Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 16

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List Of ECW Originals in ECW (WWE)

List Of ECW Originals in ECW (WWE) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

OR, listcruft, redundant info that will become dated. In general, a non-notable page that only has meaning to hardcore wrestling fans. Prod was removed. Booshakla 00:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Convoluted, nn, not important in scope Biggspowd 00:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete There is some precedent for this sort of thing (i.e., "Category: World Wrestling Entertainment teams and stables", List of professional wrestling stables, etc.). However, ECW Originals already serves such a purpose and, in addition, is a much better done article. Soltak | Talk 00:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, or failing that, better to merge to Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE) than to keep, especially under this title with the parent brand name in paren's. Arguments in the nomination were mostly correct. Fans will probably want to cite glossy magazine(s) that happen to be published by WWE's owners or shell companies, and aren't independent enough to pass the guideline on reliable sources to meet the verifiability policy. This may be a season-long WWE/MTV plot to transfer a group of old veterans and get some story out of it; if so, the entertainment mags (yecch) will be covering it enough for tiny-edge-of-notability. If the described scene were real, we would have heard in the real world about Vince McMahon being hospitalized and perhaps buried; instead, his new golden boy got mobbed and thrown around. From a Google search, I found that "prowrestlingblog.com" (not a WP:RS) has a 2006/06/29 article about McMahon taking more creative control over the ECW. The stuff described in the list that's nominated for deletion is part of a longer-term publicly-noted story about the takeover and McMahon's ways, but it's of low enough significance-within-topic to be worthy of merging, not a standalone article, under WP:SPORT or WP:FICT or whatever guidelines you think should apply. (After edit conflict) Soltak is right, ECW Originals doesn't appear to need anything from this article, so I struck some of my comment. Barno 01:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Reywas92^Talk 02:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft«»bd(^talk _stalk) 02:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's not original research (it's just a list of people who wrestled in the ECW promotion and now in the ECW brand), but it is cruft and would only shrink over time. TJ Spyke 02:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete More of the above. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. as per nomination. :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 19:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unreferenced, likely original research To be fair, I think it would be interesting in the ECW main article to make a mention of the notable personalities who were in both the original ECW promotion and at the launch of the new WWE version of the ECW brand. It would provide some historical connection between the two, at least at the time that the newly remade brand began. However, this particular article appears to be unreferenced and also seems to get into some original research and analysis of the brand. Probably best to delete this article and put any verifiable info in the main ECW article. Dugwiki 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Make this a category. --UsaSatsui 20:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dugwiki as lacking proof of notability. Inkpaduta 21:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify something, I specifically didn't say the info wasn't "notable". I said it was unreferenced and has original research, and has no additional analysis or encyclopedic content. I'm not claiming that the overall general topic is or isn't potentially "notable". Dugwiki 22:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE). This is notable information and not, as some unfamiliar with the material claim, "original research", but it's not worthy of its own article. -Drdisque 00:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the page on the stable at ECW Originals (which itself contains a list of current and former members) is good enough. We don't need information other ECW alumnus that are not on the ECW brand (or even in WWE).
• Delete fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 10:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Govvy 14:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - agreed that the ECW Originals page is more than adequate. Suriel1981 23:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/G7. Kusma (討論) 09:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Www.listz.com

Www.listz.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable website, it seems. The article does assert notability, but there are no references and it's not even clear what the website is exactly. I'm not even sure if it's listz.com or liszt.com - confusing. I'll leave it up to the faithful AfD voters. DLand^TALK 00:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. All it does is describe in brief what it was and what happened in two sentences. That's not really enough for a notability justification. --Dennisthe2 00:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article confuses Liszt.com (part of Topica) and Listz.com (part of Sparklist.com). Liszt.com was notable as the first major mailing list search engine1997 archive[1]. (Listz.com was the first major commercial mailing-list host.) We've never had an article on Topica, which is certainly notable[2], and that's where this belongs. --Dhartung | Talk 00:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Real96 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete obviously no context, no notability. Reywas92^Talk 02:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per everyone above-K@ngie^meep! 02:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Notibility is not verified. I would remove my vote if someone is claiming to be working on this article.--155.144.251.120 02:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above rationale. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Spelling error, however Liszt should have it's own entry (I'm having a hard time tracking down the full history of the company)Dogchaser 06:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dogchaser (talk • contribs) 06:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
• Speedy delete per User:Dogchaser, as he was the author of the article. So tagged. MER-C 09:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Management Skills

Management Skills (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be the management philosophy of a "Robert L. Katz" who is described as a management expert. However there is no explanation as to why this person or his philosophy is notable. Doesn't appear to need to be covered by Wikipedia. WjBscribe 00:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• This appears to be an essay. Delete accordingly - we're not an essay repository. --Dennisthe2 00:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, is written as original research, and there is no evidence that Katz's philosophy is notable or widely applied. Trebor 01:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR, this is just a badly wikified essay. meshach 03:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Also, Management and its various sub-subjects (Senior management, etc.) cover management philosophy. The author (Ghulam Ali) added a link to his userpage at the bottom, but this user does not cite where s/he got Katz's ideas in the first place. Cedlaod 04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete OR. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 05:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd hesitate to call this original research; what strikes me about most of these "management philosophies" is the blinding obviousness of their supposed insights. It's still an essay, and complete bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You rock, dude. Of course you get extra points for the Borges ref. Keep up the good work. Wile E. Heresiarch 10:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This sort of article should be put in a book called Management Skills for Dumbies (No Offense intended.) :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see any indication of WP:V verifiable sources (or any sources actually.) --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 19:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and as original research. Inkpaduta 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Smerdis. Wile E. Heresiarch 10:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete can an admin close this AfD per WP:SNOWBALL? 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proto ► 12:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State of World Liberty Index

State of World Liberty Index (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable list of countries and their "liberty." Has no reliable sources or references to the "index". Appears to have been made up by one person and it fails WP:NFT. Earlier prod deleted. Selket ^Talk 19:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. The first problem I have with this here is that it's been covered (at least, so says the article), but there's nothing to back it up. The second part I have is that it's also rather opinionated - as it comes from a Libertarian POV, it is going to be easy to violate WP:NPOV here. I think, though, that if the first problem is taken care of, eventually the second problem will take care of itself. Solve the first one and I'll change my mind. --Dennisthe2 00:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • My vote has changed to Keep. Notability and verifiability are established, but there's that pesky POV thing. Clean it up. --Dennisthe2 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. First of all, let me say that the index itself (and not the article) is quite POV (see here for methodology). That being said, here are two sources that have cited it: [3] and [4]. -- Black Falcon 00:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think I can work with this. Changing the vote. Let's put these links on there.
• Delete It seems to have a strong POV to capitalist based western living, in that its point bases is based on people being able to do capitalist things such as personally buying land, that simply don't apply in other ecenomic based counteries. It seems to be a private (and poor) attempt at measuring living standards by captialist freedom. Reguardless of that, the web site itself does not pass WP:WEB and the index itself is not notable (mainly due to no one using it as per the above POV issues it has).--155.144.251.120 03:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks quite interesting to me. But include a table, with flags, wiklinks, etc., to make the whole thing more visual, and easier to follow. Turgidson 03:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I created this article in order to allow Wikipedia readers to access information which I feel is valuable and interesting. Furthermore, the information presented is verifiable (by looking at the project webpage and looking at secondary sources, which can be found with a Google search). Regarding the POV comments, please note Black Falcon's statement above that the Index is POV, not the article (just like an article about the Klu Klux Klan, for example). Also, the objections explicitly raised in the nomination are invalid:

1. The Index webpage is linked to multiple times in the article text and as an E.L... a pretty valid source when the question at hand is the content of the Index. (contra: "Has no reliable sources or references to the 'index'.")
2. The article certainly does not fail WP:NFT -- it is mentioned and cited by numerous sources.

However, an implicit objection was made which might be valid: non-notability. ("Appears to have been made up by one person". Note, however, that the theory of relativity and Ulysses were made up by one person.) I don't know on what criteria "notability" ought to be evaluated in this case, but I invite those editors who have not yet done so to read Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability before voting against the article on that basis (and also to perform a Google search and note the numerous references to the Index). Dave Runger^(t)⁄_(c) 04:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Note also that Notability is not a specified requirement for Wikipedia articles. Articles are only required to be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view, and this article meets all of those qualifications. The "Notability" criterion which is often brought up in deletion discussions is done so (legitimately) usually because of concerns relating to the Verifiability requirement, but since the article only attempts to report on the contents of the Index (and these can be easily verified at the project webpage, which is linked from the article), such a non-notability criticism is not legitimate in this context. Dave Runger^(t)⁄_(c) 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your comments and have changed my "comment" to a "keep". -- Black Falcon 04:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Per User:Turgidson. --Zelse81 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this article badly fails WP:NPOV currently due to the "Libretarian Philosophy" section. Also, Dave_Runger, please be aware that your arguments on the inclusion criteria are somewhat suspect. First of all, while WP:NOTABILITY is not in itself an ABSOLUTE requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, it is an ABSOLUTELY valid reason for deletion as well as a guideline accepted by the majority of Wikipedia editors for both purposes. Further, google hits are not an accurate gauge of notability, they should only be used as anecdotal evidence in concert with other sources of information. Also note that WP:ILIKEIT explains that "valuable and interesting" (as you and another have described the article in this discussion) are not themselves valid reasons for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even if we momentarily accept the premise of your argument, this article still fails WP:V. Sources must be from reliable, third-party published sources, especially in a case like this in which the subject matter concerns a global review and is based on other, similar lists (which do, by the way, satisfy WP:V). If sources are included, such as printed newspaper, magazine, and/or journal articles, and the WP:NPOV issue is addressed, I see no reason why this article needs to be deleted. However as it stands right now, I have to say delete. I can very easily create an index of similar sorts, that measures some arbitrary concept, find real research to back up my rankings, and calculate the index based on that evidence. Then I could just as easily plant this information online, maybe spread it around a bit, have it cited by some blogs, create a wikipedia entry for it, and maybe submit it to Digg or Fark. Even if I do all of these things, it would still not fit into an encyclopedia.--IRelayer 23:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• How is the "Libertarian Philosophy" section POV? The index website itself says that it is libertarian-oriented. The index was created by "Nick Wilson, an activist and co-founder of the Libertarian Reform Caucus, an organization working to turn the United States Libertarian Party into a viable political party". That section is not stating anything that the website itself does not admit to. -- Black Falcon 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• The section has a point of view. It is not saying that the founder is Libretarian, or that the index is Libretarian, it is saying a combination of those things intended to put forth a point of view. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Even if this were not the case, I believe the article has further problems, thank you for only addressing one of them and ignoring the rest. --IRelayer 07:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• There's no need for sarcasm. I still don't see how the section is POV. "Pro-individual freedom, pro-economic freedom and pro-limited government stance" are, in fact, the very tenets of libertarianism. If it quacks, walks, and looks like a duck, it's not POV to call it a duck. However, to satisfy the concerns you've raised, I will replace it with a more neutral and better-sourced section tomorrow. Also, I did not "ignore the rest", but rather focused on what I perceived to be the most important. So, to reply to the other points you've raised:

1. WP:Notability is a guideline which I belive should be followed (my agreement with User:Dave Runger above was about the frequent conflation of notability and verifiability. However, this index is noted in a number of sources, which I will add to the article (again, tomorrow). However, as a Google search will show, the index and its rankings are discussed by a number of sources (in my opinion unforunately as I believe the index to be a terrible cross-national indicator of "liberty").
2. WP:ILIKEIT. I'm not sure to whom you were referring, but I personally don't like the index. In any case, this is a a criticism of "keep" votes rather than a reason to delete (and I think you have appropriately used it as the former).
3. WP:V is about "verifiability" rather than being "verified". Most of the information in the article is in fact already verified, and that which is not is certainly verifiable.

In all fairness, you did state that "If sources are included, such as printed newspaper, magazine, and/or journal articles, and the WP:NPOV issue is addressed, I see no reason why this article needs to be deleted." My comment was not intended to dismiss your arguments, but rather to try to understand why you perceived that section to be POV. I hope you will take a look at the revised version of the article and re-evaluate your position in light of its new state. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Yes, and in all fairness, I'm like to see these sort of things handled with tagging rather than AfD...but this isn't a perfect world. Black Falcon, thank you for your timely efforts to correct the article. I believe this article now meets WP:V and WP:NPOV. Notability is a different issue.--IRelayer 08:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete - subjective measurement will never be anything but POV. Espousing it as fact (or implying that it is valid) is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. /Blaxthos 02:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• No one is espousing that it is valid (or invalid). The index itself is POV, I agree, but it is notable and the article is not POV. Please do not confuse the quality of the article with that of the index itself. -- Black Falcon 03:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I cannot comment on the real notability or relevance of the index, but I find it an interesting ranking and it's hardly on an obscure topic so I think it's safe to say others would be interested as well. I strongly disagree with the POV issues: as has been pointed out already, the index may be biased but its article is neutral. Mushroom Pi 04:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• • My point was, that if I make up Selket's world technology index and rank all of the countries by their deployment of technology, Selket's world technology index doesn't deserve a wikipedia page because nobody reputable recognizes it. This has nothing to do with POV or validity of the index, my complaint is that this whole thing is published by some guy in his garage. --Selket ^Talk 07:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Selket, even if your analogy is a good one (and I'm not saying it is, as you might be hard-pressed to find as many sources citing Selket's world technology index as the number that cite the State of World Liberty Index), I fail to understand what would be so bad about having a Wikipedia article about something some guy published in his garage. This article only represents the subjective evaluation of the State of World Liberty Project's founder. Therefore, his published views on the internet and citations of the Index by other sources is quite enough to establish verifiably that the Wikipedia article is, in fact, accurate in the claims it makes. The Wikipedia article is written in a NPOV, even if the index is not. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article is not a piece of original research. (The article merely reports on research/analysis done by the State of World Liberty Project, which in turn is based on the work of reputable organizations such as The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal, Freedom HouseReporters Without Borders, etc.). I believe that I have demonstrated that the article meets the three qualifications demanded of Wikipedia article. Deletion votes seem to be based either on the erroneous belief that notability is a necessary quality of Wikipedia articles (though the Index might be "notable" anyhow) and a misunderstanding that a NPOV policy means that the subjects described in articles must have a NPOV. This is utterly false; the articles themselves are, however, required to be written with no POV. Dave Runger^(t)⁄_(c) 09:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Selket, if your Selket's world technology index was noted in multiple published sources (like this index), then yes, it should have a Wikipedia page. -- Black Falcon 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• The standard is not "published sources", it's "reliable published sources." The two "news organizations" linked from the article are Aruzza (a self titled consulting company) and the Turkmenistan project. --Selket ^Talk 18:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• True, the standard is multiple, published, reliable sources. However, nothing you have indicated puts into question the reliability of the two sources (also, it's not the Turkmenistan project, but Eurasia.net). In any case, how about these other sources: GlobalHRNews, Bank DnB Nord, a pro-democracy organisation, the American Latvian Association, a non-profit international "Chamber of Commerce", an Armenian news agency, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia? I think these should suffice. -- Black Falcon 20:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nonnotable agenda promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 10:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. An index that offers no claim to notability or reliable sources by an organisation (State of World Liberty Project) that offers no claim to notability or reliable sources. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO as a product of the organisation. Nuttah68 11:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep 1,900,000 Google hits, looks notable enough. I found this article via a link from the North Korea article. (Not surprisingly, they rank last). The index itself is quite POV (not sure why Australia isn't in the top ten, we have plenty of freedom) but that doesn't mean the article about it should be deleted. --Candy-Panda 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I have removed (rather than rewritten) the possibly POV section of the article and will make further changes (independent sourcing, additional information, etc.) shortly. -- Black Falcon 18:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My further 2 cents: The page is looking better and better! Just keep on truckin'! Turgidson 18:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added 10 more sources (government and news reports) about the index to the article. However, I am hesitant to continue working on the article until this AfD is finished. There have been several comments about the article being POV, but no one has noted exactly where the POV is. -- Black Falcon 02:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per User:Nuttah68, not to mention its presentation of a very specific POV -- from the first sentence onward -- as if it were objective and factual. --Calton | Talk 02:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Could you please clarify, I'm very confused. I'm working on trying to improve the article and just can't see where the hell the POV in the article is. The first paragraph is this:

The State of World Liberty Index is a ranking of countries according to the degree of economic and personal freedoms which their citizens enjoy; each country is given a score between 0 and 100. The Index defines freedom as "the ability for the individual to live their lives as they choose, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same." Only one report (the 2006 State of World Liberty Index, released 12 August 2006) has yet been produced by the State of World Liberty Project, but the organization has stated that it will continue to release updated reports annually.[1] 159 countries were ranked in the 2006 report.

Where is the POV? It is a ranking of countries according to freedom. Maybe it's not a good ranking, but it's a ranking nonetheless. The definition of "freedom" is a quote. And only one report has been produced--that's a fact as well. I'm not sure where you see it as presented "as if it were objective and factual". I do not think this is a good index, but I can't see what problem people are having with the article. -- Black Falcon 02:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Dave Runger. TheQuandry 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elisa_Portelli

Elisa_Portelli (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non Notable Person. A virtual unknown presenter, on a minor channel The Dinkle 00:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete an insignificant person. DannyDoodles 01:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Note Please no person is "insignificant", I believe you meant none notable. Calling someone insignificant just makes you sound like a prick. If you think about it, you yourself would be insignificant because you don't have a wikipedia article on yourself.--M8v2 02:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The words have practically the same meaning. Calling someone not notable is just as bad. Insignificant is the defination of trivial/not werth mentioning. Which is exactally what non notable is.--Dacium 03:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

They don't have "practically the same meaning" at all. But considering you can't even spell simple words like "werth" or "defination", it's not surprising you don't understand the difference. 172.141.87.72 01:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Apologies for the above wording, but the article just doesn't seem necessary. DannyDoodles 07:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Lesnail 01:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete another fine product of the TV industry. Wile E. Heresiarch 10:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Clarke

Julian Clarke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Some assertions of notability provided, preventing speedy, but I can find nothing to indicate that they're true. "Julian Clarke" turns up many hits on Google, but none appearing to relate to this guy, and certainly no reliable sources corroborating anything. "Music label" has an article here (likely soon to be speedied), indicating that it's the subject's own "secret project", and similarly turns up very little. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete Just a self promotion article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DannyDoodles (talk • contribs) 07:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete This is self-promotion by someone who has yet to do anything notable. Lesnail 01:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity page. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced i.a.w. WP:V and WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the nomination and see this as just vanity. --Kevin Murray 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete...though where did he invent the artist's template on the left? Not an excuse to leave it standing, but few self-promoters might put the template up of themselves. At least they attempted to make it look like a decent article, rather than a straight forward POV ad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martianlostinspace (talk • contribs) 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment You ought to see some of the spam articles that come in on newpage patrol. Some of them are actually quite pretty. (Of course, they're still off about how we "leverage this for the benefit of our clients" and such...) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Observing Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion's "Conveying meaning" will show that this is probably not suitable for there, either. - brenneman 01:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of palindromic phrases in English

This article is nothing more than listcruft. It does nothing for the understanding of the subject that the article Palindrome does not already adequately do. As discussed on the article talk page, this list is becoming unwieldly. This does not belong in wikipedia, per WP:NOT, as it is an indiscriminate list with no encyclopedic value to the reader. The page caters only to those who already know well what palindromes are, and who want to make a game out of listing them. It needs to be deleted and salted. No need to merge content, as the concept is well covered elsewhere. Jerry lavoie 00:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[Top Spot]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same arguments and observations apply.

Palindromic words (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Palindromic phrases (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

note the first 5 responses to this AfD were prior to my adding these 2 other articles. Jerry lavoie 01:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[Rise to vote, sir.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Interesting, IMHO, but not really fit for Wikipedia per WP:NOT#IINFO. Heimstern Läufer 01:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: This !vote applies to all articles listed. Heimstern Läufer 02:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[tut-tut] Noroton 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unmaintainable and indiscriminate list. Trebor 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC) (in response to additional noms) Delete all for same reasons. Trebor 02:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[사전 사! 영한사전 사! 영영사전 사! 한영사전 사!] Noroton 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all. We've got too many lists already. What is possibly encyclopedic about "Flee to me, remote elf"? The lists are impressive and extensive, but Wikipedia is not the repository of all human knowledge. This isn't the appropriate place for them. eaolson 01:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[So many dynamos!]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Selective merge of Dan Hoey's palindrome to Palindrome (as well as Stanley Yelnats, Lon Nol, Revilo P. Oliver, and Robert Trebor), delete the rest. However, I see no reason to salt. -- Black Falcon 01:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep/strongly oppose deletion until transwikied - I am not necessarily opposed to a transwiki to an appendix in Wiktionary, but I don't think these articles should be deleted until then. -- Black Falcon 02:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[Sides reversed is]Noroton 12:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is a great list. Can it be saved somewhere on some related Wiki site? If this isn't somewhere else on the Web, it would be a sad waste to lose it. Noroton 01:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Addition: My comments also apply to the two other oceans of palindromes the nominator has lined up at the guillotine (how's that for mixed metaphors). [kook] Noroton 02:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Reply - perhaps it could be transwikied as an appendix to Wiktionary ...? -- Black Falcon 02:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[Spit on no tips.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Selective merge Combine the three listed into one, with much cut out, Especially the "Palindromic sentences that are arguably cheating" crap. Reywas92^Talk 02:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[Oo! Doodoo!]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem I see with this is it will always grow to its current state or worse if it stays. Would you !vote in favor of keep and full-protect? I doubt it. Let's make it go away, according to our already well-established policy.Jerry lavoie 02:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[Oozy rat in a sanitary zoo.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion until transwikied, and if it can't be transwikied, I'd want to keep it. This puppy's too cute to be put to sleep in the pound. Looking over this vast sea of human ingenuity and not liking it is like stepping to the edge of Grand Canyon and saying, "Eh." C'mon guys, have a heart! Noroton 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[Flee to me, remote elf.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. See also WP:ILIKEIT. eaolson 02:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[Mirth, sir, a gay asset? No, don’t essay a garish trim.]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply Yeah, guilty as charged and shameless about it. Maybe I should start WP:WHERESYOURSOULPEOPLE?. I'm trying to find out how Wiktionary appendixes would work and if this list would be OK over there. Noroton 02:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC) [Ode protocol: loco torpedo.]

• Transwiki to Wiktionary - In its current form, the article is an indiscriminate list of information. Given the scope of Wiktionary, it would seem to be a suitable candidate for transwikification to there as an appendix. Kyra_~(talk) 03:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Close and list seperatly. I do not think that these are similar enough to list together and some votes were when there was only on article in the AFD. meshach 03:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[redivider]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

at this point only one of the comments left before the other articles were added has not been recommented by the user. I have asked this user to come back and state whether their opinion counts for all or not. If they do not come back, we can just discount their !vote for the other two articles, no need to start over.... it would be a pointless waste of time. And not similar enough???? they are identical articles except one has single-word palindromes, and one includes other languages. The exact same arguments apply to all of them. If you disagree, you can !vote on each one separately.... there is no policy for an all-or-nothing close by the closing admin, they often disposition articles differently per the concensus reached... why waste our time? Jerry lavoie 03:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[Are we not drawn onward, we few, drawn onward to new era?]Noroton 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki and delete. Indiscriminate list of information. And "A homo sapien, a scheme, a waterway: Yawretawaemehcsaneipasomoha" is the worst palindrome I've ever seen. bibliomaniac15 04:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a joke, in reference to all those variations that begin "A man, a plan ..." I thought it was quite good. Matt 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

[Σοφός – wise man]Noroton 06:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Palindromatic comments: O, stone, be not so. I say to you deleters. And Bibliomaniac, there are some real good ones here: No, son, onanism's a gross orgasm sin: a no-no, son. Oh, no! Don Ho! Campus motto: Bottoms up, Mac! Lived as a devil. Naomi, sex at noon taxes, I moan. Tulsa night life: filth, gin, a slut. Evil; all its sin is still alive. E-file: no evil to laff a lot, live one life.

