've nominated. Pan Dan 01:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all per precedent set by many similar character articles for other popular TV series. 23skidoo 01:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all per above arguments... and such... -Xornok 03:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all per Xornok. American Patriot 1776 04:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep to all Very notable charcters in a very notable show, not in violation of any policy. Tobyk777 05:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong speedy keep for all. -- SFH 15:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong speedy keep because the existence of these articles is well justified by the policies stated in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), just like the articles for Anakin Skywalker and Hermione Granger. Fancruft applies only to obscure information of interest only to a small group of hardcore fans, which is not the case here at all. Stargate is, in fact, wildly popular, rivaling Star Trek and the X-Files. I hope that Pan Dan will not make a nomination like this again, now that s/he knows that it wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding. Noneofyourbusiness 19:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• From the nominator.

First, I admit that in my nomination I didn't present my argument for deletion as thoroughly as I should have. This is because I truly thought the deletion should not be controversial (despite some here who shamefully assumed bad faith). So let me just re-emphasize the main point in favor of deletion that has come out in discussion: The articles are summaries of the characters' exploits--i.e. plot summaries (except for 2 lines at the beginning which should be merged into the main article). Therefore the articles:

(1) violate WP:BIO because plot summaries don't assert notability of the characters,

(2) violate WP:BIO because of the 100 year test: "In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?", and

(3) violate WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, which says: "Plot summaries - Wikipedia articles should not act solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction, but should offer comprehensive, summarised plots in conjunction with sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series."

Therefore these articles aren't encyclopedic treatments of the characters. So the articles also fail to satisfy WP:FICT--"If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article."

Second, there is no available source for "analysis, ...details on...achievement[], impact, or historical significance" per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, so there is no potential for the articles to be re-written or expanded to an encyclopedic treatment. This is why deletion, not tags, is appropriate.

Third, on fancruft: Even though these articles are obviously fancruft, that's not a good reason for them to be deleted. But the fact that these articles have a fan base is a diagnosis of the reason why, despite their lack of encyclopedic content, these articles can be found on WP.

Fourth, it is obvious that I've touched a nerve with some fans of Stargate. I understand what it must be like to have articles you've worked on very hard, and for a very long time, to be considered for deletion. I am truly sorry for that. But the fact remains that WP is not a place for fans of X to collect indiscriminate information about X. There are plenty of other places on the Internet for fanclubs.

Pan Dan 19:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a single one of these points makes logical sense. Tobyk777 19:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And none of them seem valid. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel that these articles are fancruft, but if they are then perhaps the definition of fancruft is too broad. Noneofyourbusiness 20:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In "Third,..." above, I explicitly admit that "fancruft" is not a good reason for requesting deletion. Pan Dan 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This character is absolutely notable and Pan Dan's entire comment about him only being notable to fans of SGA is rather offensive. There are millions of fans of the show. -- Voldemort 23:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

(1) As in "Fourth...", above, I apologize to anyone I offended. It was a good faith nom, I thought this material unencyclopedic, and I stand by that. (2) I repeat my contention that summaries of characters' exploits are plot summaries which do not assert notability. (3) The fact that there are millions of fans of the show certainly explains why there is so much interest in putting and keeping this material on WP, and the fact that there are millions of fans justifies the article on Stargate Atlantis. But it doesn't justify the lengthy plot summaries whose deletion I am requesting, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, no. 7. Pan Dan 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. According to m-w.com, an encyclopedia is "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject". Per this definition, I think the The Star Trek Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia as are the entries it contains. And if they're encyclopedic in that context, then I think they're encyclopedic in the context of Wikipedia, which I see as an encyclopedia for every niche. And if Star Trek entries are encyclopedic how are Stargate entries any different?

See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, no. 7. Pan Dan 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, assume, for the moment, that your nomination for deletion succeeded and Stargate: Altantis only had one article. It'd then be expanded to such a point whereby editors would have little choice but to split it up into multiple articles. Soon, those articles would expand, and those articles, and so on and so forth, until you have what you have today. So even if what you were proposing did succeed, what's, really, the point? TerraFrost 04:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point. But the point I am trying to make is that narratives of fictional characters' exploits, with no "real-world context and sourced analysis," per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, no. 7, shouldn't appear on WP at all. Pan Dan 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep all Per above and so many, many more reasons. What's even more insane is that all of these are main characters, I could at least understand it if they were for some one episode random characters, but these ones are in over 20 episodes a piece! Konman72 06:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I just think this nomination is funny. Out of about 25 voters, the nominator is the only one who thinks this is fancruft. Many of the voters have argued at length about why the nominator is wrong. Never before have I seen a AFD with such overwhelming resistance to the deletion. Usualy, even if there is consensus to keep there are at least one or two people who agree with the nominator. Here there is unanamous consensus. I'm just think that's kind of funny. Tobyk777 06:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's because the nominator hadn't heard of the Wikipedia: Snowball clause before nominating. Noneofyourbusiness 12:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

To show you how clueless I really am, I'll say this: Even if I had heard of the Snowball Clause, I still would have made the nomination, b/c I didn't think it would even be controversial, and I certainly had no idea I would be 1 against 1 million. Pan Dan 13:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep

First they came for the Pokemon, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a 12-year old anime addict.

Then they came for the Stargate Atlantis characters, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a fan of bad science fiction (or whatever Pan Dan thinks SGA is).

Then they came for the articles on World War 2, and there were no editors left to speak up for it. 207.234.147.96 07:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh, 207.234.147.96 (I mean that). As to the serious point you are making, narratives of the exploits of WWII heroes are appropriate for WP. Narratives of the exploits of fictional characters are appropriate for fan websites, not WP. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information (no. 7), WP:BIO#Alternative_tests (100-year test), and WP:FICT, no. 1 (non-encyclopedic coverage doesn't get its own article). Pan Dan 13:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

1) As it states, the presence of a plot summary is not grounds for deletion. Even if these articles consisted only of plot summary, which they don't, it would not be grounds for deletion, only cleanup/revision.

2) These articles pass the 100 year test. Probably. The very nature of the test makes it hard to say with 100% certainty.

3) As it states, major characters get their own articles if proper treatment of them would cause the main article to become overlong.

In short, these three policies all say that we should keep the articles. Noneofyourbusiness 20:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: your point #1, The "expansion and cleanup" required by no. 7 is not possible w/ these articles b/c it is not possible to give them "real-world context and sourced analysis" (see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information). By the way, I note that the explicitly stated "Plot summaries are not grounds for deletion" (paraphrasing) was added today--probably in good faith, but that does sort of change the meaning of the policy, and maybe sd be reverted (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWhat_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=73506100&oldid=73428962). Pan Dan 20:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this is fictional work, real-world context and sourced analysis is applied in an Out-of-universe perspective. Morphh 20:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• notable to WikiProject: Stargate

I'm certainly no wiki expert or anything, but I would think that the existence of the apparently legitimate Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate is a major point to consider in the discussion of notability of these articles. Certainly they are an important component of that WikiProject?

68.166.244.74 10:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep all nominated articles per above. Central characters to a notable TV series. Chrisd87 12:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikiproject Stargate is a well organized, lagitamate wikiproject, with more than 40 members, 3 of which are admins. Among various other things, we are currently working to eleminate fancuft and to merge non-notbale articles into lists. Our project follows all policies and is just as lagitamate as any other, and more organized than most. Tobyk777 16:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Definately KEEP ALL as Elizabeth Weir is a charachter in stargate sg-1 and atlantis, and weir was the commander of the sgc at one point. The other charachters have similar reasons in my opinion - Stwalkerster 16:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

	These pages up for deletion are part of WikiProject Stargate, a well organzied lagitamate project to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Stargate on Wikipedia.
Stargate-SG-1-Atlantis - edit + - project - talk - join Things to do (this article) Add things to do for Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 1 Things to do (project-wide) Articles to be written: Articles to be expanded/improved: Lists: List of Stargate works - Tau'ri characters in Stargate SG-1 - List of Stargate Atlantis cast Episodes: Premieres, finales and multipart episodes. see also Episode stubs Characters: Hank Landry - Cameron Mitchell Carson Beckett - Teyla Emmagan - Elizabeth Weir Cast & Crew: Kavan Smith - Martin Wood - Brad Wright Other: Lucian Alliance - Stargate Atlantis DVD - see also Stargate stubs, Articles with tasks FA drive Stargate WP:1.0 drive Stargate SG-1 - Stargate Atlantis Stargate Quick links Edit Quick links Stargate WikiProject Stargate Stargate stubs Races - Groups - Tech - Terms - Civs - Chars - Actors Stargate SG-1 episodes Stargate Atlantis episodes Stargate episode stubs

--Tobyk777 16:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Main character in a notable TV show. Wikipedia is a repository of everything, and that includes pop culture. --Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

From the nominator. If this were a chess game, now would be the time to say "I resign." I gave it my best shot. Now (after more than 40K!) I want to withdraw the nomination. I apologize for what is now clear to me was an ill-advised nom as rootology said, since it had zero chance of succeeding, although that was certainly not clear to me when I made the nom. In fact I thought it wd be so uncontroversial that I used PROD before someone removed it.

Now that the debate is over, I want first to concede what I think are the three best arguments against my nom:

1. Inertia. These articles are so extensive, and have been on WP for so long, and are even part of a Stargate portal (God save us all!), that to delete them now would be disruptive to the portal and unfair to a relatively small but very hard-working chunk of the WP community.

