Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuice^talk 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthology: The Temptations (1964-73)

Anthology: The Temptations (1964-73) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Not really much point in an article on this compilation. There's no content that can be added beyond its tracklisting. FuriousFreddy 00:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. This article lists the songs of an album. Nimbat230 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The Temptations are highly notable, but every reference to them isn't. This is just another compilation without any redeeming notability of its own. It might rate mention in the The Temptations article, at the very most. I do not understand Nimbat230's reasoning; listing song titles of an album does create notability for the album, even if these were new songs. --Bejnar 00:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Benjar, no notability. If sales info were included or chart position showing notability I would be inclined to keep it. Mallanox 02:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Keep, vote changed following consideraton of Warren's comment. Mallanox 05:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Benjar, while the Temptations are highly notable the album is not. — Arjun 03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Compilations of notable artists have precedence for being kept (the many for Rush), for example). A little work will fix this article. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, just reproducing a tracklisting is not sufficient for an article. If the article asserted why this compliation was particularly notable, then it would be suitable. Proto::► 12:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, just another "Very Best of Greatest Hits". IMHO, compilations even by very notable bands aren't automatically notable. To be sure of its notability, I'd like to see information on chart performance or links to independant non-trivial reviews. MaxSem 14:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as an album list.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, preferably expanding the description. Scienceman123 talk 21:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:MUSIC which states that every album from a notable band is considered notable. Tarinth 21:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I see nothing wrong with it, besides the fact that it could be expanded slightly. WP:MUSIC isn't against having all albums of a notable band. Floria L 22:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable album by notable band. --Ezeu 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, the album section of WP:MUSIC is being contested. There is a proposed album notability requirement at WP:LP. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The content itself appears to meet WP:N given the prominence of The Temptations. Album article could be Merged into article on the band. --Shirahadasha 02:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Amazon's review lists this as an "Essential Recording", with an average of 5 stars from user reviews. allmusic.com also has a five-star rating on this album, saying that it "should really be considered the best available summation of their career"... to me this sounds like a notable album worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. -/- Warren 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Warren. bbx 05:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I am working on the Album project - will bring this up to more-than-stub status soon. This does meet WP:MUSIC#ALBUM. SkierRMH,23:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - marked as stub, album template added to discussion page, which will bring it to the attention of the album project.SkierRMH 23:53, 7 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 CSD A1, A3 lacking context. Tubezone 01:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jvcs

Jvcs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

looks like SPAM/questionable notability/other edits by the same user (Special:Contributions/Haymoncollins) - all on the same day - are related Lars T. 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - just an empty page with a spam link. Get rid. - IceCreamAntisocial 00:41, 2 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Diamond Income Fund

Black Diamond Income Fund (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I recommend Deletion for this article which is nothing but an advertisement for a non-notable company. The company primarily rents out trailers for the Canadian oil fields. The article has subsisted in the Wikipedia since August. It has no links to it except for the four redirect pages, which should also be deleted.

• Black Diamond Income (redirect page)
• Black Diamond Fund (redirect page)
• Black Diamond Trust (redirect page)
• Black Diamond Income Energy (redirect page) --Bejnar 00:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, because it doesn't seem to pass the corporate notability guideline - Google picks up a few things, but the sources don't seem independent of the company, thereby failing criteria 1. (And there's no way it meets #2 or #3.) Furthermore, the article is replete with advertising jargon, but lacks content. Finally, it's unsourced. Picaroon 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above as well as one of the only wikilinks is for a scottish trade unionist who died in 1965. ha.--Tainter 02:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom and above. WP:CORP. — Arjun 03:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There doesn't even appear to be a company website at all. --SYCTHOS^talk 03:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 10:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- fails WP:CORP.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I added the fact that the company is traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange, as well as the URL for the company's web site. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment That does not change anything with regard to notability does it? --Bejnar 21:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete- As per nom, non-notable corporations do not need Wiki articles. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 20:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Scienceman123 talk 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, I don't think being in the Toronto Stock Exchange guarantees you notability - The RSJ (Sign my book) (CCD) 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N. No publications have been cited except routine sites like Yahoo Finance and this reference doesn't show a single article or analyst covering the company (headlines consist only of a single routine press release on earnings). Absent evidence that someone covers or writes about this company, WP:N isn't met. Can reconsider if sources demonstrating notability are produced. --Shirahadasha 03:04, 3 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full Circle (Hieroglyphics album)

Full Circle (Hieroglyphics album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Entry says nothing useful, and the album does not appear notable enough to warrant its own entry Iridescenti 00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can you explain why you AfD-listed this album, and not the other by the same artist, Third Eye Vision? Wikipedia seems to have more than a few album-stubs like this, and I don't understand the need for this AfD. It seems to me that you could merge the content into Hieroglyphics (band) and redirect without the need for deletion. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 01:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, merge and redirect to Hieroglyphics (band). Not notable on its own but ok to keep as part of band info. Mallanox 02:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Hieroglyphics (band). — Arjun 03:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Seems fairly straightforward, hopefully no one will mind if I go ahead and do this. Merged and redirected, both albums. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep According to WP:MUSIC, every album by a notable band is considered notable. Tarinth 13:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Re the first post by Booyabazooka - only reason I AfD'd this & not the other, was that this was the one the random article brought up. Didn't want to go straight ahead and merge just in case this was the 'Sgt Pepper' of hip hop and I'd just not heard of it, as I'm not a hip hop fan. Iridescenti 11:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I just restored the article [1] as it was redirected today by Booyabazooka to Hieroglyphics (band), which is not appropriate as the AfD is still ongoing. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Appears I missed the above statement by Booyabazooka, but I still think the redirect should wait until the AfD is over (if that is the conclusion). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Tarinth. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Tarinth and WP:MUSIC Since the band is considered notable, so is the album. TSO1D 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am not concerned with notability as much as with article content. These albums have none. Since there are only two, and the band's article is not particularly long, what's wrong with the merge? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 22:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Logistical comment: Deletion is definitely not going to be the result here. Was I wrong in stepping over the AfD bureaucracy? We don't need AfD for this discussion. (Btw, I have reverted my changes to the other two articles for consistency) ~ Booya ^Bazooka 22:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment AfD is not an appropriate forum for improving article content. To improve article content, you can make edits yourself; you could mark it with things like {{expert}} in hope that someone with subject knowledge will improve it (as well as a number of similar tags); or you could initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article. Tarinth 23:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Somebody had merged the content of the two albums into the artist page. This was a good merge. The page didn't become overly long or anything of that nature, and the content was still present on WP. I'm not seeing the problem. GassyGuy 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a album by a notable group. --Ted87 23:31, 4 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. —Cryptic 04:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Associated Students of the University of Arizona (2nd Nomination)

Associated Students of the University of Arizona (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Topic is not notable. Should be part of the University of Arizona article. Gpohara 00:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have created a separate AfD page for this second nomination; the nominator originally started this AfD on the page of the first AfD. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable student organization per the WP:ORG guideline. As a previously-deleted article, this article could probably fall as a speedy deletion under rule G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion; however, an admin would have to check how similar this article is to the previously deleted version, especially since this version was created about 5 months after the first AfD closed. Nevermind, a look at the article's talk page indicates this has more information about the organization than the previous article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per NeoChaosX. — Arjun 03:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD G4, as recreation of deleted material. The deletion log of this page indicates that this article was not revived. --SYCTHOS^talk 03:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I initially brought up that it could be speedy deleted; however, as I noted, the talk page indicates this version of the article is much more expanded than the version that was deleted. G4 only applies if the page is "substantially identical" to the deleted version, which this version apparently isn't. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. (I am the nominator.) --Gpohara 07:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This student government doesn't appear to warrant encyclopedic coverage due to lack of independent sources per WP:ORG. No sources are provided at all. --Metropolitan90 07:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any relevant information to University of Arizona. Would be helpful is someone more knowledgeable about the article could trim it so that it does not engulf the University of Arizona article.--Jersey Devil 08:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —dima/s-ko/ 19:20, 2 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 as a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 06:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Empyrean Hosting

Empyrean Hosting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

A non-notable defunct small business for one, and a conflict of interest for another. The author even mentions himself in the article. Was de-prodded. - IceCreamAntisocial 00:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable company that no longer exists, per the nomination. --Dennisthe2 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, fails WP:CORP and doesn't even have any claims to notability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete appears to be an example of vanity. Mallanox 02:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - vanispamcruftisement. So tagged. MER-C 02:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom and commentors. A7, G11. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:57, 2 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superior Design Associates, Inc.

Superior Design Associates, Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Likely spamvertising by single purpose account. The article mentions a couple of pages of coverage in local magazines, but I doubt they meet WP:CORP, especially considering their whopping 17 ghits [2][3]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 00:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete on account of lack of notability and WP:CRYSTAL. It asserts notability, but it points to local information and trade journals, without providing web links - and I think many of the trade journals have web sites that can provide the information we need. That, and the crystalballery comes from the further assertion that there is pending features on HGTV amongst others. --Dennisthe2 01:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Fails WP:CORP. MER-C 02:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 06:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an advert that fails WP:CORP.--Jersey Devil 08:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Scienceman123 talk 21:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete on the basis of crystal balling and failing WP:CORP.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:06, 3 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] W.K. (Kip) Stratton

W.K. (Kip) Stratton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This article had a prod tag placed upon it for reasons that were not made at all clear in the edit history. Perhaps this was due to the lack of anything resembling a statement of notability in the opening paragraph. Rmky87 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral for now.--Rmky87 01:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Whilst the article needs a rewrite and seems like vanity, Google seems to suggest that the author is pretty notable [4] --Veesicle 01:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that there is an actor of the same name, as the author's website notes - so that may not be the best Google search to go by. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 02:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, silly me, it didn't occur to me to check.. however as Kevin Murray says below this author does appear to have some claim to notability. --Veesicle 14:12, 2 January 200(UTC)
  • Comment I'm new to the Wiki thing; I only added the initial article becasue there was a link to it from Stratton's Alma mater sentry. I'm a serious fan of his work, but have no ambitions to be a regular Wikipedia contributor; I apologize for my clumsy work. You can find reviews of Kip Stratton's books in the L.A. Times on Sept. 11, 2002, and October 30, 2005; the Boston Globe on May 8, 2005; Publishers Weekly, March 3, 2005, and September 15, 2002; and Kirkus Reviews, February 15, 2005 and June 15, 2002. Author's profile is contained in Contemporary Authors, Volume 242. New contract with Harcourt (for the Patterson book) verified in Publisher's Marketplace, November 28, 2006. --Aitchmark 10:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep & rewrite I found a few independent non-trivial sources; however, in one the mention alludes to notability in a brief mention comparing another book to his. Not overly compelling evidence of prominence, but I think we are looking for notabilty not prominence. This has potential way beyond vanity; his books are sold through Amazon and other major booksellers.

• Stratton talks with Texas Public Radio's Ernie Villarreal. November 25, 2005 Interview of Author
• Publisher’s Weekly Discusses one of his books.
• mentioned in Austin Chronicle

--Kevin Murray 02:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment Would you mind sticking them in the actual article, nonsarcastically speaking? Especially that interview, which smells really valuable.--Rmky87 17:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

DONE --Kevin Murray 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Needs some rewrites, but he is notable enough for me. Cleo123 08:12, 6 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Schizofreniks

The Schizofreniks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable upstart label. Google brings forth 89 unique hits which isn't much. The article is carefully worded but the official site has bios that more clearly show that these individuals worked for companies that worked with notable artists...the "Schizofreniks" themselves may not have. The author RecordLabel has predominately made edits in reference to this subject so a conflict of interest may be at hand. Additionally, the whole article reads like an advertisement. IrishGuy ^talk 01:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not well formed at all, and the article notes that information on their albums appears on Myspace and Youtube. Can't rely on that as a source. --Dennisthe2 02:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:CORP/WP:MUSIC. MER-C 05:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 08:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per MERC, this article fails multiple sets of notability criteria. TSO1D 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per MERC-Fails the various notability tests. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:16, 2 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 WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:CSD#G11, WP:COI, and that's before you even start looking at the content. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse Therapy

Reverse Therapy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Article created by DrJohnEaton (talk · contribs) about a therapy created by Dr. John Eaton. Google search seems to find an awful lot of self-generated entries, but precious little in the way of Reliable Sources. Looks a lot like advertising, not clear at all this is a Notable practice. Fan-1967 01:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, appears to be vanity. Or at least stubify. Mallanox 02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close - copyvio from [5]. So tagged. Not similar enough to be a speedy, though. MER-C 02:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete; close to a db-copyvio, but I'd be inclined to say {{db-spam}} given circumstances. Add to that conflict of interest for good measure. --Dennisthe2 02:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Per article Talk page, author asserts that it's not a copyvio, and in any case grants permission as it's from his site. Not relevant to reasons for nomination. Fan-1967 13:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Seems like total pseudoscience first of all, then per nom. Scienceman123 talk 21:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it is merely advertisment for non-notable pseudoscience. --Ezeu 00:32, 3 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supporting character chronology

Supporting character chronology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This just seems to be a really pointless partial chronology of Batman and Superman supporting characters. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge into Batman/Superman lists Savant45 02:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Superman articles. Delete There's no useful information here that isn't already in the Batman and Superman articles. The article itself has a vague name. According to WP:FICTION minor supporting characters should be included in the main article on a notable work of fiction. Tarinth 05:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for redundancy and trivia as above. Clicking on the links for each individual character shows that creator and first appearance of each is prominently displayed on their respective article infoboxes. So lacking useful research data, this article suffers from the intrinsic POV issue of "what supporting chars and why are these important instead of others?" not to mention that the whole topic smacks of an indiscriminate collection of information anyway. -Markeer 13:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Expand and move unless there is another list out there that choronologically compares sidekicks, i think we should keep this. This list only suffers from intrinsic POV because the author did not follow WP:LIST guidlines in being more specific with the title and beginning with a lead that stated exactly what the scope of the list would entail. It could be solved simply by writing a lead section and moving the article to a more descriptive title. Also, it doesn't seem any of you scanned more than just the first few entries, Spider-Man is listed as well, I think the orginal editor just contributed his own knowledge, not intentionally leaving superheroes out. Other than the points stated above, this meets the requirements at WP:LIST and there is no other article (that i'm aware of) that lists all major supporting characters chronologically. How about List of major supporting characters (comic)? With an approriate lead describing what the title means by "major" the scope can be defined enough to justify keeping out Man in hat #3 and also describe a little about what a supporting character is. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Expand and move -- per above cogent points. // FrankB 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • apparantly cogency only gets u so far ;) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Tarinth and Markeer. TJ Spyke 03:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete as cruft. What's the purpose of merging Batman and Superman universes? Why not Fallout and Star Trek? MaxSem 14:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Batman and Superman are both part of the DC universe, so it makes sense to handle them in one place, versus Fallout and Star Trek which are entirely unrelated. In looking at DC universe I notice that there doesn't appear to be a "list of DC universe characters" article (at least one I can see)--something like that would be a good article. Tarinth 15:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • List of DC Comics characters Uncle G 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • well since the above list already has several sublists, why not moving the DC related stuff to List of supporting DC comics characters and the Marvel stuff to List of supporting Marvel comics characters?

• Delete, almost completely redundant and original research (regarding, e.g. creators -- suggestive of legal/moral artistic rights). --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • what this suggests to you is purely subjective, even though i realize the comic industry has an ugly history of creative rights, the person who came up with a character is not usually called into question. If it is, then that can be noted within the list. This is no more redundant than creating a list by aspect A and a list by aspect B, which is not against any wiki guideline or policy and does indeed help in navigation. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, useless listcruft. Fram 13:19, 5 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Handjob

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

Fingering (sexual act) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

[edit] Handjob AfD arguments

Handjob - WP:NEO states that all article claims must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. Moreover, per the section "Reliable sources for neologism" mentioned, To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. In evaluating the references in in Handjob, #1, #2, and #3 which is all 3 of the references in the article, they are not books or articles about "Handjob" but are only articles that use the term trivially as a neologism and without discussing it as such. All of these references thus fail WP:NEO. In the External links section, a link is posted to a Usenet posting, which not only fails the heightened reference criteria of WP:NEO but the general criteria for all Wikipedia articles at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin_boards.2C wikis and posts to Usenet which states Usenet posts may not be used as references. The second External link points to a website that uses the word "handjob" to describe sexual technique but it is not a reliable secondary source. Therefore, and "even though there may be many examples of the term in use", this article must be deleted per WP:NEO and any pertinent content placed into Foreplay / Heavy petting where it belongs. CyberAnth 01:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fingering AfD arguments

Fingering (sexual act) - is a slang term for Manual-genital stimulation and/or masturbation. As such, this article should be about the etymology and history of the term "fingering", a neologism. The article has been tagged since Sept. 2006 as not citing it sources, and has had dozens of edits since then, none of which have introduced sources. Per WP:NEO, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term", ""even though there may be many examples of the term in use". CyberAnth 01:19, 3 January 2007

[edit] Handjob AfD comments

• Redirect & Merge reliably sourced content into Masturbation Mutual masturbation Bwithh 02:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes, reference #3 does seem most pertinent to masturbation. I am also evaluating it for use in an article I am drafting Religious views of masturbation. CyberAnth 02:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • !?! Wouldn't mutual masturbation be a better target? ~ trialsanderrors 03:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, yeah, what trials said. Bwithh 06:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Bwithh. Nothing more than a synonym; no justification for its own article. Tevildo 02:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, for reasons given by Bwithh. Mallanox 02:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. --Dennisthe2 02:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to mutual masturbation --SeizureDog 03:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• As I was adding the reliably sourced content it did seem to me that a merger to masturbation was in order, given what the sources were actually saying about hand jobs. However, there have been two proposed mergers discussed on the article's talk page, both of which were opposed. I suggest that all of the above editors review the several arguments already made against merger on Talk:Handjob and comment on them, because they have yet to be addressed and countered by any editor in this discussion.

