Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 31

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrus Farivar

• 1st nomination (April 2005)
• 2nd nomination (August 2005)
• 3rd nomination (June 2006)

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

Vanity page. Has been kept in the first three nominations because of the Slate article. Authoring a slate article does not in and of itself make someone notable. There would have to be another source backing up the claim that the Slate article resulted in "internet-based notoriety." Savidan 02:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This completely misrepresents the outcome of the previous deletion debates, which were settled on the grounds that Farivar is a journalist who has written in the New York Times. Phil Sandifer 20:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Cyrus has linked to this on his blog. Savidan 00:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And? Phil Sandifer 02:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And maybe that explains some of the new accounts contributing to this afd and the Greelighting afd. I'll let the closing admin decide. Savidan 05:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as per nom. No evidence of encyclopedic notability to justify own article. No evidence that this is a noteworthy journalist (yes, journalists get articles published in newspapers, magazines and online all the time (including a-funny-thing-happened-to-me-the-other-day pieces) - that's their routine job function, if they want to make a living from it). Already mentioned sufficiently in Greenlighting hoax (which is itself of dubious notability). Bwithh 03:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Merge with Greenlighting hoax or Slate (magazine). --JJay 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Slate is obviously a ridiculous merger. Greenlighting hoax should probably be deleted as well. Savidan 04:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Engadget would also be a great merge option. --JJay 11:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not really - merging a freelance journalist with multiple notable publications into any given publication isn't going to work very well. Phil Sandifer 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I think a look should be taken at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-08-08/Greenlighting Cyrus Farivar where we can read that Jimbo had this to say about the VFD at that time: "Even if VfD _did_ produce a consensus that this article should be deleted, then VfD is broken and should be ignored". But since Argumentum ad Jimbonem is a poor reason for doing anything I will abstain. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Jimbo is a hardworking guy and doesn't have time to decide all afd debates himself. That's why we have notability guidelines. Savidan 05:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, we have notability guidelines because the community is addicted to instruction creep. Phil Sandifer 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge Google search of Cyrus Farivar just shows a bunch of his blogs. MetsFan76 12:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, and Google remains the best way to learn about print journalism. Phil Sandifer 14:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh. Icemuon 14:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - New York Times and Economist published journalist - observe listed articles at [1]. Article is a stub, but this is clearly a notable freelance journalist by any remotely sensible definition of that term. Phil Sandifer 14:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakkalle and Phil Sandifer. Jefferson Anderson 16:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article is not notable. Tellyaddict 16:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• If it has serious notability, why would you propose a delete. I think you meant keep. --Kevin Murray 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Having authored articles in such publications as the New York Times and the Economist is, in my opinion, certainly enough to establish notability for a Wikipedia article, regardless of the greenlighting issue. The quality of such publications sets journalists whose articles they publish above the herd. -- Jonel | Speak 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Being a columnist would be a different matter, but the fraternity of people who've published one NYT article is rather large. The WP:BIO criteria for authors seems to be reviews or awards; for a journalist, determining notability should be much the same. Savidan 22:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because there are oh so many reviews of newspaper articles. And WP:NOT paper - the fact that there are a lot of notable journalists does not mean we should cover fewer of them. Phil Sandifer 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, he's published six New York Times articles, not one. Also two Economist articles, two Slate articles, a wealth of stuff in MacWorld, and a bunch of things for Wired News. Did you actually follow the link I posted to his list of publications, or are you just completely declining to do any actual research into this topic before you argue your case? Phil Sandifer 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. He hasn't done anything notable. Ahudson 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Except, you know, publish in the New York Times. Phil Sandifer 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's difficult to search for media coverage ABOUT a journalist, because google turns up so much BY him. But I'm not seeing very much written about this person, and WP:N requires significant writing about him. Even in the greenlighting, which is his strongest claim to notability, I'm not finding examples of anyone but himself writing about his role in it. Of course, someone else might come up with the sources I'm not seeing. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What? Journalists tend to be more notable for their own contributions than what people write about them. I know of very few who would pass notability on the grounds of other people writing about them. But that's OK, since "has written for the New York Times" tends to be pretty good. Phil Sandifer 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant delete. Seems on the cusp of notability (contributing editor to a #1-ranked blog[2] isn't chopped liver). May even suggest some issues with WP:BIO having no specific guideline for journalists (or professional bloggers, for that). Very prolific, leads an interesting life in spite of being a workaholic. I'm not even bothered by the WP:COI since it predates our stricter policy. He'll be back, though. People like this ... they always achieve things .... --Dhartung | Talk 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I ain't buying the notability. I don't see significant writing about him. Philippe Beaudette 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. OK, so he wrote for the New York Times, big deal, that's what journalists do. Until the New York Times actually writes something about his journalism (think Judith Miller or Bob Woodward) he is not notable. Krimpet 02:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see anything to suggest this is a particularly noteworthy journalist yet (no non-trivial third-party stories about him, or awards he has won, or reviews of major books, etc.) We don't need an article on every NYT freelancer. -- Dragonfiend 03:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Quote from Mr Farivar: "Yes, I added an entry on myself to Wikipedia. Why haven't you?" - because I'm not notable of course.. Winterborn 06:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I am sensing an overreliance on the argument "he's been published in the Times, he is notable." I have been published in the Times. Lots of people have. And not just letters to the editor. It is not actually a big deal.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Krimpet et al. Or are we going to have an article for ever single person who has ever written for the NYT? --Goochelaar 10:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, we should. Keep per Phil Sandifer's obvious reasoning. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • So you are advocating that everyone who has ever been published in a major newspaper deserves an article? Or just the Times? You do realize that that is thousands upon thousands of people who, like this guy, might only have that one claim to notability?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • And? WP:NOT paper. Phil Sandifer 18:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • WP:BIO specifically states at the top: "Even though wiki is not paper...". Krimpet 11:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm advocating exactly that. People who write for major papers should absolutely be included. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is getting ridiculous. Are you just trying to wear us all down? I guess so. Let me repeat the argument I gave in the past two VfDs: Media sources often publish no information about who its authors are, other than their byline. Wikipedia articles about journalists allow a transparency that otherwise might not exist. At a time when even our most respected media sources, such as the New York Times, are being called out for not properly investigating the ties and backgrounds of its writers, is Wikipedia not a valid source for looking up more information on the backgrounds of the people who are shaping our impressions of the news? Wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia. More information is better. If even one person who wants to know more about Farivar or any other writer, including background that might influence their writing on a particular topic, gets that information from Wikipedia, it has served its purpose. Wikipedia is not Who's Who. It should be expansive. Jsnell 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because a media source doesn't publish information about its authors, doesn't mean Wikipedia fills that niche; Wikipedia is not a directory of journalists or anything else. Just like any other journalist, until Farivar receives "multiple independent reviews of or awards for (his) work", or fulfills any of the other WP:BIO guidelines, he is simply not notable enough for his own article. Krimpet 20:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The previous keep vote has no grounding in Wikipedia's policies. We do not compromise our notability guidelines to combat potentially false information in other mediums. Savidan 00:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • We compromise our notability guidelines whenever we feel like it - that's why their guidelines, not policies. Furthermore, it's clearly the case that the author guidelines are poor choices for journalists, considering the paucity of meta-reporting. Phil Sandifer 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. For reasons that Jsnell brought up in addition to adding arguments for transparency of reporting. The metadata of reporting is often as important as the reporting itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BWJones (talk • contribs) 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

