Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 21

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --BigDT 05:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation

Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research and POV. To the very least there is a problem of respect of Naming Conventions. Note that the article was created by a Single purpose account (User contributions). PS: At best, merge content into History of Europe. Tazmaniacs 18:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• comment - the article does smack of original research, and the selected list may be just opinion, but if the information can be substantiated with reliable sources, then the article might be a keeper. I've tagged it as unreferenced -- Whpq 19:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - this looks like a good article, but it needs to cite its sources. Also, 'macrohistorical battles' is a contradiction in terms, so it needs renaming. AlexTiefling 19:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research per nom. Some historians place specific great importance on some of these battles, largely for contemporary reasons -- e.g. as a "macrohistorical" battle between Western and non-Western civilizations. There is no historical consensus that these battles were important in that sense. Certainly there is very little support for the idea that Thermopylae (between Greeks and Persians) can easily be shoehorned into a precursor of the Crusades and Christian-Muslim conflict. --Dhartung | Talk 19:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to spoil your illusion, but the Europeans have always used the fight against the Eastern civilizations as part of their cultural identity, not only against Muslims but against anything that came from the East since Roman times. Sometimes even defeats (such as Kosovo_Polje) are used to form national identity, while wars amongst the Europeans themselves are mostly regarded as tragedies Alf photoman 23:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My "illusion"? Alf photoman, please assume good faith and try not to get inside my head. How many Europeans identify with Thermopylae (Greeks and Victor Davis Hanson excepted)? --Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, and by the way the Greeks don't identify with Thermopylae, Macedonians sure do. But in central Europe the battle of Vienna is the great focal point of cultural identity, for the Balkans it is Kosovo Polje, for the French Poitiers and each of these battles were against Muslims. The great heroes such as Roldan, El Cid, Prinz Eugen and about a million more were always in battle against the Moors or Turks in popular culture, even though historically the reality is much more diverse ( El Cid for example had a better relationship with the Moorish rulers than with the Christian kings) . I think it is time to overcome this, but without understanding it Europeans never will Alf photoman 00:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry, but I happen to be a citizen of one of the nation you mentioned, and I absolutely disagree with you, and so do several millions of my fellow citizens. Please don't speak in the name of others people, and keep your anti-Muslim conceptions to a political forum. Tazmaniacs 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry but I fail to see how you can claim that my criticism of certain European identities formed in battles against Muslims is anti-Muslim, or is it that you need to be attacked? Alf photoman 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Bad faith nomination. The edit history shows the author is still working on the document and may be adding sources soon. The document is only about a month old. I do not see any attempt at talk or otherwise to get the author to provide sources. Unreferenced tag was added AFTER the AFD nomination. This nomination is rediculous to say the least and is biting of the head of a new contributor. I don't see any evidence provided to show that there is a big POV or OR.--Dacium 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Why do you say it is a bad faith nomination? Recury 21:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The nominator never gave the author a change to supply the sources. Never tried to tag as un sourced. Makes claims about POV and OR without any real evidance. We should assume good faith, in that the author will provide the necessary sources eventually, say after the article has been tagged for a few months. Not while it still being written! The nominator also assumes it is a single purpose account, clearly this is not 'good faith' to a new user, but a clear attack upon him.--Dacium 03:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Notwithstanding the definition of single purpose account, you have to admit that this account has not done any other editing on Wikipedia. This does not prejudge of the future. I have "never gave the author a change (sic) to supply sources" for the simple reason that there is a very big Naming Conventions and Naming conflict on such an article. Its title itself makes it inherently biased and restricted. So, the Yugoslav Wars will not be included as "founding battles of European identity"? On which criterias? Maybe because they show that it is not the problem that I have a POV (while, of course, you are "moderate" and "neutral"), but because this article does not allow for NPOV. History of Europe does, and contents should be moved there, and this article deleted. This is, at worse, fascist propaganda, at best, incredible ignorance of the history of Europe, whatever you hear by this expression. Tazmaniacs 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • [Note: further comments have been moved to "comments subsection" below for better reading of the page. Hope that doesn't cause any problem to any one.]

• Keep, for now. It is evident that the article has been edited on a continuous basis since creation so one can assume that sources will be added, especially after being tagged as unsourced. The title could be a little better but that can be resolved by renaming and redirecting no need to delete Alf photoman 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• VERY STRONG Keep, for now. As Alf photoman noted, this article has been continuously edited, and its greatest weakness is sourcing, which is certainly correctable. I am sorry that this is viewed in a Christian versus Islamic perspective - but reality is that in Austria the seige of Vienna is viewed with at least as much reverance as Americans do Yorktown or Saratoga, and in both Germany and France, Tours/Poiters is viewed in the same light. I am sorry but the critics of this article mostly are doing so because of POV, not history. This has the makings of a very good article, and certainly can be sourced. KEEP! old windy bear 01:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, please don't engage other people under your flag. As already said, I happen to be a citizen of one of the country you mention, and I can assure you that, although one of the battle you've mentioned was often cited in elementary schools in the 19th century, we've done some (little) progress. Furthermore, I can also assure you that a very large part of my fellow citizens ignore the very existence of this battle, at best, they've heard about it when in elementary school. We more generally remember battles of the 19th and 20th century, sorry for any possible desillusions. Tazmaniacs 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this Article, it is already being sourced.I was asked to look at this article, and evaluate whether or not it needed deletion. It does not. The request is simple POV, and there has been no good faith shown, as the requester simply bitterly attacks all those who oppose deletion. oldwindybear has begun sourcing the article, and I will assist him, as will the original editor, I am sure. There is absolutely no need to evaluate this article because it offends POV of one or two very biased editors. Stillstudying 13:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Very biased? My bias was supported, during the negotiations concerning the TCE, in particular by: France, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Slovenia, Cyprus, not to say Turkey, which, whether you like it or not, has started negotiations in 2003 with Bruxelles to enter the European Union. I am not the one to make a pseudo-historical articles which reminds textbooks of the late 19th century. Tazmaniacs 17:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or completely rewrite. Some of these battles have a controversial importance (e.g. battle of Tours - many say it was just a raid) or their inferred importance is of dubious relevance (e.g. battle of Chalons - what if Attila would have reached Atlantic Ocean?). Moreover to write a rather original theory of Europe's becoming following several battles commented by different scholars it is clearly an original research (not to say the already manifested concern - what is Europe or European civilization anyway?). Daizus 21:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Concept of article basically guarantees WP:OR. The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World already did this in 1851, anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Akhilleus. Any salvageable can be moved to History of Europe. Khoikhoi 09:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Most academic sources agree that certain battles shaped the (evolution of) Europe. In other words, most historians agree on these battles. This means that as long as sufficient reliable academic sources are cited, there is no violation of WP:OR, WP:POV or WP:V. Perhaps we should avoid the use of the word "European civilization" (i.e. a debatable term) and replace it with "European history" or "Western civilization". If a minority view exists that certain battles did not shape European history, the criticism can be added. Sijo Ripa 00:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now. The title is a problem, not insurmountable. Let's give the contributors a chance to shape this & source it. If this is a subject that can be covered in History of Europe, it can just as easily be spun-off outside that article, in this article. Ewulp 08:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete is my conclusion after minutiously reading all the stuff and comments. Technically, the article is OK, however it is grounding upon two erroneous premises:

1. the ideological premise of tacitly identifying Europe with Western (catholic ?) Europe
2. the methodological premise of supposing that “battles” are relevant at a macro-historical scale; this is conjectural history, a sort of pseudohistorical approach speculating upon “what if…?” (What if Napoleon would have won Waterloo ?); no professional historian engages in historical conjectures.

However, in order to save the work done, you could include the material to a History of Western Europe, mentioning these battles as “significant”, no more. --Vintila Barbu 12:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Vintila Barbu above. The problem is that individual battles usually do not have "macrohistorical" importance (Theromopylaye did not stop or destroyed Persians, it was the Athenian fleet and troops, during Battle of Vienna the Otoman Empire was past its former glory). Mongol invasion is missing as well as crusades and gradual destruction of Byzantine empire. An article on macrohistory (or European macrohistory) should precede this kind of list in any case. Pavel Vozenilek 19:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • [Please do not vote twice, thanks]. Tazmaniacs 20:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• didn't mean to vote twice, it was my first time on one of these, I didn't realize this was a formal vote, so I removed it, sorry! old windy bear 22:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete entirely POV and content forking. Dahn 21:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral: it's an interesting topic but ripe for OR and POV-pushing. Maybe a better title could be found, with a better focus. Also, what about The Night Attack? The Battle of Vaslui? The Battle of Kosovo? Include these and others, or else rename it to "...Western European civilisation". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biruitorul (talk • contribs) 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep: this is an article on an important and timely topic, and merits further development and improvements, not the ax. Yes, the title is kind of odd, and probably should be changed. And yes, there are more battles that could (or even should) be included -- besides the three named above, how about the Battle of Lepanto, or the Siege of Constantinople? I haven't thought this through, and one would need to make some hard choices before the list would become too long, but at the very least this article is thought-provoking, which is a good sign, in my book. (I must confess, I am also partial to Victor Davis Hanson--I like his stuff a lot.) So I say, give the article a chance! Turgidson 23:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The terms used in the article title would have to be explained at great length to justify it with respect to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The concept of the article appears to be controversial in that it assumes a non-problematic "European civilisation" whose existence is threatened by forces from outside. Factual information can easily be merged into more relevant topics --Dystopos 19:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep I created a wikipedia account because of votes like this. Political correctness rules the day. People don't want to accept the Greeks kicked the stuffing out of the Persians for 3 days though outnumbered 100-1. The Romans handed Attila his hind parts, and Charles kicked the Arabs clean out of Europe. But God forbid anyone tell the truth, least we offend someone's sensibilities. Keep this article, which is plainly true. Finishedwithschool 17:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:CIVIL, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOT#ANARCHY, all right? Mind your language please. Tazmaniacs 18:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:CIVIL, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOT#ANARCHY, You mind your own language. Other people here put up with your calling them anti-Muslim or Nazis for opposing your particular agenda, and you dare to say my language is violating wikidpedia rules? Mind your own manners. Finishedwithschool 18:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep appears to be well sourced from notable people. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Note: because of the long comments which followed an exchange of comments in the beginning of this Afd nomination, I've taken the liberty to move them here, for better reading of the page. I hope this doesn't disturb any one. Please include any long comments under this section. Tazmaniacs 22:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. First, please assume good faith. Second, how can you really argue that this is not OR, since it relies on the very ill-defined concept of "European civilization" (not even adressing the questions about which battles should be included in this so-called "macrohistory" - where does this concept comes from? - and on which criterias). And, notwithstanding the question of the coherence of the concept of "civilization", what do you call "Europe"? An geographical expression, as Charles de Gaulle used to say, which went from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural mountains? Or does it includes parts of Russia? Or should it exclude Russia, although it is a country which has been very closely related to European culture? Or do you mean European Union? What about Eastern Europe, which lived under a communist regime so long? And the UK, do they belong to Europe, although they're not part of the European continent? But fifty years ago the EU had only six countries, and before didn't exist (so how can you have battles defending the EU before its existence?) Alf photoman's opposition between "European civilization" and "Muslims" is POV, and was the subject of a strong debate between EU countries during the drafting of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE), some arguing that "Christianism" was part of "European identity", while others argued that secularism was more important and that Europe was not inherently Christian (see History of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe#Mention of Christianity in the preamble). So, Jews are not part of "European civilization"? What a nice thought... So, why shouldn't we argue that "European civilization" was defended by the Third Reich, and that it's last battle, which it lost, was in 1945 against the Allies? PS: the very example of Charles Martel and the 721 Battle of Toulouse, which more or less tends to accredit the thesis that the 7 centuries (!) of Al-Andalus were some sort of parenthesis, not to say "alien parasite" on the Christian Europe, is not only OR, but simple racism and ignorance of the huge importance of Islam for this so-called "European civilization". A simple example would be to recall that Aristotle and Plato were transmitted to the Middle Ages thanks to the works of Muslim philosophesr such as Averroes, who was called "The Commentator" by Thomas Aquinas, founder of... the most important philosophical doctrine of Christianism on which today's Roman Catholic Church (which, sorry, does not represent that much Europeans any more, and this started since the Reformation in the 16th century). Not to recall the importance of the Persian Avicenna for Western philosophy, but the author of this article obviously ignores that philosophy is part of that "European civilization." Of course, some prefer to celebrate the Reconquista, the expulsion of the Muslims and the Jews, the Inquisition and the Crusades. Not in my name, sorry! Tazmaniacs 23:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you had 'good faith' you would have asked the author to supply source and confront him over POV issues. Instead you just bring the article straight here hoping the whole lot is chucked into the bin.--Dacium 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We should not assume that Adolf and his gang of loonies wanted to defend Europe or European culture because their self proclaimed intent was to supplant the European culture with their own amalgam of loonacities they were making up as they went along. By the way, I don't think that Attila and his gang were Muslims (but from the East), yet the battle against them (aiding the Romans) was what at the end of the day formed the Frank identity, which later formed the first Holy Roman Empire of German Nations (took 400 years but what the heck...) whose first aim was to convert Eastern Barbarians to Christianism (such as the Saxons, the Allemande and so on) and later the Moorish invaders (sic.) in Spain. And no, I don't think these battles formed the European civilization, but surely they formed the European identity. Alf photoman 00:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss what you think, but to discuss the legitimacy of this article. Keep your personal opinions to yourself, thank you. The disagreement between us is a clear sign that we don't agree on what "European identity" is, if there is such an "identity", so the article is built on sand and fascist POV. PS: beside, you obviously know nothing either of Nazi Germany if you claim that they didn't think they were defending "European civilization." Tazmaniacs 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Because they were intent on exterminating several vital components of European culture, such as the Slaws to start with and all other non-Aryans (whatever that is) to end with and their cultural achievements with it, besides especially in this case it is not what I think but I am citing (not verbatim) Mein Kampf. But certainly we don't seem to agree on what European identity, while you are quoting what it should be I am quoting what renowned authors define it as. And buy the way, I take offense in being labeled as fascist because too many of my family died because of them or fighting against them Alf photoman 00:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for offensing you. I have to insist that the title of this article is a source of continuing ideological debates which are best kept to a political forum, which Wikipedia is not. I am not quoting what "European identity" should be, I am pointing out that there is no single definition of that, as shown by the debate over the inclusion, or not, of Christianity to the preamble of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, debate which ended with the decision not to include it. I think this provides sufficient sources for my claim that this article is ill-named and should be deleted. Its author may include its content in History of Europe, where it belongs. I am not even adressing the concept of "macrohistory", in particular when it refers to "battles", sending for this to Fernand Braudel's work concerning long tendencies in history (he talked about the Mediterranean Sea, not about soldiers). Tazmaniacs 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, lets cool this, sincerely I don't like the content of the article either and I abhor the idea of wars being nation building, but that does not take away the evidence that it is factual, or at least generally accepted by historians. This has nothing to do with what we like or we don't like and that is the difference between history and the pamphlet of a political movement Alf photoman 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But the problem is precisely this: historians don't agree on what constitutes the "identity" of the "European civilisation" (assuming there is such an "European civilisation", which, for the sake of not engaging in philosophical debates, I will temporary accord you), much less on the concept of a "macrohistory" (if there really is such a concept), so the whole article falls under OR. The "factual evidence", as you put it, such as, let's say, the fact that there was in 732 a battle in Poitiers, headed on the French side by [[Charles Martel], does not entail the ideological interpretation that this event was a "macrohistorical battle" on which depended the fate of European existence. In fact, I don't see why, if the battle had been lost by Charles Martel, the existence of Europe would have been endangered. It would have been different, which is not the same. But the fact that Al-Andalus existed in modern Spain for 7th centuries did not "destroy European identity" (sic). All the factual events cited in this article should be moved to History of Europe, which is a NPOV title, and if the author wants to argue that they had "macrohistorical importance for the destiny of European civilization" (in particular the Christian part of this "civilization", leaving out Bosnians because, although they are a European ethnic group, they don't have the luck to fit into this ideological reading of history which excludes Muslims from it), well, let him argue that in a NPOV article: History of Europe. You can't seriously say this entry has got a NPOV name, and much less back-it up with serious sources. I have already cited the debate about the European Constitution, I think this is enough source for a Wikipedia debate. We all have more important things to do than political arguing here. Tazmaniacs 17:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Tazmaniacs that we need to wind down the level of rhetoric, and stop the naming calling first and foremost. Then a better title needs to be found. I personally do believe the article is worth keeping though its present title needs changing, and it needs to be sourced - it's biggest weakness is the lack of references, which I am beginning to rectify. As to Tours, I think Bury - one of the truly great giants in the field of history - said it best: John Bagnell Bury, writing at the beginning of the 20th century, said "The Battle of Tours… has often been represented as an event of the first magnitude for the world’s history, because after this, the penetration of Islam into Europe was finally brought to a standstill.”^[1] Let us discuss this rationally, and no one engage in accusing those of differing opinions of bad faith. old windy bear 23:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't build a 21st century Encyclopedia on historical accounts of the early 20th century. Would you imagine what kind of account of World War I it would do? With, for example, a section supporting the French views of the epoch, and calling Germans names, while the other would support Germany, and insult French? Or something about colonialism calling Black people "niggers" and "barbarians"? No, all my respect for Bury, but there have been some progress since in historical research and views, and Bury rather belongs to historiography, as do all historians from this period. This article should be deleted, because the name is very POV, and its content transfered (that's not difficult) to History of Europe. I can't see any other way to find a consensual decision, and I don't know why you don't consider this simple solution: the list of battles will remain, just as part of the History of Europe, instead of some Original Research concerning "macrohistory" (not to say "European civilization")? Tazmaniacs 03:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember the battle fought over Tours on wikipedia, it was really ugly - of course people don't mention Victor Davis Hanson and William E. Watson, two of the most respected historians of this era, both of whom say today that Tours was a battle of incredible importance. However, you may have suggested a way to settle this without a long drawn out fight - I would certainly be amicable to change the title and leave the list, remaining as some sort of subtitle to the History of Europe. I think that is a reasonable suggestion. We can debate the individual battles, such as Tours, afterwards, but I certainly think your suggestion that the list remain, but retitled to remove the offensive wording is a reasonable and fair solution. I owe you an apology for saying you were only acting out of POV. In attacking your motives, I was doing the very thing I was condemning, and I apologize. I like your idea of leaving the list of battles but retitling it, and old windy bear has begun referencing the entire article, and I will help him source each article. Stillstudying 12:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how historians are valued, but there are reputable scholars considering the battle of Tours of little importance (like Tomaž Mastnak for instance, which you will find in the same article on Tours). Also while mentioning Hanson, one should remember his main theory but also his conflicts like the one with Jared Diamond (the two proposing two different drives for progress: Hanson - an aggresive culture of warfare and pragmatism and "democratical values", Diamond - an environmental preconditioning), and realize that when some people argue for macrohistorical importance, actually they speak within an ideological framework, within a paradigm, therefore their assessment is strictly conditioned by their premises (and not by some premises with quasi-universal acceptance in various historiographies worldwide). My point is when someone invokes a historian like Hanson and represents his POV, he actually represents his whole theory of how the world is changing/progressing. Therefore even if a scholarly reference would argue for a series of battles (I am not sure if Hanson argues the battles he chose to be all of macrohistorical importance or just examples to promote his theory), that would be at best only a POV which furthermore needs balanced by other POVs. And last, but not at least, the POV supporting macrohistorical importance relies most often on speculation and at best analogies (for the case of Tours: that Islam would further advance in Europe, that Ummayads would have continued a conquest in Gaul or furthermore in other European lands, that the ascension of Charlemagne would have been eclipsed by the insuccess of Martel to stop the Muslim forces at Tours, that the situation of Gaul would be the same as the situation of Iberian peninsula etc.), which even when coming from scholars, they still should be taken as they are - simple claims, not actual arguments. Of course, it shouldn't be us, the editors, pointing that but we can invoke those scholars debunking these myths (and as I mentioned before, for the case we're discussing there are already references in the article on Tours). The burden of proof lies on those claiming the macrohistorical importance (i.e. the positive claim) and just saying the world would have been drastically changed it doesn't make it so. Daizus 13:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, every historian had his or her own perspective, or philosophy, which you could call point of view if you want. But the wikipedia policy is simple: we are barred, as editors, from interpreting anything, and can only cite the original scholars and their theories. So while Hanson may have had a framework he put Tours in, believing that it fit into his theory that the Carolingian control of Europe, and the feudal systems which would carry Europe through the Dark Ages after Rome's fall were assured by Charles Martel's signal victory at Tours, it really does not matter. We won't settle the Tours argument here - oldwindybear and others have been fighting that for years! But the fact is that most of the western historians of today do believe Tours was of macrohistorical importance. Hanson believes even if it was not in the grand scheme of stopping Umayyad conquest of Europe, it certainly was in that it assured Frankish dominion of Europe, which led it safely into the Middle Ages after Rome's collapse. Watson is even more fervant in praising Martel. My point is, you said their saying this battle changed the world does not make it so - but it does for our purposes. Hanson and Watson, just to name two, make detailed and strong cases for why that battle was a crucial turning point in history. Hanson in particular is a very well thought of military historian, and his analysis of the battle is first rate. Watson is another very well known modern historian who has made a very detailed and complex argument that historically this battle determined the fate of Europe as we know it. We can only cite them, and those in opposition, and let the reader decide. Stillstudying 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"But the fact is that most of the western historians of today do believe Tours was of macrohistorical importance" - this is still to be proved. I haven't seen anywhere in this article, in the article on Tours (or any other battles listed in this article) any decent attempt to review scholarship and historiographies (possibly none of us has the ability or the knowledge to do it, then we should refrain from hiding behind assumed majorities). Let me browse few historians from my own bookshelves: Pierre Riche (1989) claims "the battle of Poitiers for some was an unimportant military action stopping a raid while for others was a significant event for the destiny of Charles Martel and the Carolingians" (nothing about an iminent conquest of Islam/Ummeyads, though), while the same author justified with another occasion (1962: due to constant Arab raids and invasions, the dukes of Aquitania called Charles Martel and thus the southern Gaul was ruined and gradually fell under Austrasian/Carolingian authority (nothing particular about the battle of Poitiers). According to Lucien Musset (1965), Charles Martel intercepted the Arab offensive (heading for St. Martin sanctuary to pillage it) and defeated them but that didn't stop the Arabs which kept invading the southern parts of France in the following years (730s). The significance of Charles Martel southern campaigns was that the Austrasians started to focus on this rich region and attempt to drag it under their authority. My concern is - who and how has estabilished the "mainstream" of interpretations is to value the battle of Tours (or any of these battles) of macrohistorical importance?