I hope nobody minds, but I found palindromic comments that seemed to fit almost all of the comments here. I don't think they should get in anyone's way. After all: ''No evil to laff a lot, live on! Noroton 05:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A deletion? Noi tele da! .............. can't blame me for trying! ;) --Candy-Panda 06:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[retrosorter] Noroton 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Interesting. The pages are a start. Definitions could be added and the list of examples kept. I think that all the pages are good actually, but I think that he foreign language examples should go on the appropriate language wikis, with links on each page to the other language pages. Snowman 11:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[ailihphilia] Noroton 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Keep in mind that WP:INTERESTING isn't a reason to keep something. The definitions and full expansions are already in the main article palindrome. --Wafulz 13:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think that examples of palindromes are needed for illustration, in a similar way that an article has a photo (which is likely to take up a lot space on the wiki servers than a list). I know that "interesting" is not a reason for inclusion in the wiki; howerver, none of the wiki rules are concrete. Snowman 16:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Especially the English single-word palindrome examples. Matt 14:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Additional comment: I see that the single-word page (Palindromic_words) has been "has been transwikied to Wiktionary". The talk page provides a link to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Palindromic_words where the material has been copied. Obviously we don't want the list maintained separately in two places, but I have two questions. First, why would anyone think to look for a list of palindromes (or anthing else for that matter) in a dictionary? Second, even if they did, how would they find the page at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Palindromic_words? Typing "palindrome" or even "palindromic words" in the Wiktionary search box does not lead you to that page in any obvious way that I can see. Matt 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

[reviver] Noroton 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• So these are reasons for them to be listed in the wiki, searchable with "palindrome". Snowman 16:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why user:Matt (who started this paragraph) has not used a signature that is in a standard linked format. Snowman 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I asked the help desk at Wictionary whether these lists could go there, and I was told they could. I see no problem in what is essentially an unencyclopedic list moving over to Wictionary if it's OK over there. (I suppose nothing is a sure bet and it might be up for deletion for whatever rules they have, but the administrator over there thinks they'd fit in.) As Wictionary articles, they could easily be linked with the Palindrome article here, just about as easily as a Wikipedia article could be. I think this is the best solution. I'm a bit skeptical about foreign-language palindromes in the English Wictionary, but they could be farmed out with links to other-language Wictionaries, it seems to me. As to whether people would find the list: I think most people who fall upon those lists of palindromes now go there from the Palindrome article, and that won't change. If they find it through a search engine, that won't change either. Here's my discussion at the Wiktionary help desk:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Information_desk

Noroton 18:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I just slapped the Wictionary-suggestion notice on the two articles that hadn't been moved there. As for the one that's been copied already, it looks like one article is available in the first link but not the second, more direct link to Wictionary. Maybe it's a matter of time or of decisionmaking over in Wictionary. [tattarrattat] Noroton 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, maybe that's it. Maybe the intention was to put the content at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Palindromic_words, but for some reason it never happened and it got put at the apparently unfindable http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Palindromic_words instead. If the links from the Wikipedia palindrome article can be made to point to the lists at Wiktionary then that's better than losing the content altogether I suppose, But I still maintain that a dictionary is not the place for this sort of content. It makes no sense to me... Wikipedia is where it should be. Matt 20:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

• Keep as encyclopedic list, and not indiscriminate. Drat Saddam! Mad dastard! Otherwise I take noside. Edison 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please provide a rationale as to why this is encyclopedic. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Articles that discuss words on the basis of the word meanings themselves, and not the concepts they represent fail Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (Wiktionary is for the sign; Wikipedia is for the referent.) These lists of words are not encyclopedic, and, as lists of words go, rather abitrary. Dmcdevit·t 18:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[Anna, Enok, sytytyskone, anna! "Give me the detonator, Enok, will you!"] Noroton 05:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Arbitrary" well, I dunno. They're all palindromes, after all.Noroton 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would hesitate to call "Butt raft fart tub" even a phrase. There's no meaning whatsoever attached to that string of words. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, but I don't think it's typical. Noroton 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete These are certainly more suitable for the wiktionary than for here, much like the lists of idioms that were recently transwikied. I don't think this is meant to be the place for a depository of any given type of interesting word usements. Agent 86 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[Ora trovo: vortaro!: "Golden find: dictionary!"] Noroton 05:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki, then delete. It's a neat list and it would be a pity to have it disappear. Let it find a home on wiktionary at least. --Zelse81 23:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete interesting, but it's cruft. /Blaxthos 02:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[가련하시다 사장집 아들 딸들아 집장사 다시 하련가] Noroton 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete being interestin is not the same as being encyclopedic. Fail WP:NOT miserably. Nuttah68 11:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[표 세 명값 자책한 과부가 부과한 책자값 명세표] (I don't know what it means either, but if we delete it without it being transwikied, you will never, ever know, Nuttah68, and who will be miserable then ...?) Noroton 06:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Having a wiki list of palindromes is useful for reference. It might not belong in an encyclopedia (especially some silly entries), but it should be in a wiki somewhere. So please don't delete this page until a suitable replacement wiki is found. Powerslide 03:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[ سر فلا كبا بك الفرس :: May your horse not stumble whilst you ride it.] Noroton 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• • This rationale is unreasonable. Whether it is encyclopedic or not is the only question at stake here, not whether it exists somewhere else. However, it has been copied to Wiktionary already. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"As with other Brahmi-originated scripts, palindromes are rare in Telugu. However, one prominent example stands out for our discussion:-

• వికట కవి (vi-ka-Ta-ka-vi/ 'A cunning poet')

"Popular folklore has it that the above term was reputedly coined by the Hindu Goddess of Wisdom, Saraswati to describe the 15th century Telugu poet, Tenali Ramakrishna, after he had tricked her into bestowing him both wealth and wisdom, when she specifically asked him to choose either of the two and not, as it were, both."[Comment by way of example to make the point that there is at least some encyclopedic content here, rather than palindrome meant to describe the argument or compliment the editor, as with the others] Noroton 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Let's not get too solemn about WP.DGG 04:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[Al kasada sakla. Take this and put it in the safe.] Noroton 06:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Please provide a rationale as to why this is encyclopedic. Dmcdevit·t 04:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[مودته تدوم لكل هول و هل كل مودته تدوم :: His style lasts through all horrors, and does every style last?]Noroton 05:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. 24.185.34.152 06:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Send to wiktionary and delete. Word games belong in wikt. >Radiant< 14:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it. What good is a entry on palindromes if there are no examples. Anyone who isn't intrestedi n the examples doesn't ave to click on them. What's downside? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.40.183.13 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Examples are ususally given as a means of better understanding a concept. There are already many examples in the main Palindrome article. eaolson 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the list is consistent and discriminate ("not indiscriminate") within the definition of its scope. -- User:Docu
• Delete all so broad as to be indiscriminant and unencyclopedic in scope. As Radiant! (and others have pointed out) this would be better at Wiktionary. Eluchil404 07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki. I can't possibly see how this is encyclopaedic, or maintainable, despite the comments to the contrary. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 11:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Transwiki then delete. --Parker007 15:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki and Delete xCentaur | ☎ 20:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silent 2 Targa

Silent 2 Targa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sailplane product. Many sentences are copyright violations from http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/silent2_targa1.htm and http://www.alisport.com/pdf/silent2_silent2targa_eng.pdf. The article is written like an advertisement and not much is worth salvaging. BuddingJournalist 01:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi BuddingJournalist, Please explain what is a Non-notable sailplane product. If notable means worthy of note : remarkable b: distinguished, prominent I strongly disagree with you.... The Silent 2 Targa is remarkable and distinguished compared to other sailplane and if you are not able to understand why, please let me have the possibility to explain this concept. You say: The article is written like an advertisement, I disagree: this is a technical description of a sailplane, it simply states how the sailplane is made. Dansco2903
  • See WP:NOTE for Wikipedia's definition of notability. Is the Silent 2 Targa the subject of multiple, third-party, reliable sources? I think phrases such as "innovative", "unique", "very easy and fun to fly", "very good", "nice", etc. constitute the advertising tone, and are certainly not just "a technical description of a sailplane". There's still the copyright violation issue, too; numerous sentences are copied straight from http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/silent2_targa1.htm. BuddingJournalist 01:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability, appears to be using Wikipedia as a host for a press release or catalog entry. ShaleZero 16:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:N and copyright problems. /Blaxthos 02:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP != product catalog. Wile E. Heresiarch 10:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to copyvios and general spam but leave open for creation of an encyclopedia article. Nuttah68 11:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Pissedness Factor (GPF)

General Pissedness Factor (GPF) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Apparently made up term, with zero Google hits. Saligron 01:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete Absolute nonsense, surely? DannyDoodles 07:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Author of the page also tried redirecting GPF to this term. Trebor 01:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. eaolson 01:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Standard by what... um, standard? Neologism by and large. --Dennisthe2 01:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this article seems to have been created in an environment characterized by a GPF of 8.6 and thus is in violation of WP:CIVIL. But seriously, delete per WP:HOAX. -- Black Falcon 02:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Turgidson 03:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everybody. Cedlaod 04:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete obvious hoax. --Haemo 04:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 05:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete rubbish - Skysmith 14:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Tcpekin 14:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe if this was the scale of "pissedness" in regards to level of intoxication, it might have been suitable for BJAODN; but as this stands, it isn't even worth that much. Agent 86 19:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and speedy close. I refuse to believe that utter crap and nonsense such as this must be forced through the full 5 days. Chris cheese whine 22:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - so tagged. Come on, this is clearly patent nonsense and complete bollocks. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 02:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bumbarded

Bumbarded (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Obvious neologism. Maybe WP:NFT. Possibly even vandalism. De-proded by anon editor with no explanation. eaolson 01:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete Sounds to be nonsense. Can't find any other real claim to the word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DannyDoodles (talk • contribs) 07:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete: Clearly a neologism with few Google hits [5], and most of those that exist seem to be simple misspellings of "bombarded". The end of the article, furthermore, is a how-to guide. Heimstern Läufer 01:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to be a neologism. WP:NFT probably applies. Trebor 01:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Lesnail 01:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable neologism. I do agree, it might also be something made up in school one day. Kyra_~(talk) 02:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, no value. Turgidson 03:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Don't forget to copy to WP:BJAODN please. Priceless one. Duja► 12:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism, possibly slang but agree probably WP:NFT applies. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 21:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy -Drdisque 00:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Twisted Outlook

A Twisted Outlook (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No evidence that it meets WP:WEB criteria; self-reported stats are relatively modest ("up and coming"); doesn't crack Alexa top 100,000; only one minor media mention. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless more reliable sources are added to assert notability. Heimstern Läufer 01:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless non-trivial sources are produced to establish notability (although the relatively low traffic levels makes that seem unlikely). Probable conflict of interest as the article is written very much like an advert. Trebor 01:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Save, especially if a neutral resource is added.ZimmerBarnes 02:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I hope it looks less like an advert now, and I apologise for how it looked in the first place. I won't add any more links.

Hello again, thanks again for keeping this up while changes are made. ZimmerBarnes, I was just wondering what you meant by a "neutral resource"? Thanks for the save vote.

I must go to sleep now (3.30am), I'll get right on this in the morning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tfmmushroom (talk • contribs).

Comment Tfmmushroom, read WP:WEB (notability guidelines for web sites) and WP:RS (for what constitutes a reliable source). Also, if this Twisted Outlook web site happens to be yours, please read WP:COI before anything else. SubSeven 03:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Forget WP:WEB - what about WP:V? Not a single thing on the page is verifiable. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable sources used to assert notability. feydey 12:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Save - Popular site. Webaliser is a valid source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.21.132 (talk • contribs).

Comment "Webaliser" meaning self-reported site stats? Those stats still do nothing towards the subject meeting WP:WEB requirements. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Webaliser being a top application for displaying a website's statistics. How else can someone convey a site's stats other than by typing it? A screenshot of the stats page?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.21.132 (talk • contribs)

I know what Webaliser is. The point is that self-reported web stats do nothing to satisfy WP:WEB criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete website promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 10:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• So as I said, what can be done about that? Should the user display the stats?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.21.132 (talk • contribs).
• Delete non notable site failing WP:WEB and WP:V. Nuttah68 11:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Save - This is a hugely popular site and the fact that they have interviewed the people that they have - notable people, people worthy of wikipedia pages - means that they are gaining notability themselves. And a media mention is a media mention. "Minor" (as someone said) or not, it was on a "major" network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.105.44.149 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:WEB and WP:Notability. Note that the former states The content itself has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shield of Achilles

Shield of Achilles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An object in a book is generally not notable, on top of which the article is an unencyclopedic mess. Lesnail 01:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Save. I deleted the rambling "mess" of the article, though the information could be added back if it was better organized. The Iliad is a famous work of fiction, while I'm not familiar with the specifics, the shield might be of particular importance in the overall story. ZimmerBarnes 02:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question Is the content that is left enough to warrant an article? It's already mentioned in passing in Achilles, but this article doesn't add any knowledge of the Shield. Further, without the description of "great detail" as written by the poet, what else can be written about the Shield? Cedlaod 04:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The article is slightly inaccurate--the shield is an object in the poem, but "Shield of Achilles" usually refers to the section of the poem where the shield's creation by the god Hephaestus is described. And it's the description that's important--it's one of the first and most famous instances of ecphrasis in western literature, and therefore very important in the history of aesthetics. Books have been written about it--for instance, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Laokoon; A.S. Becker, The Shield of Achilles and the Poetics of Ekphrasis. On the other hand, I'm not going to be able to expand this article any time soon, and I doubt that other editors will get to it soon, so I wouldn't be that upset if the article disappeared. By the way, there are a few other articles on episodes of the Iliad and Odyssey--Deception of Zeus and Nekuia spring to mind; if Shield of Achilles is deleted, editors may wish to look at those articles as well. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Definitely a legitimate topic. From just my cursory education in classics, I know this is signficant. There's supposed to be some kind of artwork on his shield with some important symbolism. It's also a motiff in real art. Sofixit. Savidan 07:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Shields are lame. Swords are much cooler.--Perceive 07:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Akhilleus and Savidan. Very famous passage from one of the most influential works in Western literature. Imitated by later poets such as Virgil (the shield of Aeneas in the Aeneid) and Auden. At the moment it's just a stub but plenty of room for expansion. --Folantin 08:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the object itself is not terribly notable within the story but the descritpion of it really is a key passage that is very influential. Eluchil404 10:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Update I think it's now a passable short article with room for expansion. --Folantin 12:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and suggest speedy keep. Note that the version of the article edited by ZimmerBarnes and Folantin is not the article that was nominated, which appeared to duplicate a long swatch of a prose translation of Homer directly. The description of Achilles' (replacement) shield is a passage from the Iliad that is easily worthy of a separate article, much as the Catalogue of Ships is. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep OK, I nominated it for deletion, but now that it is about the section of the poem rather than about the object, I am happy with keeping it. Lesnail 15:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into The Iliad Is there such a thing as mythcruft? This would define it. Kyaa the Catlord 21:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Folantin.
• Keep. - Kittybrewster 00:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While generally against such articles, this one supercedes any claim of non-notability. /Blaxthos 02:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kai kit wan

Kai kit wan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The pills are supposed to help with "urogenital inflammation." What?? That disease is not described anywhere else in Wikipedia, so the medicine for it, though it does exist, is not notable. YechielMan 01:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This makes no sense, and the article has been around long enough (almost 2 years) that it ought to have been fixed up before this if the product were really notable. Lesnail 01:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete -- makes no sense, indeed. Turgidson 04:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've fixed the definition and added a reference to show this product exists to treat an actual condition. Awyong J. M. Salleh 14:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks multiple reliable sources, fails WP:RS. Do Kit Kat Bars work as well?Edison 17:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaou

Kaou (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article seems to be a translation from a Japanese original source, and it's not a good translation. Actually, it's almost incomprehensible. I tried to piece together some references from the Internet to consider a rewrite, but I couldn't find anything in English. Please list this article under Japan-related deletions, if there is such a thing. YechielMan 01:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• There's Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, which is across the road. Uncle G 02:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close per Uncle G. Just because the article needs translation cleanup or is obscure to a western audience does not mean that the article is without merit. --DavidHOzAu 03:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Eastmain 04:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteKeep per WP:V#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English even if it's a translation it needs references and it needs to be notable, neither of which this has it been shown to be. Jeepday 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Change to keep, the article has been improved and is now referenced. Jeepday 12:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum If the article is properly referenced to pass WP:N and WP:V at the end of this debate then consider my vote changed, if the article remains unreferenced then the article clearly fails policy and needs to go, until it can be recreated encyclopedicly (is that a word?). Jeepday 15:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The section you cite tells us that "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming equal quality" (emphasis mine), and no one has claimed that the references on this topic in English are of equal quality to the ones in Japanese on this very Japanese topic. Do you have any reason to dispute that the references are reliable sources showing notability? Dekimasuが... 09:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Topic is encyclopedic; at least two Japanese encyclopedias, Japanese Encarta and Heibonsha World Encyclopedia, have an entry about it. --Kusunose 05:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per UncleG, and rename to Kaō (with Kao redirect) per WP:MOS-JA. The sentences appear to be direct (machine?) translation from the Japanese, but that in and of itself is not a deletion reason. Perusing google ("kao" + "signature"), it seems to be a common enough word in antiquities circles (swords, and other Japanese handmade goods) [6] [7] etc. Neier 07:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It should be Kaō (signature) or something and Kaō should redirect to the disambiguation page Kao per WP:DAB, similar to Gō and Gō (unit of measurement). --Kusunose 08:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree with the (parenthetic) DAB. Signature seems like as good a choice as any. Neier 13:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not at all clear to me that this (or Gō, which has generated quite a bit of discussion) requires a parenthetical. An example to the contrary can be seen at Réunion and the disambiguation page Reunion. Dekimasuが... 14:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a machine translation of the top part of ja:花押. It obviously needs to be re-written or translated, but that doesn't require deletion. Rename per Kusunose. skip (t / c) 09:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per User:Neier. However, oppose translation from jawiki version due to the lack of reliable sources and inline citations there (and the fact that it conflates the concept of Tughra with that of Kaou, when they're two different things with separate roots). Better for us to roll our own from scratch, adding facts to it as we find sources (though we can certainly use that one as a guide). cab 12:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Per the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is or likely may be challenged, or it may be removed. Two editors have attempted to validate the article and failed. The question is not should we keep a poor translation, the question is does this article pass the three core content policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jeepday 13:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  The idea that this is not verifiable is pretty ridiculous. User:Kusunose has already pointed to reliable sources (two Japanese encyclopedias), proving that this subject actually exists (i.e. not a hoax) and is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. And have you tried a google search for 花押 and looked around among the fifty-eight thousand hits you get? There have been whole books written on the topic ([8] in the first page of results, for example). cab 13:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  Response No offense intended but the Article Kaou as it is fails WP:V and per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article.. The topic may be notable but the article is challenged and remains unverified. Per the first sentence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. We are not talking about concepts of poor translations, or if a given subject is notable. The question is about the article and as it says in the AfD template Please improve the article if possible, so improve it so any argument about the notability or verifiability becomes moot. Jeepday 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  Response: Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed: Problem with page: Can't verify information in article (e.g. article lacks source citations). Solution: Look for sources yourself and add citations for them to the article! Ask other editors for sources using the talk page and various citation request templates. If those don't work, come back here. If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted. There's quite a few steps that could be (and should have been) taken to get attention for this article before AfD'ing; asking for verification on relevant wikiprojects or regional noticeboards, for example. It's a complete and utter waste of everyone's time and effort to delete this just in case the people with the ability and interest to verify and clean it don't happen to have free time in the next 4 days. cab 15:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article has been improved. It is in good English and has sources. It's no longer an orphan. As a stub, it covers the most important points of the topic. Fg2 10:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please do add the sources soon, though. - Mailer Diablo 18:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vincenzo Bianchini

Vincenzo Bianchini (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I actually think that this article is a probably a CSD as it is right on the edge of gibberish. It's a Google translation of the Italian Wikipedia entry for this individual. I'm skeptical of the notability of this individual and, because of the language, can't realistically discern any assertion of notability. Either way, it can't be saved without a complete rewrite from scratch.

As I was uncertain about CSD nomination, I attempted a proposed deletion. This was removed on the grounds that a Google search turned up a few hundred hits about this individual. Even if we agree that this subject is notable (and I'm not on that team at this point), I can't see how a non-sensical article asserts that notability. I also note that the original author of this article shares a last name with the subject, for what it's worth. Planetneutral 01:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I removed the deletion proposal, not for being opposed to deletion, but to give the deletion wider visibility and discussion. If there are translators and editors with specialized knowledge of Italian and the fine arts, they might be able to help with the wording and comment on whether the individual deserves an article. The article's barely over a week old, and hasn't had any cleanup tags to call attention to the need for work. Fg2 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• You can find the translation department at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, which is across the road. Uncle G 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I've added the {{cleanup-translation}} template. Fg2 02:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close AfD is not the place to make a translation request. --DavidHOzAu 03:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I did not phrase well, but I was not making a translation request. I'm arguing that the article fails WP:BIO because the low quality of the translation makes it impossible to identify an acceptable assertion of notability.
  • It's possible that someone with dual fluency can help clarify that, but I think notability is clearly in question at this point and I don't think that said ambiguity points to a speedy close of the discussion. If anything, it should be prolonged to allow for someone with the appropriate language skills to weigh in on the notability of the individual (and thus determine whether that translation work is even worthwhile). Planetneutral 04:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• 'The italian wiki itself is unsourced and tagged in that sense and a similarly translated text has been inserted into the spanish one. --Tikiwont 11:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC), expanded Tikiwont 11:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, leaving the translation issue apart, I went trough the Google pages but many of them are about persons with the same name. Essentially I found only this [9], which so far does not seem to be a basis for meeting WP:V and WP:BIO, but I am open for new aspects. Tikiwont 11:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC), corrected and expanded.Tikiwont 12:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, our main problem here is with WP:V, which ion itself is a reason for deletion. On the other hand I am not so sure about the notability issue Alf photoman 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep & Cleanup I don't see how we can evaluate notability at this point. I think that we need to see sources and a better translation. --Kevin Murray 19:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed on the better translation, but do we have meaningful sources? I'm not seeing any from which to do a purposeful cleanup of this article. Maybe Xanthoxyl will have success from print sources. Planetneutral 01:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep & Cleanup Another copy has been left at fr:Vincenzo Bianchini; given that the article is short and simple I could translate from that. He is mentioned here. I will try some reference books. Xanthoxyl 00:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have given the article a quick wipe down, retranslating from the French version. Basically he was a minor Italian sculptor who lived and worked in Iran and who had some degree of fame in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Xanthoxyl 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • A comprehension improvement to be sure, but I'm holding out for whatever verifiable sources that you find. That Iranica article doesn't make much of a case for notability. Planetneutral 01:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, he does exist (eight of his books are in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Roma online catalogue, the last one dated 1970) but he is not conspicuous on Iranian websites and he doesn't even have an entry in the Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon, which makes him about as non-notable as you can get. Their entry for V.B. refers to a 16th century Venetian mosaicist. His resistance leader brother-in-law Mariano Buratti is much more famous. Probably this article is best left at it:Vincenzo Bianchini. Xanthoxyl 07:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kanniya

Kanniya (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

After a quick google search, I've become convinced this is a hoax article, and even if not, it violates NPOV. Can anyone find a criterion to speedy it? YechielMan 01:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a hoax. The authors have created other such articles, which have been deleted. Lesnail 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. Kanniya is the name of at least 2 real villages also so its not a slur word.--Dacium 03:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete -- per nomination. Turgidson 04:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cedlaod 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this Kanniying hoax, please. --UsaSatsui 21:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This a weak article. What does this article contain? Delete per nom. Another thing: If it true that North-Indians; they do not know much about themselves. South-Indians have 62 percent higher per capita income then North-indians. Cangbush

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 07:36Z

[edit] Marc M. Cogman

Marc M. Cogman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable person. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. I nominated for speedy, but it was contested. Real96 01:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nn bio. Reywas92^Talk 02:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think this is speedy-able, but I also think that while Neon Calm might be notable, Cogman doesn't have enough independent notability to deserve an article. --Brianyoumans 02:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Written like an essay and smells like a copyvio. Otherwise, I'd say keep. --DavidHOzAu 03:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ghits Results 1 - 10 of about 36 for "Marc M. Cogman" and only 4 Myspace, fails WP:BIO Jeepday 04:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a sales pitch. --Dennisthe2 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep for both. Sandstein 06:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of bisexual people and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people

List of bisexual people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is an indiscriminate list, contrary to WP:NOT#INFO. The list invites continuous addition of entries that violate WP:LIVING. The fact that these people are bisexual is not why they are notable. The list itself adds up to a major POV conflict. Some of this information is includable, as it is cited, but the place to do that is the persons entry, not such a list. Delete and salt.

I am also nominating the following related page because the same arguments and reasoning applies.