User's fifth edit. Savidan 00:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is, of course, irrelevant, since the post makes good points, and this isn't a vote. Phil Sandifer 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Phil...an anon echoing the point of a registered user is a no-brainer...irrelevant. Savidan 01:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Information contained therein is not WP:Verifiable. Published or not, it becomes vanity -- all we could really say in this article is the fact that he was published in the NYT. /Blaxthos 00:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Published journalist in establishments possessing large international circulation, contributed to a significant event in the history of the evolution of the journalistic proffession. Also, as BWJones above. Normalphil 05:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Users only contribs are too this afd and the greenlighting afd. This is why it matters that this was linked from the subjects blog. Savidan 05:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Have never visited subject's blog, recent registration made in the middle of activity, should have one further comment with same IP address in 'children of the presidents of the united states', further comments made by IP address. Looking at the deletion logs, and found something interesting. Normalphil 05:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are you referring to something other than the greelighting hoax as a "significant event in the history of the evolution of the journalistic profession"? Savidan 05:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The new ability of how using the internet a small group of individuals acting with discipline can rapidly create out of nothing news and cultural trends that are then treated and adopted as genuine, and the detailing of how this is done is a noteworthy event in journalism. It never happenned before, the sudden change in the nature information flow in past decade made it possible. It's an evolution. The person who wrote the article on how such a thing is done is then a noteworthy contributor. There it is. Normalphil 05:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's not make the greenlighting hoax into the War of the Worlds. A few posts in a chatroom, and a fake website are hardly a revolution in journalism. Savidan 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The method is now prooven. Some one can use it as a template to accomplish some other end than a joke (example; net-roots political campaign). The public on the recieving end can have the ability to site greenlighting and be forarmed against such manipulations of information. Normalphil 06:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering the failure and almost total lack of media coverage of the hoax, I wouldn't exactly say the method was "proven". Krimpet 11:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Because a person caught on, and had access to the public forum. If you insist on doing your utmost to make every instance of this 'virgin field', eventually something interesting is going to occur. For an analogy, imagine if the Albanians of 1997 had the ability to click on Ponzi_scheme. Normalphil 17:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, and perhaps merge sourced essentials into Greenlighting hoax. This is a tricky one, but lack of coverage by non-trivial secondary sources, weak Google tests for major articles written by him or about him, and possible self-promotion seem to tip the scales. Danski14 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article as written does not demonstrate sufficient notability, and there has been plenty of time to flesh it out. Avi 19:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Birds (2009 film)