2. Precedent. I assume discussions like these have come up before, whether formally in deletion nominations, or informally on talk pages, or both. The fact that articles like these have survived for such a long time despite such discussions, is precedent-setting, I suppose.

3. Fairness. If these articles were yanked, it would not be fair that hundreds, if not thousands (if not tens of thousands?--God save us all!) of comparable articles would remain, like the article on Soong which rootology mentioned.

I still think my basic argument is right: that WP is not an appropriate place for articles like these, including the Soong article, and WP would have a much better reputation if it cracked down on them. The fact that these articles are 95% plot narratives and 5% character analyses attests to their lack of significance to the real world today, lack of any artistic, philosophical, or literary merit, and certain lack of significance to anybody at all 100 years from now. So it's obvious to me that they're unencyclopedic faddish fancruft.

Worse, I get the impression that allowing these articles makes the WP community sort of like a high school student body, in that both are divided into cliques devoted to fads, rather than a cohesive community devoted to the whole WP project/high school sports & academics. There is a clique devoted to Stargate, and a clique devoted to Pokemon, and a clique devoted to Survivor, and a clique devoted to Goth. Leaving high school aside, whether I'm right about the existence of cliques on WP or not, I'm probably right that Stargate et al are fads which will be forgotten 100 years from now. And it seems to me that at WP, the proponents of fad projects should take them off of WP and go elsewhere on the World Wide Web, which is pretty darn wide and would accommodate, and certainly already does accommodate, each one of these fads.

So again, I apologize for the nom. I also apologize for being blunt about what I called "fads," which may offend some people. Especially, I apologize for the rant you just read, because I know now (thanks rootology) that the appropriate place for that rant is in a discussion like the one at WP:FICT, not here. I just want to say, thanks to all of you who have contributed to this debate. Thanks especially to those of you who thoughtfully engaged me in some particulars of the debate, even though you could have just cited WP:SNOW and walked off. Y'all probably feel this debate was largely a waste of your time, and you may be right, but for me this has been an educational experience as I am new to the procedural part of WP (though I have been contributing substantively to WP for quite some time as described on User:Pan Dan, ahem, Matt and rootology). I have no hard feelings towards anybody here (yes, even you Matt, though next time a newcomer adopts a snowball-in-hell position, don't assume bad faith), although I understand if some of you have hard feelings towards me. Anyway, see you around WP! May the force be with you! or whatever.  :-)

Pan Dan 02:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Will Stargate be forgotten a hundred years from now? Maybe so. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Whether something will be notable a century from now is inherently unknowable, and thus not a criteria for determining whether it's notable now. Assuming that Wikipedia still exists in 2106, these articles will be deleted by then if they've ceased to be notable. Currently, however, they are notable. Oh, and Strong Keep. Redxiv 03:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect, you're way off base here. My argument that "Stargate will be forgotten 100 years from now" appeals to the 100-year test at WP:BIO#Alternative_tests. It has nothing to do with the policy Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is not relevant to this debate even if I am speculating about the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball would be relevant to a nomination for deleting an article that speculates about the future, and I'm not even claiming that these articles speculate about the future. Pan Dan 03:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Or, put another way, Crystal Ball forbids articles from speculating about the future, whereas the 100-year test at WP:BIO#Alternative_tests invites debates about articles to speculate about the future. Pan Dan 03:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Francis muamba

WP:V. I can find no evidence of a Francis Muamba who played for Arsenal, Cardiff, or the English U-17 team. This could be referring to Fabrice Muamba, except he hasn't played for Cardiff. If that is the case, I don't think it should be a redirect because it doesn't appear to be a likely misspelling. Scottmsg 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Scottmsg 19:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A quick google search returns about 20 results, but all of these are referencing a professor or scholar of economics. It could be a misspelling, but I doubt it. A redirect is unnecessary. Srose (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Srose. – Elisson • Talk 19:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per srose ST47 19:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as erroneous. Fabrice Muamba is on loan to Birmingham, while teammate Kerrea Gilbert is on loan to Cardiff - this is where the likely confusion probably arose. Qwghlm 00:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above -- Alias Flood 01:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yeah, looks like they've mixed the two players up to me. --Stevefarrell 09:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 redirect. I think it was just an innocent newbie error. -- RHaworth 20:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel

duplicate page; this page is not about hegel and there is already a page for total quality management Stankrom 19:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I completely agree. This looks like some kind of trick, like bait-and-switch. Of no value whatsoever. ---Charles 20:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alamo_Capital

non-notable corporation -Steve Sanbeg 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Does not meet requirements of corp. to be listed.--Getaway 21:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete since it's non-notable. Too small a business to actually be, well, notable. --Eugene2x -- ☺ Nintendo rox! 04:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --- Deville (Talk) 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jodie Mush

Put your self-promotional materials up on a personal page, rather than Wikipedia. This artcile is incoherent, seems to have nothing to do with a person of encyclopedic note, and contains no links to verify accuracy.Narsil27 20:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• userfy looks like an autbio, by an editor who occasinaly contributes to other article -Steve Sanbeg 20:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• userfy - as per Steve Sanbeg. At the very least it needs editing for NPOV - Alison^✍ 22:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Clearly spamming. This entry about a fictional character is clearly designed to plug the author's parody website. There is a long-running thread on a well-known "showbiz" forum discussing the real Jodie Marsh, and several posters have come up with this fictional version as a joke. It's a good little in-joke, but it has no place on Wikipedia.

• Delete - Fails WP:WEB. BlueValour 04:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gus Alzona

Disputed prod. Not an article - an election candidate's address. Please phone him collect on the number given. -- RHaworth 20:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete maybe if he wins, someone can write a neutral article. -Steve Sanbeg 20:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete resumé per WP:NOT a soapbox. Ohconfucius 08:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Hate speech. --- GIen 05:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hate Term

This is more than covered already in the article hate speech - in fact it even uses the same example. Entire article is effectively redundant-- - GIen 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• In that case, why not redirect? That's my inclination. Erechtheus 20:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Erechtheus. Thryduulf 21:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. Why couldn't someone have been bold and done it instead of going through Afd? Cynical 22:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to hate speech. --Eugene2x -- ☺ Nintendo rox! 04:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funspotpals

De-prodded by the article's creator. It fails WP:WEB. Very limited Google hits, which appear to be the website's creators posting adds on sites like craigslist. Definitely not notable. Sparsefarce 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Erechtheus 20:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete claims started in may, doesn't claim to be notable. -Steve Sanbeg 20:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest changes show citations by newspapers in legitimate articles, which should help satisfy the policy re notability. Also notable is the fact that the website in question is possibly the first of the social networking sites cited in wikipedia to focus on outdoor activity enthusiasts - -Phidman 19:50, 1 September 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 speedy deleted by Luigi30 Thryduulf 08:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Siarhiey Piletsky

Non-notable? Subject has virtually no Google hits in either English or Belorussian. Acctorp 20:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Fails WP:BIO and only 9 G-hits, only two of which show up (Wikipedia hits). I think his name is also spelled Sergey Piletsky. If you search Sergey+Piletsky+photography, you get nine more hits. --Nishkid64 21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD A7, I cannot see any notability asserted. I have tagged it apropriately. Thryduulf 22:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammaton_Clerics_(Shadowbane)

This is non-notable and shouldn't be in wikipedia. Aristoi 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on what? I admit it reads as somewhat non-notable, but I haven't been able to find a proposal/policy on notability of video/pc games, let alone fictional groups within same...Valrith 21:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's because they are as notable as your mother's bridge club. Unless they are written about on industry websites (not in forums) by non-members (i.e. unbiased sources), it's unlikely that anyone would find any gaming clubs notable. --Habap 13:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think that fictional groups within computer games are really notable enough for a general encyclopaedia. Transwiki to a gaming wiki per Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games#Scope of information. Thryduulf 22:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  "A general rule of thumb: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture."