Hanson's perspective is not given at all, so the work of the editors is not complete until it is shown the macrohistorical significance given by Hanson is tributary to his specific and perhaps controversial view (like someone nicely observed in one of the paragraphs below, ultimately a Hegelian view). As already suggested, perhaps it would be a nicer/more fruitful discussion (or even article), the opposition of paradigms: to take a simple case based on two of our examples so far - a historian of Annales like Pierre Riche and a historian like Hanson. Daizus 21:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope we agree to merge this content into History of Europe on the grounds that this article is bound to be OR and subject of endless, tiring, debates. I thank Achileus for his quick, and to the point, comment, refering to the 1851 work, which shows all the problems lifted by this article. Note that at the time, scholars didn't even feel the need to say "Europe", as "World" was a synonym. Europeans found after World War I that there were other states to take into account. I also do agree with Daizus, who points out that the reason behind our controverse concerns the philosophical nature of this article, rather than a simple historical account (I'm sorry for having taking the point a bit too seriously, but it is, in fact, a serious matter, which clearly provides a dividing line, for philosophical & political matters - that mustn't stop us from speaking like... Greeks in an Assembly...).

Thus, it is impossible to try to NPOV it by providing sources from historians;
first, as we all known, history is not a science in the same sense as physics, and can only tend towards objectivity, without ever achieving it (see Paul Ricoeur's interesting account on this).
Second, this article does not concerns a historical debate but a philosophical reading of history, mainly based on Hegel's reading. It doesn't ask itself if X did happen? or how much was the cost of grain before the French Revolution? And how was the climate during the time preceding the French Revolution? - see the works of Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie on the history of climate, which, although Ladurie is known for microhistory (:), is certainly of macrohistorical interest - dinosaurs, anyone? ) It is, of course, on purpose that I refer to historians, such as Braudel or Le Roy Ladurie, who claim that battles are, after all, events which belong to a short time-span compared to long-time span such as climates or geographical influences (work on the Mediterranean Sea, the real "hero" of history for Braudel, and which is the basis of any geopolitics - i.e. seeing long tendencies and continuities between the Russian Empire & the Soviet Union, not to say today's Putin's Russia...)
Thus, apart of the problem of a "Western civilization" (which is, I think, a concept a bit more convincing than "European civilization", especially today), and of a very ideological attempt at identity politics, which may have been done, or not, on purposes (but which explains why I adamantly refuse this pseudo-opposition between Islam and Christianism, which clearly is POV far from being mainstream), there is a real, philosophical problem, about the importance of battles in general, that is, of "macrohistorical battles". As someone pointed out at the very first of this Afd, "macrohistorical battle" is a contradiction in terms. Referring to the historians above, I agree with him. Beside merging the content of this article into History of Europe, Philosophy of history might be an article that will interest you — it is a passionating subject! To recall you that there are very different perspectives on this "philosophy of history", I'll recall Nietzsche's words here, concerning "Great Events":

Ye understand how to roar and obscure with ashes! Ye are the best braggarts, and have sufficiently learned the art of making dregs boil.
Where ye are, there must always be dregs at hand, and much that is spongy, hollow, and compressed: it wanteth to have freedom.
'Freedom' ye all roar most eagerly: but I have unlearned the belief in 'great events,' when there is much roaring and smoke about them.
And believe me, friend Hullabaloo! The greatest events--are not our noisiest, but our stillest hours.
Not around the inventors of new noise, but around the inventors of new values, doth the world revolve; INAUDIBLY it revolveth.
And just own to it! Little had ever taken place when thy noise and smoke passed away. What, if a city did become a mummy, and a statue lay in the mud!
And this do I say also to the o'erthrowers of statues: It is certainly the greatest folly to throw salt into the sea, and statues into the mud...
Thus Spake Zarathustra, II, "On Great Events"

If there is such a thing as a "European civilization", one thing is sure: it is not a fixed, permanent, essential identity, to which we should refer to as a myth which must governs our politics. "European civilization" is what we make of it, and if ("with 'if', says a saying, "you can put Paris into a bottle"...) the Third Reich had won, than Europe would still exist, although it would be certainly sad. "If" Charles Martel had not won, than maybe Al Andalus would have extended itself, and the wonders of that place, and its tolerance towards Christians and Jews, and its amazing knowledge concerning architecture, medicine, philosophy, etc., would have permit Europe to avoid the Wars of Religion, the dark Middle Ages (which were not as dark as we think they were), and immediately pass to the bright Renaissance and then Enlightenment... One needn't be Muslim to acclaim the wonders of Al Andalus, especially compared to the dark period that succeeded to it, and not buy the fairy tale that "Islam" is a threat to so-called European identity. Around the inventors of new values, doth the world revolve... indeed Tazmaniacs 18:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I can support renaming this, or somehow putting it with the history of Europe. Tazmaniacs are you aware that Sir Arthur Clarke, the famous science fiction writer, helped create a number of computer models that postulated "what ifs" and asked what would have happened if, say, the Umyyad's had won at Tours, and Martel had been killed. The results are astonding. According to the computer models, Al Andalus would have extended itself, and Europe would have avoided all of the wars, the cruelities of the Middle Ages, the Crusades, with all the attendant violence and visciousness, and humanity would have reached the stars by now. I am not saying these models were correct, but they certainly exist, and make a strong argument that the pro-western bias is not necessarily correct, and Charles Martel, while a national hero in Germany and France, did not do the world good when he ended the expansion of Al Andalus Stillstudying 19:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NO Deletion!

NO DELETION, but I have no trouble agreeing to renaming the article and putting it with the History of Europe. As to the claim that Hanson did not address Tours as a battle of macrohistorical importance, please read "Culture and Carnage: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power." On page 167:

"Recent scholars have suggested Poitiers, so poorly recorded in contemporary sources, was a mere raid and thus a construct of western mythmaking or that a Muslim victory might have been preferable to continued Frankish dominance. What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuance of the successful defense of Europe, (from the Muslims). Flush from the victory at Tours, Charles Martel went on to clear southern France from Islamic attackers for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundations of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and reliable troops from local estates."

This is pretty clearly an analysis that states flatly that this battle was absolutely vital in the development of Europe as we know it today. Whether that is a "good" or "bad" thing depends on your perspective. William Watson, one of America's better known historians in this generation, says of Tours:

"There is clearly some justification for ranking Tours-Poitiers among the most significant events in Frankish history when one considers the result of the battle in light of the remarkable record of the successful establishment by Muslims of Islamic political and cultural dominance along the entire eastern and southern rim of the former Christian, Roman world. The rapid Muslim conquest of Palestine, Syria, Egypt and the North African coast all the way to Morocco in the seventh century resulted in the permanent imposition by force of Islamic culture onto a previously Christian and largely non-Arab base. The Visigothic kingdom fell to Muslim conquerors in a single battle on the Rio Barbate in 711, and the Hispanic Christian population took seven long centuries to regain control of the Iberian peninsula. The Reconquista, of course, was completed in 1492, only months before Columbus received official backing for his fateful voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. Had Charles Martel suffered at Tours-Poitiers the fate of King Roderick at the Rio Barbate, it is doubtful that a "do-nothing" sovereign of the Merovingian realm could have later succeeded where his talented major domus had failed. Indeed, as Charles was the progenitor of the Carolingian line of Frankish rulers and grandfather of Charlemagne, one can even say with a degree of certainty that the subsequent history of the West would have proceeded along vastly different currents had ‘Abd ar-Rahman been victorious at Tours-Poitiers in 732."

Noted educator Dexter B. Wakefield writes, "A Muslim France? Historically, it nearly happened. But as a result of Martel’s fierce opposition, which ended Muslim advances and set the stage for centuries of war thereafter, Islam moved no farther into Europe. European schoolchildren learn about the Battle of Tours in much the same way that American students learn about Valley Forge and Gettysburg." So for those who claim that Tours is not a landmark event in western history, sorry, most historians, early, mid, and modern, disagree. old windy bear 01:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Most historians? How many historians have talked about this battle? Hundreds? Thousands? How many can you list? Even you quoted Hanson with "Recent scholars have suggested Poitiers, so poorly recorded in contemporary sources, was a mere raid and thus a construct of western mythmaking or that a Muslim victory might have been preferable to continued Frankish dominance". On what grounds do you assume these "recent scholars" are actually a minority? Hanson himself is not supporting this view. Daizus 13:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The article is being rewritten, and heavily sourced, and should be judged then

I did not write the article, but am rewriting it, putting in opposing viewpoints, and sourcing it massively. But the sources have to be cited correctly. People who depend on Hanson -- and it is understandable, as he is one of our foremost military historians! -- need to go READ Hanson, who very carefully dismantles the theory that Tours/Poitiers was merely a raid, and shows how Martel and his men put an end to the Islamic wave that had swept aside empires on three continents, see Hanson summarizing the long term influence historically of this battle, Page 167:.

"What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuence of the successful western defense of Europe. Flush from his victory at Poitiers, Charles went on to clear southern France from Islamic invaders for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundation of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and avaiable troops from local estates."

Hanson gives an extremely detailed military analysis of why this battle was so vital to western history - citing many times the sources for this being a macrohistorical victory "saving" Europe, "the great land" as it was called by the Umayyads, as he explains why those holding the thesis that it was merely a raid are historically and militarily wrong. Hanson cites Gibbon, Ranke, Creasy, Oman, Fuller, and quoted the great german military historian Hans Delbruck, who said of this battle "there was no more important battle in the history of the world." (The Barbarian Invasions, page 441.) After Tours, Hanson said, quoting Oman, "for the future we hear of Frankish invasions of Spain, not Saracen INvasions of Gaul!" (The Dark Ages Pages 476-918, 299). He talks about Martel's remarkable ability to unify warring tribes to face the Islamic invasion, quoting Constantine, War in the Middle Ages. Hanson closed his article by assessing why Europeans adapted so easily to modern warfare by saying on page 169:

"they were not the products of a nomadic horse people, tribal society, or even theocratic autocracy, but drew their heritige from tough foot soldiers...the type of men who formed a veritable wall of ice at Poitiers and so beat Abd ar-Rahman back."

You need to read Hanson's works, which very clearly and very systematically explain why this battle is of such huge macrohistorical importance, and why Charles and his infantry were able to withstand the supposedly invincible Islamic cavalry, page 157:

"The legions had crumbled not because of organizational weaknesses, technological backwardness, or even problems of command and dsicipline, but because of the dearth of free citizens who were willing to fight for their own freedom and the values of their civilization. Such spirited warriors the barbarians had, and when they absorbed the blueprint of roman militarism, a number of effective local western armies arose - as the Muslims learned at Poitiers." old windy bear 14:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not a fan of Hanson, I've rather browsed Carnage & Culture, read some of his reviews and materials in press, watched some of his debates with Jared Diamond, and generally I wasn't impressed by his arguments and I've read better arguments from the other side.

On this topic, Hanson et al. have yet to persuade me that Islam and Western Europe Christianity are two monolithic entities to make their theories work for me. Hanson et al. have yet to persuade me their take on the alternative histories is the correct one (that the Islamic forces from Spain would indeed pursue to conquer Gaul, that if Martel would have lost a battle he'd have lose the entire Gaul to Arabs, that if Arabs eventually would have invaded the entire Gaul, the reconquest would be similar with Spanish Reconquista, etc., etc. - so many speculations and assertions and so little evidence for it).

Also when someone quotes rather obsolete historians really doesn't make a good impression (unless he tries to evoke a historiographical tradition). No offense, but historians relying on Gibbon are in my eyes like physicists relying on Newton. Relying on Creasy, von Ranke, Oman, Fuller looks also obsolete. I mean, they may have valueable ideas, but they can't be simply quoted as authorities for the historical studies of the 21st century! You can evoke them, but no more. Several decades it is a long time in this field, though I like their writing I have my inherent doubts even when I'm reading historians like Lucien Musset writing 4 decades ago. I know, I'm no position to reject secondary sources in being present in the Wiki articles (unless I bring scholars to support my position), but I can show you there's no way to persuade me in quoting massively rather outdated scholarship.

Oh, and on Hanson quoting Oman - I hope you know there were other Saracen invasions in Gaul after Tours. Like the plundering of Arles and the much of the Provence region in 734 or the later invasions in Burgundy. See also Martel's campaigns in southern Gaul in 736-7 which are documented even here on Wikipedia. Daizus 18:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote you on the talk page of the article, I am just beginning a rewrite of an article I did not write. If you want a great account of the invasions circa 734-737, see Fouracre or Antonio Santosuosso who maintains the defeat of the Muslim forces at the River Berre by Martel was far more important than Tours. I am just in the beginning stages - I honestly believe you will feel the article is fair when I am done. As to the accounts of Martel's campaigns in Gaul in 736-7, if you check the history, I wrote most of what is here. Please give me time - I have ordered Hitti's book, and other material I need to finish this rewrite. You know as well as I the major problem now is generalizations without sourcing. I am going to rewrite putting in all views, sourced heavily.

As to Hanson, I think his best work lies in his analysis of why heavy infantry was the key to Frankish domination, (the history of heavy infantry, what it was, et al) and his analysis of cavalry versus Knights, and mixed force armies. I think he is right on those issues - on Tours, frankly, despite the time gone by, Bury convinces me more than anyone except Watson, who is the best we have today. (just my opinion, and I do NOT put it in articles)old windy bear 19:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Old windy bear, you really ought to seriously consider arguments opposed to you by a number of users, in particular concerning WP:OR and Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Please also consider Achilleus' citation of the 1851 The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship:

Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research

Working on the article as it currently stands does not answer to the objections that a number of users have opposed to it, don't invest energy on that without taking into account these criticisms. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, and when serious criticisms are done, it is best to hear them. Why don't you rather work on History of Europe which needs help, and where you can speak about the same subject if you want? Tazmaniacs 21:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Tazmaniacs If I did not hear the criticisms, I would not have taken on the chore of correcting what was wrong with the article. I did not write it, but I felt you and several other people, whose work I respect, had raised some very legitimate critques that needed addressing if the article was to stay. Please realize I don't have a personal interest in what happens in this vote. I didn't write the article. Since the original editor had not begun correcting it, I decided to, and in fact, had asked another editor I respect greatly to help me. I agree with you in part on the naming conflict, I only entered this dispute because someone brought this entire issue to my attention, and I decided that the article was salvagable, but had to be completely rewritten and sourced. Remember, one tenet of our work on wikipedia is editors are encouraged to be bold, and try to correct errors in fact and form where they are found. I don't think my motives, especially considering I am not the original author - can be questioned for being anything other than a simple desire to make this a better article. I think as many people support it as want to delete it - but you have a very valid point that there is no point in working on an article which may be deleted. I will wait for the result of the vote before investing any further energy and time in it. The books I ordered will be useful for work on other military history Carolingian articles and medieval issues in any event. As to the issue of using older historians, Gibbon is still cited as the paramount historian on Rome, despite his work being over 200 years old! Creasy is cited by Paul Davis, Mike Grant, and Hanson, just to name three modern scholars. Bury is still regarded as the great authority by some of the foregoing on the later Roman Empire. I don't think just the age of the work renders it obsolete. In fact, this whole issue of what role the work of those historians should play is a very interesting ongoing academic conflict. old windy bear 22:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] when is the vote over?

It is pretty obvious the vote is in favor of keeping the article at least long enough to see if we can source it and rewrite and retitle it. When is the vote formally over, so we can begin correting the things which need doing? I have done some, but a LOT of work needs doing, and the way the vote looks, we need to get to it. (This vote does not mean the article is out of the woods, it just means, if it stays this way, that people want to see if can be corrected, which I pesonally think it can. I have asked a couple of really first rate editors to help, and I think it can be put in fine fettle. SO, when is the vote over, so we can get to it?)old windy bear 23:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• You don't have to wait for the discussion to close before improving the article. Effective efforts to address the POV and original research problems mentioned above would certainly be a factor in this debate. --Dystopos 02:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I had originally stopped because Tazmaniacs strongly suggested - see above - that i wait until the vote was over. If you go look at the article, I have been steadily working on it, though not to the extent I intend to. I intend to rewrite it completely, once we - and I need input from other editors - agree on which battles to list, from which books to pull the list. On the battles presently in the article, look at the recent changes, and I think you will see a huge difference already. old windy bear 02:36, 28 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 to Heartland League. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:05Z

[edit] Mid-America League

Mid-America League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable baseball league which operated for one season. Don't be fooled by the blue links for the teams - they just redirect back to the league page. Just 436 Ghits for any league named Mid-America League, which falls to 80 when the word baseball is added. League later became the Heartland League, so if anything, this information should go there. fuzzy510 00:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article itself does a good enough explanation of how it isn't notable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge per Fuzzy510. What a suspiciously-created article, complete with all teams as circular links! I doubt that any of these teams have a hope of being notable enough to have their own page, so the links to them are silly—I have removed them. But as to the nom, what makes a league "notable"? "Small, small geography, short-lived" is certainly gonna cut down on the ghits (which isn't the be-all/end-all of notability anyway). I just added a ref to the article, which itself cites two published and reliable-sounding sources, so the thing is at least worthy of coverage in published works about minor-league baseball. But given that there's not much to say and the league was short-lived (reincarnating as another short-lived one about which there also doesn't appear to be much to say) maybe better to have a single article about them and their timeline than two more isolated articles. DMacks 03:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Violation of WP:V and WP:RS, since only source is an article from another wiki. This particular piece of information cannot be verified.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That ref, itself not reliable on its face, does list several hard-copy refs, which I have now added to the WP article. Don't know for certain the exact contents of those texts (hello pre-everything-digital age), but they do actually exist and seem likely that they would contain info to support the WP article. DMacks 03:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into latter team's article, per fuzzy. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Heartland League, which appears to be largely the same operation, just with a different name. --Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge --Mattarata 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Resolute 05:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. C56C 06:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Heartland League. Daniel5127 | Talk 06:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything salvageable per above. John Reaves (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge --MarlaB 13:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article has now been referenced and generally contains relevant information, one to keep.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per pretty much everybody. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Heartland League per the reference I added to the Mid-America League article. Someone interested in independent baseball may wish to review the articles contributed to by 24.14.74.243 with the idea of merging many of them into Independent baseball-- Jreferee 16:17, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Venezuela 2001

Miss Venezuela 2001 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Listcruft:winners name already in the main article (which is a train wreck in itself). User is creating them from 2006 backwards, so 2000 will probably appear by the time this AfD is complete. Edit: it has (here), and it's been CSD A7'd

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason

Miss_Venezuela_2002 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Miss_Venezuela_2003 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Miss_Venezuela_2004 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Miss_Venezuela_2005 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Miss_Venezuela_2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

EliminatorJR 00:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also adding the following related pages to this AfD (for consistency), although I oppose deletion: -- Black Falcon 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Miss_Venezuela_1999 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Miss_Venezuela_2000 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Weak Delete As the articles stand, they are not worth keeping. However, if some real content (and sources) are added, they should be kept. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see a need for separate articles on each year. And nom is right about the main article. It could be cut to a quarter its size and probably much more than that. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 01:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of people, the articles are not verifiable, they do not provide reliable sources, and then can be merged into Miss Venezuela.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep because in my mind i do think this article can be expanded and could be made into a good articleOo7565 04:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - While it is merely a list at the moment, its useful info and has the potential to be a good stub with an appropriate blurb at the top. If I wanted info about the comp, this would be better than nothing, and you'd be surprised, more people are willing to edit an existing article to fill with info than are willing to create a new one - because they get shot down so quickly. Therefore if it exists, people will be able to write about it. I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly. THE KING 03:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If you wanted to know about the competition, wouldn't the Miss Venezuela article answer most of your questions? The individual pages don't answer any new questions except who won in a specific year (which sounds like a question that a directory could answer for you). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per The King. Also, similar lists exist for Miss Universe and Miss America. Having articles on each year of Miss Venezuela encourages us to give other countries' pageants fair coverage and therefore helps counter systemic bias. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete. I don't see why the winners shouldn't be added to Miss Venezuela. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 06:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per The King. The articles have existed less than a day before they were nominated for deletion. However, I would urge the articles' creator to address the concerns raised in this AfD (adding other real-world content, but most importantly sourcing the information) before creating any new ones. -- Black Falcon 08:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to something like List of Miss Venezuela 2001 contestants. Part Deux 10:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete per Ed MarlaB 13:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT#Directory, WP:RS it fails both of these and its general relevance on wikipedia is low if not non-existent.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless a source is provided for the names by the end of the AFD. If it is, then rename per Part Deux to List of Miss Venezuela 2001 contestants. An unsourced list of names is unacceptable, and the creator of the areticles should reference his work rather than rushing to create more unsourced lists, which fail WP:V and WP:RS. Inkpaduta 14:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. "Unsourced" is not the same thing as "unsourceable," and if the winners of these contests are worthy of an article anywhere, they are worthy of an article about Venezuela's competition. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I am also adding the 1999 and 2000 lists of contestants to this AfD for consistency, although I oppose their deletion. -- Black Falcon 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Sources. I have added sources for the 1999, 2000, and 2001 contests. The source for 2002-2006 is http://www.missvenezuela.com/ (click the appropriate year link at the bottom right corner). The only thing now is to give some time for the lists to be turned into more encyclopedic-looking articles. I would recommend against creating lists for additional years until these articles are cleaned up and/or a standard is established for how these articles ought to look. -- Black Falcon 18:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per King Lugnuts 19:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. The only article that passes WP:ORG is Miss Venezuela. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep useful info. Kolindigo 06:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I believe that, whilst it may be useful for those researching the history of the contest, it falls into the realms of indiscriminate information. We do not need a list of all the also-rans in this, nor any other contest for each and every year a contest takes place. Ohconfucius 08:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. These subjects could have articles, in terms of notability I would say that a national beauty contest has sufficient interest to pass the bar. But, these are not articles on the contest but simply a list of the regional "misses" and that is insufficient. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please consider that these articles were nominated for deletion only minutes or hours after their creation. I agree that they cannot stay as they are, but they weren't even given a chance to expand/improve. -- Black Falcon 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not remotely useful. Put it on the spanish Wikipedia. - Gilliam 21:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Improve. Miss USA has articles for 2000 to 2007 editions. why can't Venezuela? --RebSkii 18:09, 24 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. Davnel03 25th February