The Birds (2009 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability and the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (films). The only source is from IMDb. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --- RockMFR 00:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Utter rumour. Any film due to be released in 2009 could well be cancelled tomorrow. Sam Blacketer 00:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep May not come out, but [3] returns a fair number of reasonable sources. Still, I wouldn't object if this was deleted, though it could just end up being recreated. FrozenPurpleCube 02:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL.--Exarion 02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this article doesn't have a snowball's chance of being kept, because of that. The film isn't even in production yet so, for all we know, it's just a script someone's been showing around Hollywood. -- Kesh 02:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete pn; WP is not a crystal ball, and this is pretty far in the future. It might never happen  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Premature, crystal balling. Bwithh 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Crystal ball, rumors Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete a film that has yet to be cast or directed...wishful thinking—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.123.186 (talk • contribs) 03:43, January 31, 2007
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate when something more than "it may or may not get made" can be said about it. Resolute 05:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Doczilla 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced crystal balling. MER-C 09:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Terence Ong 10:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete 2 years is a lot of time for a movie to be canceled. MetsFan76 12:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. There are too few information to accept it as future film! In a second phase merge to the (now unknown) director, but now it is way to early. Cate | _Talk 13:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nomination. It can also be noted that the category for Category:2009 films hasn't been made yet.--Skully Collins ^Edits 14:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - chortle! Lugnuts 15:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - according to source (IMDB) it is in production, and since it is a remake of a milestone, it definitely will have a budget to come out. IMDB is also a prime source for film-related info. however, it would obviously be better to have an article issued once the film is already showing... --Jack Jones 11 16:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it's extremely silly to remake Hitchcock films. Let's not report on them until they are out and have reviews. Jefferson Anderson 16:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's a little to early for the article, when more information comes and it's properly cited then it would be a good article but for the minute - delete. Tellyaddict 16:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't understand the rush to create the article now. Let's give it some time to develop before we make an article about it. Cyrus Andiron 16:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't understand the rush to delete the article now. Let's give it some time to develop before we make an AfD request about it. BAM!! Lugnuts 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete until it is more than an optioned screenplay. Arakunem 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete':To much speculation and per reasons above, as well as film rights are often purchased and rumored and never happen, On The Road, was suppposed to be adapted in the late 60s but never was.A mcmurray 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete far too speculative and under-sourced of an article.-- danntm ^T _C 20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not worth simply using IMDB and too much speculation. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Recreate it when there's something to say about it... right now, it isn't even in production, just in development, which can mean just about anything. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Not like this overwhelming chorus needs help, but delete per everyone. Natalie 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I like piling on. :-) Plus, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Philippe Beaudette 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --71.234.193.242 04:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - how is it any different from this 2009 Ashes series?? Lugnuts 12:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 10:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Alice Cobra

Lake Alice Cobra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Self-admitted unverifiable legend; Google returns no reliable sources mentioning this. Possibly a hoax. Flyingtoaster1337 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. bibliomaniac15 01:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Krimpet 02:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Looks to be non notable, if someone can find a link that shows this is a somewhat well known urban legend I'd consider changing my vote Winterborn 02:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete schoollegendcruft, per WP:NFT. JuJube 02:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NFT; agree with Krimpet  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Google search provides no info on legend. MetsFan76 12:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jefferson Anderson 16:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nothing to back this one up --Abu-Bakr69 16:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article is not wikified and generally not relevant.Tellyaddict 16:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. At best, move to urban legend if at all verifiable as an urban legend.
• Delete as unverified and probably unverifiable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What FisherQueen said. Philippe Beaudette 00:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Brother Krimpet WP:NFT, Amen. And a classic example, too. --Shirahadasha 05:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merged and redirected to Bingo (US). Avi 19:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas bingo