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Jerry lavoie 02:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete with fire. Impossible to maintain; nearly impossible to verify; sure to become either impossibly large or remain completely arbitrary; serves no useful nor informative purpose. In short, Wikipedia is not a compendium of trivial listcruft. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Both Unmaintainable and is pushing WP:LIVING. Has no real point from a research perspective.--Dacium 03:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Indeed, impossible to maintain. I tried to remove some really bad sources from List of bisexual people but it's just too big and badly sourced. Also per WP:BLP Garion96 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Changed to Keep, I am convinced, this list List of bisexual people does need some serious cleanup and reliable sourcing though. The {{verify}} tag has been on the article already for over 6 months. Garion96 (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. You succeded in removing those entries, which were indeed terribly badly sourced. The other entries seem to be based on fairly sound references (usually a report of the person in question "coming out"). WjBscribe 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete even though I have added Ted Haggard and others to this. The fact that these people are bisexual is not why they are notable. Either that, or rename as canonical gay list DavidYork71
• Keep. The lists are works in progress but please check out List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E to see what these lists should look like once reasonably complete and properly sourced and formatted. There have been recent attempts to force compliance with WP:BLP and most of the entries are sourced. I have removed unsourced entries for some time and was about to turn to removing NNDB sourced entries along with others backed by sources that fail RS. Gay, lesbian and bisexual people who are notable in various fields are important in terms of social studies. These lists also allow brief information about their nationality and occupation that Category:LGBT people cannot provide. The list is maintained and the inclusion category is clearly expressed as: "This is a partial list of confirmed famous people who were or are gay, lesbian or bisexual. Famous people who are simply rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are not listed." WjBscribe 03:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing is not the problem I have with the articles, per se. Although the articles invite unsourced material, and would require continuous policing. My real problem is the fact that as a collection of names, the list itself is non-notable. whether certain notable people are LGBT or not may be notable for certain people, aI agree... but this article creates a pro (or con) POV slant... and does not by itself provide encyclopedia context.... what next? List of right-handed people? List of people who like turnips? People who...... the list could go on. But not appropriate for wikipedia. Jerry lavoie 03:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can't tell whether its a pro or con slant, there probably isn't a POV slant at all. The fact that people are gay, lesbian or bisexual is far more significant than that they like turnips. It would be great if we can say sexuality is no big deal. But actually it is. The fact that people come out as gay etc. is a clearly notable fact about them and worthy of being catalogued in an encyclopedia. The examples you cite in comparisson are clearly trivia, this list is not. WjBscribe 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I could not disagree with you more. Every time an interviewer asks a celebrity if they are gay, I cringe.... because I actually do not want to know such a personal detail about somebody. If I can live my whole life without needing to catalog all the gay people in the world, why can't everyone? If the Rosie O'Donnell article and the Ellen Degeneres article say that they are lesbians, based on obvious tons of citable reliable sources, I have no problem with it... but what encyclopedic need does a person have who says "I wonder who all the gays are in the world?" Jerry lavoie 04:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and salt Article subject is by nature far too indiscriminate. List of straight people is not specific/notable enough for an article; I don't see why this case is different. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —DavidHOzAu 04:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• The vast majority of people are straight, making this utterly non-notable. The same reasoning explains why List of left-handed people exists but List of right-handed people does not. Similarly there is no need to have a list people with the normal number of fingers, but there is a list of List of polydactyl people. The number of notable people who have verifiably come out as gay, lesbian or bisexual remains relatively low- which is why in my opinion this list is maintainable and needed. WjBscribe 04:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"the vast majority of people are straight"^{[citation needed]} Hint: see kinsey scale Jerry lavoie 04:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Then make that "the vast majority of people are assumed to be straight - making this list even more necessary. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I can't believe we're even having this discussion! Are you going to delete List of African Americans next? Whether Jerry wants to think about it or not, people who are LGBT want and need to know about famous LGBT people - and people who aren't LGBT are interested, too. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

aside from inciting an emotional response and inflaming this discussion, what possible purpose could the African American statement above serve? This discussion is not about race, national heritage, or turnip-liking. It is about an indicscriminate list. IF (capitalized on purpose) LGBT people need to know other LGBT people, they do not necessarily need to get that information from wikipedia. Wikipedia inclusion policies are about the encyclopedic content of the articles, not about fulfilling needs of selected groups of readers. If the vast majority of people are to be presumed to be straight as you said, then we can presume that the vast majority of readers will not have the need you described to find this list here.Jerry lavoie 04:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - this issue is emotionally laden for me - I admit. But the purpose of "throwing the race card" is valid. If having a list of African Americans is encyclopedic, then so is a list of LGBT folks. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. Bbagot 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with SatyrTN, you can't have List of African-Americans but not List of LGBT people. These attributes might be viewed as irrelevant to some people, but historically sexuality and race have been very important attributes. If it's important enough for history, why not for wikipedia? Cedlaod 04:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it is an inappropriate inflammatory argument (See Race card). Jerry lavoie 05:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Large ≠ indiscriminate. You might want to take a closer look at WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. --N Shar 04:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WJBscribe. And for the example (A-E) you've given, can I just say ... WOW!!! Now that is a good list! As for the criticisms raised, Zeus almighty! Lists belong on WP (see WP:LIST). In fact, WP allows for a distinct category "Lists of people by ...". Grouping people by sexual orientation is not the same as grouping them by their attitudes on turnips. Whether we like it or not, being a member of a sexual minority has impacted (and still continues to impact) the lives of such individuals--it is not a "non-defining or trivial characteristic". As for the charge of being indiscriminate, please have a look once more at WP:NOT#IINFO. -- Black Falcon 04:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep both Per Black Falcon. And I really don't think this list Offends anyone.Corporal Punishment 05:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If there are poorly sourced entries for living people (and there most likely are), these can be immediately purged under WP:BLP, but I see nothing wrong with the basic concept of these lists. This is a legitimate academic and cultural topic Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 05:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Uh, why LBG but not T on these lists? Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 05:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See List of transgendered people (though it seems to be in a shocking state). There doesn't seem much point including those in lists that are already very long. WjBscribe 05:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. But where's John Amaechi? Seriously, the maintainability concern raised by several people above is valid, as more people are willing to openly identify as L, G, or B. It may be impossible to include everyone who fits the criteria. Also, the sourcing for these lists has to be as stringent as possible. But I think the list serves a useful research purpose, and its format allows it to include information that a category can't. (And hopefully no one disputes that the various categories about sexual orientation are useful...) I'm not sure, however, that there's value in maintaining a List of bisexual people separate from the other lists; it might be better to merge that one. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There's no question that these lists need work. The list of bisexual people has been very bad for a long time, and even the much-improved List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E still cites self-published websites. However, to those arguing that this is trivial: if universities start offering degrees in the study of people who like turnips, then yes, we certainly should have a list of brassicarapaphiles. Personal lack of interest in the subject is no more relevant than any other IDONTLIKEIT argument. —Celithemis 05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. While I think most lists on Wikipedia are silly, these lists are no sillier than most, and less silly than others. Until Wikipedia policy determines that all lists should be scrapped, these should stay. Great Keep arguments, by the way, and not much of a case made for deletion, besides, "I just really don't like it". Jeffpw 05:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Where do you read the I don't like it arguments?? Garion96 (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is going to be unwieldy as hell, but there are certainly people to maintain it. Though, I'm not sure about the list of LGB people - isn't that covered in the separate lists, or...? --Dennisthe2 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • ....remodeled sig. --Dennisthe2 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm appending an ...and rename to my vote. The list title implies it's kind of general - everyone who's gay/bi/les/whatever. Can we put something a little more specific in the title, perhaps? --Dennisthe2 20:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, it is everyone who is gay, bisexual or lesbian. What exactly is too general about List of lesbian, gay or bisexual people? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you mean adding a word like "important" or "notable" before people, concensus is against this e.g. List of tall people. The criteria for inclusion is within the article and only those who are notable should be listed, but adding this element to the title is usually disapproved of... WjBscribe 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification. --Dennisthe2 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the list is quite discriminate and just because it might result in vandalism and edit warring is not a reason to delete the article. Ever article is a target for vandalism - hell one of the most vandalized articles I've seen is Antartica, which isn't exactly a controversial subject. The claims are quite easy to verify, especially if the person is openly homo/bi-sexual.

As for being "unencylopedic" I'll just repeat what I said on a previous comment:

The thing is, this isn't really an article, it's an list. As such it serves more as an index to articles, so it doesn't have to be encyclopedic in the same sense as pages about specific people linked to on this list do. See WP:LISTS for specifics on what type of lists are appropriate. This list fits under all three purposes - information (people searching for a list of famous bisexuals for whatever reason), navigation (as I said before, it's an index/table of contents to these articles), development (the LGBT project is quite active and this is certainly helpful for them).

Koweja 07:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question: What exactly is "indiscriminate" about these lists? They have very clear criteria of entry. Obviously anyone's inclusion on the lists needs to be cited. But as long as that is done (and this is not difficult to enforce), I fail to see how this is any more indiscriminate than any of the lists of Jews, for example. — coelacan talk — 07:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, since my question was never answered. — coelacan talk — 18:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A persons sexuality is almost never the reason they are notable. I can't imagine List of Heterosexual People would last five minutes on Wikipedia, this almost seems like Wiki:Point to me, if I'm honest. Jcuk 08:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am fed up with these lists. The set of people eligible for inclusion in an encyclopedic list should be defined by some notable trait. The set of people eligible for inclusion here is potentially undefined and also based on a non-notable trait. I could see that a list of Popes or platinum-selling musicians might be encyclopedic because the set of people listed would be manageable. This list is completely unmanageable. And I like many others am personally uncomfortable with classifying people according to their sexuality, because I think people should be allowed to keep their sexuality a private matter if they want to. Allon Fambrizzi 08:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi

• This is not a list of every bisexual person in the world nor is it intended to be. It is list of people who are bisexual and notable. According to WP:LIST, lists should include notable persons. So, notability is already a criterion. Moreoever, being a member of a sexual minority is a defining trait. Lastly, regarding the privacy issue, this list only includes people who are openly bisexual. -- Black Falcon 18:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I realize that the number of people who may appear here is limited by notability criteria. I still think that a real encyclopedia would not have open-ended lists like this. Allon Fambrizzi 15:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi

• KEEP People want to know about homo/bisexual famous people, and they aren't necessarily gay either. That's why the GLBTQ encyclopedia exists. Per Koweja, this meets every requirement on WP:LIST, is not frivolous, and as mentioned previously, minority groups have lists, that's why there are lists of people by religion, occupation, and yes, sexuality, people are interested in reading these and it is our duty as an encyclopedia to produce this information that they seek. OK, so the bisexual list contains unsourced entries - is it our fault that NerriTunn (talk · contribs) wants everyone in the world to be bisexual? We keep removing them, she keeps putting them back. WP:LGBT has been working on making these lists fully comprehensive and sourced - delete these articles and you delete weeks (cumulatively) of our work to make these lists presentable. They are certainly not indiscriminate, we have developed guidelines within the project to define the criteria by which a person may be placed on the list. I have been tardy on the conversion to tables - if these lists are kept, I will ensure they all reach the same standard as A-E within this month.

To address Allon's point above, if public figures wish to keep their sexuality a secret, then they can and they aren't on the list. But if we have non-trivial, reliable sources about it, then they go on. Sexuality is no diffferent from any other part of them - if it is notable, it goes into Wikipedia, and that's policy.

To sum up, I ask that these lists be kept because they are notable, within policy, and with a body of people willing to maintain them. We just haven't got them looking at their best yet because we've been busy. This AfD tells me that I need to shove this to the top of my priority list and I will do so if these lists are kept. And to all thos epeople who say that such a list is unverifiable and impossible to maintain, see List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, why actually is there a seperate list for bisexual people? Since they are also included in the other list. If keep, would it make sense to merge both lists or to remove bisexual people from the other list? Garion96 (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Because bisexuality is a separate sexuality from homosexuality, so it deserves its own list for people who want to look up bisexual people: however, when people look up the list of GLB people they're more looking for "not straight" people rather than just gay people. So the distinction's there if people want it, but the GLB list is the main one people look for. That's how I see it anyway. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sort of makes sense. But I still prefer either 2 lists, one bisexual, the other gay&lesbian. Or all in one list. Makes it also much easier to mantain. The way it is now List of bisexual people is basically double info. Garion96 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but if you see it like that then List of LGB people is simply double info of List of people by name. Why have any list of people in it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it more as...for instance if list of politicians would als include all the people from the list of American politicians. Which is double. I also don't think strongly about it, it would just be easier to maintain, considering the vandal magnet (I assume both lists) are. Garion96 (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - as one of the people who has worked on this list recently, please keep this. This is hardly an unworthy list, while yes, sometimes sexuality doesn't matter in the lives of people, for many it does (see Paul Cadmus, Tom of Finland and Natalie Clifford Barney.). There is a movement with this list towards making sure that every entry is cited with reliable references and this is on many watchlists to make sure that extraneous and uncited entries are removed. To tell you a little story, when I was just coming out of the closet myself, seeing a similar list (Wikipedia didn't yet exist), helped me adjust to being gay. To be able to see this list gave me something to feel good about: to know that I was in the company of many great men and women. As a gay man, yes this list is important to me, but it's also important information; hardly indescriminate. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The sexuality of a person considered otherwise famous is, for the most part, trivial information. It's not really something which should be handled via a list like this due to the sheer size of the list which could require massive change at any time. For example, Anne Heche was for a while Gay, then she decided she was Bi, now (IIRC) she's decided she's Straight. So will the list contain people who are LGBT at the moment (which would require DAILY changes of many different entries on the list), or will it include everyone who was once LGBT (which could lead to WP:LIVING violations if the person now objects to the term)?

While the comparison to left handed people may be correct in terms of the scale of the list, the scope of what is required to maintain the list is entirely different. Someone cannot one day reveal that while they have been pretending to be right handed for years, they actually favor their left. Likewise, switching from right or left handed to ambidexterity requires months of training. Statistically, someone who is left-handed today is going to be left-handed in ten years. The same is not true of a person's sexuality. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, we do have a List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified list, so she could go there. Not a problem. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep In looking at List of gay, lesbian, or bisexual people I find the article to be informative, scholarly, and not pushing a POV. Obviously a great deal of time and effort went into its tabulation. I wish that more articles could maintain the same level of excellence. Bbagot 20:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Despite difficulties in maintaining such a list, I believe it is a valuable addition. A brief scan shows me almost everyone on the current list is notable enough to have their own article. My reservations are WP:Verify and reliable sources. I would prefer at least two reliable sources for each listing because, despite what people may say, there is still a widespread stigma attached to these labels. The list provides proof against LGB invisibility and massive evidence of their various contributions. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment (nominator) What does this list do that a category would not do? Jerry lavoie 22:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That question is I think fairly easily answered. Take a look at List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E. The list lets people know the occupation and date of birth/death of the person listed before they visit the article. The usual reasons to have a list as well as (or instead of) a category is to provide brief info about each entry. That reasoning seems to apply here. Also its a lot quicker to check if an entry in a list is properly sourced per WP:BLP than it is with a category. WjBscribe 22:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This list is very well written, and worth including in Wikipedia as a list of people from a minority group. —Mira 00:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per SatyrTN. --Zelse81 01:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Most of these people are famous people who happen to be G/L/B. If it's truly necessary, I'd guess there's already a category for them. Very few of these people are famous because they are G/L/B. That's what takes this from being encyclopaedic to just being a method of grouping semi-trivially. GassyGuy 01:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep It is alright to be different. It is alright to recognize why we are not all similar human beings... Watchsmart 02:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I would say that we are all similar human beings even though there is variation among us. Regardless, what does that have to do with the article? GassyGuy 02:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Some editors here think that being gay is not a notable trait. I think it is. That's all I mean. I feel that individuals are fundamentally different from each other, but I guess that doesn't really matter here. (Forgive me for being pithy in my original post...) Watchsmart 02:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people per above. Precident has argued that these types of lists are valid, including the most indiscriminate list on Wikipedia: List of people by name. However, Merge/Redirect List of bisexual people as it is redundant with the first article. Resolute 03:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment (by nominator). Thanks Dev920 for what I consider to be the only lucid and productive argument here for keep. Based on your statement "if these lists are kept, I will ensure they all reach the same standard as A-E within this month." I would be willing to concede and withdraw my nom, and give you a chance to do so. As long as it is indeed true that an active wikiproject agrees to routinely police the articles to keep them up to the communities expected standards. Jerry lavoie 05:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I will get to work. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This list needs a lot of work, but given how it should look when it's cleaned up, I think it's necssary and encyclopedic. Dev920 has been working like a dog, with myself and a few others chipping in, and the state of the list is gradually improving. Openly LGBT people are a minority, and bisexual people a minority within a minority. To suggest that non-heterosexual orientation is of no consequence amounts to ignoring the contents of every article in Category:LGBT, first and foremost the concept of coming out. This needs to be a list more than a category because sourcing is such an important aspect of this (per WP:LIVING) and because elaboration is needed. While there have been arguments about who should be included in the list (see talk page) I still think this list can and should be on par with Wikipedia's list standards. Don't give up on it yet. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 11:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment by nom As a deal has been struck by prominent parties on each side of this debate to correct the major concers with these articles and still keep them, I request for an admin to close this debate as Keep per agreement. To make this easier for a closing admin, I request that nobody else add a comment below this line, unless you do not agree with that outcome. If this remains the final comment, an admin could close this under WP:SNOW, with reasoning that both parties have agreed to keep it, so delete outcome does not have snowballs chance. Let's allow a peaceful closure of this debate and celebrate collaboration. Jerry lavoie 16:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Jerry, a number of users have expressed delete opinions in this AfD. Much as I might want it to be, the mere fact of your nom being withdrawn does not mean this AfD can be closed early. You cannot speak for everyone of those users (who might not be agreeable to the lists surviving in any form). Nor are those who have expressed keep opinions bound by what Dev920 has said. I think this AfD must now run its course. WjBscribe 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enoigh <shrug> I tried. Jerry lavoie 18:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's also preferable to let the AFD run its full course because speedy keep does not establish as much evidence of consensus as does a five day AFD closed as keep. — coelacan talk — 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, although it does appear to be a page that may require sprotection now and again. Kukini 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, The list is just as deserving of a place on Wikipedia as any of the other relevants lists such as the lists of African-Americans, Irish-Americans, Left-handed individuals, etc. The requirement was that these individuals are already notable. I believe the list does merit inclusion. Face it, anyone notable identifying as GLBT (like it ot not) makes news. It is obviously of interest to someone if it is till newsworthy. ExRat 11:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Once again some people want to censor all information related to the glb community -- who's next, the Jews? African Americans? Catholics? Latinos? Democrats? WP should seriously consider implementing an anti-bigotry policy and ban violators. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right, have you actually read the comments of the people who prefer deletion? Garion96 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have, and let's quote from a few: "Delete and salt", how should we interpret "delete and salt" repeatedly used above? is this an allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah perhaps -- words not chosen at random -- or is it an allusion to Rome's treatment of Carthage after years of bitter warfare? In either instance, it's abusive. Then there's the "Delete with fire", when burning of homosexuals was common. Would anyone seriously entertain analogous phraseology like "lynch this article" if used in relation to an African American subject or "gas and burn this article" when used in relation to a Jewish subject. Then there's a few who write from their hearts: "I like many others am personally uncomfortable with classifying people according to their sexuality, because I think people should be allowed to keep their sexuality a private matter if they want to" Gosh, notable people should be able to keep everything else private too, right? Let's delete all private things, even if they've can be found in a verifiably public source, like all that watergate stuff from Nixon's biography, after all I'm sure he would have prefered to keep that a private matter too. Hoowey. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your point, but I also think you see too much in comments used all the time on AFD. Garion96 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Yeah, right. How about this one from the person who proposed the deletion: "Every time an interviewer asks a celebrity if they are gay, I cringe.... because I actually do not want to know such a personal detail about somebody." That doesn't sound just slightly as though User:Jerry lavoie wants the list gone for . . . personal reasons? ExRat 20:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't sound like that at all to me. Besides, Jerry lavoie (the nominator) already changed his mind. Garion96 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You misinterpret my words, ExRat, try a small dose of WP:AGF, it actually tastes good. My point was that when interviewers ask Clay Aiken over and over again if je is gay, after he has definitively stated he is not... I feel bad for him. The same thing happened to Ricky Martin. Not that being gay is bad... being constantly asked about it in public after clearly stating you don't want to be, is humiliating. My worry about these lists is that wikipedia could perpetuate such humiliation by providing such a visible and clearly abused vandal target. As I stated above, since the LGBT wikiproject pledges to patrol these articles, my concern is abated. Jerry lavoie 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I know there are people who say that lists and categories can exist side-by-side, but I really feel that this is better handled with a category rather than trying to list potentially thousands of people, inviting the addition of NN names as well as the inevitable "let's play a joke on my friend and list him as gay" nonsense. 23skidoo 22:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This page is useful to all people who are interested in the personal life of celebrities, as there were many gay and lesbian actors who were forced to keep their sexuality a secret and lead double lives. Onefortyone 15:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep There is an unpleasant undertone of homophobia in the way this list is treated - as if bisexuality were something odd or 'tabloidy' or wrong. Many younger people can feel less alone knowing that bisexuality in many different degrees is something so many successful people share. Soane 16:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus. PeaceNT 09:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards

Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

2001 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore)

2002 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore)

2003 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore)

2004 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore)

2005 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore)

2006 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore)

This article was previously subject to an articles for deletion nomination, was deleted, and is now being relisted following a deletion review debate. The key issue raised in the deletion review was that sources were introduced late in the original debate and not all the participants may have had a proper chance to evaluate them. bainer (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Sources assert some notability, even in the mainstream press. As far as I can see, the awards are well-recognized within the web comic community. Regardless of the current quality of the article, a well-written article can be written about this subject that is verifiable with reliable sources. --- RockMFR 02:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Multiple independently published sources have noted these awards in a non-trivial fashion (NYT, TV, etc); these are the singularly most prominent and admired awards within an entire genre of art (webcomics). The case is crystal clear. Balancer 02:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the awards are so notable that /they themselves are a source of notability/ for the comics they are presented to. Nardman1 02:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - This sounds almost circular at first, but consider this: The fact that these comics won awards is why these comics were covered in this NYT article. --Random832(tc) 03:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• There new york times is a trivial piece. Here's the whole content from that article that is about the award:

It utterly transparent that the author isn't actually talking about the awards, noting that this was several months after them should provide some clue. This source fails utterly to establish that this is "singularly most prominent and admired awards within an entire genre of art." the attack of the show's re-broadcasting is great and all, but we don't have articles based upon everythingthat ever was on one show. Well, perhaps if the show was 60 minutes... but that's hardly the case here. unless we're going to go for wholesale abandonment of freedom from bias based upon passionate defence, this article must be deleted unless multiple non-trivial sources are added. I understand that there is an active "web community" to whom this awards' importance is claimed to be obvious, but the criteria are really straight-forward, that this claim be proven not just asserted.
brenneman 02:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Long Comment with no real point. I see where you are coming from. And I might even agree with you to say that the article isn't about the WCCA. But I think the article demonstrates something interesting. The author of the article is using the WCCA as a way to get into different web comics. For him (in the article), the WCCA is a prop... something to get him talking about specific web comics. Maybe that's what the WCCA does... it provides a starting point for people to approach the subject of web comics. It shows people which comics are liked and respected by other artists. As far as I can tell, this is the most notable award for web comics. I think it's a good idea to keep it around. -- Ben 05:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment It is simply incorrect to say that the quotation above is the total sum of the references to the WCCA in the article. Read the article instead of just using your search function and you will find a number of references further down using pronouns and indirect references. This has been asserted and debunked so many times that I'm having a hard time maintaining the assumption of good faith. The NYT article should be read. It is not trivial except for very unusual values of trivial. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep If G4 and NYT think it is the notable enough to use as the best commics and then surely that is notibility established.--Dacium 03:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sure I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but the article clearly does not indicate that the author thinks that these are "the best commics." - brenneman 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • All the more reason - the fact that they received awards was enough to make the author feel they were worth mentioning even when he did not personally think they were all that good. --Random832(tc) 03:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions.
• Keep main article, delete year articles I do agree that this needs work, but the sources that are provided are enough (even if not by much) to establish notability. And "everything that ever was on one show" is a bit of a straw man - it was a whole episode. --Random832(t

c) 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• • comment I would agree that, for now, it would make sense to keep the year data inside the main article and only break them out once this has become unwieldy. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, a whole show in Attack of the Show!, but look how incredibly minor this show actually is... Can we just step back from the fact that this is about webcomics for a moment, and look at how desperately thin the material availible from reliable sources is? - brenneman 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a niche. Are we going to start deleting places of local interest because their towns' local newspapers have low circulation numbers worldwide? --Random832(tc) 03:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Oi, mate, you really don't want to go there: That guideline is the result of a long seige by editors who thought that "all schools are notable." There's an unsteady equilibrium now between people who like reliable sources and people who like schools, but if the strongest argument you've got is that there are more like this one than I rest my case. - brenneman 03:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
        • comment The strongest argument is that it's met the test of inclusion including two articles in independent media. If you'd stop making disparaging remarks about the sourcing, we wouldn't be "going there" at all. Two is the standard, two are given so the article stays unless there's some double secret guideline about webcomics I don't know about. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • No, we can't — because it's the overly restrictive definition of "reliable sources" that's being applied here that's causing the problem in the first place. Essentially, there's a bias among the anti-web (and, therefore, anti-webcomic) crowd that says that web sources can never be reliable, and that's being used to expurgate anything on the web from Wikipedia. It is about webcomics, because it's about the web. -- Jay Maynard 15:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible keep. The original deletion enabled the anti-webcomic jihad. Deleting this entry, then using that to deny that webcomics that win these awards are notable, is noting more than creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and denying that webcomics can be notable at all. These awards are the pinnacle of webcomic achievement, and if this entry is deleted, we might as well delete any article having to do with anything on the web. -- Jay Maynard 03:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral on the list articles; the list of previous winners should be treated the same as the lists of previous winners of the premier awards in any other field. If that means merging or deleting, so be it; if that means keeping, then keep. -- Jay Maynard 15:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  I'm rapidly giving up on talking sense here, but first:

  1. There is no "jihad."
  2. Please provide a reliable source that these are the "are the pinnacle of webcomic achievement."
  3. Plenty of webcomics get no-web coverage: When I Am King is the first I think of.
  4. "[D]elete any article having to do with anything on the web" that fails the bias and verification policy seems reasonable to me.

