Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decemyriagon

Decemyriagon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Is this polygon useful?? Georgia guy 00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Source, but Keep The article lacks sources, but if they're added I have to say keep.Ganfon 00:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, with cleanup. Seems like a useful article, but Needs cleanup and more references. –Llama man^{sign here} 00:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and source, per Ganfon. "Useful" is not a requirement to be here, and just because it may not be doesn't necessarily constitute a candidate for deletion. --Dennisthe2 00:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It's just a polygon with nothing special about it except the fact it has a lot of sides. No sources, and the only ghits I get are from Yahoo Answers questions about the names of really large polygons. Therefore, if there was a guideline about shapes' notability, this wouldn't pass. --Wooty Woot? contribs 00:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean consistent with other articles on specific types of polygons (see Polygons). Soltak | Talk 00:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are an infinite amount of polygons, every polygon does not deserve an article. If there are multiple nontrivial sources that will verify content establishing some sort of notability then an article could be created for that particular polygon. I'm sure there are plenty of materials to cite an article for an octagon, a square, and a dodecahedron, but I dont think you can justify an article on a decemyriagon. -- wtfunkymonkey 00:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Go through the list at Polygon and merge all of those whose article is a paragraph or so, like this one, into a single article called something like List of non-standard polygons or the like. Interesting and sufficiently encyclopedic to justify a list article but not to sustain a separate article. Otto4711 00:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Find sources (keep). I'm a bit skeptical myself, but I'm sure there are sources out there for this. PTO 01:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into a list article together with other notable polygons from Polygon per Otto4711. I suggest calling it List of notable polygons or List of interesting polygons. Article needs sources. 70.49.96.132 01:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We already went through this for Icosihenagon, and this one contains no more information than that. It makes statements like "angles on a regular decemyriagon measure almost exactly 180°" which is inexact, and is also listed in Polygon (via a simple formula to compute the angle). It gives an etymology which isn't even right (it lists "polloi," which isn't a part of this word), and finally it says that it is possible, but complicated, to produce one with a compass and straightedge, which Constructible polygon leads me to doubt most severely. So, all of the info that this provides that isn't in the main Polygon article is dubious at best. We ought to delete this one. If people think that having the measure of the interior angles explicitly listed is important, we can just add a column to the table in Polygon. --Sopoforic 01:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Upon further review, this polygon cannot be constructed. That part of the article is just wrong. I'm removing it. --Sopoforic 01:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Mk. II: I also removed the bad link to an image that was never uploaded, and the comment from the bottom of the article. With the false info removed, this article contains nothing not already on Polygon, except the etymology, and I don't think that the etymology alone justifies an article, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Sopoforic 01:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment 3: Neither JSTOR nor google scholar give a single hit for this. Every page in the first five pages of google results is of the form "what do you call a big polygon." No results on google news. Mathworld doesn't have an article on it. Good indicators that this is not notable. --Sopoforic 01:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and source/expand. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. When you are done changing things there will be no article left! Let's get rid of this before it spreads and we get a decemyriaicosapentagon (100025 sides....) --N Shar 01:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Sopoforic. Bigtop 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Polygon. This article simply gives a definition, see WP:NOT#DICT. Agree the Polygon article should contain a list of polygons (or there should be a List of Polygons) rather than giving them separate articles. --Shirahadasha 05:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that Polygon does have a list of polygons--not every polygon, of course, but at least the most interesting ones. We can't list them all, and the number of polygons that are notable is quite small. There's nothing in Decemyriagon that isn't already in Polygon, so there's nothing to merge. --Sopoforic 06:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to polygon. There are countably infinitely many polygons, and the higher number of angles you have, the less interesting they become. JIP | Talk 06:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Sopoforic Avalon 06:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per wtfunkymunkey ThrustVectoring 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Sopoforic. Terence Ong 09:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. you can translate any number into Foreign and state that a polygon with that number of sides is called foo, but that doesn't make it in any way useful or informative. This is as bad as the made-up phopbias and philias. 27 unique Googles outside WIkipedia, all of which seem to be variants on "this is what a polynomial with this number of sides would be called, if anybody cared enough to make one". There is, of course, no evidenbce that anybody ever has cared enough to make one... Guy (Help!) 12:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icosihenagon - I might lean towards keeping the article if a source were provided, but all I can find on Google is trivia-quiz-type lists of all the polygons. Given that we don't have articles for all the numbers, I don't think this merits keeping. --Squeezeweasel^talk 14:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Polygon. No content worth merging. PrimeHunter 16:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• redirect to polygon. 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Polygon, there really isn't much in the way of content here.--Isotope23 19:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete there is an infinite number of polygons, and they can all be created by determing the correct prefix and tacking it on to "-gon". But that only generates a dictionary defintion. For this particular polygon, there is nothing more to be said beyoind the dicdef. -- Whpq 19:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to polygon, per above Bucketsofg 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom. As per Whpq, there are most likely an infinite number of polygons available which would make the list too long. In addition, this polygon is hard to visualize as with an interior angle almost exactly 180°, the legs on this polygon would have be of sufficienct (read very long) length so as not to cause this polygon to become a rectangle. Ronbo76 20:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not a useful article, a list would be a mistake too because there could be millions of polygons in the list ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems unlikely that there is any interesting property or history that can distinguish this polygon from most other six-digit regular polygons and save the article from its current dicdef state. —David Eppstein 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Merge into Polygon article Mcr616 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is fixable. No need to delete. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What about it is fixable? I've already removed the false info. The problem is that there's nothing left but a dictionary definition after doing that, and it doesn't look like there is anything else that can be added. --Sopoforic 00:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The statement about the angles is true, to a greater or lesser degree, for all polygons with a lot of sides, and is not specific to this polygon. My guess is that the article title is a neologism. The only information in the article is basically a dictionary definition of the number, and naming of polygons generally, not this specific polygon. So we have a dictionary definition of a neologism containing only information about something that's not the subject of the article. If someone later wants to create an article containing information specific to this polygon, it's still possible. Fg2 08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless sources proving notability given As it stands the article is an unsourced stub with no reasons given why this type of polygon is at all notable. The only reason to keep it is if a published source actually refers to this polygon in some notable way. Dugwiki 22:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. Badly formed invented word; there is no Greek word decemyria. Even if you wanted to combine Latin decem and Greek myrios, you don't do it like this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 08:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Nowhere close to the spirit of Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), the closest notability guideline. CMummert · talk 19:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete along with the 1K and 10K sided. We just don't need that many. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 18:19, 20 January 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. Nishkid64 19:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization

2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

From the first sentence of the article: "This is a listing of the 2004 Summer Olympics medal counts if the countries of various International organizations pooled their medals." However, medals are not pooled according to international organisations. I have no objection to such a listing in someone's userspace, but it does not belong in the article namespace. This is unencyclopedic trivia. Aecis^Bravado 00:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This article apparently survived AFD once before, in August 2004. -- Plutor ^talk 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - That doesn't invalidate this current discussion, does it? That previous discussion took place during the Games themselves, when nationalistic emotions were running high. Andrwsc 19:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, nor did I mean to imply that it did. If I thought it did, I would have voted keep instead of simply commenting. I was simply pointing it out for reference. -- Plutor ^talk 20:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- Aecis^Bravado 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ganfon 00:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --Dennisthe2 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see any relevance nor do I know or foresee any similar page for other Olympics. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. In addition to this article, four other similar articles (2004 Summer Olympics medal count for Central Asian countries, European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics, 2000 Summer Olympics medals per capita, and 1996 Summer Olympics medals per capita) all ought to be deleted for any number of reasons, whether it be WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, or even WP:LISTCRUFT. They seem to survive AFD when the discussion takes place shortly after the Games, when many new editors get involved and put nationalistic pride ahead of common sense. Hopefully, this discussion will conclude that articles like these are not encyclopaedic. Andrwsc 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Davidbober 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. per nom and Andrwsc. → JARED ^(t)  02:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Arjun 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Transfer: I've seen these Olympic medal articles but the things are usually in a template form. I'dd say the precendence are telling me to keep it. But my wiki rules on referencing are saying delete. Needs referencing! --CyclePat 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and/or merge with existing articles. Per nomination. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 07:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ThrustVectoring 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Andrwsc, feel free to nominate the other lists. Punkmorten 08:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - original research, pure and simple. - fchd 08:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Original research and POV forking. I've redirected the other articles Andrwsc mentioned; if anyone still feels they should be completely deleted as well, please feel free (they're not exactly the most useful redirects...). -- Jonel | Speak 13:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, per nom. Terence Ong 13:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete original research.-- danntm ^T _C 15:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Not OR since the medal counts for international country groupings are discussed in the press and in scholarly papers. NPOV is not an issue here, nor is POV forking. This is a good way to present the information, because if not we get the same list every four years with the US, Russia and China in the top three. That doesn't tell you much, does it?--JJay 17:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But no one does group them this way. The medals are in another article. Barring that, most of the countries are in the UN, so having it there is pointless and confusing. To put it in perspective, sure, having my phone number on wikipedia along with my friends could be helpful, as I would fine them disorganized in the phone book, but does that mean we should have them here? Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, but some people do group them this way. Such as the EU, which held a press conference to discuss their medal wins at Athens. [1]. Asean medal wins have been analyzed in the Journal of Sports Economics [2]. Etc. To put this in perspective for you, people do care about grouping olympic medal wins. They then go onto to publish the results. That allows us to do these types of lists, which are no different really than lists such as List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita per hour. Why do it? Because unlike your phone number and that of your friends, people actually are interested in the topic and find the information useful. --JJay 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Anything that's sourced can be mentioned in the 2004 Summer Olympics medal count article, like I just put the EU claim into it. Until I see a reliable source that pits the UN against the G8, I'm going to maintain that this table and others like it are original research. The paper about the ASEAN nations does not do that; it merely says that southeast Asian countries don't do well (and gives suggestions on fixing that). It doesn't sum the medals of those nations anywhere, nor make any mention of other international organization's results. -- Jonel | Speak 04:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any links to press or scholarly papers that discuss these groupings? Does the IOC or any reliable source publish such a list? Such a list might sway me to keep, but even then, it smacks of indiscriminate information. Delete - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Bucketsofg 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, unless shown to not be original research. - Aagtbdfoua 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom: "medals are not pooled according to international organisations:.--Yannismarou 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay Jcuk 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - see my rationale in response to Jjay. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Original Research, POV Fork. Resolute 03:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - i'm from a country which is a member of the ASEAN and APEC, and such international organizations are political/economic in nature. my country hosted the latest ASEAN summit and sports was never in the agenda. so i'm for deleting this article. this article has very little chance of getting into the ASEAN summit coffee tables, unless the Beijing Olympics will have a direct effect on the Southeast Asian economies. --RebSkii 18:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because most Int'l Organizations have nothing to do with Olympics -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 18:20, 20 January 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. Nishkid64 19:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pjuggle

Pjuggle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Having been started by a user with only one edit and whose username is identical to the article title, there is a definite conflict of interest here. Dubious notability, and since I am not an expert on juggling I am bringing it here. —EdGl 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Kukini 00:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Self-promotional. Ganfon 00:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Only references are his own sites and a forum. Fan-1967 00:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Davidbober 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Drop the article (that's my attempt at a pun. It's bedtime.) The JPS^{talk to me} 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete vain vanity in vain. Doo doo, doo-doo-doo doo doo, doo doo doo. JuJube 02:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 03:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: If this individual "appears regularly on the variety programs of Univision and Telemundo," it should not have been difficult to find independent verification to establish notability. If the entry is recreated later on with some third-party sourcing, I might vote differently. Zahakiel 04:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a vanity article. JIP | Talk 06:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ThrustVectoring 08:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: This article 1. is hard to read and very sloppy 2. doesn't give good information. I would definitely say delete this article. Chickyfuzz123 17:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Bucketsofg 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Fails WP:COI. Ronbo76 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This is like a user Page but its written as an encyclopedia article. Definitely delete or transfer info to the users User Page if it's describing his/her self. Tellyaddict 20:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -cant help but agree with all.DUBJAY04 21:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - shameless self-promotion. Philippe Beaudette 22:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I see no reason why this article should be here. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - ah, vanity pages. If I could find more of him online, I'd be tempted to slap on a 'weak keep' and a cleanup tag, but as it is he's not as notable as he makes himself out to be. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:41, 16 January 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 under A7. No assertion of notability. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northwood Garage

Northwood Garage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable garage. John254 00:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - If this garage is so notable, how come there are no google hits referencing it, only car repair shops? Surely, someone on the web must have gone to this garage and wrote something up on it, in news or a blog or whatever. Anyway, with no sources and no verified claim to notability, delete it. --Wooty Woot? contribs 00:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wooty. Ganfon 00:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wooty. Soltak | Talk 00:50, 15 January 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, article contains no assertion of encyclopedic notability ~ trialsanderrors 08:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visual Circle.org

Visual Circle.org (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Not a notable website, spam. Naconkantari 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The man is notable, the website is not. Simple as that. Ganfon 00:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • After reading through Evan's article, he isn't that notable either...plus both articles are unsourced. Ganfon 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Not notable. Same thing as Ganfon. Bigtop 00:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Davidbober 01:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. —dima/s-ko/ 03:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ThrustVectoring 08:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Non-notable article that reads like an ad and this wiki as a webhost. Ronbo76 20:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete spam ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Definitely Spam. Tellyaddict 21:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Keep I removed the spam that the idiot that wrote it put in. Keep it if you want, or delete this one. I don't care. User: C. Evan Sackett 16:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete' - Non-notable. Spam. Philippe Beaudette 22:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Quick Delete Its spam. It should of been tagged with a speedy deletion. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, probabbly self-promotion (the creator's username is Visual Circle). FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 03:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I prodded this. A number of users claiming to be Evan Sackett are simultaneously creating AND vandalising articles about him, it's ridiculous.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

One of whom, FYI, is User:C. Evan Sackett above.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:31, 16 January 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. Nishkid64 19:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Destination 3 DVD

Final Destination 3 DVD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

There has been no attempt to merge the content into Final Destination 3, which was the decision of the first AFD over two months ago. Per the tag, "If the merger is not completed promptly, this article might be re-nominated for deletion." For a valid merge result this time there should be evidence that this is being carried out adequately. The Final Destination 3 article is a mess, but copy and pasting this trash into it will not help.
The reason for deletion is the same as its first AFD: fancruft, and special edition DVDs do not need their own pages. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, once all the fancruft is lost, I reckon this could be cut down to one four-line paragraph. The JPS^{talk to me} 01:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. People shouldn't make false promises to merge, if it never happens. Wikipedia isn't a DVD guide to special editions. RobJ1981 00:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Davidbober 01:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft, unless someone actually merges the articles -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it's obviously not important enough for anyone to go to the trouble to merge, so just vape this cruft. JuJube 02:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft.--Jersey Devil 04:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Delete Is someone going to merge these two? Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 07:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ThrustVectoring 08:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom this time. No redirect, if the content fails to be merged into the parent article. no merge. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 09:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft, DVDs of films will get a mention in the film's page. Terence Ong 13:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no reason to exist separate of the film article.-- danntm ^T _C 16:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete at this point there has been more than enough time for a merge by any interested parties.--Isotope23 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this is why if a consensus is reached on an AfD, someone needs to do it themselves. As no attempt to merge has been made, it should be cast away. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but can we copy the content to Final Destination 3's talk page so someone can still use it one day? --Arctic Gnome 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because DVD version of a movie is not notable by itself. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 18:22, 20 January 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. — CharlotteWebb 21:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Channel Ten

I believe this article should be deleted, simply because there is another page with the exact same content. See Network Ten, and with the official name. See it's official website, "Official Network Ten Website". I believe that if this article is deleted, the information from it should be merged on to Network Ten. It is clearly very obvious how these relate to each other, Channel Ten and Network Ten are very similar, Network Ten is like the mother of Channel Ten. The both have the same shows, logos and slogans, why not just delete one and merge the extra information from Channel Ten onto Network Ten? Surely you don't think that a primary channel needs a page of it own, that can be properly described on Network Ten.Shaggy9872004 00:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• The articles themselves clearly tell us that Channel Ten is about the television channel and Network Ten about the television network. Even were the articles duplicate articles, deletion would not be the proper solution. Uncle G 03:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as has different content from the Network Ten article even though they are related and article seems to be in reasonable shape. Merger may be possible but better canvassed on talk pages. Capitalistroadster 03:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep content is demonstrably not the same (although it might be worth reviewing both articles in case some editors have mistaken the two), and as above editors have mentioned the Network and the Channel are not the same thing (that is, the Network runs Channel Ten and numerous affiliates). --Canley 05:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The content is very different in the articles, Network Ten is the parent, Channel Ten is one of it's products just like Southern Cross Ten. Firelement85 05:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The two pages used to be merged. User:Stickeylabel split the two articles; one for the company called Network Ten, and one for the television network it operates. He did the same for Channel Seven/Seven Network and Channel Nine/Nine Network. --Tntnnbltn 07:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SNOW DXRAW 07:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - what's the difference between Channel Ten, Network Ten and TEN-10? There's three separate articles on this, and none explain what the other is very well. JROBBO 08:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep needs more explanation as to how these topics relate though ThrustVectoring 08:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Snowy Keep, failing that, re-direct to Network Ten and it would be a good case for Channel Seven/Seven Network & Nine Network/Channel Nine to do the same if the consensus for this article was either delete or merge. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 09:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename in any event, because the presumptious title of the article is specific to the channel 10 in only one country and untrue as for channel 10 in other countries. It should say, perhaps Channel Ten (Australia). Edison 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and rename Bucketsofg 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but needs a good rewrite because it seems the same as Network Ten ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there are distinct differences between Channel Ten, Network Ten and TEN-10. The first sentence on the TEN-10 article even states that it is the callsign of Network Ten's flagship Sydney station. CanWest Global Communications is the main stakeholder of The Ten Group, who owns the network called Network TEN, which operates one main nationwide channel called Channel Ten, and also a digital only channel called the Ten Guide. I believe there aren't enough articles for Ten in Australia yet, as we don't even have a The Ten Group article yet. Network Ten and Channel Ten are two completely different things. Network Ten manages affiliation to Southern Cross Ten and various other regional operaters, they also are in charge of the five metropolitan Network Ten stations. They manage the purchasing of programming and many sporting events, they also manage Ten News. Channel Ten is merely a channel that is a collection of programming, that is bought and created by Network Ten. Stickeylabel 22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It meets my notability guidlines. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Network Ten, then turn into a disambiguation page. TRKtvtce 00:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename "Channel Ten (Australia)". I've never seen a network television channel shown in several major cities up for AfD before. --Oakshade 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Network Ten and Channel Ten are different things -- as per Stickeylabel's justification. Australian Matt 08:48, 16 January 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. I see a lot of "I like it"s and zero evidence to address the concerns of those recommending delete. I also checked out the article and I noticed there was no reliable non-trivial secondary sourcing... infact the only source was the website for the event. For those reasons I'm going to delete this article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paparazzi Championship Series