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

The game really exists, but (as a simple Google search will show) there are lots of different versions of the game--the one in the article is only one version (which is not verified). The article (by presenting only one version of the game without sources) seems to violate WP:NOR. Black Falcon 04:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• For a documented Christmas bingo card, see U.S. patent #D341854. Uncle G 13:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for sourcing, notability, and generally not encyclopedic content. Philippe Beaudette 17:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Bingo (US) or Delete. Otto4711 01:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge — to Bingo (US) Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Bingo (US)  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with merging into bingo. Kyriakos 09:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Bingo (US). Jefferson Anderson 16:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Generally not relevant to wikipedia. Tellyaddict 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Bingo (US), but as a brief summary and only if this variant can be documented. Otherwise Delete.-FisherQueen (Talk) 22:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Bingo (US) if it can be documented. Phatom87 15:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A Train ^{take the} 09:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-Strike Manager (second nomination)

The article was previousl deleted in April 2006, though according to the admin that saw the {{db-repost}} tag, the content was different. Anyway, I couldn't find any reliable sources for verification. Everything that I found was just a reprinted press release. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. Wafulz 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If it's a reprinted press release, then it may be a copyvio. You didn't say anything about that, though, when you marked it for speedy deletion. Do you have a link to the press release? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was I couldn't find sources that weren't reprinted press releases. As far as I know, the article is not a copyright violation of any sort. --Wafulz 05:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no third-party sources. —Cryptic 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — Per Cryptic Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Might not be super-notable, but the article is well-written. Maybe someone can look for sources some time  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter how well the article is written. I've asserted there are no sources- the only way to disprove this is to provide them. Also, have a read through WP:SIG please. --Wafulz 03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Cryptic, the fact that the game costs money to play makes it even more questionable. Krimpet 03:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why would costing money to play be relevent? World of Warcraft costs money, as does virtually every MMOG in existence. Resolute 05:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think he might have implied that this article was advertising. --Wafulz 06:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Exactly. I think the paragraph that mentions the price is worded curiously like an advertisement, boasting (sic) "an increasing user base of approximately 30.000 members spread throughout Europe and USA" and "the VIP-package that enables users to watch their games in a 2D-simulated environment". Krimpet 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless third party sources can be found. Resolute 05:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no sources, very original research. BJ^Talk 05:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced--Urbanshakedown 16:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, even rewritten it still has no credible claim per WP:WEB and no reliable external sourcing.--Isotope23 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability can be provided with verifiable sources. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No independent sources, no evidence of notability, no WP:V. And doubly so on a second AfD since previous AfD result is presumed correct and needs to stand unless evidence is produced. --Shirahadasha 05:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russell Jones & Walker

Russell Jones & Walker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

The previous AfD left the way open for a repost. Is this now sufficiently unspammy? Personally I would be happier if the article had not been written by a newbie called RussellJones. -- RHaworth 18:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, regardless of quality of the article, there are no reliable sources presented to demonstrate notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Strong indication that user:RussellJones is abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Shaundakulbara 06:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Though the article seems reasonable, there is no attempt to demonstrate that the subject satisfies WP:CORP. If one was made, I would reconsider. CiaranG 09:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This firm is very often in the news, as demonstrated by a BBC News search. [4]. --Oakshade 03:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom MiracleMat 01:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability can be confirmed as per WP:CORP, and even if so it still needs a major rewrite. Krimpet 02:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete — Since when has vanity pages been allowed? Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have never heard of this and try to find it in the search, where are the sources, so delete Pernambuco 02:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pernambuco  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced More news coverage than the average UK law firm, and it might be more notable than some others in Category:United Kingdom-based law firms, but no verifiable evidence that it meets WP:CORP. Delete unless it's sourced by the end of this AFD. Mereda 08:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Reads like an advert and generally lacks notability.Tellyaddict 16:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:CORP. TonyTheTiger 20:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a self-promoting article without evidence of notability... would be a strong speedy candidate. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Vanity Smurf strikes again. Seriously. Vanity pages? STILL? Philippe Beaudette 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• sources I suggested previously that some actual material on notable cases they have engaged in, with sources showing its notable beyond the common work of the profession,(i.e., not just court transcripts or listings) would help the article. If thee is, this is the time to put it in. Most professionals do keep track of discussions of their work in general media. The way to keep it is not just to delete the spam, but add something generally notable. DGG 01:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 13:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Blast

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

Was tagged as VfD but I don't see any relevant discussion there; Was listed on AfD but no actual nom was written. Some hidden text was added to the XfD template "Why when I search for The Blast does this article come up. I checked the deletion records and an article for this guy Ray Foley has already been deleted, because he is no one of worth". I have no idea what should be happening with this page or what that even means, so I'm listing here for discussion. As this is a procedural nom, I abstain. DMacks 02:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Since this show seems like it might be notable, and some time has been invested in the article by someone, I really wanted to vote "keep". But the article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Surely some newspaper commented on the show? Shaundakulbara 08:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom MiracleMat 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom and (apparently) everyone else. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete pn and Shaundakulbara  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:15, 31 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. Punkmorten 13:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gabbly