[edit] Grand Slam Championship

Grand Slam Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is almost completely unsourced, and the only source it lists is unofficial and known to use original research. I don't believe that any sources exist due to the fact that many sources were searched for during to course of recent disputes at Talk:Triple Crown Championship. The subject is notable, but not verifiable. 声援 -- The Hybrid 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fancruft that belongs on a wrestling Wiki instead. RobJ1981 01:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep.No different than a Super Bowl article, it's just the sport is less popular.Rlevse 02:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Disputed, no proper sources are found other than a mention in passing on a WWE website and an essay from a fan site. It's total OR and it is never mentioned on television and people with this supposed honor are never referred as that outside of hardcore wrestling fans. This and the Triple Crown page should go. Booshakla 02:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep I don't know much about this, but from the minimal sources available, this appears to be a valid term and a very important accomplishment of the sport. In comparison, one would not, for example, delete the Triple crown (baseball) article. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There needs to be multiple sources, not something on a website in passing.
• Obvious keep - notable subject, something people would search for on wikipedia. THE KING 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I highly doubt this is something that someone would search for here, get specific reasoning if you want to prove an "obvious keep"
• Strong Keep - Used MANY times on TV over the years and the official website as an important accomplishment for guys like Shawn Michaels, Triple H, and Kurt Angle. --Maestro25 04:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have watched WWE TV for years and have not heard it once. Prove it. Booshakla 04:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? WWE made a big deal when Shawn Michaels became the first Grand Slam winner. WWE also mentions it in both Shawn Michaels profile [1] and Triple H's profile [2]. TJ Spyke 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • CommentI actually heard in yesterday on the radio in a Scott Ferrall interview with Kurt Angle on Sirius Citicat 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• The term is real, the problem is there are disputes (like whether the US Title counts or not). TJ Spyke 04:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep per Maestro25 reasonsOo7565 05:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete After some intense Googling, the only time I could find this term used in this context is the fan site the article lists as a reference. Can any of the editors voting keep point to a legit wrestling publication that uses this term? I could change my mind, with a few actual sources, but I'm skeptical at best. --Djrobgordon 05:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep due to sources added while I was writing my previous comment. --Djrobgordon 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - what sources? There is nothing but the fan site listed. Also, to other user, remember that notability does not equal verifiability, and an article must have both to be Wiki material. 声援 -- The Hybrid 05:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• I think he meant the sources I provided, which were to show it does exists. I haven't made up my mind which way to vote yet. TJ Spyke 06:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - I wasn't aware that its existence was in dispute. Good sources that define what it is exactly and what titles are parts of it don't exist. That is what I was saying. There isn't a definition, so an article that isn't OR is impossible. 声援 -- The Hybrid 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete This seems to err on the side of non-notability, but I'd happily be proven wrong. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've heard it referred to on WWE television plenty of times in the past, they pushed the term pretty hard when Shawn Michaels became the first "Grand Slam" champion so it's not like it's a made up thing. MPJ-DK 06:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The term is well known and this article is unlikely to chamge in the future because there are not many Euro champs left who could win a World title. Darrenhusted 12:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Although this is an OK article its not relevant.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Davnel03 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Even though WWE hasn't used the term in a long time, it doesn't mean we should get rid of it. For example, even though the old American Football League doesn't exist anymore, should we wipe that article out as well because they merged with the NFL? The Slam is a noted accomplishment with sources to back it up, it should stay. Ohgltxg 23:25 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Popular professional wrestling term still used. Notable, period. Verifiable is a tough sunject though, I am still doing research The Hybrid, so I think we should hold off for a while until I give up researching for it. — Moe 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all above, and no I wont prove it, or provide any sources, so don't waste both our times demanding I do so! Jcuk 22:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As pointed out in the article itself, the very term "Grand Slam" varies per the promotional needs of WWE. Shawn Michaels has been dubbed an achiever of the Grand Slam. Fine. Add that info briefly to his article. Suriel1981 11:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats a pretty flawed logic. True, Shawn Michaels when he won the title was considered the Grand Slam Champion, since he was the only one to accomplish it. If he was the only one to win it, I would agree, merge it into Shawn Michaels article, but you can't since 6 or 7 (maybe 8 pending who's definition you would like to use) have accomplished this. Having a dispute on what definition it is (if we could agree on one definition) is no reason to delete the whole thing and say it never existed. — Moe 21:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can cite a reference from WWE themselves giving their current definition of what the "Grand Slam" is then I'll change my vote. Suriel1981 12:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

DUH! That has been the situation there for over 4 months. No source doesn't equal deletion of article. We have definitions, but we can't agree on which ones. WWE hardly chimes in on things and fails to post things like that. Asking for a source by WWE doesn't work anyways since we don't usually like primary sources, we usually need secondary sources from a outside source. The issue is not if that it exists. The problem is that we can't agree on the correct definition. — Moe 16:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Suriel1981, if the article relating to Grand Slam goes then all wrestler listed on this article will have to have all comments about the Grand Slam removed, because you can't "add that info briefly" to the wrestlers individual articles if the actual Grand Slam article no longer exists. If the Grand Slam article goes then all references to it must be purged as well, otherwise this will create an argument to re-do the Grand Slam Article. Darrenhusted 18:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would the references have to go? A simple addition to an article saying something along the lines of this title win meant that <insert name> had held every recognised title belt, an achievement referred to as the "Grand Slam". That's all it needs. Suriel1981 12:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply I think in my comment I explained why all references would have to go, because there would be temptation to re-create the article to explain what a WWE Grand Slam is. Darrenhusted 14:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In which case it could presumably receive speedy delete treatment. I understand your thinking but I don't personally agree. Suriel1981 15:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Read Shawn Michaels book. It states that during a meeting before he was set to win the IC Title, one of the producers spoke up and said that if they went through with the win, that would mean Shawn has won every title in the WWE. Vince then said that it was important and they needed a name for it. That was the birth of the Grand Slam Champion. User:Killswitch Engage
• Strong Keep To me, this article and the Triple Crown article are too related to have one exist without the other. GS borrows heavily from TC, and if the TC article stays, this should too. Also, enough people have given enough sources to keep it. Anakinjmt 07:24, 28 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:05Z

[edit] Paavo Härkönen

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

Paavo harkonen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Paavo Harkonen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Paavo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

i'm not sure, but i have two concerns about this article. first is whether it's notable. paavo basically wrote the music for dransik, whose article was deleted. second is whether it currently can actually be expanded to anything more than a ministub. using a simple google search, i wasn't able to find anything more than is now in the article, even his birthdate, for example. Bob A 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've sure never heard of him, and I can't find anything on google either. His article on Swedish Wikipedia is a one-sentence stub, and (Oddly) he doesn't even have an article on the Finnish Wikipedia. If none of his compositions or contributions are deemed notable enough to have articles, I'm not sure how he is either. Delete unless notability is established. Eeblefish 03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • comment - i created the swedish wikipedia article, as well as the lojban one. Bob A 04:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Given the deleted articles, it would follow in suite that person isn't notable either. John Reaves (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough relevant information, not written in the expected tone of encyclopedia articles, fails WP:BIO.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the nomination. Inkpaduta 14:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, if the other article was deleted I can't see the need for this one. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, living person, no sources, no references Alf photoman 16:38, 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 Viridae^Talk 07:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Super Stunt"

The "Super Stunt" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The only source for this article appears to be a claim on the perpetrators website. Delete unless reliable sources are found.-- JeremyA 02:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. It is false self recognition, and deserves to be deleted. It is exploiting wikipedia and contributing false information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.115.161.98 (talk • contribs).
• Strong Delete So let me get this right - this is an article for a stunt which may or may not have happened, didn't work properly if it did, and even if it had, the perpetrator won't say what it was? Doesn't sound *too* encyclopedic to me, oddly. EliminatorJR 02:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• The statements on the page are completely false and only a marketing ploy. Delete unless any other use is found.-- Cracker917

• Both Cracker917 and the unsigned above (63.115.161.98) have repeatedly and abusively vandalized the article. Their input in this matter should be disregarded. Notmydesk 03:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above no reason to have this article on hereOo7565 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - definitely not encyclopedic content. --Haemo 04:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Smerge to zug.com and Cockeyed.com. Don't need the whole write-up here, just a line or two like what's already in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• To all you haters, explain why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale%27s_%22We_Suck%22_Prank stays then. Yah, thought so... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.71.44.116 (talk • contribs).
  • It is attributed to 9 reliable sources. —JeremyA 05:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. C56C 06:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per EliminatorJR. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 06:35, 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. Reliable, independent sources are key here. If someone feels a desire to improve it and add such sources to the article, please contact me and I will move it into your userspace. Grandmasterka 07:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gamebiz 2

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

Original prod: No notability claim, no reliable sources for the information here, deprodded with the comment The sources may be from a forum, but they're all referencing things said by the creator of the game, (who's name on the forum is ArndtDK). He posts information on there that's not on the website. Main concern: product not notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry, failing proposed guideline for software. ReyBrujo 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not even close to being independently sourced at the moment, and doubtless wouldn't meet notability even if it was. EliminatorJR 02:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep or Delete: There's quite a few examples of less-than-notable software in the Wikipedia. I'm not advocating acceptance of that fact as justification to keep sub-par articles, but I'd say that this article might find life as a subtext in another article. Rewrite to weak keep, otherwise delete. 71.109.127.31 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: As far as I can tell, this game is not notable, and the article itself is not, as the nominator says, independently sourced.--NeantHumain 04:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability. No sources to verify, either. --Shirahadasha 07:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced. BJ^Talk 10:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Reads like an advertisement. MarlaB 13:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup This is a good article but it has no references and would need a bit of cleanup.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's true the sources aren't independent, but then the sources in the article do not give any contradictory claims, only simple facts. The sources could be removed if editors find them unnecessary; otherwise, the article is pretty well-written and, indeed, does meet the notability requirements more than the many other stubs considered for deletion I have seen. Aran|heru|nar 04:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a program that's gaining in popularity among the emulation community. Notable.Sockem 18:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is one of the more successful and popular games in the freeware scene, with 1466 downloads in the first three days alone. In my opinion any questions of notability are void in this case, although granted, the article could use a clean up. Neobros 11:35, 25 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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clyde Carson

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

Subject of article does ot meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. On one album that does not show that it has charted. Nv8200p talk 03:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep Very notable, I think. Googling "Clyde Carson" gets 64300 hits. (google). Member of The Team (band). ConDem^Talk 03:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A notable person will get over millions of hits. Most of the hits I see are MySpace, blogs and the like. -Nv8200p talk 03:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep according to allmusic.com, he has a forthcoming album on Capitol, a major label. [3] This article is an atrocity, but the subject is notable. --Djrobgordon 05:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The criteria at WP:MUSIC is two released albums on a major label. -Nv8200p talk 02:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It meets WP:BIO and is generally and good article and meets WP:NN.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I find nothing at WP:BIO that this article meets. Can you plese be specific? This is not a good article. -Nv8200p talk 03:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, even though the subject is notable, the article is way below the standard for a living person due to WP:V, therefore should be deleted unless something happens within the next few days Alf photoman 16:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the solution to unverified information is to excise whatever specific claims cannot be verified, not to delete an entire article (including some verified claims) about someone notable. -Fagles 22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep ** He's one of the biggest new artists part of the hyphy movement. Although he might only have one solo album, he is lead rapper of the group "The team", which 3 albums out, all are available on itunes. Several of his songs have recieved heavy airplay in the bay area. This article definitely needs a some work on it though.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:07Z

[edit] Icarus Project

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

The Wikipedia article for the Icarus Project appears to be little more than an advertisement for this group's website. Nearly all the edits have been done by one user, and nearly all the references point back to the group's website. NeantHumain 03:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Article is only referenced by the subject website. Fails WP:V and WP:N. janejellyroll 05:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Changing to Keep due to the new sources added to the article. Subject site meets WP:N. My personal feeling is that the article as it stands is POV, with too much of the article being made up of direct quotes from the website, but those problems can be corrected. janejellyroll 06:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some third-party references, including a newspaper article from the East Bay Express and a Columbia News Service article. --Eastmain 05:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. 1ne 08:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per new source. Also, if you think it is POV, the correct remedy is to fix it, not to delete it. If it's almost entirely written by one person, clearly no one tried to fix it yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. (solution to POV is first trying to fix it, not deletion) Mathmo ^Talk 13:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article is an WP:ADVERT, it kept it would need major cleanup.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As Mathmo and Mgm explained, WP:ADVERT does not require deletion of an NPOV article. When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article should be rewritten in a neutral point of view, not deleted. I have tagged the article to be rewritten. -Fagles 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Interesting. - Kittybrewster 09:45, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:07Z

[edit] Bikin dirty

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

Neologism Nv8200p talk 03:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Normally I'd say, move to the Wiktionary, but I don't think this should be there either. Eeblefish 03:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NFT. Seems to be made up by a group of non-notable cyclers with the term having little to no use outside their group of friends. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a unnecessary definition, I'm not sure whether it even worth moving it to Wiktionary as it seems irrelevant.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Dic Def and unsourced and un verified--Dacium 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary of neologisms.-Fagles 23:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#DICT, the article exactly reads like a dictionary entry. Wooyi 02:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, due to sourcing issues. (jarbarf) 00:19, 24 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:34Z

[edit] Novi Ligure Homicide

Novi Ligure Homicide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Event described in article does not meet WP:NOT guidelines. Edited: I've changed my opinion: the revised article should be kept. However, since the majority of the sources about this incident are in Italian, I'm not sure how much more info can be added to the article. Cue the Strings 03:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be relatively "normal" homicide (if any homicide can be called "normal", of course). No reliable sources; article does not assert notability. The article doesn't even state what country this happened in: Montenegro? Croatia? Switzerland? Italy? Vote changed to Keep thanks to editors for making article actually legible. I honestly didn't know that by "Torin" the original editor was discussing Turin/Torino - with the huge number of towns in Europe with names similar to "taurus" it's not correct to assume. --Charlene 04:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable homicide. Tragic, but non-notable. If there are reasons why it's significant in Italy (which seems to be where it took place), I'm all ears. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as there appears to be a level of notability in this affair now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a tragic but nn homicide unless sources can be provided to establish notability. -- Black Falcon 07:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, without reliable sources this could be a WP:BLP issue. I would err on the side of caution. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This tragic but I think we should consider moving it to Wikinews.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Googling the girl's name produces 105 sources, all in Italian. Apparently this murder case was notable in Italy, but I can't make too much sense of the sources. Needs the efforts of someone who can evaluate the sources (some appear to be print journalism) and incorporate into the article. Inkpaduta 14:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per total lack of context. This is not Wikinews, thus it fails WP:NOT an indescriminate amount of info (WP:NOTE). The "will this matter in 100 years?" test completely fails. Part Deux 15:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Crimes require more: though they are often easily verified and sourceable through local, journalistic sources, this coverage is ephemeral and will tend to move on to the next crime and victim. Only a few become the subject of broader or abiding interest, and that's where we should draw the line. Nothing here shows that this story is other than a local tragedy. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the revised article, which goes into significantly more detail about why this particular homicide is a matter of abiding interest. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• The homicide was quite significant in Italy not only for the vast public attention (usually referring to Erika and Omar [4]), but also for the further reflection on the media respsonse for which there would also be English sources one of which academic. [5][6] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. The links provided by User:Tikiwont establish that these murders were significant and were even the subject of serious academic study, meeting WP:V and WP:N. Of course, those sources should be added to the article. But the fact that a topic has a bad article does not mean that the topic is non-notable.-Fagles 16:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I briefly updated Novi Ligure Homicide to explain its importance.Fagles 17:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can confirme that the Novi Ligure Homicide was a notorius murder case in Italy of this century.If you search by Google the exact phrase "omicidio di novi ligure" novi ligure homicide in italian you will found 2570 matches.Lucifero4
• Keep A murder case that contributed to anti-immigration frenzy in Europe, meet notability. Wooyi 01:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This certainly seems notable, given the significant media exposure and a statement issued by the Minister of Justice among other politicians. MadMax 21:00, 23 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:08Z

[edit] HappySlip

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

Does ot meet the guidelines for notability per WP:ORG. Nv8200p talk 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no references and none could be found with Google. BJ^Talk 09:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article definitely fails WP:ORG.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete HappySlip does not speak Tagalog and regrets it as I regret that it does not pass WP:ORG. Not even a notable internet fad. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ConDem^Talk 20:46, 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 keep. This is Articles for deletion. It is not a means for solving content disputes between editors over an article, especially when both sides are saying that sources exist. Uncle G 13:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brake fade

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

When I first read the Brake fade article it was fairly concise although based on two items of folklore (that drums expand and that brake shoes produce gas, both effects separating brake shoe from drum). When I offered a rewrite, explaining the cause of brake fade, author "justanother" rejected it, replacing the original version. In successive exchanges "justanother" edited his article to spred it under several subheadings with no change to the cause of brake fade. This folklore is backed up by an article in an auto enthusiasts magazine that neither explains how it can occur or shows a scientific basis for the claimed effect. I explained the phenomenon, its cause and gave reference to a Michigan State University publication that corroberates my description. I also cite Wikipedia items that support my text.Jobst 04:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - This is a sourced and notable article. Jobst rewrote the article as OR, deleting all sources and sourced material to present his novel theory that disk brakes do not experience fade when it a known phenomenon, just google disk + brake + fade. for 368,000 hits. Sheesh. Here is another source [7] on fade in mountain bike disks (same theory). I could go on and on. Jobst has tried every WP:DE trick from edit warring to fact-bombing, speedy delete the article cause he didn't like it, repeated prods, now AfD. For sole reference he offers a 1959 article by a college junior or senior in a dairy production program that contains the words "free from fade" in reference to disk brakes; that's it. Wrong, but certainly forgivable in a student publication when disk brakes were pretty new. Anyway, I reformatted the article without changing much specifically so that he could add his material on drum brake fade; a topic on which he seems very knowledgable. I went out of my way to be helpful; see the article talk page. But nope, it is his novel idea or nothing, I guess. PS, according to messages on my talk page, this is not the first go-round with him. --Justanother 06:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep it's a real phenomenon well noted in the press and other publications. Almost 20 news articles I can find in Feb 2007 alone and 418 hits in Google books - Peripitus (Talk) 06:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep notable, verifiable, sourced. Please don't use the AFD process (or other deletion processes) for content disputes. Dave6 ^talk 09:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• "justanother" may have found 368,000 hits but when investigated they mostly repeat drum brake folklore, the man on the street not understanding servo and positive feedback. Many of these hits are bicycle brakes that have myriad light weight problems that compromise performance before getting to heavy braking. Their's is not fade but rather loss of hand lever travel from weak brake lines and contaminated brake fluid. That is not brake fade. In contrast, Bendix[8], a major automotive brake manufacturer, shows a disk brake and states that there is no fade, which is typical for aoutomotive brakes, except that it is such a non issue that no one, other than users of drum brakes, talks about it. You'll notice the disk is not drilled full of holes to let gas from the brake pads escape. The Bendix page is aimed at truck manufacturers who still use drum brakes... that fade. That is the only reason fade is mentioned. Truckers and many truck engineers have been so latherd with these tales that fade is "common knowledge"! Instead of imputing the Michigan State University author (shoot the messenger), a refutation of that engineering report would be more credible. This Brake fade article is important because somewhere science and folklore must be separated. Validated in Wikipedia may make folklore live for a long time.Jobst 09:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Jobst, that is a great reference and I wish that you would use it to improve the article rather than to abuse the process here. It is clear from the article that friction fade is a factor on disk brakes and that Bendix has claimed to made a breakthrough to reduce it. Good for them! The issue of fluid fade is not addressed because Bendix is not selling brake fluid in that ad. --Justanother 13:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, content dispute which should be solved otherwise. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:32, 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 merge, nomination withdrawn, no delete votes cast. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messianic prophecy