Paparazzi Championship Series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

A recent tournament that isn't very notable. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmackDown! Sprint (which was a recent tournament for a title shot), the PCS article doesn't need to exist. Relevant information can be listed relevant wrestler articles (if needed). RobJ1981 00:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• • The SD sprint wasn't a tournamnet, it was a series of Beat the Clock natches. TJ Spyke 01:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep ... Come on, who cares if it wasn't for a title shot, I still think it was a fun event and I'd like to see this reference of it kept up. Smoke Rulz 02:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It does have slight value... Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 07:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needs better sourcing, although the ones that exist do check out. Participants are also notable. RiseRobotRise 10:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It was noteable on TNA tapings, and it lasted quite a long while. The participants are also very notable, some of the best talents that TNA or RoH have to offer. TakerVersion1 11:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Bucketsofg 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The PCS just ended last night, and no title shot was awarded. A trophy was handed out, that's it. Wikipedia isn't a guide to every wrestling tournament. WWE has had tournaments last for weeks before: it doesn't mean every one of them should be here. RobJ1981 20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep seems to be just notable enough ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Does not appear to meet notability standards. Soltak | Talk 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom and comments above.--Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Leave this page, the tournament was memorable especially for the return of wrestling legend Bob Backlund. Talk 21:48, 15 January 2007
• Delete per nom. Most of the Keeps seem to be of the WP:ILIKEIT variety. Resolute 03:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've suggested on the WikiProject Professional wrestling talk page that it would be a good idea to look at possible ways to provide some sort of episodic information on wrestling shows in general. Possibilities might range from year-in-review or month-in-review style articles to articles focussing on multi-week storylines (like this one). The hope is to find a way to provide episodic information for wrestling shows similar to episodic information for other television series, but without getting into match-by-match or show-by-show details. Whether or not this article is kept in the short term, in the long term I think it would be prudent to find some consensus on how to handle this sort of information to bring wrestling show plotlines and other television show plot lines closer together in how they are presented. Dugwiki 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, one more thing. The reason to possibly keep would be because it is essentially a multi-episode synopsis of a notable television series. Since individual episode articles about notable television series appear to be generally accepted, you can reasonably argue that wrestling shows are essentially the same thing (only with more episodes per year). The flip side is that you might also argue that many of the episode articles for other types of television series should be deleted too. Either way, the main issue is one of being somewhat consistent in approaching how and what information about a television series to include in Wikipedia, and for wrestling shows what might eb a good, maintainable way to provide some of this sort of information. Dugwiki 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The tournament differed from standard wrestling tournaments and culminated in the TV return of Bob Backlund, amongst other things. TheDingbat 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Make a notation in Bob Backlund. The tournament does not deserve its own article. Soltak | Talk 00:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per all of my comments on the Smackdown Sprint AfD and the reasons listed above. I also feel that this unsourced article lacks the ability to be verified as strongly as Wikipedia requires even if someone were to put in the time and effort to look for sources. -- The Hybrid 00:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A potential source of references would be official news articles TNA produced about the associated individual shows and PPV. I'm guessing a little digging on the TNA website would provide most of the verification you need as to what happened. Dugwiki 17:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep A unique event that was held for several weeks and even had the finals on a PPV and featured Bob Backlund. It justs needs better sourcing. TJ Spyke 01:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep I feel that this is a noteworthy artical. It would be best to keep it because they might have more than just one. Big Boss 0 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

AfDs don't work like that. If there had already been more than one, then that would be a good vote, but since there hasn't been it doesn't apply. It is like voting to keep some garage band because thay might make it big someday. -- The Hybrid 21:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Not all that notable, and can be referred to very briefly in the individual wrestler pages if necessary. --Dave. 22:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. As stated above: most of the keeps seem to be WP:ILIKEIT. Bob Backlund was a judge for the final: so what? If we listed every tournament that featured a big name as a judge (or wrestler), Wikipedia would be flooded with cruft. RobJ1981 00:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable wrestling tournament. The WP:ILIKEIT comments don't seem to take into account encyclopedic notability, they seem to be focussing on something that may be notable to a wrestling fan. One Night In Hackney 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Fairly Notable in my Opinion. It appeared on Two Pay Per Views, as well as lasting several weeks on television. All Characters hold encyclopedic notability in their own right, and the event was pretty Unique. In fact, it was the first, and maybe last of it's kind. Pvegeta 23:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep It was a significant event that took up much television time and featured notable participants. This isn't "some garage band" that no one has heard of. This is a series of vignettes and matches that people are interested in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisfs120 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 January, 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This was undoubtably talked about TNA angles done. You could also consider to the point of TNA's internet phenominom, as I'm sure if you look through Youtube files they are the most watched TNA segments. These skits will be talked about for years to come. Whenever Kevin Nash is brought up, people will remember his rise when he signed with WCW but his huge fall when he returned to WWE. However, Nash actually winning the fans back so late in his career will always be thought of. The PCS challenge specifically. And that is far, far more important that many tournaments listed. Besides, it's just plain fun! Why do you have to ruin it for others?Crispen Raw 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. As per the deletion of Smackdown Sprint, the PCS isn't that notable. Just because wrestling fans like it, doesn't mean it's notable enough for wiki. Put it on a wrestling wikipedia. Do you realize, if Wikipedia had every wrestling thing you liked on it... it would be flooded? Fact: there is other sites on the internet for information on wrestling and it's events. RobJ1981 18:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep This needs to be kept. It was a significant part of wrestling over the past few months. If tournaments for TNA were kept in the past, then this should stay, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.3.245 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 January, 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Kris Classic 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" --Aaru Bui ^DII 00:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, although I'll point out, Aaru, that your own recommendation at the top was "Delete per nom". I fail to see much difference between that and a "Keep per above" recommendation, so you might want to follow your own advice....Dugwiki 16:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Sure thing. --Aaru Bui ^DII 08:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The majority of the votes to keep have been ridiculous, unfounded, and based solely in opinion. Whether or not one enjoys TNA has absolutely no basis on whether or not this article should be deleted. Further, precedent (i.e., Smackdown! Sprint) clearly indicates that this and similar articles should be removed. Soltak | Talk 00:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote one of the policies, Consensus can change. While precedent is useful, there is a larger open question of handling articles regarding episodes and stories in television shows of all types. Some editors favor greatly reducing the amount of episodic information for all shows, while others apparently want additional storyline information available for certain types of shows such as wrestling shows, soap operas and reality shows. It's possible (or at least hopeful) that in the long term a reasonable consensus can be reached on handling information for all TV series across the board, and that the consensus will be to allow some (but not all) articles about plot lines or linked-episodes for regular weekly serials.

So personally I see this afd as a short term debate. Regardless of whether or not this article is kept, in the long term we'll probably need some more thorough guidelines for handling episodes, etc. Dugwiki 17:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP This is nothing like the Smackdown Spirit. This is the talk of the Internet wrestling community!

Strong Keep: The reasoning for deletion is invalid. The "Smackdown Sprint" was just a series of matches to determine a number one contender. This was more of a tournament, albeit a very unusual one (which might warrant its presence alone). It was obviously more than just a storyline (like other tournaments), involved multiple pop culture and professional wrestling references, and will likely return in future years due to the positive response it has received. Clint 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: While a lot of the keep responses seem to be "I like it", some make logical cases. Likewise, several of the delete responses are either "per nom" (for a description that includes a terrible comparison, imo), as well as an argument of non-notability. Notability here seems to be very subjective, as in the majority opinion it is notable, but there are a significant number of people arguing the contrary, with no real evidence either way. I think a bigger problem is establishing what qualifies as notable and why.... Clint 23:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Keep it. It was a fun touranment and was very enjoyable to watch. It wasn't just wrestling. It was part comedy too and most wrestling fans enjoyed it, so that's all that matters right?

• Comment: Sources/References and more external links to announcements/etc. have been added.

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, arguably an attack page. NawlinWiki 16:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D. hensi

D. hensi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

No sources, and Google searching turns up no support. You'd think that something like this would get publicity, cause a recall of Miller beer, or something - if it wasn't a hoax. Which is what it smells like. Note: PROD tag removed without addressing concerns or providing explanation. FreplySpang 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Eradicate. Either a hoax (most likely) or original research otherwise. --N Shar 01:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 02:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A search on google news for 'miller parasite' turned up nothing, so I'd say it's a hoax. --Sopoforic 03:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoax-DESU 05:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Dwljelte- oops, won two many Miller's, the parasites arrgh rodding my brain. SkierRMH,06:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and consider sending it to WP:BJ. YechielMan 07:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThrustVectoring (talk • contribs) 08:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Note, given the almost-slander sound of this, and absolute lack of proofs, it might be worth shooting this one now. 68.39.174.238 13:16, 15 January 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. Bucketsofg 18:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Moccia

John Moccia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Contested prod. Serious question on Notability. There may also be issues with WP:AUTO or, at minimum, WP:COI. Despite major cleanup by author, still looks less than neutral. Fan-1967 01:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: This is the second nomination for an article of this title, but the earlier AFD seems to be for a different person. Fan-1967 01:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - None of this guy's associated ventures are notable, and no sources are provided per WP:BIO. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 04:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced, still reads like an advert. Flyingtoaster1337 08:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the 300 odd web hits for "John Moccia" dont convince me this guy is notable. this appears to be the most applicable hit. John Vandenberg 09:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: There seem to be at least a few people of the name, including a screenwriter who wrote one episode of a TV show, so he gets a number of hits on IMDB, tv.com and mirrors. Fan-1967 15:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom.--Wehwalt 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Bucketsofg 19:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or add proper sources by end of this AfD Alf photoman 19:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - As mentioned bu other users it has no notability at all. Tellyaddict 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Philippe Beaudette 22:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:32, 16 January 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. —Cryptic 10:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rocket Pants (card game)

Rocket Pants (card game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Vanity nothing. Wikiepdia is WP:NFT not for something made up in high school one day. 2005 01:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jbgohlke 01:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"Vanity nothing" is correct, as there is nothing vain about the article in question. This article is not about vanity, and this card game is very popular today. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean anything. I've removed the credits to the authors, but I fail to see the point of that as one's creations deserve to be credited. I agree that Wikipedia is WP:NFT, but only if whatever happens to be "created in school" doesn't actually come to fruition.

You invented a game. Fine. Play it with your friends. The Wikipedia is not here to publicize your game. 2005 01:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFT. --Davidbober 01:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jbgohlke 01:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Whatever, I tried. Delete

• Speedy G7 (author requests deletion); let's close this discussion quickly. --N Shar 01:57, 15 January 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. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xcellery (second nomination)

Xcellery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Recreation of advertisment for non-notable software. Artw 01:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Davidbober 01:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xcellery for what happened to previous less well-formatted version --Henrygb 02:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Listed on Salesforce.com and featured on Lifehacker.com, thus meeting WP:SOFTWARE's requirement of multiple non-trivial independent mentions. --Pkchan 04:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Very Weak Delete Keep Article reads more like an advertisment, lets see if this article can turn up better sources, and better writing. (although this editor dosn't think bad writing is grounds for deletion). Author of the article is also the Founder and CEO of Collaborall violates WP:COI. RiseRobotRise 10:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup to remove advertisingness. Bucketsofg 19:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite passes notablity but reads like an ad ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 21:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Article is related to software that is in development but needs an expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellyaddict (talk • contribs)
• Keep Article was re-written to fix above complaints. --Rlaemmler 22:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep by Rewrite to remove advert. Philippe Beaudette 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

*Keep Article is free of advert. Please indicate otherwise. --Rlaemmler 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Removed wording: free-of-charge and available for subscription. --Rlaemmler 02:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Who is in charge of accepting the content and removes the deletion part? --Rlaemmler 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. An administrator (there are many) will complete it when the WP:Afd process has run its course. More information can be found here: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. John Vandenberg 09:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• leaning towards delete. I'm not familiar with the websites the sources are from; I'd like to see sources from reputable websites are added, or evidence that those sources are notable. John Vandenberg 09:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a quite reputable source: Listed on Salesforce.com --Rlaemmler 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Rlaemmler, this process is a mixture of a show of hands and a long winded debate, and you do not need to proceed your comments with "Keep" -- the admin who closes this review is already able to clearly see that you believe the article should be kept. If you think that "Xcellery" is worthy of an article on Wikipedia, I strongly recommend you stop trying to justify its existance here. Instead, go read the verifiability and notability guidelines --- and then focus on improving the article. In regards to your comment that SalesForce is a reputable source: normally it would be, however SalesForce is in the business of selling Xcellery to its users, so using them as a source on this article is only desirable to verify that they are business partners (which is how it is being used currently) -- all other statements from SalesForce are tainted by the sweet smell of crisp greenbacks.

So, the problem is that at the moment this article has a "References" section full of blog posts, which is unacceptable. The only one that looks reasonable is ezinearticles.com, _however_ the author is Reto Laemmler, Founder and CEO of Collaborall, maker of Xcellery [3], and to make matters worse is he has only posted one story in the magazine [4], which demonstrates that he was not wearing another more impartial hat when he wrote the article. I dont mind if this references stays as a way to quote the CEO's opinion, but it definitely needs to state that the author is the CEO.

What we need are independent articles in tech magazines; i.e. reviews by people unaffiliated with Collaborall and Xcellery, whose sole objective is to inform their readers. John Vandenberg 00:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment John, thanks for the information. I'm new to publishing an article on Wikipedia and I try my best to fullfill the required quality standards. I already rewrote the entire article twice trying to remove any smell of spam or advertisement. SalesForce is not selling Xcellery for Collaborall. SalesForce offers a platform called AppExchange which allows 3rd parties to publish applications integrating into SalesForce. In order to be published a quite intense app review must be passed. SalesForce doesn't earn anything and is a partner not a reseller. --Rlaemmler 02:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Rlaemmler, am I correct in assuming you are Reto Laemmler, CEO of Collaborall? If so, you really need to go read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before doing anything else on Wikipedia.

Back on track, can you see that SalesForce is in the business of selling a service; they have included Xcellery as part of that service, which is a small claim to notability. However as their business profits from the software, any statements from SalesForce about the product need to be taken with a grain or two of salt when used for verifiability. So, we need more credible sources that verify the facts on the article. John Vandenberg 05:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Yes I'm Reto Laemmler, Founder and CEO of Collaborall. I just took a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Very interesting and I will stop commenting from now on forward. I do respect all your feedback and will simply try to improve the article rather then justify it. --Rlaemmler 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment John, see also the article on Lifehacker.com. The website may look like a blog, but is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia entry, so should be treated as a trustworthy source. --Pkchan 03:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Thanks for pointing that out, I was merely going on first impression after glancing at each referenced page. The Wikipedia article for Lifehacker.com indicates that the site is leaning towards being an advertising medium, but the fact isnt backed up with a source (I've edited the article to request citations). On further inspection of the lifehacker article, Im convinced that this isnt suitable, as it states "According to the [XCellery] site ...", which indicates that the author has not actually used the software. John Vandenberg 05:39, 18 January 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. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Fresh Meat II

Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Fresh Meat II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

This article is about a future season of a reality game show, and many anonymous editors have been using this page to post nonsense, and information that is not cited, failing WP:V. ALL IN 01:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete nonsense article, CSD:A1, with no context provided, CSD:G1. The article lacks sources, WP:CITE, and does not assert or attempt to provide any notability, WP:NOTE. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:15, 15 January 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 withdrawing nomination by myself. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Megiddo

Project Megiddo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Article about a report from the FBI that targets religious groups. The FBI produces hundreds of reports like this every year, and this specific one doens't appear to be notable. No coverage by reliable sources; a Google search reveals all coverage by non-notable government-tracking, conspiracy and other partisan websites. Article was originally a copyvio of this page; the author simply replaced some phrases and words from the original page when this issue was brought up. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Checked fbi.gov for source, but "Your search - Project Megiddo - did not match any documents." Clearly WP:RS and WP:V. --Davidbober 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The above claim is misleading. Google search 'Project Megiddo' turns of the official FBI doc at a US gov site. (gpo.gov.www.fbi.gov - pdf file) shown at the following Goggle cache - Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep - Invalid nomination : Report was covered by numerous sources such as this Oct 21 1999 AP Story, this commentary in The New American, commentary on gunowners.org, and partisan source WorldNutDaily. The FBI even issued a press release in response to an article about the report that appeared in USA Today a highly unusual occurance speaking to the controversy this report created. Anyone with access to Lexis/Nexis could find dozens more sources. The nomination's claims of the FBI producing hundreds of 'reports like this every year' is unfounded speculation. I'd like to see some documentation of just how many reports 'like this' the FBI 'produces every year' to back up these speculative claims. It is my understanding that this report caused significant backlash against the agency, and that they were more circumspect after their noses got bloodied by maligning a group with considerable clout. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - this was a widely covered news item during the run-up to Y2K. Dragomiloff 04:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Withdraw nomination since FAAFA has produced coverage from at least one reliable source - the AP story is enough for me. My apologies. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you Neo. The article is just a stub anyway, perhaps you would like to help add to it. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 05:09, 15 January 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, no need to wait five days given overwhelming consensus below. NawlinWiki 14:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communist Party of British Columbia

Communist Party of British Columbia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Non-notable provincial party in the province of British Columbia. In the 2005 provincial elections, it achieved a whopping 0.01% of the total popular vote. Because of this, there is nothing notable about the party. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering if you checked all the results going back to 1945 or prior, or if doing badly in one election makes an article deleteable- in which case we should delete Progressive Conservative Party of Canada for winning 2 seats in 1993. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jbgohlke 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)I think it's existence makes it more than "notable".