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

Non notable website. Alexa rank of only around 20k Computerjoe's talk 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This was briefly popular a few months ago (a meme of sorts), but it really doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. Only media mention I could find through Google was here. Pretty trivial. --- RockMFR 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — per RockMFR. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 02:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because what, if this trend begins, then what is the result, will wiki-pedia have a page for every web-site in the world, what a mess Pernambuco 02:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The related article Gooey should probably be AfD'd for the same reason. Krimpet 03:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please nominate that separately. I coulnd't delete it as part of this AFD since no one else commented on it. Punkmorten 13:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Interesting concept, but still, WP:WEB  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. MER-C 09:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A POVish "cherry picked" list. Little or no references to support inclusion. Delete and salt the Earth. --Pizzazz 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)— Pizzazz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I favor deletion. There are no objective criteria for what does or does not belong on the list. It is just a list of things that some WP editors want to badmouth.

It is like having a list of politicians who have been called idiots. It is not useful for anything, and does not inform as to who is an idiot. Roger 00:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please note the nominator's sole contribution to Wikipedia is this AfD Special:Contributions/Pizzazz does that say Wikipedia:Sock puppetry ? signed Jeepday 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete indeed, it's always been problematic and serves no real purpose I can see. Arker 00:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. There are no 100% objective criteria for anything except in Mathematics. Everything else is to some degree subjective. Clearly there are a lot of pseudoscientic concepts around, like e.g. creationism etc. A list of things that are considered to be pseudoscientific by the scientific community is a pretty objective and verifiable criterium.

It's certainly not like a list of politicians that have been called idiot at all. I challenge people to point out entries on the list that are not considered to be nonsensical by the scientific community. Count Iblis 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Having no references is not an article deletion criterion, nor are POV problems. Also, "objectivity" is not the overarching standard for content inclusion on Wikipedia (this term is even avoided on policy and guideline pages); verifiability is. The standard for inclusion on this page is that members of the scientific community have labeled a field or concept as pseudoscientific. Whether a field of endeavor or concept has been labeled so is verifiable. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Science and pseudoscience can be judged in the same way that the relability of sources can be judged. The notion that it is just someone's POV is silly, foolish and dangerous and the sort of thing I'd expect to hear some one who's found their own pet crank theory listed here. Tough. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - As Per Michael, Science and pseudoscience can be judged in a non-biased fashion. That leaves only the unsourced complaint, which is not grounds for deletion. --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Michael and others. JoshuaZ 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. While the list itself may not have references, the articles on each individual topic have plenty of references to support being labeled as pseudoscientific. (The blurb at the top even explains: See the individual articles for more information.) Krimpet 01:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This list is a good complement to category:pseudoscience, cf. WP:CSL. AS WP:CG says, "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option." Thus, having this list allows a topic to be listed along with information about who said it is pseudoscientific and why. And that, mis amigos, is what NPOV and VER are all about. Jim Butler^(talk) 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Most of the arguments for keeping have been made by others. Winterborn 02:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Most lists have vague or no inclusion criteria, making them inherently POV and OR. However, this article actually has a rather specific Characteristics section that lays out exactly what qualifies as psuedoscience. The inclusion criteria are very specific. As to no references, see the Further reading section at the bottom. -- Kesh 03:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Per Jeepday below, this user has no edits outside this nom. Changed vote to Speedy and tagged nom as single-purpose account. -- Kesh 05:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all other keep votes  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Looks like Pizzazz was set up just to nominate the article. The list is well researched and well written. Looks like I don't even need to vote, so lets close this one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Vote Speedy Keep for sock nomination of a well referenced article. Jeepday 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Fropuff 04:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it isn't a matter of opinion as to whether or not something is science or pseudoscience. Koweja 05:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, this list needs to be policed to avoid insertion of POV, but a blatantly fake science like phrenology is a fake science, period. Doczilla 07:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Kesh. --Bduke 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 09:09, 31 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. A Train ^{take the} 09:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obligations in Freemasonry