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

this article is basically a duplicate of the article messiah. Bob A 03:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well, the content itself is not bad, so I could support a merge, but I'd like to see further discussion on it first. FrozenPurpleCube 07:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • i was going to do that, but theres nothing to merge; messiah already has just about everything this article says arguably in a more organized way. Bob A 07:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • If the content is already substantially similar, then merging the content will be easier. Personally, I would suggest differentiation, as I do see a difference between the messiah and the prophecies about them which this article should be covering. As a subject, I see that as sufficiently distinct subjects that two articles could exist. FrozenPurpleCube 07:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with the comment that "As a subject, I see that as sufficiently distinct subjects that two articles could exist". Mathmo ^Talk 13:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, when duplicate articles exist we merge and redirect (or just redirect if there is nothing to merge). It does never involve deletion of one of the articles, please see: Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. No need to take stuff like this to AfD, you can do a merge whenever you see fit.--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I agree, it does duplicate information in Messiah and also in the articles Messianic prophecy in Christianity, Islamic eschatology and Jewish Messiah; there's no need for a separate article. Any unique (sourced) information could be merged into those articles where it would be most appropriate.--Domitius 19:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• question - could someone tell what information needs merging? i don't see it. Bob A 19:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That is not the point, Bob A. When two articles are duplicate, we merge them. If that means adding info from one article to the other, thats good. If there is no information to add (because it already is all there), we simply make a redirect. We do not delete articles in these cases. This way the author history is preserved. Because the chance exists some people already have used info from article X to include in article Y prior to this and the GFDL requires all author history to be preserved, we merge and don't delete. As I suggested above, please read Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • oh, right. i guess i wasn't thinking. in that case, should i merge them now or wait until the afd is over? Bob A 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• speedy keep and merge - the nomination was made in error. Bob A 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to withdraw a nomination? How does one go about doing that? Will it have to be removed from the AFD lists?--Domitius 20:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • As no delete votes have been cast and there is agreement to merge, I'll close it. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:30, 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. Grandmasterka 07:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pligg

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

This article has no external references. Unable to find a single news article or mention of the site in reputable source. Copycat website to original Digg.Mattarata 04:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable website. Article is promotional in nature. Resolute 05:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. As per Resolute. - Mike Beckham 06:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete seems to fail WP:WEB. BJ^Talk 09:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely WP:WEB and WP:ORG.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 14:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do not delete this software is cited in many news site as a concurrent of the original Digg service by the nature of making possible for anyone to easily create a category specific Digg like site, just have a web search! The notion of "copycat website to the original" is ludicrous, because Digg is a service and Pligg a software! Benoit rigaut 02:10, 26 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 as admitted prank. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zack Vank

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

An elaborate hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. Venk is not mentioned in any of the articles listed as source. The phrase "Zack Venk" gets zero Google hits. Djrobgordon 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete Double checked. And go with per nom. Citicat 05:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, definitely a hoax. I googled "a surrealist with a bat" (supposedly Rick Reilly called him that), and came up with 2 hits -- Wikipedia, and this blog. The November 18 entry is a huge chat log, where they seem to be talking about making up a "Zack Vank" character and putting him on Wikipedia. The November 2 entry talks more about the hoax (aside: based on some of what I read there, I'm going to check "what links here" for things that need to be removed). This quote from the blog pretty much sums it up:

At this point, some of the Wikipedia staff get suspicious and propose that the article be deleted because "subject appears to be non-existant." You think? This of course begs the question why this is STILL up on Wikipedia, even though it's been almost two months since the dogs at Wiki started suspiciously sniffing around. This is where we should really start tipping our hats to the creators of Zack Vank. Realizing that their fun was going to be short-lived if all they did was provide unsubstantiated information and start sexual orientation rumors, they created an external link to the high school Zack Vank supposedly went to, the Redwood High School previously mentioned at the end of my first post about him. Not only did they do that, they created a little profile for him there so that if anyone on Wikipedia got suspicious, they could click on the link and see: [made up quote] Dave6 ^talk 09:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Zack Vank supposedly wrote a book; I put its article up for deletion as well at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota Malt. Dave6 ^talk 09:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I've also added a prod tag to Dooney which was created by the same author (who will be indefblocked unless one of these three articles proves to have some validity). —Wknight94 (talk) 12:06, 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. Grandmasterka 07:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Netconcepts

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

I believe this constitutes spam. SERSeanCrane 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - not spam. I wrote this on my talk page which is related to this: I'm 16-years-old and a full-time high school student. In my spare time, I write for Wikinews, Wikipedia, and recently, Practical eCommerce. I draw inspiration for what I write about from things I read and watch, people I meet, and generally things that interest me (including e-commerce and search engines). I follow some local (Christchurch) companies including Netconcepts. Sometimes the things I write about get me noticed (I got to know a couple people at Netconcepts because of some of the writing I've done), which is cool when it happens but I'm not here just to network. Don't worry, I always keep a NPOV when I write. :-) Even when it gets me in trouble (like it did here Talk:SLI_Systems). Nzgabriel 04:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You should edit for microsoft... =) SERSeanCrane 04:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Okay, how about failing WP:WEB Citicat 05:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not big enough for WP:CORP--155.144.251.120 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Size doesn't matter. Jehochman

(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I meant that there is nothing that passes WP:CORP, just small trivial media mentions.--155.144.251.120 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete For me, this is right on the border of WP:CORP. The New Zealand Herald articles are non-trivial, but one is more about the owner than the company. More importantly, there really isn't an assertion of notability. I don't see what makes this company any more notable than your average consulting firm. I feel bad deleting something this well sourced, but it just doesn't seem encyclopedic. --Djrobgordon 05:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is adequately referenced, and I think the article, taken together with the references, demonstrates notability. --Eastmain 05:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 07:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, well referenced and NPOV goes a long way towards making an article on a small company worth having.-gadfium 08:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This could be a model article. And I learnt something from reading it. --Limegreen 08:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Limegreen This appears to be well written and referenced article. Jules1975 11:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It could use a lot of work though...--StormCommander 11:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-written and dilligently referenced; big enough company to have Verizon as a client. Sounds totally notable to me. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject has multiple, non-trivial appearances in the press. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 13:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, nontrivial sourcing, well referenced. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems reasonably objective and well referenced. And if they oppose using Javascript and Flash animations as site navigation features, they are on the side of God and His angels. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Just wanted to say a friendly hello. I'm the president of Netconcepts. Anything I can do to help? I listed a few articles on Talk:Netconcepts that hopefully will help establish notability. I agree that the article needs work. Stephanspencer 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Coming to this article as a new pair of eyes, my immediate reaction is deep unease. As it stands the article looks dangerously like spam/advertising. I'm deeply perturbed by the NZ Herald articles, which have all the hallmarks of lazy journalists cribbing from corporate press releases, and the other articles are slightly too hagiographic of the company's founder to make me feel they're unbiased. This is one of those "snowball/heck" cases: I can see the way this debate's going, but my every instinct would be to delete for lack of real ( independent, non-press release ) sources. It doesn't seem to me that this article really passes WP:CORP, on the grounds that we don't have enough truly independent sources. At the very least, I'd like to suggest a good Clean up. I have a hunch we're being used here, but I can't put my finger on why. WMMartin 13:48, 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 Merge to Permian High School. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:12Z

[edit] Permian High School Band

Permian High School Band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

High school band. Need I say more? It has been in a movie, and won some HS band awards, but common sense says this should be a part of the Permian High School article, and be turned into a redirect to that page. Cornell Rockey 04:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Permian High School. bibliomaniac15 05:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Way better than average high school band. Edison 05:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom/ or redirect. C56C 06:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into main school's article. May be better than the average band, but then I'm sure there's a lot of those. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 07:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, to Permian High School, maybe put a section on the band. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 07:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The band "has earned 47 straight "1" ratings from UIL band contests". It seems much more notable than a regular high school band. Also please note that the creator is a new user to WP and is still in the process of adding sources and improving the article (see the article's talk page). Also, multiple mentions in external sources indicate that notability is/can be established. At the least, merge to Permian High School but don't delete. -- Black Falcon 07:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If information is indeed confirmed, then this is quite notable. The band has a noteworthy history and this makes more notable than other bands. I'd recommend merging if this is not kept. - Anas ^Talk? 11:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if the awards are confirmed. Redirect to the relevant school if not (any referenced info can be merged) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment despite its notability, I'm pushing for merge & redirect as keeping this article separate from the Permian High School article would set a precedent for keeping unique articles for high schools clubs when they are notable, instead of keeping them as part of the article for the high schools they belong to. The day wikipedia has an article for every championship high school chess team, FFA club, jazz band and tennis team is bad day for this encyclopedia. Cornell Rockey 14:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• merge to the school in question. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into main school's article. I'm from west texas, grew up in Midland/Odessa, went to HS locally and I can honestly say, I've never heard anything special in regards to the PHS band. It is a high school band. HIGH SCHOOL. Make it part of the PHS page. Fuhreeus 16:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe people seem to think a 1 rating is first place it is not. It is like a division. Many schools have 1 rate bands that have never dropped back.--Dacium 21:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Since I am the creator of the article, you know what I will say as far as keep or delete. However, I do have some comments. In reference to Dacium, Yes, the "1" isn't first place but the fact that the Permian Band has never gotten anything but a "1" in it's existence and is the only school in Texas, I believe (There may be one more), that has a streak of "1" ratings ever since creation is different than just getting a "1" on occasion. The other thing I would have to say is that the main article, Permian High School, is more for the football and Friday Night Lights portion of the school. I would rather it be merged if faced with deletion but the addition of such would be out of place, in my opinion. Eaglesmarty08 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Regardless how their Awards or talent, this is a High School band. There are Colligate or Higher level Bands or Music groups with more notabilltiy that don't have articles.Corporal Punishment 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. The school's own article can and certainly should be more than just football and Friday Night Lights, and that is where this content (stripped of the directory entries) belongs. Also, I am not saying there was any intent to deceive with the use of "straight 1 rating", but there is clearly the potential to mislead, and I thank you for the clarification. Ohconfucius 07:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Cleanup, specifically per Fuhreeus's local knowledge. WMMartin 13:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Give me a break. A WikiPedia article on a high school band? What's next, a WikiPedia article on the school's chess club? Dumb.Sockem 18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge then Delete. Vegaswikian 03:57, 25 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:12Z

[edit] Quad county optimist baseball league

Quad county optimist baseball league (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

It's real, but completely non-notable. It's nothing more than an adult rec league. Check out their official website and decide for yourself. Djrobgordon 04:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - 86 ghits, totally non-notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Part Deux (talk • contribs) 10:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete League would still have to meet things like WP:ORG for notbility.--Dacium 21:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ditto. - grubber 15:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable regional recreation league. —ptk✰fgs 08:16, 23 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:34Z

[edit] MojoLand

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

website devoted to the sports teams of one high school. delete Cornell Rockey 04:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. It's half about a website but then lists alum of the school itself. No sources. - grubber 15:54, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1, WP:CSD#A7 and definite hoax. Nishkid64 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The People's Republic of Columbianus

The People's Republic of Columbianus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non notable fantasy "micronation". WP:HOAX, WP:NFT. Prod and speedy requests removed without comment. Resolute 04:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No verifiability outside of itself to claim this is real or even a real attempt. Land ownership in washington DC doesn't even allow such segreation legally. The land still belongs to the State, the deed are merely assets. You can't create your own country even if you 'own' the land.--155.144.251.120 05:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HOAX and/or WP:NFT. "Currently unfounded"? "Will exist"? Need I say more? -- Black Falcon 05:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD A7. Article author deleted speedy delete tag from own page in violation of warning, which shows bad faith. PubliusFL 07:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - how many ways shall I delete thee? WP:CFD#G1, WP:NFT, WP:NOT a server, WP:CRYSTAL. Part Deux 10:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete as a non-notable crystal ball. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:17, 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 Keep. Articles for deletion is not clean-up, and since the nominator suggests the material should be merged, the nomination is not seeking deletion. Relevant discussion on the nominator's talk page also leads me to believe speedy keep applies, [9], [10]. Also as there are no deletion arguments made beyond the nominator's, I am invoking ignore all rules. In this instance the encyclopedia is not best served by the deletion of the articles, but rather by the improving of them. Also note the specific passage at WP:NOT reads A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. I would suggest these ancilliary articles form part of a larger topic, and that this matter is better discussed at the article talk page for the time being. I would also suggest that where editors identify potential problems, they first look to fix the problems rather than seek deletion. Since the issue's which led to this nomination can be addressed by adding real world context, deletion is not the appropriate solution to the problem. Hiding Talk 10:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stone of Tears

This page violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven - the page contains nothing more than a plot summary, which is specifically prohibited. It fails to make any establishment of historical significance, any impact, real-world context or analysis. Furthermore, I fail to see any potential for development here that could not go into the Sword of Truth series page, or Terry Goodkind's personal page. I therefore nominate this page for deletion.

For the same reason, I am also nominating the following books from the same series:

Wizard's First Rule (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Blood of the Fold (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Temple of the Winds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Soul of the Fire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Faith of the Fallen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Pillars of Creation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Naked Empire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Chainfire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Phantom (Sword of Truth) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Debt of Bones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

MPoint 05:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Despite lacking sources it is clear the plot over views are to big to fit on the series page because of the number of books. Nomination should be nominating all of the books not just this one.--155.144.251.120 05:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Good point, I'll add the rest to the nomination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPoint (talk • contribs) 05:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. Can definitely be improved on. Several of these books have been on best-seller lists, and I fail to see how historical significance or real-world context is a criteria for notability. bibliomaniac15 05:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not nominating the series on a lack of notability; I am nominating them for violating WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. To put it in plain english, the pages are plot summaries, which are prohibited.MPoint
• Keep Book is clearly notable as part of a best-selling series. If the content bothers you, tag it for clean-up or merge. FrozenPurpleCube 05:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • As above, the problem isn't notability; it is that the pages are of an inherently unencyclopedic nature. Anything of value can safely be put on the series page - the only content the individual book pages add is a series of plot summaries, which are forbidden by WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPoint (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
    • And that is not a deletion problem, that's a clean-up problem. The problem here is the content needs improvement, not the subject. Tag it for clean-up, take it to the talk pages. Deletion? That's just the wrong response. It's neither necessary or desirable. You've posted this response several times, but you haven't yet said much about cleaning up the pages. Why not add the appropriate clean-up tags instead of deleting? FrozenPurpleCube 06:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • BTW, you've added the other pages, but even if I accepted your argument as grounds for deletion, it seems to me that you didn't look at the pages themselves before adding them. Wizard's First Rule though not what I would consider a high-quality article is slightly more than a plot summary. Again, I would suggest cleanup not deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 06:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • But, as stated and bolded below, it must be part of a larger topic. As it stands, the overwhelming portion of the article is summary; the focus must be on the surrounding material, either by shrinking the summary to uselessness or increasing the size of the other segments. What, though, are we to include in the article? Sales figures, awards, the wizards rules list and such? All of those will easily fit on the serie's main page and the author's page, leaving nothing but the summaries for the book pages, which would be a violation of policy. Thus, the need for individual book pages is eliminated. Thus, my recommendation that they be deleted and redirected to the Sword of Truth series page, with all non-summary information moved to the other page, and perhaps a SHORT summary of what the series is about. Having just checked, however, I now note that there IS no main page for the Sword of Truth series, neccessitating its creation. I, being currently busy, will make such a page for it tomorrow.MPoint
        • Actually, you're wrong, there is The Sword of Truth which does cover the series as a whole. The fact is, your problem is not a deletion issue, it's a clean-up problem. If you don't feel the individual books in the series would need a page of their own, try the {{merge}} tag. Go to the Sword of Truth Wikiproject. Convince people of what you feel is appropriate. Deletion, however, is not the proper route to go here. Not as a first step. As it stands, I just see this as the wrong approach. FrozenPurpleCube 07:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Ah, I had missed it, as it is not linked from the Sword of Truth project page, or the individual book pages. I would support a merger if there was something to be merged, but as it stands, there isn't. All that is in the book pages that is not in the main page is a plot summary and list of characters, which is the problem - there is nothing usable or encyclopedic in the pages. We don't have any sense of why they're important, or what impact they're having on the world at large - no information as to how well it sold, or who recognizes it as important, no examination into its hidden meanings or who looks to it for inspiration. A lot of work went into these articles, and it's a shame to see it wasted, but the fact stands that it's not proper Wikipedia material, and would be better placed on a fansite. The main article, now that I have read it, says everything that needs to be said. MPoint
            • • Actually, the plot summaries and lists of characters are quite encyclopedic and are valid content for a merger. You seem to have this idea that plot summaries absolutely cannot be on Wikipedia. That is not true(and if it were, it'd mean thousands of pages would have to be pruned). the problem is when plot summaries are the only thing in an article. Well, given that these are books, the plots and characters will have to be covered, so the question is detail and context. Can more be added to add real world perspective? Maybe, maybe not, though given that these are best-sellers, I would not take your word on faith about that. But again, as I see it, in this case, your problems are more properly clean-up issues, not deletion ones. There are many templates that can be used to mark an article for clean-up or improvement so that interested parties can act. You should have tried that method, not AfD. FrozenPurpleCube 08:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Show me how the plot summaries from each book can be merged into the main series article without losing important detail or bloating it beyond reason, and I will agree merge is the right option. At the moment, I believe that the best option would be to write a completely new (and short) summary for the entire series, as it would be significantly easier to write something like that from scratch. Character lists? Perhaps. The best option for that might be a new list, indicating which characters were in which books, on a single page, as opposed to broken up the way it is now. As stated below, putting up a cleanup tag and talk page notice would have been better form, I agree (which, to avoid putting up a dozen articles on AfD in one night, I have done with other books suffering this problem) - but here we are now, and if nothing else, we'll probably see distinct improvement over the next five days if such is possible. I hope that I'm proven wrong, and the article improves, as I dislike removing any article from Wikipedia; but, if it does not improve, then its removal will be in the best interests of the series.MPoint
      • (reducing indent) To be honest, I don't believe that an appropriate level of description from each book would fit into a single article on the series, so if you did propose a merge, I wouldn't support it. Individual articles in this case are my preference, and I'd rather expand the articles with more content. But at least a merge would have some plausibility to it. If that did happen, then yes, the current articles would need to be pruned. However, given that this content does exist, that it is valid and accurate, I would prefer to keep it as a baseline rather than start over from scratch. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. The fact is, removal of otherwise valid information is not in the best interest of anybody. It'd be one thing if this was poorly written, or absolute nonsense. But it's not. It's just some articles on books that are best-sellers, and so do deserve some mention on Wikipedia. So why delete? I can't imagine why. Improvement is the better choice here. FrozenPurpleCube 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
        • To be honest, I see no baby here to be discarded. There is one section, success, in the first book which can be added to the main article, or (if the rest of the article were shrunk to near-stub level) could be kept, but the rest of the articles have nothing to use outside of their own (policy-violating) articles. To summarize the series is best done from scratch, because individual book summaries have a level of detail that cannot be used in a series summary, leaving them completely separate. Character lists, if they choose to make such a list, may be a valid argument for merging that particular information from the articles, but such a suggestion had not been made prior to this AfD. The books deserve mention, yes. They deserve a redirect to the main Sword of Truth page, where they can be mentioned as a list, and can be of use as reference for a discussion of how the series arcs in its philosophy and development.MPoint
          • I don't agree that it's best to start from scratch, the current quality of the articles is not so poor as to make that mandatory or desirable. They are at least some kind of foundation to build upon. I simply feel that's a better way to do things. FrozenPurpleCube 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • (reducing indent again)I'm not saying that the quality of the summaries are poor, merely that as they were written to summarize a book, their focus is inherently unsuable for a summary of a series. It's best to look at what the major events of a book are in relation to the series as a whole are when writing a series summary, and it is more difficult to do so when you trying to figure that out from the summary of a book written with an inherent focus on an individual book. That said, it can be done either way, and discussing which method is superior is really a matter of taste. I guess agreeing to disagree would probably be best on that point :) .MPoint
    • No, I wouldn't say their focus is unusable. Perhaps not completely what is desired, but they're still of some utility. It'd take something of far worse quality for me to agree it was unusable. Besides, I'd prefer the individual books have a page anyway, so it's a non-issue for me. Tag them for clean-up and move on. (And yes, you can withdraw your nomination at this point, nobody else has supported deletion anyway. ). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrozenPurpleCube (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep per WP:BK. It does need some context added to make it more than a plot summary, but easily passes notability guidelines. Resolute 05:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • For the fourth time, notability is not an issue here; it is easily a notable series. However, these pages violate WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Specifically, it violates section seven - "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." If the articles were to focus primarily on something that wasn't a summary, there would be no problem. However, as it stands, policy dicates that it is not Wikipedia material, and should be deleted. If we reduce the size of the summaries to within wikipedia policy, then the pages become unjustifiably small, and should be merged into the series page or the author's page as appropriate. Hence, the deletion.MPoint
    • Actually, policy dictates improvement. As a general rule, if the topic of an article is notable, the article shouldn't be deleted if the content is not hopelessly unsalvageable (which is the case here). I agree that the articles should be expanded, but that's a matter for {{expand}} or other {{cleanup}} templates. If you think the articles should be merged into a series page, then you may go ahead and do so, but deletion is still not warranted. How are you going to merge them after they're deleted? -- Black Falcon 08:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I do believe it to be unsalvagable, however, as there lacks sufficient information to include per book that will be substantially different from the main series page. It will therefore be either redundant or in permanent violation of section seven, meaning that it fails the policy guidelines, and can thus be deleted under the same grounds as any other WP:NOT violation. MPoint
        • I happen to disagree, but that is just my opinion. If you do think they are unsalvageable, then your nomination certainly becomes valid. However (assuming they are unsalvageable), would you support a merge into a "Sword of Truth" series (proposed on the articles or to the articles' primary authors)? I can understand and perhaps even be convinced by arguments that separate articles shouldn't exist, but I don't think the content should just be deleted, when it can be cut down and moved to a more appropriate place. Cheers, Black Falcon 08:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I really wish that merging was an option for more of the articles, but I don't think that it is. Taking a look at the articles again, the Success section of Wizard's First Rule could and should probably be merged into the Sword of Truth main article, but the other articles don't even list the release dates of the books, and the two articles that give a brief discussion of the philosophy in their respective books do so without citing any sources, leaving them unusable. It is my sincere hope that the articles make a dramatic improvement over the next five days, demonstrating my nomination to have been a horrible mistake, but the articles as they stand now are almost useless, and the series as a whole would be better served by removing the individual book articles. A new summary of the Sword of Truth series would be needed for the main article, however, as a reasonably short summary for the series cannot be made from the summaries for the books. I can be convinced that the articles aren't unsalvagable, mind you - it's entirely possible that there is some dimension of expansion that I hadn't previously considered, and I may have been too judgemental because of the excessive size of the current summaries. MPoint
• Keep per all the comments above. The book is notable, and there is too much information for it to be merged. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Then Delete the summaries. Wikipedia is not the place for plot summaries.MPoint
    • You are mistaken. Summaries of plots is highly appropriate for articles on books, television shows, and other fictional content. Not including them would be very strange. Or do you think Romeo and Juilet should have its section on the play's plot removed? I don't. I think you should adjust your approach to these articles. The problem is not that they contain plot summaries, it's the size of the summary and the lack of other content that is a problem. Again, that's clean-up, not deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 06:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The problem is not the size of the summary and lack of other content; those are symptoms. The problem is the lack of potential for each of these for every book. One page for all of the books would be very reasonable, and I would have no problem with it. As it stands, however, they lack the potential to reasonably fill the space that individual book pages offer them. A summary as a tool to help one understand the series and how it has impacted the world is encyclopedic and necessary. To have the summary be the focus is unencyclopedic, and detracts from the usefulness of the section as a whole.MPoint
        • I don't see any need for the books to "fill the space that individual book pages offer them" as not every article needs to be full of in-depth content. But given that they are best-sellers, I'd say it's at least as possible with them as it is with any other book with its own article. If these articles don't contain that content, that's the article's problem, not the subject's. In any case, your problem is best expressed as a clean-up issue not a deletion one. If you don't feel there is a need for individual articles, try proposing a merger. FrozenPurpleCube 07:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • • Perhaps I was a bit hasty in my nomination, as it is bad form to not give a warning first, but I consdier it a valid one. As for it being possible for them to fill their content, I don't believe it is, at least not without a good deal of overlap with the other book pages - from a strictly organizational perspective, I believe it would be better to keep all of the information on the series on one page. The main Sword of Truth page seems to be exactly what I had in mind, and what I believe to be near the limit of what could be reasonably written on the subject.MPoint
        • BTW, what do you think of The Fellowship of the Ring or even Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone? Not much different from these pages. FrozenPurpleCube 07:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Ah, thank you. I'll tag them for cleanup now, and nominate for deletion if no talk or action is generated from the tag/talk page. The Harry Potter page is borderline, however; the introduction, missing text section, and displays of different covers comes very close to pushing it out of "mainly a plot summary". Perhaps the Fellowship of the Ring page is different from my cursory scan of it (I'll check before I tag it), but it appears to be mainly a summary at the moment. MPoint
• Keep When articles for clearly notable subjects aren't very good, the solution may be to fix them instead of deleting them. Maxamegalon2000 06:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BK. If the topic is notable (which even the nom has admitted is the case), the article should not be deleted unless hopelessly unsalvageable. That is hardly the case with these articles. They can and should be improved. -- Black Falcon 07:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Though I see MPoint's point, my gut fails to agree and application of his criteria would require the deletion of virtually every novel on wikipedia that's not a literary masterpiece with multiple reviews and academic analysis. Articles should be expanded with whatever information can be added (sales, best-seller status at minimum, these particular articles could probably be expanded with Goodkind's opinions on what the themes of the novels are (but only the themes, not their impact on literature, the world or people). I agree with Black Falcon, FrozenPurpleCube and the other keep votes. Fix, add content, don't delete. Given Goodkind's agenda of adding significant philosophical content to the fantasy world and books in general, linking plot points with his overall writing goals should be possible, though sourcing may be problematic.