  Incidentally: CyberAnth is missing the point of WP:NEO in the nomination. If this were an article about a neologism, then we would need sources that discuss the word. But it isn't. ("hand job" isn't even a neologism, as the fact that one of the sources dates from 1975 should clearly imply.) It's an article about the actual thing that the phrase denotes, a hand job. So the fact that the sources simply use the phrase in their discussions of hand jobs is entirely proper. Uncle G 03:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment, re the recent discussions about merging that have gone on previously, they got bogged down in who was doing what to who. A handjob is a kind of masturbation therefore the merge is valid in my opinion. Mallanox 04:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge although I would suggest proposed mergers for content to both Masturbation and Mutual masturbation to allow the editors involved in those articles the greatest amount of influence in the process. It would not be that big a loss though if we were to userfy this article to CyberAnth and worked from there. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 04:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment - putting it in both places is a good idea, and perhaps in the places I pointed out too. But what the heck does your last sentence mean? CyberAnth 04:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Userfy is to move a section/article into a userspace while being reworked into a new or existing article. I mentioned this as a possibility since you said you were working on a new article on the subject. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 17:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - why don't we rename Semen to Cum? Or Sexual intercourse to Fucking? Or Cunnilingus to Going down on? Or Fellatio to Head job? Better yet, how about renaming handjob to Manual stimulation (sexual) or giving it its small place in Human sexual behavior? CyberAnth 05:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• The nominator has not proposed a valid reason for deletion. There is no way that a word for which I easily found a 1968 citation qualifies as a neologism, the criteria for which include "recently coined". I would not be averse to a merge proposal, properly done, but the nomination is on invalid grounds. This is longstanding sexual slang, probably somewhat older than forty years. --Dhartung | Talk 05:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Dhartungh stated that handjob "is longstanding sexual slang" yet he uses a reference in which it is used to describe a slang term, a neologism at the time, in an article that is not about its use as slang but treats it like some scholarly encyclopedic term for Manual stimulation (sexual). It falls under neologism, therefore. Again, why not rename Sexual intercourse to Fucking? Because it is not the scholarly encyclopedic term for the act. Any article titled Fucking would need to be about the etymology and history of usage of the word "fuck". Same with this article handjob. CyberAnth 05:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I have no idea what your first sentence means. You seem to be confusing a deletion discussion with an article. Please try to make more sense. Just because you envision the article being "about the word" does not mean that it a) is, or b) that others see it that way. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Further, not only is the term in use for (at least) 38 years, refuting the "recently coined" criterion, it appears in the following dictionaries: Webster's New Millennium Dictionary of English, Random House Unabridged Dictionary, MacQuarie Dictionary Online, and WordNet, refuting the second criterion that it is a word that "does not appear in dictionaries". --Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        • With all due respect, it appears you might need to read WP:NEO completely. CyberAnth 10:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
          • With all due respect, perhaps you could quote the appropriate section to which you are referring. Precision is appreciated. --Dhartung | Talk 19:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Read the nomination. CyberAnth 00:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
              • This is obviously pointless. You're proceeding from a completely unsupported contention that the word falls under our definition of neologism, and saying that it fails to meet the guidelines, but you have not presented any credible evidence that it is a neologism. Obviously we can continue going around in "is! is not!" circles. If you had a better rationale for deletion -- and you obviously don't, you think the topic is valid and should be given a different name -- you would have put it in the nomination. So you're basically putting something up for AFD that you do not want deleted. You just want a clinical name for the article. I'm sorry, to me that is a violation of WP:POINT and I'm calling you on that. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep apart and rewrite with more information and better references. Masturbation and Mutual masturbation and Handjob are three very distinct sexual concepts. You could roll all the sexual topics in Wikipedia under sex. If the handjob article needs better references, then add the proper tag. If you want a merge, discuss it on the article discussion page. This is for deletion of the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Has multiple verifiable, reliable, independent references. Merge recommendations are to inappropriate topics. Edison 06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The article is not about mutual masturbation, it is about masturbation of a male as a primary sexual activity, often in the context of commercial sex. I know of no better term for this--and the apparent attempts of others to find one show their similar inability. it is not "mutual" anything, it is much more specific than "sexual stimulation", and more specific than "masturbation", and much more specific than petting, and not necessarily or even usually part of foreplay. it is much too old to be a neologism. It refers to an activity--it is not just about the word. RANorton & Edison have it right. Admittedly, the article is a little incoherent, but that calls for editing, not deletion. DGG 07:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I totally agree with DGG here, a handjob is by no means an act of Mutual masturbation. wtfunkymonkey 07:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep with a weak rename and/or redirect. Obviously notable, no problems finding sources, practically requires an article in it's own right. My only problem, albiet a very small one, is with the name. It's not exactly encyclopedic, but I can't think of a better name. Perhaps a merge with other articles on Manual stimulation (sexual). wtfunkymonkey 07:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as stated before mutual masturbation and "handjob" are different things and so should not be merged. Furthermore, the article topic does not fit WP:NEO, no valid reason given to delete.--Jersey Devil 08:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - To clarify: Handjob is a colloquial term for Manual-Genital Stimulation, the term the consensus of scholarship uses to describe the act. The yet uncreated article Manual-Genital Stimulation should mention that one of several colloquial terms for the act is "handjob". Therefore, since handjob is a colloquial term for Manual-Genital Stimulation, an article titled Handjob needs to be about the term as a colloquialism. Does that clear things up? CyberAnth 09:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • No, because it's wrong, being based upon an incorrect idea of what the article should be about. An article entitled handjob should be about hand jobs. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. An article about the word (more properly, the phrase) is a dictionary article. As previously mentioned, the dictionary already has a stub article about the phrase at hand job. Encyclopaedia articles are not about the words or phrases but about the people, concepts, events, places, or things that the words or phrases denote.

      If, as you assert, manual-genital stimulation and handjob are the same thing (which requires evidence that females can be given hand jobs, given that the literature talks about manual-genital stimulation of females), then the one should redirect to the other, since two articles about a single concept are Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. The one problem with the "Use the fomal name that is used in scholarship." idea is that it is in direct opposition to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names).

      AFD is not the correct place to discuss a simple issue with an article's title. It doesn't require administrator privileges in order to rename an article, and doesn't involve deletion. Uncle G 12:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

      • Comment - If, as UncleG says, a handjob is different from Manual-Genital Stimulation, then handjob needs to be about the term as such. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is one reason why. We don't name sexual intercourse by the common name Fucking. We use the common scholarly name. A dictionary entry and an article like Fuck that covers the etymology and history of a word are very different matters. Both male and female manual-genital stimulation can be covered in Manual-genital stimulation, and colloquialisms such as "handjob" and "third base" can be cited as colloquialisms for the act. CyberAnth 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. If you insist, use a more appropriate term and redirect. Wikikiwi 10:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it simply is not a neologism, but a common word. Therefore, WP:NEO does not apply. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Fuck is an even more common word. But notice how Fuck is not about sexual intercourse but about "fuck" as a term. It uses Jesse Sheidlower's book The F Word for much of its info, which is a book about the word "fuck". Inthe same way, Handjob needs to be about the term, not Manual-Genital Stimulation. CyberAnth 12:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Once again: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Encyclopaedia articles should be about the people, concepts, events, places, and things that the titles denote. Uncle G 12:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So move the darn article to Manual-Genital Stimulation. Perfectly fine with me. But you are requesting deletion here, which is not fine with me. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why does it "need to be about the term"? You haven't given any reasoning other than a lot of, er, hand-waving. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Mutual masturbation, as it is the same thing - a handjob is just a form of mutual masturbation. with Mutual masturbation to Manual-genital stimulation. Note that Blowjob redirects to oral sex. Proto::► 12:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not the same thing, as a handjob (or Manual-Genital Stimulation for that matter) is not necessarily mutual. That said, I have no objections to merging Mutual masturbation with Handjob in a single article Manual-Genital Stimulation. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair point. I've changed my suggestion. Proto::► 13:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Deals with a subject that is patently real. Maybe the article can be improved. But it is not the same subject as mutual masturbation, although it is related. Tarinth 13:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to mutual masturbation, on a second reading it appears to deal with the subject. Tarinth 13:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, don't merge, i'ts NOT mutual masturbation. If someone would like to rename it and rewrite to look more scientifical they should discuss this at WP:RM. MaxSem 14:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep DGG said it all. Akihabara 15:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or reorganize this and related topics without deletion. The topics which need to be covered include at least:
  • Manual stimulation of the genitals by another person (a handjob)
  • Masturbation, which can be various types of stimulation of the genitals by one's self or a partner, not necessarily manual
  • Mutual masturbation, when two people are involved in masturbation. --Strait 18:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Is there any serious argument against including descriptions of all three practices under the main Masturbation article, and merging both Handjob and Mutual masturbation to it? Tevildo 20:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes. While "masturbation" can mean one person stimulating another, it is much more often associated with a person stimulating themselves only. Putting all of these topics at masturbation would be confusing. Moreover, the phenomenon of stimulating a partner is very different in many ways from that of stimulating one's self. There is a clear division of information, so it makes sense to have at least two pages. --Strait 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to mutual masturbation] Scienceman123 talk 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep more sources can be added, but the topic of the article is different from mutual masturbation, so they should not be merged. TSO1D 22:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep never let it be said I want to do away with handjobs. Seriously, I don't understand why anyone would suggest merging into another unsourced article as a corrective measure. TonyTheTiger 23:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. Ridiculous nomination. Artw 23:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep with a weak merge and redirect to Manual-Genital Stimulation, which should also cover Fingering (sexual act) and Mutual masturbation.

Sdsds 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep Usage is too widespread to use WP:NEO as justification for deletion. Caknuck 01:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, together with fingering (sexual act) to a new article manual genital stimulation. (This is on the grounds that these are not quite the same thing as mutual masturbation, which implies that each party masturbates the other; fingering/handjobs, on the other hand, can be one-way.) -- The Anome 10:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is sourced and uses of the term go back decades. Not the same as mutual masturbation. — brighterorange (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Jooler 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep definately not a neologism. Just H 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject is verified by its sources, and the word is not a neologism. A merge with mutual masturbation is inappropriate, because a hand job is typically not mutual. A merge with masturbation is inappropriate, because masturbation is typically self stimulation. Nick Graves 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The guideline (and I stress, it is a guideline, not a policy) to which CyberAnth refers is found here: WP:NEO. Although CyberAnth's arguments are valid that articles on neologisms should be properly referenced, I do not believe anyone (but Rip van Winkle) would consider "hand job" a neologism. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary the term originated at least in the 1940's.

If we define neologisms as terms coined since 1940, and subsequently apply WP:NEO then we should also call for the deletion of the following articles, as they are :

• Linoleum (1860)
• Laundromat
• Dixiecrat (1948)
• Meritocracy (1958)
• Crock pot (1960)
• Jumping the shark
• Republicrat (1985)
• Dog-whistle politics (1990)
• Soccer mom (1992)

Now I understand a certain need to police Wikipedia, but this is absurd, and perhaps an attempt at censorship.

Twas Now 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 05:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per every single user calling you out as a would-be censor. a simple glance at your user page and contributions shows a distinct WP:POINT Violation, you're going after any article about sex that is supported with anythign less than the entire Kinsey Report or the Bible. Every sexual term you think is slang you've shot as a neologism. uh oh. I bet one syllable of THAT word will get me busted, watch out. ThuranX 05:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fingering AfD comments

Comments merged from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fingering (sexual act)

• Delete. Though it is well-known, it is still a neologism. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

* Keep Comment - per discussion on handjob. This is a well-known term; hardly a nelogism. There seems to be an agenda in these recent nominations; please remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Akihabara 01:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC) (struck threw second vote portion and made into a Comment because user voted the same way above) CyberAnth 10:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC) )

• comment I think it may be better to hold off until a consensus is reached with Handjob. Adding yet another AfD discussion serves no purpose other than to dilute the discussion. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I would not at all be averse to merging this AfD into the handjob AfD, but I do not know how to do it. Does someone else? If so, please feel free. CyberAnth 02:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the idea of using the discussion on handjob. let's see what happens. --Tainter 02:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I find this whole process incomprehensible. "We should rewrite the article so that it falls under WP:NEO, so that we can delete it." It's really verging on WP:POINT. --Dhartung | Talk 04:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or merge Possible merge to mutual masturbation, but the term 'fingering' is NOT a neologism, it's been used in numerous publications (any 'about your body' book ever written that covers masturbations I'd guess), and it's a distinct act. Saying this all belongs in mutual masturbation is something of a transitive error of logic, just because fingering is a kind of manual stimulation and often used in mutual masturbation play doesn't mean it's not a distinct act. I would only caution that it should be careful to avoid wp:NOT a how-to guide, there are enough sites for that as it is. I see nothing in WP:not that would preclude this article, it is a notable concept, verifiable, researched (Kinsey study, various studies of female sexual response, ect.) and discussed, performed in bedrooms across the world on a nightly basis and in no way unencyclopedic. I hesitate to call it such, but I think there might be a possible combined WP:point and WP:not censored issue here. Wintermut3 04:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is similar to the discussion on handjob. I don't consider this term to be neologism, and thus I believe the article should stay up. Of course, it needs more work, but it shouldn't be deleted. TSO1D 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, together with handjob to a new article manual genital stimulation. -- The Anome 10:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

*Keep (as this AfD was not fully merged with the handjob AfD, I am also voting here). Comment - This is not a neologism, so WP:NEO does simply not apply. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC) (struck threw second vote portion and made into a Comment because user voted the same way above CyberAnth 10:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC) )

• Delete We don't need this type of rubbish on Wikipedia, it doesn't seem to fit into our guidelines and really all pages like this do is bring in vandalism. Its a little sickening having pages like this, and plus, still being a huge online encyclopedia, people are not going to know and even think of looking for a page like this. We don't need it.--Rasillon 10:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • comment This is not a valid reason for deleting. WP is not censored. DGG 05:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not because it's a neologism (word is decades old to my knowledge) - it's slang. Article should be deleted because it is essentially a word definition and can shifted to Wiktionary. (And I would suggest the same for handjob.) Emeraude 10:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - For defenders of this article "as is", instead of wasting your energy here, I suggest you expend it making the article worthy to keep as titled Fingering. "A topic is notable if and only "if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." "The subject of" does not equal merely mentioned in. Right now, the cold hard facts mean the article does not meet that criteria. Note: Culling together sources that merely mention or use Fingering as a colloquialism or slang term only asserts that the article is, in fact, Synthesis and Original Research. I suggest if you want to keep this article, you best expend your efforts finding sources where Fingering *AS A SPECIFIC TERM* "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other", or else concede that any adequately sourced material belongs in Manual-genital stimulation. Notability is not subjective. Meeting notability per Wikipedia policies, and only that, is what will keep this article. - CyberAnth 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• comment I disagree. It is the subject of the article (the act or concept variously called "fingering", or a particular kind of "manual genital stimulation") that needs to satisfy the quotes you emphasize ("... multiple, non-trivial published works"). It is not the case that someone needs to publish a work about "fingering AS A SPECIFIC TERM". Who could possibly write a whole work about the name of something? — brighterorange (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep - wikipedia is not about censorship so this article should be included, I would go as far to say that it isn't even a slang term RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or lets have banter} 12:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

comment Right. As far as the name goes, it is only necessary to establish that the name is the correct name & that has been clearly demonstrated. DGG 05:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep not a neologism. — brighterorange (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is an encyolpedia, not a place for learning about inapropriate sexual acts such as this one, I think we should just get rid of this article and move it to Wiktionary, because really, people are not going to expect to find pages on useless non-important sexual acts on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rasillon (talk • contribs) 17:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
  • "inapropriate sexual acts", you just made me smile :) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that there are an awful lot of articles that contain information about "inapropriate sexual acts" - you better get started with the purification. wtfunkymonkey 22:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • useless sexual acts--that is even funnier. DGG 05:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merged AfD comments

• Comment, please add all new arguments to this section, now the two AfDs have been fully merged. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• comment to all the above Please don't take this the wrong way, it's hard to say this without sounding a bit terse, but if you're going to argue for deletion, a valid argument is vital. Neologism is a valid argument, one I dissagree with, but a valid argument; "disgusting" (so are many things, subjective criteria and violates wp:not censored)"unlikely to be searched for" (so are a lot of things, that isn't a deletion criterion) are not valid deletion arguments founded in wiki policy. Wikilawyering the exact definition of "subject of a non-trivial work" is unessesary and serves no purpose. A merge would eliminate the uniqueness of the two articles. Renames with redirects would be a suitable compromise, to me, creating Manual Genital Stimulation (male) and Manual Genital Stimulation (female). Wintermut3

• Keep; wikipedia should use common English terms. Neither handjob or fingering is obscene, and both are much more common than the medical atrocity you want to redirect to.--Prosfilaes 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• merge and redirect. Both are informal usage not formal phrases for this, and the reuslt is duplication. The first major section in hand job seems to be a piece of local nonsense that has no obvious relevance outside of that one town. Nothing to do with censorship, everythign to do with building a credible encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per the WP:NEO arguments, that page says neologisms are "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." One has been in use for at least 35 years and the other at least 15, and both appear in dictionaries. The merge suggestions ignore the fact that the two articles examine two completely different acts. Also agree with Prosfilaes's point above - Wikipedia should reflect common sense. Orderinchaos78 16:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Unfortunately I feel that this AfD has been horrifically tainted with inappropriate comments on several sides of the debate. I'm afraid my original intention of closing the Fingering AfD was misapplied, it should have been closed not merged. We should have slowed down and waited for the Handjob AfD to reach a consensus, then use it as a precedent to apply to other articles. Instead we're running into another cluster-fuck discussion where it will be impossible to reach a clear consensus. Let's all calm down and make intelligent arguments that are backed up by wikipedia policy. Articles that attract vandalism (George W Bush) or some deem as "inappropriate" (Homosexuality) are not valid arguments for deletion, and neither is it a valid argument to keep an article because you heard of it before. There are policy backed arguments to use on either side of the table, let's try to debate guidelines instead of morality. -- wtfunkymonkey 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep these are the common terms used for the activities in question. Indeed, "Handjob" returned 274 hits on Nexis. However, I am agreeable to merge and redirect to Manual Genital Stimulation, or renaming, as a compromise.-- danntm ^T _C 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I just searched LexisNexis. I came up with 16 hits for handjob. Let's look at the top three most relevant links to get an idea of them.

1) "USA Today Gives 2007 Sebring a Handjob" - this is a pickup from a blog by some nobody, an entry 158 words long, where the nobody chides USA today for giving a bad review to Chrysler's Sebring. The bad review is USA Today's handjob.

2) "Best of the Week That Was" - this is another nobody blog pickup, 171 words long. The term handjob appears in a list on the blog entry of titles to other nobody blog entries.

3) "Media Bubble: PSA Bombs" - yet another nobody blog pickup, 100 words long. As above, the term handjob appears in a list on the blog entry of titles to other nobody blog entries. The title is, "Oprah Winfrey gives Hearst Tower a handjob, calls it "out of the box." Yeah, it's that kind of morning."

A peruse of the remaining 13 hits indicate the same sort of content. For anyone with LexisNexis access, here is the URL searching the database with "handjob".