This article is unencyclopedic. All it materially consisted of was a cut and paste from the Internet Sacred Text Archive from a source dating to somewhere in the 1800s, meaning that it is possibly completely inaccurate with respect to modern obligations. Without that, as the article currently stands, there is nothing else to say about the topic that isn't already mentioned in the main Freemasonry article. MSJapan 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin - a number of the users voting delete have an

undisclosed conflict of interest which they should at least voluntarily disclose in their votes. Since they have not done so, you should consider discounting their vote due to this conflict. The following users I beleive to be Freemasons: ALR, Blueboar, MSJapan, Grye, WegianWarrior. Frater Xyzzy 14:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this "accuser" chose to do so anonymously should be noted. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not undisclosed, they have never hidden the fact that they are masons. Seraphim 17:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not clearly disclosed in this AfD. The closing admin shouldn't have to go hunting for the information. Frater Xyzzy 17:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If it makes you happier, I am perfectly happy to "disclose" being a Freemason. Nevertheless it is irrelevant to the debate, which is entirely about Wikipedia policy, and specifically the verifiability of this article. Also, please bear in mind that this is not a vote, but a discussion to try and reach consensus. See WP:AFD. Dave 17:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is very specificly relevant. WP:COI very clearly states that members of an organization should not vote is AfDs related to that organization. Therefore, all votes from Masons should by Wikipedia rules be discounted. The infomation is verifiable to a source, and that is all Wikipedia requires. Frater Xyzzy 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The wording on that page is unclear, however if you follow the source to the bottom you will see that "These include, but are not limited to, those posed by edits made by: public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organisations; or by professional editors paid by said organizations to edit a Wikipedia article with the sole intent of improving that organisation's image". There is no conflict of interest here. Your interpretation of the rules would require that no Wikipedians could alter the article on Wikipedia. Dave 17:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A discussion on the reliability should probably take place on the talk page of the article, but the first couple of paragraphs, which are on the subject of Obligations in Freemasonry are verifiably referenced. The aspect that there is a problem with is self-referential, therefore not inherently verifiable. But that's not the point of this is it?ALR 17:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Clear reasons are being given for deletion that have nothing whatsoever to do with Freemasonry, and everything to do with policy. That many voters on this page are Freemasons is only to be expected, given that the article is part of Wikiproject Freemasonry (which obviously attracts Freemasons). Dave 17:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Winterborn 02:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The problems with the 1800s source go beyond being inaccurate with today's masonic rituals. It was not even accurate in respect to any ritual used in the 1800s. While the selection that was cut and pasted conveniently did not include it, another section of the source has Masons swearing to obey the rules and regs of a "General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the United States of America" - a body which never existed. Without that material, the article is indeed duplicative of the Freemasonry article. And while "secret masonic rituals" may be an interesting or "cool" topic for non-masons, an article that is duplicative of another is unencyclopedic. And before the usual "Keep, but clean up" croud chimes in... the article already says everything that can be said on the topic. There is nothing that could be added to "clean" it up. Blueboar 02:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article is well referenced with material dating from 1866 to 1991 Jeepday 03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

comment I noticed that those voting delete had less then compelling arguments so I took a look at user contributions and noted that some people voting might have other priorities then Wikipidia policy. Just something to consider when discussing the private affairs of large private organization. Jeepday 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - There's nothing valid here which would become more than a stub any time this year or so at least. Taking out what's unsourced etc will make about exactly a section, tyhat of course can always be expanded later, when there is something to cite etc. Grye 06:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undecided The article looks well-referenced to me and is obviously more than a simple cut-and-paste. However - I'm not going to every source to verify it and I don't know the subject enough to just read it and say offhand that it is untruthful swill. The delete comment above looks compelling, but unfortunately the nom and comments look like they want the article deleted as a partisan issue. SchmuckyTheCat 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Schmucky, The article itself is not a simple cut and paste, just the quotations taken from sacredtexts.com (now deleted). Nor is the article (as it currently stands) untruthful swill. The current material is actually very well referenced and factual. The issue is that it is duplicative of material that is already presented elsewhere. Blueboar 14:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• keep per Jeepday. the 1800s book isn't the only source used. Mgm|^(talk) 12:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and restore texts. Even if the alleged oaths of Freemasons are a hoax or inaccurate, they are nevertheless published and highly noteworthy. If they are false or obsolete, the simple solution is to add true and current versions. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: That's precisely the trouble - there is no true and current version, because there is no one single universal Masonic ritual. It is decided upon individually by each Grand Lodge. There are always going to be differences, and there's no one obligation that takes precedence as "correct". People are constantly going to be debating on this, changing the article so it matches what they know. If this article material exists on ISTA, why simply duplicate it here? This is not WP's purpose, and there's nothing that can be said that isn't already mentioned in the main Freemasonry article. I fail to see the encyclopedic value in this article, which is why I put it up for AfD. MSJapan 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also the problem that Masonic rituals have traditionally been unpublished. The few versions that have been published are all like the source that was deleted from the article: they are either outdated, unverifiable, demonstratibly wrong, or proven hoaxes. Blueboar 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll just point out that you should have picked up that there is a reference to at least one current set of obligations and given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a repository of source material, then it's inappropriate to copy that verbatim.ALR 23:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I understand what you are getting at, but you cannot republish current, verifiable versions as to do such would be a gross breach of copyright. I am breaching no masonic rule when I tell you that they were last majorly revised (under UGLE juristriction) in 1986, and can perfectly legitimately be found within this book, if you are willing to pay £12. I cannot speak for other juristrictions. To reiterate, these are not secrets and so there is no reason why masons would be trying to hide them. The versions given on the article are not at all verifiable, and so should be removed. Once they are removed, there is nothing in this article that isn't in the freemasonry article. Therefore, the article should be deleted. Dave 21:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - article is clearly encyclopedic, no valid reasons given for deletion. Also agree with Smerdis of Tlön that texts should be restored. Jefferson Anderson 16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - striking my vote, since an IP which has commented in this AfD has now been accused of being a user who has previously been falsely accused and blocked as a sockpuppet of mine. I want not even the slightest appearance of vote stacking. Jefferson Anderson 21:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Note - it was a (now banned) sockpuppet of the above user who created this article. See [5] Dave 21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