• Keep. There are 47 pages in Category Provincial political parties in British Columbia and there is no reason to make an example of this article. --Davidbober 02:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep branch of the notable Communist Party of Canada. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if it is currently a micro party, it has historical significance. Bucketsofg 03:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep During its heyday, it was fielding candidates in a third of all the ridings. Political parties that maintain a tangible presence over the course of several decades are definitely notable. Caknuck 03:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada won no votes at all in the last federal election. Should this article be deleted too? Ground Zero | t 04:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep invalid deletion rationale.--Jersey Devil 04:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep very important part of Canadian working class history. --Mista-X 04:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Ground Zero. --GreenJoe 05:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a properly registered political party in any jurisdiction is notable enough, regardless of their electoral performance. --Canley 05:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Based on historical lineage[5], not for being "properly registered" which has low barriers to entry[6]. Bwithh
• Keep. Disturbing to see this AfD, and the recent one for the Sex Party, being based on popularity. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, despite being a minor party, it history is quite significant, definitely notable. A number of parties have received few votes in recent years, and are they all supposed to get deleted? Terence Ong 13:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Bwithh. Resolute 14:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a registered political party. Their performance in an election is not relevant. Notability is not the same as popularity or fame. -- Whpq 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm sure this party wishes it could this kind of support at the ballot box. Given the long-term history of this party, even if it were de-listed as an official political party I would would still say it is encyclopedic. The only difference is that it would then be an article on the political history of British Columbia, which is still encyclopedic. Agent 86 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. —dima/s-ko/ 20:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep not successful but notable ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 21:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Appropriate for encyclopedic content. Philippe Beaudette 23:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There is no reason to delete it. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - established political party with a long history and no shortage of third-party references. —Psychonaut 01:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There might be nothing notable about their individual candidates, but any officially incorporated political party that has run candidates in any election is fully entitled to an article about the party. Bearcat 01:43, 16 January 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. Nishkid64 19:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable moustaches in art and fiction

List of notable moustaches in art and fiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Delete - Stachecruft. Completely unencyclopedic. Otto4711 02:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete though some of it could be merged back into moustache. I do however, think that the use of cruft as a reason for deletion is inappropriate. There are better ways to express the problem. FrozenPurpleCube 02:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete you have GOT to be kidding. JuJube 03:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We deleted Category:People with facial hair, and as a poorly annotated list, this article provides nothing more. Additionally, the articles for individual styles of moustaches already list famous persons with such a type of moustache. This is unnecessary duplication, and with less value due to being less well-categorised. --Sopoforic 04:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an unencyclopedic list. JIP | Talk 06:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with merge of some info into the moustache article. And now off to nominate Image:Marcel Duchamp Mona Lisa LHOOQ.jpg for the 4/1/07 "picture of the day ;) SkierRMH,07:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge any useful (not ridden with OR and POV) content into Moustache. --Dweller 12:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic, WP:OR, nonsense. Terence Ong 13:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - This is just one of more than 150+ lists of fictional objects / people on Wikipedia. See here. Why is this list different from any other? They should all stay as they provide useful summaries of the treatment of the subject by artists and writers through history and across cultures. Lumos3 15:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivia sections, like moustaches, can be either cut off or trimmed. This one should have been trimmed. Gazpacho 16:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above Bucketsofg 19:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic trivia. No indication of what is a "notable" mustache. It is a list with questionable basis for inclusion and of possibly indeterminate length. Just because other equally bad lists might exist does not justify the existence of this list. Agent 86 20:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Uncyclopedic. —dima/s-ko/ 20:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete just trivia ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete too subjective (against the recommendations of WP:LIST. Chovain^(t|c) 22:59, 15 January 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 kept as large number of keep votes and nominator abstained stating that they suspected it was notable. Capitalistroadster 01:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MasterCraft

MasterCraft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

This article was prodded with the explanation "Notability not established, although requested since June 2006." I found the prod and removed it because I suspect that this company is notable (I have seen their boats). I abstain from this one. N Shar 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Per the company Web site, "MasterCraft is by far the largest producer of inboard ski, wakeboard and luxury performance powerboats in the world. It sells boats in 25 different countries and has over 100 domestic and international dealers." It's the official tow boat for the IWSF Water Ski and Wakeboard World Cup and seems to be, judging by a quick search, the boat of choice for competitive water skiers. Caknuck 03:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious, Strong Keep and expand. Clearly notable, as I noted when I de-prodded it yesterday, before it was immediately and improperly re-prodded... The article needs much cleanup, yes, but it's clearly worth having an article on. Georgewilliamherbert 04:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per my comments in the article talk page. Notable company. Needs cleanup. -- Ben (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand Well known and notable company, though I have never owned a boat I know of the company. EnsRedShirt 05:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. MasterCraft is huge in the North America recreational boating industry, absolutely notable enough for Wikipedia. Someone will get around to expanding this eventually, I'm sure. -/- Warren 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• KeepGet off your lazy ass and go to you local Canadian Tire and buy some tools to fix up your house which is probably falling appart because you can't get away from wikipedia. Yes! Every minute in you life is actually timed by looking at those swivelly signatures of yours, which happens to contain your local time. Your life biography... but you got a pee... oh just one more click... just one more afd... Oh! Wait... You mean MasterCraft the place that makes boats. Oh! Sorry. Never heard of them... meuh! indifferent. delete or keep. --CyclePat 05:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but Expand: My current task is to expand the article Mastercraft, since Mastercraft boats are great. I do think this article can be a major piece of Wikipedia if it is expanded and has more information than just a sentence. So, tell me if you feel as if you do not want me to try to make Mastercraft a better article (I don't see why not, but yeah...) Chickyfuzz123 06:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It does have an international presence - the non-English ghits is evidence; and they are well known in 'auxiliary'/related activities (water skiing, fishing, etc.). SkierRMH,08:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, no one's actually voting delete here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Bucketsofg 19:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep needs a rewrite though ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 21:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - meets notability requirements. Philippe Beaudette 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all above comments.--Jersey Devil 00:30, 16 January 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. Nishkid64 19:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James L. Crite

James L. Crite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be particularly notbale, article looks like self-promotion. Artw 07:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete IMDb shows the subject's documentary "For Love of Liberty: The Story of America's Black Patriots" to be in production at Showtime, with an expected airdate early this year. Google doesn't seem able to verify the subject's other claim to notability (winning an award at the New Mexico Film Festival). Fails WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:CRYSTAL (pending the airing of the doc). Caknuck 03:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This article is a bio of a person who is not majorly famous, maybe in some areas but not worldwide. Think it's probably best to delete it; Tellyaddict 21:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't currently pass notablity requirements ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 21:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - might be willing to reconsider once the subject documentary has been released. Something "due for production" doesn't really get me excited. Philippe Beaudette 23:04, 15 January 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 euthanized a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Euthanize me

Euthanize me (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Has not even recorded a demo. Evidently not significant in any way. Article creator's username suggests he is the drummer. Andrusi 02:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Only notable to the owners of the garage that they play in. SubSeven 03:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Universally unknown band that's only been around for a month. Most likely a vanity page. Metrackle 03:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Should have been speedied as db-band... Formed in Dec 06., not even a band yet (missing a few people!). Marked as so. SkierRMH,08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Metrackle ThrustVectoring 08:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly lacks significance.zadignose 10:31, 15 January 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. Advertising seems to have been mostly cleaned up and notability has been established. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Generation YES

Generation YES (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Educational corporation. A speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review and is now here for further discussion. This is a procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertisement Dragomiloff 05:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:V and WP:N and I cant see a problem with WP:CORP. John Vandenberg 09:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep has an article in USA Today. RiseRobotRise 10:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It is an advertisement which seems to be slanted to make the subject look more notable than it is.--Wehwalt 15:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but Cleanup: This article does give, for the most part, good information, but it needs a lot of cleanup till it is up to Wikipedia's standards. Chickyfuzz123 18:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see a significant problem with it. Philippe Beaudette 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I reviewed the cited sources and they appear to be either directory entries or reprints of press releases. Nothing whihc passes the non-trivial, independent test. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• That is simply not true. You may have misread the US Dept of Ed page which (rather poorly) lists a group of programs; however, the organization at hand was listed as one of two ever cited by the federal education agency, which oversees 1000s of schools, as exemplary. The other citations are each articles from known and respected publications. I have included a new citation to a publication ED wrote specifically about GenYES to reinforce the significance of their acknowledgement. Being recognized by the US Dept of Ed as exemplary is about the highest form of acknowledgement any education company in the US can recieve. -Freechild 13:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• I am also shocked that JzG reviewed the cited sources and found nothing indicating verifiability and/or notability -- they were clearly journal articles and government publications, albeit missing {{cite}} formatting. In any case, most of these sources have now been clarified. One that still stumps me is the ISSN of "Educational Leadership". John Vandenberg 08:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I added that ISSN, but can't get the syntax right- can somebody spot me? - Freechild 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Sufficient evidence above proves the validity of this article. - Freechild 02:47, 19 January 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 Eluchil404 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intuitor

Intuitor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Educational website. A speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review and is now here for further discussion. This is a procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Significant number of hits for "Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics", however I couldnt find any reviews by major news websites. John Vandenberg 09:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as above. Philippe Beaudette 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. "Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics" has been covered on All Things Considered ([7]), referenced by BBC News ([8]), and recognized by PC Magazine ([9]). Tim Smith 02:41, 18 January 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. Nishkid64 19:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Douglass Otto

Mark Douglass Otto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

County party chair, failed congressional candidate. Not exactly WP:BIO material. PROD tag added, but removed by User:DGG on the grounds that running for office imparts sufficient notability. I say that merely being a party hack doesn't. Calton | Talk 02:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I'll let the article speak for me... "Otto is perhaps best known for his insistance on upholding high ethical standards in government and insisting upon fiscally responsible budgeting." Caknuck 03:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• High ethical standards and fiscal responsibility? No wonder he lost. Delete. Otto4711 04:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I can't really find any evidence on this guy's notability. However, I will change my vote if it does turn up. If he did win in any State on National election, I will change to keep. RiseRobotRise 10:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete We can't hypothesize his notability. We need evidence. It's lacking.zadignose 10:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, needs more sources for WP:BIO Alf photoman 14:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I originally nominated this for speedy deletion, but the admin claimed that it was not a candidate. Check the history for their reasoning. J Milburn 19:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• No compelling evidence of notability in the article. Assuming no improvement by the end of this discussion, consider redirecting to whichever page is appropriate for his Congress candidacy, per WP:C&E. If no page exists, delete. Eludium-q36 18:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete As I recall, isn't consensus generally that just running for Congress is insufficient to prove notability? And that's his most impressive one. --Gwern (contribs) 21:10 18 January 2007 (GMT) 21:10, 18 January 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Khoikhoi 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Oltu

Battle of Oltu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I don't think that this deserves its own article especially because it wasn't even much of a battle. Most of the information covered here is already extensively covered in the Turkish-Armenian War article. -- Clevelander 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh, on second thought, I was acting irrationally. Of course these articles can be expanded. I apologize for causing a big stir about all this. Nomination withdrawn. -- Clevelander 14:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Seeing as how Clevelander and Nareklm have been the primary contributors to the article and are in favor of deletion, I have a question. Is there a chance that the articles for the battles can be expanded further? Are there casualty figures? Can maps be drawn up? What military units were involved? If these questions can't be answered and the article cannot be expanded much further, then forks are unnecessary and I'd support deletion. But if we can expand upon the articles enough so that they can stand alone, then I favor keeping them for the time being. Nareklm & Clevelander, any comments? Thanks, Caknuck 03:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Well there isn't much information and the only references are in Russian basically only, I tried searching about this in books no results came up. Nareklm 03:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Unfortunately, there is very little information on the Turkish-Armenian War. The exact number of casualties (both Armenian and Turkish alike) for the entire conflict has never really been ascertained. -- Clevelander 03:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep These battles do exist. I have questions regarding the credibility of the argument that there is no information. There are many shorter articles on wikipedia? Why we are in such a rush to delete these article? —The preceding OttomanReference 03:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well these articles have no references or any official credible or English sources, the topic seems important but theres no information on it or in books some references would help. Nareklm 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment One explanation for Clevelander's position is that Armenian sources may have a bias for this period, as they lost the war. I 'm not an expert in this period, but it bothers me to delete any item (especially if they do not contain misinformation). It also puzzes me, why someone asks for deletion at the end this is an electronic medium, it will not cover space on someones desk :-). I strongly believe; it is not a good policy to act on deletion request. People can search for Battle of Oltu and they can find this page, get basic information (dates, sides, result) and if they want it will link them to main campaign page. OttomanReference 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Actually, I used non-Armenian sources when contributing this article. -- Clevelander 11:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Turkish-Armenian War. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable event, kick started the Turkish-Armenian War. RiseRobotRise 10:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The initial article was much the same as the summary in the Turkish-Armenian War article. But the new one has much more detail. Armenian-Turkish articles are always ticklish to keep neutral, so the drafting is often slow. --Bejnar 11:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - notable. The Turkish-Armenian war is not well-documented and good source material can be hard to find, which is all the more reason for us to make the effort to expand this set of articles. --Squeezeweasel^talk 14:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable.--Yannismarou 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable event. —dima/s-ko/ 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Close The nominator has withdrawn can someone close this already? Nareklm 20:53, 15 January 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Khoikhoi 00:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Sarıkamış (1920)

Battle of Sarıkamış (1920) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I don't think that this deserves its own article especially because it wasn't even much of a battle. Most of the information covered here is already extensively covered in the Turkish-Armenian War article. -- Clevelander 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh, on second thought, I was acting irrationally. Of course these articles can be expanded. I apologize for causing a big stir about all this. Nomination withdrawn. -- Clevelander 14:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Oltu Caknuck 03:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep These battles do exist. I have questions regarding the credibility of the argument that there is no information. There are many shorter articles on wikipedia? Why we are in such a rush to delete these article?OttomanReference 04:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep notable event. RiseRobotRise 10:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - definitely notable. --Squeezeweasel^talk 14:05, 15 January 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Khoikhoi 00:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Kars (1920)

Battle of Kars (1920) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I don't think that this deserves its own article especially because it wasn't even much of a battle. Most of the information covered here is already extensively covered in the Turkish-Armenian War article. -- Clevelander 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh, on second thought, I was acting irrationally. Of course these articles can be expanded. I apologize for causing a big stir about all this. Nomination withdrawn. -- Clevelander 14:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Oltu Caknuck 03:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep These battles do exist. I have questions regarding the credibility of the argument that there is no information. There are many shorter articles on wikipedia? Why we are in such a rush to delete these article?OttomanReference 04:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per only 39 google hits [[10]] and most of them are copy pages of wikipedia's. This "battle" sounds made up to me. Chaldean 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep notable event. RiseRobotRise 10:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The Turkish/Armenian war suffers from a lack of documentation, but this is a genuine and notable event. --Squeezeweasel^talk 14:10, 15 January 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Khoikhoi 00:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Alexandropol

Battle of Alexandropol (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I don't think that this deserves its own article especially because it wasn't even much of a battle. Most of the information covered here is already extensively covered in the Turkish-Armenian War article. -- Clevelander 02:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh, on second thought, I was acting irrationally. Of course these articles can be expanded. I apologize for causing a big stir about all this. Nomination withdrawn. -- Clevelander 14:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Oltu Caknuck 03:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep These battles do exist. I have questions regarding the credibility of the argument that there is no information. There are many shorter articles on wikipedia? Why we are in such a rush to delete these article?OttomanReference 04:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Although not decisive, it was significant and a part of history. Thus, it should be kept --TommyOliver 06:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep notable event. RiseRobotRise 10:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notable, and "not much of a battle" isn't a good enough reason to delete the page. As with the other articles on similar subjects nominated for deletion today, it would be better to work on expanding this article than to delete it. --Squeezeweasel^talk 14:12, 15 January 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. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Iris moment"

"Iris moment" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Non-notable Internet neologism, no indication that this is notable or passes WP:NEO. Seraphimblade 02:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator; does not appear notable, and has no reliable sources. Yuser31415 03:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Only 150 ghits, fails defines WP:NEO. Caknuck 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely non-notable neo. Fan-1967 03:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete cuz everything feels like the movies. JuJube 03:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• The policy that applies is actually Wikipedia:No original research. This article purports to document a fad. It cites no sources, and I can find no sources already documenting this fad. Wikipedia is not a primary source. It is not the place for documenting the never-before-documented. Delete. Uncle G 03:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I can find no reliable secondary sources for the etymology given, since this appears to be a non-notable neologism, so this isn't verifiable, and constitutes original research. I think that sums up every argument, yes? --Sopoforic 05:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 06:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hardly a significant cultural phenomenon even within the limited context of what's new on youtube this month, has no reason to treat it is notable.zadignose 10:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I love the song - it sits proudly near the top of my iTunes playlist - but this is a totally non-notable neologism. Lacks reliable sources to meet WP:V. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. 1ne 10:57, 15 January 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. JIP | Talk 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MBA BIOTECH

MBA BIOTECH (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

This nomination includes:

MBA biotechnology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable; reads like an advertisment. Yuser31415 03:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as spam. Sole link on Google Labs was already deleted by Google for a TOS violation, ergo my !vote. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 03:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete db-spam. JuJube 03:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete spam. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 04:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense, obvious violation of WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 16:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wuts that ham

Wuts that ham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Non-notable Internet meme started by the author of the article. Prod removed by author after he changed "meme" to "joke", claiming that negated the prod. JuJube 03:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. --- RockMFR 03:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete OR CoI non-notable cruft. Unverifiable self-indulgence. Wikipedia is not a web host. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not a bad picture from a video game, but, well, it doesn't warrant keeping an article for a picture. --Dennisthe2 04:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per IslaySolomon. --Sopoforic 05:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, yet another non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 06:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "Wuts that ham" also gets 0 Ghits. JuJube 06:24, 15 January 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. Nishkid64 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unused highway

Unused highway (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

term apparently coined by a couple of editors for use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism. A Google search of "unused highway" reveals official sources using different meanings than the implied, unsourced, one in the article. A companion article was twice submitted to AfD (as Ghost ramp) before being moved to a similarly-named place and will soon accompany this in AfD. Delete. B.Wind 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Per the prior [11] [12] two discussions, the results were no consensus and keep but rename. The last AFD was also closed not that long ago; therefore I submit that this AFD be speedy closed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• • The second AfD was improperly closed by a non-admin who actually proposed the deletion. At no time was there a complete discussion as to the validity of unused highway. B.Wind 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. It's been discussed prior that his closure was proper. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Do you have a link to the deletion review? B.Wind 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• • With no supporting evidence from B.Wind or a statement why it should be deleted, I move that it be speedy kept. This is also getting old; I propose a hold of six months before another AFD can be filed. Discussions can be held, but there is no reason why we must have duplication of tags, AFD banners, and all the assorted stuff cluttering the page and its histories. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think a such hold can be done though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That's a shame. As that, it is a Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominations and recurring candidates waste of our time --
      • "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete."
      • "Renomination costs additional volunteer time and server resources, on top of the original nomination." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • This is the first nomination of an article of this name for deletion, not a renomination; therefore the above argument does not apply. B.Wind 04:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
          • If you chose to read [13] [14], you would see that as a result of the last AFD, it was decided to move the page to unused highway. Therefore, this AFD is the third in the series. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Regardless of the article's past afd's, after examining the article it is pretty clear that it should be deleted as being unverifiable original research. There are two references in the article, however neither of them ever use the term 'unused highway.' One does use the term 'stub ramp' once, but the term isn't defined and its meaning as given in the article is inferred. Without any valid sources this should go. --The Way 03:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is a tautology, I don't see how it is that hard of a concept to understand. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep; "unused highway" is a simple phrase like "list of cities" or "fauna of Puerto Rico". If you have a better phrase that covers the same scope and is either an obvious phrase or defined in a reliable source, please suggest one. --NE2 03:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a better idea: if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination. The so-called "tautology" cited by Seicer is not the case here, as a revisitation of the term will make clear.B.Wind 04:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • ODOT calls it a stub. Similar to stub ramp. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Does ODOT call it an unused highway? B.Wind 04:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Stub street, same thing. Do you propose that we now move Unused highway to stub street? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The fact that an "unused highway" is a highway that is unused needs no citing. Would you like me to cite dictionary definitions of "unused" and "highway"? --NE2 04:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think he'll be satisfied with any ruling. I'm finding sources to be safe so that this nonsense can be ended for once and for all. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I found many sources that pretty much defines the term in usage; therefore, will you please withdraw the nomination and spare the rest of us this repetitive process? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Seicer; folks had a problem with the term "ghost ramp", and insisted on "unused highway"; now they want to kill the entry entirely on that basis? Many of these ramps were mentioned previously in separate highway entries. This article serves to collate the data. As for original research, most of the items are cited with either supporting documentation or satellite photos that serve to verify the assertations. That hardly qualifies as original research. --Mhking 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep maybe merge with closed highway or some other legal term from the Highway traffic act or more technical term from a jurisprudence. --CyclePat 04:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Here are a couple references that could be help the referencing of this article:

• Leasing of Closed Highways Regulation, Alta. Reg. 36/1986
• R. v. Sanders, 2004 NBPC 12 (CanLII) (a trial about using a closed road and or closed highway)
• HIGHWAY CLOSINGS, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 599 (Law about sign, and how to close a road and who can)
• R. v. Strachan, 1995 CanLII 1323 (BC C.A.) states "It appears from the material that was put before the sentencing judge, that at one point the police found it necessary to close Highway 5 north of Kamloops in order to ensure the safety of any motorists who might be travelling in the opposite direction to that of the chase."
• PUBLIC HIGHWAYS ACT, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. P-13 states "Every person using a highway closed to traffic in accordance with this section does so at his or her own risk and the highway authority is not liable in any action for damages resulting from the use by a person of a highway so closed to traffic"
• Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 states in section 134 that "Driving on closed highway prohibited."
• Barrie (City) v. 1606533 Ontario Inc., 2005 CanLII 24746 (ON S.C.) a case that specifically talks about an used highway. (note this was the only thing that came back for this term) --CyclePat 05:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is borderlining on a bad-faith nomination. If this article needs a different name, then that's okay -- bring it up at WP:RFC to get some outside input. AFD is not the place for such a discussion, though. A quick Windows Live search on "unused highway" turns up some U.S. state government web pages dealing with legislation, so the term is out there. -/- Warren 05:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Can we speedy keep this since the article now has a bijillion citations towards every term, word and letter? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable topic. Sometimes Wikipedians have to come up with an article title themselves, if there is no globally agreed upon term. If a consensus emerges that a different title is better, then it can be renamed (again), but this needs to be kept in some form. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Who really needs a definition of "unused highway", or a banal discussion of the various obvious reasons why one might close a highway? This isn't a phrase that needs definition - put "unused" and "highway" together, and they mean exactly what one might expect. I can perhaps see a list of notable unused highways - considerable stretchs of major highway that have been closed, are unused, etc. - but why define or discuss such a commonplace phrase? What's next - "broken sidewalk"? "Muddy path?" --Brianyoumans 06:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So... you are in agreement that the definition is a tautology. Therefore, your position would be more in agreement with keep rather than delete, since both pages contain relevant information. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see how this is in any way a tautology. I am saying this is like having an article on "blue bathrobes" - which is to say, bathrobes which are blue. This combination of words has no special meaning, and neither does it define a subject which needs an article to explain it. Brianyoumans 07:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Would a merge, rather than a delete, be more appropriate? The List could be merged into the primary article, with a brief overview (per what is there currently) to explain the different types? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • First of all, as Brian has already mentioned, this term is not a tautology. Secondly, even if it were that would in no way imply that the article should be kept; there is no policy that says tautologies are inherently notable, the very idea that something's being a tautology somehow makes it encyclopedic is ridiculous. Also, as Brian argues, there is no reason why 'unused highway' is any more important, encyclopedic and notable than 'red cars,' 'unused airport runways' or 'broken sidewalks.' The term is probably even unsuitable for Wiktionary. If there are notable unused highways then feel free to rename this to 'List of Notable Unused Highways,' that is if you can establish clear and objective criter for determining the notability of such highways and the topic (eg. find sources that state that this particular unused highway is important because...) --The Way 07:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
          • (Edit conflict) Per the last two AFDs and extensive discussions, the choosing of the word is the most appropriate terminology as it is the most _direct_ and _simple_. It's unfortunate that you were not a main participant in those prior discussions (per standard search, please correct if I am mistaken), because those discussions led to the renaming of the article. Renaming it again, or moving it to satisfy your definition or idea is simply spinning the wheel, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominationswasting everyones time and resources --
          • "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete."
          • "Renomination costs additional volunteer time and server resources, on top of the original nomination."
          • Per this AFD and the corresponding duplicate, a rough consensus has been made to keep the article since it has satisfied B.Wind's original criteria --
          • if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination.
          • Any further discussion from that initial discussion is going off on a tangent (per what Brianyoumans started above) and is not inclusive to this AFD. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I think that some of this could be merged to highway or some other similar place, as a description of what one can do with unwanted highways. I don't think much of this is useful for helping define what a notable unused highway is. One could of course use it to categorize the unused highways, but I'm not sure how useful that would be - how many highways have notably been turned into gardens? I think that would be up to the editors of the list, as to whether that would be a useful scheme of organization. Brianyoumans 07:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Has if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination been satisfied? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the problems with this article are not specific to the article's title. You want a 'catch-all' for the information in the article, but I, and I believe the nominator and Brian, feel that the information itself isn't encyclopedic; it's not notable. The fact that a highway is unused does not make it notable. --The Way 08:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not what he said here --
    • "[Unused highway] apparently coined by a couple of editors for use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism. A Google search of "unused highway" reveals official sources using different meanings than the implied, unsourced, one in the article."
    • It is quite appear ant that he did not do a "Google search" because my searches concluded many reliable sources from state transportation departments, along many others. It is not quite simply a term that "a couple of editors" conjured up.
    • Then, he amended the AFD to state --
    • "if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination"
    • Both his original request and the amendment has been covered, therefore the AFD needs to be speedy kept. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - completely non-notable and unencyclopaedic topic. Looks like a term coined to link together a number of completely un-related bits of tarmac. - fchd 08:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (and dare I say it, for the only encyclopedic reason that matters, which seems to have eluded all the "keepers" and most of the "deleters" here). This article is nothing more than a dicdef and a list of examples. Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a core policy which defines what it means for Wikipedia to be what it is. It is not negotiable. Zunaid©® 15:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you suggest then, that all lists be deleted, along with all corresponding pages that feature definitions from reliable sources? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of Wikipedia? It is negotiable, that's what the polls, AFD debates, etc. is for. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP per above --71Demon 17:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• SPEEDY KEEP per Seicer and above. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: "[Unused highway] apparently coined by a couple of editors for use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism. A Google search of "unused highway" reveals official sources using different meanings than the implied, unsourced, one in the article."
• It is quite appear ant that he did not do a "Google search" because my searches concluded many reliable sources from state transportation departments, along many others. It is not quite simply a term that "a couple of editors" conjured up.
• Then, he amended the AFD to state --
• "if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination"
• Both his original request and the amendment has been covered, therefore the AFD needs to be speedy kept. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is heavily referenced with official sources, is written well enough to convey the essence of the topic, and the topic itself is notable enough for inclusion. Anyone disagreeing with that last statement should read the article on the Abandoned Pennsylvania Turnpike sections to see how much can be written about a highway that is now unused. And to anyone seriously debating the notability claim should remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - "it is not bound by the same constraints as a paper encyclopedia or even most online encyclopedias". In other words, sure, it's a slightly obscure topic, but articles exist for much more obscure topics than this one. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, no "vote". Obviously this is just another in a long line of highway-related nominations (both the first two "ghost ramp" nominations and a number of others) that's going to end in no consensus. Obviously, it is a neologism coined by NE2 (I've never heard these referred to as "unused highways" before), but the term makes sense, and was done as a compromise for people who thought "ghost ramp" and "stub ramp" were neologisms. I feel the concept of whatever you want to call this phenomena is notable, for much the same reasons TMF stated. -- NORTH ^talk 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Subject is encyclopedic. Name is a compromise based on objections to "ghost ramp", which is in fairly common use but hasn't been documented (to my knowledge) in a sufficiently reliable source. Existing title is a self-evident English phrase, which needs no explicit definition. --EngineerScotty 21:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are obviously sections of paved roadway (and ramps and tunnels) which were built but not yet placed in service, or which have been removed from service. Tax dollars were spent on them. They are used for making movies and disaster drills. They tie up resources. The only dispute I can see is over what to call them, and that does not reasonably lead to deletion. There are multiple verifiable and reliable sources presented in the article to show it is not "unverified original research." Edison 21:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per (most recently) Edison and EngineerScotty. Newyorkbrad 23:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• comment: Closed Highway appears to be a more poppular term which is even used, most recently with our Big North Eastern Winter Storm of January 2007 that we are currently experiencing, on the weather network. Again, as per my above vote to keep, I would merge to "Closed highway"... a term as I demonstrated within the precedence that is used by Police during chases. It is also a term that is used during "accidents" involving deaths, or serious truck spills, or many other incidents where Police decided to "close" a highway. This term has many legal implications as well... if you where riding/driving on a "closed highway" vs. a "highway". Smarten up! By taking a look at the nominator's user page, it is obvious he has a general grudge for compound worded articles. Two word terms do exist and can be used in wikipedia... like Cheeseburger and Motorboat which used to be two words. Sailing ship, Aircraft carrier, Human sexual behavior, The Light at the End of the World, Comparison of layout engines, Prophets of Islam are all compound worded articles. Should those be deleted. This is boardering a lack of wikipedia goodfaith and the ability to discuss improvements to an article. I vote that the nominator should do 1 week of work for a case at WP:AMA... "A couple of wikirules, must learn you!" "A Category:AMA Requests for Assistance visit must you!" --CyclePat 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Very encyclopedic transporation topic. --Oakshade 04:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this is a valid, albeit underdeveloped, topic.-- danntm ^T _C 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Seicer, EngineerScotty, et. al.—HowardSF-U­-T-C- 18:54, 20 January 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. Nishkid64 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of unused highways

List of unused highways (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Use of this term was apparently coined by a couple of editors for the purpose of use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism. This article was originally kept (as Ghost ramp) in an AfD; a second AfD was improperly closed by a non-admin who proposed its deletion when he moved it to the current name. A move back to "ghost ramp" would not be appropriate since the list has expanded well past its original meaning and contains abandoned road structures (and some road structures never built) that are not ghost/stub ramps. B.Wind 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Per the prior [15] [16] two discussions, the results were no consensus and keep but rename. The last AFD was also closed not that long ago; therefore I submit that this AFD be speedy closed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• • That's a shame. As that, it is a Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Renominations and recurring candidates waste of our time --
  • "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete."
  • "Renomination costs additional volunteer time and server resources, on top of the original nomination." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This was the first nomination of "List of unused highways" under that title; therefore the argument above does not apply. B.Wind 04:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • If you chose to read [17] [18], you would see that as a result of the last AFD, it was decided to move the page to unused highway. Therefore, this AFD is the third in the series. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this separate from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway? --NE2 04:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Because I have not had as much experience at opening AfDs as other editors.B.Wind 04:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway (these two AfDs should actually be linked) --Mhking 04:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Beyond the technical considerations, this seems like a well made and useful article. Other than the title of the article, what is the reason for deletion? Citicat 04:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is a duplicate of unused highway. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This list article needs some love & affection in getting its focus together (and a case could be made for splitting it by country), and if it needs to be renamed, then get that sorted out. Deletion is out of the question, though -- this is interesting stuff. -/- Warren 04:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment; Are you debating the name of the article or the content? I see no reason to delete the article, and you've given no reason. If you feel that the name is not appropriate for the article then by all means change it, or discuss it on the talk page. wtfunkymonkey 05:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and close AFD! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • AfD is not a vote count. Please provide valid reasoning for your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zunaid (talk • contribs)
    • There is no need to, if the user states Keep, the tabulation is valid. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Useful. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Useful" is not a valid keep criterion. MANY useful things are excluded from the 'pedia through various policies and guidelines. Please provide valid reasoning for your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zunaid (talk • contribs)
    • There is no need to, if the user states Keep, the tabulation is valid. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep How many times are we going to go through this? --MPD ^{T / C} 06:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • AfD is not a vote count. Please provide valid reasoning for your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zunaid (talk • contribs)
    • But a rough consensus is all that is needed, the tabulation is therefore valid. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename to List of notable unused highways and set some criteria for inclusion; there are an awful lot of unused or disused ramps in this world, or small sections of unused highway. Probably should be split between ramps and highway sections, using some criterion. --Brianyoumans 06:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep definitely noteworthy. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Has if you can find such a term that covers the catch-all in this article and cite it, I will gladly withdraw my nomination been satisfied? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all the above. Wasted Time R 11:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Very strong Delete (Ignore the tangent I'm about to go on and skip straight to the encyclopedic reasoning: Good grief!!! Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that every unfinished ramp of every highway in the world is that important that they have to be assembled into a list?) The question here is notability. While in general major highways that actually exist are considered inherently notable, unused/unfinished ramps/portions of said highways are not notable in and of themselves (they do not automatically inherit notability from the parent highway), nor are unfinished highways notable. There is no demonstration of "multiple third-party reliable sources" documenting these phantom highways, thus no evidence of notability has been shown. Another question is that of "level of detail". The content of this article/list goes to an extremely high level of detail, IMHO to a level that an encyclopedia (even a non-paper one) should not cover. Let the encyclopedia give an encyclopedic "arm's length overview" and keep the minutae out of the 'pedia proper. Zunaid©® 15:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: No, the question posed was -- "Use of this term was apparently coined by a couple of editors for the purpose of use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism." See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway on why the original argument was solved, and why his second recommendation was also solved. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This term is indirectly referred to in this article, California Highways, where it speaks about proposed bypasses that followed an alignment of streets or other proposed highways. Ronbo76 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I am indifferent on the [[unused highway AfD, but this list seems helpful enough. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. This continuing spree of AfDs is getting rather pointless. --EngineerScotty 21:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Why remove verifiable information? Yes, it is boring, dull, nerdish... But so what?-Doc^g 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable per multiple references. Not all highway project that are started are immediately finished, leaving sections of road which go nowhere. Likewise bridges and ramps get built but are never connected to anything, or somep time passes before they pare placed in service, or they were formerly in service but have been isolated pending reconnection or demolition. I can't see what the issue is other than disputing the verifiability and notability of individual ones. Edison 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison, Doc G, Engineer Scotty, et al. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as there is no valid reason listed for deletion. John Reaves (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, 14-year-old who has written 5 unpublished stories. NawlinWiki 16:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Levon Snell

Levon Snell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

The Article is merely just a self-promotion page for User:Sengfire; Fails WP:Notability; Speed Deletion Contested  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO, no notability whatsoever under the guidelines. No external coverage, etc. The article even comes out and admits: "Not many people have heard his name." Crystallina 04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable WP:AUTO. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. --Sopoforic 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:AUTO as a copy of User:Sengfire's user page. SkierRMH,07:06, 15 January 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonesing

Jonesing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Unsourced content - urbandictionary is not a reliable source. Prod tag and Prod2 removed. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 04:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete: If a term like Homie can have an entry, this one should also, since it is in fairly common use. In its current incarnation, however, this article would need a lot of work (i.e., sourcing for statements like "Current research suggests that..." Whose? And where can we read about that? The current references cited make no mention of etymology, unless I missed something. Zahakiel 05:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef. The other content claiming an origin in a town in Ohio looks questionable too. This was a common slang term in the 1970s and maybe can be transwikied to Wiktionary. Dragomiloff 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Dictionary definition. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but Rename, or Merge The concept of a jones is well-entrenched in American culture, and is referenced in innumerable ways. One joneses for heroin, but one can also jones for a Big Mac. Per the naming convention, should probably be the root form of the term. Alternatively, merge into Jones. Concerns about its being a dictionary definition call for improvement of the article, not necessarily deletion. --Ssbohio 06:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • References? Bwithh 08:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The derivation in the article sounds like a hoax, and this is a dictionary definition; I don't see how you would expand it - famous jonesings? Notable people with joneses? Out!!! --Brianyoumans 06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/redirect to Withdrawal/DO NOT MERGE inaccurate and hoax content [19]. Having the "jones" and "jonesing" has long been related, and specifically, to heroin, and later to withdrawal symptoms from heroin/crack cocaine or other addictive drugs[20][21][22]. Current article looks like some kid made it up. The historically significant origins are in heroin addiction, not the loose use of the term in other ways today. If we knew more about its origins (Merriam-Webster doesn't),there might be more for an article rather than a dicdef. The actual withdrawal/addiction symptoms are better treated under separate articles with proper naming especially as the withdrawal symptoms referenced are for more than one kind of drug (and different). There's a Chinese expression "to eat opium" which is widely used to as a common expression "to really enjoy oneself", but if we were to write an Wikidictionary article on that, we wouldn't focus on going to the amusement park etc. Bwithh 08:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef. This word (in both the "craving" and "taking without permission" senses) is already covered at the Wiktionary entry. If there is any truth to the etymology provided here, it can be discussed further in Wiktionary. --Metropolitan90 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but cross reference to Wiktionary I checked the spelling I needed by being lazy and looking it up at the first link I had on my list. How many others will do the same? To grow something, people will have to WANT to use it. The easier it is to use, the more people will use it. Keeping a brief citation with a cross reference for more information makes everything easier to use. Always a good thing. DennyWrites 13:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The preceding comment was posted by 71.52.178.149 (talk · contribs). The signature was then modified by DennyWrites (talk · contribs). Got some spam about changing someones signature. I didn't change a signature. The only thing I'm guilty of is not logging on before I hit the enter button. Saw the mistake and corrected it. Yes, it's my damn IP and my signature.DennyWrites 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's a dicdef and should be at wiktionary, not here. Eusebeus 08:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Removing the unsourced text and replacing it with a general explanation of the word, it's uses and context. Perhaps may be better suited to wiktionary but I agree that it is at least as common as Homie. --Bigbrisco 18:22, 17 January 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If You Lived Here, You'd be Home Now

If You Lived Here, You'd be Home Now (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