CyberAnth

Explanation Please excuse me for not better explaining my search. We probably searched different databases in LexisNexis. I searched in "News, All (English, Full Text)" in LexisNexis Total Reasearch System, which is it's legal offering, while I see you searched in Academic Universe. If found hits from both blogs and newspapers like the Canberra Times and The Guardian. These hits indicate that the term is in relatively common usage to describe the act in question, and I decline to apply WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 15:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. As I see it, there are two separate issues: (a) Is manual masturbation sufficiently distinct from masturbation in general to deserve its own article? (b) Are male (Handjob) and female (Fingering (sexual act)) manual masturbation sufficiently different from each other to deserve their own articles? I would answer "No" to both questions, and support a merge of both disputed articles into Masturbation. However, I would also regard answering "Yes" to (a) and "No" to (b), and merging the two disputed articles into a new one, Manual masturbation, to be an acceptable solution. Tevildo 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced. Fingering can be a form of masturbation, but is not always. The term fingering also has some sociolinguistic significance. An article separate from masturbation concerning the term and the act may thus be justified. However, with no sources, this article is unverified and ought to be deleted. Nick Graves 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from CyberAnth

Someone above said, "Who could possibly write a whole work about the name of something?"

Fact is, articles constantly appear in various journals of linguistics (and related disciplines) that trace the origins, usages, and meanings of slang words, neologisms, and the like.

An entire book was written about the word "Fuck", as a word. See Jesse Sheidlower, The F Word ISBN 0-375-70634-8. The WP article Fuck is a nice example of an article about the word "Fuck" as a word, although it is duplicated in History of the word "fuck".

Do research with a University library's databases.

I searched with EBSCO with <- handjob -> and found two articles - both about Punk rock that mentioned the band Midget Handjob.

I then searched EBSCO with <- fingering AND sexual -> and then <- fingering AND sex ->. Nothing came up.

I then searched it with <- genital stimulation NOT self-stimulation NOT masturbation ->. 17 articles.

I then did with JSTOR what I did with EBSCO above. Keep in mind these are two of the most major databases of academic journals in English in the world.

<- handjob -> brought 2 results. Article #1 was about college student behaviors. It quoted a student using the word "handjob" as a slang term. Article #2 was a study of prostitutes. It quoted a prostitute using the word "handjob" as a slang term.

<- genital stimulation -> brought 275 articles.

The references cited in Handjob are from articles with prostitution as their subject, and in that context the slang word handjob would of course appear. No additional comment needed here.

Actually, I will. The references are themselves an argument for treating handjob as a neologism, a slang word, in an article about it as such, because that is exactly how it is treated in the references.

Fingering (sexual act) does not have any references.

Miriam-Webster Dictionary is considered by Wikipedia policy, along with the Oxford dictionary, to be the most authoritative.

Handjob does not appear in the Miriam-Webster Dictionary, see here. Neither does hand job, see here.

Handjob or hand job does appear in other non-slang dictionaries. The definitions all say "a slang word for masturbation." And it appears in every slang dictionary I checked.

Fingering turns up no specific sexual definition in Miriam-Webster, see here, nor any other one I checked.

Fingering as a sexual act appeared in several slang dictionaries I checked.

"Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities" (WP:NEO).

Yes indeed, handjob and fingering are certainly "used widely or within certain communities". The policy says that is not enough.

It might be argued, however, that handjob and fingering have been around for 20 - 40 years, so that is not "recent'. The objection is irrelevant. Neither are in any dictionary except as a slang word. This means they have not been around long enough to move from the slang to regular lexicon of any reliable source.

Articles titled "Fingering (sexual)" and "Handjob" need to be like Fuck, i.e., about the word, its etymology, history, etc.

The acts the slang terms denote should be covered in Genital stimulation. Oral sex, manual-genital stimulation, and masturbation should all have coverage in that one article.

Specifically, Genital stimulation needs to be created. Material in Handjob, Fingering (sexual act), oral sex, and masturbation needs to be incorporated there, and then Handjob and Fingering (sexual act) deleted for the reasons outlined above.

CyberAnth 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment CyberAnth: creating one singular topic for ALL genital stimulation isn't a viable solution in my opinion. That would lump sex, oral sex, masturbation, mutual masturbation, electro-gential stimulation and more that I probably can't think of right now into a topic that would get so big it'd need to be spun off into seperate topics immediately or shortly after creation. I think that 'manual genital stimulation (female) and' 'manual genital stimulation (male)' might be more appropriate topics, but the use of a clinical neologism invented as a pure function of wiki categorization isn't for me as valid as using the common colloquial term. For reasons described above, mutual masturbation is not equivilent to manual genital stimulation (fingering and handjobs if you will :P) or masturbation, they are distinct acts. Masturbation is self-induced sexual arousal and climax, whether it's manual or not (IE it is possible to masturbate without actual manual stimulation, IE by shower head or vibrator) and mutual masturbation is not equivilent to genital stimulation in that it involves both partners masturbating each other simultainiously (in the same way the 69 position is distinct in meaning from oral sex). In response to the first AfD, a handjob is identical in meaning to male manual genital stimulation, but "fingering" is a distinct activity, seperated from other methods of female manual genital stimulation. Lumping dissimular articles into a single polyglot whole serves no identifiable purpose in my opinion, and would be akin to combining sex, anal sex and oral sex into a single topic in terms of the dissolution of unique articles for distinct acts. Wintermut3 17:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If the articles were just stubs I could see merging them, but when medium sized articles get merged it creates more problems than it solves. I get redirected to a page and have to search the page until I find what I am looking for, never sure if I am at the correct page until I find (or don't find) what I came for. Header redirects: Sex#Masturbation work only as long as the header names remain unchanged, which isn't long. Each of these articles already has its own set of external links and usage sections. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. CyberAnth writes: "The acts the slang terms denote should be covered in Genital stimulation. Oral sex, manual-genital stimulation, and masturbation should all have coverage in that one article." This really sums up the entire argument, doesn't it? You want to roll everything into one article. You are not arguing that the topics are not valid. You are arguing for a move or a merge. This is not what AFD is for; this is a bad-faith nomination, and should be treated accordingly.

On a more diplomatic note, it is very disappointing that you did not look at this problem and think in a collaborative manner. An appropriate way to handle the problem that you see would be to start at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexuality and ask, "Is there any way we can improve these articles? I have some ideas about reorganizing them." You didn't do that, you came up with an argument based entirely on the articles' titles and not their content, and now you're trying to reach consensus on the basis of that wholly inappropriate argument, not giving an inch, even though you have long since conceded that the content belongs on Wikipedia. You just don't like the article name. Please don't waste people's time like this in the future. It's very frustrating to deal with the articles that truly do not belong. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with an article entitled "handjob", but an article as such needs to be about the slang term, as with fuck. Obviously, some people are not willing to give an inch to concede this and are highly connected to Handjob as presently constituted. CyberAnth 00:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That simply makes no sense whatsoever and has absolutely no basis in policy. If the topic itself exists and meets WP:V and WP:RS, which hand jobs -- manual manipulation of the penis -- certainly does, then naming should be per naming conventions and at the "most common name", not at some made-up supercategory. Again, you are arguing that the article should be written such that it must be deleted, which is ridiculous, and basically bad faith. With your newest batch of noms, well, you're showing that collaborative processes are not in your kitbag. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all - distinct terms in common usage. Johntex\^talk 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all - more tiresome noms Albatross2147 00:10, 7 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. —Cryptic 04:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ren-raw chen

Ren-raw chen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Does not seem any more notable than your average college professor. Appears to be self-written. --Infrangible 01:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, appears to be vanity, certainly doesn't read very encyclopaedically. Mallanox 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy. Clearly an autobiographical article. --Dennisthe2 02:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - autobiography of a non-notable person. MER-C 03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Ordinary university teacher; does not satisfy relevant section of WP:BIO i.e. The professor test -- "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included." Emeraude 13:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete He has published books (the only thing that could make this notable, but it is autobiographical (delete), and there isn't anything in the article verifying anything (delete). --Адам12901 ^Talk 21:34, 6 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Woodhams

Stephen Woodhams (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Nom for del'n, but withhold vote pending better perspective. GTest:

331 of about 664 for "Stephen Woodhams"

Sounds closer to notability as article on his business than on him; such prizes are not like Nobels or Pulitzers, but usually for a trade to practice self-congratulation, and duly ignored by outsiders (at the least) after the winners' 15 minutes of fame; what are stds for notability in this area? (Of course self- or fan- promotion is not ground for deletion if material can be reworked -- but what is there to say beyond this ad-brochure-like copy, whether biz or bio?)
--Jerzy•t 07:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Notable gardener, who has won serious recognition, and author. (For the information of non-UK readers, Medals awarded at the Chelsea Flower Show are not trade self-congratulation prizes but prestigious awards made annually. The Chelsea Show is one of the leading such events in the world - read the article to see its importance.) Emeraude 13:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Careless of me to ignore the role of gardening in English culture; i should think it that tho not a Pulitzer, this would be something like winning the Super Bowel. Authors are a dime a dozen, but sometime their books and their own notabilities are eval'd on AfD by looking at Amazon sales-ranks. Could someone with a grasp of Amazon UK, & what those ranks would mean, undertake that investigation?
    --Jerzy•t 21:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    
• Neutral I agree with the nomination that the notability is divided between the business and the man, and individually each is really weak; collectively the notability is marginal. What about those awards? Trivial or not? I have no idea sitting here on the left-coast of the colonies -- maybe the prestige should be mentioned in the article. Perhaps a rewrite could explain why he is notable other than the notability of his clients. I think that this is a weakness of the Wikipedia system as I understand it; there is no middle ground between keep (and forget) and delete. Is this true? --Kevin Murray 18:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD can at least arrive at a decision to merge, &/or to refer to WP:Cleanup, and other maint tags might apply. (IMO a merge during AfD would usually disrespect the process, and merging after it was discussed on AfD with little approval would be take more discussion or unusually convincing arguments, but in general, AfD is only one tool, and many, many measures are available in parallel with, or independent of, it. I may be biased in even considering that the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion debate for on Nalgene and the results it drove could be instructive, but weigh in the fact that the first few votes were stronglysolidly and IIRC vehemently Del.)
    --Jerzy•t 21:28 & 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    
  • It should also be borne in mind that ideally an AfD Del vote expresses the view that the topic named is inherently unencyclopedic, on the logic that otherwise reducing it to a stub would be appropriate. E.g., if the article reads like an ad, the probem is not that, but (possibly) that the thing advertised is either non-notable or non-verifiable. I'd guess that the standards for what constitutes consensus to delete reflects some kind of a point of balance between the collective outrage levels of the deletionists and of the inclusionists among dedicated editors. But the presumption of keep-worthiness is IMO a reflection of the options that remain after a de facto decision to keep, including the potential for saying "this hasn't improved since the last two deletion debates, so can those who said it was redeemable still say so with a straight face?" If you think this on a probably notable topic, so that the article is likely to be sufficiently improvable, IMO you should vote "keep" without needing to be sure, and if you're wrong, we'll eventually figure that out.
    --Jerzy•t 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Award winning gardener at the largest flower show in Britain. Also works have been published. Mallanox 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep only after replacement of COPYVIO content The Chelsea Flower Show is a contest with substantial significance in British culture. It may well be the most important gardening show in the world. Being a multiple gold and silver winner here seems to be sufficient encyclopedic notability as a gardener. However, the current article content appears to be mainly a copyright violation of http://www.woodhams.co.uk/ {see text pulled up through "Key Achievements". Bwithh 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep He is a notable gardener. His books are widely held in libraries, and have been translated into Dutch, German and Spanish. I agree the article should be cleaned up. --
• Keep Anyone who competes at the top of tier of their sport or area of interest is inherently notable. Assuming good faith on the references, it would appear reliable and supported by evidence. Tarinth 13:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough if won a british national competition Alf photoman 20:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep-Notable enough for the awards. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:21, 2 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brecon VHF-transmitter (2nd nomination)

Brecon VHF-transmitter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Relisted following lack of consensus in mass deletion. Neither the article, nor the link attached, gives any indication what makes it notable: "The station is slightly unusual in that the antennas are mounted on wooden poles instead of the more usual steel lattice mast". From all indications, it's a plain boring bunch of antennae mounted on wooden poles. If anyone can indicate why this mast is special, please improve this year-old stub. Otherwise, there is ample precedence for deleting this stub about something about as notable as a telegraph pole. Ohconfucius 02:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• delete. As a ham radio operator, there is novelty in that they use wooden mast instead of steel mast, but as is amazingly demonstrated, WP:ILIKEIT fails in the face of WP:N. Unless there's something else notable about this transmitter facility, it should not be here. --Dennisthe2 02:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —EdGl 02:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Mallanox 02:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as nothing in the article justifies its notability, and little information about the facility is provided. --SYCTHOS^talk 03:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable transmitter. JIP | Talk 07:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete-whats so special about a wood pole? --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "slighty unusual" <> notable. Wikinfo, perhaps? Guy (Help!) 15:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's just of one a thousand or so 'transposer' type relay stations in the UK. Let's keep the main broadcast and microwave sites, which form most of the entries in Category:UK transmitter sites and which do have an interesting history, and delete the relatively few articles about unremarkable relay stations like this one. Harumphy 10:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Please see Category talk:UK transmitter sites. Harumphy 13:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Harumphy. Chillysnow 21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I have a feeling that this installation could be notable for its usage. However it is not clear that my guess is correct from the article as written. So unless some assertion of notability is made it needs to go. Vegaswikian 22:19, 5 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cezar Kurti

Cezar Kurti (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Article on a translator. May be notable but fails the Google test, created by what is probably a member of the subject's family. Note Geogre's First Law (incorrect capitalisation). Guy (Help!) 23:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This nomination is irresponsible nonsense. Speculation about who created this is irrelevant and clearly guesswork. What Google test? What were the results? What the heck does capitalization have to do with notability and verifiability? It appears that the nominator should gain some experience before judging other peoples contributions. --Kevin Murray 19:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Google test, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Marinkurti (talk · contribs). I think that answers your aggressive assertions concerns. Oh and please don't accuse admins of "irresponsible nonsense" when they bring contested speedies to AfD. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Although it may have been added by a member of his family, WP:Conflict of interest states that this should not be used as the single criterion for deletion, "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to." The other policies being encyclopediac interest, NPOV, etc. And it is advised under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions that the Google Test alone not be used. I'm not used to these policies, so I go and read them each time, and it appears that this is nominated based upon Conflict of interest, which says that the editor is "irrelevant so long as" the article is otherwise worthy, and that the Google test should not stand alone. The capitalization should be corrected, but I don't understand that it is a cause for deletion. This is an interesting guy, fairly well known, if in an obscure field. As I said, I didn't know him by name, but the linguists I know are thrilled about this dude, the guy who translated Antony and Cleopatra into Albanian, and courtesy of Wikipedia, I intend to name drop Kurti ASAP. If I misunderstand any of these policies on arguments to avoid, and conflict of interest please let me know. I think this AfD could and should be closed though. KP Botany 20:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• comment The language was excessive, but the comment "probably created by a member of the subject's family" is in fact out of order, because it is purely negative speculation. It could also be said that originally suggesting for deletion on the basis of unfamiliarity alone is an incorrect use of the WP procedure. I'd think one would be specially careful with a relatively lesser-known language. DGG 05:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• No vote. I have wikified the article a bit. However I cannot vote since I am not Albanian, nor do I speak Albanian (and I guess this applies to the majority of Wikipedians), so I do not feel myself qualified to pass a judgement. In the spirit of Countering systemic bias I would urge everyone not to be hasty, and not to make quick delete votes just because you have never heard of this person or because Google does not show up much on him. Please note that the article does make claims that he is an important and notable author/translator in the history of Albanian literature. It is true on the other hand that there are (as yet) no good sources. However not being Albanian and not knowing Albanian myself I cannot judge, hence no vote. -- Ekjon Lok 15:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment translated a dozen books, among them Dante's, into Albanian. I don't want to pass a judgment on the notability of this Alf photoman 17:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep because the article seems to assert notability on the basis of the professor test, but the article needs better sourcing. Tarinth 18:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Is there and article on him in sq:? Caknuck 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral: the only source currently linked appears to be the subject's own website. Additional reliable sources need to be added. The subject seems notable on the surface, but only if WP:V can back up some of the assertions in the article. I'll see what I can find and revisit this before closure. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep If his textbook has been used in university courses (per the last sentence), he passes WP:PROF. Badly needs outside sourcing but appears to be notable based on information included in article. Eluchil404 18:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 02:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, notable life experience, though would like to see sources to back this up. Translators of books are nearly as instrumental in the meanings held in books as the authors so really do belong on Wikipedia. Mallanox 02:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep asserts notability in Albainan literature. --Infrangible 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep , with 1.270 ghits there is got to be somethiong .... Alf photoman 20:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep He's fairly well known for his translations into Albanian of Shakespeare's Sonnets and Antony and Cleopatra--although I could not have told you his name. Failed the google test? Shame on google, then. Not everything worth knowing is on the web. Professor Kurti (title on article should be Cezar Kurti) is respectably famous among translators, lovers of Shakespeare and academia--Western academia. Not everyone can translate Antoni Dhe Kleopatra (ISBN: 0971793832) into Albanian. The article needs work, but it belongs--speedy keep, in fact. KP Botany 21:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article describes quite a noteable person, so if we assume good faith there is no reason to delete the article. In addition, the fact that Amazon carries two books by him (both Albanian language books), and the independent recognition of his translation work in this thread are both evidence that the description in the article is accurate, and, therefore, noteable. Enuja 02:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Very notable in academic circles! Forget about Google! Cleo123 08:45, 6 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. —Cryptic 04:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Rhea

Joseph Rhea (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Nomination for deletion No assertion of encyclopedic notability as far as I can tell. Subject is a 18th century colonial churchman. Article was created by new account User:Foleyef. The article mentions that the history of the Rheas is outlined in "The Descendants of Rev. Joseph Rhea of Ireland" 1996 by Dr. Edward F. Foley. Mr. Foley is described as "an amateur historian and a member of genealogical societies in South Carolina and Tennessee... [who is] married into the Rhea clan" in this link. Mr. Foley's genealogical project is no doubt a fine and well-intentioned one, but unfortunately there isn't sufficient assertion of encyclopedic notability as the article stands at the moment for inclusion in Wikipedia, I believe. Fails WP:BIO. (Now an article about Joseph's son, John Rhea may well be more viable). Bwithh 02:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with nominator, Delete. Mallanox 02:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. May be a copyvio. MER-C 03:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete for reasons above  ::mikmt 04:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This is clearly a conflict of interest, as Foleyef can be rearranged to E.F. Foley or Edward F. Foley. This is also patent original research from there. «TTV»(talk|contribs|email) 19:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if wikified and notability asserted by sources Alf photoman 20:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• He doesn't appear in either the National Cyclopedia of American Biography or the Dictionary of American Biography. Delete, I'm afraid. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All that without any published sources? But, fine to keep per Alf photoman. KP Botany 22:35, 2 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] El stuffo