  brenneman 04:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. bibliomaniac15 03:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, has not garnered the type of verifiable coverage in reputable independent sources one would expect of a seven-year-old supposedly "notable" award, let alone enough to write from a neutral point of view. What, if we really stretch our standards, we might possibly almost have two reputable sources? We have better sources for last year's revisions to the Chelsea High School Perfect attendance award. [10] [11] [12] [13]. Also, the point of view that this is "the singularly most prominent and admired awards within an entire genre of art" is ridiculous when you have the awards' committee members blogging things like "The WCCAs are horribly mismanaged, they are not well organized and they don't do what they are supposed to. I know this because I have been part of the administrative process."[14] With a dearth of reputable sources, I don't see how to write this article without giving undue weight to wikipedia editor's personal points of view and original research about this topic. -- Dragonfiend 04:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment you seem to be arguing for raising the standards for sourcing beyond WP:WEB. Shouldn't you be over there instead of doing it on a case by case basis? That would seem a much more fair solution. This doesn't mean that I agree that more than two sources should be the standard but that doing it for an article while leaving the standard at a lower level is even worse than changing the standard badly. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment An award given a solitary High School to its students is different from the WCCA that awards to an industry. Arguing that Chelsea High School Perfect attendance award and this article must share the same property even though they are completely different is a false analogy known as comparing apples and oranges. This isn't helpful and weakens your viewpoint. --DavidHOzAu 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is that an award given at a solitary high school is different than an award given to an "industry." One difference would be that we would expect better sources for a seven-year-old "industry" award than we would for any single school's perfect attendance award in a single year. But instead we see the opposite difference, that we seem to have far more sources for an award given in a single year at a solitary high school than we do this seven-year-old award given to an entire "industry." Feel free to draw fruit comparisons. Maybe: "If an attendance award were an Apple, and we shouldn't have an article on the Apple Attendance Award, then we shouldn't have an article on any fruit-based awards with less non-trivial coverage than the Apple Award, so if the Orange Juice Choice award has worse sourcing, then we shouldn't have an article on the Orange Awards." Mmmm ... is anyone else getting hungry? I know am. In fact, I'm really hungry for enough reputable sources that we can cover this topic from a neutral point of view. --Dragonfiend 04:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. With that in mind, there is at least enough information to fully cite a stub... maybe not enough for a full article, but the article should at least be started. Anyway, it should be short work to make a stub out of the existing information, and when more sources come to light, we can of course restore the appropriate statements from the page history easily. Myself, I'd just leave it as is — asserting notability on a verifiable topic is good enough for me when the topic is obscure... there are bound to be at least one unsourced statement in an article anyway. Probably the best thing to do here is to leave it alone and simply wait for the sources to appear in the media. --DavidHOzAu 11:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: it is irrelevant if a webcomic blogger like Straub on Halfpixel the one you linked (sorry: your quote was very similar to something Kris Straub said, and I didn't think to check that he was actually the one you linked to. My bad) likes the award. The very fact that he posted about them indicates further notability on the subject. Notability does not equal popularity or likability. Whether or not they are any good, the WCCA are still very, very widely recognised in webcomics. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 08:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"The very fact that [someone on this awards' committee] posted about them indicates further notability on the subject"? It seems you are saying that if the members of this awards committe are aware of the awards, then that shows how well known the awards are. I disagree, as I would fully expect an awards committee to be aware of the awards they give out. Further, he is blogging on how little known the awards are: "Problems with the WCCAs [include] making people aware of them, getting people to care about them ... People didn't know when the WCCAs were happening ... we needed to take serious steps to get the word out about them." -- Dragonfiend 18:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep That NYT article is effectively about the WCCA, just imagine an article discussing the recent BAFTAs say. It would look at the award itself and then dsicuss the winners (even if you don't think they are worthy winners - actually you can probably get more copy out of them that way). Same here - it is the hook for the article and is the thread winding through it holding the whole thing together. Obviously it needs work but that looks to be a good start. (Emperor 04:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

Merge the years into the main article (possibly a section for the award and then the winners sorted by year). The big comic award entries have the awards in the article so I don't see why this should be different. See Eisner Award, Eagle Awards, etc. (Emperor 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

• I've added the six other articles that are hagning off the arse of these two mediocre sources. - brenneman 04:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per sources found above. I'd like to remind everyone here to remain civil. --DavidHOzAu 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep - sources provide substantial evidence of noteability. In particular, those independent sources consider the awards as something that gives noteability to the comics receiving them. Saying that such coverage is "only about the individual strips" is like saying that coverage on the academy awards is "only about individual movies". --Latebird 04:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This is an utterly nonsensical argument: The point is that the only coverage in reliable sources consists of a small listing of the subsets of the winner. Look at the Academy Award page, at the bottom: There are two entire books written about the academy awards. Why is it so utterly difficult to make this very simple point? - brenneman 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because in a different case books are also available, doesn't make an argument about a specificy type of article "nonsensical". You're making it sound like hollywood-type fame was a requirement for noteability. If it's really so hard to understand, my point has been made much more eloquently by MrErku below. --Latebird 10:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - notability established by sources. Yes, the awards may be limited to the niche community of online webcomics fans (although I believe it includes tens of millions of individuals), but it is notable within that community (and even somewhat outside of it). Also, I have no interest in webcomics nor articles related to webcomics (and have never edited such articles). -- Black Falcon 04:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Why is this even being nominated? Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Because WP:DRV does not explicitly restore articles, it relists them. This is mostly a procedural nomination. Nifboy 05:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as to the main article Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards, neutral as to the individual year articles. These awards may not be extremely notable but they have received sufficient mainstream attention to justify an article here. --Metropolitan90 06:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dragonfiend and Brenneman, who have established that there is not sufficiently extensive coverage in reliable sources to form the basis of an article on this topic, be it from the point of view of WP:V or WP:N. Sandstein 06:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment yet extensive coverage is not actually part of the standard, is it. Moving the goal posts continues on the delete side. Two sources needed according to standards, two sources cited, suddenly that's not enough. No doubt there will be more articles popping up as this year's winners are announced. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the NYT article just gives it a passing mention and the podcast isn't sufficiently independent. The website for these awards is pretty simple, and contains exhortations to 'spread the word'. The forums are very quiet for a supposedly notable online award.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Forums are non-notable, so why does the forum activity enter into this debate? And what does the layout of their website have to do with anything? That seems like a total nonsequitor. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 08:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

For an Internet-based award that has run for six years and is supposedly well-known, it seems remarkable that the site should be so minimal. There's no information on how many webcomic artists actually vote in the awards. A few dozen? Hundreds? This is a website for a small band of hobbyists, no different from websites about homebrew or origami.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I don't see how that is at all relevant. The quality of the site design has nothing to do with its notability, nor does forum activity, nor even the number and quality of the voters have anything to do with it. For all Wikipedia is concerned, the WCCAwards could be appointed by a single shadowy figure who fakes all the votes. This is not a discussion of the quality, or professional level of the WCCA, but its notability for inclusion. That is all. Besides being the subject of an article in the New York Times and on a public television show, the WCCA have been regularly referred to by Kristopher Straub, Howard Tayler, and many times by Jeph Jacques, three very well-known comic authors that I pulled out from the very, very tip of the list of webcomics I can name of the top of my head. I am sure a quick google check could yield more. The top names in webcomics are discussing these, which indicates they are not a tiny, unimportant niche in the webcomic world. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 10:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been the subject of an article in the NYT, it was a passing mention. I disagree with your assertation that the nigh-impossbility of providing sourced information about this site's voting processes is irrelevant: Attribution is a core policy. How is an encyclopedic treatment of this site's achievements, impact or historical significance possible if the site itself is minimal and, as you suggest, asking for information about it asking too much? As for the webcomic world, I believe that webcomics constitute a fairly small subculture and that webcomic fans have an unrealistic view of their popularity. 'Notable in webcomics' doesn't mean notable, any more than 'notable in origami' or 'notable in homebrewing'. Why can't these awards just be mentioned and linked in webcomic or Keenspot, as is normal?--Nydas^(Talk) 11:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See my post below re. validity of the NYT article - namely, what exactly would an awards article have to say to be notable in your books, besides describing an award and listing and describing its winners, a process that takes up about 2/3 of the article?

I do agree that attribution is difficult, and a paring down of this article is probably in order. I don't claim to know much about the WCCA besides that they exist, and pretty much all the webcomic artists I know of get excited when they win one, even the big names. I, for one, don't care to edit articles I don't know a thing about, but I think it would strengthen the Keep argument if someone who did know something were to edit this a bit.

Regarding the importance of the webcomic subculture, it is (ok, getting sick of "irrelevant". New word? um...) unimportant what you "believe" the size of the community is. I would be supporting the inclusion of an article about the Origami Artists' Choice Awards if they had been written up in the New York Times as an example of the internet awards given out to origami artists on the internet, had it been brought to my attention. Especially if a few people who were interested in origami then joined the discussion and listed several origami experts, citing their discussion about said awards and showing that experts in the field were aware of and gave a hoot about the "OACA" one way or the other.

The reasoning behind your argument yields the end result, "I don't see how Okazaki fragments are all that notable. Can't they just be contained in the article on DNA replication?" If Wikipedia is not in fact about creating articles that meet Wikipedia's notability standards, and expanding on those articles to the limit of available noteworthy knowledge, I am a little confused about what we are doing here. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 12:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A BBC article about the Webbys from 2001, showing what a genuinely notable award can expect in terms of coverage. Quotes from the creator, their motivation, the quirky speeches, info on the judges and a selection of nominees, context and so on. No such coverage exists for the WCCA. If the NYT did an actual write-up of these awards, rather than three or four paragraphs, then the article should be kept. If there was sustained coverage every year, as one would expect for popular awards, then there would be absolutely no question about it.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, you have me in the sense that that shows a lot more information about the Webbys than the NYT article does about the WCCA. Clearly the Webbys are more notable than the WCCA (can't say as I'm surprised), and that is a better article. Regarding annual coverage in a newspaper, comparing the WCCA to the webbys is very misleading: the BBC coverage of the Webbys seems to be mostly "BBC won a webby award last night..." type stuff, in which the resource in question clearly has a vested interest in the awards. In fact, that is also the case in the article you linked, where it appears BBC's intial interest was in their own winning of the award - not that I am calling the article into question, it is definitely valid.

However, I would say the NYT article is still very clearly not trivial, and I am not sure where you can come out saying it is. Even if only pared down to the barest bones of absolute direct reference, as Brenneman has done, one comes out with a solid paragraph of information. The definition of non-triviality according to WP:N is: "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject." with the further elabouration: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The 1 sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 6 January 1992.) is plainly trivial. These stress, at least from my perspective, that a "trivial" reference is in fact trivial. It does not spend a paragraph describing the topic in question, in relative detail, nor does it go on to refer back to the topic in nearly every subsequent paragraph of the article. A trivial mention of the WCCA in a New York Times article would be something like, ";There are also awards, like the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards (link)", the end, proceed with article as planned.

Be careful not to apply a judgement call to what is trivial and what is not, based on how important you think the WCCA is. Unless triviality is some ephemereal, hard to define concept - which WP:N does not seem to suggest, else notability would be subjective - there is no way to claim this article is trivial. Not to mention anything of a notable television show devoting an entire episode to it, which Brenneman would like to shrug off, but which is certainly a "non-trivial, reliable published work, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 14:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I did say the NYT snippets were passing mentions, not trivial. However, the NYT article is about webcomics generally, and there is only one paragraph that provides any hard information about the awards themselves, and not very much at that. The TV show did not 'devote a whole episode' to it, it was one of several segments. Whether this segment truly counts as an independent source is questionable, given that it was the WCCA 'Chief Executive' that was hosting it. With both sources being frankly borderline, the lack of further, ongoing coverage clinches it for me; an encyclopedic article can't be created with what is available.--Nydas^(Talk) 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It should possibly be mentioned that the BBC was nominated for two awards there (along with other news-related sources). Not even to mention the real-life and high-profile ceremony. Just two sidenotes since there is a slight difference of scale here. --Sid 3050 14:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at in the first pgph, but you say it better. Also, I am intensely curious why pokemon are so important that wikipedia needs over 400 entries on the statistics of each pokemon in the pokedex (whatever the hell that is), but webcomics are so amazingly unimportant that despite a New York Times article bringing up the major webcomic award and talking about it for anywhere between 1 and 7 paragraphs, said webcomic award is not worthy of wikipedia. /sigh/ done here for the night. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 14:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I don't know what the naysayers expect a NYT article to SAY about an internet webcomics award. One would hardly expect them to write a dissertation about its history and management/nomination practices. One would expect, in fact, an article exactly like this one, for almost any award. If this NYT article is non-notable, I can't really imagine a notable article being printed. More importantly, this seems like a strong case of wikilawyering to me. Whether or not there is a dearth of printed articles about the WCCA, almost anyone with ANY involvement in the webcomic industry, from casual readers to authors, has heard of and recognises the WCCA. What is the definition of notability? Is it a tallyup of how many newspapers have mentioned a subject, as WP has lately been leaning towards? Or is that just meant to be an arbitrary measurement of something like, I don't know, how notable something is within its field? Because I would say this is pretty bloomin' notable to webcomics. It doesn't really matter in this debate, since this article meets wp:n anyway, but it is definitely food for thought. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 08:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, as for the individual year articles, neutral. It seems to me one would expect most annual award information to be on the WCCA site itself. However, if the WCCA is notable, I suppose the individual years of it are. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 08:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

After some thought, make that a weak delete for the 6 child articles. At this stage I don't see any purpose to them as there is not enough to build a huge article for the WCCA in the first place. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 12:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the main article -- I think it meets WP:RS now -- but I don't think we need to keep lists for the individual years. A link to the WCCA site should be sufficient. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with the reasoning that has been given above. Current sources are NYT, AotS, and a radio interview (which I admit I currently can't find proof for on the official site since it took place 19 months ago, but the announcement doesn't strike me as a fake and has not been contested). This year's presentation will be at Megacon. No opinion about the individual years, though. --Sid 3050 12:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notabilty asserted due to the fact the awards represent an entire industry. Notability asserted due to multiuple coverages in known publications (NTY, G4). And a comment - award presentations - even well known ones - can be boring and often don't attract huge coverage in media, but that has nothing to do with the notabilty of the award. The WCCA is highly notable within the webcomic industry, and deserves a place in wikipedia. Timmccloud 13:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For the main article, merge the years into a single article or with the main article. To repeat my argument in the undeletion, 'As per the NYT article [15] and most of an episode of "Attack of the Show" [16]'. As I said, independent mentions in a mayor national newspaper and a popular cable/satellite television show (on G4TV) should count for something. The fact that the writer of the NYT article disagreed with many of the judges choices (and apparently disliked the medium as a whole) is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that the writer thought the awards were important enough, or representative enough to devote 7 paragraphs to them and its winners in an 18 paragraph general article about webcomics (actually, rereading it, the WCCA's seem to be used as one of the articles main 'hooks'). And finally Websnark, while possibly not a valid source for notability, being a blog, mentions them several times: [17], [18] and [19] at least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aclapton (talk • contribs) 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC). Oops, forgot to sign --15:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Grr, messed up signing again --Aclapton 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, since I'm satisfied that both are verifiable and notable. I'd be more explicit, but quite frankly, the point's been beaten into the ground by now. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• That said, if someone wanted to Merge the yearly pages back into the parent article, so that we'd have one huge honkin' article instead of a central one with satellites, I guess that'd be OK. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep for main article, delete the others without merging. And rewrite the main article to use only the two supposedly reliable references as sources. As for the other articles, not only are they almost directly copied from a copyrighted website, but also erroneous. If we need this information, we can link to it. —xyzzy_n 14:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the "by year" articles, merging them into Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards would only create listcruft and the lists themselves provide no context and I would go so far as to declair them as indiscriminate as well as violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. As for the main article, it barely passes WP:WEB by the thinnest of margins. However, I still have concerns that there is not enough coverage by reliable sources to build a proper, verifiable, encycopedic article from without using primary sources or original research. --Farix (Talk) 14:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Even if the WCCA does barely pass WP:WEB, that doesn't mean that it can be verified through reliable sources that the award is "well-known" and therefore, winning this award should not be used as proof of notability. --Farix (Talk) 17:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You raise at interesting point that needs clarifying if the article survives the AfD. There are several webcomics who's main claim to notability at the moment is winning a WCCA. It should be cleared up whether the WCCA's count towards notability under WP:WEB. --Aclapton 15:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • So, in other words, even if this article is restored, the jihad can continue? You're not willing to reconsider the numerous deletions of articles that hinged on this one? You're not willing to right that wrong? -- Jay Maynard 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
        • You misunderstand me, I am not favouring any "jihad". I personally think that the WCCA's as an award should count for notability, but others may disagree. That is why I want the issue of whether or not they count for notability resolved as well and clearly stated, or else it will come up in every AfD for a webcomic with a WCCA. --Aclapton 20:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Most notable awards honoring an indisputably notable and expanding subject. Rogue 9 16:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dragonfiend . Interesting to those who draw them and those who lpook at them on the internet, perhaps, but lacking the multiple independent reliable and verfiable sources needed to satisfy Wikipedia standards. Edison 17:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all the above reasons. --Djsasso 20:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - NYT article does devote the awards more than trivial space, and what's more, uses them to define the best in web comics. In a way, that does the awards as much or more of an honor than if the article had merely been about the history of the awards, it lends the awards credibility. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the main article, I've rewritten it and it meets our policies of verifiability and no original research. Other arguments are subjective. 84.92.54.229 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Comment, I appear to have logged out there, that's me, Hiding. Hiding Talk 21:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment Why hasn't brenneman !voted? --Random832(tc) 21:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a debate, not a vote. He's made his opinion known in his comments here. Hiding Talk 22:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but making one's opinion known in bold is customary - it's not a vote, but it is a !vote. I was just curious anyway. --Random832(tc) 23:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no independent reliable sources. - Francis Tyers · 22:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggest you go re-read the article, I count 2. That's a plural to me. Also suggest you understand the difference between a guideline and a policy. Hiding Talk 22:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Quote

• • Jimmy Wales, 17:43, 29 January 2004. Hiding Talk 22:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've been interviewed by The Guardian and the Wall Street Journal, does that make me deserving of an article? - Francis Tyers · 15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Furthermore I have ~800 google hits compared to WCCA ~150. - Francis Tyers · 15:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Specious Argument, and factually incorrect because of bias. WCCA and "Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards" together make 479 google hits. Besides that, counting google hits is a WP:ILIKEIT vsWP:IDONTLIKEIT style of argument, which is invalid. Timmccloud 16:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Or ‘about 13,100’ for ‘"Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards"’, and more for different ways to write the name, but of course Google hits prove nothing. —xyzzy_n 17:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All. If any webcomic is notable, then this is also. The year-by-year ones are good suppliments to the main, keeping large lists out of the page. LukeSurl 01:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep main article, delete others. The main article has seen significant improvement. While FA status is so remote you’d need Hubble to see it, the article merits inclusion in its current shape—notability is established, major points are cited with more or less adequate sources and NPOV seems to be maintained. The lists aren’t necessary or useful, though; if there is a real need to have webcomic articles organised by WCCA nominations and awards, categories should do the trick. —xyzzy_n 02:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Problem is, there has been a roll on effect. When the WCCA article was deleted, many webcomics were then AFD because of notability concerns, and THAT led to the WCCA catagory being deleted as well. So unless the deletion of the catagory gets overturned (and it was deleted because the WCCA was deleted - starting to see a pattern here?) we can't use catagories as a solution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timmccloud (talk • contribs).
    • I hadn’t read that CFD; apparently people there thought a list would be better. However, a single article with a list of award winners ought to be enough. By the way, the article should say how webcomics are nominated and how the winners are chosen. —xyzzy_n 04:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep main article at least, appears to be well-known. No opinion on the year/list articles; they could probably be either deleted or turned into redirects. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, notability isn't well established by the means of multiple, non-trivial and independent sources as per WP:V and WP:RS. The lists should go as well. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Where exactly in Wikipedia:Verifiability does it ask that somethings notability be established as you suggest? I can't see any reason why this article does not meet the verifiability policy, but I'd appreciate your thoughts. Hiding Talk 10:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Er, WP:NOTE? WP:WEB? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Try again: Where exactly in Wikipedia:Verifiability does it ask that an article's notability be established as you suggest? I can't see any reason why this article does not meet the verifiability policy, but I'd appreciate your thoughts. You stated "notability isn't well established by the means of multiple, non-trivial and independent sources as per WP:V and WP:RS" I'd like you to clarify where exactly in WP:V, per your statement that it is in there. Thanks. Hiding Talk 20:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • My thinking goes something like this: WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." WP:NOT#IINFO: "articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance" Is it an "exceptional claim" to say a website has had impact or historical significance? Yes. Do exceptional claims require strong sources? Yes. Do "strong sources" equal multiple non-trivial sources? Yes. Is this how our WP:NOTE content guideline recommends we should act on our WP:V and WP:NOT content policies? Yes. -- Dragonfiend 20:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment WP:V also states that "dubious" and "self-published" sources can be used as verification for articles about the sources themselves given some very minimal conditions. As I've pointed out earlier, it is trivially easy for an article about a webcomic - and I'll point out this applies to any content primarily distributed online - to satisfy WP:V; the only question is whether or not it meets notability standards in the first place to merit an article. The standards for notability are outlined fairly clearly, and resoundingly met in this case. Balancer 21:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the main article; WP:V isn't in question, and I feel the sources given are sufficient to meet WP:N; I don't see them as trivial. The daughter articles don't seem necessary; I'm leaning toward delete for them, but a merge or partial merge and redirect might be an option. No strong opinion. Shimeru 12:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as I point out above, the number of reliable sources that discuss the WCCA is less than the number of reliable sources that discuss me (Guardian and WSJ). Would keep voters support an article on a (needless to say) entirely non-notable me? - Francis Tyers · 15:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So you had two articles - what in those articles makes you notable? We are talking about a group that publishes industry awards - that has recognition across it's industry, and it's notablitly is supported by a few articles. I see nothing notable about you that matches what the WCCA does, and your argument (and anyone that agrees with you) is on the nature of WP:ILIKEIT since "you have more google hits than WCCA does". Specious argument. Timmccloud 16:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying I am notable, I'm saying that the WCCA is not notable. Please read my argument. - Francis Tyers · 18:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If you were a primary focus of those articles, then yes, I'd vote to keep an article on you -- you'd meet WP:V, WP:N, and WP:BIO. Why would you think such an article should be deleted? Shimeru 21:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I am a secondary mention, but get probably around the same amount of treatment as in the NYT article for WCCA. I don't meet WP:BIO in a million years. - Francis Tyers · 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Francis. bogdan 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Francis, you want an article so bad I'll write you one, but let's not compare apples and oranges here, eh. They may both be fruits but they taste different, and an article on you may be an article, like the article on the WCCA, but they cover different topics. So let's go right out and delete everything less notable that Francis, God help us if Jimbo shows up and demands the same treatment, or does it only work for Francis? Let's examine the article on its merits. Wikipedia is case by case and has shades of grey. Wikipedia is a broad church. Wikipedia works when we respect each other, listen to each other and work to a solution. Let's try and achieve that here in line with our policies. Show me where this does not meet a policy. Hiding Talk 20:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not notable enough to merit an article, neither is this organisation, the point being that a couple of trivial mentions in mainstream press does not a make something notable. - Francis Tyers · 21:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • No, the point is that you think these are trivial mentions and that you think they aren't notable enough. The NYT article used the awards as a hook, criticised them but placed a value on them. The NYT article assessed them as relevant to the field of webcomics, discussed them as part of the medium. It was not trivial. Triviality is a throw away "The WCCA were awarded on Tues night". Triviality defined in the guideline as follows:

Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.

• • • This was not trivial coverage by that definition. It wasn't a brief summary of the website. This wasn't reporting the internet address, it wasn't an internet directory listing and it wasn't telling you update times, in fact it deferred to the awards in picking strips to cover. Not trivial. Hiding Talk 21:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Per RockMFR and per Balancer. Notable within the community of webcomics, has mainstream coverage, and can be expanded into an informative article. I would also suggest keeping the individual entries, but if not, merge them in. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Why delete this? People are just going to end up recreating an article for the WCCAs without realizing that it's already been deleted, assuming that they are mentioned on a webcomic's entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.168.17 (talk • contribs) 02:16, February 18, 2007.

• Page protection. Problem solved. --Calton | Talk 02:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• And, since the anti-webcomic jihadists are all admins, this will get slapped on as soon as the deletion is re-confirmed (again, by an admin). -- Jay Maynard 15:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• That's really disheartening. I'd like to think that wikipedia would encourage edits and contributions by new people to encourage its growth and popularity. That would just send the message that my opinion doesn't matter.--Thaeus 24.82.168.17 20:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC). (Note: the earlier unsigned comment was also mine.)