• Comment: note that the talk page appears to be another copy of the article. Thryduulf 22:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• The content could be valuable to people outside of the game who are considering beginning to play. It gives them an idea of the depth of various groups within the Shadowbane world. This can be informative to someone considering between two MMORPGs and enable him/her to choose one or the other based on how appropriate to their personalities the group descriptions are. Valrith raises a point that there is currently no policy dictating notability of PC games or their contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.35.246 (talk • contribs)

Delete no sources, no verifiability, no notability. If the clan gets written about in a newspaper, then maybe, but not likely. Why have an article on this group and not the other 250,000 gaming clubs? --Habap 12:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as noted by Habap, verifiability appears to be a problem. Valrith 17:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• In response to Habap, all the information on here is written about in the Shadowbane forums, http://chronicle.ubi.com

Sadly, forums are not considered reliable sources. The reason we use newspapers or books is that in order to be written about, the subject must be of interest to the general public. Gaming clans are generally only of interest to their own members and some players of the same game. For example, my own group, Sturmgrenadier, had an article for a while, but was, quite frankly, not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sturmgrenadier for details on why that one was deleted. (SG was mentioned in an article in USA Today, which was used for notability, but the article was not about SG.) One of things to consider is.... would your mother read about the group if you weren't the author of the article and a member? --Habap 14:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - At what point does something qualify as "being written about in a newspaper?" It's written about extensively in these forums, which are also public domain. If it were a newspaper specifically published about Shadowbane, would that qualify? And then to what extent is that different from an online newspaper, or online forum in this case, since they're all public domain? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.255.35.246 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Our guideline on reliable sources explains it quite nicely. Captainktainer * Talk 09:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources and no ability to have reliable sources should always mean that the article dies. Captainktainer * Talk 09:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I have played Shadowbane on and off since its release and this guild means nothing at all to me. There are no reliable sources, and the guild has little notability. Yamix00 * Talk 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Habap.-- Whpq 13:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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, Cleared as filed does a good job of refuting the the keep suggested by ya ya ya ya ya ya in that Presidents make many speeches about policy, and also the fact that it is already on WIkisource .Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush's 2006 Immigration reform speech

This is already in Wikisource; this particular speech is not notable enough for its own article, there's almost no information in this article as it stands, and there's no point in even redirecting it someplace because it's unlikely that someone would search for this title. Recommend deleting. —Cleared as filed. 20:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete that's what wikisource is for. -Steve Sanbeg 20:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Sandbeg. One of the Wiki sites has it already. --Nishkid64 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Notable speech, much talked about in the media. An article's unsatisfactory length is never a legitmate justification for its deletion. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 22:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  Every presidential speech is much talked about in the media; they've got 24 hours of coverage to fill. However, in the grand scheme of speeches, this isn't one that people are going to be talking about for years to come. A mention of the speech should be included in an article about the 2006 immigration debate, but there isn't much to say about the speech itself, other than its text, which is already in Wikisource. —Cleared as filed. 13:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Definitely a notable speech which should be expanded not deleted. Deletion hawks at work again. Nlsanand 22:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. He gives lots of speeches.-Kmaguir1 08:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. as per Sanbeg. Also as per Kmaguir1. 3-4 speeches a day, 2920 days in office, comes out to too many articles most of which aren't worth keeping. This is a run-of-the-mill policy speech, it isn't the state of the union or the impromptu remarks made at the world trade center site with a bullhorn. I'm surprised, given the hatred for the man, each one of his gaffs (like calling Adam Clymer an asshole, or choking on a pretzel) hasn't been given an article so the leftist-Gore-won-in-2000-appease-the-terrorists-no-war-for-oil crowd can rant. —ExplorerCDT 03:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, ExplorerCDT, was that truly necessary? AfD is not a place for a political attack. Captainktainer * Talk 09:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or delete, I'd say. —Nightstallion (?) 13:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dino Govoni

non-notable musician created by single-purpose account. -Steve Sanbeg 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSICErechtheus 21:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Although there's a bunch of "fluff" written saying that he's one of the greatest saxophonists, he fails WP:MUSIC and you get ~600 hits when you google his name. --Nishkid64 21:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. Please note that new users (especially with this AfD as their only contribution) are given very little, if any, weight, unless substantial points are made. There have been additions to this article, but not verified with suitable references. This article could possibly be recreated if additional material and verification (see WP:VERIFY) is added. At the moment, for example, two of the filmographies don't mention Lockwood, and the other is in production. This is not sufficient. Tyrenius 22:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Lockwood

The subject of this article fails WP:BIO based on my understanding of his career and that standard. There are 40 Google hits for his name and either actor or musician, and most are IMDB name search queries. None appear to be a verifiable source that might augment notability. Erechtheus 20:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note the AFD template was removed by the creator. I have restored it. Erechtheus 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note this AFD was blanked by 67.142.170.43, who also removed the AFD template on the article page twice. Erechtheus 21:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note 67.142.130.24 (talk · contribs) has numerous keep votes, including under the name imovie. ~ trialsanderrors 03:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. He fails WP:BIO and has only acted in 3 movies, of which have mostly been minor roles. --Nishkid64 21:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He has performed on numerous t.v. shows including Soap Talk performing with his band Rowdy. According to thier website. Also has been published by Samuel French Inc. in Here, There & Everywhere for the play Waiting For Ringo. He also starred in the Television pilot Lonestar. He is very notable! I found this in google. I found him in over 1800 hits. The reason you found less is because he is also known as Will Lockwood, Billy Lockwood, Bill Lockwood, and William Lockwood. Please do not delete the Billy Lockwood page. 67.142.130.24 00:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)|imovie67.142.130.24 00:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. He commercially endorsed Suzuki Motorcycles on a national commercial.

The commercial entitled Lone Wolf 67.142.130.24 00:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by imovie (talk • contribs)

• Comment. Wikipedia works using verifiable sources. If we need to consider something that is not within the article, I would suggest adding it to the article along with verifiable citations and commenting on this AfD entry once that has been accomplished. Everyone here wants this article included if notability can be established. Erechtheus 22:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I updated the Billy Lockwood page using verifiable sources and linking the page to them. I added many things that were not on there...but there still is more I will update. Thank you for considering adding this page. It really should in Wikipedia. The Billy Lockwood fan club requests it. As you can see on the updates notability has been established. Please do not delete it. Thank you! 01:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Bit parts in two movies, and a third coming up. Been in some non-notable bands you've never heard of; related to two actors you've never heard of, even less notable than him (each has one bit part to their credit); and best friends with someone who's related to an actor. Adding it all together, it doesn't come to much. Fan-1967 02:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I uderstand the Wikipedia is have a hard time with knowing what is truthful or valid to put in its website. This particular page is truthful and valid of a notable actor/musician. After careful research & studying the wikipedia way......i understand what your up against. I would not want to be you. 67.142.130.24 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This article clearly passes WP:BIO based my reasearch and understanding of his career and acomplishments. His music career alone with having 12 albums with three notable bands passes, not to mention the movies, (I remember him Telling lies in America) and the television shows. He already is in Wikipedia several times. He's anotable keeper. Kp21 23:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note Kp21 (talk · contribs)'s sole edit. ~ trialsanderrors 03:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. He is a famous musician, not to mention his acting notabilty. I found verifiable sources that prove notability. He passes WP:BIO standards and should stay. Mdirk 20:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note Mdirk (talk · contribs)'s sole edit. Tyrenius 22:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as attack page

[edit] Robert Riehm

WP:V, no relevant hits on google. It looks like a hoax. Scottmsg 20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Erechtheus 21:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 merged to Greenwich, Connecticut. --- Deville (Talk) 21:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity Church, Greenwich

This is a non-notable Church location. The stub on the article is confusing and makes this look like a town, but the link listed makes it quite clear this is a Church. There are 315 Google Hits, but none are helpful to notability based on my scan of them and only about 30 are unique. Erechtheus 21:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Greenwich, Connecticut. Thryduulf 21:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge looks like the best option -Doc 23:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an article no assertion of notability for the subject. GRBerry 02:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, as per above. The entry is just one sentence! Mugaliens 15:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - what is there to merge? -- Whpq 13:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 all. --- Deville (Talk) 21:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As a follow-up, it turned out that there really was nothing to merge, all of the info in the sub-articles was already contained in the school article, so this was effectively delete. --- Deville (Talk) 21:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bundal

Non-notable sections of a particular school. Delete or merge; the school in question is a primary school so I'm not even convinced of its notability, but these at least need to be done. I am also nominating Mianjin, Wyampa, and Warraba under the same criteria.

Merge all into one paragraph of the school article. Thryduulf 21:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge all as per above. --Nishkid64 23:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. JPD (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ah-So

Notability/relevance? Subwayguy 21:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to an article on the company if that is notable, otherwise delete. Thryduulf 21:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable as a sauce. Might be notable as a phrase with important historical and cultural connotations. I remember "Ah-so" as the phrase "Oh! I see!" that Hirohito used over and over after WWII. Flying Jazz 00:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep valid condiment like ketchup. The phrase ah so is common in Japanese, but since Wikipedia is not a phrase book, there doesn't seem to be much need for an article on it. Fg2 02:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, NN and advertisement. I thought it was going to be about the corkscrew. Now then, the phrase is common in Japanese? Like, if I go to Tokyo I'll hear people using it while speaking Japanese to each other? ♥ «Charles A. L.»