El stuffo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

It seems that I tagged this article for notability around seven months ago; since then, there's been no improvement. I would prod it, but, when I came across it again today, I found an incomplete afd nom, so I dediced (er, make that decided) to complete it. Anyways, delete per WP:NOT and WP:V. Picaroon 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. No context, no actual (good) explanation of the definition of the term, and what little there is...well, we're not a dictionary. Add on to that the issue of WP:CRYSTAL: speculation that it will migrate to other cities. --Dennisthe2 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Format change. Doh! --Dennisthe2 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as neologism. Phrases such as "used only in" and "high school fad" throw away the word's notability. In addition, "high school fad" brings up the guideline (in progress) WP:SCHOOL. --SYCTHOS^talk 03:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  I don't see anything related to this in WP:SCHOOL. Am I missing it, or do you mean another page? Picaroon 21:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO, likely WP:NFT. Fan-1967 04:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sounds like nonsense. Wikikiwi 10:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -used only in one town? not notable. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Even if the word were to spread as "other Anglo-Spanish words that have been created in Southern Spain" have not (according to the quote in the article), it would become a Spanish word, and should be a in a Spanish dictionary, not an English Encylopedia. It does seem like a good start to an article, and I wish it were, but it simply violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT. Enuja 02:50, 5 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. —Cryptic 04:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transmitter Truc de Fortunio

Transmitter Truc de Fortunio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Salbert Transmission Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

TV Tower Mont du Chat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Transmitter Saint Pern (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Medium Wave Transmitter Romainville (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Contested prod by JYolkowski with the comments "cleanup is done by editing or merging, not deleting". However, there is nothing in these stubs which in any way suggests (whether in terms of height or construction) that these are but very pedestrian and uninteresting structures. The exception is Mont du Chat claims to have "very special design. It consists of a concrete tower, which is surrounded by a lattice tower", but does not explain why this construction is so special. Another editor has used the {{local|community}} tag on it. I say "Yawn". There is ample precedence for deletion of this collection of useless stubs. Improve or delete. Ohconfucius 03:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. MER-C 04:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The tower at Mont du Chat, in Savoy, may be viewed in the article "Les relais hertziens", it does not appear exceptional, just one of a common radio tower type. The Salbert Transmission Tower is more interesting from an architectural point of view. Image at "Salbert Transmission Tower". My problem is that this AfD is just for four of a large class of articles that detail radio masts, see Category:Guyed masts and Category:Mast stubs, most of the articles are at present of the short type like these five, but some are quite detailed like Swisscom-Sendeturm St. Chrischona which is on the request for deletion list of 29 December. I find these infinitely more valuable than stubs about individual Eurovision song titles, but I would classify them similarly, namely of particular interest to a small group of widely geographically separated individuals. As such I would question the "of local interest only" tag. In many ways they might be compared to the articles about individual botanical and zoological species. Now rather than piecemeal pick at these radio tower articles, it might be appropriate to ask those interested to develop guidelines for inclusion of individual tower articles, as opposed to general articles like maybe, Radio Towers of France, or maybe by mountain range Radio Towers of the Pyrenees. The general articles could have tables that provide the information now provided by these stubs, and where a full article is appropriate, say like Swisscom-Sendeturm St. Chrischona, then they could provide a link. --Bejnar 18:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The continued push to cleanup appears to be flushing out a good, sensible debate, but we have yet to hear from those who planted the stubs. Of course, views of those creators are welcome, but they must only help shape and not override wikipedia's policies. I have tried to make my approach and justifications clear, and I had hoped that my essay would help further that understanding. I felt that these masts (above) were slightly different from those delete before en masse in that they are not the huge American monsters, and that someone clearly opposed their deletion per WP:PROD, so I took the liberty of listing them separately. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't hold me responsible for the [over]zealous efforts of other editors wanting to delete all masts in an undiscriminating manner. I would urge you to concentrate discussion on the deletions proposed here. Ohconfucius 02:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• comment Yes, if those who created the articles would say in the first place what was notable, as Bejnar has just done, these continual discussions would not be necessary. I do not think there would be objection to keeping articles about structures that can be shown to be of particular interest by outside documentation. So I'd say

relist the Salbert tower for expansion, and delete the others. DGG 05:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all. If someone can assert that the Salbert Transmission Tower is notable, in the article, before this discussion closes then it can be kept. Otherwise it can be recreated with a new article that asserts its notability. Vegaswikian 22:25, 5 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, that'll do. WP:SNOW. Proto::► 12:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people

Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Bundling these three dealings by Hitler with particular Jews under the title Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people is a clear case of Original Research and therefor does not belong in Wikipedia. As one can see in the reference list none of the sources deal with contacts of Hitler with Jews in general. The three dealings should be and probably are included in the respective biography articles, the interaction with the doctor may also be included under possible sources for Hitler's antisemitism. The latter is also a clear secondary focus of the article. This lack of focus is another reason to delete it. gidonb 03:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above gidonb 03:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:OR and because this topic is covered elsewhere. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This never needed to exist.--CJ King 03:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What next? It's full of red links for the supposed Jews he had contact with (do they deserve articles just because they were Hitler's alleged dentist/shoe-shine-boy/chimney-sweep/whatnots etc?) It's weirdly prurient. Do all the Jews killed in the Holocaust get to be in it? How about all the theories about Hitler having a Jewish ancestor, does that also count as him having "contact" with Jewish people? How about a new series on Adolf Hitler's contacts with gypsies, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Italian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Russian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with retarded people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with murderers this can go on forever, and then we can even create Category:Adolf Hitler's contacts with people. IZAK 03:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  For anyone reading the article and wondering what IZAK is talking about, it takes a bit of review of the history of the article in question. Although the huge redlinks that initially spurred some of IZAK's remarks are no longer evident in the article, they're painfully visible just 24 hours before this AfD was opened. The fact that they're no longer there should not be construed as a rationale for dismissing his opinion, since red links themselves are not the core of his opposition. Any further defense of IZAK's position I'll leave in his capable hands.  :-) Tomer^talk 05:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom, Non-encyclopedic.--Leflyman^Talk 04:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom --Lukobe 05:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - put any relevant info in individual biographies, per the nom, if it's not already there. Quack 688 05:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as I've outlined in my comments here. Tomer^talk 05:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 08:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per all the above.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Beit Or 10:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SNOW =). eh... Delete. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 11:10, 2 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 Ashes series

2009 Ashes series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Crystalballing - this is for an event that will take place in 2009; my only reservation is that since this is a "regular event", but the only real detail is that it will happen in England; but would this open the door to 2011, 2013, etc. articles being created? SkierRMH 03:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Crystalballing. TJ Spyke 03:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, despite WP:+1. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No crystalballing has occurred... yet. If and when it happens it can be reverted or posted to AfD again. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 04:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It doesn't have much content now (only the change in venue, at least that's sourced), but I'd rather have the article infrastructure in place. Note that the current Ashes series finishes in four days time - once it's over with, I think we'll see a few more reputable cricket publications turn their attention to the next series. (I think it passes crystal ball, btw - "notable and almost certain to take place").Quack 688 06:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- I agree with Quack. Reyk _YO! 09:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Major series that is only two years away (and this is the next Ashes series). Greg Grahame 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - by the time the AFD discussion closes, this will be the next contest. Meets WP:CRYSTAL, as event is notable, certain to take place, and preparations are under way, as evidenced by the venue list. Eludium-q36 18:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:Crystal because all it is reporting right now is the list of venues (which has been signed). SirFozzie 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep we've got an article on the 2011 Cricket World Cup, this article is not crystal-balling and thus doing no harm. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As above. Hohohob 02:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and useful placeholder which will be expanded shortly I'm sure. —Moondyne 01:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's going 99.9% likely to happen, so it's not Crystal Balling. No reason to delete otherwise. Just H 20:49, 6 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. - Keep arguments fail to show how article does pass WP:WEB, instead stating that it does without ever showing why. Proto::► 11:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GuildCafe (2nd nomination)

GuildCafe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

A prior "no consensus" closure was overturned at deletion review for lack of evidence that the subject meets WP:WEB and is now back for discussion of possible sourcing for this article. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

• Delete, lack of reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 2.0. Another "hyped" brand-new website with little to no traffic. I don't care how many or how few sources it has, if I go to a social network or forum website and see 28 active users on their forums, it is clearly not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Including the phrase "Gaming 2.0" in the article does not help its cause.--- RockMFR 03:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• The article doesn't describe it as a forum, so I don't know what the forum's activity level (a subcomponent of the site) has to do with anything.

• No, but thats an indication of the notability level of the site. Were a site truly notable you'd see a lot more than 28 active members on a forum that is part of it.--Crossmr 07:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• The main problem that I see is that this site is not notable, no matter how much media coverage it got. Wikipedia is not a mirror of AP/Reuters/etc- every story and subject that gets media coverage is not inherently notable (this is where WP:N really fails in my opinion). Is the subject worthy of the coverage it received? No, it's not. The sources that covered it are extremely questionable in this case. They all merely re-worded or expanded upon information in the press releases. Like most gaming news websites, they pick up any crap story they can get. --- RockMFR 18:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete 2.0 ^BETA! - no evidence from reliable sources that the site meets WP:WEB. MER-C 04:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Still no non-trivial coverage being evidenced here. Until it can be shown to meet WP:WEB this doesn't belong here.--Crossmr 05:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep What in particular is the objection to the sources? For example http://www.gamedailyxl.com/2006/12/22/systemaddict-digital-identity/ is America Online's gaming publication; might be a blog-style format, but it is a publication with editorial control that would seem to meet WP:RS. This sort of presentation is fairly typical within the gaming media. Tarinth 13:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: founded on 21 September 2006. You can't be sure if it will pass even 1-year test, not 25-or-100-years ones. MaxSem 14:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Tarinth 14:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Tarinth. I looked at the references and read through the referenced articles. For the most part they appear to be independent of the subject and the discussions are non-trivial. I think that there is some confusion in MaxSem's premise, since the company was renamed recently. I think that evaluators are confusing the word "notable" with "prominent." This appears to meet the WP guidelines for being notable and the references are sound. --Kevin Murray 17:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  The references cited are blogs, forums or rehashes of the press release. None of those satisfy WP:WEB.--Crossmr 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I see good references, satisfying WP:WEB. — brighterorange (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  Which good references would those be? This was an issue with the original discussion and there were claims of good references, but none of them have actually been cited.--Crossmr 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I'm the original author of the article, although it has been crufted out quite a bit since I wrote it. Still, the reason I wrote it is that it is a video game development company founded by a notable person, Jon Radoff, who wrote one of the first MMORPGs, and because I found reliable sources to write the article. For example, Gamasutra, the most respectable online video game publication. More: Gamespot, Gamedaily, Next Generation. Note that this company is not just a social networking service, they are also developing video games themselves. [6] JACOPLANE • 2007-01-2 19:24

  and each one of those are rehashes of the press release which fails WP:WEB in terms of notability. There hasn't been any non-trivial coverage shown per the guidelines which indicates this website is remotely notable.--Crossmr 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Like stated, when I wrote the article I was not even aware there was going to be a website related with the company. I wrote an arcicle about a video game development company started by a notable person. The fact that they also have a website would not warrant an article on its own, and if that was all that is there to this company I would certainly agree that WP:WEB would apply, but it's not the case. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-3 02:44

Unfortunately we're discussing the article as it is now, not how you intended it when it created. The article focuses solely on the website with a trivial mention of its past and creator. That is what the discussion has to be based on unless you have an alternate version of the article to put forth which meets notability and verifiability guidelines.--Crossmr 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

For the moment I've cleaned up the sources somewhat. I'll try to improve the article somewhat more in the following days. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-4 03:34

Cleaning them up and how they are listed is not the issue. Its what they are. No matter how they're listed, displayed or organized, it doesn't change the fact that they don't qualify as multiple non-trivial mentions.--Crossmr 04:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed that it would make a difference. Since this AfD is mainly about the sources I just cleaned them up, nothing more, nothing less. We clearly disagree about the viability of these sources, but I just wanted to say I've cleaned them up and will be improving the article over the coming days. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-4 04:57

The AfD is mainly about the notability, and the lack of sources which speak to that. Its not about the way the sources are displayed on the page. While reprints of the press release are reliable, they do not establish notability per WP:WEB. Its quite clear about that. --Crossmr 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Lack of non-trivial sources. All the references read like press releases. Whispering 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Plenty of references, but no actual claims of notability. I might be inclined to keep if they had a product or something. --Alan Au 06:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Besides their social networking stuff they have announced that they are working on the GuildCafe Platform, which will be middleware (something like RenderWare, but then for MMORPGs). I agree that the article will be better once more information on that product becomes available. Regarding notability, the founder (Jon Radoff) is notable enough, which is why I felt this article was warranted when I originally wrote it. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-4 07:04

• If you want to address it as a business, WP:CORP covers notability for that, and has similar criteria which this company still doesn't meet. If it ever gains that notability I have no problem with it being here, but right now it just does not have it.--Crossmr 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Gamers.com, Gamasutra, and others are established Video Gaming News Sites. Just because its news that only certain people are interested in doesn't make it trivial. JN322 14:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  And those are all just rehashes of the press release which per WP:WEB makes them trivial coverage. It doesn't matter who is or isn't interested in the website, there have been no sources provided which satisfy that criteria.--Crossmr 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  Well not all of them. GameDaily's coverage for example is more indepth. (GameDaily is AOL's video game industry news site). JACOPLANE • 2007-01-4 16:54

  Which is a single non-trivial item. The notability guidelines require multiple non-trivial coverage. Find another example of in depth non-trivial coverage and I'll happily withdraw the AfD.--Crossmr 20:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  And even this is again a blog. In depth or not. Gamedaily does publish stories in a non-blog form and in fact Steve Wong has written articles as such [7]. It being relegated to his blog indicates to me that it wasn't even notable enough for regular coverage.--Crossmr 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the reason that it is in blog format is because it is less notable, but because the article (appraisal of another games website) isn't typical of what GameDaily would publish. Infomanager 21:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And do you have something to back that up? You've basically made my point for me. This isn't something Gamedaily covers, so just because one of their staff have used their professional blog to write about it doesn't lend any credibility to it. The reason blogs can't be used as a reliable source for information is the lack of editorial oversight and the fact that its a self-published source. Do we have any evidence that Gamedaily approves what they can write in their blogs and edits them? If not, the blog is not only useless to gauge notability its useless as a reliable source.--Crossmr 03:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken those sources are able to choose to publish a press release or not. The fact that they have chosen to do so would indicate to me that people in the field feel it is newsworthy. Is it any different than news organizations getting news from the AP? Although obviously on a smaller scale.JN322 12:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The notability guidelines specifically address reprints of the press release. It makes no exception for how many or who reprints the press release. The only possibly exception I might see (which still isn't addressed by the guidelines) in that was if a major print magazine actually devoted valuable unpaid space to reprinting the press release and commenting on it/expanding on it. Otherwise it costs a website next to nothing to tack up their press release. Which is why its not considered for notability.--Crossmr 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I can see how references 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 could be considered trivial, however 5 is an interview by Game Daily (12th hit in Google search for "game news") with the GuildCafe's founder. 7 compares GuildCafe to other MMO/Game social networking sites by O'Reilly (I certainly run into O'Reilly online and in print regularly), if I was to come to this article not having read it before and compared it to WP:WEB I would say it barely meets the guidelines - but barely is good enough as long as the article is added too as more information becomes public. All references correct at the time and date of this comment. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  The O'Reilly mention is trivial. It mentions it only in passing and doesn't actually cover the site, it simply lists it as one of many examples. This is not in depth coverage of the topic as required by the notability guidelines, its also a blog, whether that blog is is on a notable site is immaterial unless the blog is used to source information about the writer or their product.--Crossmr 20:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Meets WP:WEB & WP:RS #1. References #4 and #5 (Next-Generation and GameDaily) are considered among the best videogame sources in the industry. I feel that they are both reliable sources. GameDaily's article is in-depth and covers the website extensively; the reason that is in blog format is because it is an appraisal of another website. Next-Generation got its information from the press release but they are notoriously strict with what they cover (and usually only write 4-5 stories a day). If this got attention, that is enough for me. Infomanager 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  So you admit its a rehash of the press release. WP:WEB clearly indicates that does not give a site notability. It makes no exception for who carries the press release. This is basically the same thing which occurred in the last AfD. Several individuals claiming coverage was notable when the guideline clearly indicates that it is not. You can call the sky green all day, but in the end its still blue. The guideline clearly states that kind of coverage is not acceptable to indicate a site is notable, regardless of how picky you claim the site is. The simple fact that you have to make your argument not on the coverage of the site, but the site which ran the non-notable coverage indicates how non-notable this site is.--Crossmr 03:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  Only Next-Generation got the information from "rehashing" the press release. Gamedaily's article is all their own writing. Brendan Alcorn 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  Gamedaily's article is a blog posting. There is no assertion of editorial oversight per WP:RS#Non-scholarly_sources which doesn't make this a particularly reliable source, as well WP:RS#Self-published_sources addresses this. If the topic he was writing about in his blog was truly notable and worth reporting it would have been done. As this is the sole claim to non-trivial coverage I don't see that happening here.--Crossmr 07:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per infomanager and Tarinth. Meets WP:WEB, WP:RS. Alan Shatte 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  Which they've been continually shown not to. There hasn't been a single source shown which is non-trivial coverage.--Crossmr 03:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  An entire article (Gamedaily) is non-trivial coverage and it is a reliable source. Brendan Alcorn 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral on the strength of the Gamedaily coverage. However, WP:WEB does require multiple non-trivial sources and this article only has one. Brendan Alcorn 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