Also note discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/GeneralForum#.22PROD.22. I think in this case, the point

"should" is the magic word in the passage quoted from "What Wikipedia is not". "should" refers to something desirable rather than to a prerequisite. "should" is not synonymous 
with "must". I agree that an article on a novel should contain more than a plot summary. If it doesn't, it should be expanded rather than shortened, let alone deleted 

applies in the case of all the novels. As a final note, I think brief plot summaries are appropriate to pages about books (I've also found them useful in the past), so it might be a question of what else, or how much needs to be added to dodge the WP:NOT criteria. I've brought this up at Village Pump and I'm waiting for a reply. WLU 12:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • The PROD discussion that you linked to would seem to support my conclusions - the only person who argued against it was the creator of the article, with everyone else saying more or less "Well, you say you'll improve it, and I don't really feel like taking it to AfD myself". That would therefore indicate that this is a valid nomination, if perhaps overly harsh. That said, if you can tell me what else you plan on adding in the next month, and how you are going to change the article sizes to emphasize the new material while minimizing the summaries, and how the new structure could not be handled more effectively through use of the main Sword of Truth page and Author page, then I will happily reverse my position in this AfD as having been premature.MPoint
• Keep. WP:NOT includes "plot summaries" for the such when given their own article. WP:BK and notability guidlines both provide for these listed articles. The notability of this article can be verified through reliable sources. Or attibuted. I suspect that this nomination is either in bad faith or in violation of WP:POINT. NeoFreak 13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Your reading of policy and guideline is fallacious. As specifically said in the introductory paragraph of WP:BK

A number of other relevant policies which all articles must comport with are: verifiability; no original research; Wikipedia is not a soapbox; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.[2] Where articles fail to encompass these policy considerations and others, they may be proposed for deletion or may be more formally listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Relevant portion bolded. WP:BK does not override policy, namely WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. This is a plot summary, in most of the cases nothing more than a summary. It therefore violates policy. I am highly insulted that you would accuse me of bad faith for following policy - as for WP:POINT, I am beginning to be irked that WP:NOT is being so widely ignored, and have started to do something about it. Are you saying that paying particular attention to certain portions of policy is WP:POINT?MPoint

• Keep, excessive plot summary is a reason to trim and summarize detail, rather than delete the whole article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per above. AFD is a last resort, not a casual weapon. — Deckiller 13:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep Each book stands on it's own as an individual piece in the series. Each has it's own theme, plot and storyline. Though the series is written in sequence, each book has enough complete background in them and character development as a standalone piece. Deleting is not the solution, but perhaps enhancement. Joedu 17:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain how your suggestion is in line with policy. Adding more character development, plot, and storyline would all fall under the descriptor of plot summary, and so still be a violation of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. What is needed is more information about how this book relates to the outside world, and how the outside world relates to it. I am not convinced that each book individually has had enough of an impact to justify individual pages. If you can do so, please state how, and we can all end this affair.MPoint
    • You miss my point. Because of each individual novel's completeness as a standalone novel, which includes an impactful philosphical theme (which precisely related to the outside world and vice-versa) and storyline, each deserves it's own page. I did not say that each should only include things that would make it a violation. My suggestion is that each page be enhanced to satisfy the rules.Joedu 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, so you meant the philosophical impact of the books. Well, exactly one of those pages (and the one that was most obviously trying to make a point, at that) has an unsourced description of the philosophy of the book, and has been looking for a reliable source for five months. If a significant section on the themes and philosophy of each book can be written for each book, without any reliance on the other books of the series, and based on reliable sources, then I will agree that the individual book pages can stay, though the summaries would probably need to be shortened. As it stands, however, I suspect that it would be easier, shorter, and more organized to discuss the philisophical themes of the series as a whole, with references to which books stress which themes the most. For a hastily written example "The series is heavily influenced by the objectivist theories of Ayn Rand; this can be most clearly seen in Faith of the Fallen, where Richard is confronted by the horror of the Imperial Order's communist society". MPoint
        • Your suspicions on ease of use do not warrant AfD. The goal to make each novel's page more complete and relevant. Again, akin to all the other books in all the other series written by all the other authors each having their own page.Joedu 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Was there ever any doubt? We have (in the not to distant past) started a Sword of Truth Wiki project [11] where we are working on bettering these pages. Thing to remember is that we (well 99.999% of us) have real lives that take up our time; so adding to the project is always a slow process. Now these pages clearly fall into the defined parameters of Wikipedia WP:BK etc. As it would seem, you are already sweeping through and tagging several pages. I think you will find you are mistaken as to your interpretation of policy and guidelines. Also of not is that Goodkind would love for these pages to be removed, but seeing as Goodkind has no say so as to what is placed or not, his opinion matter little.

What we need to remind ourselves is that simply because someone doesn't care for a thing, in no way validated the need for removal. According to MPoint's rational, then almost every Novel page would also need to be included, namely ASOIAF pages, Wheel of time, by Robert Jordan, etc. All of them would be considered AFD. I hope that simply put MPage is misguided in his/her desire to help Wikipedia a better

Place, rather than some kind of bad faith effort or some retaliatory strike. I for one would like to think the former Mystar 18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Ah, thank you for bringing those pages to my attention. I will have them tagged for cleanup at once. That said, I have seen little on the articles' talk pages about how to bring the pages in line with WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven, and less in the way of development for most pages. Is there something in the project page that relates to finding and adding more information that would bring compliance with section seven, and could not be better handled through additions to the main page or author's page? If so, please show me, as I would prefer to believe that I simply missed something.MPoint
• Strong Keep. I think MPoint may be confusing the need to delete with the need to expand. Could all the above articles be improved with historical significance, critical commentary, and third-party analysis? Of course (assuming it could be done in a neutral, NPOV tone citing credible, notable references). But to even consider deleting these pages? That is completely ludicrous. All the novels in the series (apart from the first two) have been New York Times Bestsellers, with the series as a whole having sold tens of millions of copies worldwide. Runch
  • I do not believe that they can be improved on an individual basis in a way that would not invite redundancy, or be better organized by a section on the article's main page or the author's page. It is my belief that the focus of the articles will always be on the summary, which is a violation of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. Millions of books sold (a more precise number added to all of the book pages would have been helpful in preventing this, by the way, as well as how long they were on the bestseller's list) is not an excuse to ignore policyMPoint
• In addition to the fact that these articles obviously pass Notability guidelines, I'd like to make a reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate. All the articles listed follow the WP:NOVELS guidelines, and they are clearly not "just plot summaries". All the articles also include a full infobox with publication information, character listings, etc. To be honest, I would go so far as to suggest that all these nominations should be a Speedy Keep. Runch
  • Following WP:NOVELS guidelines while ignoring policy is still grounds for deletion. Guidelines are suggestions (as they themselves state at the top); policy is mandatory. And they are mostly summary, falling afoul of the last half of section seven; "A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.". They currently are not, as the summaries ARE the topic of the article. Say I'm being too harsh or too legalistic perhaps, but these are valid grounds.MPoint
• As a final point, I'll argue that it would be completely silly to try and fit all the information covered on the novel article pages on the page for The Sword of Truth. That would make that page enormous, bulky, and unwieldy, which is precisely why each novel has it's own article. Sorry if I'm rambling, but I just can't believe the audacity of these nominations... Runch 19:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, if you were to replace individual book summaries with a GENERAL series summary, it would be short and perfectly acceptable. There are no need for individual book summaries if you don't have the information to support them.MPoint
• Comment Nomination should probably be withdrawn as per WP:SNOW--155.144.251.120 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Invalid rationale for AFD. If there's too much plot summary, then that's an issue to be handled within the article, not by deleting. 23skidoo 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The subject matter of this article is a valid matter for coverage under wikipedia. Yes, there is work to be done, no that does not validate even considering AFD. Disdain for an author or his works is not grounds for deletion of an article about the author or his works. Omnilord 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand me. Yes, I do dislike the series, but I recognize that it is a notable work and a valid subject for wikipedia; what I do not agree with is the existance of individual book pages that contain nothing but a plot summary. If every individual book has enough information to be compliant with WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven, then add it; if not, remove the book pages, and add a brief series plot summary to the main article. We must be policy compliant.MPoint
    • In that case, the following novels by renowned novelists should also be listed for AfD as an example to other editors: The Eye of the World, The Great Hunt,The Dragon Reborn, The Shadow Rising, The Fires of Heaven, Lord of Chaos, A Crown of Swords, The Path of Daggers, Winter's Heart, Crossroads of Twilight, Knife of Dreams, A Memory of Light, A Game of Thrones, A Clash of Kings, A Storm of Swords, A Feast for Crows, A Dance with Dragons, The Winds of Winter, A Dream of Spring, Gardens of the Moon, Deadhouse Gates, Memories of Ice, House of Chains, Midnight Tides, The Bonehunters, Reaper's Gale. I am quite positive there are several hundred other novels and books that meet AfD requirements for WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven that need to be listed. I would do this myself, however, I lack the time as I have a job that ties me up during the day and more enjoyable things to do with my life (what precious little free time I do have) than pick fights on an open-edit encyclopedia. Not to mention I have no idea how to AfD an article. Omnilord 22:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • As a matter of fact, I'm currently in the process of putting cleanup tags on most of those articles; if you check, you'll find that I've already finished tagging all of the Wheel of time novels, as well as couple of the Song of Ice and Fire articles; some of them, however, are borderline, and so were left with a message on their talk page. A Dance with Dragons is fine at the moment. Thank you for the other suggestions of what to tag, though! If these aren't fixed within a reasonable period of time, then yes, they will also be nominated for deletion. And I am also convinced that there are several hundred other novels and books that are currently in violation of section seven, hence why I'm going about doing this. I have no interest in picking fights, however, as you insinuate, I only have an interest in maintaining the policies of Wikipedia. Something needed to be AfD'd, and this series happened to be the first non-borderline case I stumbled upon. Was it hasty to not tag it for cleanup first? Yes, as I have previously stated. What can I say, I was in a bad mood, and it happens. But now that it is here, I stand by my decision; it was in poor form, but it was justified under the polices.MPoint
        • For the record, you're using the wrong tag. These articles really don't need cleanup (which implies that grammar, formatting, order, etc. needs to be fixed). If anything, use a more specific tag, such as the Expand tag. - Runch 23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Having a quick look at the Malazan pages, and the SoT pages for that matter, there's lots of content that's not just plot summary. The info boxes for one, contain an enormous amount of relevant real-world information. Accordingly, by that measure alone none of these should be AFD. Also, editors deciding to spend their time working on other articles is not a reason to nominate it for deletion. The time taken to put up all the tags could have probably been used to move at least one of them to the point where it did not need it. All of us have limited time, and this AFD is not a good use of it. Since there is no chance that any of these pages are going to be deleted, I'm not spending any more time on this one. WLU 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
            • As the focus of the articles are the summary, the infoboxes are insufficient to address WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE section seven. As for the accusation that I'm wasting my time by tagging, they took approximately one minute a piece to tag after I read the articles, and felt that I should not add any new information before consulting with the people who had been working on the article previously. At no point did I suggest that editors working on other articles as opposed to these ones were a reason for deletion, and I resent the implication that I stated so. That said, if it were taking longer then five minutes a piece to write these while I wait for responses from other people at work, I would probably not be spending time on this AfD either, for simple fact that I suspect we're just restating our arguments at this point.MPoint
          • Yes and no; the cleanup tag is specifically supposed to be a generic tag to catch anything the more specific tags lack. Tags covering what you believe cleanup implies would be the copyedit, spelling, and restructuring tags. More specific tags for my particular complaint might be unencyclopedic (though I felt that would have been perceived as too hostile), the cleanup-book tag, one of the context tags, or one of the expansion tags. However, the expansion tag or context tags would have been too specific; removal of summary or addition of new material both could deal with the issue, and both exclude the other. that said, I had thought that I was using the cleanup-book tag, and I'm quite uncertain as to how I missed the fact that I wasn't for a good ten articles or so.MPoint
• Keep ill-conceived misuse of AfD. Cleanup does not require deletion. It just requires using the edit button. This AfD is a clear candidate for being speedy-closed under WP:SNOW. Jerry lavoie 00:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All. Tag with {in-universe} or something. And speedy close per WP:SNOW. AndyJones 13:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Article(s) needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. If articles were merged, the article it was merged to would be overrun and far too long. --pIrish 22:12, 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 Merge to AFI (band). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:35Z

[edit] Despair Faction

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

The band? Very notable. The fan club? Not so much. This article lacks any reliable sources to demonstrate the fan club meets WP:N. At the very most, this should be a (small) part of the band's article. janejellyroll 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• On the very verges of notability at best - plus the article needs cleaning up to remove patent trivia. I'd go with Merge and redirect the interesting parts into AFI. EliminatorJR 10:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect relevant parts into the band article. -Mgm|^(talk) 12:45, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Landon Knepp

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

Bumped from speedy. Asserts notability, but not impressively so: appears to have gotten some local coverage for some student silliness. WP:BIO refers. Sandstein 05:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete How is he notable? Getting hit in the head as a kid, hosting a college news show? Appears to fail WP:BIO. TJ Spyke 06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. janejellyroll 06:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. C56C 06:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. The assertion of notability is there (so it's not speedy-able), but it is quite weak. -- Black Falcon 08:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unfunny and unremarkable. Nothing here even hints at noteworthiness. Caknuck 18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia deletion policy states, "deletion is based upon policy and not personal likes and dislikes." That one thinks the controversy described is "unfunny" seems entirely irrelevant. While not a national celebrity, news coverage affirms that this figure and the controversy in which he is involved is at least as notable and/or relevant as other similar local controversies such as the Redbud Woods controversy. Perhaps a tag to expand the article is an order.Namikiw 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • On the contrary. For an article that states its subject is a college "humorist", organizing a one-off, minor pseudo-protest that backfires (ie. isn't funny) is not notable. The sources provided do not indicate any controversy. And the difference between this and the Redbud Woods controversy is that with Redbud, the New York Times saw fit to publish multiple articles about the situation, whereas the Ball State paper couldn't be bothered with publishing more than a one-paragraph blurb about the incident after it happened. Based on the information presented, the subject and the incident are no more notable than I was when I was a "campus personality" at my college 12 years ago. And I don't have a Wikipedia article. Caknuck 22:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Landon Knepp failed at being a DJ. That isn't covered in WP:BIO. Knepp doesn't show up in any of the sources. 13 unique google hits?! ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• According to WP:BIO itself, WP:BIO "is not wikipedia policy" so it should not be used as a sole basis for deletion.
• Lack of presence on the internet doesn't necessarily reflect lack of notability.
• Knepp does show up in the sources - both in the SETV video and this article[12] as the organizer of the the controversial event. Namikiw 15:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• WP:BIO was not my sole basis for deletion. I also stated that he had 13 unique google hits. 13 is very low. I also stated that he failed at being a DJ. These reasons with the fact that he miserably fails WP:BIO are reasons enough.
• Lack of presence on th internet does not reflect lack of notability. However, a lack of presence, and a lack of multiple independent reliable sources to prove verifiability does reflect lack of notability.
• I don't see Knepp's name on this link [13] or this link [14]. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 11:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read page 2 of this article?[15] How can you you make assertions if you're not reading the sources? Namikiw 13:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• "person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works" (from WP:BIO). In my opinion someone who doesn't appear anywhere on the first page of an article doesn't come even close to being considered the primary subject of said article. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The controversial event is in the Daily News for the fourth straight day

[16] Also, the discussion for the original article is reaching record lengths with 52 comments. [17] — Dmurtbergx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was Merge to The Wotch. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:37Z

[edit] The Wotch: Cheer!