• In light of what User:Ohconfucius say ... er, says, weak keep; but it needs work since it's still an ad–♥ «Charles A. L.» 12:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ah so??. New England sauce listed and ranked #511 on Amazon.com (about the same as marmite on Amazon), and may well justify keeping based on name recognition. Ohconfucius 09:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mormonism and Judaism

I believe that the whole premace of this article is original research. PDXblazers 21:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note the AfD template was not added to the page by nominator, I have now added it

• Keep - This is an old article and although it could do with references it does appear to have had a lot of editors, and the talk page suggests a section was removed for being original research. This suggests that most contributors do not consider the whole article original research. Thryduulf 21:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. - The page may be based on original research done by Joseph Smith, but that's part of the argument. I added a lot of the Jewish information, and it was taken from other Wikipedia articles and other disparate sources. The comparison section is certainly not original research. Can't speak about the Mormon doctrine section. FiveRings 22:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (oh, and for some strange reason a lot of the external references were moved to the bottom of the page. Not sure why, and I don't agree with the reformatting).
• Keep. Mormon theology claims a continuity with Judaism that goes beyond that of other Christian denominations (see Aaronic Priesthood) and this article should cover that. However, the material that talks about each religion separately should go. Gazpacho 01:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• MERGE & REDIRECT While it does smack of original research, the information should be condensed into a section on the main Mormonism article either something dealing with historical origins/continuity or doctrine. Subject doesn't deserve its own article. Needs citations, by the way. —ExplorerCDT 03:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the Mormonism article is already quite long and imho doesn't need any more sections adding to it. Thryduulf 10:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's not really an excuse, and if it is, it is a poor one. —ExplorerCDT 17:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very interesting comparison of the two. Mugaliens 15:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • • Comment Interesting doesn't make it encyclopedic. It violates WP:NOR. PDXblazers 19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • comment Many instances of original research (more like wild speculation) have been removed in the history of this article. If there are specific instances that you still find objectionable, why not address those via the normal editing process. FiveRings 19:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I happened to be interested in this very topic, and it was the second hit in Google. The introductory paragraphs are good. Any problems with the article can be dealt with in the normal editing process. Wasted Time R 04:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• This is an obvious keep. W/o casting aspersions in the direction of the nominator, this is among the more frivolous nominations I've ever come across. I have to agree with 5Rings, and point out [as I seem to find myself doing more and more of late], that WP:AFD is not the proper way to resolve disputes, and in this case seems almost like an effort to push a POV rather than to protect us all from WP:NOR. Tomer^talk 20:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the insinuation. Do we often find comparison articles in an encyclopedia? The answer is no. The article could be dogs and cats, and I would have the same feeling. PDXblazers 00:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefaced my comments deliberately enough to clarify that I was not making any insinuations. Regarding your question, "yes". cf., e.g., Judaism and Christianity. Cheers, Tomer^talk 00:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dogs don't claim doctrinal descent from, and spiritual association with, cats. FiveRings 11:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment after speaking with other Wikipedians regarding the matter and the discussion on this page, I am comfortable withdrawing this as a nomination for deletion. PDXblazers 21:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 all of them. --- Deville (Talk) 03:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel M. Shirley, The BSDS Production Company and Roanoke: The Lost Colony

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

A walled garden of vanity articles about a film maker, his company and his current production. Edited out of the latter is the fact that the movie is not due out until 2007. Vanity, not (yet) notable, crystal ballery. -- RHaworth 21:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete All per reasons given by nom. Came across this when reviewing the article on Bertie Stephens, which I have already nominated for deletion. Agent 86 22:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep All. They are a credible source, and considering this is an 'encyclopedia', what harm is there in allowing articles that have truth and substance. Why do people search an encyclopedia? to find information about something. What do these articles provide...truthful information. Ive seen more crap in more 'notable' articles.
  • —The preceding comment was added by 82.43.72.117 (talk • contribs).[35]

• Keep All as per reasons above. yesselman 14:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • —The preceding comment was added by 82.43.72.117 (talk • contribs).[36]

• Keep All RHaworth noted the fact the movie's not yet released, however future movie releases are allowed and i believe a stub has been added now Oliver Pereira 12:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • —The preceding comment was added by 82.43.72.117 (talk • contribs).[37] [38]

• Keep All Feel its unfair to say its a walled garden, when it's linked from and to 'roanoke' based articles Bullard21 13:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep All ghits seem credible linked to film which external links seem credible

• Keep All The Wikipedia guidelines state Vanity articles are "empty of any interest to anyone".I find it hard to believe that a movie on an extremely famous subject can be "empty of any interest to anyone".

• Keep All I don't have a problem with it, seems to be informative —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.7.29 (talk • contribs) .

Guidelines also state. "An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous". So exactly how can articles be deleted based on one individuals 'mini' research on the subject claiming 'no notability'82.43.72.117 09:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The closing admin may wish to review the edit history for this discussion. It appears most of the preceeding entries were not made by their purported author but by User:82.43.72.117. Agent 86 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep All I don't have a problem with it, seems to be informative —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.7.29 (talk • contribs) .
  • note - struck out as duplicate of vote above (like many here). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all three per nom's reasons. Vanity and POV, crystal ballery, no non-primary sources.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• 'Delete all as per nom. It's vanity, and fails verification. -- Whpq 13:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 - The main point raised by the deletes is that there is a problem in WP:OR in determining what/who is a critic. The keep advocates do not address this particularly well - CltFn is the first, and says "Its a list , like any other wikipedia lists of", which is subsequently seconded by a variety of users. There is a problem in that problems which were cited for deletion were not addressed. Angry inquiries to my talk page. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of critics of Islam

Article *must* rely on OR to decide who's a critic and who isn't Frescard 21:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I guess my original motivation for submitting this article was a bit brief - but to me it seemed like a clear-cut case that only needed a brief notice, but obviously it does need some more explanation:

While this list may be "interesting" and "timely", that alone does not justify inclusion here. The main hurdles it has to overcome are Verifiability and No Original Research.

• Verifiability: Classifying a person as a critic is very hard to prove. First of all, what is a "critic"? Does he have to reject Islam altogether? Does he have to hate it? Or is it enough to just be dissatisfied with certain aspects? Then - even if a clear definition could be agreed upon, how will inclusion in this list be determined? A brief quote might be helpful, but what if it's taken out of context? What if that person later changed his mind? What if the person approves some parts of Islam, but rejects other parts? Which gets us to the next hurdle:
• No Original Research: Who will decide who fits the criteria of being a critic? The WP editors? That will be a lot of judgement calls to make, and will probably only end up in an edit war. Islam-opponents will try to classify everybody as a critic, and Islam-proponents will try their best to achieve the opposite. Unless we have a third-party source that did the classification already, these are too fundamental a judgement to make for editors.

---

• Delete - while this could be referenced, it isn't, and does nothing a category couldn't handle better. Yomangani^talk 01:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - It is markedly improved from the state when nominated (well done to those working on it), but there are still many "critics" listed without any citations to back up the claims, plus some questionable citations ("imprisoned...for blasphemy", for example, doesn't strike me as NPOV way of assessing whether somebody is a critic). Yomangani^talk 14:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as proposed. A category would have the same problems. Gazpacho 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Its a list , like any other wikipedia lists of.--CltFn 01:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete No criteria for inclusion, and I can't see one that wouldn't be original research. However, a category can work, as the guidance on assigning categories is to keep the number minimal and to use only the ones most associated with the subject - so the only people in it would be those highly known for criticizing Islam as a major portion of their (encyclopedically relevant) life work. GRBerry 02:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Lowered (to the extent it matters) my opinion to Weak Delete. The List has improved since nomination by addition of reasons some are deemed critical. This material would not be replicable in a category. There seems, however, to be no coherent criteria for inclusion yet, so that concern still needs to be addressed. I still don't see one that wouldn't be original research, so I still think deletion is the right answer. GRBerry 02:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, bad list, WP:NOR, POV list. If not, category should be included, but it will also have the same problem. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 03:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Informational quality in itself does not warrant deletion. Check deletion guidelines.Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per CltFn Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I think this might be better as a category, but it could have value as a list. To have value as a list each name should perhaps include a book or article they wrote that criticized Islam. See Category:Books critical of Islam to aid that.--T. Anthony 05:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wholly pointless--Aquinas stole all of his theology from Arab Aristotelians, etc. Lots of people criticize Islam, a list to that effect is to difficult to put together.-Kmaguir1 08:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Stole is rather unfair. He adapted much from them, but from that he went in a new direction applicable to Catholicism. It's like saying Dante stole from Vergil or that Marx stole from Hegel.--T. Anthony 08:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as per Terence.--Kitrus 12:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Lists are important, and this is a hot topic. --Britcom 12:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Valuable tool for those wishing to explore related information. Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Article has no references/reasons given for inclusion of the people listed, obviously a bias from the author (of the article) to paint/label certain people as anti-Islamic and which seems to be the case. - ResurgamII 13:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Informational quality is not a valid reason to delete an article. Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 13:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is; lack of resources to make a proper article probably indicates a non-encyclopedic article. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This article documents the perception of Islam in this eyes of historical figures. Very interesting topic and useful in locating sources .--Amenra 14:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete because this list is worthless unless we attempt to define critical first. Just about every Muslim scholar has had a problem with something the academic community would call Islamic. Amina Wadud doesn't like many salafi tendencies Ibn Wahhab doesn't like Sufis. They are all critics in some sense. We could narrow this down to non-Muslim critics but then we have to figure out who is Muslim and who isn't--which, I think we should be able to agree that self-identification is the important aspect but it will inevitably lead to vandalism with people removing Amina Wadud and Rashid Khalifa because they "aren't Muslims". As it stands now this list is completely anecdotal. Does it matter that Dante had a few lines critical of Islam? It seems to me that's about the same as putting Mel Gibson into critics of Judaism. I think we should agree that critics applies to people who have made actually critically studied Islam. Wansbrough and Crone (as far as I know) don't get into moral judgments about Islam but they question the typical assumptions of Qur'anic origins. The main issue we need to deal with is Muslim critics of various aspects within Islam. To call them "reformers" is rather aggrandizing and just about every Muslims author I can think of fits this category in some way. How do we deal with that? gren グレン 11:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I could be misunderstanding those who worked in it, but I think this list means people who are critical of Islam in any form rather than a particular element of it. The most obvious being people who think the Qur'an and Muhammad are morally repugnant, but I imagine it could also mean something less severe. Like people who feel that the Qur'an and the basis of Islam is based on false notions or write about why they feel Islam is inferior to other religious or philosophical positions. Some of this could dovetail into general critics of religion, but I think they're wanting people known for focussing on Islam. (Or if not they should want names of people who focussed their harshest criticism on Islam)--T. Anthony 09:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Meets all the requirements of WP:Lists, and is very notable as Islam is a very prevalent religion and a powerful world force. Mugaliens 15:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak provisional keep. The nominator's argument for deletion is essentially "oh no, there could be a content dispute about inclusion", which is unpersuasive. This is one of the few lists that could be a valuable encyclopedic resource. But the article as it stands - just a list of names without comment - is very unhelpful and reeks of WP:OR. I'd support deleting it in a later AfD unless all entries are individually referenced and sourced, e.g. "Joe Schmoevich - Bozarkian Member of Parliament who sponsored a bill in 1985 to outlaw the sale of the Koran, source: Bozarkian Chronicle of 12 June 1985". Sandstein 17:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It pretty sad how even here the contributions are done clearly in accordance to the "party-line".
  The pro-Islamists would like nothing more than having this list disappear as quickly as possible, and the anti-Islamists (as well as, of course, the authors/contributors) are vehemently against its deletion. And, just like in the articles, arguments are twisted to suit each one's purpose...
  One positive surprise that came out of this though, was the discovery that there are some truly independent and neutral editors out there, who aren't attached to any fixed POV, and who work to defend WP, not their own propaganda. Perhaps there is still hope...;) --Frescard 20:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said mate, couldn't have said it better myself but just for the record , this article was started by JuanMuslim, so I guess our little theory as nice sounding as it is, does not hold water--CltFn 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite see what the fact that the list was started by a Muslim has to do with anything. Perhaps the original motivation behind creating this list was different from its current use. But I'm talking about now. And if you look at the contributions of the voters there is a 100% correlation between their attitude towards Islam and how they voted.
Of course, as I said, there are some editors where it's impossible to tell from their history what their personal POV is. That's how it should be. But as soon as an editor's contributions and votes become predictable, he has most likely become an opinion pusher. --Frescard 06:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this would be better as a category and there is no other "List of critics of X" articles at the moment. That said I voted weak keep because I don't see why there can't be. There are people known for their writings critical of Islam so I don't see a problem with a list in theory. There are also people known for their writings critical of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, Catholicism, Environmentalism, George W. Bush, and television. A list of critics on those could also be fine too if done right. Or it could all be avoided, but I decided to go weak keep to err on the side of caution wrt deleting.--T. Anthony 08:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Vsion 04:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per norm. Similar articles have been deleted in the past because defining critic is problematic, peoples are living persons who my dislike the label, and OR required in defining them.--Tigeroo 06:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom and gren. For example, Edward Lewis is listed there but he is not a critic. Indeed academics usually don't define themselves as critics though they may criticize particular aspects of Islam. Polemics do. --Reza1 08:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The statement about Lewis is just dealing with problems concerning the list as it stands now, not whether it's good or bad.--T. Anthony 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is that how one can define who the critics of Islam are? How can one deal with the controversy and possible edit warrings? The article is inherently very prone of that. Again we have the WP:OR problem. I will change my vote if all editors agree that only those who have identified themselves clearly and unambiguously as critics of Islam as a whole (rather than being critics of certain practices or traditions) should be listed there. (i.e. around 99% of people listed there should be removed). Grand Ayatollah Yousef Sanei, a Shia Muslim religious authority, is listed in that article. I think he may sue wikipedia for that :D. --Reza1 08:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