QuestionWouldn't the gamedaily coverage (it being a part of AOL) it being a well-known of electronic publication cause this to fall under WP:WEB #3?JN322 06:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete have one non-trivial source at best. This article should be improved and resubmitted though. Paul D. Meehan 05:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Greeves 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  This isn't a vote, its a discussion, WP:ILIKEIT#Just_a_vote. Do you have a reason you feel the article should be kept?--Crossmr 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*Keep - GameDaily article passes WP:RS, WP:WEB met per Next-Generation and GameDaily Joel Jimenez 05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Whats your basis for Gamedaily passing WP:RS? Where is the assertion of editorial oversight? As well its already shown that Next-Gen is a rehash of the press release which specifically doesn't pass WP:WEB. At best they have a very tenuous connection to one piece of coverage which may be non-trivial. The fact that no one else has covered in in depth takes away from the reliability of the Gamedaily blog posting (which is addressed in WP:RS)--Crossmr 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  GameDaily XL predominantly bears the GameDaily name. Any questionable content that appears there would reflect poorly on the website as a whole, not just the blog. The same editors contribute to both domains. I see this more of a ps3.ign.com and ps2.ign.com thing than ign.com and totally-unrelated-website.com. Joel Jimenez 04:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  That is your assumption. They may say "Post whatever you want so long as you don't do anything illegal or say anything that could get us in trouble". I see nothing there that would evidence that their letting any particular blog posting stand is an endorsement of that blog posting. WP:RS requires an assertion of editorial oversight not a conclusion drawn by an editor. WP:RS also states that any self-published material not covered by other sources is much less reliable. Also AfD is not a vote, summarizing vote counts is not appropriate.--Crossmr 04:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  And that is your assumption! We don't know which of us is right. Because the same editors contribute to both websites you can make a decent argument for oversight. Further, this is not self-published so I'm not sure why you brought this up. Joel Jimenez 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  That's the point. You want to include it as a source therefore per WP:V the burden of evidence lies with you to prove that the blog posting is a reliable source that can prove notability. That the site approves or otherwise lends credibility to the posting and doesn't just let them post whatever they want with no liability.--Crossmr 04:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  Further, the Next-Generation article is not a re-hash of the press release. Compare Next-Generation's article] with this [re-hash of the press release on GameZone]. There isn't a phrase lifted from the press release in their article. They obviously had tog et the information from somewhere, but I think that we both agree that Guildcafe is a reliable and verifiable source for stuff regarding Guildcafe.Joel Jimenez 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  They both include the same paragraph quote at the end and both say the same thing only slightly reworded. Next-gens coverage is no different than the other site only with a rewording. WP:WEB also addresses the trivial coverage on next gen with this statement a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or. That is all that is, and its very clearly indicated on WP:WEB that that is trivial coverage which cannot be used to establish notability. Guildcafe is fine as a source for info on guildcafe, but as reliable as the article may be, there is no notability per the guidelines. And I will remind you one more time that AfD is a discusion not a vote and listing vote counts is not appropriate.--Crossmr 04:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  I did not list a vote count. I said that the comments above started with a particular word, which they did. If you interpret them as votes (and you shouldn't because AfD is not a vote, right) that is your own fault. Joel Jimenez 05:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Change vote to delete - I Googled for the past several minutes and couldn't find any other notices. No mention on IGN, GameSpot or websites for magaiznes such as Gameinformer, EGM (via 1UP) or Gamepro. Joel Jimenez 05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Infomanager DelPlaya 09:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  As its been pointed out Next-gen is trivial coverage per WP:WEB very clearly addressed as just a brief summary of the content of the site and a reprint of the press release. And no-one has demonstrated where the assertion of editorial oversight is on the gamedaily blog.--Crossmr 17:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  The following statement is linked from the bottom of every page in what you are calling the "GameDaily blog": http://www.gamedaily.com/contact-us . This page documents an editorial staff. The top of every page includes an American Online an logo. Further, I'm unable to find any disclaimer that states that "blog" content does not reflect the opinions of the editorial staff. Even if this editorial information was only linked from the main page of the GameDaily site, I would argue that it is unreasonable to ask that every sub-section of a site contain a separate assertion of editorial authority. It's clear that the staff and writers of any part of the site are subject to management by an editorial staff, and ultimately answerable to the corporate oversite of America Online. A similar structure is common in many websites in general, and the gaming media in particular. Tarinth 21:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  I think we can all agree a blog is a self-published source. For it not to be a self-published source it needs to include an assertion of editorial oversight. The burden of evidence is on the person wanting the information included, not those wanting it removed. While every page doesn't need any assertion of editorial oversight (like a general story like other stories that write has done and I linked to) any section would could be seen as self-published do. As it is we don't know HOW they run the blog section of their website, so it makes the source suspect. Since we have no other source out there to bolster its credibility that makes it even more suspect. If we had a few other good sources that clearly demonstrated notability, it would lend credibility to the blog entry, and you could be more lax on requiring a mention of editorial oversight. Which is kind of the way that works. There is more than one way you can lend credibility to a blog to be used as a source, but it needs something. Even with something, its still only a single mention at best. Reviewing WP:WEB and the Next-gen article its clearly addressed by WP:WEB as being trivial. It only describes the content and the rest of it is a reprint of the press release.--Crossmr 23:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree to that at all. If it was his personal blog, on his myspace or livejournal or something, then I would agree. This blog is part of an established company's website, and it would make sense to me that there would be editorial oversight on a commercial page. JN322 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with those who want the material in. We have no idea how that site works and unless there is some evidence to how it works, the source becomes dubious, but even still we don't have a second source. Notability requires more than one incident of non-trivial coverage.--Crossmr 05:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me pose a hypothetical to you then. If a prosecutor calls a witness who states "I saw the defendant commit the crime". Then you would argue that the witness's testimony shouldn't be admitted until the prosecution can somehow prove the witness isnt' moved by mercenary motives or isn't some sort of pathological liar? From this matter stands presently it would appear to me that it is an internet publication of AOL (certainly well-known and independant of GuildCafe) and the website's contents has editors (thereby editorial insight), and accordingly it is reliable, and would fall under WP:WEB #3. But then again, I'm not too familiar with these rules. (forgive my poor grammer, I just got home from a lacrosse game and I'm still a bit alcoholified)JN322 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No. In this case we have a source which is normally not allowed at all, a blog. Regardless of where its hosted. These are typically only allowed as sources in a very limited capacity in sourcing something about the writer, i.e. the author of that article warranted an article on wikipedia and announced he had cancer in it, that could be used as a source for that. In order for it to be used as a source for anything else it has to meet one of the criteria in WP:RS which give it credibility, so far it only meets things which take away from credibility, namely the fact that no other site has deemed the subject notable enough for any in depth coverage. One can easily assume that in a publication the stories which are "printed" as stories have editors. If you want to draw the conclusion that that means all blog postings have editors and get their content approved, you can do that, but you need something to back it up. As I pointed out above, it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to say "Post what you want so long as its not anything that is going to get the company in trouble".--Crossmr 15:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess since you don't want to look at his blog as having editorial insight (which is your guess, and something we still dont' know for sure yet) then Under WP:RS we have "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications...". The author of that blog is a well-known net journalist covering gaming information (he's not interviewing presidents, but he's ceratainly a professional in his field). Accordingly since the author of the article is an established online journalist, even his blog can be said to be a reliable source. JN322 02:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And what is it you're using to establish that he's a well known journalist? As far as Steven wong's go, he doesn't show up to the second page [8]. And he seems to have written only a very tiny amount of articles for gamedaily [9]. Most of those results are pages which have "most recent bloggers" listed on the right hand column. He only made his first blog post in november, and doesn't seem to really be there before that. Simply writing a couple articles for an internet game site doesn't make one a well known journalist. See Hunter S. Thompson if you want an example of a well known journalist.--Crossmr 03:38, 8 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. —Cryptic 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fan translated games

List of fan translated games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Not the sort of list we need here at wikipedia. As the article fan translation points out, "fan translations are indisputably illegal". We don't need a list of games that people can search for to steal. Violates WP:C, WP:V, and notability requirements. SeizureDog 03:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 04:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as listcruft. YechielMan 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 05:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete legal issues aside, the list has no place here as fan translations aren't notable (or at least the vast majority of them). Koweja 05:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to point out that seems to be an unintended double negative.--SeizureDog 07:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • No more AfD at 1 in the morning.... Koweja 14:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Cite. This is a stupid reason to delete this article. This is just a partial list of links to Wikipedia articles on copyrighted works and with some information on them, which is common in Wikipedia. There are already articles about emulation and ROMs, which are indisputably illegal. Wikipedia already has lists of old video games, which SeizureDog believes are lists of games that people can search for to steal. If the vast majority of the fan translations are not notable, then the vast majority of the games in the list are what many are unlikely to steal. Deleting this article will do you no good against piracy. Deleting this is like deleting other game lists. Fan translations are distributed with only the translated data and the directives for where it is to be placed in the original copyright material, without the original copyrighted material itself. Even though "fan translations are indisputablly illegal", the article fan translation also points out "it is unusually for copyright holders to object." For verifiability, I suggest you use Romhacking.net to cite whether the game is fan translated. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 08:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Fan translations are distributed with only the translated data and the directives for where it is to be placed in the original copyright material, without the original copyrighted material itself."
    So you take the illegal translation patch and put it into the illegal ROM copy. I hardly see how that's any better. The simple fact is, this list is not useful for anyone who doesn't plan on searching for these patches, who shouldn't be in the first place.--SeizureDog 09:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The illegality of the game is accounted for the original ROM itself. There are already lists of games for people to steal. There are already lists of games for discontinued platforms. When they read the article on a game that is no longer commercially exploited, they might steal it. Therefore, deleting this article will do you no good. Copyright holders usually do not object to fan translations, which have been on the Internet a long time. The fan translation community also has an anti-piracy attitude, which may have made copyright holders turn a blind eye. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 09:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not following your logic. A list of games that include stealable games (such as List of Nintendo 64 games) is not the same thing as a list of games you can't play without breaking international copyright laws. The fact that copyright owners turn a blind eye carries no weight on Wikipedia. Anyways, let's forget I used the word "steal". It may not be theft, but this list certainly promotes copyright infringement.--SeizureDog 10:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The legal issues are irrelevant (WP:NOT censored applies just as much to this as to pornography, IMO), but notability isn't (WP:NOT a directory, or an indiscriminate collection of information). The article on fan translation is bad enough, but this is a list of (at least mostly) non-notable fan translations of games, which doesn't justify the existence of the list. Confusing Manifestation 09:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- I don't agree with all of SeizureDog's reasons for nominating this article. Firstly, we should not be deleting content simply because people might misuse it. Secondly, even if all the translated games are copyright infringements, that does not make the list itself a copyright infringement. Nevertheless I say delete because in my opinion such a list is unencyclopedic. It's an indiscriminate collection of information and that is NOT what Wikipedia is about. By all means include a small selection of the most relevant fan-translated games in the fan translation article and maybe an external link to a fuller listing, but just because the fan translation phenomenon exists does not mean we need to slavishly record each and every instance of it. Reyk _YO! 10:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I object to the deletion. Many of the games on that list are notable or becoming notable. Japan-exclusive computer and video games are historically non-notable in English speaking worlds. There are justifications for this list. I might say that the list should include only fan translations that are notable or becoming notable. An alternative to deletion is to merge with the article fan translation, and include only the notable fan translations. There are also Wikipedia articles on obscure Japan-exclusive computer and video games that have been fan translated. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 10:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not the games that are considered non-notable, it's the fact that they have been fan-translated.--SeizureDog 10:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Like Reyk said, legal issues are irrelevant for deletion from Wikipedia. There are Wikipedia articles on non-notably fan translated games, and the fact that they have been fan translated may be stated in the respective articles. All MSX translations are notable, because they were done before the advent of console emulation. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 10:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Nice list, but wiki isn't the place. -Ryanbomber 12:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no good reason to delete from wiki. I had to copy this to my computer. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note I'm not sure about the notability of the concept, but ROMs and emulators are not "indisputably illegal" provided that you own a copy of the work in question, digital backups are allowed under the DMCA. Also, illegality is not a reason not to have an article, otherwise what would become of otherwise very encyclopedic articles on drugs and the like. 69.210.39.245 23:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• While emulators may be legal, possession (or acquisition) of ROMs may not be, especially when Wikipedia may be covered by non-US law. Describing or listing the fan translations will not cause problems, in the same way that describing drugs won't - however, there will be issues as soon as you provide either. --Sigma 7 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Look at the back of any Nintendo game manual: "Copying of any video game for any Nintendo system is illegal.'Back-up' or 'archival' copies are not authorized and not necessary to protect your software. Violators will be prosecuted." Then notice how 80% of this list is for Nintendo games.--SeizureDog 21:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral: Notability is questionable, but the items in the list (at least the initial ones) have been referenced. In addition, information about fan translations can easily be posted on the individual games, thus creating interest for this listing. --Sigma 7 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopaedic and arbitrary list. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Interesting list, but not encyclopedic. I might be okay if mentions were made in individual game articles. As for the legality, that's not Wikipedia's problem so long as the copyrighted materials themselves aren't available through Wikipedia servers. --Alan Au 06:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Instead of Delete or Keep, let us say Merge. I suggest that the list be merged with the article fan translation. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 08:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The list is too long to merge. If anything, it should be turned into a category. Not entirely supportive of that either, but it's the lesser of the evils.--SeizureDog 02:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The fan translation article is short enough to be merged with the list. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 22:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete although not primarily due to illegality but because few if any of these can be verified using reliable independent sources (and no, linking to romhacking.net or other dubious websites does not count as sourcing!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What about link to Web sites of the respective fan translators themselves? I hope that counts as sourcing. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 22:42, 6 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. Proto::► 11:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter in translation series

Harry Potter in translation series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of wizarding terms in translations of Harry Potter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of characters in translations of Harry Potter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

delete together with its sub-articles these lists of potterisms translated into all foreign langauges. This fancruft really went blown way out of proportions here. Why don't they do this in appropriate fandom sites? Is there any potter-wiki around? `'mikka 03:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete completely pointless--CJ King 03:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all as unnecessary lists. YechielMan 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. I added two articles to this nomination. MER-C 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment These articles need separate nominations. John Reaves 06:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope, John, articles closely linked that would presumably have similar outcomes can be AfD'd together. But if you think one should stay, for instance, say so. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I just think it's cumbersome to vote for seperate article on one page. Though I suppose I go ahead and vote here. John Reaves 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, I would think it it would be cumbersome to vote for separate articles all dealing with the same thing on multiple pages. Anyway… :-) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all Even as a member of the WP:Harry I endorse this deletion. This is something which should be left to a few external links in the Harry Potter article. And there is a wikia:harrypotter but it's not very closely maintained… I'd also like to urge people not to go out of control with the fan-hatin', as usually happens in an HP AfD… just keep to Keep, Delete or whatever, and leave the "überfancruftism" extremes out of it. :-) Just a friendly comment to keep things within reason here. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Those are some interesting points Sandpiper made. The information is scholarly, sure, but I just don't think it belongs all in one article. How about merge the information into each appropriate article and then delete? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all Delete as unnecessary lists, not fancruft. The translations are listed in a sidebar in the article. Translations aren't something fans rave about on the internet- so not fancruft. John Reaves 06:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all, unnecessary lists. RHB 10:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all as similar lists to the one nominated here --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete all unnessesary. —dima/s-ko/ 19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all There is no reason why there should be an article for all these. TSO1D 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would first draw attention to comments made the last time this was debated [[10]]. Having done that, i would draw attention to the irony that these lists represent one of the best collections of such information I have seen, and thus a unique contribution to the very wide field of general interest in the subject of Harry potter. Most of our content on Hp, while informative, is not unique. From the scholarly point of view this actually represents a resource as an example of how concepts in one book have been translated into different languages. So, as I say, an irony that people should seek to delete it as 'fancruft'. Well, yes, perhaps that is exactly how the work of university professors of literature ought to be described.

The other specific importance of (parts) of these pages was to the ongoing puzzle set by Rowling at the end of the most recent book, as to the identity of a character known solely as RAB. The cross referencing of characters names in different languages is one of the more important, and officially verifiable, ways of eliminating candidates (by having the wrong translated initials).

• Keep. Sandpiper 02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Belongs to Wiktionary. --Muhaha 10:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary, these can probably make some kind of appendix or concordance. Kappa 11:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki note that these almost certainly will not go in the en.wikt main namespace, they would make excellent appendicies. And the main article about Harry Potter in translation can then refer to the wikt appendicies. Robert Ullmann 12:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Given that Kappa is an admin on that project I trust his judgment that Wiktionary can find a way of handeling this page. I only know the original and the Norwegian translations and these lists are kind of interesting but not very encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• comment I suspect we'll be adding them back in a year or two as the fan literature accumulates. DGG 06:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If this information is wanted out of Wikipedia, and either deleted or transwiki'd, I hope you have enough faith in editors who monitor Harry Potter pages to keep this information out if necessary. :-) Let's not put that kind of attitude into making the decision now -- this is for the present, not the future. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The pages have been transwikied to the Harry Potter Wiki. John Reaves 07:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

wikia:harrypotter appears to be one huge copyright violation (a derivative work with no transformative value) and its existance should be ignored. --SmokeyJoe 03:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What are trying to say exactly? There's no copyright violation. John Reaves 04:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to say: The existance of information at wikia:harrypotter is not a reason to delete it from wikipedia. I further criticise wikia:harrypotter as not being a suitable repositiory for information because I see it containing a substantial amount of material that at any time could be removed because it is a copyright violation. Much of the material (not every page) is a copyright violation because it is a direct derivative of Rowling's work, without transformative merit such as commentary, and it diminishes her ability to profit by publishing her own "guide to the universe of Harry Potter". --SmokeyJoe 07:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No one has proposed that its existence at the HP Wiki is a reason for deletion. Please provide a few links to what you believe to be copyright violation on my talkpage. John Reaves 07:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge If this information can be made accesible without being cumbersome, then retain it: either by merging it into other articles, or, more likely, keeping the article itself. Michaelsanders 12:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep.