• That's because your opinion doesn't matter, if you're not in the in crowd. -- Jay Maynard 21:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Trivial media sources -- the Times writer simply used it as a hook to justify his selections for the article. --Calton | Talk 02:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment A major hook for a story is not trivial. More unusual values for trivial. TMLutas 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read the definition of "trivial"? Hiding posted it about four paragraphs up. If the awards are important enough that a new york times author saw them as a valid entry-hook for the webcomic world, they do not fit Wikipedia's definition of "trivial". Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 02:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• The article was written by Sarah Boxer. At a guess I'd say it should be to justify "her" choices. But the assertion that she used the awards to justify her choices is not evidenced by the article, and is not trivial per the guidance offered on triviality. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Strong article with NYT reference demonstrating this is an obvious keeper. --JJay 14:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP:NOTE criteria satisfied. Freepsbane 18:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, has sufficent sourcing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly notable. Egunthry 12:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant Delete per Dragonfiend and Brenneman. I'm sorry, but I don't find the references/sources adequate at present. I wish to particularly echo Francis Tyers's comment. WMMartin 13:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a canary in a coal mine. It's not that webcomics or the WCCA itself are that important to the scheme of things but you can write up this process to "roll back" and dump down the memory hole a great many more things than webcomics using the methodology used to eliminate so many webcomics over the past few months. The sourcing satisfies the standards and thus the article should stay.TMLutas 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As mentioned above, sources demonstrate notability per WP:NOTE. --Oakshade 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: The article meets the basic sourcing requirements. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd like to amend the nomination, if possible, to include 2007 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see why not. The ceremonies were just held and the article should be popping up very shortly. --Kizor 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - sourcing is sufficient, no contested content. (In addition, I have to register my amusement about the way the New York Times were previously used as an archetypical example of a notable and reliable source. Heh.) --Kizor 03:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a meaningful award within a fairly large subculture. The winners all mention the award, so they clearly think it's important. --Hobit 04:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And I think the raw number of folks responding here gives a hint to this. I only even found out about the deletion because I'd turned to Wikipedia to find out who actually won this year (the actual website is annoying...)--Hobit 04:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This is probably the best reason for keeping this article yet: Since there's no shred of news coverage to tell us who won this web award, and the awards web site itself is annoying, then we should use wikipedia to announce the winners. --Dragonfiend 05:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, Wikipedia is already the WCCA's best advertising so it's a logical step... - brenneman 05:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Great scott... we couldn't have people learning about a subject via Wikipedia, now could we? ;-) Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 09:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [afterthought: my site is rated 89k on alexa, does not even have a wikipedia article of its own, and gets most of its traffic from return users... but wikipedia is still one of the largest sources of new traffic after google. wp is just plain a well-trafficked site, and people come here to find links and information. It doesn't say anything at all about an item's importance that they get most of their traffic straight off WP, because WP is huge.] Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 09:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Rather than reading tea leaves, I've written to the author of the time's article and asked her to comment as to her intent when writing the article. - brenneman 05:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I applaud the effort, but at this stage the author's opinion is pretty much invalid. Her article has been published already, and clearly makes more than trivial mention of the WCCA. Whether or not she intended the mention to be trivial is not the issue: very clearly, the mention is not trivial. I know you know the definition of trivial, brenneman, so I am in the dark as to why you think this doesn't meet it. At best, one might call this a "casual" mention, but it covers far too much ground to be trivial. Allowing the author to amend their opinions on a published work defeats the entire purpose of using published works, namely that they are in print and unchanging.

Note that I am not disparaging the effort, I do want to hear the author's opinion. Just establishing that it really doesn't affect the debate. Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 09:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• brenneman: "Rather than reading tea leaves, I've written to the author of the time's article and asked her to comment as to her intent when writing the article."
• Bravo, but that's the very definition of original research and thus cannot affect the article in any shape or form. Unless we are going to let everyone edit there article as they want? And I can't wait to see if this develops into another look how silly they are on Wikipedia article. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 15:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep another silly example of contorted lawyering about Notability wording. This is clearly notable and verifiable, enough with the crap. All the somewhat esoteric, subcultural stuff on wikipedia is what makes it cool.Rdore 06:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the existing sources seem sufficient. The NYT article doesn't look like a trivial reference. --James 10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, a paragraph-long "blurb" is indisputably a trivial reference. There are a lot of other sources cited. That list of sources looks formidable, but when one looks through it, one finds that the article's subject is "name-dropped" or barely mentioned (trivial) by many, and that the rest are of questionable or no reliability (Comixpedia, a convention site with no apparent editorial control). As to arguments that "this has been used as an argument that most webcomics aren't notable"? Most webcomics aren't notable! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And people claim there is no anti-webcomics jihad... Go read the Wikipedia definition of "trivial" above: even a single paragraph discussing the subject does not meet that definition. -- Jay Maynard 14:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There are some confusion about the format that Comixpedia uses and as a long time reader, and previous contributor, I can shed some light on this. Comixpeida.org is a comic wiki, not to be confused with comixpedia.com (although they have the same publisher). Comixpedia.com consists of one magazine part, which is under editorial control. The content is contributed by staff writers and freelancers to editors. Back when I contributed, you got payed for what you wrote (a rather symbolic amount though, it was 10 US$ for columns and somewhat more for articles if I remember correctly), but I admit I don't know if they still do this. The current month's magazine content can be found on the right side of the frontpage. The second part of comixpedia.com is the community/news section consisting of forums and blogs. The way the frontpage news work is by community contribution. A person writes in their blog on the site, and the newseditor promotes it to the frontpage if he/she finds it to be of interest. Epameinondas 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not a 1-paragraph mention, it's spread throughout the article, the person copying it here compressed it, so it looks smaller. They also arguably left out other references to the awards. I don't know if it was the copier's intent to misrepresent the citation, but they are one of those arguing for deletion. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You are misreading the sources. The convention site is being used as primary source, and thus is reliable. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 15:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on Notability. Several fairly high profile comicblogs report on the WCCAs. Journalista, The Comic Journal's blog, written by former managing editor Dirk Deppey http://tcj.com/journalista/?p=294, The Beat, Publishers' Weekly's blog written by Heidi MacDonald co-editor at PW's comics week http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2007/01/29/web-cartoonists-choice-awards-noms/, The comics reporter, written by former managing editor and executive editor of The Comics Journal Tom Spurgeon http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/your_2007_wcca_nominees/

Epameinondas 15:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question Is this really the right way to go about an AfD for the "year" articles? It doesn't look like the individual pages have AfD headers. -- Ben 17:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. This hasn't been handled as outlined here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VvV (talk • contribs) 21:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep These awards are sufficiently notable to be documented. Deletion arguments are weak. Merge the years in and leave redirects if desired. Brenny, you know better. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep main article. Sufficient notability has been demonstrated, and WP is not paper - there's no pressing need to come up with reasons to delete this. However, I'd say weak delete to the year articles, we don't really need to archive information available elsewhere, and they're strewn with red links which are unlikely to become (and stay) pages given the recent attitude for deleting webcomic articles. -- Mithent 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep main article, Delete yearly articles. Notability requirements have been filled, and the fact that there are criticisms over the award's organization does not in any way affect whether or not it should have an article. If someone wanted to delete the Oscars on the grounds that it's all politics, they'd be laughed off the site. - Zaron 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Main article is clearly notable, per arguments above; Neutral on year articles, but agree that they should be tagged. Willow 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The current procedural argument to establish notability is currently based on minimal foundations but these are solid enough to support the existence of an article. The argument against the NYT article supporting notability requires that the mention of the WCCA be trivial, that is, the NYT article would not be substantially changed or significantly reduced by the removal of references to the WCCA. My understanding is that it would be significantly changed in that one or more introductory paragraphs would be lost and the structure of the NYT article would be lost, reducing it to a series of isolated comments on a random and, to the read inexplicable, sampling of comics without any basis for asserting that they are in any way representative of web comics or to show that they have not been carefully selected by the NYT reporter to support her positions regarding web comics. I believe this argument shows that the WCCA were not a trivial part of the article and since there appears to be a consensus that the article as a whole was non-trivial it therefore follows that the mention of the WCCA was non-trivial.

I would not necessarily support keeping an ever expanding list of past winners and nominations. It is probably sufficient to list the past or current years nominations, the past winners of all awards and, for years beyond that, the winners of two or three 'headline' awards.--BoatThing 00:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason not to list all past winners, but I think giving a separate article for each year's awards is overkill. - Zaron 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I take that back. Looking over the vast number of categories given, it would be one hell of a mess to stuff it all into one panel. It might be best to keep the other articles. - Zaron 03:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G1).--Húsönd 03:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characters in Sonic riders 2

Characters in Sonic riders 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:NOT Sonic Hog 02:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as pure nonsense. TJ Spyke 02:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. So tagged. Kyra_~(talk) 03:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Was it meant to be on the users person page or something?--Dacium 03:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It was on a userpage, but then the user moved it to the mainspace. TJ Spyke 03:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidYork71 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
• Speedy Delete Some kind of terribly botched edit. SubSeven 03:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crocket Manipulator

Crocket Manipulator (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nonsense, Searched for all variants on the web and at Hilti.com Pjbflynn 03:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable. Searching the major search engines using Dogpile even with "hilti" as another search term fails to yield any reliable sources. Kyra_~(talk) 03:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Very well written hoax, if it is one. Good luck "carving" metal pipe. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Inkpaduta 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per everyone else: only 63 Ghits, if not a hoax then completely non-notable. And yes, the usual, fails WP:V and WP:RS. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not verifiable, and probable crock. Excluding wikipedia and answers.com from the search with -wikipedia and -"answers.com" reduced the number of ghits to 1, and that one ghit was for a page that wouldn't load. Also, the article doesn't quite make sense. Cardamon 09:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart Hall (presenter and filmmaker)

Stuart Hall (presenter and filmmaker) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. The article makes two claims to fame, but Googling the first: "Stuart Hall" + "Channel 7 Television" gives 1 result. Googling the second: "Stuart Allen" + "Propeller TV" only gives 7 results. (Not to be confused with the highly notable Stuart Hall (television presenter))Saikokira 03:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Neither of the TV shows nor the film seems notable, and there's no reason to believe the person is notable other than through the work. JulesH 17:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blank Label Comics.--Alf ^melmac 14:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starslip_Crisis

Starslip_Crisis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The page fails to follow some Wikipedian guidelines, such as this one (#5: where is the significance? Nothing of merit is listed), and this one (no significant coverage, no awards of merit, etc.). As well, even admins have been quoted as saying that the previous AfD nomination was valid in its criticisms, even if the person starting it did so for improper reasons. FJArnett 03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC) — FJArnett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep - the first guideline listed by the nominator doesn't really apply, technically: the article is not about the website [starslipcisis.com], it is about the webcomic Starslip Crisis. Also, it does, in fact, meet the second guideline mentioned by the nominator - check the awards section in the article.

In addition, this nomination seems to have been requested by Straub himself here, where he said that he doesn't wish the article to remain on Wikipedia because he "wouldn’t want anyone to think the people running Wikipedia’s webcomics project knew anything about the strip". In addition, another commentor posted the following:

"Here’s hoping Starslip gets well and truly deleted, it’s not like they actually know about your comic anyway, they just want to reinstate it to save face and pretend they aren’t as close minded as you proved them to be".

(Note: the preceding is just for informational purposes so that other editors can make their own decisions - I'm not taking this as a bad-faith nom at all). ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 03:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - (1) The comic is notable as it has been nominated multiple times for the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. (2) The comic is notable b/c Penny Arcade (itself a notable webcomic) has referred to it [20] [21], and "Tycho" wrote the introduction to one of the books. (3) The author, Kristofer Straub, moderated a panel at Comic-Con 2006. [22] --zandperl 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The E+P link satisfies WP:V, and the WCCA noms are enough to establish notability. Mr. Straub's opinion on the matter really isn't relevant, IMO. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, notability and verifiability established above. Rogue 9 05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As per previous discussion, what we need are multiple independent reputable sources per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:N, and searching at my library finds nothing worthwhile. Best I can find is a trivial mention in passing on Editor and Publisher's website (not their print edition) and a three-sentence paragraph in a small local newspaper that begins "To round out my list, I have to include the sci-fi humor strip 'Starslip Crisis' by my friend Kris Straub ..." I thought it might be worth merging a paragraph on this comic to Blank Label Comics, but can't find decent sources for that topic either. --Dragonfiend 05:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, a bit new to Wikipedia here. But don't we use Wikipedia:Notability (web) as criteria for web content instead of the regular WP:N? Leaf of Silver 12:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi, Welcome to Wikipedia. It's best to avoid reading policies and guidelines in isolation from one another -- they're all interconnected. For example, WP:NOT a web directory also applies. -- Dragonfiend 10:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete I don't really feel that this is notable or verifiable enough, but i'd be happy for someone to prove me wrong. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm not satisfied with the notability of the awards it has won. Can some of the keep voters demonstrate the basis for its notability? Savidan 06:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Current WCCA sources are an article in the New York Times, an ep of Attack of the Show, and a radio interview. This year's award ceremony will take place at Megacon. The Awards are currently in AfD because some people argue that the sources are trivial. For the current discussion, go to the AfD. --Sid 3050 13:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I remember hearing of Starslip Crisis on at least two separate Internet contexts at least six months ago. I've never read it, but after reading the article, it sounds like an interesting comic. By the way, many notable AND non-notable webcomics (indeed, many print comics and print comic strips) have trade paperback collections; both Garfield and El Goonish Shive have collections available. One point I've not heard yet in this discussion: notability is based on context. For the larger world audience, any Parkour enthusiasts or Free running clubs outside of the originators are largely irrelevant; the same is likely true of past Toastmasters World Champions of Public Speaking, but as a Toastmasters AC-B myself, I would recognize the names of at least the past three if I heard them in passing. Webcomics are largely more notable within their intended audience, as is everything else. There are people who don't know anything about Brian Peppers, and people who don't know anything about Bahrain; if those people are called on to decide the notability of such articles, they're not as likely to find it notable as people who know more about the subject. On whose context does Wikipedia depend? --BlueNight 06:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Forgive me if you're familiar with it already, but reading WP:NOTE#Notability_is_not_subjective might answer some of your questions. -- Dragonfiend 07:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks like that may be wrong though, as we seem to be having arguments over what constitutes reliable published works as detailed in this part of the guidance: "The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it." I'd suggest it is subjective, the arguments support that and that that section be stricken. Hiding Talk 11:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak merge to Kristofer Straub. As much as the WCCAs are going to get an article, I've voted in them. So I have no faith in its capacity to confer magical notability dust upon other articles. As sources go, it is also profiled at the ComicCon Pulse. After that, I poked through all the links Google will let me see on both "Starslip Crisis" and "Starshift Crisis" but don't see anything not already mentioned that would be especially useful in writing a decent article (WP:WAF). Therefore, I would rather merge it and the not-very-well-sourced-either Checkerboard Nightmare into their creator's article (which now has a section on this whole brouhaha. Wheeeee...). Nifboy 06:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You do know that series Pulse "Intro to Webcomics" items were written and submitted by the webcomic's authors? I think there was a pretty open-door policy on them, with none of them rejected. --Dragonfiend 07:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This is a special case, and I feel the circumstances of what happened compel us to allow this article to live for at least a while as a matter of fairness. In recognition of our error, let's give those interested in the subject a few months to work on this without interference. Everyking 06:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure why that would be -- whether they were sock puppets (seemed obvious to me) or just goofy new users, their sillier arguments (Alexa rankings, convention appearances, etc.) were pushed aside to focus on actual content standards, which the article didn't meet then or now. I think the idea was that the puppeteer was going to nominate the article based on a bad Alexa search and back it up with things like "hasn't even been invited as a guest to conventions." Then when it would get deleted for those reasons, the puppeteer would say it was all a joke and that the Alexa search was bad and he really was a convention guest and we would all be really embarrassed and keep his article. Instead, we ruined the joke and said "Alexa rankings, convention appearances, etc. aren't particularly useful for writing encyclopedia articles," and deleted it based on our actual policies rather than somebody goofing around with puppets. In other words, clumsiest attempt ever at WP:POINT with WP:SOCK backfired on the little WP:DICK. --Dragonfiend 07:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • "sock puppets (seemed obvious to me) or just goofy new users" Whatever happened to "Do not bite the newbies"? This particular new (or, rather, returned) user is pretty ticked off with a certain webcomic artist about wasting his time with the first AfD and far from being anyones puppet, sock or meat.--BoatThing 04:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. AFAIK, we still require RS, verifiability and notability. Was this webcomic "subject of multiple and non-trivial published works"? The article does not indicate anything like this.