He must have been in an older version. I took out the Muslim reformer section because that seems like a separate issue to me.--T. Anthony 14:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, he was there I just took him out when removing that section. Also I put a few names back in that section.--T. Anthony 15:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My concern is not really whether reformist Muslims are critics of Islam or not. It is that whether a consensus would be possible in which one is considered a critic of Islam if he/she identified himself/herself clearly and unambiguously as critics of Islam as a whole (rather than being critics of certain practices or traditions). I don't think so, since this would mean that almost all of the people listed there should go away. --Reza1 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per norm. I would have supported this article if there was a definitive criteria for considering someone a "critic" --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. If particular editors are having trouble acertaining what constitutes a "critic", that's a problem with the editors in question, and not with the article concept itself.--Mike18xx 02:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Sealand. -Bobet 11:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E Mare Libertas

So this is the "national anthem" of the micronation of Sealand, i.e. a handful of people on a British WWII flak platform who seem to have gained considerable publicity by pretending that they are a sovereign state. Given that these five or so people are probably the only ones who get to hear this anthem with any regularity, I fail to see the notability here. (The proposal WP:MUSIC/SONG says that official anthems of notable territories are notable, but Sealand being either a "territory" at all or having an "official" anything is at best debatable, given that no one recognises it.) At any rate, all substantial content is already in the infobox at Sealand, and I doubt that there's much more to be written about this tune. Sandstein 21:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Exceptionally weak keep, given the notability of Sealand itself. If there's any more information out there in the wide world, then it would greatly strengthen the keep here. As it currently stands, I'll hardly complain if it is deleted. BigHaz 22:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Sealand. Otherwise, delete. Non-notable in its own right, but of some interest to those fascinated by Sealand. Bastin 22:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Sealand, not notable in itself. Yomangani^talk 00:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect for reasons above. —ExplorerCDT 03:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This anthem has particular meaning in that it is defying the UK's claim of ruling the island. It doesn't matter what different people think about the legality of the microstate, it still exists. It has political meaning and should be expanded, not deleted.

• Comment: I don't really care about its political meaning, but it does have a place ready for it in the Sealand article right next to the section entitled "Coins." —ExplorerCDT 19:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC) (besides, unsigned comments don't get counted).

• Keep and expand would be the best option in my opinion.
• Merge with Sealand, if nobody will expand it. Mm pie
• Keep, as we have anthem pages for other small nations. Sealand is notable and attracts a lot of attention at Wikipedia, as the most prominent micro-nation. Seeking to remove this article entirely shows the worst aspects of the worst editors here, who try to delete the content of other editors. The comment that there's little to be written about the anthem shows extreme prejudice, as it isn't at all clear that this is the case. Badagnani 07:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: San Marino is a small nation, whilst Sealand is not. Sealand is a sea fort, or, to use the technical definition, a micronation. According to the article, micronations are also, quite justifiably, described as 'fantasy countries'. That speaks volumes. Bastin 09:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Sealand and then delete. Also remove from the template. Batmanand | Talk 15:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Given the probable consensus outcome, I've now merged what there was to merge to Sealand. Redirect away. Sandstein 16:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Comment: This editor again shows extreme prejudice. Consensus is reached when all agree. There is no agreement here, as certain editors seem to be trying to destroy the contributions of other editors, again showing the worst aspects of those who are here at Wikipedia. Badagnani 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your behaviour is unduly incivil. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus (hint: It's not "when all agree"), WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I'm not destroying anything, just making the closing admin's life easier. And if the AfD result is not in fact merge, nothing is lost. Sandstein 19:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aha Variable

Delete appears to be a hoax, at the least its original research and unsourced - one source is so incomplete it cannot be checked, the other is a Wikipedia article that doesn't mention the "aha variable". This is completely unverifiable The notion that this is somehow connected to the modern phrase "aha" is ludicrous on its face and after investigation [39]. Gwernol 22:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - looks like a good example of BALLS. Also, the author has a history of vandalism. That proves nothing of course, but there it is. -IceCreamAntisocial 22:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There are some sites out there that claim that "aha" was actually a variable as described in the article[40] [41] (but [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1692648/posts these folks] aren't convinced...). This article is terribly written, though, and it may not be worth salvaging. Considering that the idea of "aha calculus" seems to be disputable, it might be best to start over and find some real sourcing, maybe an academic paper or book?[42] -- Scientizzle 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• It turns out there is already a Wikipedia article that covers aha calculus at Egyptian fraction. It appears that Aha Variable is not so much a hoax as a fairly significant mis-interpretation of aha calculus. It may make most sense to redirect Aha Variable to Egyptian fraction. There are some questions remaining about the reliability of Egyptian fraction, but that's a separate issue. Gwernol 01:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination because of the page's current content. It's not written well, gives no other source but "look in the Rhind Papyrus" to verify itself, and related general term gets less than 50 Ghits. This may indeed exist, but it probably isn't notable, and if properly sourced and rewritten, could be redirected and/or merged into a short statement into Rhind Papyrus. Fabricationary 23:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. But might be a well-meaning beginning to a real article in the future. Problem 24 of the papyrus mentioned is given here: http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/HistTopics/Egyptian_papyri.html as x + x/4 = 15 with no mention of the name of the variable being "aha." However, this article http://www.people.ex.ac.uk/PErnest/pome12/article13.htm about "aha problems" indicates that there is some reality to this phrase. Not a hoax. Might even be notable. But it's not an encyclopedia article right now. Flying Jazz 00:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -R. S. Shaw 05:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zemetazia

Wikipedia is not for original research, or original anything else, including new languages that you make up yourself. Prod tag removed without comment. - IceCreamAntisocial 22:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I can find no reliable sources to suggest this is anything more than something made up in school one day. DrunkenSmurf 22:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per WP:BALLS - Blood red sandman 23:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roller Soaker