The Wotch: Cheer! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable authorized but fanmade spinoff from webcomic, fails WP:WEB; The Wotch: Cheer! gets only 69 distinct Google hits[18], none of them indicating any notability. Adding the author name Tselsebar to the search, you drop to 21 distinct google hits[19]. Article was redirected to the main article as a courtesy, but redirect was contested and removed, so now it's up for AfD. Fram 06:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The comic is based on The Wotch, but is no simple fancomic. Art quality is better than in The Wotch, and the storyline is mostly independent (as much as two strips playing in the same location at the same time can be independent). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ambi Valent (talk • contribs).
• Merge into Wotch main article (unless new secondary sources show up in this discussion), but give it more space than the unfinished game there. Ambi Valent 20:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

These are WP:ILIKEIT arguments. What about notability? Any independent reliable sources indicating notability per WP:WEB or WP:NOTE? Fram 10:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion Ambi Valent, please base your comments on Wikipedia inclusion and deletion policies. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wotch: My Sister, Myself seems to be similar. Part Deux 11:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I noticed that article when debating this one, and thought it deserved an AfD as well. As it is different enough (one a comic, the other a game: one exists, the other is in development: ...), I thought it would be a bad idea to make this a mass nomination (something I normally don't oppose though). But the fact that they are both listed is not a mere coincidence of course. Fram 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:N on all levels. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. The article for the main comic doesn't say much about the spinoff except that it exists, so it seems to me that it'd be better to move the content into there and then get rid of what's unnecessary. (Incidentally, when I tried Googling "The Wotch: Cheer!" I got nearly 600 hits (see for yourself) - it seems to depend on which country's version of Google you use to do the search. And just entering the words "wotch", "cheer" and "tselsebar" gives over 10,000 results...) DGemmell 14:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Again, not a valid argument: WP:GOOGLEHITS. And, incidentally, 600 is extremely low for a webcomic; even 6,000 is pretty low for web material. Part Deux 14:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • There are 600 hits, but some 60 or 70 distinct hits (click on page 10 of your Google search and see how many results you get: add -wikipedia to exclude wikipedia and most of its mirrors, as these aren't reliable independent sources anyway). This does not depend on the version of Google, that is just a skin (except for some notorious cases like Google China perhaps), Google.be gives exactly the same results as Google.com. Anyway, the number of Googlehits, while a possible indicator for (lack of) notability, is not a reason for deletion in itself: the lack of reliable, non-trivial sources amongst those hits is a good reason though (except when people would be able to give good sources which do not appear in a Google search of course). You have the best chance of finding a good source when looking for the exact title, preferably with the author included (can you imagine a review of a book, comic, webcomic in a reliable source that doesn't mention both the name of the webcomic and the name (pseudonym) of the author? They should be rare...). Fram 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • As I've pointed out before, Fram seems to use the lowest results count possible when invoking the Google test, which is typically quite questionable. Balancer 02:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• That said, merge to The Wotch as a section. Balancer 02:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nn webcomic. Google search turns up absolutely nothing of interest, which it should, if it's a webcomic. Part Deux 14:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge This comic is currently number 26 in the TWC, has remained in that area for about a year or so now. Also has several cannonical and non-cannonical ties to The Wotch, and why is it that the Google test only works to prove non-notability, but not notability? Anyways, Redirecting this to The Wotch would just plain and simple be wrong, This may not be 'notable' enough to get its own article, but as Vikedal said, star trek TNG and star trek aren't the same, redirecting gives the wrong impression to somebody who doesn't know the subject. Merging will offer some clarity to fix that problem (I hope) Theturtlehermit 15:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • May I kindly ask what TWC is? Part Deux 15:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The Top Web Comics (topwebcomics.com) Ranking system, a reader based ranking system to which Comics such as El Goonish Shive and The Wotch belong to as well as many others (1000's if not more, currently contacting them for fact checking). Theturtlehermit 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • That might be worth noting. Is there any mainstream media coverage by any chance? Part Deux 15:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Not that I know of right now, I am contacting Tbar (the author) to see if he has any mainstream media, I doubt that there has been...but then again, EGS was writen up in a paper on geneology, so weirder things have happened. I should get better info on TWC in one to two business days, and on media of Cheer! in about a day or so depending on Tbar's schedule...Theturtlehermit 16:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I may be doing a wrong search here, but it looks like many notable webcomics are not even listed on TWC: Penny Arcade, PvP, Schlock Mercenary, 8-bit theatre, ... Doesn't this make the value of this topwebcomics a bit less than it appeared at first to be? It's not only a reader's poll (not a reliable source, but could be an indicator of popularity), but a poll among a section of all webcomics that excludes a lot of the most popular and best known ones... Fram 06:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
            • This may be true, but just because Megatokyo isn't on Keenspot doesn't mean that it is any less notable. I believe, and once again, I do have outstanding requests for verification about this, that any webcomic can register freely for this list, which makes Cheer!'s constant possition in the upper to mid 20's even better. Accoriding to Tbar, when he first regestered for this it started out just about where it is now, for over a year and a half. Also, Tbar said he didn't have any mainsteam media writeups that he knew about. Which is why I have from the start said merge because this comic has enough notability to merit a paragraph or two, but not enough on whole to merit its own page, at least by current notability standards. Is that clearer? Theturtlehermit 12:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Clear! Fram 13:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Good question about "why is it that the Google test only works to prove non-notability, but not notability?" - going by the WP: GOOGLEHITS rule mentioned above, the low number of hits can't be used as an argument for deleting the article, either. (I wasn't aware of that rule, by the way - I just thought I should mention that I got a different result to Fram's. Thanks to Part Deux for informing me.) All the same, I'll try a few other search engines and see if I can find anything useful. DGemmell 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. 217.91.57.33 17:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless we can find some good proof of notability. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- Sid 3050 22:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm glad to see that the deletion is being discussed. If Cheer! fails Wikipedia's rules, I will not object or think poorly upon such a deletion. I was, however, very disturbed by the initial redirect by Fram, as it rather effectively deleted the article without the burden of proof or input by the community; the "courtesy" that was mentioned. It is unfortunate that this AfD has been put forward by the same person who circumvented the due process, but that does not deny the potential validity of the claim. Now we will see what the proper consensus is.
  
  As the author, my opinions are not valid here; I have far too much invested. However, I would like to point out that Google does have very different results depending on the country of origin. It is not just a skin... I discovered and confirmed this fact a while ago when my page was linked first in Google under... a somewhat disturbing search string. I would also like to point out that the name of the comic is not and never has been "The Wotch: Cheer!" in its entirety. This was an error that has persisted to this day due to the images used in the webpage design. The name of the comic in question is simply "Cheer!" Hopefully this will help you more accurately determine the reach of this comic. I leave you to your deliberations. Tselsebar 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, that does remind me - on my webpage I get very different incoming traffic from different country "editions" of Google. And now I have to go check on the title "cheer." Great. Balancer 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Google.be hits for Cheer Tselsebar: 37 distinct ones[20]. Google.com hits for Cheer Tselsebar: 36 distinct ones[21]. Please, could people check out for themselves what the results are of different searches before claiming that the low results are due to using google.be?
      • I don't believe that claim was ever made, at least not in the posts you're sub-commenting on. For my part, I was merely commenting on the mistaken belief that the different Google pages are only skins, and the results are identical, which is not the case. As editors of an encyclopedic site, I thought such information may be of value for this case and for others. Tselsebar 08:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Septate entity from the Wotch that should be kept. This is wikipedia help make the knowledge here better by editing not deleting! -- UKPhoenix79 02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yet another WP:ILIKEIT vote, instead of pointing to any reliable sources to indicate notability. Fram 06:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • First off, that's an essay, not a policy, second, UKphoenix is pointing out that they are seperate entities, not saying keepit because "I like it" or because "this is so great" etc. Theturtlehermit 13:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • If by separate he means 'should not be merged', then all we can do is delete it. Keeping something only because it is a separate entity is not an argument. AS for the I like it: the second sentence of his or her keep opinion is nothing but I like it. But in the end, I don't really care about ILIKEIT, OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and other flawed keep arguments: as long as someone doesn't give arguments which counter the deletion reason(s) given in the nomination and possible additional deletion reasons given in othere delete opinions, then his or her opinion, while perhaps interesting, is of no value in determining the consensus as to whether any article meets the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. If editors don't agree with the standards, they should take it up on the talk page of said standards: until then, those are the guidelines and policies we have to follow, and any other !vote basically boils down to "we have to keep it because it is useful, it is popular, it does no harm, or I like it". Like the Wikipedia:Deletion policy (a policy, not an essay) says, "deletion is based upon policy and not personal likes and dislikes." "They are separate entities" is not a reason to keep an article based on any policy or guideline. It can be a good reason to oppose a merge, but I did not propose a merge but a delete. Fram 13:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Ok, look all I was trying to say is that if you are going to discount anybody's votes, please do so for an appropriate reason, that said, I do feel that while these are seperate entities, they could be legitimately merged, (kinda like how Joanie loves Chachi could be merged with Happy Days) because while they are sperate they do stem from the same tide. (And incedentally Cheer! is doing better than Joanie loves Chachi ever did...) anyways, I'll let UKpheonix do anyfurther justification of his/her claim.Theturtlehermit 16:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I don't see anything compelling in the nominator's arguments regarding deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• KeepThe inclusion of this webcomic in an independent listing of popular titles in the genre (i.e. named noteworthy by those who read webcomics, just as a movie is made noteable by the large percentage of moviegoers who buy tickets to see it, thus giving it a rank in the 'top ten') makes it notable. In addition, the deletion argument seems to rely exclusively on Google results, which are clearly stated as INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL.I exfoliate! 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC) — UncleNed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete: I don't see anything compelling in the particpants' arguments regarding keeping. --Iamunknown 20:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no independent sources. -- Dragonfiend 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no independent sources to bear on notability. —ptk✰fgs 01:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge with the Wotch. It's a spin-off, and though the art style is better than most spin-offs, its forums are located at the Wotch forums. No independent sources either. Wellmann 08:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• To Wellman: Perhaps it should be mentioned that Cheer! is not the only webcomic to inhabit the same forum as the Wotch. There are at least 10 other webcomics that also use that same place for their webcomic forums. I felt that needed to be pointed out. Icechicken 12:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Your point being? That Cheer is actually less notable than it sounds? Wellmann 10:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, perhaps (and I am just playing Devil's Advocate here) it means that The Wotch is steadily becoming another Keenspot, and therefore association with it should be a point of noteability. Theturtlehermit 17:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's several orders of magnitude away from that. Anyway, to be anal, it's true enough that the forums in question seem to be a small hub. --Kizor 22:43, 25 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 non-notable bio, nonsense. -- Gogo Dodo 07:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long Nguyen

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

Although claims of notability are made, this is your basic nn bio with a dash of nonsense. janejellyroll 06:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. Hopeless {{db-bio}} and/or {{db-nonsense}} and other non-notable stuff (depending on which revision you're reading) and an earlier {{db-blank}} I had added was removed by the author. What's that, 4 strikes and you're out? Author has since engaged in a variety of WP-abusive behaviors: removing various templates, creating attack page against this AfD nominator DMacks 06:42, 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 Merge to The Wotch. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:38Z

[edit] The Wotch: My Sister, Myself

The Wotch: My Sister, Myself (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unreleased fanmade game for a webcomic, fails WP:NOTE. 16 distinct Google hits[22], all indicating that very little is known for this game in development (making it a WP:NOT for crystalballery candidate as well). Fram 06:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom, and that's about it really. The Kinslayer 10:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Very little is known of a lot of games in development, but everything in the article is sourced from the developers themselves. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Dread, could you please address the notability issue? Unfortunately, it appears your argument so far is only WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Part Deux 10:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I Am getting so SICK of that frinkin ESSAY that people keep sourcing!!! It says right on top: This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page. I am seriously getting sick of people sourcing other wikipedia ESSAYS for things in deletion. Give me a DEFINITIVE Policy that says "Such-and-such is able to be deleted because it's not on Amazon" or "It has few hits on google", or "The article is crap and needs to be deleted" (I have SEEN that one, in which case an AfD is NOT appropriate, a rewrite is. Vikedal 06:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (If you wanna complain, do it on my talk page.)
• Merge back into main article The Wotch, since the game is only in development now. Ambi Valent 10:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into main webcomic article until game is actually released at the very least. I still have doubts about it, it cites a forum and says it's a "canonical game by fans" which is a direct contradiction and it has images that are not discussed in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Once again: Canonical just means "Considered to be a part of overall continuity". I could, for example, Make a spinnoff (Let's go with The Wotch: Cheer!). It can be considered "Fan-made Canon" iff (Not a misspelling, means If and Only If) I Get the Main comic Author to run over everything and approve it. The same goes for the Halo series of books (Cite: OXM, Winter '06, the one with the Halo: Ghosts of Onyx Preview in it). They are considered Fan-made Canon simply because they are NOT made by Bungie, But the writer (In 3 of 4 cases, Eric Nylund) Got approval for the storyline from Bungie, to make sure it was in Continuity with the Halo Storyline. Vikedal 05:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are many games listed in Wikipedia, many open source programs and preproduction movies listed so I see no problem in this being kept. -- UKPhoenix79 13:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And again: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument. How does it satisfy WP:WEB? Part Deux 14:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Citing an essay to prove your point doesn't really do anything! You are using a policy ie WP:WEB for a webcomic! That holds little context to this case as a webcomic by its nature is different from large well known websites like yahoo.com or smaller more select ones like effingpot.com. Webcomics need different definitions just as movies in pre-production have special clarifications as movies that have been released. -- UKPhoenix79 02:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Possibly you haven't read WP:WEB. Like other websites, prominent webcomics have been cited in multiple, non-trivial and independent sources, have received noteworthy awards and have certain defined and accepted gauges of popularity and influence. Beyond that, frankly, webcomics also ought to be held to like standards as with other websites. RGTraynor 03:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I really don't mean for this to sound rude... but have you read the page? This page is about a VIDEO GAME, yes the VIDEO GAME is based on a web comic... but how can a VIDEO GAME that is being developed be used when talking about WP:WEB? -- UKPhoenix79 08:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
          • You are quite correct, this has nothing to do with WP:WEB. Now, how does it fulfill the requirements of WP:NOTE, which was one of the reasons given in the original nomination? Your "keep" opinion doesn't address this. Fram 08:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
          • You don't need to shout, UKPhoenix79. As it happens, I responded to your own comment about the applicability of WP:WEB to webcomics. If you believe (accurately enough) that the notability of the webcomic itself is beside the point, you ought not have strayed onto the subject yourself. RGTraynor 19:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:COI, WP:NFT. There are many significant preproduction movies, unreleased games and open source programs listed. An "in-development" bootleg game for a middling popularity webcomic created by a handful of fans isn't one of them. C'mon back when EA picks it up. RGTraynor 14:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Non-notable webcomic with no non-trivial references. Does not satisfy WP:WEB. Part Deux 14:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Again, I say, What do web guidelines have to do with video games? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:NFT, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, possibly Merge if it ever gets released and attains a degree of popularity. I haven't seen any proof of notability. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not seem to satisfy WP:WEB WP:NOTE guidelines and does not exist yet, if ever (it never made its GBA release, after all). It does have entries at IGN and the like, but the low Googles indicate there is little interest outside of the webcomic's fanbase when compared to other fan/indie games featured on those sites (such as Halo Zero). Garrett^Talk 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't see how WP:WEB applies to a console game at all. Could someone explain how video games fall under internet guidelines? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Whoah, wrong acronym. :) I've improved my rationale too. Garrett^Talk 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As one of the developing staff of The Wotch: My Sister, Myself, the game is not far enough along to warrant a wiki page. In my opinion, there should be a mention of it on the main The Wotch page, but nothing more than that at this time. Tfrevor 04:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge You're pretty much saying that "Hey, it hasn't been released, and google/amazon don't care, so it's not notable" to most of the webcomic AfD's i've seen. Have a look at what's happening here. If Halo 3 didn't have the fanbase, it would have no google or amazon hits, thus making it "Not Notable" and AfD'able, which i'm sure some game-hating NUT would do. Give it some time, because the whole point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, and this one definitely helped me out on some aspects of the game (Beforehand, i had no clue what the game was about).Vikedal 05:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You are quite correct: if noone had ever bought or even released Halo 2, the article on Halo 3 would be deletable. If no one had ever read or done a production of Shakespeare, his article and the article on his works would better be deleted as well. But what kind of argument is that? Halo 3 is notable, the article is referenced to reliable sources (part of them independent ssecondary sources), and this is one of these cases where you know that the game will be reviewed extensively, whether it is brilliant or it sucks. On the other hand, this is a game where little is known and nothing is written by independent reliable sources, and it is doubtful if even if it would ever be released, such reviews would appear anyway. If that does happen however, and this game does get notability, then nothing stops you from creating an article for it. An encyclopedia is not supposed to give you information on everything because it may one day become notable (every kid may one day become notable), but because it is already notable, whether it is already released or not. Fram 06:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur; that which lacks evidence of its notability is, mirabile dictu, non-notable. Congratulations, Vikedal, you've gotten it. (By the way, exactly how much help would a completely non-detailed article on a game that hasn't actually been released yet be to you?) RGTraynor 16:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, speculative article about a non-notable, unreleased video game. If it is ever released and attains notability then the article may be easily recreated. Also, is that forum post the only thing resembling a reference source for this article? If so, that's pretty appalling -- we should be looking for independent reliable sources, not linking to some promotional message board. —ptk✰fgs 08:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could you point out the speculation? I checked and I don't see any. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's unreleased; it's already switched platforms once without a release... and it may never be released. Articles about things in the future are necessarily speculative. That's what "speculative" means. —ptk✰fgs 00:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, mention in The Wotch article if necessary. -- Dragonfiend 00:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge with the main Wotch article. Not yet that notable, but perhaps may be when released. I believe it warrants at least a mention in the main article. Wellmann 08:17, 24 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 keep. Possible merge. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:40Z

[edit] Prophetic gift of Ellen White

Prophetic gift of Ellen White (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is pure religious cruft. It pretends to be NPOV by using words such as "believed" but even the article name is blatantly POV. Delete Nardman1 06:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete religioncruft. JuJube 07:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The article is not "blatantly POV" at all, and I don't see how anyone who has read the article right through could claim that. It cites a very wide range of sources from conservative Adventist and progressive Adventist through to former Adventists and non-Adventists. It also includes a large number of critical views, listing and linking to the primary critics. Of course, contributions to further improve the NPOV are always welcome. Colin MacLaurin 10:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - a rename to a less POV title might be in order. Part Deux 10:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I just realized that shortly before the nomination, one user made three edits deleting critical material. I have reverted them to replace the material. Colin MacLaurin 10:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Controversial subjects can be discussed as long as multiple views are allowed, and this article has a good deal of critisism as well. Not that it should matter, but I am not an Adventist. Bbagot 11:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup (possibly rename). A valid topic, but it needs a cleanup to use more neutral language and become a little less wordy. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Ellen G. White - Skysmith 12:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Skysmith. By the logic of the nominator, papal infallibility should go, too, since "the article name is blatantly POV". The content here is good, but a merge and a little judicous cleaning would go a long way. -- Plutor ^talk 14:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - and cleanup. I do not believe a merge in this case would be effective, since this particular topic has been the subject of discussion in the relevant religious circles quite independently of the individual herself. The discussion of the figure and her gift as it appears in literature and history require a significantly different treatment, so I believe the articles should both be retained and kept separate. Of course, this article requires some non-trivial cleanup and rewording. One case in point: "Ellen White didn't call herself a prophet, as there were others in America at the time who were claiming the title and giving it a bad name." Statements such as this are not encyclopedic unless they are attributed; otherwise they introduce the editors' point of view and likely quite a bit of original research as well. Still, problematic statements are not sufficient grounds for removing the entire article or simply merging the content with another topic from which it has sufficient verifiable independence. ◄Zahakiel► 18:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, or keep and cleanup. bibliomaniac15 18:20, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of shopping malls in India

List of shopping malls in India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not sure if this should or shouldn't be deleted, so I figured I'd let the community decide. Looks like an indescriminate list of shopping malls, and, from what I can tell, Wikipedia is not a directory. Rockstar915 06:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Shopping malls are major structures so I don't think WP:NOT#DIR exactly applies here. They are especially relevant in parts of the world where not every town with more than 500 people has one. A number of the malls on the list are blue-linked and notable. The main problem is that the articles that have no links need to be sourced. Were it a list of living persons, I might argue differently, but in this case I think we should keep and tag the article with {{unreferenced}}. Most of the content seems easily verifiable (I did a google search for 5 randomly-selected malls). If there is a consensus to keep if sourced, I will go through and source any entries that are not blue-linked. Cheers, Black Falcon 08:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 09:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per the precedent set at Category:Lists of shopping malls, Lists of shopping malls, it looks like most Wikipedia believes these are not indescriminate lists. I must agree; this is not just directory, but useful. Part Deux 10:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Which precedent are you talking about? utcursch | talk 14:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - the list is not indiscriminate. --Canley 10:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Black Falcon. This seems like a helpful list and not a directory or a collection of indiscriminate information. - Anas ^Talk? 11:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as it seems wrong to single out India, but the articles in it better be sourced soon, because a list of redlinks CAN be deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think India was singled out particularly. Rather, this probably just happened to be the article that the nominator ran across. Given the developing consensus for keep, I will start going through and sourcing the entries where I can in 2-3 hours. Cheers, Black Falcon 18:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I didn't mean to single out India, I just noticed a bunch of red links, and wanted to bring it to the community. No bad faith here. Rockstar915 17:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per precendent. I'm no fan of "List of X" articles, and while I don't feel a list of shopping malls in any country belongs in an encyclopedia, we can't delete this but then not the others. And that's not going to happen. Arkyan 20:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per the earlier arguments Manzhivago — Manzhivago (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment Just out of curiosity, aren't lists like this meant for Categories? It seems like any shopping mall in India should be placed in a "Shopping Malls in India" category, rather than having a separate entry for such lists... I guess I agree with everyone that per current Wikipedia regulations, the list should stand. But maybe the topic of categories instead of lists should be discussed?
  • You raise an important issue. I'd like to reply with 5 points.

1. Categories only work for persons/objects/events that already have WP articles.
2. Whereas lists can be referenced, categories are more difficult to do (each article must be referenced).
3. Not everyone finds categories easier-to-use than lists.
4. Lists can provide additional information about individual entries (which categories cannot).
5. Per WP:LIST, lists that aid in navigation, are informative, and/or are used for development purposes are allowed.