To zandperl: being referred in a trivial way from Penny Arcade does not make it notable. It's like claiming that I'm notable because my name was briefly mentioned in a couple of articles published in notable newspapers. bogdan 09:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable at all. If Kristopher Straub is notable, possibly Merge with that article. - Francis Tyers · 09:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, where are the independent and reliable sources? Where is the non-trivial coverage. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per zandperl's reasoning Mgm|^(talk) 12:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because it has been nominated for the WCCA in multiple years (and in multiple categories each year) and has won in one category last year (this year's winners to be announced). By the time of this writing, that is enough to fulfill WP:WEB. --Sid 3050 13:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete My general concern is the lack of reliable sources to build a proper encyclopedic article around outside of primary sources. Also the notability of the WCCA is very much in dispute because it has received very little media attention and leads to the question of if it is "well-known". --Farix (Talk) 13:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 13:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The comic is notable due to WCCA awards. WCCA is notable within the industry in question - most people don't know about advertising industry awards either, but that doesn't make them unnotable. Comic is notable due to association with the author, [Kristofer Straub], and his position in the industry makes his works notable.Timmccloud 13:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Lots of non-notable webcomics have won WCCA's. Boxjam 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Impossible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Are you ready to call 'Supermegatopia' and 'Anne Frank Conquers the Moon Nazis' notable?Boxjam 14:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Blank Label Comics (and actually merge rather than redirecting without putting any content) --Random832(tc) 13:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)keep - should probably be cleaned up somewhat, but I don't see any real reason it shouldn't have an article. --Random832(tc) 14:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. That award that's so important to WP:WEB-quoting editors? It doesn't matter. And how do we know that it doesn't matter? There's no non-trivial reporting of the winning of the award. Or of anything else to do with this webcomic. What material in this article is attributable, rather than being the opinion of the editors? The WP:N requirement for sources is not optional, and it's not there for no reason. Absent sources we get left with stuff that ignores WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and assorted other WP:NOTs. Kristofer Straub, Checkerboard Nightmare, and Blank Label Comics aren't exactly poster-children for verifiability and sourcing either. If I had been the recipient of Wikipedia-hosted free advertising, like Straub was, and still is, I'd have kept stumm. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete or trim to stub or trim and merge: as discussed in the previous AFD, the E&P reference is trivial and establishes nothing except for the Blank Label Comics relationship. There is also an interview with Straub (currently absent from the article) which does the same. The WCCA maybe establishes notability, but contains no information about the comic. With what are we supposed to verify the article, unless all it says is that the comic is part of Blank Label Comics and has won that award? And if that’s all, it might as well be in Blank Label Comics instead. —xyzzy_n 15:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't have multiple non-trivial mentions. Boxjam 16:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Kris Straub is one of the more notable webcomic authors on the internet. Much as a book by a famous author can have an article even before it is published, a 5-day per week webcomic by Straub is likely going to be notable. As has been mentioned, the article has been nominated for multiple awards, has been published, and has been mentioned outside of media published by the author. Icelight 16:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Where has it been published? —xyzzy_n 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • http://www.starslipcrisis.com/ Right there. The comic published on a website. It's as verifiably published as Wikipedia is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.220.18.151 (talk • contribs).
      • Anybody can put stuff on a website. Well, anybody with access to the Internet and enough money for hosting and possibly a domain, but that’s still a lot of people. Was it published in any place that is independent from the artist? —xyzzy_n 02:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please cite those sources! If you really know of them, this whole thing can be settled! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as per the WP:IAR guideline. Ravenswood 16:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • (Aside from the fact that IAR is a policy, not just a guideline) Citing IAR without providing a rationale is useless. IAR states "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." - How does this article by existing prevent you from improving or maintaining wikipedia? --Random832(tc) 20:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Edison 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Per_nominator --NuclearZer0 01:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Starslip Crisis is a notable Webcomic if for no other reason than the notability of its creator. The comic itself belongs to a well known collective and maintains a professional level of quality both online and in print. If this comic is ultimately considered not notable, I would argue that fewer than a dozen Webcomics could stand the same level of scrutiny. Seph Vellius 18:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. `'mikka 19:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Per_nominator --NuclearZer0 01:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, regardless of abusiveness of previous AfD, this still fails WP:N due to lack of sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It won a WCCA award in 2006 and was nominated for numerous others. Bryan Derksen 00:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If this isn't notable then very few webcomics are. Within its field (i.e. the web) it has a lot of attention. LukeSurl 01:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "very few webcomics are...(notable)" We have a winner! Very few webcomics are notable! (Just like probably only one in ten thousand people, if that, are notable.) This one is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 03:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "We have a winner! Very few webcomics are notable! (Just like probably only one in ten thousand people, if that, are notable.)" You might as well delete every single webcomic but Penny-Arcade then, since The list, the most complete list of webcomics I've been able to find lists only 8,300 - that's including webcomics that no longer update and comics in multiple languages. Assuming that the actual number of webcomics is as much as 3 times what this site has been able to find... we're still looking at 24,000. My point is to show how much this has been blown out of proportion. It is possible for reasonable people to come to a consensus on what webcomics should be considered notable without resorting to off the wall numbers. Seph Vellius 06:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That 24,000 estimate sounds incredibly low. Why would we expect that 1/3 of all webcomics in the world are listed on that site? They don't seem to list American Elf or Arbit Choudhury or Arcana Jayne or Le blog de Frantico or Buzzer Beater or Captain RibMan or Cox & Forkum or Cuentos De La Frontera or Dharma the Cat or Everybody Loves Eric Raymond or Fetus-X or Finder or Idiot Box or Leisure Town or Makeshift Miracle or Miss Dynamite or Mom's Cancer or I think you get the point. There are zillions of webcomics subcultures that rarely overlap. If that site isn't listing the webcomics that have won Eisner Awards or been featured on CNN, then they're definitely not listing anything close to 1/3 of all the webcomics somebody made up in school one day. --Dragonfiend 07:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have reliable sources that say so? —xyzzy_n 01:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia should not be bitter [23] --NuclearZer0 01:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per what I said in the previous discussion. Enough of this. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep More then worthy of staying on Wikipedia. Alyeska 07:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can you speak on why it is worthy of staying on Wikipedia? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 07:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can you speak on why it is not? If you were being honest here, you'd admit that you're destroying information because you can... and perhaps because you're a tad bitter over the author's stunt. If winning awards at the WCCA doesn't establish notability in webcomics then nothing does. And don't even think of turning that around to say that no webcomics are notable because many clearly are; otherwise, there wouldn't be so much controversy over the current deletion spree. Rogue 9 01:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, it's about impact or historical significance as covered in reputable sources. Winning an award doesn't establish notability in webcomics if no reputable third-party sources note winning it. What does establish notability is to write articles based on the types multiple, non-trivial reputable sources like you'll find in webcomics-related articles like When I Am King, Megatokyo, Van Von Hunter, Fetus-X, Mark Fiore, Get Your War On, Sluggy Freelance, Dicebox, Penny Arcade (webcomic), Gene Yang, Narbonic, Leisure Town, etc. -- Dragonfiend 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Winning a WCCA and winning nine WCCA nominations in two years makes this a textbook open-and-shut case under WP:WEB's criteria for notability. Balancer 08:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Being nominated for 800 awards doesn't meet web notability standards. If being nominated for a WCCA is notable, then 'Vicious Lies' is a notable webcomic. --Boxjam 14:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You think the WCCA are "a well-known and independent award"? --Dragonfiend 09:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Beyond any doubt the award is well-known. Its independence is more questionable in principle, but you'll have a lot of trouble making the argument that the WCCA is measurably less independent than other prominent awards, such as the Oscars. Balancer 09:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• From WP:WEB Criterion #2 – The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• The awards themselves are on a shaky ground for inclusion. Only trivial sources have been provided. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 09:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, in your opinion the New York Times article is trivial, as are all the other sources. That doesn't make them trivial, and I don't think the article is on shaky ground. The article meets our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Are you suggesting our policies have less worth than our guidance? Hiding Talk 09:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't twist my words. New York Times is not a un-reliable or trivial source in my opinion. Try to read the arguments carefully. There is nothing more than a transient mention of the webcomic in the sources. It should be non-trivial as is explicitly stated in our guidelines. And yes, policies are more important than guidelines; but please familiarise yourself appropriately. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not twisting your words, and please don't accuse me of doing such. You wrote "The awards themselves are on a shaky ground for inclusion. Only trivial sources have been provided." I took that to mean the whole of your words were talking about the awards. And I am well aware of the difference between policy and guidelines. However, if you believe I need to familiarise myself with them, perhaps you should stop relying on them, since I wrote the guidance and had a hand in the policy, and I would hate to think I wasn't familiar with something I wrote or that people were relying on something that was written by someone not conversant with policy and guidelines. Hiding Talk 10:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, in your opinion the New York Times article is trivial, as are all the other sources. Your own comment Yes, the sources provided for the article are trivial and not worthy of substantiating articles with. If you think they are, then you are confusing Wikipedia with Usenet or some other public forum. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• And your point is? First clarify to what your statement "The awards themselves are on a shaky ground for inclusion. Only trivial sources have been provided." refers, and then we can establish whether I misunderstood your meaning or not. I take it to mean, as I stated above, that "the whole of your words were talking about the awards". Is that not the case? If not, I would suggest that at any rate I have established to what my words apply. As to what I am confusing Wikipedia with, nice words but perhaps you are confusing Wikipedia with your own personal playground if you think that it is only your opinion that is important. I do hope you don't dismiss everyone who disagrees with you in such a manner. I'm not going to get into a debate over sources until you clarify for me what sources you referred to with your statement "The awards themselves are on a shaky ground for inclusion. Only trivial sources have been provided." Hiding Talk 10:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I must apologise for the previous statement, I did not intend to assert myself on you. In my opinion, these awards are neither notable enough to be included on Wikipedia nor should they be used to assert and substantiate the notability of a webcomic, purely based on them. I hope I make myself clear here. I believe if you are rooting for the article because they have been mentioned in the New York times, the argument is not valid. As there is only a trvial mention of the WCCA in the article, which is not enough to make it notable for inclusion. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Apology accepted. I'm still unclear as to what we are discussing. Are we discussing Starslip Crisis, which has not been mentioned in the NYT; or the WCCA, which has, and which you assert is a trivial mention and which I assert is not, and which you further assert should not merit inclusion since it fails a guideline, and which I further assert should merit inclusion since it meets policies. If we are discussing the latter article's deletion debate, I suggest we don't do it here. If you want to make the case that the WCCA aren't of enough value to ascribe notions of notability outlined at WP:WEB, go ahead. I'd merely point out that the important points are the policies, and that what needs to be examined is whether the article meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. This isn't the place to discuss subjective notions of triviality regarding the sources of an article not up for deletion here. Hiding Talk 10:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think there's some confusion here. This comic has never been mentioned in the NYT. --Dragonfiend 10:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Eww, wait. I thought this was some AfD where brenneman had commented. All the participants are same. /me smacks head. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• The grounds for meeting WP:N for an article are in general stricter than the grounds for something being well known. The fact that the WCCA clearly meet those grounds, of course, means that the frequent attempts to conflate "notable" and "well known" on webcomic AFDs in relation to the WCCA are inappropriate. If we conflate "notable" and "well known," then clearly this is a notable comic because it is well-known. Do you understand that? Balancer 09:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Well known"? No one outside of a very small fraction of certain online subcultures seems to even be aware of those awards. They certainly don't seem to garner much media attention. One of their administrators says that "Problems with the WCCAs [include] making people aware of them, getting people to care about them ... People didn't know when the WCCAs were happening, despite [his] repeatedly pointing out that we needed to take serious steps to get the word out about them."[24] --Dragonfiend 09:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would say that a very significant fraction of those regularly reading webcomics that have won WCCAs are aware of the WCCAs... which in itself constitutes a rather large number of people if you start adding up readership figures. They do not garner much media attention off the internet, but do garner a fair amount of attention on the internet. Just not as much as they'd like; call webcomic artists demanding attention whores as a community if you like. See search engine results, a prime indicator of net attention, which show the WCCAs coming up higher on a number of interrelated searches than the mammoth Eisners and Reubens (e.g., the basic comics+awards search), sometimes even outranking the perennial Usenet-favored Squiddies. Balancer 10:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Pointing to search engines is a moot point. We are not dealing with blogs, fan-cruft and the silly things users do online and then create forums and galleries on them. We need solid and reliable sources, which this article unfortunately does not possess. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Again, you conflate notability with being well-known. Pointing to search engines is (mostly) a moot point in establishing notability. It is, however, a very direct way of establishing how well known something is. Google is in general a very good indicator of how prominently something features on the internet. The WCCAs clearly are well-known. Balancer 10:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Since the WCCAs are clearly well-known, and independent by the standards of awards commitees everywhere, then WP:WEB applies to give clear notability to Starslip Crisis on the "awards" clause. Balancer 10:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• How do you get "clearly well known" out of "Problems with the WCCAs [include] making people aware of them, getting people to care about them ... People didn't know when the WCCAs were happening ... we needed to take serious steps to get the word out about them." This award is small time and relatively unkown and the people running it readily admit to it. --Dragonfiend 10:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't get it out of that. I got it out of independent criteria, not the blog of some administrator who thinks the project they work on isn't getting enough attention. Clearly he thinks they deserve to be better known; also clearly it is already well-known. Read more carefully next time. Balancer 11:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can we get a marker down of how well known we all think they are? I'm going to say as well known as the Cranes. Any advances? Am I too high? Hiding Talk 11:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I've rewritten the article to remove some original research and better reflect what can be sourced. We're not here to regurgitate plot, we're here to explain what something is to a general audience. We aren't the first and last stop on the road to finding out what this strip is all about, we're a map to where the stuff can be found which tells you what this strip is about. Hiding Talk 10:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't matter if it is re-written. It still fails verifiability, not truth - it doesn't matter where it was nominated, doesn't matter what it won, etc. There are no independent reliable sources to verify the content of this article save from the nominations themselves -> delete.--Konstable 11:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Which are a reliable source for that information. It does not fail verifiability, not truth, it uses primary source for verification. Hiding Talk 11:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • All I see are one-liner mentions. This does not support the material of a whole article.--Konstable 11:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's what I'm getting at. What we've got that can be verified independently is the first two sentences. Is that enough to build an article on. All the rest, I hope you will agree, can be fleshed out from primary source material. But is that first two sentences enough? If we had a stub with just those two sentences, sourced from a reliable source, is that enough? Would that be a stub worth having? Would that make us a better encyclopedia or a worse one? That's what I think the argument is, that's what I think we should be discussing. What better serves our readers? What are we here for? Let's forget the point/counter over well-known and triviality, this is basically what it is all about, isn't it? What's not enough information to write from? Hiding Talk 11:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Non trivial, multiple, secondary sources are required to establish notability. I am wondering how you are interpreting the guidelines. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm interpreting them as subsidiary to policy. I don't like to give more weight to a guideline than to a policy. The policies are the key, in fact to quote from WP:V,Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Now I can't see a mention of notability there, I can't see that those notability guidelines form a part of what should "determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles", so forgive me if I ignore them somewhat. I think that's what policy dictates me to do, but if I have it otherwise feel free to enlighten me. Hiding Talk 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, I don't agree that much can be fleshed out from the primary sources. There has to be enough third party sources to build an article. Then add a small portion from the subject itself. - Taxman ^Talk 12:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, so what are we saying? Stubs are no good? Surplus to requirements? What do we do with them, merge them to where the information may be useful? Delete them? What are we doing here, what's the goal? An encyclopedia of the stuff we consensually agree we like? Where's the line? It's not a black and white issue we have here, is it, it's light and shade, and we dapple our canvas with care. What do we need? What is enough. Because it changes daily. We know this comic strip exists, but that's not enough. We can verify it exists, easily, but that's not enough. We can verify a point of note, that it was one of the first Blank Label Comics. But that's not enough. How do we decide what is enough? How do we explain to people who don't get it that that's not enough? Is it enough to say, look, go read that page over there, that's why? Does that work when that page doesn't really get specific? Or do we need to take the time to work out what isn't enough? What do we do when there is some merit for the information somewhere? I mean, we agree there's merit in a mention of the strip being made somewhere on Wikipedia, right? So should we explain that sometimes, until there's enough material to work with which allows us to write from a full neutral perspective, when there's enough sourcing to allow us to balance different point of views, when there's enough to seed an article and allow primary source material in, then the time is right? Do we allow primary source to build an article? And should we explain that sometimes we do allow articles to rely more heavily on primary source? And try and work out what the difference is? It's not easy working these ideas out, and we should never pretend it is. We shouldn't pass people off on poorly written guidance. We shouldn't even parrot it. We should take the time to consider the best thing for the article. We should listen to the article. Where does this article want to be? What do the independent sources tell us about this article? They tell us it is by Kristofer Straub and it was one of the strips with which Blank Label Comics launched. So it makes sense to include the information there. And if a stub isn't enough here, to allow people to digest that snippet and decide where they want to go first, either to Blank Label Comics or to Straub, then we've got to work out where to redirect it. We've got to take the time to work these issues out. Or we are just a headless bureaucracy. And I don't believe in that Wikipedia. I don't believe in a Wikipedia where we try and score points, where we just battle our position, where we fight and call each other names. I believe in a Wikipedia where we at least try and understand each other, and work towards a consensus, an outcome where we can all point to something conceded and something gained. Where we can share war stories and laugh. Where we build an encyclopedia. Is that fair enough? Hiding Talk 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Nearly Headless Nick. dvdrw 11:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge if a suitable location can be found. Not enough third party reliable sources to build an article with. We don't need things on the edge until WP:VITAL are in good shape. - Taxman ^Talk 12:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per Nick. Just H 12:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment WP:V is easily met for a large amount of useful article content. E.g., the WCCA website can be cited for verification that the webcomic has been nominated for and won awards, and the Starslip Crisis website itself can be cited per WP:V for any assertions as to its content. Balancer 13:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No it can't. The subject itself can only be cited for very limited facts. For example x website can say they are the most popular X whatever with blah blah first this first that. But we can't build an article on that. The most that could be used in the article is X website claims blah. That's not very useful for an article. And articles keep getting expanded well out of bounds of WP:V. - Taxman ^Talk 15:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • He said its _content_. that is, a plot summary. Those are generally allowed. --Random832(tc) 20:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • No, Taxman is right. The articles grow out of the bounds of WP:V, and also WP:NOT. Our articles generally shouldn't be based solely on plot. Also, having these articles encourages other articles. It's a hard thing, but what we've got to remember is that Wikipedia isn't google. If all we can tell you about something is what you can find on the website of that something, you're better off going straight to the website of that something. Hiding Talk 20:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge With Kristofer Straub or Blank Label Comics, unless the WCCA's survive the AfD, in which case keep as in won the sci-fi category in 2006 and is a nominee in several categories this year. --Aclapton 14:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced, The secondary mentions are trivial, and only enough to support a mention in the publisher's article. I could start an awards show with my friends and give away awards to their web sites, but that doesn't make them all article worthy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and tag for cleanup. Subject is certainly notable enough. Article is not a great example of wikipedia, but that can be worked on in the coming weeks. Article should not be deleted before sufficient time has been given for a cleanup. -- Steven Fisher 02:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Since first nomination was declared completely invalid, this should not be listed as a second nomination. --Steven Fisher 02:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (11th nomination) (Out of 19). Nifboy 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It has to be tagged as a subsequent nomination, or these comments will wind up on the same page as the original one. It doesn't mean the first nomination was valid. (I'm the admin who declared the prior nomination invalid so I understand your point, but any other solution is worse.) Newyorkbrad 19:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, you both have made good points. Thanks for explaining. Please consider my comment regarding the "2nd nomination" withdrawn. :) -Steven Fisher 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: "if you want to learn about the cotton gin, grab a damned encyclopedia, but where the hell am i gonna go if i wanna learn spock’s stunt-double’s name? y’know, something important."... 43 kb arguing about notability is 40 kb too long. Its either notable or its not, if you need to argue over it - its notable. The original AfD may be making a WP:POINT but it convinced me. Too many people these days abuse the deletion process for their own ends - thats why I stopped participating in them. --Eqdoktor 19:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I just find some of the above arguments hopelessly overwrought. I have been following the debate from the external websites where this issue is being discussed (the "crusade" within wikipedia to delete webcomic articles). They are right, the Wikipedia itself is not notable. Its a joke as an "encyclopedia" when 50% of the time (90% all stats are made-up), any major article I look up has a chance of being polluted by some bored grade school kid vandalism. I say, WP:NOT#PAPER in this case and just move on. --Eqdoktor 19:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Nominated for the webcomic equivalent of an Emmy award, notable within its niche. Wikipedia is not bound by the limitations of paper, and to remove the article from our encyclopedia on such shaky grounds would be a disservice to our readers. Silensor 19:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I love it how not enough reliable sources to build an article is considered shaky grounds. That's got to be the saddest thing for the progress of the quality of our project I've heard in a long time. - Taxman ^Talk 20:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I love how you think there aren't enough reliable sources. That's the point of dispute here; you can't just assume that there aren't enough reliable sources and then use that as evidence that there aren't enough reliable sources; that's simply begging the question. Rogue 9 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually the evidence is that no one has been able to produce any reliable references other than one line mentions and the reliability of those sources is not beyond reproach. If you can provide the needed reliable references we're all listening. If you can't, we need to delete. - Taxman ^Talk 14:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• no, deletion is not the only solution. Merging would be the right move here, since we have reliable sources to allow a one line mention in a larger article. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 14:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that's true of course, if a suitable merge location can be found. - Taxman ^Talk 14:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Kristofer Straub or Blank Label Comics. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 16:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Ral315 » 21:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; we could learn a lot from Half-Pixel's case study on this to boot. MalikCarr 01:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "A previous AfD was abusive" is not an argument for "so the next AfD should have the opposite result." And Taxman...right on, is about all you can say to that! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• He didn't say that the previous AfD was an argument for keeping. He said we could learn from Half-Pixel's experiment and case study. And he's right. Rogue 9 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• And what are we supposed to learn? Sometimes people use sockpuppets on the internet? --Dragonfiend 06:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• You don't see it, do you? Okay, fine, I'll spell it out: The deletion process is hopelessly corrupt. Any tomfool can put an article up for deletion, and can apparently also make ten sockpuppets to vote for delete because for some unfathomable reason, it seems that delete voters aren't checked. It takes just a few people to take the hard work of a dozen or potentially scores of editors and just make it disappear. And when you're supposed to be making the sum of human knowledge, that is ridiculously counterproductive. Rogue 9 07:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, no I don't see it. There is no ballot box to stuff, so it doesn't matter how many not-a-votes some fool casts. What matters is the strength of the arguments, and in the previous discussion the sockpuppets made a bunch of goofy arguments for deletion (never been to a convention, bad alexa rank, etc.) that were shot down in favor of the policy-based comments from actual editors. It doesn't matter if a goofy sock puppeteer nominated the article for silly reasons; his reasons were pushed aside and the article was deleted for good reasons -- this article, then as now, does not meet our content policies. Sure, this is the encyclopedia any idiot can pass the time by making up 20 imaginary friends for himself to talk to, but that doesn't change the fact that WP:NOT a web directory, and we don't have enough verifiable information form third-party reliable sources to write a neutral article on this topic without slipping into original research. --Dragonfiend 07:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The foolery taking place offwiki is meaningless to me. What I do see, however, are ample reliable sources about a notable webcomic. RFerreira 07:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please link to those reliable sources that provide enough material to write an article. - Taxman ^Talk 13:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Lots of Fuffy Pink Bunnies! Everybody relax, take a deep breath and step away from your keyboards. This AfD is getting far too heated. Calm down. --Aclapton 12:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• And Remember Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man LukeSurl 00:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. While popular, this comic is not truly notable -- It has failed to make an impact in the webcomics community. JackSlack 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. It should be deleted in accordance with the wishes of our WikiOverlords on project Webcomic Witchhunt. Also, deleting it will encourage a whole bunch of potential Wikipedians who read about this to instead give up on Wikipedia in disgust before they even start. After all, you know how much our lords and masters hate having to explain to new people that while all Wikipedians are equal, some are more equal than others. Thus, making Wikipedia a laughingstock should be encouraged at all times.

• Keep, and restore the excised content... Wikipedia's core content policies (not the vague and subjective and even contradictory bureaucratic bloat that has evolved around them) do not equate using primary sources with performing original research (which it isn't)... that is using multiple sources (primary or otherwise) to synthesize something new. Even if the only source for some information is the author's own output, it should not matter, so long as it's not a matter of grandiose/self-aggrandizing claims. Therefore even the excising of information that cannot be verified except by using the comic's own website is unnecessary. The question of whether or not the comic is notable is a separate one from whether or not the information presented is verifiable.... but following the policy failure that is the web notability guidelines does -not- make Wikipedia better, or improve its credibility. Short term solution: ignore the guidelines. Long term solution: jettison them. Clinging to them like a protective talisman will only alienate the largest group outside of die-hard-wikipedians who find any relevance in Wikipedia: the internet-savvy folks. Or did I miss something where the goal of the project to make a resource used only by Wikipedians? Alexandra Erin 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Your interpretation of the core content policies are at odds with both their spirit and the letter. There is nothing ambiguous about needing multiple reliable third party references. There are two paths we can go by, yours which amounts to almost no efforts to set minimum information quality standards and the other which will ensure high information quality. - Taxman ^Talk 13:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Mine results in no degradation of information quality. Yours results in an "encyclopedia" that will only be paid attention to by the people who choose to spend their time catering to the increasingly complex, irrelevant, and bizarre rituals that have evolved to support its existence. Multiple third party sources do establish (tautologically) that a subject is notable enough to be mentioned in third party sources, and thus "deserves" an article... but once such notability has been established for the topic of the article, there's nothing gained by using those sources exclusively for the body, as some are saying. "Okay, so this subject comes up in multiple third party sources. Clearly it's worth mentioning. But there's not enough information in these sources for the article to say anything useful. Delete!" It's a pointless, double-layered notability test that would only make sense if Wikipedia was under severe space constraints. The fact is that accepting a third-party source's information about something non-contentious, like say, the characters in a fictional work does 'nothing' to improve the quality or reliability of information as opoposed to going straight to the primary. Their ultimate source is the first-party source. Reliable third-party sources have fact checkers, you say? They go back to the first-party source, too. The core content policies are unambiguous that simply accepting first-party information is not original research in and of itself, and while a lot of rather dense shrubbery has sprung up surrounding the relatively simple and workable ideas in the core content policies, "Ignore All Rules" trumps everything if the rules aren't making wikipedia better. This silly game of "Well, even if you and I and anybody with a mind to do so can go check out the page and verify that the information is accurate, that doesn't make the information verifiable." is just that... a silly game. Whether ones cites a primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary, or googolnary source... the citation still comes down to nothing more than editor saying, "Well, I read this stuff right here, in this source that anybody can go check out if somebody wanted to contest it." On the other hand, if somebody wanted to put in their take on the Jungian symbolism behind Starslip Crisis and said "Just look at the strip... it's all there!", THAT would unambiguously be original research... saning (yes, I said "saning"... imagine a verb, "to sane.") down the content policies needn't open the much-feared flood gates to reams of unverifiable speculation as some people need to fear, any more than acknowledging that in the Brave New World that has such online fricking encylopedias in it web-based notoriety really IS notability will turn Wikipedia into a directory of crappy Geocities pages. Alexandra Erin 01:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• TLDR, but it looks like you’re seeing a general problem with some rules. Therefore, instead of invoking Wikipedia:Ignore all rules for individual cases, you should seek a consensus on changing the problematic policies and guidelines. I suggest starting with WP:NOT#IINFO, which currently says that an article can only contain a plot summary if it also contains a proportional amount of secondary information—which, in turn, must be from secondary sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (or Wikipedia:Attribution). —xyzzy_n 01:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This campaign to delete webcomics articles is ridiculous. This article has plenty of information (not a stub!) and is about a comic which has received numerous awards. How is it non-notable? Rwald 09:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A webcomic by a notable webcomic author that has been nominated for multiple awards and won one (the AfD debate seems to indicate that it is a notable award). --James 10:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The last AfD was a WP:POINT posterchild, and as far as I'm concerned, so is this one. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Good God, I feel sorry for the closer of this thing. That aside, though, you've provided no rationale for a keep vote. Many users have agreed with the nominator's rationale that the article should be deleted, that hardly points to a WP:POINT nomination. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 13:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Policy and reasoning are out the window when I like it and I don't like it comes around. Hopefully the people that don't appeal to policy will be ignored. Only when that happens can we move to deletion discussion where policy is the deciding factor. To the extent the discussion here has been around interpretations of policy, its' been productive. - Taxman ^Talk 13:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Nope, WP:POINT is more than sufficient in this case. In my bolder, more active days I would have killed this nomination the moment I saw it, process wonks be damned. There's been way too much grandstanding over webcomics lately, and going for an AfD so soon after the last one is just continuing that trend. It's disruptive, and that trumps the comparatively trivial squabbling over inclusionist and deletionist ideals. This could have been dealt with by continued discussion on the related talk pages. A redirect could have even been hammered out there without the need for an AfD. But instead we get this. It's disappointing. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 16:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge verifable information to Kristofer Straub and replace with protected redirect. That's how I'd close it, at any rate. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 16:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a reasonably well-known webcomic and there is no substantial dispute that the content is true and accurate. Lines must be drawn as to notability but this comic reasonably surpasses them per several of the sources that have been added to the article since last week's events. There is plenty of clearly non-notable material in thousands of articles here that needs deletion, but the amount of time this community spends on policing the precise borderlands of notability in instances like this can sometimes be disproportionate to the return on investment. Newyorkbrad 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment One point that I can't resist making -

Are we trying to claim that the author of the comic is not considered an expert on his own comic, and thus his own comic isn't considered a usable source at all?

because, from WP:OR -

that would be the only valid reason for denying the use of the comic itself as a source. It does not violate WP:RS, WP:V, or WP:OR unless you argue that an author isn't an expert on his own work, because we have a single, reliable source, so long as we do not draw any interpretations from it. It would make a small article, but not any smaller than the less well-known fictional books or movies we have on the site.

Under Wikipolicy, an article CAN be written from the comic. It is incorrect to say that it can't. The question is whether one SHOULD be written - ie, notability. Or, if you'd like to make a sweeping statement, whether we should have articles that are little more than book summaries. Both of those are perfectly legitimate debates to have, but one that I have no interest engaging in myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 29.138.2.170 (talk • contribs).

• • Comment edited to conserve vertical space. —xyzzy_n 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on the above unsigned comment: You seem to have missed WP:V: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- Dragonfiend 02:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And also WP:NOT#IINFO: ‘Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot.’ —xyzzy_n 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, there is that (which I had, admittedly, missed, and means that I have a number of books to flag for AfD under WP:NOT), but I was mostly arguing against the belief that primary sources couldn't be used at all, which is what some in this AfD seemed to be suggesting. Any fictional work that passed WP:N would, properly written, be capable of passing WP:NOT, however, as there would be verifiable awards/interviews/references that would need to be included as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.2.170 (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Well, there are three arguments against that, two of which follow the letter, and the third of which is follows the spirit. This is to the point of spectacularly splitting hairs, but such is what happens when an argument gets this ridiculous. Note, please, that I am refering to just about all parties on both sides of the ongoing webcomic issue.

Like I said, there are legitimate arguments to be made, but they aren't WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Though I'd enjoy seeing you argue WP:OR and WP:RS. 129.138.2.170 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Someone who doesn't want to be associated with this debacle

Comment edited for vertical space. Also, this is the Starslip Crisis deletion discussion (take two), the El Goonish Shive deletion discussion is this way. —xyzzy_n 03:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the long comments, I should have done that myself. I'm not certain I understand your comment, though... Never mind, I figured it out. Guess I need to be keeping better track of which webcomic author is which, sorry again 129.138.2.170 03:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)same person

• Keep: I don't see a reason given to delete the article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Lets make Wikipedia better by editing not deleting -- UKPhoenix79 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West Side Elementary School

West Side Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Washington Middle School (Cumberland, Maryland) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

South Penn Elementary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Northeast Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

John Humbird Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Belair Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a group nomination for a series of articles about primary/middle schools in Cumberland, Maryland. All the articles were created by user Alleganywiki, they contain no encyclopedic information and they do not assert the notability of the subject, not even remotely. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Húsönd 03:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep All: Need I remind you people that creation of wiki pages for every school is officially endorsed by the wiki school project!! Notability is entirely relavent...Just because is not Notable for somebody in Japan doesn't mean that's its not notable for somebody that lives in the region of Maryland...futher, each school is tagged with a stub that requests that users add more informaiton to them with time... (See, Portal:Schools)

• Delete all per nom. Schools are not innately notable. --Haemo 04:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all Elementary Schools are generally Not Notable.Corporal Punishment 05:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All Schools are not inherently notable, and these fail to show why they are notable. TJ Spyke 05:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per "XXX School is a [type] school located in [city], [state], [country], at [address]. The school serves grades 0-999. The headmaster is Mr. Smith, and there are 999 students enrolled." I do not believe that these articles adequately assert the subjects' notability, and it certainly isn't useful for people to set up stubs for all and sundry hoping that someone will come along and fill in the blanks, probably confusing existence with importance and notability. Ohconfucius 08:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all unless evidence of notability provided. Unremarkable schools. MER-C 09:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all Another big load of nn schoolcruft. Soltak | Talk 17:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all As per Ohconfucius TheOne00 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable schools or anything else. Inkpaduta 22:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all No assertions of notability. Resolute 03:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All. References/sources generally poor or inadequate, and notability not proven. WMMartin 13:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All I was going to add more content to these pages... but, what good is that when you vultures are getting your cheap thrills by deleting valid wiki stub articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.89.13 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 February 2007

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of given names

(View AfD)

List of German given names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Arabic names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Swedish given names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Roman female names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Latin forms of English given names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Scandinavian given names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Traditional Names in Ghana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:WINAD. These article are merely lists of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted.