Non-notable ride. Angry Lawyer 22:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete looks like this may be spam for this guy's theme park - whether spam or good faith, it's still NN - Blood red sandman 23:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. It looks like an advertisement and very non-notable. --Eugene2x -- ☺ Nintendo rox! 04:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It may have looked like an advertisement, but it is definitely not. As I mentioned in the AFD discussion for Trailblazer (roller coaster), this is a roller coaster at a major amusement park--Hersheypark--run by what is probably the most well-known confectionary company in the world, Hershey. Passes WP:V and is definitely not spam. I have done some major clean-up and formating work on this and listed it with Wikiproject Roller Coasters. Irongargoyle 05:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I forgot to mention that it is one of only two coasters of its kind in the world. Irongargoyle 05:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please see related discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trailblazer (roller coaster). Irongargoyle 05:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Part of a series of roller coaster articles. RFerreira 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. If you delete this, you'll have to delete all of the coasters in the "Roller coasters at Hersheypark" box, and then why have roller coaster boxes for major amusement parks anyway. Heck, delete all of the roller coaster articles. I'm sure Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters will love it. The unique water aspect alone makes it notable: a steel inverted coaster (not a flume) in which riders and spectators get soaked. It's obvious that Angry Lawyer, Blood red sandman and Eugene2x are completely ignorant of the subject ("some guy's theme park"??!) of the article and have not bothered to do any research before voting. The damn thing's a stub. You wouldn't have nominated it for AfD if it was as completely written as some of the other roller coaster articles. 12.22.250.4 21:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I completely agree with your point, but let's assume good faith here. It was in pretty shoddy condition before I snagged the article, formatted it per Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters and asserted notability. Irongargoyle 22:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I.m gonna withdraw my delete vote, but I think you should check the history of the article to see the condition it was in before we cast our votes - dire and almost impossible to research. Thanks for the rewrite though, it's saved the article! Blood red sandman 12:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 11:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plantaganda

Blatant vanity article for non-notable music project. -- RHaworth 22:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy and Strong Delete per nom - Blood red sandman 23:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep in mind... - Funker joe 05:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - no sources cited, and googling found none that were reliable and related to this music project. -- Whpq 13:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WheatState Pizza!

Fails WP:CORP with no reliable sources. 29 Google hits for "WheatState Pizza" --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 22:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I'm the editor who "wasted time" by putting this to PROD instead of AfD with the same exact summary for deletion. The nominator removed the PROD and sent it to AfD saying I was wasting my time by proding it instead of afding it. Why this went to AfD instead of staying as a PROD is beyond me, but, delete for the same reason I originally nominated it for PROD. Metros232 22:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a nn corporation. As far as the prod goes, prods can be really frustrating. I wonder sometimes why I even bother with them. I don't see the point in killing a prod to move to an AfD, though. Erechtheus 22:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I hardly ever use prod, and this isn't exactly encouraging me to do so either - Blood red sandman 23:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Whether a person believes in prodding articles is his own decision. However, removing a prod to take an article AfD is, in my opinion, an abuse of process. The rules for AfD stipulate that you should first check to see if an article is a candidate for Wikipedia:speedy deletions or Wikipedia:Proposed deletion--the implication being that if it is, you shouldn't take it to AfD. A page with a {{prod}} tag on it is clearly a candidate for proposed deletion. If you think the article should be deleted and it has a {{prod}} tag on it, you can put {{prod2}} on it, add it to your watch page, and then take it to AfD if the prod is contested. A lot of articles are drive-by creations--the authors make the page and never come back. Sometimes prod works. I know it's frustrating--personally, I'd like to see a rule that prevents authors from removing prod tags on their own articles without comment--but dem's the rules. -- Merope 01:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Alright, I apologize for taking this to AFD from a PROD. I wasn't aware that such an action was considered out of process. I won't take such an action again. If this has to go back to PROD to put in back in its appropriate process, that'll be fine. I'll remove this nomination then. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 01:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment Unfortunately, that would be against the rules. As the rules on PROD are written currently, 1) PROD can only ever be tried once on an article, and also 2) that if there has ever been an AFD then PROD can't be done. So we have to finish out the AFD. Someday we'll get prod updated with a reasonable time horizon about at least the prior PROD - maybe a year or two... Don't feel too bad about the process goof, they happen, just learn from it for the future. GRBerry 03:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A local pizza parlor, expanding to be a three store chain. That isn't an assertion of notability in my eyes, and the article contains no assertion or evidence of meeting WP:CORP, the relevant standard. GRBerry 03:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trailblazer (roller coaster)

Non-notable roller-coaster Angry Lawyer 22:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete looks like this may be spam for this guy's theme park - whether spam or good faith, it's still NN - Blood red sandman 23:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is a roller coaster at a major amusement park--Hersheypark--run by what is probably the most well-known confectionary company in the world, Hershey. This makes it notable on its own, but it also gets nearly 25,000 google hits. It passes WP:V and is definitely not spam and definitely not the guy's theme park (unless it happened to be posted by the CEO of Hershey). I have done some major clean-up and formating work on this and listed it with Wikiproject Roller Coasters. Irongargoyle 05:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please also see discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roller Soaker. Irongargoyle 05:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge to Hersheypark, the information is useful. bbx 06:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - the original page looked like poorly-written adverspam, so I might have been a little hasty in nominating it.--86.133.180.144 11:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Part of a series of roller coaster articles. RFerreira 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. If 86.133.180.144 is Angry Lawyer, does the later comment count as a retraction? The Trailblazer is noteworthy as Hersheypark's second oldest still extant coaster, as an early steel coaster, for its quad helix and for the gentleness of the ride (it's advertised as a "family coaster" and is one of the few steel thrill coasters frequented by pre-teens). Hersheypark is hardly "some guy's theme park", it's nationally known and is home to some of the better coasters on the East Coast. Every Hersheypark coaster is worthy of inclusion if any is, and if you're going to delete Trailblazer you will logically have to delete all the rest as well, and why stop there? Let's ditch all the roller coaster articles. Heck, we can do without Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters too, can't we? If it remains a stub for much longer, perhaps merging with the Hersheypark article would make sense, but as part of a series of articles on Hersheypark coasters a merge does not make sense. Strong Keep with motion to expand. 12.22.250.4 22:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've gotta say I agree with the above now the article has expanded/been rewritten. it was in dire condition when I said to delete. My vote is withdrawn - perhaps if Angry Lawyer withdraws his nom, then we can finish this off for good - Blood red sandman 12:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom Hearts Showdown

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

Non-notable per WP:WEB. Just about all Google hits are actually for Kingdom Hearts: Showdown of Fate. RaCha'ar 22:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is an interesting game and it is a lot of fun. Also, a lot of people are interested in this game. Dark Angel, KH Showdown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.122.164 (talk • contribs) - Note: Signature was added by Cipher343 (talk · contribs)
• We want our site to be heard, and that requires Wikipedia. It's one small step to being well known, and if well known is what you want, your gonna get it in some time. Our game and forum are unique, they test creativity, and everyone has some sort of creativity in them. So, for the sake of other people, let this page live!- Sora, KH Showdown —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cipher343 (talk • contribs)

• As mentioned in the article Kingdom Hearts Showdown is hosted on inivision free which is a free message board website. You are almost gauranteed to not find it on google as these boards very rarely appear on google and other search engines. - Riku KH Showdown —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redwarz (talk • contribs)

• This is a good board and we need more people to join. It's entertaining and fun also.-Braig KH Showdown

P.S. add the link to your favorites Maxsdev 02:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above admissions that it's a little-known game trying to gain exposure. Wikipedia is for things that are already notable, not to help you get there. Fan-1967 02:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a fan created game(which automatically hurts it's chances of deserving an article), on a non-notable website. Fan-1967 is right in that Wikipedia is for things that are already notable, not to help something become notable. TJ Spyke 02:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Even so, put yourself in our shoes, you have a board in a DESPERATE need of new members, wikipedia is one of your few options to turn, I think you'd go with Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cipher343 (talk • contribs)

• Please read What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a free bulletin board. There is zero chance that this article will be allowed to remain. Sorry, but you'll need to come up with a Plan B for drumming up members. Fan-1967 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You win...