Mikka is wrong. This is not fandom. It is real world information. CJ King is wrong. The point is to record the international reach of the world’s most popular literature series. YechielMan is wrong. The lists are needed as a resource for subsequent improvement Fbv65edel: The existence of information outside wikipedia is no reason to remove that information from wikipedia.. What is the point of “merge”? The question is “delete”. Yes or no. John Reaves, like Mikka is wrong in that the information is not ficticious, fantasy speculative creation. It is real world information. It is data that should be allowed to evolve from a draft into a good article. Muhaha is wrong. Most of the information does not belong in a dictionary. Kappa; Robert Ullmann; Sjakkalle: By “Transwiki” I assume you mean “do not delete”. Agreed, the information has worth, even if it looks like appendix data at the moment. DGG: Agree. It is easy to see future use of the information. I also note that the page is almost two years old. Lets not be hasty. You should assume that every contributor also agrees in the worth of the page. --SmokeyJoe 00:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is my name mentioned here? This post doesn't address anything I said. John Reaves 04:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, John. I apparently thought you accused it of being fancruft, where you actually wrote "not fancruft". It is hard to argue against "unnecessary", but I think it is useful for something--SmokeyJoe 06:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the user was trying to address all or most of the users who have expressed their thoughts here. To SmokeyJoe: By merge I am saying "no" to delete but "no" to keeping it in the article; I believe it belongs elsewhere. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you specify where you mean to have it merged?--SmokeyJoe 06:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also to SmokeyJoe, this isn't a supposed to be a vote in any direction, it's a discussion over whether or not to delete the article or ways in which it can be kept. John Reaves 06:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not see this as a suitable forum to discuss "ways in which it can be kept". The threat of deletion, any day now, which is very difficult to reverse, does not create much of a positive, creative environment.--SmokeyJoe 07:49, 8 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eleanor Lovell

Eleanor Lovell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The person appears to non-notable, the only assertion of notability is that she appeared in a poem. The article is also unsourced. I did not think this was worthy of a speedy delete. J Milburn 03:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopaedic, OR, no sources, unverifiable, seems like a bit of obscure local history --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 03:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Yes, although google throws up a lot, they mostly seem to be blog sites, especially relating to the University of Warwick. J Milburn 03:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete May she rest in peace, far away from the Wikipedia servers. YechielMan 04:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete For an "immortalised" story, this sure isn't mentioned by, well, anyone. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 20:50, 2 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White elephant gift exchange

White elephant gift exchange (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a guide (WP:NOT). The article asserts a trivial notability for this game, and that's it. Most of the text consists merely of instructions how to play, without explaining why this game is significant in either a scholarly or cultural context. The overall style is childish, not encyclopedic. YechielMan 03:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Moogy ^(talk) 03:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Took me less than a minute to find three newspaper articles of various quality that talk about white elephant gifts: [11] [12] [13]. I assume this is a good sign that this subject can be thoroughly sourced with reliable sources. --- RockMFR 04:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note, your third link does not discuss a "gift exchange", it's only about "unique gifts" that may be considered white elephants. --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but this should not be a how-to ruleset (who promulgates them anyway?). There seem to be plenty of results for white.elephant+exchange, even seven Google Books results. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Not the greatest article, but the topic is of encyclopedic merit.--Gpohara 07:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, a venerable meme, encyclopedic. Tarinth 13:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the gift of being Wikipedia, not Brittanica, cultural trivia is eulogized. KP Botany 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a topic that should be explained as it is here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
• Delete -- Article violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, because it is an instruction manual. Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not says the following about instruction manuals: "Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks."Librarylefty 04:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Clean up and maybe transwiki to WikiHow. While it's true that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, it appears to be a notable "activity". Just remove the instructions and you have a good stub article to start writing about. Axem Titanium 06:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep well-known, notable, etc. The article itself certainly needs some work, but the topic fits Wikipedia.--Velvet elvis81 06:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I recently endured 3 of these horrible exchanges with 3 different parts of my family in 3 different states, so I would have to say that yes, it is a notable holiday institution. Static Universe 08:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Very widespread practice. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It really does need serious cleaning up, though. It's a white elephant of an article for Wikipedia. KP Botany 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Trans to wikihow This seems like a good article for there, but not for Wikipedia. --Адам12901 ^Talk 21:38, 6 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marvel Comics film History

Marvel Comics film History (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

All this information (and a lot more) is already in the relevant Spider Man movie articles. There is no reason to duplicate this information in a separate article and no reason to believe this article can be anything but a fork of the main movie articles. Prod was removed without comment. Gwernol 03:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This info is already in the Spider-Man movie articles. TJ Spyke 04:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• comment shouldn't the scope of the article include a lot more than just one Spider Man movie? wtfunkymonkey 05:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• It originally included the first two movies, but the author removed one while removing the prod notice. Even if it covered more than the 3 Spider Man movies, it would still be only redundant information as all the movies have their own article already and are part of the List of films based on Marvel Comics. Gwernol 05:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Misleading title. MER-C 06:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Articles shouldn't look like a forum comments. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Article is inaccurately named, incorrectly capitalized. Information is redundant to other articles. I really have to wonder if User:EJBanks deliberately creates articles and categories for the fun of getting them deleted. This user creates a lot of categories and a number of articles. They all get nominated for deletion, and I have yet to see one that did not have a clear consensus to delete. Doczilla 06:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Until someone wants to redo with all of the films. Moscatanix 15:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom — J Greb 23:27, 2 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. Proto::► 11:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Han Lee - Tathagata

Sam Han Lee - Tathagata (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Delete nonverifiable self-written prophet. Mukadderat 04:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. TJ Spyke 04:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Self Written ?? this was written by me.. my name is Paul Iddon,, so why say the article was self written ? the aticle has come about because I added Sam Han lee to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buddha_claimants

Although someone keeps deleting it,, what is it about ? List of Buddha Claimants ? If someone claims to be buddha then they go on that page ? So why keep deleting it.. Sam Han Lee not only claims to be Buddha, but is the only one who has any proof.. proof by having the third eye on his forehead,,,, proof in his actions that he travels non stop around the world teaching others,,, proof in his words that nobody can deny, proof that he is the only one that does not "sell" or profit from teaching.

• Keep I believe there is some notability here. ( My third eye tells me so! LOL) It seems to me that the author has a bit of a language barrier that he/she may be struggling with. The author needs guidance regarding appropriate writing style and standards for Wikipedia. Perhaps some editors who have worked on articles related to mysticism and Buddha can take a look at this and give the author some help? I sense there is something here worth saving. Cleo123 08:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO and article is entirely original research. Tendancer 22:21, 7 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. —Cryptic 04:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jefferson Debate

Jefferson Debate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable; just an editorial on IP. Twinxor t 04:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:NEO. --Dhartung | Talk 05:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 06:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - while there definitely was a Hamilton/Jefferson debate that involved intellectual property, this is definitely a neologism derived from it, and appears to have no serious popularity or standing. --Haemo 06:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete per above. —dima/s-ko/ 19:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I like this neologism, and the fact that some people still value logic in discourse. However, this still lacks the sources establish the import of the phrase, as required by WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 02:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a mere editorial. The argument presented hits important points and I have no doubt that it has been raised by a notable commentator on IP. The appropriate place for it is in an article on IP, in the context of a description of that commentator's views. Drake Dun 20:21, 3 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Yuasa

Michael Yuasa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Notability in question. Author of the article disputed the prod by placing a {{hangon}} tag on the article, so I'm bringing it here. The article makes the most tenuous of notability assertions. ghits: [14] NMChico24 04:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Such notability assertions should be sourced in accordance with WP:V. Tarret 04:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of real notability. The author of this article has also been creating related Wikipedia articles to promote his various non-notable businesses. Gwernol 05:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 05:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Please Delete I was unaware of the policy and realize that this is not the time, maybe in five years thou! Thanks for reading —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astroflip (talk • contribs) 06:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per above, and might even be speedied now, since the original author is asking for deletion as well? Jayden54 14:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unless neutral sources are cited by end of this AfD Alf photoman 20:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:19, 3 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kimberly Franklin

Kimberly Franklin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic, fails WP:PORNBIO ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - meets WP:PORNBIO, point 7. Check the IMDB profile. MER-C 05:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, so she does. Still it seems like an arbitrary criterion with no reasons offered to explain why it qualifies a performer as famous. There are hundreds of porn stars like Franklin who have these horribly written stubs about them on Wikipedia simply because they appeal sexually to some contributor. Drafting the pornbio notability criteria was a good-minded effort at cleaning out some of these stubs by subjecting them to several clearly stated guidelines. However that effort is merely a codification of the judgement that minor porn stars (performers who make movies for several years, keep their real names private, and never break into the "mainstream" world of acting) should probably be excluded. An article about one of these stars, especially one that includes a useless and graphic transcription of a lesbian sex scene but does not offer any real biographical details, not even a filmography, is basically a crappy stub with no reason to exist. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, she doesn't. The film in question is a compilation, not an original film, as is the criterion. She fails WP:PORNBIO.—Chidom ^talk  07:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - as MER-c says, she passes WP:PORNBIO which technically makes her notable enough. Jayden54 14:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • She was certainly honored by the production of A Cum Sucking Whore Named Kimberly Franklin, but what is it about such dubious recognition that makes her notable? (technicalities aside) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's assumed that only studs/starlets who have achieved a certain level of reknown in the industry merit being titular (no pun intended, however Beavis and Butthead it is) stars. Caknuck 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It means that the porno production house had a bunch of stock scenes featuring Kimberly Franklin that they decided to hastily throw together for a DVD. Some company's attempt to milk licensed footage by publishing it over and over does not necessarily signify renown. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but wikify and cite sources Alf photoman 20:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete She's a nobody and this article wastes server space that we are asking people to donate to pay for. Greg Grahame 02:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO. Caknuck 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• IMHO Delete as this article is not encyclopedic despite apparently meeting PORNO criteria. (It certainly seems silly that we keep poorly written and useless articles about nobody's simply because they meet one criteria out of the full Wiki list !) Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Flaws in the writing of the article itself (such as including a "useless and graphic transcription of a graphic lesbian sex scene" or being "poorly written") should inspire someone to expend effort improving the article; they are not grounds for deleting the entry. --152.121.17.61 19:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, despite technically meeting WP:PORNBIO. The criterion are a guideline for what is notable, not hard and fast rules. There is no evidence to suggest that simply having her name in the title lends any status or recognition to her in the industry. Call this vote WP:IAR, if you must. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 16:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Anything that meets a guideline which has as it reason to exist preventing articles from being created should be kept. Vegaswikian 22:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO, as criterion 7 requires an original film, not a compilation. A Cum Sucking Whore Named Kimberly Franklin is a compilation of scenes from her other videos.—Chidom ^talk  02:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this slut passes WP:PORNBIO. Technically that makes her notable...  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:26, 7 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. Proto::► 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Torch

The Torch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Non-notable university publication. Claims to have won "Gold Crown Award" in 1999. Diregarding the notability of the award, I could not find it here [15]. Claims contributors have won awards. I don't believe that transfers to the publication; and notability of those awards is not demonstrated. Akihabara 04:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tried following the link that looked like a torch, but that went to the department's page. --Sigma 7 00:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's a college student literary magazine; how notable can it be? I'm not impressed by awards from the Columbia Scholastic Press organization; they give out a lot of them. Brianyoumans 00:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete one minor award (if given per Akihabara comments) does not confer notability, nor does any notability of the contrbutors (if any) transfer. Nuttah68 12:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Union University, Delete awardcruft. Tomer^talk 20:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No encyclopaedic notability here. Ohconfucius 03:51, 8 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. Proto::► 11:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lafayette Chorduroys

Lafayette Chorduroys (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. ghits: [16]. NMChico24 05:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 05:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment What criteria does it not meet? How can I fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeesmarc923 (talk • contribs)
  • Please read WP:MUSIC. The guidelines there should answer all your questions. Thanks --NMChico24 05:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• We do meet this criteria. We have won or placed in a major music competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeesmarc923 (talk • contribs)
  • You may also wish to review WP:COI as this appears to apply as well. --NMChico24 05:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Thanks for fessing up to your conflict of interest.MER-C 05:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I see no conflict of interest as everything that is stated on the page as a statement is backed up with links to outside websites. I have also just removed all objectivitiy or biasness that the page had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeesmarc923 (talk • contribs)
    • A conflict of interest means that the author of the article is related to the subject of the article. In these cases, it is extremely difficult for the author to write objective content in the same way it is extremely difficult to write an objective autobiography. --Sigma 7 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Jayden54 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom and WP:COI --Sigma 7 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Coming in second place out of 22 competitors does not qualify as a "major music competition". Lyrl ^Talk _C 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The ICCA is certainly a legitimate competition. Having participated in six ICCA events, I can say they consist of the best collegiate a cappella. It is also not restricted to 22 groups. Last year over 100 groups participated in the semi-final round, with even more applying to reach this level of competition. Listen to the Best of College A Cappella CD compiled from the winning groups every year. 11:53, 3 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.142.237.77 (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
• Weak keep, placing in an international collegiate competition does seem marginally notable. The conflict of interest is a problem, but is not a reason for deletion. The authors should be chastised for their self-promotion, and forced to learn to recite WP:AUTO in four-part harmony, and should be strongly discouraged from making further edits to their own article (except, perhaps, for monitoring it for vandalism), but I see no actual reason for deletion. If this is kept, I'll put it on my list for cleanup/pruning. Xtifr _tälk 02:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm telling you people I, and others, will do what it takes to make this page as unbiased as can be. Please let me know what part of this page shows a conflict of interest. Also, the competition is considered the biggest of its kind for this type of music, so placing 2nd out of 22 (not even looking at past results) is a huge deal to people in this field of music. Also, this page is NO different than any other collegiate a cappella's wikipedia page. I do not see what the difference is between those groups and this one.

With reference to other pages, Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability

As far as the "major competition" criteria, the ICCA does seem to be major, but the Chorduroys do not appear to have placed in the usual sense, as in the overall final competition. They placed in the quarterfinal, which I'm not convinced is sufficient to meet WP:MUSIC.

The "conflict of interest" refers not to specific content in the article, but to the fact that there is an inherent conflict of interest in members of a group editing the article about that group. While such activity is suspicious and often warrants scrutiny and criticism, it is not in and of itself criteria for deletion. Lyrl ^Talk _C 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no eveidence of notability offered. Nuttah68 12:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete although they did compete in the ICAA, I would think that making it to the finals would be the bar - i.e. competing at the highest level in sports, they didn't make it to the semi-finals. SkierRMH,00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Second place in a regional quarter-final? Subject does not appear to pass any of the criteria listed in WP:MUSIC. Ohconfucius 03:57, 8 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. Proto::► 11:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zanshindo

Zanshindo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

• Delete Non-notable vanity advertisment Peter Rehse 05:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 05:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - seems to an advertisement article for something non-notable. Jayden54 14:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carpet9 23:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, paring away the ad elements. Tomer^talk 20:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPAM. Had I seen this earlier, I would have had it speedied. There's nothing notable about the style, which is only taught in one school and was invented by the school's principal. Ohconfucius 04:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no prejudice for recreation, might as well start-from-scratch with this one. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:19, 8 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. Proto::► 11:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mathew Fletcher

Mathew Fletcher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I had originally WP:PRODed this article in early December 2006. My reason was: "While certainly tragic, Wikipedia is not the place for memorials. Currently doesn't meet WP:BIO and searchs for Fletcher and leukaemia produce 67 hits on google mainly as memorials to his death; Needs to assert notability through reliable non-tivial sources besides being missed." The prod was removed and there was mention at the talk that there would be further sourcing. I have contacted said user recently, but haven't heard back yet. As I mentioned on the talk page, the statement that he was involved with charities was never confirmed, just an article that mentioned that he present a trophy at a regalla race. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 05:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As nom says, tragic. But, not notable in the sense we normally apply to Wikipedia articles. Take each part separately, and there's really nothing here that couldn't apply to many, many other people. Mathew deserves to be remembered, but not in an encyclopaedia. As the cliche has it, "Wikipedia is not a memorial". Emeraude 13:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alf photoman 20:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & Emeraude. Closing admin, don't overlook Image:Mathew Fletcher.jpg. --Dhartung | Talk 22:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Just as I was beggining to conclude that I could not justify the article's existance on Wikipedia, I had this emailed to me:

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/196/fletchershrink2oo8.jpg (appologies for the level of JPEG compression, but I couldn't get it hosted otherwise; a better quality is available if it helps)

...which appears to be the inside-page spread of the EDP, 17th November 2006.

Although I cannot confirm its authenticity personally, it looks perfectly legitimate, and has many important quotes supporting the case for {WPBio}, including:

'...working with the Anthony Nolan Trust across many fundraising events.' --Reverieuk 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

'The young man was an inspiration ' - on the subject of the Regatta and subsequent registering of every member of the U16s Sudbury Rugby Team on the bone marrow donors register.

'...throughout his life, which he spent raising awareness for his illness...'

Thus, as User:ej159 stated on the disscusion page 'The criterion that Mathew complies with is of being "[a person] achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" as he was involved in much charity work and featured many times in the Eastern Daily Press.' is now sourced.

Your thoughts on this? --Reverieuk 19:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Regardless of how much charitable work he's done, he's no Jane Tomlinson. The Anthony Nolan trust has no mention of him on their website [17], a search for 'Fletcher' on their site only returns one article that briefly refers to a Gary Fletcher. In the UK local newspapers like EDP often cover stories about the ongoing health problems of young children, it doesn't make them notable. One Night In Hackney 09:12, 4 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. Proto::► 11:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The WBC

The WBC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The band appears only to have released one independent album and two independent EPs. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 05:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the band's releases:

Hi-Fidelity Offbeat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ska Septet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ease Ya Mind (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Uncle Benny (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that WP:MUSIC has been met. MER-C 06:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - fails WP:MUSIC. Jayden54 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I have just added a link to an article in NZ Musician Magazine, which mentions at least one national tour. Meets WP:MUSIC-Ensembles-3. Darobsta 08:53, 3 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. Proto::► 11:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jancey Sheats

Jancey Sheats (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Image:Sheatskark0spsm.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Not notable as per WP:N Amnewsboy 23:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Can't see how she is notable --Kevin Murray 09:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• dont delete No news personality is notable, but wiki has tons of bios on them. Jancey Sheats is a person notable to residents in central Arkansas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.129.248 (talk • contribs)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I previously closed this as Delete, but the closure was contested and I admit that consensus was thin (2 delete / 1 keep). To avoid the appearance of bias, I'm extending debate for wider consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:00Z
• Delete. Not notable outside of locality, no assertion of notability. Reads kind of like a fan page for the news personality. --Dennisthe2 06:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO by a long way. Gwernol 06:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• As a side note I think the original close as delete was fine, since the only keep opinion did not give a meaningful reason to keep the article. "There are lots of articles that break policy" is never a good reason to allow this article to break policy. Gwernol 06:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure the original closure would have been endorsed at DRV but I figured it'd be easier to just get five more delete votes so there'd be no argument against a strong consensus. Also I dislike how even though DRV is supposed to be meta-discussion about the procedure of the closure, in practice it's often more of an appeals process where DRV participants voice their own opinions on whether to delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:20Z

• Delete non notable fails WP:BIO [18].--Dakota 06:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:LOCAL. --- RockMFR 07:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Quarl? MER-C 08:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Unexplainedbacon 14:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As the author of the page, I of course have a bias. But when I look at other bios for other news anchors or media, what makes them any more important? The fact they work in a larger more popular city as New York? Shall we delete Shepard Smith? I wonder if coming from a unimportant state as Arkansas makes one not as worthy of a bios. I had researched Miss Sheats info and it was not just a simple thrown togethr stub like a lot of wiki entries are. I don't see deletions of articles are that are one line sentences. In the catagory of Television Presenters, some of which are LOCAL news people, here is but a few articles that you must delete if you want to be considered fair and unpartial