• • I think categories are useful and should be used in many cases. However, I don't see why they cannot exists side-by-side with lists. In essence, I don't think being a list is itself a reason for deletion unless the list is highly inferior in quality to the category, which requries that it be redundant (all info contained in one is contained in the other), unreferenced, and simply a listing of names without any additional information or any form of subdivision (e.g., by location, time, etc.). Cheers, Black Falcon 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to say, this is why I love Wikipedia. :) Rockstar915 01:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Malaysia. A clear case of WP:NOT#DIR. Even if the shopping malls are themselves notable, categories suffice in this case. An example of a worthy list would be List of largest shopping malls in the United States (Before somebody cries bias, let me explain -- I'm from India). Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Singapore. utcursch | talk 14:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see my comment above about the disadvantages of categories: bias toward objects with articles, cannot be referenced, not necessarily more user-friendly, and limited capability to provide additional information. Let's please remember that most articles start out in a poor state. It takes time for them to reach the quality of List of largest shopping malls in the United States. If we deleted everything at the outset because it wasn't of the highest quality, we would have only a few dozen articles. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep list of notable structures. No reason why list of malls in India is less notable than List of shopping malls in the United States. --Vsion 06:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup Topic is worthwhile, but most of these places are not notable.--Sefringle 07:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If we have a List of shopping malls in the United States (as well as a List of largest shopping malls in the United States) and a List of shopping centres in the United Kingdom, we can also have a List of shopping malls in India. Indian shopping centers are as notable as US or UK shopping centers. --Carioca 04:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Carioca and BlackFalcon.--Atemperman 05:02, 26 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 redirected. Proto ► 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zach Mooneyham

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

This character was only in a single film with no expected sequels as of yet. The article is not even linked to on the actor nor the film's page. This article is unlikely to be expanded too much further and to my knowledge there are no other characters in the film that have articles. As a member of WP:Films, I have seen some character articles for more notable films (Star Wars, The Matrix, Battle Royale) and this one does not appear notable enough to have an article. Good film, but it is not necessary to have an article for Zach. Nehrams2020 06:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect It's common for character names to point to a relevant article as they are a likely search term. There should also probably be one at the proper article title Zack Mooneyham. (This is a reasonable misspelling). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:28, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:14Z

[edit] Kevin Denzler

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

A Tekken player. While the article asserts notability up the wazoo what with all the boldface and the capitals, this guy is not notable. Daigo Umehara's article was recently deleted, which sets a pretty clear precedent. JuJube 07:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete 32 GHits. "Cashes Clay" gets more, but only by virtue of having the same name as a German DJ; "Cashes Clay" tekken gets 3 GHits. cab 07:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's a vanity article about a high school kid who likes to play in Tekken tournaments. The article says he is 17, although you would guess 13 based on the writing skills haha. TJ Spyke 07:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamers are rarely notable (they are for example if they win the World Cyber Games). This is not encyclopedic or verifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:VAIN and WP:NEEDSALIFE. Did I leave anything out? RGTraynor 14:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete as thoroughly non-notable, vanity, unsourced, and unencyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:19, 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 from mainspace. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 09:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Hernandez

Martin Hernandez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Michelle Hernandez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

All Over Again (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An article of the same name previously deleted for vandalism. The subject is a 15 year old mexican. Also bundled with article on the actress sister of the subject (aged 16), and a film ostensibly created by the young director which claims to have won a number of awards. No information available on the film. Likely hoax, but at best fails WP:V Ohconfucius 08:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As far as I can determine the critical reviews of the film are all fake. The New York Times at least never said (and never would say) what is attributed to them). Unverifiable hoax. And a repost too. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. if a 13yo director had this much success as has been claimed I'd expect I'd have heard about him and would see plenty of links about reportings about him! But there is nothing like that.... Mathmo ^Talk 13:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as hoax article. Of the five Martin Hernandezes IMDB cites, this kid isn't any of them. The only All Over Again IMDB reports is a 2001 film, not a 2006 film, written and directed by Clive Nettles. One of the awards he claims doesn't exist, while the BIFA 2007 awards won't be issued until November and exclusively go to British-made films. The alleged IMDB link doesn't exist, the film's "official website" is a Myspace page, and I've spent too much time as it is backchecking this kid's spurious nonsense. RGTraynor 14:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• speedy delete as previously deleted content. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, article about a living person citing no sources or references Alf photoman 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all Take a close look at the poster for the movie. Some cursory image analysis indicates the credits were lifted from the poster for Goal! 2: Living the Dream... (poster) and the MPAA rating box has the Paramount logo. Nice try, kids. Caknuck 18:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Userfied, I moved all these pages off the mainspace so that Written92 (talk · contribs) can work on these articles and add the necessary details. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 09:00, 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 speedily deleted by MacGyverMagic as a hoax. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 14:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota Malt

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

Hoax. Book supposedly written by Zack Vank. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Vank Dave6 ^talk 09:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:HOAX unless evidence is provided. Walton monarchist89 10:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I've also added a prod tag to Dooney which was created by the same author (who will be indefblocked unless one of these three articles proves to have some validity). —Wknight94 (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As far as I am concerned writing (fiction or memoir at least) doesn't become notable until it is finished, more often it only becomes notable after it is actually published too. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:17, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zamzar

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

User:MER-C placed a speedy tag on this article, but it definitely doesn't look speedy-able to me; seemed to have some references on google, as well as a high hit count. I am neutral Part Deux 09:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I suspect the rationale for db-tagging it was that the article (one sentence long) contains no actual assertion of notability. It tells you what the site is, but doesn't tell you why it's important, making it speedyable under A7. However, if we're going to put it through the full AfD process, then delete per no evidence of notability, external links to their own site, no proof of multiple coverage by reliable independent sources. Walton monarchist89 10:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • One of the reasons I brought it here is precisely because I think it may be notable and the sources may exist. In other words, I'm asking people to help me look for the sources, and, should the sources fail to exist, only then should we decide upon deletion. As it stands, I was able to find one from google news: an article on yahoo's tech blog, which seems notable. It also received a mention from PCMag. If anyone can find anything else, I ask for help in this. Thanks. Part Deux 10:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • No matter the amount of sources it stills needs an assertion of notability in the article. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, it now asserts notability: [23]. Now, can we prove it with independent sources, like the one I've given. Part Deux 11:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
        • xD Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Very clever, Part Deux. Technically it now asserts notability, but it still has no evidence of independent sources to prove notability. If you can find some by the end of this AfD, I will change my vote. Walton monarchist89 15:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Walton, please assume good faith. The reason I did that was so that we wouldn't keep on talking about "the article no longer asserts notability", when I was simply asking for us to be searching for notability, rather than claiming it doesn't assert it now. So I am asking others to help me find sources (rather than just vote) because they appear to exist. I've already provided a few, PCMag and yahoo business. Part Deux 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
              • I apologise, I wasn't intending to assume bad faith, nor did I mean to imply that you were mis-using the process. As I said, if you can add the sources you mention to the article, then I will change my vote to Keep. Walton monarchist89 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                • NP. In any case, I've added the two articles, though they're a little silly. The first, the yahoo article, supports notability, but this particular article isn't about the product. The second, PCMag, just mentions it having a bad name. In any case, I bet 10:1 the sources exist somewhere. But, I gtg, so I can't check further. Sorry. Part Deux 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think two trivial mentions is enough to pass WP:SOFTWARE.--Dacium 21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I've added a number of "non-trivial" mentions across the Web to the article to support Zamzar's case for inclusion .--Coyote 20:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep the bad, I looked at the references provided they are lame. The article is a short stub with almost not significant content. But the subject passes notability so significantly that it needs to stay. It is so notable the del.icio.us / tag / Zamzar shows that over 10,000 different del.icio.us users have saved it to their favorites Wikipedia Main page is only 21,000. So that makes Zamzar about half as notable as Wikipedia. Jeepday 04:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the article does not provide reliable sources to support any claim of notability under WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Nuttah68 11:46, 26 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 keep. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 11:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Freeman (musician)

Very few google hits about David in regards to music. Searching for his name turns up a lot of Flight of the Navigator hits. Shall we keep? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 10:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The number of Google hits may be sparse, but the links I do find indicate a sufficient level of notability. Take for example his mention at the bluegrass museum website. The number of Google hits is irrelevant, if the one you do find is one about an early Acadamy Award (for example) that's enough to indicate notability (although not enough to build an entire article). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Other relevant links at Google here. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Those Sources should be also in the article else we will be back here within a month Alf photoman 16:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course they should be in there. I will do that tomorrow if I don't forget, but my point is that a cursory check on Google could've prevented an AFD to begin with. If nominators check what they're nominating, they're busy adding sources more often than nominating things for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep! - somebody screwed up this nomination. This page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Freeman (music) and it's regarding David Freeman (musician). I'd vote to relist, but it was already relisted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Freeman (musician). Ehem. Vote there, not here. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Within his genre (bluegrass), he is a Hall of Honor inductee! If that's not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, what is? Cmadler 12:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Assuming the AfD was about his notability. Obviously, the Flight of the Navigator Hits have nothing to do with him. The International Bluegrass Hall of Honor makes him notable. ConDem^Talk 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The International Bluegrass Hall of Honor makes him notable. I've sourced that part of the article. -- Black Falcon 00:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Good stub (though lacking sources). Winner of notable award isn't enough to pass WP:BIO and isn't enough to pass WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, but the article isn't vanity. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:56, 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, and also delete other album images uploaded by the same user (see below). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:16Z

[edit] TBA Nelly Furtado

TBA Nelly Furtado (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Image:Nelly 2.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Nominate for deletion along with

TBA Kelly Clarkson(album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

TBA Kelly Clarkson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Kelly clarkson.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

TBA Sugababes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Suga 2.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

TBA Shakira (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:SHAKIRA.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

TBA Ashlee Simpson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Ashlee.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

TBA Jennifer Lopez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Jlop.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

TBA (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

TBA Mariah Carey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:MAR.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

TBA Kylie Minogue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Kylie 2.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Comment from closing admin: In addition to the above listed images used only on the respective articles, I am also summarily deleting the following orphaned images (plus a few that are only used on articles for other "to be released" albums), since the creator seems to have a history of uploading fake/photoshopped album cover images. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 06:26Z

Image:Britters2.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:4 in the morning.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Nat Nb.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Nicole.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:BECAUSE I LOVE IT.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Double the trouble 4.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Ms. kelly.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Me and my 2.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:ACE REJECT.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:ANYTHING.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Fired up 2.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Sweet sacrifice.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Back to black.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:LEONA 3.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:TEARS.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Ghosts.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Ghosts 2.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Back to black.png.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Nb2.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Christinamilian.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Leav me alone.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Liberation 1.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Liberation 2.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:ORAL FIXATON TOUR.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:ORAL FIXATON TOUR2.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:BRITTERS.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:BRITTERS2.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:MADGE.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Mutya3.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:MUTYA2.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Bday Deluxe Edition.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Copy of Double the trouble 3.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Trip 2.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Ittle remedy.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Beaut.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:FROMT THE ROOTS.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Pink2.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Incredible.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:THE MUSICAL 2.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:The musical.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

All of these articles are speculation about future albums of which the name isn't even known. No citations to verify speculation. (WP:CRYSTAL) Adambro 10:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, TBA (album). Adambro 10:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've let the user in question know about this AfD but they've created another article along the same lines, TBA Mariah Carey, which I've added to this debate. They have also uploaded more images without adding a license which I've also mentioned to them. Adambro 17:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

TBA Nelly Furtado has been deleted, "WP:CSD#G12 (copyvio from http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/furtado%20records%20first%20spanish%20album_1017184)", but the others remain part of the AfD. Adambro 09:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, the names are not known, but the photo suggests the article is to be released, have you visited their official webpages? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 10:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note - I am not prejudiced against a keep if these can be sourced, but several of these, if not all, appear to be copyright violations. Part Deux 11:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all of them (why there are three about the same unnamed Kelly Clarkson album is beyond me). When names, tracklistings, personnel or release dates start being mentioned reliably (and not all necessarily at once) they'll be appropriate inclusions. Not before, and particularly not when some of them appear to be pure guesswork - some articles are nothing but "it would be logical for X to happen", while others appear to be founded on the fact that such-and-such a song has been performed somewhere. Additionally, as Part Deux points out, there's more than a whiff of a cut-and-paste copyvio about some of these. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Where be the sources? Where be the references? Where be the Wikipedia:Attribution showing that the information in this article is correct, and that these albums are forthcoming? Delete all as not meeting the Wikipedia:Attribution core policy and the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" section of the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not official policy, unless someone with an interest in these articles can provide citations supporting the imminent arrival of all these unnamed albums. Re-create when more verifiable, sourceable, factchecked information is made available. -- saberwyn 11:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional. If kept, someone needs to tactical nuclear ewok merge TBA (album), TBA Kelly Clarkson(album), and TBA Kelly Clarkson - these are identical! -- saberwyn 11:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect, articles are a mix of original research, copy/paste from other articles and non-informative (no album names, no reliable release dates etc...). Also the names of the articles ("TBA") make clear that we are dealing with not much verifiable information here. Recreate when more information is available. Either delete or redirect to artist article, so the information is still available when a real article is warranted. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, very unlikely search for a redirect, crystalballery at this point. Recreate 'em when they can be sourced (and named). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all All the information is unverifiable original research and speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Might even be copyvios. It is preferable to start the articles when there is information about these albums. - Anas ^Talk? 11:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. These are unlikely search terms. An album needs a name at the very least until it can have its own article. If anything verifiable can be said before that, it belongs in the artist's article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as crystal balling and unlikely search items. The fact these speculative releases don't even have titles yet should be a clue, really. 23skidoo 12:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete redirect to artists pages. even though some albums are known to be coming out (such as Kelly Clarkson's), no date, tracklist, or title are confirmed yet, it can all wait until the official release statements are out and there's something to make an article with. Alankc 12:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought they need to be redirects. Adambro 13:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

They seem like unusual search terms, which would tend to militate against a redirect. I'm also skeptical of the argument that "they're known to be coming out", given that it would be highly unusual if a popular recording act wasn't at some point in planning an album. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

when they simply delete, instead of redirect.. someone always just re-creates it, and we go through this all over again, or redirect tot he AFD age anyway.. so save some time and headaches and redirect to begin with either to the AFD discussion or the artist page itself. Alankc 23:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. I never stand in the way of redirects. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment only - if kept or if recreated when sources are available, they should be renamed in the format X's nth studio album — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:47, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 07:53Z

[edit] Zumi zumi

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

Another WP:OR drinking game without any reliable sources - no indication of notability either by gsearch. Part Deux 10:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator's reasoning. I also failed to turn up any sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. My Google search turned up few results that have anything to do with a drinking game. Beer die is an example of a notable drinking game; this one makes no claim to being notable. - grubber 15:58, 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 keep. John254 19:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Storrow Drive

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

Well, it's a parkway. There is no assertion of notability except for "The road is notorious for speeding and aggressive driving because police enforcement along the road is difficult without a breakdown lane." I left a note on the talk page, and prodded it 35 hours later. After two minutes, the prod was removed by NE2 with the edit summary "This is a clearly notable road." I think not. It's a parkway. Yes, it has many google hits, but that doesn't say squat. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

*Delete, no secondary sources cited to establish notability, and I can't find any. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Change to keep due to several secondary sources provided. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a freeway that carries large amounts of traffic. Sources do exist, largely in the form of contemporary newspaper articles. Here's one source of some information: [24] There are a few more in [25]. --NE2 11:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment First one has some good information, and might work in conjunction with others, but the rest on the search appear to be name-drops. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't have access to the Boston Globe archives, and the Google News Archive only has them indexed back to 1986. I'm sure there were hundreds of articles specifically about the road when it was being built. It opened June 16, 1951, if you have access and care to look. --NE2 11:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • There are a lot of news. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia though. And while the article may be well sourced, it still needs an assertion of notability. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
        • It doesn't need "an assertion of notability"; it needs most people in this discussion to agree that it's notable enough for an article. There's a difference. --NE2 12:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • It certainly does need as assertation of notability. Without one, it might even qualify for speedy deletion. EliminatorJR 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Under what criterion? --NE2 14:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Because no assertion of notability IS a crierion for speedy deletion of anything that fails WP:N Having said that, this one is looking like it is notable now, so that's a moot point. EliminatorJR 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                • I don't see any criteria on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion that match "no assertion of notability". --NE2 15:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • Look here WP:SPEEDY under "Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted". EliminatorJR 16:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                    • Those are "non-criteria" that are not to be used for speedy-deleting articles. --NE2 16:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                      • Read it again. "Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. As I say, though, it's irrelevant here now anyway. EliminatorJR 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
                        • I think you should read the actual criteria: "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." --NE2 02:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Even the New York Times had an article, albeit a short one, on its opening: [26] --NE2 12:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: can the claim about speeding be substantiated. Without it, the article pretty much only states it exists. Perhaps the construction has some notable aspects to it? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It was an early freeway with outdated aspects like left exits. It took up parkland and resulted in more landfill being added to the river to create the Charles River Esplanade.^[2] It really is one of the most major highways in Boston.^[3] --NE2 12:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a major road with an ADT of 100,000. It is also part of the National Highway System. It is one of the early limited access roads in the US that were originally designed for pleasure driving. --Polaron | Talk 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Save for I-90 (which doesn't really qualify), Storrow Drive is Boston's major east-west thoroughfare. It is also a state highway, the notability of which is long established by the many thousands of state highways with Wikipedia articles. And, frankly, with over a hundred thousand Google hits, anyone who claims not to have found sources to establish the highway's notability hasn't bothered to try in the first place. RGTraynor 15:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the more prominent Boston landmarks. The article is a stub now but should develop with time/research. Wikipedia is not paper.Ajkessel | Talk 15:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, a major thoroughfare through the city of Boston. In addition to plenty of media coverage, the fact that every major traffic site for Boston monitors the road further underscores its notability. Krimpet 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Polaron and others above. There are plenty of sources available; cleanup/stub is not a reason to delete. schi ^talk 20:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per NE2, Parloron and others. An important freeway/expressway in major metropolitan area. --Oakshade 01:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's Boston's equivalent to Manhattan's Franklin D. Roosevelt East River Drive, BTW. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Important arteries deserve articles. Fg2 07:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously important highway in Boston. WP:SNOW anyone? --Holderca1 18:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No way, I still haven't dug out my car from last week! Oh, wait, WP:SNOW! Yeah, I think so. --

Kendrick7^talk 20:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per above. --Thisisbossi 12:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Cambridge Medieval History p.374.
2. ^ Department of Conservation and Recreation, Charles River Reservation
3. ^ SmarTraveler Boston Map (note "Charles River Roads")

• Delete The references show that it was built. That satisfies WP:V , but there is not enough to satisfy notability other than passing references or trivial references to someone putting up a sign to promote the local baseball team. Inkpaduta 14:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the road and it's history has been covered my multiple, reliable, non-trivial sources; I'm not sure you can dismiss books about Boston as trivial. BTW, the Boston Red Sox have a following throughout the New England region, and aren't merely a "local baseball team." -- Kendrick7^talk 22:23, 23 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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-BPD

Non-BPD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article deals with the group dynamics in a relationship with mentally ill people, especially borderlines and narcissists. While the topic this article tries to address is valid, this article is not maintainable. It would have to be rewritten and moved.
This is impossible due to editorial gridlock. An article 'owner' has been trying to get rid of the page for more than half a year (strangely enough he never listed it for deletion). Work on this article is impossible (constant deletions reverts and what not appearing on the horizon, most writers will be scared off just like me). There is no benefit in having this article. Whoever wants to write on this topic should recreate the article under a more appropriate title, probably a broader topic like Relationships with mentally ill people. The topic is more of a self-help-topic which is covered by popular press and psychology. The article owner thinks that only natural science topics should be allowed on Wikipedia and cites numerous policies. (None of the policies confirms that of course.) It is pretty much impossible to cover the topic from the point of view of natural science due to its nature being a self-help-topic. The authors of the books that this article is based on are all social scientists (psychologists) not psychiatrists (natural scientists).
A redirect to Borderline personality disorder would be misleading, because it covers the opposite of the article in question here and there is a whole group of people on this article who all oppose the inclusion of non-empirical research, popular culture material and self-help-literature. Which I agree with, the content of Non-BPD should not be merged into Borderline personality disorder. Keep popular culture topics separate from hard science. There is almost no psychiatric research about the group dynamics in a group with a mentally ill person which is what the sources for the Non-BPD article would be about. Group dynamics is not a subject psychiatry deals with.

• Delete this article as unnecessary unmaintainable clutter. Grace E. Dougle 11:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Editing disputes are not a good reason to delete an article on a valid topic. Try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and/or report people who violate WP:3RR and WP:OWN. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

comment:I was willing to improve the article a little but there is no way I will go through lenghty dispute resolution processes. And I believe others will think so too. --Grace E. Dougle 12:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

comment:I just listed it for RFC a couple of hours ago to try and sort it out. Unless there is some hard evidence in the form of citations and valid sources I am not convinced that this IS a "valid topic". It seems to be no more than the agenda of a self help book associated non-notable online support groups.--Zeraeph 12:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What agenda? You have evaded this topic before, please be specific.--Grace E. Dougle 12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply I haven't evaded anything as far as I can see. Without further valid evidence I have no choice but conclude that the term "Non-BPD" exists only as the topic of a self-help book called "Stop Walking on Eggshells" and it's non notable offshoots. As the book, in itself, seems little more than villification and marginalisation of anybody who can be percieved (not diagnosed, just percieved) to show show traits of Borderline Personality Disorder, a medical condition acknowledged to be caused largely by abuse in the first place. The main author of this book, Randy Kreger is a former (or maybe she still is) public relations consultant who's entire experience of Borderline Personality Disorder, at the time the book was written, consisted in attributing it to at least one family member. Now pardon me if I find all of that a little questionable in terms of validity, encyclopaedic value and NPOV. I make no secret of the fact that I would prefer the article be deleted, BUT I think it is only right and "Wikipaediac" (<is that a word?) to try and establish/see if anyone can establish other valid credentials for the term "Non-BPD". I even went so far as to persuade an editor with appropriate qualifications to re-write a neutral, informed section on "Non-BPD" for the redirect to the Borderline personality disorder article[27], and persuaded him to leave it [28] when he wanted to delete it as a result of a book deal to write a book on the topic. [29]. The section was recently deleted without any objection from me because it had been there for almost a year without attracting one, single citation - valid or otherwise. --Zeraeph 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So the agenda of the book by Mason/Kreger, according to you, would be that the authors are trying to vilify and marginalize borderlines? You probably misunderstood this book. There is a process Mason describes that encourages the reader to distance themselves from the person emotionally and try to see the illness in their behaviour rather than the insults (borderlines tend to rage at their relatives/significant others and insult them with all kinds of things). It does not tell them to hate them, vilify them or marginalize them. The same holds true for the other books that talk about relationships with borderlines (Kreisman: I hate you, don't leave me; Lawson: Understanding the borderline mother; Judovsky). Lawson's book even has the term 'understanding' in the title. But we both agree that stressing the non-aspect is not the correct way to tackle this article.--Grace E. Dougle 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply No, I am quite certain that I haven't misunderstood anything at all. I am familiar with the book, et al. But this is not the place to debate (or promote) that. This AFD is about the article "Non-BPD". If the term only relates to one self help book and it's agenda without other academic references or citations it is not sufficiently noteable for an article, if however, you, or anyone can find citations from reliable sources that are peer-reviewed and supported by research, just like Racism and Bigotry, however unpleasant, it must stay. But in a neutral, balanced article that also cites the opposition and perhaps manages to get along without links to pdf rants, like "A survivor's tale" by fully identified men about their ex wives (who are identified by association).