This is described as a pilot for a show but there are no sources to back it up. The IMDB profile [23] for this is very scarce and just lists characters. Google is pretty unhelpful because there appears to be a bunch of songs and albums with the same name. I'd say delete as unverifiable and lacking reliable sources. Metros232 04:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The current text of the article was copied verbatim from a page on tv.com. Conveniently, they've got a small forum for it; apparently the pilot was on YouTube at some point, but the show never aired. I lean toward Delete, but I don't know of a WP policy for unaired shows. --Raeven0 15:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but on the basis of notability. There are scores of pilots every year and even of those that air only a few are notable (and in almost all cases they only air if there's a short run ordered, 6 or 13 episodes at minimum). If IMDB is not usable as a source (versus usable as proof of notability, consensus is that it isn't) then there are a lot of articles in trouble. --Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)--Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well the issue with IMDB is that it's not always necessarily reliable. It's almost like a wiki but perhaps just one notch above it (editors submit to "database managers" instead of completing editing themselves. Metros232 20:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per DHartung. Eusebeus 08:55, 17 January 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, WP:IAR here, the article is completely unsourced, see WP:CITE and WP:V, the keep votes looks to be in a WP:ILIKEIT or I heard of him view so discounted, if the article provide enough reliable sources it can later be recreated. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey Mishlove

Jeffrey Mishlove (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

reads like a resume, the subject appears to have edited the article from 208.13.131.55 (talk · contribs), does it meet WP:BIO? WP:V? A Ramachandran 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Wikify, the only person to receive a PhD in Parapsychology in the US seems to be notable (the question is if this is also good publicity for the Colleges involved) Alf photoman 19:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. It is vanity right now, but it could be a useful article. There is enough in it to establish notability assuming that the claims this individual is making are true. --64.230.127.40 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. I've heard of this guy, and I'm not deeply involved in his subculture. He's written a couple of books of some note. The subject meets the notability threshold, in other words; the article just needs to be re-written. BTfromLA 07:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete His claim to be the only person is not supported by the evidence. According to Dissertation Abstracts, there are at least 44 other people with theses on this subject. (searched under parapsychology as a word in the citation or abstract) Not all of them are PhDs, not all are US universities, but the majority are. He is not even the first: there was one at the University of Oklahoma, 1977, 7815383AAT . (As for the reputation of the schools, many of the theses are anthropological, some are slightly disguised , and a few seem to be by believers.) I have adjusted the article for accuracy in this respect, but this lends a certain amount of doubt to the rest of it. The Psychology Today article is RS, but not enough for notability. The strongest claim to notability is the television program. I can find that the show exists, and that tapes of individual programs are cataloged by a few libraries. Everything else about the show seems to derive either from sources linked to the subject, or blogs. DGG 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Any dubious material should be removed if can't be confirmed. But the inclusion of unsourced material is not grounds for deletion of the article--you've satisfied yourself that his TV show exists, his books are real (I have seen "Roots of Consciousness," which is a sort of encyclopedia of the paranormal--several titles by him are listed at Amazon.com) and he lectures around the country (I frequently see his name posted as a featured speaker when driving past the Philosophical Research Society building, here in Los Angeles). I think he's clearly notable enough to merit an article. Also, though I'm not up to doing the research to get to the bottom of it, it may be that his claim about the PhD is that he actually received a degree in parapsychology, as opposed to writing a thesis about the parapsychology to earn a PhD in a discipline like anthropology or sociology. If that's the case, then his original claim may well be true. BTfromLA 02:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that really would make him notable, because UC Berkeley does not have such a department. Only US university that does is Duke. He must have materialized the department temporarily. Diss Abs specifies the field as "Psychology", but they use whatever subject term the author of the thesis used. So he didn't claim parapsychology at the time. They have many theses on line, but his is too early. Now that I think of it, the courses which use his textbook are probably his own, because that's what he teaches in his university. Having a TV show and publishing books makes one notable only if the show or the books are notable, and there is no independent sourced evidence for that, about either of them. His name as a featured speaker on the building of his society/university is not exactly 3rd party evidence. The evidence about his notable list of speakers is on the site for his show. He also has a long list of stations that have his show, and he himself has said it, but nobody else. So what is he notable for, exactly?DGG 04:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He is notable as an author and media pundit on parapsychology and related topics. He is a long-established and fairly widely published figure in that field (while it may be dubious to consider parapsychology as a "field," there are organizations, journals, etc., devoted to it, so I think we need to give it the benefit of the doubt as far as inclusion in Wikipedia goes). The Wikipedia threshold for notability is low, compared to a conventional encyclopedia. One doesn't need to be an historic figure to make the cut. We need to guard against his self-edits being used for deceptive or self-promotional purposes, but that doesn't mean deleting the article. BTfromLA 08:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot vouch for the credibility of this, but for whatever it's worth, here's an online image purported to be Mishlove's actual Doctoral degree in Parapsychology, with a little description of who was on his committee, and how it was possible for him to create such a degree through an interdisciplinary program that Berkeley offered at the time. BTfromLA 09:14, 20 January 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Goertzel

Ben Goertzel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

According to the deletion log, this article was deleted at VfD, later re-created and speedied, then protected from re-creation, then a Deletion Review endorsed the second deletion but removed the protection. It has now been re-created again; it reads somewhat like autobiographical material and appears to have been copy-pasted from one of the previous versions – Gurch 04:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It doesn't help to notice that the image was uploaded without copyright status. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ThrustVectoring 08:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alf photoman 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, as re-creation of previously deleted article. Well-published, but none of his works seem to be widely recognized. --N Shar 19:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep is notable because of research, has been published, etc. but article is terrible. Needs to be cleaned up a lot. (Cardsplayer4life 20:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC))
• Keep, has been profiled in WSJ[24], ~100 Google Books results (only a few his own works). Tag for cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 15 January 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 HardOCP. Yuser31415 02:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KB Networks, Inc.

KB Networks, Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

This is the company owns the HardOCP web site; their only notable venture is the web site, which is popular in the computer hardware enthusiast community, but the company itself fails WP:N. -/- Warren 04:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to HardOCP. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Morven ThrustVectoring 08:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Redirect works for me. Seragenn 21:12, 16 January 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity in North Africa

Christianity in North Africa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Contested Prod. Article started with blatant soapboxing, OR, POV. After that was removed (when Prod was removed), what's left is an unsourced text dump of an interview, apparently copied from here. Not a copyvio, as the page grants free reproduction permission. Nothing remotely encyclopedic.Fan-1967 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Article fails, as far as I can tell, nearly all wikipedia guidelines. Article does not abide by wikipedia standards, guidelines, style of writing, or formatting. A proper article *may* be able to be created on this topic, but from where I sit the article is unsalvageable in its current form. The article needs to be scrapped and perhaps, at a later time, the author could strive for a stub quality article that follows established wiki guidelines. wtfunkymonkey 05:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• The only source of the article is a website that, based on their home page, could never remotely be cited as a Reliable Source. I have reverted edits to Christianity based on the same material. Fan-1967 05:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• comment; I find it interesting that this article, called Christianity in North Africa, seems to be about Muslims. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• It keeps getting chopped and re-edited. It's about claims that 6 million muslims a year are converting. Fan-1967 06:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• While the subject could prove worthy of an encyclopedic article, this sure as spod ain't it. Delete unless it improves to something that doesn't froth at the mouth by the close of this afd. Grutness...wha? 05:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a personal essay or rant. JIP | Talk 06:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wot, no Saint Augustine? Doesn't do what it says on the label. Just a soapbox rant. Nothing here to save even for a stub. --Folantin 08:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Christianity in Africa, which should contain info on North Africa. I don't really see anything here worth merging, though. --BigDT 13:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Christianity in Africa --Doc^g 15:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• A good article could be written on this topic referencing St Augustine and Coptic Christianity amongst other topics. This isn't it nor does it provide the basis for such an article. For now, it should be redirected to Christianity in Africa which itself requires extensive work. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Christianity in Africa, which should contain a section called "North Africa". When substantial material accumulates there, then the article should be split off.Bless sins 22:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect as above. There are certainly grounds - both historical and cultural - for establishing a split between the Maghreb and Sub-Saharan Africa, but this needs to be expunged. Eusebeus 08:57, 17 January 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of NFL on FOX commentator pairings

List of NFL on FOX commentator pairings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

I added an {{unreferenced}} template to this page about a month ago, but no reliable source has been produced. It only cites dbsforums.com, which is an internet message board with no editorial oversight. I looked for a reliable source of this information and could not find one, and I believe this information is unverifiable and/or original research. This page could also be considered an indiscriminate collection of information issue, because I question the importance of having a list of every TV commentator of every single game in 13 years. Khatru2 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete trivial and unencyclopedic. Otto4711 13:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this is a good article to have one here but it does needs to include 2001 onwards to presentOo7565 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Otto4711 Soltak | Talk 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep its notable information if your researching broadcasting. should be expanded not deleted. --MarsRover 04:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Content is (potentially) verifiable by reviewing original transmissions, but constitutes an indiscriminate list per WP:NOT Eludium-q36 18:11, 16 January 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Cbrown1023 01:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusive Democracy

Inclusive Democracy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

*Nominate for deletion. Article fails WP:N and WP:COI. It contains no assertions of notability. The text is an extremely brief paragraph followed by many links to promotional materials. Looking at the talk page, the article was previously involved in a copyright conflict and the participants in the discussion make it painfully clear that the article was written by Inclusive Democracy people. Obvious submarine advertisement. This is a procedural nomination. I checked out the Inclusive Democracy materials with the intention of culturing a nice bias either for or against, but they are so opaque with academia that I failed to get very far. Drake Dun 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Withdraw nomination for deletion for the following reasons.

(1) A week before I nominated this article for deletion, I stated on the article's talk page that I would refrain from nominating the article for deletion if it were developed with more content. Since then, narap43 has written a proper article. Technically it's a little late, but in keeping with the spirit of my promise I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion.

(2) The links at the bottom of the new article may make out a case for notability. It is a very weak case, but I prefer inclusion in borderline cases. The following two sources qualify as sources of notability under Wikipedia guidelines in my opinion:

(a) David Freeman, Thesis Eleven, no. 69, Sage Publications, May 2002, pp. 103-106

(b) “Inclusive Democracy” entry in “Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy:” pp. 732-733, ed. by R.J. Barry Jones, 2001

The following two sources are borderline, but might be considered to qualify:

(a) http://www.agorainternational.org/dnweb1.html;

(b) http://susanohanian.org/show_nclb_outrages.html?id=2531 (this one is from TouristPhilosopher)

Given these two (or four) sources there is a minimal case for satisfaction of the notability criteria. That said, I want to respond to some of the comments below.

• TouristPhilosopher asks me to prove that he is associated with the ID Project. My answer is that there is obviously some connection. You registered a user account specifically to oppose the deletion of the Inclusive Democracy article. As of this writing you have not participated on Wikipedia in any other capacity. Your comments on the question of whether ID is notable are not dispassionate, and betray an obvious emotional investment in whether the article is deleted or not. Like many of the people at the center of the ID Project, you are not a native English speaker, even though most of the participants in the English Wikipedia are. I suppose it is possible that you are not one of the people at the center of ID, but rather a very enthusiastic supporter. But I really doubt it.
• In answer to narap43, several points. First, I never said that ID is not notable. I stated that the article failed to make out a case for notability and that its notability was therefore suspect. There is a difference. It does not fall upon me to prove the negative proposition that ID is not notable. Second, your accusations regarding my role on Wikipedia are easy to disprove by simply looking at my contributions list. Your claim that I only registered a few weeks ago is false. My first edit was in November of 2006. Your claim that one of my first acts as a registered user was to identify bias in the ID article is also false. Long before becoming involved in any fashion with the ID article, I contributed to several other, totally unrelated articles, including Physicalism, Curry, Soka Gakkai, etc. Your claim that I have declared a sole ambition to identify bias in Wikipedia articles is also false. I have no idea where you got this notion. In short, all of your accusations are either grievous mistakes or barefaced lies. And by the way, I have not identified any biases in the ID article. I challenged it on the basis of notability and conflict of interest. There is a difference. Regarding conflicts of interest, I do not feel a need to defend Wikipedia's policies, except by saying that I have nothing to do with them and they are what they are regardless of my opinions on them.

Drake Dun 16:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 05:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

merge to and redirect to Takis Fotopoulos. --CyclePat 05:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Inclusive Democracy is notable. The copyright issue was resolved. If you do a google you can find many pages of notable citations in books, articles and academic discussions. john sargis 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes the truth is that Inclusive Democracy is notable. Below you can find some links to articles with references to Inclusive Democracy.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/agm301005.html http://web.mac.com/publicresistance/iWeb/Doc%20G/Chapters.html http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/carfax/cdna/2003/00000009/00000003/art00006 http://hungary.indymedia.org/cikk.shtml?x=21661 http://mondediplo.com/2006/01/13degrowth http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5065&start=15 http://susanohanian.org/show_nclb_outrages.html?id=2531 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/newswire/archive588.html

So i would like to ask you to stop the deletion project -right now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.254.19.143 (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

• The above comment is made by me TouristPhilosopher. Now I'm registered and from now on i'm going to use my username. Thanks.

I remain unconvinced. I looked at all the links you posted and found a couple which were close to qualifying as sources, but none which made the cut. "References" do not count. Please actually read the notability policies. "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." That means that people talking about it in an Internet forum, brief references, stuff that comes one way or another from ID people themselves, and stuff which talks about Fotopoulos but not ID do not count. Also, nobody has addressed the COI issue. The article was written by Inclusive Democracy people. The only two people who have objected to its deletion here are also Inclusive Democracy people. Clearly there is a problem. Wikipedia is not free advertising space. Drake Dun 04:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I added a lot of new material, first, to give more info on the aspects of the Inclusive Democracy project and, second, to establish the notability of the article, as suggested by user Drake Dun. Also, many links to online and printed resources are given.

User:narap43 9:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the Inclusive Democracy entry needed a lot of expansion from its previous “stub” form and I think that in its present form it is a satisfactory presentation of the topic. But for Drake Dun to declare that a project, which as far as I know is widely discussed within the radical Left, is not notable betrays only his ignorance on the subject. Furthermore, to argue that there is a COI issue because “The article was written by Inclusive Democracy people” shows that he is far from being unbiased on the matter (despite his declared sole ambition “to identify bias” in wikipedia when he registered as a user, just a couple of weeks ago, and one of his first acts was to identify bias in this particular entry!). It is well known that this is a general practice in Wikipedia which, unlike the “ordinary” encyclopedias, do not engage established bodies of experts to write the entries. This is particularly true of wikipedia entries on new political projects, journals etc. which are bound to be written by people involved in them (has he examined for instance the Parecon entries?). This is not bad by itself, as long as the entries are not just eulogies but aim to give a fair description of the topic. Who else is expected to have a fairly comprehensive view of a new political project like Inclusive Democracy or Parecon but people involved in them who are best qualified to write the relevant entries and then to leave it to unbiased qualified users—an extremely difficult operation anyway as far as controversial topics like politics is concerned—to suggest additions/amendments etc?

User:narap43 11:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Drake Dun, i'm not an ID man. In case you still «BELIEVE» that I’m, you MUST to prove it RIGHT NOW. Unless your comment aimed to make anybody wishing to make a comment for non-deletion think twice before doing so, unless he wants to be labelled an ID sympathiser by you.

User:TouristPhilosopher 17:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• «Mr» Drake Dun

>>> First you write: «The only two people who have objected to its deletion here are also Inclusive Democracy people».

>>> my answer: the meaning of YOUR words here is that you ARE SURE.

When I said that I’m not an ID man and asked you to prove what you said:

>>> you write: «there is obviously some connection»

>>> my answer: I didn’t ask you to tell us if there is any connection or better if YOU SEE or IMAGINE any connection. I ask you to PROVE WHAT YOU SAID TO YOUR PREVIOUS POST — and you said that I’Μ ΑΝ ID MAN. But you CAN’T prove anything. FIRST you see an ID man, now –a day later- you see SOME CONNECTION. Tomorrow you could SEE a loose connection and after a week or month nothing. Its better to «fix» yourself with the reality and stop BELIEVING what you like.

>>> you write: «I suppose it is possible that you are not one of the people at the center of ID, but rather a very enthusiastic supporter. But I really doubt it.»

>>> my answer: so shut up till you are sure !!!

PS1. I expect a «sorry» because you called me ID man. PS2. Your comments are not dispassionate, and betray an obvious emotional investment AGAINST ID. You registered a user account 2 months ago and except some minor comments this one is your first attempt to delete A WHOLE article. Like many of the people outside the center of the ID Project, you are a native English speaker or at least speak fluent English. I suppose it is possible that you are not one of the people who tried in the past to delete the ID article of wiki, but rather a very enthusiastic supporter AGAINST ID. But I really doubt it.