Kerri Furey, Jeni Barnett, Pia Guanio, Carlo Rota, Johnny Ginger, Daniela Kosán, Ed Leigh, Alpana Singh. These are but a few in one catagory, you need to be fai on all aspects if you delete some.Kerusso 15:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• For what its worth, having looked at a few of these articles I agree that at least some of them should be deleted on the same grounds as the Jancey Sheats article. Please feel free to nominate those articles for deletion too. That being said we are talking about the Jancey Sheats article here and the question is: does this article meet Wikipedia's standards. The fact that there are other articles that don't meet our standards can never be an excuse to let this article slide. Its only an argument to discuss the deletion of those articles too. Sorry, Gwernol 16:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• I may be a fool, but what makes one more notable than another? The info in this article was researched. It is verifable. It was not created by Miss Sheats, so it is not self promoting. It is neutral.Kerusso 16:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Shepard Smith is a national news personality on a national news network; he is not a local news anchor who is known only in one city. It appears, based on your assertion that Smith, Carlo Rota, Daniela Kosán or Jeni Barnett can be considered at all equivalent, that you have a problem grasping the distinction between national and local notability. A personality on a national television service is notable, because he or she is notable to an entire country. But a personality who is only known within one specific city's media market is not notable. Delete. Bearcat 01:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless article is properly sourced by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Sources added Kerusso 21:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Changed to Weak Keep, know TV personalty but as Amnewsboy puts it, there are far to many of them in the US. On the other hand, if one is in the other should be too or all should be deleted Alf photoman 00:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• well others won't be deleted. Seems there is bias towards some and not others. Thank you for your weak keep support Kerusso 15:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The reason I listed this AfD is, simply put, there are way too many local television personalities in the United States for every single one of them to have a page. Should Jancey's co-anchor have a page? What about their weekend team? All the anchors at the other stations in Little Rock as well? All the other stations in Arkansas? The Southeast? I give credit for the work done on the article, but it's simply not about a notable subject as per WP:BIO -- think of it this way... is somebody in, say, Montana going to know who Jancey Sheats is? Amnewsboy 01:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Point taken, but half the articles in Wikipedia go the route that some, somewhere in this world will not know or care about some subject. We have a very large article on lightsabers. While for some this might be a much needed or interesting article, there are many that couldn't care less and might think it is a waste of time and space. While Jancey might not be popular or known in Montana or Michigan, she is known in Arkansas and Texas. Who's to say people in those states might not want a article on her? We have articles on governors or local politicians that most would have no desire knowing about, but they still exist Kerusso 02:18, 3 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. Proto::► 11:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huggle

Huggle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Unsourced, original research Naconkantari 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Rory096 05:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. also. John Reaves 10:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per Wikipedia is not a dictionary and nom. Jayden54 13:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, or at least a dicdef. Koweja 14:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Burn with fire - unsourced, WP:NOR, and per above. Yuser31415 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOR. TSO1D 22:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I believe the article should be noted as {{cleanup-date|January 2007}} {{unreferenced|article}} {{Orphan|January 2007}} {{Uncategorized|January 2007}} However, comparing it to random articles from the Category:Portmanteaus, it is an appropriate article. It could easily be turned into something like a joggling article. Encouragement is what is needed not deletion. TonyTheTiger 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, joggling has an entry in Guiness World Records and huggling does not. Axem Titanium 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NEO, dictdef, lots of other stuff. Axem Titanium 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I used it today to explain the term to a co-worker. So it's useful, which is surely the first test. Besides, the term's been around for at least 10 years. NuDejaNews shoes the term the term already in circulation in '93. This isn't some 4chan meme- Huggle is entrenched enough to deserve an article.-Derik18:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if it isn't a neologism (might not be, I didn't realize it was that old) the article is still a dictionary definition and can't really become anything more. Koweja 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Useful" is not a good reason to keep (see WP:ILIKEIT). A better place is Wiktionary which takes articles like these. Axem Titanium 02:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, DELETE, fails WP:NEO, WP:NOT a dictionary, unsourced, original research, no independent and reliable sources. Burn it. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:53, 7 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. Proto::► 11:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graal Script 1

Graal Script 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This script is only used by the game GraalOnline, which is in itself a non-notable game (the article was deleted at AfD as failing WP:WEB, then endorsed at DRV once immediately after the close, then endorsed again only recently - I can't find the links because the DRV archiving system isn't great...) Is a script only used in a game that has been deemed non-notable is therefore non-notable as well? I think so, hence I'm listing it here. Also, the lack of (multiple) reliable third-party sources means it fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Naconkantari 06:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, non-notable aspect of a subject with a {{deletedpage}}. MER-C 08:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nomination. -- The Anome 11:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and lack of any reliable sources to show notability. Jayden54 13:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Tarinth 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Tarinth 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Lack of content and restricted scope make expansion improbable. --Scottie theNerd 03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, nom. Non-notable. Yuser31415 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete fails WP:V, and thus, WP:WEB Joel Jimenez 04:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable aspect of a non notable game, no use outside of that=huge problems with WP:V as well. SkierRMH,00:16, 8 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. Proto::► 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misnomer

Procedural note. This nomination wasn't listed when nominated (2006-12-30); it is listed now (2007-01-02). This AFD should be closed 5 days after this listing. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:25Z

Update: it was correctly listed, briefly, by User:mikkalai, but the listing was accidentally removed by someone else [19]. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:43Z

• Misnomer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

del After a year and half since the first nomination it is still a dicdef augmented with a piece of trivial original research (the list of reasons why people may confuse things is endless) & a long list of examples. No references. Both the term and some examples are already wiktionarized. `'mikka 17:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A list alone is not enough to turn a wiktionary article into a wiktipedia article, and the examples cannot easily be referenced as they are partially matter of opinion. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 21:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep — Articles like this have their place here. See the newish discussion here on some matters which serve a similar use. This is not a dead tree limited venue after all.
  
     Further, a quick search of this long history page for 'maintenance templates' like {{clean}}, {{copyedit}}, or just "{{" brings up nothing pertinent including no {{unref}} templates. Imho, as much as I hate such in your face detriments to our reputation, those would be a better choice than the AFD tag, as this little article hasn't really been given a lot of maintenance request exposure. None, actually.
  
      If someone were to tag deficiencies thoughtfully with their analysis and cogent and well considered view of it's shortcomings, instead taking the easy way out and nominating such for deletion— given a punch list, why some one like myself with a lesser grasp of minutia and your practiced perspective and experience would probably come along fairly quickly and fiddle it into better shape. // FrankB 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is definitely a valid article subject. --tjstrf talk 04:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Procedural note: AFD listed at this point. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:25Z

• Keep, looks like a valid article. May need cleanup, though. JIP | Talk 07:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article offers a good and useful survey, an acceptable definition, and lots of helpful links. Wikikiwi 10:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If it's going to stay, it'll have to be more than just an indiscriminate and unbound list of misnomers. For that, you ought to just make a Category:Misnomer on Wiktionary. Can we get some sort of real-world context? Did misnomers ever cause any notable misunderstandings? Are there any people writing on the topic of misnomers? Any significance at all beyond lingual curiosity? –Gunslinger47 10:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, a number of notable controversies arose from misnomers (American "Indians" aren't from India); there are hoaxes/jokes of national proportions (Erik the Red supposedly intentionally misnamed Greenland) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 10:39Z

Heh. The "misnomers" category in Wiktionary is rather small. IMO, this is because no one could agree on what a misnomer is. Wiktionary's own definitions are: "The wrong name or term", which depends on one's notion of "wrong"; "An unsuitable or misleading name (for something)." which is just a bit less subjective and in line with the working definition in the present article; "(Wiktionary jargon) A term whose sense in common usage conflicts with a technical sense." which reflected the way people categorizing things as misnomers seemed to be using the term; "(non-standard: see usage notes) Something that is not true; a myth.". The usage notes just say that the usage is considered incorrect.

So not much help there. Eventually the category fell out of favor and most of the items tagged misnomer were untagged. This is yet another battle in the long-running descriptivist/prescriptivist war in Wiktionary land. The descriptivists appear to have won that one (full disclosure -- I'm a descriptivist ex-Wiktionarian).

A wider-ranging discussion of what a misnomer might or might not be, with examples, was considered more appropriate to Wikipedia, and I tend to concur. I would like to see more of a discussion than just a raw list, but I strongly lean toward trying to fix the article rather than gunning it. -Dmh 05:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I see no strong reason why this article should be deleted. MusiCitizen 17:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article contains a dictionary definition plus a usage guide plus some original research. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as this is a reasonable topic (beyond a dicdef) and a reasonable list, but it does need references. So tagging. --Dhartung | Talk 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It has the potential to be a good article, though the giant list needs to be trimmed down. Strad 01:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I dislike the original laundry list of "Why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?" trifles, and I particularly dislike the "I know something you don't" angle, which is always very selectively applied to things the particular critic happens to know. However, there are a couple of interesting phenomena at work here. First is the process of linguistic change (by which, for example, the term steamroller comes to be applied to something that doesn't run on steam, but we don't call any train engine a steam engine). Second is the selectivity by which only some of the many, many possible candidates actually come to be regarded as misnomers. Some have complained that the list given is too long, but what stands out to me is how short it is.

A misnomer is something that "everybody" uses incorrectly, but "everybody else" knows is "wrong". If I decide to get on a high horse about "down" no longer referring to hills, that's my own private crotchet. But if a generation of school teachers teaches that Koala bears (as they were once called even in Australia) aren't bears, or a widely-read language maven claims that "awesome" should only refer to things inspiring awe, then we've got ourselves a misnomer. This is a social phenomenon worth noting, and it's not material for a wiktionary definition.

This is why I went to the trouble to try to categorize the raw list and to try to tease out what does and doesn't constitute a misnomer (taking into account other editors' edits to my changes :-). Whether this is cataloging or original research is a bit fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure that actual psycholinguists have studied this same phenomenon. Which is why I left a hook for such research in the intro.

I'll see what I can dig up along those lines. As I understand it, if there is such research it would be pretty good evidence that an article is warranted. -Dmh 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been able to scrape up a couple of citations. I would expect that Western psycholinguists are not particularly concerned with "misnomers" per se, but lump it in with the larger question of the perception of "correct" usage.

Here are a the cites so far. The first one appears the more relevant: "Ghotra,Balvinder S . On riding the phenomenon of borrowing of misnomers . Indian Linguistics . Vol.61(1-4), pp.9-12 ." (found on http://www.languageinindia.com/jan2003/indicarticles.html). "Misnomer and the acceptance of misnomers as right ones" (http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/qikan/periodical.Articles/hfgydxxb-shkx/hfgy2004/0405/040529.htm), main article is in Chinese. -Dmh

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proto::► 11:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] School Supplies

School Supplies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

No evidence from reliable sources of notability. Does not assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete not only are there no sources, rendering this unverifiable, but I strongly suspect its a hoax that falls under not for things made up in school. Gwernol 06:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Failure to establish notability. —ShadowHalo 07:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N and WP:V. Possibly patent nonsense / hoax. Prolog 09:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - sounds like nonsense to me. Fails WP:V and WP:N as well. Jayden54 13:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete LOL what is this. Well there are no sources, and it looks like a hoax, so delete. TSO1D 22:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete RC productions is legit [20], however there is no mention of this on their website [21]. SkierRMH,00:22, 8 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 concensus to merge. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huckle buckle beanstalk

Huckle buckle beanstalk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Seems to have been made up one day. Non-notable children's game. Contested prod. MER-C 06:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why exactly is this page being considered for deletion? A simple google search will prove it as a well known childhood game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EABair (talk • contribs)

• Alright, I've added a pop-culture reference to suit your needs. EABair 06:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. If it was made up one day, that day was at least 50 years ago, and I suspect it is much older. Ideally, this article would be able to tell us just how old this game is.--OinkOink 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This appears to meet notability requirements. Note that the game is described in dozens of books, according to a quick Google books search. schi ^talk 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and merge Hunt the Thimble with it. Games like this often have a long history and may be discussed by folklorists, anthropologists etc. (I've added a bit.) --HJMG 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep don't see the need necessarily to merge, this meets WP:N as a widespread, relatively well known children's game. SkierRMH,00:24, 8 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. Proto::► 11:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rohan Bridgett

Rohan Bridgett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Contested prod. MER-C 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. College athletes in sports with fully professional leagues don't meet WP:BIO on that count alone, and a quick google turns up no nontrivial coverage. —Cryptic 04:28, 7 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron beelner

Aaron beelner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Dwarf actor whose claims to notability cannot be verified and has had a small part in one film. Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BIO. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 08:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Recommend Deletion I can not seem to verify notability outside wikipedia. Navou ^talk 09:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable per WP:BIO. Jayden54 13:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - One small part in a minor film doesn't seem to do it. Rest of the article does nothing to establish notability. Fan-1967 13:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of notability. The information in his IMDB page is practically nonexistent. I've begun to notice that most articles where the surname doesn't begin with a capital letter are not about notable people. Sam Blacketer 20:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unless sources are included by end of this AfD Alf photoman 20:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, no sources. John Reaves 08:28, 6 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. Proto::► 11:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HouseCall

HouseCall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable, online Virus scanner. Prod was contested. savid@n 06:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable per WP:SOFTWARE or WP:WEB. Jayden54 13:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to have the lingo down, but it is helpful if you actually specify a rationale within those policies (see below). Tarinth 16:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Trend Micro, not enough text and notability for the separate article. MaxSem 14:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SOFTWARE which states that the core products of a notable company may have their own articles. Tarinth 16:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Tarinth. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep as this is more of a promotional product than a "core product". It would be better if some external references were added. Otherwise merge per MaxSem.--Dhartung | Talk 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Hmm, what about Housecall ? I'd call that a dicdef much more in need of deletion than this one. FrozenPurpleCube 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per above. TRKtvtce 01:01, 3 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. Proto::► 11:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of North Carolina Tower

Gray Television Tower Moody (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

American Towers Tower Oklahoma City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pacific and Southern Company Tower Lugoff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Young Broadcasting Tower Garden City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Gray Television Tower Carlos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

South Dakota Public Broadcasting Network Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Gray Television Tower Madill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

American Tower Christmas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Northland Television Tower Rhinelander (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Cox Radio Tower Verna (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

University of North Carolina Tower (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

American Towers Tower Oklahoma City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Following precedents (see User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts for fuller list) of mast stub deletions, I'm nominatiing this batch of US masts below 520m in height. None of the masts that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Most stubs are over a year old, and have remained in the same, sorry vegetative state since creation. None of these articles have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. This information already exists albeit in more concise but no less informative tabular form in List of masts, so I see no point in redirecting. Delete per WP:NN, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR. Ohconfucius 07:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. MER-C 08:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Whilst I've generally agreed with most of the mass removal that has gone on here, and thank you for your effort, I'm interested at what point you intend to stop. When do these become notable for their height alone, whether or not they are stubs? I also believe that greater clarity and definiteness on this point will help you gain support for whichever remaining ones you intend to nominate, as several people clearly feel we are nearing that point. Akihabara 08:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Akihabara 08:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - nothing notable about these masts as far as I can see. Jayden54 13:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. Replying to Akihabara's comment, I can't speak for Ohconfucius, but I don't see a reason to set a height limit for notability - if the article only contains the info from List of masts then scrap the article. If there is more to be said about a mast, which can't fit into the list, then it gets its own page. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have now gone as far as I intended according to the arguments set, with penultimate and final AfD (barring contested prods to be brought here) and a number of prods to take care of the remaining US mast/tower stubs. I should also have prodded most of the properly categorised stubs from other countries now ;-) Ohconfucius 09:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - and, as in the prior prods (in answer to Akihabara) it doesn't appear that height alone has been a criteria in these, as long as there was something notable about the tower (architecture, history, notable controversy) it was removed from the AfD and handled on its own. SkierRMH,00:29, 8 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. Proto::► 11:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richland Towers Bithlo

Richland Towers Bithlo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Spectra Site Communications Tower Orange City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Following the same principles established as precedent (see User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts), I am seeking consensus on these two shared masts. I do not believe that these are in any way different to the others which have been swept out of wikipedia, but am willing to be proven wrong. These masts appear to be in use by several small radio/tv stations. but AFAICT, they are still just two non-notable masts. Ohconfucius 07:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. MER-C 08:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - nothing notable about these masts... Jayden54 13:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Masts. Which, of course is already done except for the redirects, and delinking. These two tower articles are about particularly uninteresting towers, unlike some that have been put up recently for deletion. I am disheartened by the language of the requester in his article User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts, where he says "I am not embarked on a vendetta or crusade, but merely performing a systematic purge." Before we perform a systematic purge, I think that we should ask the radio/television tower people to draft their own guidelines for what requires an individual tower article, and what can be satisfactorily dealt with in a table in a list article, or in a more detailed, but more general article such as Radio towers in France. In many ways I view these radio tower articles like the Eurvision song articles, I would classify them similarly, namely of particular interest to a small group of widely geographically separated individuals. In many ways they might be compared to the articles about individual botanical and zoological species. Now rather than piecemeal pick at these radio tower articles, let us get some guidelines. --Bejnar 19:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would appreciate it if you did not quote me out of context. The systematic purge is of useless stubs. Nobody so far has demonstrated how/why these stubs are useful, only that it could be useful or someone might find it useful, in a rather crystal-ballish fashion. Ohconfucius 02:18, 3 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. Proto::► 11:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation: The Physical Truth

Creation: The Physical Truth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Author removed both speedy and prod tags. Per the prod, "Non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (books). Book is published by a non-notable publisher and no notable reviews recieved." See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Aspden. It holds that the author of the article and the author of the book are one in the same, as well. Not only would this be procedural, but I agree with the deletion. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the article does not assert notability of the subject, and there are no independant reviews cites. Tarinth 13:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find any significant coverage of the book. Of the 13 non-wiki Google hits, most look self-generated. Nor, it seems, can the publisher find any coverage, as there's nothing about it on their page of Significant Media Coverage for Book Guild Authors. -- Fan-1967 13:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As of this time, Wikipedia is not a book review service. linas 16:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per the above. --Wildnox(talk) 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan-1967. -- Whpq 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice as I am the initial lister. --ScienceApologist 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm fond of cranks and their books, but they have to be notable cranks and notable books to be on Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 01:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per book notability criteria; see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harold_Aspden, current AfD on author for further discussion. Sdedeo (tips) 03:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Yuser31415 19:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per linas. --EMS | Talk 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per, well, everybody. Anville 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete -- I only make this apparently superfluous vote to mention that the article includes as a highlight of the work that it contains "algebraic equations and integral calculus" DGG 23:28, 7 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 have callously and merrily ignored the single purpose accounts, sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Proto::► 11:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consumption Junction