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ATTY 04:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete umm.. yeah. WP:WEB, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR... etc.. per the article itself: "This site is pretty much one huge forum, members, as well as guest can post about things in topics created by the users." --Kunzite 04:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Editors pretty much slayed themselves. Danny Lilithborne 06:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep You claim Wiki is for things that are notable. Wouldn't other people find it interesting that several fans who played and enjoyed the Kingdom Hearts series got together and created a text based game on it and maybe they would like to be apart of that game. Redwarz 18:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You do have to read Wikipedia's policies on what's notable and what's not, though, which is why I linked the WP:WEB policy when I let you know about this AfD. Please read that again. I understand your guys' rationale for this article, but unfortunately, it won't fly here. -RaCha'ar 18:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a failure of WP:WEB. --Hetar 18:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons above. —tregoweth (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete self-admitted advertisement. I'll also add that the advert is entirely original research without using verifiable and reliable sources and has a clear POV. It also has elements of a game guide. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 11:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shiforums

non-notable forum Akradecki 22:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB, no reliable sources on this, no alexa ranking, non-notable webforum with only 321 registered members. (and, a comment to nominator of this article: it would have been easier just to have used proposed deletion) --Xyzzyplugh 11:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Yeah, I know it would have been easier, but I've been a bit frustrated with prod recently, seems in most instances where I've used it, the authors are tenacious and simply remove it without improving the article, and AfD is the only way to make it stick, especially with articles in this genre. Akradecki 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Xyzzyplugh. -- Whpq 13:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Non notable forum -- No Guru 20:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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. --- Deville (Talk) 03:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bertie Stephens

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

NN person, fails WP:BIO. Sparse IMDB entry of little note, and not impressive number of ghits, many of which are not for this person. FYI: this may be part of a walled garden, see the AfD on Daniel M. Shirley and others. Agent 86 22:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Blood red sandman 23:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All Says not an impressive number of ghits, many of which are not for this person. Well i Know of Bertie and searched finding bar 1 every result was related to him for first few pages. He's not just a filmaker which is probably the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.72.117 (talk • contribs)
• Keep All As above (bar knowing him), plus it seems bio appears on more than Imdb as listed for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.6.78 (talk • contribs)
• Keep All Not quite sure how this is against the rules as I found the infomation on the internet and is clearly not promoting someone, but maybe I don't know all the rules User:JamesFarington
• Comment It appears that the previous three comments are all from single purpose accounts that have edited nothing but this and the other articles forming part of the walled garden. Agent 86 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 13:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stick world

Non-notable...something or other. Angry Lawyer 22:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per nom - Blood red sandman 23:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete I don't call that an article. --Eugene2x -- ☺ Nintendo rox! 04:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (strongly) - this is not redeemable. Richardcavell 10:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Looks to me like something made up in school one day. Creator's only contribution was creating this article. AgentPeppermint 18:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Net Media Planet

Looks like another company advertising itself. Non-notable. Zephyr2k 22:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:CORP - is there any way of speedy deleting stuff like this? - Blood red sandman 23:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I wanted to do that too but it's in the non-criteria section of WP:CSD. So I let this go through the normal process. Zephyr2k 23:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Please do not delete. I am in the process of adding more relevant content about the history. Can't see why this would be considered advertising if Dell, McDonald's have nice articles about themselves and that not being considered advertising.--Invertedcomma 23:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It now looks more like an article rather than an ad, so now let's move over to establishing notability. zephyr2k 10:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - If this company becomes Dell or McDonalds, it would be an article about a notable topic. Flying Jazz 01:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 13:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn company -- No Guru 20:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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-author requested deletion. 00:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assata Co-op

I noticed this nomination for deletion had not been completed, so I filled it out. Blood red sandman 22:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, creator of the article requests deletion (by adding AfD tag). ColourBurst 00:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenn Deigh

This article was prodded for the second time. I have taken it to AfD in order to build consensus. The article asserts this guy is a magician. No vote from nominator. Catchpole 23:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, if anything is notable here it is the magazine he edited rather than him, and I'd want more notablity than "top of its class for 6 years" for the magazine. Thryduulf 01:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If he's a magician, he hasn't used magic to make himself famous - or if he has, it hasn't worked. :-) Ekajati 03:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ekajati. AgentPeppermint 18:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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: useful stub with potential for expansion, precedent of many comparable bilateral articles out there, and finally we need to not send verifiable information about Oceania currently not being at war with either Eastasia or Eurasia down the memory hole. --- Deville (Talk) 03:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japan-Oceania relations

I fully support the notion that articles on bilateral relations between every set of two countries should exist, but Oceania is not a nation and this content would be better placed in other Foreign relations of Japan articles. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 23:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Its better to have oceania in that section instead of listing all pacific island nations. like Samoa, Tonga etc. --Ageo020 00:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Useful stub with potential for expansion. The importance of this issue in relation to whaling is a topic worthy of treatment in an article for example. Capitalistroadster 01:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Capitalistroadster 01:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Foreign relations of Japan. There's not enough content here to warrant a separate article yet. --Metropolitan90 02:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ageo020 and Capitalistroadster.-gadfium 02:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ATTY 04:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• If Capitalistroadster can see scope for a decent article, I won't vote to delete this. I will express concern about the ambiguity of the term "Oceania", which in this article appears to be being used in a slightly unusual way -- for example, "Oceania" nearly always includes Australia in my experience, but this article seems to describe Australia as not even in the same region? This needs clarifying, and if an alternative title can be found ("Relations of Japan with Pacific island nations"?) then that might be preferable.
  Besides, Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. — Haeleth Talk 10:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge if there's anything valuable. Btw, from the title I assumed it is something about 1984. Pavel Vozenilek 19:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nightheart

I originally tagged the article for speedy deletion as not asserting the notability of the band. A little research showed no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC; an unsigned band (all albums are self-released), no entry on Amazon or AllMusic. The author contested the speedy and explained on the talk page they had provided the soundtrack for a skiing movie, possibly satisfying that point of WP:MUSIC, but it's still a fairly slim claim. This isn't as totally clear-cut as the usual "this band was formed in early 2006 and will be a big hit real soon!" fare that warrants speedying, so opening this up to AfD. ~Matticus ^T_C 23:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — does not meet WP:MUSIC. Interview in local magazine has not yet occurred. — ERcheck (talk)
• Delete - fails WP:MUSC for now. -- Whpq 13:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Weezer (The Blue Album) and recast as a redirect to that article. It's hard to break this down into raw vote totals, as everyone had something different and cogent to say. I come up with (including the nominator): 1 Keep, 2 Delete, 3 Merge of various types (including 1 Merge or Keep), 1 Neutral (the article creator, oringally a Keep but later amended by the statement "I don't care anymore whether or not you delete My Evaline." The arguments are about even, although it true that as pointed out the article does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (songs), but that is only a proposed guideline. The largest single category of comments seems to be Merge, so that's the close. Herostratus 14:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Evaline

Contested prod. Basically, this is your classic case of not everything that a notable band (Weezer) does being notable in and of itself. We're dealing here with a 44sec track which is available according to the article on one version of their debut album and (mistitled) on one version of one single. I don't see notability anywhere there. BigHaz 23:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me further explain...

I feel this song is important because it shows another side of the band. Instead of a rock song they did a barbershop song. this particular B-side is much more notable because it shows Weezer doing something that isn't their usual sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinkchillie90 (talk • contribs)

True enough, but it doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC/SONG that I can see. The fact that the song was not even released as a single in its own right is the major hurdle. Perhaps a line or two on the article about the album? BigHaz 23:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps a line or two on the article about the album?" I'm not sure what you mean by this sentence. Could you please reword —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinkchillie90 (talk • contribs)

The album that the song is from has an article. What I'm suggesting is that you add into that article a sentence or two about this song and the fact that it "shows another side of the band". That way, the information will be there for the world to see. On its own, this song is not notable. Also, please sign your posts. BigHaz 23:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey this is blinkchillie90 again. I guess i could add it to that particular article. Just give me some time before you delete this article so i copy and paste some of the stuff I have typed on this one over to the other article. Also I don't know how to sign my posts. I have also noticed that you have also put the nomination for deletion on some of the other song articles for weezer. I understand that you feel a song article is only needed for Singles. But i disagree. I want some time to edit those articles to make those wiki-worthy. I actually was planning on just setting up the format today (sept 1) and tomorrow doing some work on them. You can delete the songs for the deluxe edition such as "Susanne," "Mykel and Carli" and "my Evaline." But I feel the regular blue album songs are important and need articles. These songs are considered Weezer Classics. I know tons of unique and important information on those songs.

So in conclusion I ask you to take those articles off the nominated for deletion list. So i can have some time to edit it. I mean I just put up the song articles today. I havent even had a chance to really do anything to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinkchillie90 (talk • contribs)

To sign your posts, just use the "tilde" key (~) four times. That will expand out to your username and the time that you typed the post. As far as time goes, an AfD remains open for 5 days in the general course of events, so that should be enough time. If you're concerned that it won't be, you might want to copy and paste the text of this article to a file on your computer so that you can add it later on when you get the chance. The same timeframe (5 days) is used for any other template which I've added, so you have that long to demonstrate the notability of the song - and that goes for any song, whether it was on the regular album or the deluxe edition. The thing is, though, that the general consensus has historically been that it's only singles and a handful of very important album tracks that get their own articles, so you'll need to show that the tracks on the regular blue album are sufficiently important. I'm not saying that they aren't, they may well be, but going on their current articles, they don't appear to be. BigHaz 00:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also (now) nominating Only In Dreams, Mykel and Carli and The World has Turned and Left Me Here for much the same reason as the above rationale. All three were deprodded by User:Kappa on the grounds that they were songs by a notable band, which is fair enough but is not in itself a reason for notability of the song (this is an argument which was advanced recently in an AfD regarding a Weird Al song, but I can't find the link to it). BigHaz 01:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge or keep songs by notable bands. It's depressing that someone would want to eradicate the fact that their tried a whole new genre of music. Kappa 01:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So every song by a notable band is automatically notable? BigHaz 01:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