User:TouristPhilosopher 15:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional factual corrections: (1) I registered my user account three months ago. (2) This is not my first AfD nomination. My first AfD nomination was for Deception in the Unification Church. (3) I have no bias for or against ID, and have never previously nominated any ID related articles for deletion. A look at my history of contributions will quickly dispel any such notions. Drake Dun 16:23, 21 January 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saul Kaiserman

Saul Kaiserman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Vanity bio, kept in August 2005 after a very lackluster AFD. Very thin resume, padded with items like being "Production Coordinator" for an award-winning documentary. Created by User:Saulkaiserman, so the conflict of interest is pretty obvious. Calton | Talk 05:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I see little real notability here; probably an interesting guy, but not very significant. --Brianyoumans 05:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I can't believe the closer overlooked the obvious sockpuppetry in the last one. JuJube 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, article fails to show neutral sources, problems with WP:NPOV and WP:COI require a major re-write Alf photoman 14:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Despite trying, I fail to see how this meets WP:BIO. Most things I've found don't indicate any notability. The IMDB bio pretty much sums it up. Agent 86 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Agent 86. Most of the redlinks would be NN as well. --Dhartung | Talk 21:29, 15 January 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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philopater Wahba

Philopater Wahba (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

non notable priest Brianyoumans 05:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I recycled the image in the Coptic Orthodox Church in Wales article, which was unillustrated. The uploader (who is presumably the photographer) had licensed the image under the GFDL. Perhaps the few details in this article on Father Philopater's biography could be added to the image description page as useful background for the image? up◦land 09:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources to show he is notable, any more than 100,000 other ministers. Edison 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Clear Delete no assertion that subject meets WP:BIO or is otherwise notable. Eluchil404 08:20, 20 January 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 transwiki. Majorly (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth Estate Cocktail

Fourth Estate Cocktail (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Apparently a non-notable cocktail. My belief was that a bit of creative searching was necessary, but yielded very little in the way of WP:RS, at least as far as this particular version of the recipe goes. Delete as WP:NOT a publisher of original recipes. Kinu ^t/_c 05:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cocktails-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to b:Bartending Keep for 1 week or less then convert to a redirect. to allow WikiProject Cocktails a chance to locate more information, integrate it into an appropriate list somewhere else, or otherwise deal with it in a productive manner. This one was under our radar screen (thanks SkierRMH for adding it to the deletions list!). Additionally, I request that the article NOT be deleted, but rather turned into a redirect wherever we end up moving the information to. It was pointed out to us that we need to keep the original edit history for GFDL reasons when we move information around and integrate it like we do for articles like this. If the cocktail turns out to be so non-notable that I can't find any viable information about it, I may change my vote back to a full delete; I'll let you know within a day or two. I will be happy to take responsibility for handling conversion to redirect, if that is the best option and acceptable with everyone. Thanks. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 15:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Kinu. No time extension is necessary. The AfD runs five days, which is plenty of time to show how this meets content policies. Agent 86 20:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - In the past I would have asked for an extension through February 28th citing the Cleanup Project under way by our WikiProject on all articles like this. 5 days is a very short amount of time given how much work the Project Participants are involved in, though I think our effectiveness at cleaning up this part of Wikipedia should be very clear by now. We are much faster at processing things now, so I chose to be conservative by estimating only one week just to try to make everyone happy. :-) Either way, deleting is definitely not the right answer (unless it turns out to be a hoax), because if any part of the article is kept (which is very likely, even if only transwikied to b:Bartending, we have to keep the edit history for GFDL licensing and attribution requirements. As I stated, the article needs to be converted to a redirect if any portion of the original text is kept, and it is likely that some of the text will be kept. The redirect would point to the new location of the moved text. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I added this cocktail to fit in with a new category involving absinthe-based cocktails or cocktails with absinthe in their makeup that I am working on. You may delete it, although it is an unusual recipe that is not commonly found in guides, the main reason I included it. I see no reason why it should be deleted, as it is a feasible recipe that is not life-threatening that would expand the list of cocktails recorded in Wikipedia. I think that the Cocktail project needs more input on these new designs and I can't see why it can't be included.Hotspur23 05:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Part of the problem is that Wikipedia is not a collection of recipes (for cocktails or otherwise). To be included in Wikipedia, the topic of an article needs to have more depth. The notability and importance of the drink must be demonstrated as shown by citing several reliable sources. I definitely appreciate what you are trying to do here. If this is part of a series of articles you are developing, we might be able to develop a single article that discusses these cocktails in a broad sense, and explore some specific examples. Then, if and when the article grows large enough, with plenty of good information, start splitting sections of that article into smaller, more fully developed articles. It is certainly something that would be worth discussing at the WikiProject Mixed Drinks (we just changed the name of the project to be more inclusive; sorry for any confusion). --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 06:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be moved to Wiki Project Mixed Drinks and not deleted. It seems silly to delete it when there is a program to do the very thing you want to delete it for in Wikipedia. Plus it can be argued that cocktail recipes are information that can be stored in wikipedia, since they are already on record. They don't have to be famous or noteworthy (though there are recipes that are recorded in it that are); they just have to be useful. This just seems a bit trollish to bounce the article. 24.34.207.250 10:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks 24.34.207.250, though I wouldn't classify it as trollish. :-) Kinu has very valid points for articles in general at Wikipedia. The articles concerning mixed drinks in general do seem to defy WP:NOT#IINFO, because a mixed drink, at its heart, is essentially a recipe. It's much like a chemical compound, in that the parts that make up the whole help to define the substance itself. However, with some (or sometimes a lot of) creative researching, it is possible to create a meaningful, encyclopedic article even when all you have is a recipe with which to start. (See Bronx (cocktail) for a perfect example updated yesterday.) It is success stories like the Bronx that illustrate how weak articles can, and should, be improved. This AFD process is an important part of making sure that Wikipedia remains relevant.
• All that being said, I did complete my initial research into this particular drink. I was able to locate the recipe in several places, but no real information about its notability or history. Since it does seem to be popular, I changed my vote to transwiki it to the Bartending manual at Wikibooks (with which I am also an editor), and then convert the page under discussion to a redirect. Again, I stress that it is important to not delete the actual page, since even when transwikiing, it is important to keep the edit history for GFDL compliance.
• I have also added a section under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed Drinks/Work Area#List of incubating articles section for Hotspur23 and anyone else interested, to start developing an article that will serve the needs of Absinthe aficionados, while also meeting Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. I feel the new article is necessary since the topic is largely ignored in the Absinthe article, and yet it is a large part of the Absinthe culture. If possible, I would also request that other Absinthe related articles not be deleted at least through the end of February so we can easily refer to them and merge them as necessary into the developing article or Wikibooks. Thanks. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Bartending per Willscrlt. Seems like a perfect solution.--Kubigula (talk) 21:00, 22 January 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. Majorly (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Terrapist (2nd nomination)

The Terrapist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

I go to the University of Maryland, and if a friend of mine wasn't considering editing for this thing, I'm sure that I'd be in the vast majority of people who have no idea what the Terrapist is. Besides, in an earlier AfD, the campus' daily student paper (The Diamondback) was deemed to be non-notable. If it's not notable, when it also serves the surrounding College Park community and has a much higher circulation, there's no way The Terrapist is. --fuzzy510 08:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ThrustVectoring 08:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note - previous AfD here. Tevildo 15:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. The previous keep votes seem to be dominated by this is worth keeping, it'll be big someday, and other papers have articles, and I remind everyone here that these aren't good arguments. I'd also be fine with a merge/redirect to one line in U or M article - Aagtbdfoua 03:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to University of Maryland, College Park — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 03:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, per Aagtbdfoua. Dekimasu 13:22, 21 January 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 And please do not procedurally list incomplete afds where no one is actually making a case for deletion. -Doc^g 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gay icon (2nd Nomination)

Gay icon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

AfD nominated by Knowpedia. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 14:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note. Previous AfD here. Tevildo 14:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Article has been substantially revised since deletion nomination. Tevildo 14:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The entire article is referenced, and meets WP:NN. If you have a reason for nominating it, Tevildo, please state it; otherwise I see this as just a nonsense motion. And for the record, it was already revised before you slapped the deletion tag on it. See the diff here Jeffpw 15:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A quick note on what's happened here. Knowpedia put a CSD tag on the article at 0542 - this was removed. S/he then nominated it for AfD by adding it to the log page at 0815, but did not add the AfD tag to the article - I assumed that this was an oversight. All I did was to add the AfD tag to the article that s/he neglected to add - I have absolutely no opinion (as yet) on whether the article should be deleted, and completed the AfD on a procedural basis. The revisions to the article took place after it was added to the log. Tevildo 15:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep no reason given, no reason to bother with this debate. The article is fine. Koweja 15:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Distinctly notable concept and Jeff's revision has shown how encyclopedic and well verified it can be.Agne 15:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There is no reason or justification whatsoever. I see no reason for deletion. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 15:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep No reason or justification given for nomination; no reason for deletion. Parammon 15:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Absolutely and completely, totally and utterly devestating keep. Well done article and no reason to delete. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:46, 15 January 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 An anon nomination without reasons? Please don't list it. If anyone wants this deleted, they can nominate it themselves. -Doc^g 16:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2Advanced

2Advanced (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

AfD nominated by 87.80.43.97 with reason: "My edit to add the AFD tag to 2Advanced wasn't vandalism - it's a wikivertisment." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 14:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Trial

Rock Trial (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Does not assert notability, severe problems with WP:V and WP:RS, no reliable sources cited to support notability. There is no reason given whatsoever why a music school adaptation and production of a commonly-performed Gilbert and Sullivan operetta should be notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete RNCM is notable, MUGSS may be notable, this production very evidently is not, given that I can't find any non-trivial independent sources about it. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. University and community theatre groups are generally not notable (there are thousands and thousands of them). Adaptations of shows performed by amateur and university theatre groups are not notable, unless they become frequently performed by a number of groups or somehow become well-known. There are many adaptations of G&S shows that have been created by professional companies, let alone by the hundreds or thousands of community and university G&S theatre companies, and they should not each have a Wiki page. See WP:MUS. -- Ssilvers 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This might become notable in the future but it is not so yet. If it does become more commonly performed at some future date, I'd have no problem with it being recreated at that time. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: It simply can't be notable with a three-day run by a single amateur group. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable student production, no outside non-trivial reviews, no claim of notability beyond being performed once by a student group. They seem to have their own wiki, they can easily move this article there. Mak (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not verifiable. - Peregrine Fisher 22:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Admirable, I'm sure, but not, on present evidence, of permanent note.Tim riley 23:08, 17 January 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, withdrawl of nomination. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm correcting the closure to No consensus. Withdrawal is only grounds for an automatic keep closure if no delete opinions are present, which is not the case here. (The same goes for non-admin closures.) This is of course only relevant for potential future nominations, since No consensus defaults to Keep. ~ trialsanderrors 22:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basin Groups

Basin Groups (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

"Basin Groups" is not a recognized geologic era of the Moon Lunokhod 10:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Note: See bottom for nominator's withdrawl -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete: I am proposing Basin Groups for deletion because it is not a geologic era of the Moon that is recognized by experts who work in this field. The geological timescale that is currently in use is discussed at lunar geologic timescale, where there is no refernce to a "Basin Groups". The two external links for lunar geologic timescale do not have any reference to this era either. Wilhelms' book (which is considered a major repsected work by the lunar community) does not discuss this era (it is not in the index terms), nor does the popular article (written by a lunar scientist) of Linda Martel. On the Basin Groups article, there are two external links that have been used to support the case for such a group, but neither are reputable nor verifiable. One page says that information will be uploaded later, whereas the other is a wiki, and I have removed the offending material! As someone who works with the Moon on a daily basis, I could add a number of primary and secondary references supporting my assertions here, though I think that the Wilhelms and Martel articles should suffice. I would be happy to add additional refernces if asked. It is quite possible that Basin Groups was at one time used as an informal term (though I have never encountered it), and if this were the case, we could discuss this at lunar geologic timescale. Lunokhod 10:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and redirect if any evidence of currency is ever produced. 90-odd unique Googles, of whihc many are clearly unrelated. Cite papers if you want the redirect, I think. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Look at GeoWhen database a reasonably respected electronic resource. It would appear that the Basin Groups Stage is not in conflict with the existing lunar geologic timescale as discussed in the Wikipedia. The Basin Groups appears as a refinement, namely a subdivision of Pre-Nectarian time, equivalent to Late Pre-Nectarian. As the Pre-Nectarian article indicates this was a time of basin formation on Luna. I note that the Wikipedia lunar geologic timescale article also does not reflect the Cryptic Stage, Cryptic era, that covers the earlier portion of Pre-Nectarian time. As far as authoritative, I understand that the International Commission on Stratigraphy has not officially recognized any of the subdivisions of Hadean time. Also take a look at Harland, Walter Brian , et al. (1989) A Geologic Time Scale 1989 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, Fig. 1.7 on page 10, available from Google books, which clearly shows both Basin Groups and Cryptic. --Bejnar 01:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

GeoWhen is not a reputable source. It is self-published. This is clear on the introduction of the web site, which says "Welcome to the GeoWhen Database, an attempt to sort out the mess that man has made of the geologic timescale. This project aims to reconcile the international stratigraphic standards with many of the regional and archaic naming schemes that appear in the literature." Lunokhod 10:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the Harland book, I will look this up in my library asap, as the online version of the book is only partial, and says nothing about the rationale for using these eras. In any case, none of my geology or planetary geology textbooks use these eras, and I can not find reference to this in my file cabinet of scientific articles or pdfs either. As an active scientist in this domain, I can honestly say that these eras are not used by even a minority of the terrestrial and planetary communities. (Again, if you want a list of books and reveiw articles, tell me.) I also point out that it is scientifically unsound to "paste" geologic eras from the Moon (or any other celestial body) into the Earth's geologic history. Lunokhod 11:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Reputable sources summarizing the geologic timescale of the Earth and Moon that do not mention Basin Groups

Book chapters

• Ryder et al. "Heavy bombardment of the Earth at ~3.85 Ga" in Origin of the Earth and Moon (2000).
• Hartmann et al., The time dependend intense bombardment of the primordial Earth/Moon system, ibid.
• Hiesinger and Head, New views of lunar geoscience: an introduction and overview, in New views of the Moon (2006).
• Horz et al., Lunar surface processes, in The lunar sourcebook, 1991.
• Stoffler and Ryder, Stratigraphy and isotope ages of lunar geologic units: Chronological standard for the inner solar system, in Geochronology of Mars and inner solar system, 2001.

Books

• The planetary scientists companion, Lodders and Fegley, 1998.
• Planetary science: A lunar perspective, S. R. Taylor, 1982.
• Moons and planets, W. K. Hartmann, 1993.
• The geology of multi-ring basins, P. Spudis, 1993.
• The geologic history of the Moon, D. Wilhelms, 1987.

Organizations

• Geological Society of America
• United Stated Geological Survey
• International Commission on Stratigraphy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lunokhod (talk • contribs) 22:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Reputable sources summarizing the geologic timescale of the Earth and Moon that mention Basin Groups

• Harland, Walter Brian , et al. (1989) A Geologic Time Scale 1989 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

• Delete. One mention in one book is not enough.--JyriL ^talk 14:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Harland et al. (1989) was basically the bible of geochronology for most geologists for more than a decade (until ICS 2004, and not withstanding the significant contributions of Gradstein, Ogg and Haq in the late 90s). If it is in that timescale, then it is worthy of mention. There is nothing wrong with saying that the terminology is uncommon or archaic in the article, and it certainly isn't part of the current ICS timescale, but those things by themselves do not justify simply pretending the terminology never existed. Keep the reference and explain the history for the reader. Also, "basin groups" hadean gives me 900 relevant google hits, not 90 as claimed above. 128.32.95.83 22:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against metioning this in either lunar geologic time scale or geologic time scale. This here is a debate only concering the deletion of the article Basin Groups, nothing else. Lunokhod 22:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that outcome would be better served by a merge than a delete, if it goes that way. Bryan 01:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-mainstream concept. WP:FRINGE appears to discourage this type of article. If this term exists due to an actual controversy in the field that could be carefully documented, it might be worth keeping on that basis. As it is, the article is quite vague about why this is an unofficial term. (A proposal that was considered but rejected, or a proposal too innovative for the regular geologists, or what?). It doesn't even explain what 'basin' has to do with anything. EdJohnston 21:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP! GeoWhen is a reputable source. Whether GeoWhen is reputable or not is irrelevant for the "reputability" of Basin Groups. Whether Basin Groups is an official selenochron (or "reputable") is irrelevant. If it is a scientific term used sometimes, the article should be kept. If it's not a geochron, it should not be used in geochron templates, but the article can be kept. If it's not a selenochron it should not be used in selenochron templates, but the article can be kept. It's a very very odd conclusion, that since it's not an official part of this-or-that time sequence, it can be removed - it can most definitely not be removed, whether we like to use it or not. It would be a very bad thing if it be removed. The term is used, and therefore it should be kept. Regarding one of the "reputable" sources mentioned as not mentioning basin groups – Geologic History of the Moon, Don Wilhelms – it mentions basin groups at Plate 6A (page 11 in a PDF viewer), bottom of the page – not as selenochrons, but as deposit layers. It occurs – therefore it's a scientific necessity to keep the article. QED. Don't delete it – rewrite it!! Rursus 16:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Amendment to AfD nomination: Figure of Harland et al. is inconsistent with their discussion in text. I have just read the Harland et al. book and have discovered the following: In the text, they advocate using the lunar geologic time scale for the Hadean which includes the Imbrian, Nectarian, and Pre-Nectarian. Then they cite Wilhemls (1987) to subdivide the Pre-Nectarian into Cryptic, Basin Group 1, and Basin Groups 2-9. However, in their figure, they do not include the Pre-Nectarian epoch, but instead only include the subdivisions. Based on their text, I can only conclude that this is a typo in their manuscript. Anyone who has cited their typo (fortunately, there are very few!) have simply propogated a typographical error.

Concerning the subdividing the Pre-Nectarian into "Basin Groups", it appears that Wilhelms did indeed suggest this. However, this is only informal, and none of the USGS geologic maps of the Moon use this notation. Indeed, from Wilhelms (1987,p. 145) he states: "This volume divides 30 pre-Necarian basins into 9 age groups (table 8.2). Each group is headed by one basin whose relative age seems to be well established by crater densities or superpositional relations. Additional basins are tentatively placed in the groups on weaker grounds."