Consumption Junction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

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

Kept by default (no consensus) in January (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consumption junction), without much in the way of reasoning (we seem to have improved AfD since then! Hurrah!) but the article still, nearly a year later, has no reliable sources. With nothing on Factiva and only one trivial hit on GNews, that may be impossible to remedy. I'd merge and redirect to shock site, as Mailer Diablo recommended back then, but the debate is stale by now and WP:WEB has changed too. Back then a decent Alexa rank (~2k) was enough, now, it may not be, unless credible sources can be found. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge Seems little more than advertising for a website DariusJersey 13:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it fails WP:V as it relates to WP:WEB. If secondary sources can be found for this site demonstrating notabiliy, I'd be happy to change my vote. Until then though, the article in its current form is effectively an unsourced advertisement. Markeer 04:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• WP:MERGE with Shock site- and "Consumption Junction" redirect to Shock site Tonytypoon 14:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V, WP:WEB. I'm not sure that it counts as a shock site by the general definition, since its purpose isn't just to get unsuspecting people to look at something icky. But merge there if ye must, it's better than keeping an unverifiable article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Merge. This semi-notable site has been around for several years. Deleting it entirely would be wrong, despite the content of the site MiracleMat 07:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable website. Forbsey 21:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - possibly a violation of WP:ATK. Yuser31415 01:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Doesn't appear to apply. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Shock site (which already has a paragraph each on a number of shock sites). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:09Z
  • It really isn't a shock site by the existing definition, though - a defining characteristic of a shock site is that most viewers are looking at it by accident, not because they want to see a bunch of horrible things. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this is a notable website. Moscatanix 15:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Really? Which parts of WP:WEB does it meet? Based on what sources? Guy (Help!) 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• keepTho a few numbers might help to show this is the most naotable web site of this genre.DGG 06:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The article needs to be fleshed out better, but this is certainly one of (if not THE) most well-known website of its type.--Velvet elvis81 06:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I'm sorry to say, but Consumption Junction were to be deleted, we would have to delete anything else along these lines. The site is rather unique in that it's not just a shock site (so it can't be merged with the Shock site article, and is in fact a flagship site among a network of other adult-oriented sites (sicksitenetwork.com), and is more popular in Alexa ratings (as of the writing of this comment, 2,088 for CJ versus 2,807 for Rotten.com). Whoever is nominating this for deletion is making a major mistake. However, I do see the need for it to be expanded and probably have sources better cited. Maqattaq 07:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I do not enjoy the content, nor do I subscribe to the information presented, but if you remove them from Wiki, what next--- web-book burnings??? -- — 216.43.158.88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Freedom of speech, anyone? It's a usual humor site, there's plenty on the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.234.5.137 (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

STRONG KEEP!!! Why remove it? If someone disagrees with knowledge, no matter how controversial should that knowledge be banned? Ever since 9/11 the governments of our planet have slowly taken away our freedoms.If someone is offended by this site, then it is oh so simple to just not click on. Imagine how dark our ages would be if any knowledge objected to by anyone were strikened? Checking this site out I found that it's not about porn, its about attitude!(Maybe that's what upsets some people.) -- — 67.186.28.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep!!! This site has been around for ages and it quite popular. rework the entry but leave it. -- — 71.57.155.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - I see nothing wrong with the article, besides it being a bit short and lacking citations. Both of those can be fixed with a little effort. Offkorn 13:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This site has been around for a long time content can be verified. Probably the same kind of nazi who is against freedom of the internet freedom of speech called to have this deleted due to their weak pampered and otherwise sheltered way of life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.179.4.138 (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC). -- — 24.179.4.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• STRONG KEEP Very unique website. It transcends typical shock sites. The wiki entry should definitely not be deleted. --Tom 16:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It People need these kind of websites to keep from going insane! User:RnRjUnKiE -- — 217.50.35.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• STRONG KEEP It wouldn't surprise me if the same people who keep writing hatemails to CJ aren't somehow behind wanting to delete it's entry off of Wikipedia. This website has a very large and loyal following as well as many enemies that just don't understand what CJ is trying to do. While news today is mostly bad, it is still sugar coated somewhat. On CJ you can see what really goes down, what the news networks won't show you. Some call it cruel, others call it reality.... -- — 69.136.216.165 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• I don't believe in censorship and therefore I would like to see this article remain where it is. It does not offend anyone and merely gives information about a cotroversial yet awesome websight!--Marcatzo for you 17:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC) -- — Marcatzo for you (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• since when did Wicki become the fifth reich? whats next? videos showing the burning of printouts from CJ? KeepItDanielsanw 01:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) -- — Danielsanw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong Neutral+Comment. It doesn't violate WP:ATK, Wikipedia's not suitable for minors, and there's nothing that says that thie site can't be allowed. That being said, this is not an easy choice, as there are no references an it doesn't look encyclopedic as it it written now. Granted, no one ever bothered to put an unrefernced tag up (i'm doign that after I post this). But yeah, all these anon keeps aren't helpign matters at all, and they're almost pushing me towards delete. Nothing on google news, so this would be hard to site without referencing the cite itself... --Wizardman 05:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Freedom of speech need to apply to web sites also. — 71.205.210.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Does "freedom of speech" mean that you can go down to your local newspaper and demand that they print your manifesto? No? Then why does "freedom of speech" mean that Wikipedia needs to have an article about a website which can't demonstrate that it meets Wikipedia's pre-existing criteria for notability? Sorry, but the freedom-of-speech issue is a total red herring. There's no freedom of speech being impinged here. When someone is preventing you from saying what you want to say using your own resources, then there's a freedom of speech issue. This isn't one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Find sources to state that CJ is as big as some users above claim it to be. According to alexa.org, it is in the mid 2000's rank or so. Thousands of websites are larger, and there surely arent thousands of article dedicated to every one of those articles that outrank CJ in terms of traffic. ^[1].

Furthermore, I think this discussion has been poisoned by CJ, the website users there tend to be a bunch of wanna-be tough dudes and wanna-be sick people who think it's heroic to screw with a discussion with a legitimate website like Wikipedia. I saw if this fails, we do it again, most of the supporting users have no history at all with Wikipedia, and we ought to keep our eyes wide open for shill votes and arguments pulled from thin air.

• • I'm forced to question whether you yourself are a 'supporting user' as you didn't even sign your rather bigoted comment. Offkorn 17:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Unless our function is to prevent those people who are too weak to prevent themselves from clicking on a site that might offend them. This is an information site, not a censor. "Google" that particular web site and WP is just one of hundreds of hits. I'm sure that any of the search engines will produce the same result. Deleting it will only serve to discredit WP as a viable resource.Bobozr 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC) — Bobozr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • comment I am copying this comment that was posted directly on the article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Dictionary.com is an information site. Should it have an entry for consumptionjunction? Google Maps is an information site. Should it have an entry for consumptionjunction? Instead of merely claiming that Wikipedia must cover your favored website in order to retain its credibility (because we've never heard that argument before, of course) why not produce some evidence that the website meets Wikipedia's criteria for what information to cover? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with a chainsaw. There is nothing in this discussion that even mildly comes close to qualifying as a legitimate reason to keep it. Contrary to the claim that Wikipedia is an "information site", Wikipedia is, in fact, specifically not a collection of information, it is an encyclopedia. The assertion that removing the article constitutes "censorship" is ludicrous--first because using that as a rationale for "keep" is a blatant admission that the WP article is nothing more than an advertisement, second because it clearly indicates an abject failure to understand the meaning of censorship. When WP goes out and tries to get this website shut down, then that silly argument will hold a little bit of water; until then, it's crazytalk. Tomer^talk 20:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:WEB: no significant news coverage, no awards, no publication. The anonymous users pouring in aren't doing a lot for their case with me, either. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Stile project has an entry, and no request that its entry be deleted. CJ is at least as prominent, and shares similar history and user base (mentioned online by Howard Stern, outrage over the Nick Berg video that garnered national media attention). At most, CJ should be combined into a single page for the SickSite Network, like StileNet's entry.

GALVINIZED KEEP FROM FORMER AND DISGRUNTLED CJ WRITER! Humbly stated, for all this vaunted, anacronym laden attempted highbrow "discussion" and back and forth is clearly over an issue that is most certaintly not about what does or does not constitute a valid Wikipedia article, but rather what a minority of individuals find to be intellectually palitable. Oh how shallow the depths of the mind become in action; in the short and sweet, if CJ was a site representing a financial quarterly that just happened to pull in an estimated 1.4 million unique IP per day audience, I grately doubt there would be such a fuss to be made. Consumption Junction created a legitimate cultural phenomenon, and whether the fruits of its proliferation would be welcome in the living rooms of the happily veiled "Moral" financialy secure class is utterly irrelevant. If Wikipedia is to be a depository of information made "by actual and average/real" individuals, it is at best elitism and at worst blatant censorship/revisionism to so calously delete the existence of this very real part of american media and culture, regardless of the fact that the entry was put together extremely poorly and was in desperate need of copius amounts of re-working, most likely due to the fact that Aaron "Phil" Dinin was involved, and should probably made to wear a helmet when he leaves the house, as everything he touches on CJ instantly turns to a parodoxical mix of attempted low brow humor and hidden high society roots. I have read the words, in great majority, calling for the reinstatement of this article, and here I add mine, even though I left the site, even though I would rather practice corporal mortification than work with the current editorial administration, no one can take the site away from its millions of patrons, nor can they take away what it was, and what it may again be in the future. Carlin

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability per WP:BIO provided despite assertions of notability. Proto::► 11:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Kelly (journalist)

Michael Kelly (journalist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable journalist; all the external links are trivial references only (articles under his byline, directory entries, etc.) and so fail WP:N. The talk page claims he was a guest on The Late Late Show where he debated Richard Dawkins, but that show is viewable online and shows Gerard Casey (philosopher) as the guest who debates Dawkins. From the unsourced detail about his early life, the creation by a single purpose account and the similar shenanigans on the related The Irish Catholic article, I suspect a WP:COI. Demiurge 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- per nom, and it doesn't seem like he did anything important--SUIT 19:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 20:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per well-stated nom. Dar-Ape 20:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - a competent journalist doing what he's paid to do. Not notable.Glendoremus 21:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, columnist for a well-established newspaper. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 05:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Expand as he is a columnist for a established newspaper. DoDoBirds 12:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC) — DoDoBirds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - The article makes an undocumented claim that he is a columnist but the article goes on to say that he is a staffer who contributes to a column--that does not necessarily make him a columnist. The article does not make a good (documented) case for his notabilty.Glendoremus 18:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Expand as he is a columnist for a established newspaper. — Hotandspicy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Prolog 09:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. And the fact(?) that he's a columnist for an established newspaper does not, in itself make him notable, however notable the newspaper may be; notability must be 'earned', it doesn't rub off something else. Emeraude 14:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep In a sense it does, because well known newspapers pay for notable content. It's like knowing which publisher published a book.Not definitive, but it helps. DGG 06:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be suitably notable in Ireland, which means he's notable enough. Moscatanix 15:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough ion catholic circles Alf photoman 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete there are no non-trivial mentions of him in independent sources, though he fails WP:BIO TSO1D 22:44, 2 January 2007
• Keep, writes for a well-established and popular paper in Ireland, has numerous independent references —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.203.57.176 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment When I saw this listed on Articles for Deletion I was terrified that somebody had nominated Michael Kelly, the late editor of The Atlantic who died in Iraq, for deletion. I see that the Michael Kelly I thought of was Michael Kelly (editor). If the Irish Michael Kelly stays, the page needs to be relabeled or at least have a If you searched for the American Journalist Michael Kelly heading atop his article. Michael Kelly (editor) is a journalist, and as a former columnist for The Washington Post and the former editor of two major American magazines, it's not hyperbole to say he's a dramatically better known journalist.--JayHenry 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable journalist. If anyone wants to add some of these references that got mentioned I could be persuaded to change my mind. One Night In Hackney 18:09, 5 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. Wikipedia policy on reliably sourcing our articles trumps "I quite like it". Proto::► 11:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Longmont Potion Castle

Longmont Potion Castle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Looks like a vanity article and reeks of WP:OR. The only reference used is a "webzine article" which is actually part of a no-name band's website. Delete. Tijuana Brass 08:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this AfD really should include the article's spin offs, which are Longmont Potion Castle (album), Longmont Potion Castle 2, Longmont Potion Castle 3, Longmont Potion Castle 4, Longmont Potion Castle 5, The Best of Longmont Potion Castle and Longbox Option Package. All are albums made by the subject. Tijuana Brass 08:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. MER-C 09:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In what way is it vanity? For whom that is? implying that the artist himself wrote the entry? I find that highly unlikely, it may seem vanity but according to his forum he has some 600 odd registered members, and I draw the conclusion he has a much larger fanbase, and not only domestic but foreign as well (I for one am residing in Iceland and fans of his I know here reach perhaps triple digits.

And perhaps the sources are scarce due to the fact the artist strives to keep a low profile outside his published work.

Still, I have just finished registering to Wikipedia and if I am in any way misunderstanding the rules then I apologize.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DagurKGJ (talk • contribs)

The most likely culprit to delete this article is probably the dude himself. :P I say leave the page.
Redlamp 19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all per nomination Lacks multiple independent sources such as newspaper reviews or performer or of albums, or demonstration of high sales figures for albums. Reverted article to previous version with AfD template, which was removed by Redlamp. Edison 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a real artist and I have a few of his albums. The description of his prank calls is relatively accurate. It gives a good account of what he does and what it sounds like without, of course, giving too much away. If you do ever get your hands on some, check out "Rope". -->Chemical Halo 21:52, 4 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 as failing Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. No problems with the article being created at a later date if reliably referenced. Proto::► 12:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Phillipson

Steven Phillipson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

No independent verifiable reliable sources provided to back this up, as needed per WP:V and WP:RS. Suggest deletion unless sources can be provided that conform to these policies.

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure obsessional OCD, which overlaps this article's content. -- The Anome 20:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom. Looks like he may be notable though, so if just one thing crops up IMO we should keep. Akihabara 15:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless external reliable sources are cvited by end of this AfD Alf photoman 20:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Alf photoman. Paxsimius 05:00, 7 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 leave it to the experts to decide if a redirect to Giacomo Marini is appropriate. Proto::► 12:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marini Investments

Marini Investments (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. Does not meet WP:CORP guidelines for notability. Glendoremus 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Possible original research, as the article is unsourced, nor does it seem notable. –The Great Llama^{sign here} 22:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 09:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. No assertions of notability to be found from the 113 Google hits (altogether) either. Prolog 09:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jyothisingh 13:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as firm that founded NASDAQ-traded companies (but needs sourcing). Tarinth 16:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think you might be confusing Marini the person and Marini the company. Marini the person co-founded Logitech and there is a separate article about him. Marini Investments company hasn't founded any companies that I can see and those that it has invested in are all privately held, not Nasdaq listed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glendoremus (talk • contribs) 19:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
    • You're right. I was misled by the article's wording (I'll edit it in a moment to make it clearer). Still, if someone has such a distinguished and notable history, it seems reasonable that there could be an article for his new company or investment fund; and it is also worth noticing that the investment company has a stake in some other notable companies. Tarinth 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Paxsimius 05:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there is nothing here that isn't already in the Giacomo Marini article. Would need massive re-write, which doesn't seem possible from what i saw in the few ghits I scanned. SkierRMH,00:36, 8 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Higgins (rock climber)

Tom Higgins (rock climber) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Nominated for deletion by PWdiamond with reason: "This article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. Please research WP:BIO for more information." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral, although I should point out that this is a conversion from an uncontested, expired, prod to an AfD by the original prod nominator - It may just be a misunderstanding of the process on PWdiamond's part. Tevildo 21:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I had not heard of this guy before having only a slight interest in climbing and that mainly in UK. It seems to me that his climbs and his writing on climbing do make him notable. Perhaps not quite up to the notability of Joe Brown (climber) or Don Whillans but notable nevertheless. However, the article does need cleaning up. --Bduke 23:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Assuming good faith on the print-book references, seems like he's a notable figure in his sport. Tarinth 13:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable enough to me, and he is mentioned on the Bob Kamps page as a climbing partner. Agreed that some clean-up is needed, but otherwise a good article. Emeraude 14:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I am a USA climber. Higgins is noteworthy, but yes, the article needs to be wikified. I'll help (just not tonight, dear, I have a headache). Ratagonia 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep please this rock climber is notable and many verifiable sources are listed too Yuckfoo 03:34, 7 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. Proto::► 12:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eden Mor

Eden Mor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

No justification of notability, failure of WP:PORNBIO. Beaker342 21:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per the nomination. Not even a gesture was made towards establishing notability. janejellyroll 05:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jyothisingh 13:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of women endowed with huge breasts ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete big tits alone is not enough to be noted Alf photoman 20:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep With the many obscure articles here, I don't see why there'd be desire to delete someone like this out. She's got a commercial website, so people might independantly find her name, then perhaps come here to see if there's more info. What's the harm in it staying? And for that matter, why shouldn't the site contain a directory of "big bust models and performers" (the definition of either of those terms being sketchy of course) when that is, let's face it, likely to be of interest to a fair number of people. It's the Information Age after all... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.180 (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per nomination. There is plenty of info on obscure adult models elsewhere. Jlricherson 01:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete She's got big tits and a website. Who cares? Paxsimius 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails PORNBIO really huge time SkierRMH,00:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and per invalid/nonsense arguments from unsigned participant. Ohconfucius 04:08, 8 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, course at one college, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Social and Organisational Issues in Computing

Social and Organisational Issues in Computing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

WHAT. Flowerykewlstuffz123 08:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, it's best if you elaborate a bit more -- why in particular do you feel the page should be deleted? Luna Santin 08:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a university course directory? Flowerykewlstuffz123 08:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah-so. Delete. WP:NOT a class catalog (or indiscriminate list of information). Don't see anything to establish notability of this particular class. Not sure how I missed that, at first glance; may be a speedy closure, here, but we'll see. Luna Santin 08:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - completely unremarkable university course. Zero encyclopedic notability whatsoever. MER-C 08:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Speedy closure and Deletion Can't verify its notability, it seems to fail WP:NOT Navou ^talk 09:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT and WP:N. Prolog 09:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NOT and not really notable. Jayden54 13:43, 2 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. Proto::► 12:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimatum (band)

Ultimatum (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Judging from the article, this band appears to fail WP:MUSIC: no substantial independent coverage by reliable sources is cited, and there are no other clear indicators of notability. Sandstein 08:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence from reliable sources of passing WP:MUSIC. MER-C 09:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - some notability is claimed in the article, but nothing to back it up, so at the moment the band doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Jayden54 13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: There are now some WP:ILIKEIT-type "keep" opinions on the article talk page. Sandstein 08:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've never heard of this band, but at least asserts notability in the sense that they were the first vegan straight edge band in Austrailia. Straight Edge (and is sub-subgenre vegan straight edge) are legitimate notable music styles.--Velvet elvis81 17:21, 6 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 Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auburndale Elementary School

Auburndale Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)