Without that, the only valid text for the article is Non-BPD is a term some people use for people who do not have Borderline personality disorder, and once we have that, we had better have "Non-gardener", "Non-anaemic" and "Non-lefthanded" as well.

Have you seen my comment lower down? Did you realise I have requested an RFC when you requested this? If not you might like to consider requesting an early closure without prejudice pending the RFC. I would not oppose that. --Zeraeph 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete I was going to list it myself as it was re-directing for months anyway to BPD, and now the Non-BP section it redirected to has been removed from that article (primnarily because it remained uncited and unverified I think) it seemed better to delete. However as it seemed so important to Grace E. Dougle the same editor who just listed it for deletion (??) it only seemed fair to give her plenty of time to come up with some valid, verifiable, NPOV information to convince me otherwise. Obviously that is not going to happen now. Personally I would be very wary of "self-help" articles (particularly on a broad, undefined topic such as "relating to the mentally ill"). It doesn't seem very encyclopaedic, most of the time the "information" in these areas masquerades as pseudo science, while, in fact, being unsupported by any kind of academic sources or research and too many of the "experts" are, in fact, self appointed and, at best, higly subjective (at worse...well...let's not go there...). I am also not sure how wise it would be to encourage that kind of unregulated, agenda driven, promotion in an encyclopaedia? --Zeraeph 12:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• NeutralChanging because this article was listed for all the wrong reasons, and, as it turns out, prematurely in any realistic sense. The topic may be far broader than previously indicated by the article's content, and there really should not be an AFD before that is explored.--Zeraeph 04:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, this appears to merely be an editing dispute?? They way to resolve this is not by bringing it too AfD. RfC which it seems has been started is a much much better option. Mathmo ^Talk 13:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

comment:I listed this for RFC just over an hour BEFORE this AFD was listed. Somebody just pointed out to me that people might not realise this, not least Grace E. Dougle? --Zeraeph 14:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And...now what? RFC means request for comment and I've certainly done enough commenting. I would like to see this deleted.--Grace E. Dougle 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Solution Just request an early closure here, on whatever you consider your grounds to be, without prejudice to the article's being relisted for deletion again. You might like to also like to repeat the request on WP:AN to hurry things up. I certainly won't oppose, although my personal preference is strongly for deletion I had no intention of listing it without giving you time to come up with valid sources and citations. When you listed it I assumed that you were not going to do so. Somebody pointed out that you were only new and might not have noticed or understood what an RFC might entail.

I will take this opportunity to give you fair notice that the only thing you can do to change my mind is to produce valid, neutral, peer reviewed sources for the notability of the term Non-BPD. Anything else is a waste of your time, and mine. It is probably a good idea to copy this discussion to "requests for comment" on the article's talk page? --Zeraeph 18:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Could there be something you just don't get? I listed this article for deletion, so why should I want to change your mind (you also opted for delete) and produce material that supports an article I want deleted? And that is not a question, just a comment. --Grace E. Dougle 19:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you meant you wanted to delete the AFD for now and go with the RFC. --Zeraeph 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article is called "Non-BPD," but the rest of the article uses the term "nonBP" or "non-BP," which just means not having BPD. Should every article have a non-n equivalent now? I note that in news archives "non-BP" normally refers to things that are not British Petroleum or not affiliated with British Petroleum. Will we need a disambiguation page to distinguish between things that are not BPD and things that are not British Petroleum? PubliusFL 18:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It appears that this short article is the only reference to Non-BP's that is left on Wikipedia. I no longer see Non-BP referred to - where it started - in the Borderline Personality Disorder article.
  To delete the article eliminates all Wikipedia reference to a real social issue. It is for that reason that I oppose the deletion. Someone who has the misfortune to find themselves in a relationship with a BP may find this article to be a very helpful indeed. And Wikipedia is just the kind of place that such an individual may look for this kind of information.
  Perhaps the term "Non-BPD" is a misnomer. It does not mean someone who does not have a Borderline Personality Disorder (as some have suggested). Many people with a Borderline Personality Disorder also claim to be Non-BPD's. A Non-BPD is to someone with a Borderline Personality Disorder as an Al-Anon member is to an Alcoholic. And BTW, there are no references or citations in that article, yet I don't see any move afoot to have it deleted. Could it be that Al-Anon members are more sympathetic figures than Non-BP's?
  I am not enamored of the term Non-BP, if it is too closely associated with Randi Kreger's book, then choose another, more generic term.--gargoyle888 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think you will find that is because the Al-Anon article is confined to discussing the nature of the organisation itself, whereas the Non-BPD is confined entirely to pseudo psychology on the nature of relationships with people with BPD, such as As noted, the Reactive nonBP does, in fact, become drawn into the inertia of the Borderline disorder, and does this in two very distinct ways; transpersonally, and counterpersonally. which definately requires either academic citation or deletion. --Zeraeph 04:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply. I see that you have removed the offending text from the article. That's fine with me, in fact, that text always bothered me. Nor would I object to renaming the title from Non-BP to something that is less tied to a Kreger's coined name and commercial interests.

If the outcome of this discussion is to keep the article, then shouldn't there be a link in the BP article to this one? Otherwise, how would anyone ever find this?--gargoyle888 15:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Regardless of whether it is a "real social issue," the article has no reliable sources, and therefore it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. PubliusFL 17:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete There is at present no indication of who if anyone has ever used the term.DGG 04:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I work in the field and have never heard the term. Agree with the non-x argument listed previously. However I would Keep if the term added anything to the understanding of the condition but I don't feel that it does. Cas Liber 05:04, 26 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kory and the fireflies

Kory and the fireflies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I am a strong inclusionist, but by everyone else's standards this band is non-notable (673 Google hits). That wouldn't be so bad in and of itself, but the article is so terribly formatted, nothing links to it and even the article's name doesn't adhere to the manual of style.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I am regularly impressed when noticing how often people see the word "bottom" and read "top". Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Other than that, delete. Non-notable band. The image is not only a copyright violation but also overall crappy. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete I'm a bit torn on this one: the article claims plenty of notability, including being the supporting act for major artists, and several national singles. However, I'm not seeing sources to back up the best parts, and their record label according to the article, "Sirwin Music Group", gets no Google hits at all, hardly a good sign. I'd be happy to change my vote if the claims in the article are sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete many claims of notability, but as already mentioned, abosolutely no evidence through reliable sources for these claims. Nuttah68 11:56, 26 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 nomination withdrawn by nominator. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pocket trout

Was originally prodded as "non-notable flashlight". I don't know of any notability standards for flashlights, but ones in the shape of fish from a notable brand qualify in my opinion. Should I bother checking for more sources? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as I confused the editor below, let me say this is a procedural nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, why does the nominator ask if the should bother checking for more sources? Of course they should check it out as far as it reasonably possible based on the article before nominating it for deletion. My quick look shows that google gives (excluding wikipedia results) over 5 thousand hits [30]. Though... on second thoughts it appears it is also slang for cock. Found a photo of it [31]. Anyway..... my point is that this nomination should have been thought out a little bit more beforehand. Oh, though hang on.... it would appear from reading the nomination they are not even advocating the deletion of the article? Sounds like a possible candidate for a speedy close if they withdraw their nomination.... Mathmo ^Talk 13:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• On second thought, withdraw nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:55, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:41Z

[edit] Speech communication society

Speech communication society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Spam – Qxz 12:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 12:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG and Wikipedia is not a free webspace -SpuriousQ (talk) 12:22, 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 Deleted by Mackensen. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 07:53Z

[edit] Cocknubbing

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

Appears to be a neologism. No ghits for it, and no references or sources cited. This may be a possible hoax, as well. sunstar net^talk 12:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Zero Google hits, no assertion of notability, no sources, sole contribution of user. Delete, per WP:V and WP:NFT. -- The Anome 12:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per Nom, and seems liable to be sillyness. → p00rleno (lvl 83) ←ROCKS^C_RS 13:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per The Anome. Mathmo ^Talk 13:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete appears to be a hoax. If it were a real slang term it would likely get at least one Google hit, it doesn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism with zero cites or sources. Inkpaduta 14:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NEO. Just prod this kind of crap; don't even bother with afd. Part Deux 14:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable neologism. WMMartin 14:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Above. Ramduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Ive never heard of this word being used at all - always find suspicion when its is deemed a local dialect as I feel this is an easy way to avoid being questioned on why it is not in common usage. If it was that common in the midlands it would have spread to other gay communities in the UK --PrincessBrat 12:42, 23 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:42Z

[edit] Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch

Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

User:David Spart created a new page called Chabad Messianism which was mostly content from the Yechi article and the controversy section of Chabad-Lubavitch. I believe that instead of having multiple articles on every aspect of the messianism and the controversy there should be one article on the controversy in chabad and perhaps a shorter article on the phrase of Yechi and if that gets too long than to further split as per WP:SIZE. Therefore I had moved his new article to Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch and merged in the rest of the controversy section of Chabad-Lubavitch. User:David Spart does not agree with this. I am therefore putting this article up for deletion, to see what the consensus would be. Should everything go back to the way it was before with all the controversies staying in the chabad-lubavitch article or should just the messianism page stay separate along with a separate Yechi page, or should the main article be controversies of chabad-lubavitch. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith nomination I created the Chabad Mechanism page because that is the true nature of the issue. If you read the Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch article you will note that the first section is unencylopdic blather about Chabad in general, and all the rest is either about of stemming from Chabad Messianism. PinchasC refused to allow me to write the article and kept deleting my material WHILE he knew it was still being written, despite requests. Chabad Messianism is worthy of a topic in its own right, check Google to get a taste. Numerous 'scholarly BOOKS and ARTICLES have been written on the topic from many perspectives, many of them peer-reviewed.

• When the Yechi article was nominated for deletion there was a strong consensus to keep. Note that all Yechi is is the mantra that Chabbad Messianists use. IF that deserves an article obviously Chabad Messianism does!
• PinchasC did not grant my request to allow the article a week or two to stabilise before he nominated it for deletion, to perhaps merge in the Yechi stuff etc. He did not even nominate the article he wants to be deleted Chabad Messianism for deletion because he knows that it would stay. He instead has tried to confuse the issue further (a theme in his edits on Chabad topics) by nominating an article for deletion that no-one wants to be deleted, so that it will stay - since no consensus will be reached to delete - and he will then use that as a pretext for deleting the Chabad Messianism article WITHOUT consensus , based on this smokescreen.
• If PinchasC wants Chabad Messianism deleted, then he should rescind this bad-faith nomination and nominate THAT article for deletion and stop merging articles without consensus.
• PinchasC has long maintained the Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch article in the parlous state that it is now in. Notice that in all wikipedia there is only ONE PARAGRAPH of discussion about Chabad Messianism. One of the biggest controversies in Post-War Judaism has one measly paragraph that is then followed by a lengthy OFF THE POINT attacks on David Berger from some marginal sources! This is due to PinchasC's constant edit-warring to maintain the Chabad articles the way that he likes them. He is not a disinterested party, as anyone can see and should step back from editing Chabad articles for a while.

David Spart 13:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: David Spart, you seem to be well aware of the history in the articles on Chabad-Lubavitch and Yechi, as well as the fact that it's alway been a controversial subject among editors. Nevertheless, you chose to not discuss anything with other editors on the talk pages of this controversial subject.

You mention a number of complaints above on the articles and one of its many editors. Instead of singlehandedly creating these articles on a very controversial subject, I think it would have been a much better to discuss those matters on the talk pages first.

In other words: if you decided to "Be Bold", expect others to "Be bold" as well. Shlomke 18:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep this well-sourced article that sheds much important light on the history of the inner-workings of an important world movement that, by now, cannot possibly be squeezed into one or two articles. This article will become an important component of Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism. IZAK 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean to keep it as Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch? Or only the Chabad Messianism section? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch as is and expand on it as well. IZAK 12:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per IZAK - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 12:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean to keep it as Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch? Or only the Chabad Messianism section? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, either is fine I guess, but I would prefer it as a separate article. Anyways, AfD is not the forum for this discussion. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 12:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep this article and build a good article on Chabad Messianism by merging together the Messianist info and sources with Yechi and other stuff. David Spart 13:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this article and Delete Chabad Messianism. The latter is a subset of this article as of now. -- Avi 14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The way it reads looks fine to me. AfD is not the proper venue for settling nomenclature brawls. Find consensus terms, use redirects, and have done with it. RGTraynor 15:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I would not be opposed to a merge or restructuring of these articles as long as content is preserved. In particular, I agree that the current duplication of content on multiple articles is a problem, and hence I agree that there should be only one article on the subject of Chabad messianism and either Chabad Messianism should redirect to Yechi or vice-versa, and in addition, there only needs to be a summary on the subject in Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch with a link to the main article. However, Chabad does have more than one controversy, and content on the other controversies, even if some characterize them as "blather", is notable, encyclopedic, and should not be deleted. --Shirahadasha 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. (Changing my vote to) Keep this article and delete Chabad Messianism as per Avi and IZAK. Shlomke 18:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it all. All this moving around and such is making me think that there's an attempt to white wash the fact that there are legitimate controversies about Chabad. And I'm sure that's not the case. Kolindigo 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Shirahadasha. Afd is not the place to settle edit wars. John Vandenberg 08:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and create a seperate article on Chabad Messianism which may or may not need to have Yechi merged into it. I (as others have suggested above) have been concerned that editing articles on Chabad is closely controlled by admins such as PinchasC and Eliezer. This is not healthy. I sympathise with the creator of the above article, I recall similar problems about a year ago and see that nothing has changed. Well done for whoever managed to sneak the Yechi article past the gaurds - I asume that was in frustration at not being able to write a proper NPOV article on Chabad Messianism. juicifer 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch and redirect Chabad Messianism to it or Yechi. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The multiplicity of articles seems in part to be due to an edit war. I'm not impressed by the references of any of these articles. Can anyone who wants to defend their own article be sure to (1) be sure that all the links actually work, (2) that any real published books have ISBNs? I'd allow all these articles to exist until there is one master article that is extremely well-sourced and is acceptable to the general Wikipedia community as being a good article. What's here now does not seem to meet the normal WP standards. For example, there are many claims made without in-line citations. We are supposed to take it on faith that the person writing the article is correct. The only article by David Berger that I could find was a web posting, that probably does not count as a reliable source by WP:RS. If this stuff is important, someone should be able to write an article that is well-sourced by general Wikipedia standards. EdJohnston 22:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Perhaps a merge with the main Chabad article will do? Anyway, this article is already very well off and has no problems, is very informative, well-cited, good structure, . I have heard tell of PinchasC nominating it under an ulterior motive (not sure). Noogster 03:07, 26 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 to Teirm. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:44Z

[edit] Dragon Wing (ship)

Dragon Wing (ship) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Deproded by the article's creator with no explanation. Article is about a fictional ship in a fantasy series. The ship is not the main focus of the story or a central element of the plot, it serves no notable pursose and it not a character itself. It is just a ship that happens to be in the book series. The article not only fails the fiction guidline but the general notability guidline as well. Cruft in the extreme made by what seems to be an over-eager fan of the series. NeoFreak 13:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to the article about the bookEldest after paring down considerably the original research in the article. A ship mentioned in a book does not need its own article if it has not attained enough notability for independent reliable sources to write about it. Counterbalancing this adherance to WP:N is the notion that if a group of editors create a project, then everything they create is notable. There is a project to create articles for just about everything mentioned in this fantasy trilogy. Inkpaduta 14:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While that may be a notion by some it is not a notion that is congruent with established guidlines and policy. It's why WP:N exists and there is a creteria for deletion. The ship is already mentioned in the parent book articles so I'm not really seeing what additional material there is to merge that is not original research. NeoFreak 14:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge possibly disambiguate. I would also support merging the valid content to Eldest or the individual character's articles, but I seem to recall other ships by the name of Dragon Wing (including the one in the novel of the same name), so it might be best to disambiguate. However, I could be convinced that this particular ship is important enough within the series that it can stand on its own. It may not be an Enterprise or Pequod, but it does claim to be the premier ship of a particular fleet. FrozenPurpleCube 19:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - sorry that I didn't finish the disambiguation. I only added one to the Dragon Wing page itself when I removed the ship material. But you're correct; the novel Dragon Wing also contains a ship called Dragon Wing, and other books in that series contain a second ship also named Dragon Wing, so the Eldest ship isn't the only ship of that name. -- Immora 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, as stated above. I think this is not important enough to merit its own article, in accordance with WP:FICT. Without a doubt it deserves its own article on the Inheritance Wiki, but definitely not here. If it does get moved into another article the content will need to be seriously refined because of its length, but what is actually written is not terrible. UnaLaguna 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Requires a secondary source with 'Out-of-universe' material to justify separate article per WP:FICTION. Merge what? per nom, it isn't important to the plot summary outside the mentioning it already has. --maclean 06:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge sounds fine to me. I don't know the material at all to know how notable this thing is; I just split it off and worked on it because the original article had been slapped on top of one of my projects. Didn't appreciate that, so I made the separate article to get it off Dragon Wing rather than just revert and possibly get into an edit war. However, going by what other contributors have added, it sounds to me like the ship does have a notable plot function that warrants some sort of description of it, even if that's not its own separate article. Trying to keep the article pared down since speculation and redundancies keep getting added. The original creator (the material seen in the first edit of the article) apparently removed the notice because he felt he'd added enough to the article to justify its continued presence. It belongs somewhere! -- Immora 18:36, 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-25 07:54Z

[edit] Beer Index

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

hoax/nonsense Travelbird 13:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Personal/local theory at best. Note that the contributor has been civil. - Skysmith 13:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of reliable sources, appears to be a personal theory. Not really a hoax or nonsense, but unsuitable article material – Qxz 14:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete per WP:OR and WP:NFT. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This has been made up. As a UK resident, I can confirm that if the prices quoted were accurate we would all have committed suicide by now! ("Suffolk, England USD 6.50, London USD 10.50". Normal prices are between £2 and £3 unless you only frequent 5* hotels and rely on room service.) Emeraude 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, original research at best. NawlinWiki 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an OR spin off of the Big Mac Index.-- danntm ^T _C 00:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR. An interesting theory, however. There might even be a (spurious) correlation. ;P -- Black Falcon 00:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. alchohol articles from countries where they have "to get drunk"-cultures, is not needed inside here. Ramduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Amusing article. The prices quoted in US$ when converted to UK£ comes nowhere near - im speaking as someone who lives in the UK. Your looking at about $6 per pint in London not $10.50 quoted. Ive never heard of this beer index before, and also the quote on southern men being more happy is pure hearsay! Also its the Big Mac index in the Economist - not Bic Mac!! --PrincessBrat 12:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Sounds kind of dumb.Sockem 18:37, 23 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 Group (Periodic table). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical series

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

I don't think the "term" 'chemical series' merits an article - it is not a proper scientific term, it is just a turn of phrase, a use figure of speech in chemistry. See the talk page of the article for more discussion.

My proposal is to turn this article in a redirect to Group (Periodic table) --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. Content is redundant to Group (Periodic table). Feeeshboy 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. Part Deux 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• This is Articles for deletion. Only nominate an article for deletion if an administrator hitting a delete button is what you want. Neither article merger nor simply editing an article into a redirect require administrator tools. They don't even require that one have an account. Uncle G 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, sorry, but if I want a bunch of opinions quickly, this seems to be the most practical way to go. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The article's talk page is the place for gathering such opinions, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment is the way to advertise a talk page discussion to a wider audience. As for your wanting them quickly: Wikipedia does not operate to a deadline. Uncle G 09:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for telling me. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• neutral I'm not so sure that this is unnotable. I've usually heard these referred to as 'groups' in my chem. classes (both organic and inorganic), but if sourcing can be found then this term may be notable. It's not a synonym for 'group' because not all groups share unique properties, IE alkali metals, alkali earth metals and noble gasses all share notable properties with their group-mates (the series, apparently). Some other groups don't have much in common from period to period (say group 4 or 13). The fact that halogens all form strong mineral acids and have high electronegativity means that they're more than an arbitrary grouping. That said, unless someone marginally important or more has used the term (I've seen them called 'special groups' before, never chemical series) it's, while still interesting, not notable. Wintermut3 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect either to Group (Periodic table), which is what the current scope of the article is, or to Periodic table, which also discusses the horizontal (period) series. --Polaron | Talk 07:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to group per nom. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Nothing useful or special on this page that couldn't be merged into there, and no reason that info on this topic should be scattered. DMacks 03:29, 26 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:46Z

[edit] A Million Points of Light

A Million Points of Light (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Image:Digidestined.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Future_Digidestined_and_kids.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:DigidestinedsKids.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Kari03.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Tai2.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Matt_digimon.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Izzy03.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Sora2.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Mimi03.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Joe04.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Tk03.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Davis03.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Ken03.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Cody03.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Yolei2.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Digimon 02: Series Finale Epilogue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)