See, for example, the final comment here. Are any of these songs "particularly notable in their own right"? BigHaz 01:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My Evaline is notable in its own right as Blinkchillie90 has explained. Apart from that, any song by a notable band is something wikipedia users should be able to read about, and thus not a candidate for deletion, although album tracks are certainly mergeable. Kappa 02:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. A 44 second song available on one edition of an album (notable as the album may be) and one release of a single (notable as the A-side of the single may be) by any given band (notable as the band may be), even if it shows the band exploring a different style to that which they're known for performing doesn't sound notable to me. It would be notable if Weezer then became a barbershop act, but that didn't happen. The information on the other songs I've bundled with this one is able to be read about in the article on the album. The only difference between the tracklisting there and the article here is that the article is written in a sentence. BigHaz 02:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm back! BigHaz I understand everything you're saying. you must realize something all these songs are considered extremely important in the world of Weezer. "Only in dreams" and "the world has turned and left me here" are considered weezer classics. When fans go to see them in concert they hope they play a large abundant of Blue Album songs. My original intention was to expand the page of one of my favorite albums. I wanted to expand the songs. I wasn't going to do that all in a day. If you look at other album pages such as Dark side of the moon you'll notice that all the tracks have thier own page. in the world of weezer, the Blue Album is considered their "magnum opus." Just like people consider Dark side of the moon is Pink Floyd's magnum opus I felt you nominated everything for deletion way too early before anything could be done to them. (something I have explained before) It was unfair to nominate for deletion. You should've checked the dates the pages were added. I feel if the pages had been up for a few monthes but were still a 1 sentence article then they are appropriate for nomination! But in this case it definitely wasn't User:Blinkchillie90

Fair points (and good to see you've got the signature working), but if you look at the information contained in every one of the DSOTM song articles, it establishes notability. Currently, most of these articles just say "X is a song written by Rivers Cuomo for Weezer's debut album in 1994" or words to that effect. My suggestion would be to take a cue from the DSOTM article and do up a table with songwriter/producer/whathaveyou credits on the "Blue Album" article and add all of that in there (tables look better than lists, I'd say). Then it would be a case of establishing notability for any individual album track, since I'll grant that a single is notable per se. The catch is going to be, though, that an album track which is really well-known by fans of the band may not be notable enough for a general encyclopedia - my father would probably love to see articles on every B-Side by the Rolling Stones, but I doubt they're all that notable. BigHaz 03:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Summarize lucidly and concisely, merge, and redirect. If this 44-second track is so very notable within the world of Weezerfandom as to require its own article, why then there should be a Weezer-specific wiki in which it may have its own article. -- Hoary 03:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok I have stopped caring about the B-sides I simply want to save the regular album tracks. Those tracks are the ones that truely matter. I don't care anymore whether or not you delete My Evaline. In fact as the creator of the My Evaline page I am encouraging you to just delete it along with "susanne." But not "Mykel and Carli" that song is important. But "surf wax" and "Only in dreams" are the ones that deserve their own page along with the all the Blue album songs. I will also consider that table idea as well. Ok i'm done for tonight, I don't know what time it is where ever anyone else is but where i am it's 11:54PM so I'm going to bed. User:Blinkchillie90

• Keep "My Evaline" and "Mykel and Carli," no opinion on the other two, but leaning toward keep. Enough can be said about this song to make a worthwhile article, and there's no dearth of Weezer information out there to warrant articles.. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I added more information to "Mykel and Carli," Because there is some information behind that song, and what that song has come to mean, that at least I thnk is important. --rwiggum talk 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• merge all to Weezer (The Blue Album). Fancruft per WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. Each band has songs (other than the hit singles) which have special meaning for it, and that alone is not reason to have an article on each one. These are not hit songs/singles, and do not meet notability criteria in the WP:SONG guideline. These are style notes and facts which have greater significance in the context of the band's music as a whole and not as individual articles. Ohconfucius 09:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Ohconfucius -fancruft which doesn't merit an article Armon 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

{{subst:at}

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Riverfront Towers I

the building is not architecturally or historically significant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Criticalthinker (talk • contribs)

• Delete along with Riverfront Towers, Riverfront Towers II and Riverfront Towers III. If we need anything about these three towers (and I don't think we do), we certainly don't need four articles! Thryduulf 00:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 13:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 so keep. Tyrenius 22:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wild (band)

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC -Nv8200p talk 23:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• weak keep. They appear to be a professional band on a major label, and have relased an album and DVD (I haven't found any info on how these did sales-wise, but as they're a classical group not pop/rock don't expect to find them on top 40/bilboard charts). According to the official website one of the members is a celebrity in Serbia from when she was a TV presenter "on a popular morning program". They've had a track produced by Jeff Lynne (and I doubt he'd do that for every fledgling band), and appear to have been on hevy rotation on an Australian TV channel. While none of these explicitly meets WP:MUSIC they are borderline, and my gut feeling is they are just the right side of the bar. Thryduulf 00:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete per Thryduulf's facts. I just shade toward deletion in that sort of case instead of keep. Erechtheus 01:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - meets WP:MUSIC PT ^(s-s-s-s) 01:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:MUSIC guidelines met. Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What WP:MUSIC guideline met??? -Nv8200p talk 22:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Only one album. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Also, the track was produced by Jeff Wayne and not Jeff Lynne. -- Whpq 13:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoë Fenn

15-year-old member of an a cappella group. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Crystallina 23:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, the band she is a member of is not even the one in the link (She is from the UK, the linked band are from the USA; not many a cappella groups have bassists; the linked band won an award in 1995, when Ms Fenn was 4 years old...). Thryduulf 00:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — ERcheck (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete both, Wikipedia is WP:NOT for things made up in school one day --- Deville (Talk) 03:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teeterdil, Dilboard

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

This is a non-notable game that violates WP:NFT. There is one Google hit, and it is a personal blog. Deprodded by creator. Erechtheus 00:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it is exclusively an instrumentality of this game:

• Dilboard

Erechtheus 00:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well its not a huge game yet, but it will be soon, many of my friends all over the San Francisco Bay Area play it. It is a great game, please don't shut it down. It is a part of our lifestyle now, read the article, sir - Widereceiver19

This is a real game that could end up huge. We have an official website, and it is the new skateboarding, it is an underground sport that many like - Widereceiver19

• Delete both articles. See WP:NOT (particularly "Wikipedia is not a publisher of..." "original inventions" and "Wikipedia articles are not: Self promotion or advertising"), and WP:NFT. Wikipedia has articles on things that are already notable, not things that may become so in future. If in time it does become notable then it will be an apropriate subject for an article, but not before. Thryduulf 00:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFT and as advertising (article says, "But for now the founders wish to spread the Teeterdil word to all."). -- Merope 00:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If this becomes notable someday, we can have an article on it. But it is not notable now. Heimstern Läufer 01:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete it is a notable game i can't believe you guys havent heard about it. Its played in the bay area and thats what counts, many things on this site are far less important than Teeterdil, Cmon man, you guys be trippin —Preceding unsigned comment added by widereceiver19 (talk • contribs)

• Delete Man, you straight trippin', quit frontin' on us. This mofo hellas non-notable, only one Google hit up in this mug. Cap it like Tupac. -Elmer Clark 03:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Now you guys are being racist, please stop making fun of my race, and then maybe we can talk. You are not giving the great game of Teeterdil a chance. -Widereceiver19

• KEEP! I am from California, and i see peopleall the time playing teeterdil outside my house, of course, iam too old to play, but it seems like a very fun game, and my son plays it almost every day, please keep this article - John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.121.29 (talk • contribs) — 4.245.121.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• KEEP! This is a notable game, i play it all the time, please leave it alone - Widereceiver19

• KEEP! this is a great game. just because people not from the Bay Area don't know it, doesn't mean it doesn't rock. rock the teeter. sweet. -truckinator—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.14.70 (talk • contribs) — 67.169.14.70 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete. Mushroom (Talk) 01:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --Stormie 06:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You are wrong stormie, it was made up in school one day, but it has grown in to the Bay Area's favorite passtime among young teens. You shouldn't be prejudice against our game, give it a chance, many people know about it! --Widereceiver19 21:26 PM, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sure you'll be able to provide links to articles in newspapers such as the San Francisco Chronicle, then, reporting on this sport which is the "favorite passtime" of young Bay Area teens? --Stormie 23:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - made up, with no sources. -- Whpq 13:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Wasn't basketball, football, and even baseball made up one day? How do you expect this game was brought to existance? By Aliens or something? It has been around a long time. It was made in 2005 and has grown exponentially. you can love it or leave it --Widereceiver19 13:39 PM, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: User has voted twice. Also, in response to your claims: yes, those sports started out non-notable. Had Wikipedia existed when Abner Doubleday (or whoever) first came up with baseball and he'd tried to add it, it too would have been deleted. Once the sport achived notability, however, only then was it an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia entry. If and when Teeterdil gains a sufficient degree of notability (as defined by Wikipedia:Notability), it can be added (provided sources are given, etc). Until then, it is a non-notable sport known only to a small group that is in no way, shape, or form notable. -Elmer Clark 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caguas Tower

Delete, This article is about an apartment building in Caguas, Puerto Rico. However, it doesn't seem architecturally or historically significant. Hell, I live in Ponce, about 20km south from Caguas, and I never knew it existed. I posted the Importance tag 3 months ago and no one has answered. Mtmelendez 00:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete. If we had an article about notable buildings in Caguas, then the fact that it wasn't built straight would merit it a sentence there. We don't have such an article however, and were someone to start it with all that is worth saying about this building then it would be deleted as a sub-stub, maybe even speedied under CSD A3. So, to save everybody the time and effort, we might as well just delete this now. Thryduulf 00:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RedRollerskate 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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