• See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, etc.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WINAD, is this the last of the lists like this? Jeepday 04:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The only one not yet included is List of Hebrew names, because there were technical difficulties in transwikiing it. And there maybe some that weren't correctly categorized. Dmcdevit·t 04:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cedlaod 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete : Wiki is not a directory. Ohconfucius 05:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Keep. Traditional Names in Ghana contains one sentence of information that I find interesting; the rest is examples of the names generated by the pattern. That sentence is not Wiktionary-type information, I think. --Alvestrand 06:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've merged the information into Ghanaian name, since that'e the proper naming convention for encyclopedic articles about the names (like Arabic name, Chinese name, etc.). Please expand it if you can. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I found a couple references on put on the article Ghanaian name. The subject looks to pass WP:N but the references could be better addressed for WP:V if anyone has better references please add them. Jeepday 12:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:WINAD. Inkpaduta 22:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kingboyk 18:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of trivia

Lists of trivia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Pointless list of lists of trivia. Fundamentally unmaintainable: what is defined as trivia? BuddingJournalist 03:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. What's wrong with using Lists of topics? Far better organized, more complete, etc. Cedlaod 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the content is better contained in Lists of topics. So, delete per User:Cedlaod. -- Black Falcon 05:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (maybe). Probably shouldn't be an article. In the Wikipedia space, associated with WP:ODD, I would not be so inclined to oppose that. 129.98.214.97 11:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Change to category Totnesmartin 13:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Why would a category be helpful? What constitutes trivia? How would you determine what should populate that category? BuddingJournalist 14:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, undefined and would mainly attract more irrelevant lists - Skysmith 14:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Trivia is in most aspects the antithesis of encyclopedic, and an indiscrimitate dumping together of these disparate lists compounds the problem. If anything, this is more of an index than anything, which could be well-handled by proper categorization of the articles listed (which I assume is so in the majority of cases). Agent 86 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and Agent 86: somewhat self-referential and completely useless. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The article practically nominates itself for deletion. Wickethewok 21:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Trivia about trivia??? It's got to go. (Although, this list may be useful for finding other such articles that ought to be deleted for the same reasons.) --Hnsampat 18:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of literary characters with nine fingers

List of literary characters with nine fingers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The fact that literary characters had only nine fingers seems pretty trivial to their notability. WjBscribe 03:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into List of polydactyl people. bibliomaniac15 03:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand, this isn't a list of people with an extra finger, its a list of people who are missing one. The list counts thumbs as fingers. WjBscribe 03:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• In that case, I'd have to say delete, since it's just an indiscriminate collection of facts. bibliomaniac15 04:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete seems indiscriminate to me. Jeepday 04:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. A better (more encyclopedic) article would be "Loss of fingers in literature" or something like that. --N Shar 04:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't seem Important.Corporal Punishment 04:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- this list should be, as User:N Shar has noted, "Loss of fingers in fiction". Missing or losing a finger is not a defining characteristic of fictional characters. So, delete. -- Black Falcon 05:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Terribly indiscriminate list, could go on forever. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Quite apart from which, who cares? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?}
• Delete Not only irrelevant, trivial, and indiscriminate, it is indeterminate (particularly in that the current limitation to nine begs the creation of articles for 1 through 8 fingers, heaven forbid). Even if it were about fictional characters with any number of missing fingers, I doubt there is more than a handful (sorry, couldn't resist) of characters in which this trait is critical to the story. Agent 86 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but comment I would say delete since the list appears to be unreferenced and possibly involves original research. (Is there a citation available to an already published list analyzing characters with nine fingers?) However, that being said, I do want to point out that, contrary to some of the opinions above, WP:NOT#IINFO does not deal with "lists of trivia". That particular section of policy is quite specific on what it covers, and trivia lists are not part of it. In fact, an attempt to add "almanac style" lists to WP:NOT#IINFO last year failed due to lack of consensus. Thus I would discount arguments which say it violates WP:NOT#IINFO. Dugwiki 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While WP:NOT#IINFO might not expressly deal with lists or trivia, I disagree that the policy is inapplicable to this article simply because it is a list or because it deals with trivia. The policy stated in the first sentence, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information" always applies. The illustrative list that follows is clearly not exhaustive and does not preclude the application of the general statement of the policy to any class of entries. Agent 86 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You are misreading what the phrase "indisriminate collection of items of information" refers to. In this context the section is referring to information that, while true, is still "that which editors may discriminate against". The first paragraph of the policy section then goes on to specify that the bullet points below are areas which have editorial consensus, and that "other areas do not necessarilly have consensus". Trivia in particular is one of those areas that does not currently seem to have strong consensus in its definition or how to handle it, and thus is specifically not included anywhere in WP:NOT (let alone in that particular section).
    • Now, it may very well be the case that in the future, if consensus is achieved, a trivia section will be added to policy, possibly under WP:NOT#IINFO. But until that happens, you can't simply use WP:NOT#IINFO as a blanket statement against "trivia", because it is specifically worded so as not to talk about trivia and "cruft", etc. That section is very specific on what it covers. FYI, this topic is discussed in greater detail on the WP:NOT talk page, so I'd recommend directing further comments about WP:NOT#IINFO there. Dugwiki 22:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I humbly beg to differ and stand by my reading of the policy. However, this isn't the place for any deeper discussion on the point, so I'll leave it at that. Regardless of the reading of the policy, it appears we both agree that this article cannot stand various forms of analysis and is suitable for deletion. Agent 86 23:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Just in case someone reading this is a new editor, a lot of the discussion we're talking about is at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Inappropriate use of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on afd/cfd. There's some interesting debate back and forth on how expansive WP:NOT#IINFO should be, should it or can it handle trivia, and other stuff. Dugwiki 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amy rubio

Amy rubio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Possible vanity or hoax. No google hits or IMDB page for this actress. —Brim 04:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Pretty clear it's a hoax. www.yourmom.com ? Please, they're not even trying... Cedlaod 04:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is probably another silly hoax, and even if it isn't there's no verifiability. --N Shar 04:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fairly obvious hoax. If not there's still no way to verify existence let alone notability. WjBscribe 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a hoax. The website linked seems to support it being nonsense. Adambro 08:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete The message at the one reference is a joke "mom will be off her back soon" is the sole content. --Kevin Murray 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete No content, no sources. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 19:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (A.k.a I redirect, anyone who cares can merge from the history.) - brenneman 02:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Accomplices who have appeared on Punk'd

Delete - indiscriminate unreferenced list of trivia. If kept at the very least it should be sourced and merged to the Punk'd article. Otto4711 04:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete These people are not notable because they punk'd their friends. Some of those friends are notable themselves, in which case their appearance might exist on his/her own article. On the other hand, if they aren't notable themselves, they certainly did not / will not become notable by punking their friends. Cedlaod 04:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with List of celebrities who have been Punk'd from Season 6 to Present Just FYI, a list of people does not have to consist only of notable people. Only the list itself should be somehow notable. For example, a cast list for a tv series or movie will often contain non-notable actors, but the cast list as a whole would be considered notable and even essential for an article on the subject. For the TV series Punk'd, we are dealing with what are essentially the equivalent of reality show contestents, similar to Survivor or American Idol, etc. Therefore a list of the people who are punk'd and who are the punk accomplices makes sense. I do think, though, it would make sense to merge these two lists, so that you can see in one line the Punk victim and the associated Punk accomplice. I think this would serve people interested in reading about the show much better than having seperate lists for the two. Dugwiki 20:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per above xCentaur | ☎ 20:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of stalked celebrities

List of stalked celebrities (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

complete violation of WP:BLP, many of the refs shown fails WP:RS, it also looks like every celebrity is in that list, they all get stalked or something?, and many isn't a celeb at all, like William Lloyd Garrison come on, this is a unneeded poorly sourced list that would possibly get wikipedia to some serious legal problems, Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete That they were stalked is not what is notable about them. Cedlaod 04:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A list with some very odd ideas - Robert F. Kennedy, Leon Trotsky, and Malcolm X were murdered by stalkers? Um, I don't think so... Not sure yet about this list's concept (or its potential equivalent category). Whole thing needs cleanup if its kept, especially the weird political entries (Theodore Roosevelt is another one) Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 04:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And the bible entries, like Jacob and King David Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The whole concept of the article is flawed. I'm not sure how to define a stalker of a celebrity, and why the subject is important (despite all the references it has). YechielMan 11:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I feel that this list serves well as a companion to the article on stalking. Readers can learn about celebrities new to them from this list. Some of the people listed are actually historical personages, but their inclusion points to historical stalking examples. Heff01 18:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I had to remove Jesus a few times from that article. If it's kept it needs serious cleanup. Garion96 (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Laundry list, overly inclusive, no criteria to speak of. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does this count paparazzi stalking? The page would be useless. TonyTheTiger 21:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and everyone else. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up. I agree with Heff01 that this is a reasonable list. It's also very well sourced. 23skidoo 22:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cody Runnels and Shawn Spears

Cody Runnels and Shawn Spears (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable professional wrestling tag-team. Just because a tag-team wins a title in a lesser promotion doesn't mean they meet WP:N. We've had professional wrestling tag-teams before that won more notable titles, i.e the World Tag Team Championship, but don't all need articles. Most likely transistional champions anyways. Delete — Moe 04:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Information about their "titles" can be included in their individual articles. Otto4711 07:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per everyone else. Put what is relevant into their separate articles, no need for this. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect optional. - Mailer Diablo 18:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Current Disney Channel Shows

List of Current Disney Channel Shows (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Redundant article; information can already be found on List of Disney Channel series. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Disney Channel series. WjBscribe 05:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Burn with fire, I mean Delete - no one in their right minds would search for "List of Current Disney Channel Shows" so no need for a redirect. Otto4711 07:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Burn with fire per above, redundant article. As a side note... wow there's only 7 of them, 2 of which are cancelled and one is ending. (No wonder they show so many reruns...) I hate them all! (All of them except The Emperor's New School, that's cool.) --Candy-Panda 12:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  Burn with fire? Can we keep these AfD discussion civil please? Articles nominated for deletion are ultimately the work of one or more authors who have invested some amount of time in producing them. Whatever one thinks of the subject matter or quality of the article, there is no need to be unpleasant about it. WjBscribe 23:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect As stated above Bbagot 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No need to redirect, nothing really links to it. Reywas92^Talk 17:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 original research and per author request, as Mattisse - who substantially rewrote it - now also requests deletion. If anyone wants to have the text back, e.g. for selective merging to some other article, I'll provide it on request. My best wishes go out to Dr Hossain also, but please understand that you will have to find some other place to publish your research. Sandstein 06:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy of Death and Adjustment

Philosophy of Death and Adjustment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article created to give support to the non-accredited Bircham International University, which is itself questionable. No sources, no relevance, reeks of WP:OR. Not convinced that this deserves its own article that isn't already in death. FGT2 05:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article cites some sources, but like the nominator says, this article was created to support Bircham IU, and the paragraph about Mohammad Samir Hossain is a big pile of OR. Anything in this article that's not OR belongs in death, or other articles --Akhilleus (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, due to the obvious motives behind the creation of the article. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Without speculating about the motives for the article's creation, this still is an essay that just throws together Philippe Ariès and the cultural history of depictions of death with Elizabeth Kubler-Ross on mourning. It would be original research if it tried to reach some kind of conclusion. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 20:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question Since the article is newly created, shouldn't time be given to see what form it takes? The topic itself appears to be one that could be considered meaningful. Apart from the reference to Bircham IU given above as a reason for deletion, I didn't see anything in the article that would have led me to correlate this with Bircham IU or any particular institution of POV. Or is the idea to merge it as a section of Death? Bbagot 20:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep and nominate again if not improved in a month. The article is about a very real topic, there are researchers there besides EK-R & PA. I think it could be improved to a shorter description of the field that would not be an essay or OR, &, given a chance, I think that will happen. Birchan IU, on the other hand, is suitable for deletion & I'll nominate it when we've reached a conclusion here. This article wouldnt support it enough in any case. DGG 23:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This vote was requested. Unfortunately, DGG failed to mention that.[25] DGG, if you want it kept then improve it and show it to be worthy for inclusion. FGT2 01:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Akhilleus and Chairman S. There just doesn't seem to be enough here to justify a separate article. TheRingess (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pls Help Me! Pls Dear Sir, I am Dr. Mohammad Samir Hossain from Bangladesh. I was and still am too poor like my country. I was desperately searching for support for my research and seeing my desperate wish some educators from the so called non-accreditated university Bircham International University became too kind to buy me books and appove me 100% fund. I had to beg to many but got only one. So I jumped on my dream topic - Philosophy of Death and Adjustment and start working on the Impact of different philosophies on different bangladeshi people. I did it because in the science of death such research was never conducted, but if I can do or at least raise some point for it, may be some richer and more qualified people will find their interest in it and may proceed. My back ground thought was that remedy to many mental health problem might come out from this new branch. But who would raise me with it? Cause I did not have money even to buy papers or my daily food, let alone doing vast correspondences or take help from any accreditated university. Though fortunately I enrolled at Harvard Medical School with full waiver, but that was too small period for me to do any good job. Finally I thought may be Elisabeth kubler-Ross herself might find interest in it and togather we will proceed. But my luck did not support me, cause I found the news of her funeral on the very day I found her organization's web site. So temporarily my research work stopped upto which Bircham International University helped me. So till now I dream of proceeding more on the research with supports of knowledge from all over the world, and I do not even have a web site to introduce my thoughts. So the only light of hope became this free encyclopedia, and for reference I only had Bircham International University web site. So I desperately tried to promote the introduction of the university in this encyclopedia so that the research reference gets its better base. I know my letter is big and annoying, but sometimes we do annoying things for something better, and please believe me I tried to promote Bircham International University or any other that you all object, just to facilitate the birth of a new branch of a science. Please help me in every way, you do not need to ask me anything for editing or changing. If you all fail to help in a rational manner, I do not mind and will take it as a fate. I will see my reply through the condition of the article "Philosophy of Death and Adjustment". I will love to see this baby of mine alive, but if dead, I will follow the branch of science that I am holding on.

Regards Md. Samir Hossain MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Psychiatry E-mail: hmanjur@bttb.net.bd 203.112.197.18 15:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

*Keep per DGG. I am willing to work on it some and remove any promotional material. Give it some time, then DGG will nominate it again. I am touched by the letter above. Mattisse 16:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I am striking my vote here and revoted down below to delete. Mattisse 01:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: As usual I'm inclined to trust DGG's judgment. If this article is still worth keeping after purging it of promotional material, then great. However, I wonder, isn't this content just something that ought to be covered elsewhere, at more developed articles that we already have, such as thanatology? I'd rather hold off on !voting until I hear some feedback on that question. — coelacan talk — 18:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have improved the article. It is wikified and referenced. This article is addressing the psychology of death from a scientific point of view. Wikipedia has no such articles now. Further, the research added by the gentleman from Bangladesh is on non western subjects. I am sure there is western research on the subject, as psychology/psychiatry has moved from philosophy to being scientifically based -- I just don't have time to find it now. Mattisse 18:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Is the current name the right name for the article? — coelacan talk — 19:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wondering that myself. FGT2 00:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There is a way of saving this article from deletion and simultaneously addressing the issues of original research, but it will take a really large overhaul. My suggestion, though it might be a stretch, would be for a new article to be created addressing Dipesh Chakarbati's ideas in Provincialising Europe, which is being used as a text for both Historiography and Cultural Histories studies. This would be a long process--a person would have to read this, and also consider the academic reviews of it (access to Jstor or a long time in a library), then create an article specifically about postcolonial thought and historical differences within which the conflicting ideas of death could then be addressed. OR, the entire article could be re-named History of Death as a sub-article of death but would have to include lots of other examples that might not square with your own research. Keeping it within the psychology section as an emerging area of interest doesn't work either way, unless you can find some academic journals addressing it. Or, get your ideas at least mentioned in a journal. --Chalyres 19:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - You may be right. But this article is one day old. It needs a chance to evolve. I added four or five research articles and references to it for now. No one would ever create a stub if they had to go through the process you are suggesting in order to put a one day old article on Wikipedia. I agree it is a complicated subject and could go many directions. It turns out there are many research-based articles available and it is a very active field of inquiry in many disciplines including medicine, psychology, and sociology, with very important treatment and policy implications. Mattisse 20:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't only a day old. In fact, it is a recreation after a speedy afd. FGT2 23:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the "cleaned up" article doesn't make sense, and fails to address basic clarity and importance. The person above claims its science, but the article describes philosophy. The article purports to be supported by scholars, but those scholars do not mention the article subject matter/title.
• The person who created admits he made the topic up and wants to promote it. This article lacks value. Chalyres, as an avid reader of the subaltern school, what on Earth does Chakrabarti have to do with this? This article was created with promoting a fraudlent school. While this might have to do with postcolonial thought there is no sourcing to prove that. FGT2 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are TWO GOOGLE HITS for "Philosophy of Death and Adjustment." One of those hits is this article! FGT2 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I do think the title is wrong. The article is not about a philiosophy of anything. It is more about attitudes about death, how they vary among ethnic and other groups, the impact of these attitudes on personal adjustment and ability to deal with trauma (the original article), on public policy (e.g. when to euthenise), how doctor's attitudes toward death affect patient care, how to treat bereavement etc. Mattisse 00:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This article is about death, which we have an article on. I am not convinced this derves its own article. FGT2 00:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• comment The article has been substantially re-edted, and those who had questions about the earlier version might want to re-examine it. There remains one unsourced paragraph, to be removed as OR if published source not found. (& not finding a 5-word philosophical phrase on Goggle doesn't say much--but a better title should be possible; but I think the p. shouldn't be moved during this debate.) There were more knowledgeable people here to help on this article, and I waited a day or two in order to defer to them.

I would have commented on this AfD whether requested or not--it's the sort of topic I often comment on--though I might not have seen it as soon. And I do not necessarily vote the way requested; there are even 1 or 2 connected articles here I will propose for deletion myself. I have sometimes even improved an article a little & still voted for delete if I couldn't improve it enough. DGG 00:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I read the article, and I question the validity of its content in relation to the title. What do the sources and content have to do with the title? The article deals with death, for example, the first citation is for "death is an event to be postponed." This is not a philosophy. It deals with death in certain cultures, which is on wikipedia already.FGT2 00:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I have changed my vote to delete. The article can be written under a more appropriate title. Since I basically wrote it as it stands now, I have all the reference and source material and can write an appropriate research-based article. The title seems to be so extremely upsetting to people that rather than just simply changing the title, I'm in favor of deletion as a solution to end the misery here. Mattisse 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Some elaboration - Dear all, Its me the researcher of the Article - Philosophy of death and adjustment. I will briefly inform you about the main event of the research and the theme behind it.

From very early childhood of mine I could not accept that my parents will die someday. After some years I could not accept the truth that all of my near ones will die someday. I was going through some depressive disorder and having treatment. When I completed my MBBS, I saw that many of the troublesome thoughts and events on this earth relates to existance and preventing from ceasing to exist. In market, in history and even in human life. But death in life is such a sensetive event we merely keep in our mind in everyday life that we will die someday. But our mental health and overall civilization on this earth is very much maintained and managed after this very truth in our subconscious mind. I needed a remedy for this subconscious problem for myself and any other people who suffers like I do. So I started to read and search for articles that describes how a man can adjust with the universal truth of death, not when ill or dying or old, rather in every day healthy life. Surprisingly I found none on it and I decided to do my research on this subject. Then Primarily I defined death and the main theme was for most of us was "ceasing to exist". If death were not such ceassation, then it would not be such a disturbing element for human psychology. So I started to search the philosophies of death. I found the Arie's one, the Kubler-ross one etc. But none of them could finish in a descent line of accepting death for a person who is healthy and not ill. The only way was to eradicate the philosophy of cessation from the death philosophy. Then I realised that only religion enlightens upon life after death, that is death is not the end at least, but no scientific study on it that can be brought and used for psychiatry. So I took 5 groups of muslims in Bangladesh and one end of them had the highest belief in life after death and the other end had little or no belief in life after death. Then I assed their mental health and found that the more one believes in death as non-ceassing event, the more healthy he or she is mentally. Also I used the kubler-ross theme to evaluate the five groups' capacity to accept death. Surprisingly, by a scale (according to KR research), the most adjusted ones were also those who took death as an event but not a cessation. Thus without advocating for religion, I showed that if the concept or the philosophy of death is maintained as something like an event, not an end, then a person can remain healthier in respect of mental health and also adjust with death more easily. I had an "Excellent" grade after the evaluation of my research evaluator. Now a days, while I give psychotherapy to patients who are not adjusted with the truth of death in their physically healthy life, I use this concept for those who believe in any religion showing death as an event with an afterlife and I find excellent prognosis in their treatment. Now I hope you understand why I am so much dedicated and serious about the article"Philosophy of Death and Adjustment". The name of the article means nothing to me, what matters is that it is a huge resourse for the future of psychiatry. Also I will be very glad if you edit my article more and more and ask me any question you need to know.

Regards Samir 203.112.218.36 05:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear friend, all of this is very interesting, & consolidates a lot of material I have heard of but not understood, but the WP is not the place to present the OR. The place to present your study is in a peer-reviewed journal; the place to present your analysis is in a scholarly review. That people with some religious views accept death is understandable, but the details are interesting. That done, then a summary for general readers based on these public source should go here. If the culmination of your articles depends on this work, you should withdraw it for now. DGG 05:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Finally the research was examined, evaluated and graded (Excellent) by the academic board under -

Dr. Ferran Suay Lerma

Teacher & Researcher at Universidad de Valencia - Spain

Doctor in Psychology Universidad de Valencia - Spain (1989-1993)

Licentiate in Psychology Universidad de Valencia - Spain (1981-1986)

Regards Samir203.112.199.121 12:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: An article must contain WP:RS that prove notablity. Also is Lerma from Bircham International University the school that claims to operate in Spain, but has no license there? FGT2 05:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep Should be renominated in a month, work should be carried out so to make it NPOV, wikified, proved notability and encyclopedic.--Sharz 07:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC) P.S Article creator should no that Wikipedia maintains a policy of "No Original Research".

For FGT2 only-

I believe I have introduced Dr. Larma as an acceptable person, not like the accussed Bircham International University. Any further detail should be obtained by those who needs that. But I will request for not discussing anything odd or suspiciously about Dr. Larma just for an ordinary article or person like myself.

• Comment: I simply asked if Larma was tied to Bircham International University. FGT2 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

For all-

Thanks to all for so much discussion that helped me know many things. I will humbly request all honorable editor to erase or move the too much(!?) controvertial article, if needed, to stop this very hard discussion for me. If any of you are interested to know about my full introduction, you will find it in any good library of UK or USA in the Dictionary of International Biography, 33rd edition published from Cambridge, UK. Please visit the web site of the Bircham International University to know all about it. If you think that there is any lie in them, you might want to take any legal step against them too and I am saying it because I should be at least this much sensible for any educational institution, I hope you all should agree that one must be given the chance to speak for himself(or itself) before he or it is given any introduction full of hatred. So far all I have heared from this discussion about BIU is borrowed from some sourse other than BIU itself. Also the trend of such discussion is good but should be more polished for all the contributors. We, the ordinary people from all around the world want to see wikipedia with due respect, not like the Bircham International University. I want to say good-buy on this matter leaving all in all yours' hand.

Regards

Samir 203.112.199.242 09:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is admitted by the author to be OR. The small number of non-OR sentences may be consolidated into pre-existing articles on death, grief and mourning as appropriate; the rest should go. We should also note the author's request to delete, though this is of course not binding on us. WMMartin 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Degrees from certain nonacreditrd universities are accepted in many U.S. States. The link on the Wikipedia article reference above Bircham International University show that degrees from universities such as this one are accepted in most states. Since this article, the first entry written by a newbie from Bangladesh, was slated for deletion on the day it was created, I feel this is a case of WP:BITE. I have offered to help this person with his article and have found him to be very reasonable and kind. He is educated in a field similar to mine. I am acquainting him with Wikipedia policies. Whether you delete this particular article or not here does not matter. I am sorry this new user was treated in this manner, without kindness or respect, and I apologise to him on behalf of all of us. --Mattisse 13:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: What link at Bircham International University are you talking about? Several links call this place fraudulent such as this story "Oregon education officials describe Bircham International as 'totally bogus'." Or according to Texas it has "No degree-granting authority from Spain" (the place it operates from). Please post a link that shows this place to be legitimate. Also I fail to see how this person was treated without respect. FGT2 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment To me discussions at this level of detail are inappropriate here on an article created a few days ago by a first time user and nomimated for ADF immediately after. I struck out part of my comment above upon realising this. To me this is a case of WP:BITE. The user has been polite and willing to learn. I do not understand why more understanding and kindness is not being accorded him here. Mattisse 13:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Looks properly sourced and relevant to me, thanks to Mattisse and DGG. Not sure why it was nominated less than 24 hours after creation - someone must have been a tad overzealous. Daniel^C/_T+ 01:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I am sympathetic to User:Mattisse's comments concerning WP:BITE. It is also a very serious question as to how one kick-starts a new academic field. 80+ years ago, you just did it, put your name on a door and started offering degrees. Eventually, maybe much later, you were accredited, but that is a political process that has evolved only "recently". However, what rankles me is the user:talk spam which (a) (unfortunately?) resembles the Nigerian money-transfer scam which has now mutated in many many forms (b) name-dropped Harvard but was enrolled there too short of time (??) and (c) name dropped Kuebler Ross but found her website "on the date of her funeral" -- she died 3 years ago, (e) refers not at all to its cousin subjects (geriatrics, gerentology, ageing, etc) and (d) the pleading tone. In the end, though, it's business. It's an "interesting topic" and should not, according to the "rules", have been created. And I do not think it was too hasty to suggest "delete". Finally, the content of the article can easily be included in other appropriate articles gerentology, ageing, death and dying, etc. Please, Samir, publish something somewhere (there are on-line sites where you can do this), then an article can be made. --Otheus 01:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For Otheus

1)Samir was a very new user of wikipedia. He made mistakes in his several steps.