I continue to support the nomination for deletion on the grouds that "Basin Groups 1-9 and Cryptic" should be replaced by "Pre-Necarian" based on the Harland et al.'s own words. The fact that these subdivisions were used instead of Pre-Nectarian appears to be a typo. Lunokhod 17:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if everything you say is correct, I continue to believe that the terms and their history deserve a place to be discussed, and that keeping the article for that purpose makes sense. At the least the content should be merged, not deleted. 128.32.95.83 17:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete checking out the "huge" number of Google hits, most are due to wikipedia, and the rest are non authoritative entries. Google scholar comes up with nothing. The content could be relegated to a comment in Hadean article. (Really I dislike deleting stuff but this is misleading as to its reality. GB 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 07:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawl of AfD nomination: After talking to a few terrestrial geologists offline, I am going to withdraw my nomination for deleting "Basin Groups" for the following reasons: First, it appears that the Harland et al. book is so respected, that even if they did make a typo in their summary plot, or even if they did not understand the lunar geologic time scale and made an serious error in representing it, it doesn't matter, and its too late. Second, I consider the inclusion of this period in the terrestrial geologic time scale to be a case of bad science, and wikipedia can play a role in correcting this by presenting the mainstream view among terrestrial and planetary scientists for why this period should be abandonned. Lunokhod 15:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good! I love You Lunokhod! This indicates Your intentions and Your attitude was motivated by a love of truth and science. That's a good example for the rest of us. Rursus 16:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. --Coredesat 07:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Naval Cadet Traning Ship Norfolk

Australian Naval Cadet Traning Ship Norfolk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Article is about a group of Australian Navy Cadets. In Australia, cadet organisations are on about the same level as Scouting, and individual groups/squardrons/training ships have the same level of unproven notability as a random scout troop. None of the information presented is externally verified through the use of third party sources, and I don't think it would be externally verifiable

On a side note, I have no qualms about any useful, externally verifiable information being smerged to Australian Navy Cadets, as while I believe the whole organisation is notable and verifiable, individual units aren't. -- saberwyn

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reason as above:

TS Toowoomba (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

T. S. Shoalhaven (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- -- saberwyn 10:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "Training" is spelt incorrectly in the title, by the way. --Canley 12:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe "traning" is like "aluminium," "encyclopaedia," "dreamt," or "pyjamas."Edison 22:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete though a merge to Wellington Point State High School (I don't know if it exists under some other name, but it might), would not be too anathemal to me. FrozenPurpleCube 15:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per WP:ORG. It looks like it's going to be about a ship, but it isn't. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all Was thinking keep if it actually was an RAN ship, but looks like training "ships" don't have to be actual ships. From what I've seen, nominator is correct, these seem to be just cadet groups. --Canley 21:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Shore establishments of Naval organisations are often referred to as Stone frigates - there is no intention to deceive here, but the language "a training ship unit" is misleading. Springnuts 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable - which is a shame, I really wanted them to be notable, but they aren't. Springnuts 22:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Australian Navy Cadets. Unverifiable and no attempt at showing notability as an individual organisation. Garrie 00:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment If Training Ship is misleading, try HMAS Nirimba, which is now a TAFE college - it's about 30km inland in Quakers Hill.Garrie 00:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Australian Shore Nirimba was the former Naval Aviation base, like HMAS Albatross (air station). -- saberwyn 20:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and repeat, very little indication of notability. Seraphimblade 01:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If this was an actual naval ship, I would support keeping. Given that it is a cadets unit, deletion on the grounds of notability is appropriate. Capitalistroadster 01:32, 16 January 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. --Coredesat 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credit Card Roulette

Credit Card Roulette (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

This looks like something made up in school one day, particularly with the line "The game of Credit Card Roulette is believed to have been created during the late 1980s by a group of students at Boston College." It also appears to violate WP:NEO, and hence also WP:OR. If all those fail to convince, then remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Crocodile Punter 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, a blog is not a reliable source, let alone the notability standard of multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Seraphimblade 11:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NEO. --Davidbober 18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as both above. Springnuts 22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. 2005 00:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — the entry is both plausible and interesting Vranak
  • WP:ILIKEIT is not a keep criterion. Seraphimblade 21:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Alright then, it's just plausible. Keep. Vranak

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Lambeth

Samuel Lambeth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Self evidently a vanity page. Soobrickay 10:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube 10:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, almost speedy, pure vanity, miserably failing WP:BIO. The Rambling Man 11:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable neutral sources are added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I say I say, what did the wikipedian say to the AFD process *Strong Delete - pure vanity. It's the way I tell 'em! --Larry laptop 18:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I thought the term nowadays was Conflict of Interest. Jcuk 20:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable 15-year-old standup comic. NawlinWiki 14:57, 16 January 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. Majorly (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Adventures of Tintin: Breaking Free

The Adventures of Tintin: Breaking Free (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non notable The Adventures of Tintin pastiche, not published by a major publisher ("Attack" seems to be an anarchist press), not discussed in WP:V sources, gets only 26 distinct Google hits for the exact title[25], or a still rather weak 413 distinct (906 total) with a less strict search[26] It exists, but it fails the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (books) and (even excluding a proposal based deletion) fails WP:V beyond its existence. Fram 10:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I do hope you would reconsider your terminology. I can not see how being an anarchist press makes one not be a "major publisher". I personally know at least two anarchist presses which are very very very major publishers. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 11:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, "Attack" does not seem to be a major publisher, and attack is an anarchist publisher. Due to their search-unfriendly name, I have found only one other publication by them. I have found one link to their homepage, but that gave a 404 (bad link or inactive homepage, I don't know). If you could point me to more info about the publisher to show that it is indeed a major publisher, be my guest. Otherwise, your comment seems like nitpicking. Fram 11:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep With the greatest of respect this prod and and AFD are a clear demonstration of the way that WP:V is poisoning wikipedia, providing a figleaf for removal of content that is not removable by any other means. I have a genuinely hard time believing this publication would not have been covered in critical publications or have received reviews in same. What makes it vulnerable is purely the relative obscurity of the subject, not the verifiability of it. In short no matter how good the sophistry used to argue for the deletion of this article, I would like to read evaluations of it's worth by those who have read the actual comic book. If people who have read the comic book say it is not worth a wikipedia entry, I will gladly vote for deletion. I can not in good conscience do so without such assurances. The rule should be, if in doubt, keep. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 11:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sophistry? Anyway, it is irrelevant if people who have read a comic want to keep or delete it. WP:ILIKEIT is an invalid keep reason. WP:V is hardly poisoning Wikipedia, it is a (perhaps the) core policy. If good WP:V sources can be found, I have no problem keeping it. In fact, I have argued for keeping obscure comics I haven't read in the past (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meng_and_Ecker. I have looked for good sources for this one with the means available to me. I haven't found any. This does not mean that there aren't any, of course, but then providing those is up to those wanting to keep the article (they have had a year to do so since the creation of the article, and they have five more days to do so now). But the opinions of readers, fans, opposers, ... have no value in deciding whether this or any article is a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. Fram 11:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment With regard to reception - critical or otherwise - in the media, searching for "Tintin" and "breaking free" gets 0 relevant hits in the Factiva news and magazine database while "Tintin in Thailand", a sex parody version of Tintin generally available only as a hard copy for sale on the tourist streets of Thailand gets 17 hits (including The Guardian, Reuters, Agence France-Presse (this book[27] indicates Tintin in Thailand mentioned in Asiaweek and the Far Eastern Economic Review). Only book source I could find that referenced the anarchist book is an advert in this book[28]. No hits for either title in google scholar. I'll withhold my !vote until there has been a bit more further discussion Bwithh 15:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment to Cimon WP:V is an essential foundation stone of Wikipedia, not something which is "poisoning" it or a "figleaf" excuse or sophistry!! This may be the strangest argument for keep I've ever seen. And Tintin is not an obscure subject! Bwithh 15:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete The article doesn't make any effort to assert the notablity of the comic --RaiderAspect 14:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete due to lack of verified notability. I've taken a look at the comic online[29]. It's a real stretch of the truth to describe it as a parody of Tintin. The two main characters visually look like Tintin and his friend Captain Haddock (no doubt mostly traced directly from actual Tintin books - other scenes are directly traced from Tintin books but are otherwise in a totally different context). Otherwise, they have no resemblance - they talk differently, they act differently, they have different jobs and motivations and social context. The producers of this book could have chosen to "borrow" the imagery of Homer and Bart Simpson and the Simpsons and used exactly the same script of English anarchist characters with no significant effect from the change. At least in the Tintin in Thailand parody (which I've also read but won't link to due to legal issues) there is more than a visual resemblance for the characters. Bwithh 15:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete being a parody of a well-known comic does not make a publication notable. If notability is asserted I'll change my stance.--Jersey Devil 17:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete besides being truely dire (Bwithh's analysis of this work is spot-on) and an insult to Herge (which of course is not a valid reason to delete), it fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). --Larry laptop 18:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I'm sort of amazed it sells on amazon, but it's widely available, has ISBN-13, is in libraries. Is it notable because it's a copyright violation? It's unappealing work and the article gives no hint of anyone ever taking notice, but there could be truth to the stated press reaction at the time. It already gets a much too long description in the Tintin article, so maybe it would it be best if that text ends up in a Tintin pastiches and imitations article for this to merge into..? MURGH ^disc. 02:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: WP:V is what makes wikipedia a serious dictionary, acceptable in scholarly circles in ways that other, non-verified sources like urbandictionary are not. The requirement for verifibility, paired with that of notability, is our last line of protection from hoaxes, mass spam and eventual uselessness. It is not 'poisioning' wikipedia, in fact in my opinion the twin core policies of WP:N and WP:V are the very heart of the project, most of the rest is just quality assurance and process.

• Comment Murgh, I dont really understand your reasoning. While there could be truth in the stated press reaction, there is no verifiable evidence of such. The merely possiblity of notability is not sufficient. --RaiderAspect 06:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I mean that the notion of "no verifiable evidence of such" is harsh. The claimed coverage from Channel4, The Face, Daily Star whatever in 1989 isn't as accessible as 10 years later. It may still be very verifiable, but falls outside "easy online verification". And the more I check around (though no microfilms at the public library) there seems to me to exist wikipedia precedence of a more generous threshold of notability. -MURGH ^disc. 14:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I must be missing something, but I don't even see any claimed coverage in the article (or in the section about it in The Adventures of Tintin). Any pointers as to where you got that info is more than welcome... Fram 14:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry, it came via the mandatory google. [30] [31] mentions this press. MURGH ^disc. 15:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        and if that Thatcher quote[32] is right I'd say it is fairly notable.. MURGH ^disc. 16:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        • These are from the back cover of the comic. If they don't have qualms about copyright infringements by using Tintin for their political goals, I don't think they will have qualms about fabricating quotes to make it seem more anarchistic and anti-government (it's not unusual to make up blurb quotes anyway, for humoristic purposes, even Gerrit De Jager has done it). These are very very far from WP:V sources, and especially the Thatcher one makes me doubt the veracity of all of them. 20:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Well if the press quotes are just hoax, I care even less if someone doesn't appear and passionately champion this book. So yes, if it's all lies and RL unverifiable, I'll change my consensus flag.. MURGH ^disc. 02:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
            • To be fair, it's just my gut feeling that they are fake, not a certainty. You are correct that if e.g. the Thatcher quote is real, then it is a strong point in favor of the book of course. We'll see if someone comes along with good sources! Fram 06:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
              • I think I then reconfirm weak keep (in some form) after this last round. In spite of itself this seminotable, crappy comic has managed to survive obscurity since 1988 which must account for something that wikipedia can't be "above" including. -MURGH ^disc. 04:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I believe I've found the source of the Margaret Thatcher "quote" [33] (search for "utterly revolted") however it turns out that she was refering to another comic called "The Scum". --RaiderAspect 06:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The many delete votes above are absolutely correct that WP:V and WP:N are "the very heart of the project," and that we should not keep an article with no third-party references that attest to impact or historical significance. I have, however, just added quotes and references from The Times, The Guardian, and The Independent. Hopefully that takes care of the basic sourcing and notability issues as far as all are concerned. -- Dragonfiend 06:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the good work, Dragonfiend. These are clearly WP:V sources, which show at least that at the time, the book has gotten some attention (which is enough for Wikipedia). Too bad, I'll have to change my opinion to a reluctant Keep now (reluctant because I utterly dislike these rip-offs which seem only to use the name of more famous books or characters to get the attention: but "I don't like it" is not a valid delete reason, luckily). I'll not withdraw my nomination though, since I want to give the other !voters an the closing admin the chance to give their own opinion (again). I don't think it will be deleted after your work, but it can do no harm to let the AfD run its course. I'll probably reduce the section about it in the main Tintin article though (a bit undue weight now), but I'll wait a few days for that as well. Fram 09:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • After seeing the full text as given by Hiding, I still apreciate the work done by Dragonfiend, but I think that the very short merntions these sources are, makes me go for a weak delete again. It's a close call, but I think this one fazlls slightly below the threshold for notability I am looking for. Fram 15:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reconfirm Delete Sorry, thanks for the effort but sarcastic mentions in diary columns and paperback roundups aren't sufficient as non-trivial sources. If these mentions are more than a few lines long, recommend Dragonfiend copies the entire text of these mentions to the afd discussion. Bwithh 12:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Appears to pass WP:V, as I don't find the sources to be trivial; appears to be an encyclopedic topic, and it's treated respectably in the article as it stands. I'm not utterly convinced that it is notable, but I am sufficiently convinced that I don't want to see the article vanish. Dekimasu 12:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the Martin Rowson sourcing is the killer for me. Rowson is a very strong source within the field and his opinion is rather more important than Bwithh may be aware. Given the mention in the main article and given the opinion of Rowson, who saw fit to recommend it to readers, I think the article is warranted and well written. Hiding Talk 14:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Here's the fullness of Rowson's words:

Equally nostalgic, but hankering after an entirely different epoch, is J Daniel's The Adventures of Tintin: Breaking Free (Attack International pounds 3.95). Dedicated to "all those fighting capitalism" this "graphic novel of Tintin and Friends in a Revolutionary Situation" generously allows any part of the book to be "freely reproduced by any revolutionary group" (including, I suppose, the urban guerrillas administering the Herge Estate). This cavalier attitude to copyright is just another acute observation in what I take to be a brilliant post-modern parody of a situationist canard produced during a sit-in at Hornsey School of Art circa 1972. I hope. Otherwise the crusty cadres of Class War (of which this is a by-product) might as well pack up and go home. Placing obscene epiphets and revolutionary nostrums into the mouths of the icons of child-ren's fiction was beginning to look stale even before the Oz Trial, and nowadays VIZ (VIZ: The Pan Handle: The Most Outstanding Parts of Issues 53 to 57, John Brown Publishing pounds 6.99) does this kind of thing much better, and probably to more subversive effect. The only cliche that Breaking Free doesn't salvage is the hoary old line "Steal This Book!!!" on the back cover. But if the idea of this sad little publication appeals to you, don't hesitate to do just that.

• • I'd say the article is misrepresenting the source and I withdraw my opinion, revising it to delete. Hiding Talk 14:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• The Guardian coverage in full too:

REVOLUTIONARY comic book, first published in 1988, in which Tintin and Haddock are reincarnated as militant activists who organise a strike, and a mass demonstration, after a friend is killed on a building site. The interesting things about it are the way each frame is adapted from Herge's originals, and the touching belief in the possibility of an upsurge in grassroots socialist radicalism. One suspects that Tony Blair is not the saviour Daniels had in mind

• The last sentence kind of deflates the selected prose somewhat, you ask me. Hiding Talk 14:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I certainly don't mean to represent the sources. Yes, they are from brief book reviews. I see that others have posted two of the three here. The third, from The Times reads, "Thunderin' Typhoons! Tintin, the raisin-eyed, be-quiffed journalist hero of a thousand adventures against bolsheviks, terrorists and Johnny Arab, has changed sides drastically. He goes beserk at the social security office, gets nicked for shoplifting, works on a building site with Cap'n Haddock (who now lives in a tower block), hangs around with militants, becomes a class warrior and strike co-ordinator, and finally helps usher in a socialist revolution. This startling volte-face appears, presumably without the imprimatur of the Herge estate, in Breaking Free, a naive and brutish strip-cartoon book for junior Dave Sparts, published by something called Attack International, whose affiliated organisations are the Anarchist-Communist Federation, Black Flag and World Revolution. I presume Harry Thompson, will be reflecting this unusual side of his subject in Tintin: A Biography, which comes out from Hodder in July." -- Dragonfiend 16:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • From memory, Harry Thompson didn't. I read the book recently in order to work on the Tintin articles. I won't swear it wasn't in there, but I'm 99% positive if it was I would've used it as a source for the mention at The Adventures of Tintin. Hiding Talk 17:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And to be honest, the press coverage we have here is in relation to the work's status as a Tintin parody rather than as a work in its own right. I think then that the mention in the The Adventures of Tintin article is enough, but other people may beg to differ. Hiding Talk 17:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm pretty sure the Harry Thompson reference was a joke, not a serious prediction, let alone one that came true. -- Dragonfiend 17:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I am a bit bemused as to why the negativity of the reviews would make the sources less important. It still passes WP:V, and WP:N does not require positive press. Dekimasu 13:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - its been sourced. Refer to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Addhoc 14:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Rakuljic

Andrew Rakuljic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

A seemingly non-notable film maker. Not an obvious speedy candidate as an effort has been made to assert notabilty, but the subject seems to have only made a few short films. Google does not find any thing significant Teiresias84 10:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Teiresias84 11:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be a student filmmaker of some short films, but I don't see any evidence of significant distribution or reviewing of those films. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nonotable young filmmaker. Does not pass any of the biographical requirements and is also... vanity / autobiography looking at the article creators name. Peripitus (Talk) 20:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Aspiring filmmaker and student. A Google News Archive comes up with no sources [34] nor does Google News. [35]. The article does not cite verifiable sources and I cannot find them. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 16 January 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 - author request at User talk:Verdy P#move. -- RHaworth 11:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Setting up your browser for Indic scripts

In the wrong namespace but the author cannot be persuaded - see User talk:Verdy P#move. -- RHaworth 10:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I do know that it is in the wrong namespace. Don't say things I have not said!

But a minimal reference is still needed anyway, because it is referenced directly from the Telugu wikipedia (see te:), at the top of all its pages, in a non-editable area (it's not part of any of the Telugu wiki pages!)

So, until the Telugu wikipedia is corrected, we need it, and we should include further assistance links in this minimal page for Telugu users. verdy_p 11:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And I don't like the fact that you use immediate delete immediately after a move; especially when this clearly breaks the intent fdr which it was intended (with the immediate delete, the Telugu Wikipedia stills to points nowhere!). I did not want to create a full help page to solve this issue.