2)He only got scholarship for 12 courses at harvard in honor of a dead indian professor, and no further courses were offered from harvard for anyone after those 12. He did not have the money to pay and study.

3) Samir does not know why he was born on the day of his birth day cause he never wrote his fate, same was the case of finding the funaral date of K-R.

4) Samir had to struggle till now by pleading and begging, cause he is a genuine citizen of Bangladesh where sometimes human feel happy to be alive let alone with honor and dignity and scopes for free aducation.

5) Finally this article is too young in the science to have a name for itself or tagged with others. But whether you like it or not, you know that you will die someday though you may be young and healthy now and I will never believe that one accepts this truth very gladly unless he does not understand death or sadly he may be insane. So we need to pull this thorn out of our throat, because, we can't pull death out, even when we are young and healthy.

Regards

Samir himself

203.112.199.125 09:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Reaffirm Delete: Dear Samir, Wikipedia is an excellent way for people around the users to discover knowledge. But in order for Wikipedia to be respected as a repository for such knowledge, there must be certain guidelines, restrictions, rules, if you will. One of these key guidelines is that Wikipedia articles should be based on existing material, referenced by reputable sources. You, Dr. Samir, are trying to become such a reputable source, is that not so? I believe with your persitence, and by focusing your energies in the proper venue, you will succeed! And when you do succeed, then the demand for such an article will follow. Meanwhile, keep in mind what Wikipedia is, and more imporatantly, what Wikipedia is Not. Best Wishes --Otheus 03:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Print expense management

Print expense management (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced essay that is a thinly-disguised advertisement for NaviSource's software. Google for "print expense management" gets only 19 hits, which is unusual even for corporate jargon. [26] Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Google must be different in India. In the US "print expense management" results in 298 hits and "business process outsourcing" results in 1.3 million hits. "Print expense", 37000 hits is the second largest expense for corporations. Indeed, managing this expense as an ASP is new. Expense research, February 15 2007 — Expense research (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete as WP:VSCA, WP:NEO, WP:COI. Notability not demonstrated using reliable sources. Expense research, commenting (even incorrectly by thousands of miles) on the national origin of editors is incivil. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dhartung is exactly correct per the national origin comment. The comment represents a complete lack of moral propriety for which I have nothing but contempt. I am condemned by my own words before those who selflessly strive to provide a correct and objective information depository. I humbly and honestly apologize to Mordecai and to the entire community. My poison words and inflective to avenge a perceived attack were uncalled for and is reprehensible. I have brought shame on myself and my family. I humbly apologize, I am very sorry. Please do with the article what you gentlemen feel is correct as I know you only have the best interests of the community in mind. Clearly my attempt to shed light on a new and emerging technological service has failed. While the public markets have only recently, within the last 90 days, cast their vote on print expense management with the $160 million funding of InnerWorkings, it seems clear the technological application may be too new for wikipedia standards. PEM represents a huge and growing market first identified publicly in these documents. Print Procurement: A Services Purchase Exception Aberdeen Group “print is an area ripe for optimization” article speaks to a burgeoning interest to manage print expense in a new manner utilizing technologies proven in other expense fields, notably ASP.

Report Policies Precede Procurement Automation but Technology Ensures Compliance: The Category Spend Management Report Series 2004: Advertising, Marketing and Printing Christa Degnan, Aberdeen Group "companies are seeing the need to implement standard procedures and systems to respond to the top pressure in the market today to cut costs"

This article is the first we could find citing the potential of using the Internet as a foundation to manage an expense that had previously been managed only manually by multiple cyclical site visits by technicians, salesmen and inventory control personnel. Cost Cutting Printing with less red ink. By Alex Nyberg Stuart, CFO Magazine Print expense represents “up to 3 percent of revenues at most large companies”

Mordecai, we appreciate your good work. It was late and I was stupid. I am very sorry. If there is yet time to salvage the article we would be more than happy to provide further documentation.

• Delete. As the nominator notes, a "thinly veiled advertisement" with abysmal, buzzword-laden prose and vague piffle about "solutions". The PEM ASP addresses the compelling need for a single source print expense management solution. This comprehensive solution includes managing, sourcing and distributing data generation, variable data publishing, print materials and print consumables. Oh thank God there is an application service provider (ASP) prepared to meet this "compelling need". Who could it be? Fortunately, there is an external link. . . - Smerdis of Tlön 15:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Reluctant though I am to mention Google hits : Google returns a putative 299 hits for the term "print expense management," but narrows that to 19 unique pages and (I assume) 280 duplicates. In any case, most of these 19 are scraped from the article under discussion. That aside, this article is indeed a thinly-veiled advertisement. Per the gentleman from Tlön, it should be deleted. -- Docether 20:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. The text was irritating enough, but then I got to the category section and saw that the author had put it at the top of the information technology category. Don't take us for fools. Gazpacho 12:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's Okay To Be Different

It's Okay To Be Different (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non Notable children's book. Orphaned. Also, the whole article is NPOV BuyAMountain 05:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom, which I assume, although s/he doesn't explicitly say so, is BuyAMountain's view.--Smerus 06:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it has been widely reviewed and seems to be a notable educational resource. --Tikiwont 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• FYI I noticed that the reference section for the article wasn't appearing due to a typo in one of the tags. I fixed the typo and the reference links for the article are now visible. Whether or not the references check out, I'm not sure, but at least now you guys can see them to take a look. Dugwiki 20:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question Is there a wikipedia standard for what works of literature are notable and which are not, or is that left up to the individual? How is it determined which books are allowed to be entered in wikipedia versus those that are not? Bbagot 20:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• According to the main notability guideline WP:N, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. For books this is supported by WP:BK, which, however, won't adress books for children in particular. As noted by the nominator, the article was not in good shape, so I've removed some POV and added some references that might indicate why this one might be more notable enough than the typical book in its category Category:Children's picture books. Tikiwont 21:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Reviews pass WP:BK, so Keep. --Selket ^Talk 00:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Very strong keep, obviously noteworthy book. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although there were some deletes, the general consensus was to keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Hanson-Young

Sarah Hanson-Young (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural renomination, following a relisting from a previous Deletion review debate. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note this was relisted due to new information unearthed during review. ~ trialsanderrors 05:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a novel idea. How about we contribute to articles rather than go around chasing articles to delete? I know that idea is way out of left field... Timeshift 06:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift, when a deletion review consensus results in a decision to relist an AFD, that is not "chasing articles to delete". In fact, it is bringing an article back for one more chance to prove itself.--Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as Wikipedia is not an election guide, and WP:BIO provides that mere candidacy for office is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep multiple sources. Catchpole 08:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dhartung Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 09:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Subject of multiple independent reliable sources, as per WP:NOTABILITY. --Canley 10:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep There are too many Green Party Wikipedians to ever allow this article or ones like it to be deleted. So let's leave it aliveand concentrate on improving other articles. Pardon the cynicism, but we had this debate last time and also with similar Green candidates (for example Jamie Parker or John Kaye), and there's no point rehashing it. Jeendan 10:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Given the comments of cynicism above, I must state that I prefer to keep an article rather than delete it, but non-successfull candidates are not notable, unless other factors are raised and I do not see that here. --Bduke 11:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can you cite the section of the notability guidelines which supports your assertion that losing candidates aren't notable? There is a specific section that says that notability is not the subjective opinion of editors. Please evaluate based on the guidelines. --Kevin Murray 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:BIO. John Vandenberg 13:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough figure already, the senate pre-selection is simply the icing on the cake. Plus she's married to the eminent Zane Young, a local City of Mitcham councillor (and the first Greens councillor in SA). michael ^talk 13:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Meets the notability guidelines with sufficient verifiable references. Not all references are strong, but some of these merely add background info. The notability guidelines are more than acheived by at least two articles of which she is the main subject, and these sources are independent of her control. --Kevin Murray 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable. TonyTheTiger 21:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Run of the mill candidates are not notable but this candidate has generated a reasonable amount of interest as shown by the articles from national media attached. As well, I would say that she has a reasonable chance of being elected. Capitalistroadster 01:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Quite simple, really. Wikipedia:Notability: "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." That's all that we care about. Electability, candidacy, previous success: these are all red herrings. WP:N#The primary notability criterion is more than satisfied. — coelacan talk — 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are clearly notable people, clearly non-notable people, and then there are those in between. With political candidates of marginal significance, there's a trend towards supporters (or possible detractors) of that candidate writing articles for them. Isn't this a form of systematic bias? Another problem is that the articles often lack citations of non-vanity reliable sources. Any flaws in unreliable sources (or people working from memory) are likely to affect the article. Currently, Hanson's article does not cite reliable sources (it merely lists mentions in the media), and Rishworth only cites one reliable source. In future, if everybody just cited reliable sources for everything they wrote, it won't end up in tears. Andjam 01:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• The reliable sources to cite are right there in the article. The fact that they haven't yet been woven into the text of the article is immaterial here. We are merely concerned with notability here. The sources can be woven in as citations at any time. If you're bothered about this, gofixit. — coelacan talk — 01:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What you've said is not entirely true. For example, before making the comment, I checked if any of the sources mentioned Goongerah, and none of them did. Thanks, Andjam 01:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If that bothers you, the way to gofixit would be to comment out the Goongerah bit, then. — coelacan talk — 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, gaining a minor-party nomination twice doesn't make you notable, especially if you fail the first time. She's far from a certainty to get elected, and some routine news reports hardly make me think she's a more notable than any other Senate candidate with some party backing. Lankiveil 02:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:N#Notability is not subjective. Can you explain which part of the WP:N#The primary notability criterion is lacking here? — coelacan talk — 04:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • My local primary school has an article in the local paper every week, summarising the various goings-on. This does not make that school notable. Likewise, anyone standing for a candidacy in a state election is probably going to have a couple of cursory, local news items produced about them, yet unless the person is somehow otherwise notable, this doesn't set them apart from the pack. If we include this individual, then we might as well create an article on every Green, Democrat, Family First and One Nation candidate out there ever, because I'm sure they've all received at least some coverage. Lankiveil 06:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. Subject of lots of independent coverage in reliable sources, which makes her notable, even if some other unsuccessful electoral candidates are not. --Eastmain 03:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment:If she's the lead candidate then how come the article is so poor to end up at AfD? What does it say for a party that the lead candidate has had that little notable coverage that the problem isn't working out what to include (per Pauline Hanson) but finding reliable sources to quote? Maybe if she wins something she will become notable. I'm sure the worst result here will be no consensus but the article is in a dreadful state and it's no wonder it was nominated.Garrie 06:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• The article was deleted since October, until yesterday, so no one could work on it. — coelacan talk — 07:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I would normally lean towards delete, but for the last comment by Coelacan re its relatively short duration in this window, and broadly agree with Garrie. That being said, this person does not appear to be notable, just as I would have argued Rachel Siewert was not notable until her election to the Senate position for WA. Opinions as to electability (anyone read Family First's voting stats in that state?) are really irrelevant here. Orderinchaos78 13:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If no-hopers like Ross Daniels and Troy Williams are worthy of wiki pages, then surely Hanson-Young, who stands a much greater chance of winning election, is as well. Dlw22 13:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • They aren't worthy of wiki pages, they merely have them. I've proposed deletion of the two in respones to your comment. Andjam 16:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Point well made by Dlw22, this is what I was getting at in the deletion review. As to the comments made by Garrie about the article being so short, I'm with coelacan. Maybe we could actually improve it, rather than being so quick to delete. I agree with Andjam's point about non-verifiable information, although it's a shame we couldn't find any sources for that little-known extra information. PabloZ 14:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Note PabloZ is the person who created the article. Andjam 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • and that's another reason why I want to keep it. --PabloZ 21:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I just don't see her as famous enough to merit an entry. --Roisterer 07:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of other less notable candidates have articles, and I see no sense in deleting the article only to have to recreate it later. Rebecca 07:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notability is not about fame, nor whether one wins or loses an election. Plenty of sources are cited for a decent article to be possible, and that's what WP:N is intended to assure. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. She is notable but the article should be cleaned up. Makgraf 07:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:BIO full stop. I started to clean up the article, but online references are difficult to find. Information given can be confirmed in snippets only. Nonetheless, there is now one reference (two, if the Amnesty International site that confirms her employment is taken into consideration) and an expanded article. At some point, the primary editor has blanked out the beginning of a much better article including information about why the Australia Day Award was bestowed, presumably because he or she could not cite online references (See the page editor for this text). My feeling is this article can be improved. At worst, it could be merged with Greens South Australia --Greatwalk 08:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This article is as notable as those for similar Green Party activists Jenny Leong, David Risstrom, John Kaye and Jamie Parker. I believe all of them fail WP:CRYSTAL because they rely on the outcome of a future event to secure their claim to notability. At the same time, all of them have enough genuine supporters to prevent consensus on AfD.

Assuming good faith from all sides, this suggests that the notability guidelines on candidates (as opposed to elected officials) needs amending to allow inclusion of pages for major figures in minor parties, regardless of whether they have held office. It could be argued that these figures are activists who succeed in delivering social change and have a far greater impact than major party backbenchers who win office and are never heard from again.

Even this doesn't justify Jamie Parker who is not even a candidate. But let's leave that aside. We'll never get consensus on deleting these articles. The extensive debate would be better directed at considering the notability guidelines instead of arguing 'angels on the head of a pin' things like whether we can find a source for Ms Hanson-Young's Amnesty International job. Jeendan 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Jamie Parker doesn't meet WP:N because independent sources are missing at present. But, as you say, let's leave that aside. All the other articles you menion are about Green candidates, that list sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an encyclopedic article. Of course WP:CRYSTAL does not establish notability, but then none of these articles, S H-Y included, contain unverifiable speculation about the outcome of the election. I'm not sure why you mention WP:CRYSTAL in this context. --Greatwalk 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• The subjects of these articles would easily be considered notable if they were elected. They haven't been and we are speculating that they might be to justify the articles. If Ms Hanson-Young was not a Senate candidate with a chance of election, there would be absolutely nothing in her article to indicate notability. So - she is potentially notable because a future event might make her notable. That's what I mean by WP:CRYSTAL. Jeendan 02:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note I am not arguing to delete the article. I don't think it meets the notability guidelines, but there are plenty of people who disagree, and have successfully disagreed on similar AfD's for other minor party candidates. Wikipedia is the sum of its editors - if there is a continued and vehement consensus to retain articles that fail guidelines, perhaps the guidelines need review.

P.S. Jamie Parker does not meet the guidelines because he has never done anything notable and he is not a candidate for anything notable. It's not to do with the sources. Jeendan 02:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. For an extreme example, look at Helen Robinson, whose only claim to fame is being a veterinarian and getting 6% in an election. The sources are fine - a source for the profession is unnecessary and the election result is sourced to the VEC. Despite that, it fails WP:N because Ms Robinson's prfession and political history have had no impact that would justify a page. Despite that, the article would survive any number of AfD's because certain minor party candidates have a great deal of good faith support in Wikipedia. So perhaps WP:N needs changing to better reflect what the Wikipedia community thinks is notable. Jeendan 05:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A person's impact has nothing to do with whether (s)he is notable. A subject's nontrivial secondary source coverage determines whether or not it is a notable and appropriate encyclopedia subject. In this case, the person has been covered nontrivially in multiple reliable sources. That's all. If other candidates have received a ton of source coverage but had little "impact", they're notable. If yet others had a lot of "impact" but received only trivial coverage, they're not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we disagree - a person's impact on politics, culture, history, religion, academia, medicine, whatever, is what I would measure notability by, not the number of newspaper mentions we can find on Google. Genuine "impact" will inevitably generate coverage, which will allow the article to be sourced. But not every newspaper mention is notable - just because we can source something doesn't qualify it for an article.

I can provide literally thousands of source materials for ship movements at Port Botany, but I don't think we need a Wikipedia page on it. We're struggling to find more than ten mentions of Ms Hanson-Young, yet it is strongly argued that she deserves a page. Jeendan 06:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Greatwalk, meets WP:BIO. Candidate for major party in national election. --Oakshade 05:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus. PeaceNT 08:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last For One

Last For One (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Korean breakdancing crew. Speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review and is now here for further discussion. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, with assumption. I found a minor source and a more major one. Trivial mention in the BBC. The reason I'm suggesting to keep this article is because I'm assuming that other sources exist, but in Korean. If they made it into the UK news, then this does sort of assert international presence, which implies the existence of foreign sources I can't access/verify myself. Also, needs major cleanup. --Wafulz 15:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Exeter link indicates several international trips. I think this would pass the dance equivalent of WP:MUSIC if there were one. --Selket ^Talk 00:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zsa Zsa Riordan

Zsa Zsa Riordan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable junior level skater. She has never competed internationally for Poland or the US. Notable competitions for juniors include the ISU Junior Grand Prix and the World Junior Figure Skating Championships. She has only been on the podium at Polish Nationals on the junior level. While some junior level skaters at the United States Figure Skating Championships have their own articles, it is because they have competed internationally for the US and won medals on the Junior Grand Prix (or, in the case of Mirai Nagasu, because they will compete at the World Junior Figure Skating Championships). Riordan has done none of these things and is therefore not notable. Kolindigo 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dr.frog 12:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 20:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom: eminently non-notable. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep How is she less notable than at the time of the last AfD? --Poetlister 19:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment She wasn't notable at the time of the first AfD, either.  :-P Dr.frog 02:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I repeat what I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zsa Zsa Riordan: She passes the criteria for her achievements in Poland - nonsense to suggest that she has ceased to be notable. - Brownlee 21:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Hi. Could you explain how you think she passes the criterea? I'm not sure I understand what criterea you're using to call her notable. She hasn't stopped being a junior level skater and she hasn't started competing internationally (I waited until now to renom to see if she was going to Junior Worlds). I'm curious, because you made the same assertion in the first AfD, but never explained what you meant. Kolindigo 00:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: People might want to refer to the figure skating competition article for additional background information about what competitions are and aren't considered "the highest level" in this sport, per Wikipedia:Notability (people).Dr.frog 13:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep : She is a two time medalist in Polish Nationals and will probably compete next season internationally anyway (two seasons are just passing) (Kyleall 21:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

Comment: Her two medals were on the junior level, not the senior. Kolindigo 21:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It is a strange procedure to move for AfD on grounds that seem to apply only to this article. I cannot see that there is any established Wikipedia policy that requires deletion.--Holdenhurst 22:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - there was a discussion in WikiProject Figure Skating regarding notability and how it fits in with "highest level of amatuer sport". See also the AfDs for Zuzanna Brzosko (deleted as nonnotable junior) Michael Solonoski (deleted as completely non notable), Michelle Boulos (keep - competed at senior level at her nationals), Megan Williams-Stewart (keep - competed at senior level at her nationals and won an international competition), Melissa Bulanhagui (keep - competed on the Junior Grand Prix and qualified for the Junior Grand Prix Final). Kolindigo 23:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Isn't that the point? A discussion on a WikiProject page doesn't establish any sort of policy. Start a policy page, advertise it on WP:VPP, get a consensus on these proposals (if you can) and then apply them.--Osidge 17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The objection isn't "grounds that seem to apply only to this article", but rather, the criteria specified in Wikipedia:Notability (people): "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports..." Riordan clearly has not competed at the "highest level" in the sport of figure skating. She has only competed at the junior level (not the highest, or senior level) within her country; has never been a member of her country's national team; and has never participated in any international events that have "equivalent standing" as elite or notable competitions within the sport of figure skating. The reason why it may seem that Riordan is being singled out here is that none of the thousands of other non-notable figure skaters with similar levels of achievement in the sport are the subject of Wikipedia articles. Dr.frog 23:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There is no reason to delete.--Osidge 17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fascism and Freedom Movement. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secretary of the Fascism and Freedom Movement

Secretary of the Fascism and Freedom Movement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. This article is simply a wikitable box containing three names, only one of which relates to a WP article. No further explanation is given. I have copied the table to the article Fascism and Freedom Movement where it appropriately belongs. The topic does not justify an article to itself in these circumstances. Smerus 06:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect and call for speedy close. The GFDL forbids "merge & delete" actions. --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & expand. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agent M

Agent M (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural renomination where a CSD A7 deletion was overturned at DRV; see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 8 for the whole debate. Concensus was to relist here; as such, as this is purely procedural stemming from the DRV close, I abstain. Daniel.Bryant 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, and why is it so hard to spell "consensus"? No indication, either here or on the web, that she passes WP:MUSIC. The article reads like a promotionesque WP:COI minefield, and as for WP:V and WP:RS? Forget it. Of course, if someone does produce some reliable sources, then matters are different. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:MUSIC as a member of a "notable" band. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Badlydrawnjeff, but expand with some references. » K i G O E | talk 05:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Was member of notable band, per WP:MUSIC. --Oakshade 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howie Gordon

Howie Gordon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Former Big Brother contestant and current lightsabre salesman, all his biographical information already exists in the Big brother 6 article. Much of the biographical information about him appears to be either wrapped in hype from CBS, or from Gordon himself. Although there are an abundance of Ghits which mention his name, most are trivial (the show being the primary subject), chat forum or blogs. There is a shortage of coverage from reliable independent sources for biographical details. Ohconfucius 06:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Rather annoyed and reluctant keep. Personally I find the Big Brother concept to be among the most brainless ideas to have "graced" the TV screens around the World, but unfortunately, the high viewership of the program turns the contestants into celebrities. According to WP:BIO, "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions" pass the notability criteria, and this person has apparently been on not only the Big Brother 6 series, but also an "All-Star" series. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep', if we stick to the words of WP:BIO we don't have a choice ... maybe we should change WP:BIO Alf photoman 15:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't watch Big Brother, but he seems to have had his fair share of published interviews and articles according the references and external links. Passes the notability test. Dugwiki 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ashlea Evans

Ashlea Evans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unspectacular fashion student who was the first to be eliminated on Big Brother 6 (US). Surprising for me, she previously survived two AfDs: 1 and 2. What is equally surprising is that the article has not progressed beyond a pathetic stub despite the previous attempts to delete. There is precious little about the individual of note: Scores 292 unique Ghits, almost all of which I would consider trivial: the overwhelming majority are from sites which advertise or discuss Big Brother/Reality TV. The CBS site is probably the most reliable articles around about this individual, but this is show marketing and thus not independent. There is an article on when she interviewed Soledad O'Brien. She also had a few photos taken for Maxim. -Edit: my bad, they are of someone called "Jenn" Most of the others are blogs, chat or forum, and fail WP:RS. Ohconfucius 07:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. We need to stop having pages for every little-known reality contestant. -- Scorpion 14:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per comments on first Afd. --Djsasso 20:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Correct me if I'm wrong, but the result of the afd from just about a month ago was "keep". So unless something has significantly changed here, I'm recommending keep the article to remain consistent with previous afd discussion. (If we don't generally abide by the afd keep decisions, there will never be any closure on otherwise potentially controversial decisions.) Dugwiki 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I'm afraid you are wrong: neither January 2006 nor September 2006 were "just over a month ago". ;-) Would people think about this article any differently if this were the first nomination? I wish editors would address the central issue of whether this is an encyclopaedic stub with sufficient independent relevant, reliable information to populate? Ohconfucius 06:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected - make that "a few months ago" for the September/October afd. The rest of my comment still applies, though. Unless something has changed in the article or policy or consensus since that last afd, why is this being renominated? Dugwiki 17:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• It was mentioned in defence of an article about another contestant which was eventually deleted, in the name of consistency. Ohconfucius 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

But, as you pointed out in the Osten Taylor afd, each article is being considered on its own merits. It's not so much a matter of being "consistent" with Osten Taylor as consistent with the previous afds for this article. Just because Osten was deleted doesn't mean this one necessarily should be. Dugwiki 18:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• keep I doubt she is notable, but I think people should not keep trying to continually reverse keeps that they dont approve of. It interferes with the working of AfD. DGG 08:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge since it would appear her article is not being flesh out, she should then be merged into the main article Big Brother 6, unless more relevant information can be added to article to raise it from stub class.
• Keep Though I would say merge if this were the first time this article was nominated for deletion, the fact remains that this article was already up for deletion not once, but twice already... both time resulting in a decision to keep. Therefore, I have to vote the same way I did last time. We can't just keep putting things up for deletion until we get the desired result. C'mon. A-Supreme 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny J. Blair

Johnny J. Blair (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)