So keep it, and ask to Telugu Wikipedia admins to correct their site (at least change the link it currently displays and which is hardcoded somewhere to point directly to en:Setting up your browser for Indic scripts on the English Wikipedia. i don't know exactly where it is hardcoded, may be it is within the MediaWiki software installed in this wiki! (if so we need a bug report to solve it, and the same bug may affect other wikis) verdy_p 11:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, i don't like that you lie when you say that I did not reference the backward link. You have simply not read anything! Instead, you have just read the title and immediately deleted the article, without wondering why it was there. This is not the Wikiepdia policy to perform such immediate deletion, where there is no evidence that the article was created with the intent to introduce garbage or spam. This is not spam, and even if you delete it, anyone on the Telugu wikiepdia could recreate it immediately by just following the link it provides everywhere! verdy_p 11:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT, and salt. JuJube 11:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT - I'm still not sure what this was supposed to achieve anyway. The Rambling Man 11:19, 15 January 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. Good Job Eludium-q36. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jyrki Niskanen

Jyrki Niskanen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

This is (I think) some sort of CV, and is arguably so lacking coherency as to meet the "nonsense" CSD criterion. Previous prod was disputed, sent to AfD as another editor then placed another prod. No indication of notability (and quite realistically I also have not the first clue what this text blob even means.) Seraphimblade 11:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Withdrawing nomination per rewrite. Seraphimblade 18:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. A career resumé does not make an article. Autobiography anyway. -- RHaworth 11:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Revised to keep. Watching a man lip-synch to an old wax-cylinder recording [in one of the refs] is not exactly a glowing review but notability has now been asserted by a third party. -- RHaworth 18:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I couldn't do it, Eludium-q36 could. CiaranG 19:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Speedy delete I normally like to try and salvage something like this into a stub - however, it doesn't appear to be possible in this case. No indication of notability, and defies my attempts to find any. Autobiography is foolish, rather than a criteria for deletion, IMHO. CiaranG 12:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, salvage what? Alf photoman 19:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, not yet up to par but the author is working on it Alf photoman 13:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep keep, but certainly not a speedy delete. Actually looking at the resume, it lists a little over 60 performances and 4 recordings. I do not know whether this makes him notable as an opera singer --Would it make him notable if he sang a more contemporary genre? It could undoubtedly be sourced from reviews and wikified. The comment 'nonsense" does not apply if one actually looks at it and tries to understand & is perhaps a little out of order. DGG 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC),
• Delete. The article seems completely unsalvagable, and it doesn't help that I can't find sources in English. Pretty clear conflict of interest, judging from the author, User:Niskamies. --Wafulz 01:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, following re-write from the ground up. I've put together a 15-minute stub, which (I believe) clearly asserts notability. I shall invite those advocating deletion to review the revised article. It may be necessary to disambiguate in the future, as search engines return a published academic in economics, and I assume that these are different persons. Eludium-q36 18:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• commentThe article is now shorter, is to the point, and has appropriate sources. Will those having voted delete please look again. I change my own vote from weak keep to keep. DGG 18:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Withdraw, call me stunned, but looks like there's actually something here. Good job Eludium! Seraphimblade 18:53, 16 January 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. --Coredesat 07:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courthouse Youth Arts Centre

Courthouse Youth Arts Centre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Non-notable youth / arts group. -- Longhair\^talk 11:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair\^talk 11:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 11:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Might want to take a look at Corio Village Shopping Centre too. --Davidbober 19:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Garrie 00:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The only source cited was a Myspace page which doesn't cut it as a source. Google News Archive comes up with 25 results which indicates some notability. [36]Capitalistroadster 01:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment are ads for auditions and free amateur productions truely notable coverage?Garrie 00:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and lack of significant secondary coverage. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Total Nonstop Action Wrestling programs

Total Nonstop Action Wrestling programs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

More wrestlecruft. A list of what countries TNA is on TV is hardly encyclopedic. One Night In Hackney 11:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete absurdly excessive detail. The encyclopaedic content of this article boils down to "TNA has been shown in numerous countries". The list itself is probably longer than the list of people who care or will ever look it up. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - pointless list of countries. Jayden54 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Completely unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Soltak | Talk 22:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Totally agree with that this should be delete. Note: We should probably add the main TV channels TNA is on in the main article. Govvy 23:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Aaru Bui ^DII 01:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This sort of information should be in the opening paragraph of the TV show's article. See WWE RAW. Normy132 07:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly merge some info into TNA article Agreed, there isn't a need to list what stations play specific television programs. Every network television series in existence plays in multiple countries on a wide variety of channels. So delete this article, and if there is something actually notable in it merge that information into TNA's main article. Dugwiki 23:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I noted the major TV stations airing TNA around the world. Govvy 12:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks pretty irrelevant. --Dave. 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • One more thing I almost forgot. This seems to be copied from http://www.tnawrestling.com/tv/coverage.html --Aaru Bui ^DII 23:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: This is nothing more than a coverage list. If it had general information on shows like Impact, Xplosion, etc. (for which there already exists an individual page for each), it would have encyclopedic value, but I see none in this list. Clint 04:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, or WP:SNOW if you prefer. NawlinWiki 14:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Sovereign Principality of Jaridia

The Sovereign Principality of Jaridia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

This article, which has managed to survive for over a week now, is a whole cloth fabrication complete with imagined statistics. Nominating because even hoaxes like this are arguably not speedyable, and this is the sort of thing that tends to get de-prodded. Serpent's Choice 11:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete a thousand times. Somebody else using wikipedia to attack France. Ho-hum! Keresaspa 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but it's the funniest thing I've seen all day. Move to WP:BJ or even Uncyclopedia. Walton monarchist89 17:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Wow, can't believe this survived a week.--Jersey Devil 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Someone, somewhere has far too much time on their hands. --The Way 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's bad enough that this can't (I think) be speedied. Do not move to WP:BJ unless you think everyone else likes wasting their time nominating and deleting this garbage. This is what blogs are for. - Aagtbdfoua 20:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Move to Uncyclopedia. —dima/s-ko/ 20:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Though it is a clever parody. And don't forget to track down linked hoax articles or hoaxes from the same source. Edison 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Pretty sure the rest have been speedied A1, as this was the only article with any substance. However, the images should be deleted when the article goes ... there are quite a lot of them. Serpent's Choice 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoax, patent nonsense, BJAODN etc. Dragomiloff 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete please do not BJAODN. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 16 January 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. Majorly (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Foundation Band

The Foundation Band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Foundation (The Foundation Band album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), album by the above, no evidence of sales or popularity

White Line Fever and the Long Road Home Demo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), self-produced demo album by the above

Homecoming 7" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 7" ep by the above, a redirect only

Live at the Canal Club • Oct 2005 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), self-produced gig ep by the above

Side project of a member of Ann Beretta, a barely notable band, only one album which is not self-released. Creator has no contributions outside of the work of this individual. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 16:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable per WP:MUSIC. Their discography is almost completely self released, which means they don't pass the music guidelines. Jayden54 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BAND (only one album on a notable indie label). ShadowHalo 10:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per failure of WP:BAND... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 07:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per ShadowHalo. Killroy4 07:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...And The Band Played On-Live At Home

...And The Band Played On-Live At Home (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

I am unable to find a single reliable source for information about this album. There are fewer than a dozen unique Googles outside of Wikipedia. There is no evidence it has ever charted. The band is barely notable. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 16:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - appears to be non-notable per WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Jayden54 17:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the album does exist but neither it or the band are notable. One Night In Hackney 17:16, 15 January 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. Removal of unsourced material is an editorial decision and can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Coredesat 07:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex

List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Poorly sourced list with potentially libelous content and original research. Unencyclopedic. I removed some of the worst content here, but the entire article needs to go. Oden 13:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Needs more sources. Just because something is not listed on Wikipedia does not mean it is not truly notable. The article could use some polishing but is overall fine and should not be deleted. 71.225.125.176 12:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Some is unsourced, however there is no reason to remove this from Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghettodude (talk • contribs) 03:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
• It would need to go if nothing on the subject can be sourced at all. But it can. The fact that Shortbus, 9 Songs, Baise-Moi, and Intimacy all contain unsimulated sex (the latter with named actors), can be sourced to places such as this article in The Guardian and this article in The Times, for example. Your problem with this article is verifiability. Feel free to wield the merciless sword of verifiability on the article, removing all unsourced content, and refusing to let it return without a proper source being cited. But deletion is not the answer to this article's problems. Please read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G 13:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Hmmmmm.... Regardless of Uncle G's suggestion (and I would ADD to it that the redlinked movies be removed as well; if a movie is not notable enough for Wikipedia as a whole, then it is not notable enough in part either), the question remains whether such a list is encyclopedic. I sometimes get the impression that editors that love pop culture have run out of articles to write and have now moved on to creating IMHO arbitrary lists to categorise information in a myriad of ways. So, while the subject of "unsimulated sex in film" is possibly notable, a list of all verifiable and notable movies that have such scenes goes to a level of detail beyond which an encyclopedia (even a non-paper one) should not cover. There are some things that just don't belong in an encyclopedia, which is why we direct readers to the sources and external links for further reading. Zunaid©® 14:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because a film is redlinked doesn't mean it isn't notable enought for an article. It just means no one has gotten around to writing an article about it yet. 23skidoo 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm with Zunaid; even if everything was cited and redlinks were removed, etc., etc., this would still be unencyclopedic listcruft. As Zunaid said, it is probable that the concept of (unsimulated) sex in film is notable, but a mere mention of films that contain sex is not. -- Kicking222 14:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant delete as this article will clearly continue to be victimized by Wikipedia's elitist bias against such topics. And I'm voting as a frequent contributor to said article. 23skidoo 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ganfon 15:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per Uncle G. Since there have been only a small handful of non-porn films in this category, I don't think it's even close to listcruft. It seems to me more like documentation of a shift in cultural and industry norms. Maybe in twenty years it will have grown to a nonmanagable size, but we can worry about that then. Certainly needs to be sourced and dramatically cropped, however -- I would argue that it should stick to its title ("mainstream" and "films") and lose all the cable tv / internet stuff. bikeable (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G. Otto4711 17:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - As pointed out by Uncle G., much of the information in this article can and does meet WP:V. This is definitely an article that needs to be monitored for possible instances of libel, but it is nonetheless encyclopedic: it presents verifiable and noteworthy information that in many cases has directly affected the cultural or social impact of the flims in question. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all above of course. Jcuk 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete In addition to the other delete comments above, the 'mainstream' seems like an arbitary criterion to me. I followed the mainstream cinema link at the top of the list to shed further light, where my thoughts were confirmed by the text "the boundary is vague". CiaranG 20:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep....but 1) immediately remove everything that isn't sourced as potentially libellous. 2) Since that will not leave much, why oh why is this a LIST. Rename to Mainstream films with unsimulated sex and allow a list of whatever is verifiable. --Doc^g 21:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Uncle G and as article with multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Edison 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There are a few verifiable examples of "mainstream" films with unsimulated sex acts, sure. Once you purge this article of the speculation, original research and unverifiable claims there is content left, yes, but not enough to warrant a "list article". NeoFreak 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be dense (it comes natural!), but I don't see how this is a reason for deletion. In fact, just the opposite: because unsimulated sex in a mainstream movies is a rare thing, it is worth having a list of those rarities. Surely a List of mainstream movies with simulated sex would be listcruft, but this is a list of exceptions to a rule that has very few exceptions. In this way, it's like having a list of left-handed baseball players -- that is, they are all important exceptions. Just my tuppence. bikeable (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that's a very fair point. I think an article about this topic could be made if done right and the sources where there for the reason you stated. This article is not about the subject, it's just a listing of movies in which it occurs, not encyclopedic to begin with and then it's losses the rest of it's reason for existence (in my mind) when only one or two of those movies scenes can be verified by reliable sources. NeoFreak 21:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. All criticisms seem to originate from personal biases. The article just needs a brief paragraph explaining how/why unsimulated sex and/or explicit sex found its way into mainstream cinema.
• Delete these not mainstream movies. the whole article is POV. --MarsRover 04:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I can see where the "keepers" are coming from in the responses above, and would not object to this list being partly merged back into an "unsimulated sex in film" article as examples of the concept. However I still feel that having a long list of every single film that fits the criteria goes beyond an encyclopedic level of detail. Zunaid©® 06:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic. The list is entertaining, I'll grant you, but not a topic for an encyclopedia article. Maybe there should be a separate "Listopedia" or something to capture this list-making impulse. But really, if you grant this for Wikipedia, what's next? "List of films in which simulated fellatio occurs"? "List of non-mainstream films with scenes of dogs drinking water"? (Not to mention the problem of adjudicating what counts as "mainstream.") BTfromLA 08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. ...and clean up. Not particularly a good article, but that is an of itself isn't enough to delete. From my reading of the article, it's hardly libelous since qualifiers are given whenever there is a controversy. Zotdragon 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Mild keep and remove or tag unreferenced items There is some possible use here for someone researching either censorship or sex in movies and related topics by providing specific films the reader can reference as citable examples. So I'd go with keeping the article, but removing or tagging for citation unreferenced information. Dugwiki 23:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom. Addhoc 12:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but delete all unsourced material per Uncle G. VegaDark 05:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and add more references. (Ibaranoff24 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
• Delete These are hardly "mainstream" films. Most are underground or foreign films.Fistful of Questions 21:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up - remove the actual 'porn' films, and keep those that are truly mainstream, which could be loosely defined as those that have been allowed to play in the cinema. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.76.156.103 (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
• Delete If this were a proper article I might feel otherwise, but we have more than enough of these silly pop culture lists already. We certainly don't need a big list of supposedly mainstream films that supposedly show people really doin' it. If the vote does go to "Keep", I suggest a LOT of paring down using more citations and a much stricter definition of "mainstream film". CKarnstein 04:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see any compelling reason to remove the article. Clean up any libelous content, sure, though I saw nothing that was libelous -- i.e., that demonstrated a malicious intent. Seems like a fairly honest and straightforward list. Could someone point out content that they though was libelous? Otherwise, the only basis for objection is the sexual content, and really, if you're going to let the prudes run the show, might as well give up and do a dead trees edition with all objectionable content removed, because it won't be the Wikipedia and it will not be a democratically-created product.

Pat Powers 04:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unofficial Saint Patrick's Day

Unofficial Saint Patrick's Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Article has been proded several times and de-proded by anons. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. If it is real it is not adequately sourced, and is not notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Dual Freq 14:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom --Dual Freq 14:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete WP:NFT pretty much covers it. This is a single non-notable day for binge drinking at a single college campus. In addition, the school's newspaper does not count as a "reliable source", and otherwise, there is no referencing. -- Kicking222 14:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How is the university newspaper unreliable here? The journalist appears to have done a fair amount of legwork, checked xyr facts, and got the article past an editor to have it published. Those are the very things that reliability deals in. Uncle G 15:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The Daily Illini seems to have had some problems with its editorial review process in the past, at least according to its wikipedia article. Just the same, this unofficial university student holiday or whatever its called is not exactly notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Dual Freq 15:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. --Davidbober 19:04, 15 January 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, classic violation of WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fous ta cagoule

Fous ta cagoule (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Contested PROD. A non-notable local meme. Joyous! | Talk 14:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• As Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day explains, unless journalists or historians were there recording the event and have already published their research in some reputable publication, what happened at "approximately 3:00 P.M. on Sunday, January 14'th in Mr. S.'s room" is unverifiable. Everything must be properly documented outside of Wikipedia before it is included in Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - completely made up in school and doesn't seem notable at all. The article is kinda lame as well, i.e. "The video was played by Mr. Schnitzler for Mr. Culley at approximately 3:00 P.M. on Sunday, January 14'th in Mr. S.'s room.". I mean, what the heck? What's the point of this article? Jayden54 17:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - As per WP:N -Painezor 18:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per all of the above. Khoikhoi 02:20, 16 January 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 and redirect (probably to List of fictitious Jews). If consensus later removes it from there as well, then probably delete as the consensus does not seem to favor an independent article. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

On the face of the AFD contributions, consensus is split fairly evenly between merge and delete, with a few keeps. There is a significant majority for delete the article (ie, either of delete or merge), on the basis of listcruft or WP:NOT an indiscriminate list. Both delete and merge imply removal of this independent article. This implies a consensus is achieved that there isn't justification for an independent article. However, there is also a significant number (around 50%) of keep the information (ie, keep or merge), implying a significant view that the information is considered useful and appropriate, and a view that it should be preserved somehow either by keeping or merging. (Note - Argument by analogy is not appropriate for AFD, each article is judged on its own merits as per Ssbohio.)

Taking these two together, it seems there is a communal consensus overall: - that the list is considered overall sufficiently encyclopedic or notable to keep the information, but not sufficiently important for its own independent article. It thefore looks like consensus is that the list should probably be merged into some other more relevant article, and this one deleted or redirected. Looking at the proposed target articles suggested, I'm inclined to agree that List of fictional Jews is a more useful location to try, than List of LGBT Jews, on the basis that fiction/nonfiction seems a more fundamental distinction than straight/gay. Or, as per one comment somewhere, it 'muddies the water' if fictional Jews are added to an article mainly listing real Jews.

[edit] List of fictional Jewish LGBT characters

List of fictional Jewish LGBT characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Although I am the article "creator" (albeit after splitting it off) and also the nominator, please do not use this as a reason to consider speedy deletion. I feel the article should have a full chance to have a consensus formed. The list is a valid list, but I feel it does not pass any of the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. I split it from the original article, a genuinely notable list, because it diluted that article with ephemera, and did so after flagging a possible split on that talk page (no responses after 8 days). Although I am nominating the list my nomination is Neutral and a request for a consensus to be formed Fiddle Faddle 14:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all lists of x who are y and z. Else we have 'fictional Buddhist and short' 'fictional socialist and red-haired' 'non-fiction atheists who had tea with Jonny Cash' etc. --Doc^g 21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Slippery slope is a logical fallacy insofar as each article stands or fall on its own merits, and what other article(s) may or may not be created doesn't bear on whether this article should be deleted or not. Further, this contribution identifies no basis in policy that supports deletion of this material. --Ssbohio 06:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well maybe. However I'm uncertain what this provides that existing lists don't. Is there something unique about fictional Jewish LGBT people that can't be dealt with on existing lists of fictional Jews or LGBT?--T. Anthony 06:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The question arises: is this a set of Jews for the list of fictional LGBT characters, or an LGBT list within the list of fictional Jews? Even if the article lacks sufficient legs as an independent work, it is still a collection of content that would otherwise be duplicated in other lists. --Ssbohio 00:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Merge to List of fictitious Jews. This looks to be overly specific as that list isn't so crowded it needs separating by sexual orientation. If someone wants LGBT as a subsection of the Jewish lists that might be fine.--T. Anthony 06:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment in view of the List of fictitious Jews, should the consensus be "delete" that might be better phrased as Merge, presumably? Assuming they are not in the list, of course. Fiddle Faddle 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Good point, hold on.--T. Anthony 06:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge Unless there's a direct way to select articles at the intersection of the three sets involved (fictional characters, Jewish people, & LGBT people), no better method of organizing these articles exists. As no deletion vote has cited a basis in policy, and I am unaware of any method for selecting the intersection of multiple categories, I must endorse keeping it. --Ssbohio 06:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question You make a valid point about the intersection. Is the list itself of sufficient "everything" that it warrants a place here? The List of Fictional Characters coudl easily be modified or footnotes used to signify non statistical majority sexuality of one so chose. Fiddle Faddle 07:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Based on some of the contributions to the discussion, it seems that merging the content would be an acceptable alternative, as long as the content gets incorporated into all relevant lists (fictional characters, LGBT Jews, fictional LGBT characters, fictional Jews, etc). However, I still see the maintenance of a separate page that can be included by links within all the aforementioned groups as a more common-sense solution, especially considering that Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia. --Ssbohio 00:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or merge and redirect back to List of LGBT Jews. "LGBT" and "Jewish" is a little bit more important of an intersection, even for fictional characters, than "Buddhist" and "short." Otto4711 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment it does not belong in a list of real people. It devalues that list by virtue of the characters being fictional. If the List of LGBT Jews is an important list then it should not be devalued with fictional folk. If it has a place, surely it is in a list of fictional people, annotated that the character is set out to be Jewish? Fiddle Faddle 15:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is an indiscriminate collection of information. This type of query is better put to a relational database than an encyclopedia. -- Alan McBeth 17:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I am not a fan of lists, anyway, and this list serves little purpose that I can see. If the content needs to be kept, merge into list of fictional Jews, and add the the character is LGB or T to the description on that list. Jeffpw 17:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this pointless listcruft.--OinkOink 04:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all content to one or the other list of fictional characters. We might want to keep this as a redirect. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:11, 18 January 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 03:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petar Brzica

Petar Brzica (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

I could not find any neutral references for this text, not for this person. Seems to be some made up propaganda material from Serbo-Croatian wars, and can be mostly found on serbian sites and forums. Most google hits simply redirect to wikipedia or sites that copied the wikipedia article. Rhun 14:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Google has led me to several mentions of this person: [37], [38], a mention of a documentary in which he was mentioned (I know, I know...) and a book in which he's mentioned (The Search for Nazi's in America by Howard Blum. Published by Quadrangle, 1977). It seems fairly certain that he existed and that he was involved in the genocide of Serbs during WWII. However, the whole business of 1,360 throats slit does seem very dubious, but as it's not mentioned in the article, I don't see any reason for this article to be deleted. Sources are thin on the ground, but Internet sources for this sort of thing usually are.--Hadžija 16:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)