'Further note - that's alleged sockpuppet who was inappropiately blocked because he used to edit from the same place of employment as I do. I've been following this and have withdrawn my vote because I don't want to be inappropriately blocked again for the actions of another person. Jefferson Anderson 21:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - The fact that the article's content was removed with a reason that was a complete lie, and then immediatly put up for deletion once the content was gutted, should be a red flag to any administrator watching this page. This edit on the talk page that justifies the removal of all that material as a "copy vio" is a blatant lie, it's hard to WP:AGF when an editor does something so obvious as this. It's copy pasted content from a Public Domain book, it's avaliable for all to easially see by going to a website, the text is there letter for letter and puncuation for puncuation, yet somehow the editor decided that they don't match up. The editor who removed the material then put up a prod with a reason "The article was intended as a crude "exposure", and without the copyvio that entailed, the article does not say very much, nor is there much to be said that is not already included

in the main Freemasonry article.". Now that there is no copy vio his reason for AFD'ing the article is null and void. Seraphim 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to comment on this... If you check the edit history, the nominator waited a full week between removing the disputed text and prodding the article. Blueboar 00:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

AFD/Prod brings attention to the page, I never knew MSJ did that before this came to my attention. Also the fact that a week passed doesn't change the fact that his original basis for posting the AFD is now completly null and void, since his "copy vio" is provably not a copy vio. Seraphim 02:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So he had more than one basis for nominating it, that just indicates that there is more than one reason to delete. Blueboar 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete The article content itself doesn't appear to add anything to the existing portfolio and appears to be a vehicle to bear un-representative material. The explanation given already indicates why the padding is superfluous and inaccurate, providing a reference for contemporary material. I suppose there could be potential to expand into a discussion of obligations in general, perhaps including material about the promises one makes when being baptised and confirmed in the Christian church etc, but without this broadening it's an de-contextualised section from elsewhere which doesn't say anything more than is already explained in context.ALR 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As articulated by User:Blueboar, the only material that remains after removal of all that is non sourced is duplication of article content found elsewhere upon wikipedia. Dave 00:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Blueboar and others and redirect to main Freemasonry article - without the alleged (and I've yet to see any proof it is accurate, or was/is used by any masonic body) obligations, nothing here that isn't covered allready in main article. As to the wisdom of including alleged obligations without any proof to it's accuracy... I feel that goes against WP:V, but others milage may vary. WegianWarrior 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if only source for full reproductions of obligations is Sacred Texts Archive, then we have a few problems: first of all, ISTA is currently being looked at for a number of copyright violations by the heirs of some author's whose work is on ST. This makes Sacred Texts, as a source, a poor choice. Secondly, given that all jurisdictions use their own version of the ritual, there is no way for the article to be a comprehensive encylopedic look at it. All that can bee said, if direct quotes are given, is that "This is what Duncan's says the obligations are. What the actual versions as used by various jurisidictions are, is speculative and original research."--Vidkun 17:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment both objections are spurious. As Duncan's was first published in 1866, there is no possibility that it is still protected by copyright. Also, it is available in print as well as from ST. ST provides a convenient source for instant verification. Two, Masonic editors keep removing or revising two sources which say that Duncan's is still in use in some Prince Hall jurisdictions, particualar Missouri. Frater Xyzzy 17:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment neither objection is spurious. Sacred texts as a website should not be used because of the ongoing copyright issues on various other items. I'm well aware that Duncan's is public domain, however, WP:EL has commentary about not linking to sites which reproduce copyrighted material. ST themselves say they can't get copyright clearances on some of the stuff they reproduce, thus disqualifying them as a source for wikipedia. And as for the second, you can show that one Masonic author claims the PHA Missouri uses Duncan's. Can you prove that any other one does? If not, why not title the article "Obligations of Freemasonry from Duncan's exposé, as used by PHA MO"? why aren't you trying to include the material from "Three Distinct Knocks" or "Jachin and Boaz", which would easily show that, among the exposés there is disagreement on what the obligations are.--Vidkun 17:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment not that's TOTAL BS. WP is a collaborative project. I have access to certain material, which I am using. If you have access to other material, then use it. Don't tell me to do more than I choose to. Frater Xyzzy 17:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it does seem well referenced, and the reasons for deletion don't seem enough to overcome them. —siroχo 21:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Jeepday, Smerdis of Tlon, Seraphim, and siro. Disclosure: I started the article. Frater Xyzzy 15:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here's a vote for you:

A plague on both your houses. The anti-masons are so desparate to include whatever material they can - as such, they are constantly creating articles like this one that are basically crufty crap but refrenced. The masons are so desparate to hide whatever stupid secrets they have that they are constantly flying right off the handle with what amounts to serial revert-wars and mass procedural attacks on anything that purports to reveal the sooper sekrits. Yet another case where if I was in charge, I'd get rid of each and every one of you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input... Dave 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned on the article talk page, I am not anti-Masonic. Nor do I see any evidence that any of the editors voting to keep the article are doing so for anti-Masonic reasons... Frater Xyzzy 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There may a dichotomy at play, but not it's probably not that simple. Whatever it is, it's obnoxious. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge per Hipocrite. Edit wars aren't a prerequisite for deletion. Just H 15:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment' They weren't. MSJapan 02:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I think the article breaks up the rather lengthy Freemasonry article and provides a sample of obligations. Concerns expressed about the validity of the obligations shown and their applicability universally should be adequately described in the article. Bdevoe 22:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic painting

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

No notability at all. Term appears to have been invented by, and used only by, the creator and primary editor of the article. Single link is to the creator's personal site. Doctormatt 00:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Interesting but seems to be non notable. Winterborn 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NEO and WP:COI issues. JuJube 02:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Maybe WP:NFT too. MER-C 10:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jefferson Anderson 16:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for all of the above reasons.-22:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Turgidson 20:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete arguments are stronger, and there is no double jeapordy in Wiki. An article which is notable will survive all reasonable XfD's. Avi 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HQ9+ (2nd nomination)

HQ9+ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I know this article has come up for debate twice before and voted to keep, but since then it seems a more stringent consensus has been reached and a lot more esoteric programming languages have been deleted as non-notable, including the entire List of esoteric programming languages. Perhaps the best argument in favor of this article's non-notability though is this article is almost completely orphaned except for a link at the bottom of Quine (computing); unlike Brainfuck or Befunge, it's seemingly not notable enough to be mentioned in the main Esoteric programming language article. Krimpet 01:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Interesting, maybe could be expanded and un-orphaned  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. Essentially this is an article about a joke created about Cliff Biffle (since there is no use for this programming language). Unless there is assertion of the significance of this joke, I say delete. Mitaphane _?|! 03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• HQ9+BJAODN, then del *.* ~ trialsanderrors 07:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep There are a lot of people talking about it. It seems to be quite a popular joke among a certain class of programmer, hence the popularity of implementing it (and there are a lot of implementations out there). JulesH 18:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• slighty week keep it has been nominated before and a concensous of keep was reached and i know of a large number of programmers implementing this.--Lucy-marie 20:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - significance and notability not apparent or, apparently, stated. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I can't agree with any of the reasons given to delete it and it sounds like those who want it gone are trying to get another bite at the apple. Shouldn't there be some sort of double-jeopardy protections for articles in wikipedia? --Lee Vonce 21:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - "it has already survived a previous AfD" is an extremely unconvincing argument.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It's just for fun. What's wrong with that? 72.134.44.224 06:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Just for fun" or not, like the majority of esoteric languages it doesn't pass notability requirements. Krimpet 11:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete.--Húsönd 02:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Cena and Shawn Michaels

John Cena and Shawn Michaels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No need for a combined article, any relevant information can be in the individuals articles Winterborn 01:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

• Support Not enough info, probably transitional champions anyways.Killswitch
• Delete If they're not transitional champions, then Cena would join DX! Therfore all information on this page would be moved to the DX Page. 2) Cena and Michaels are not a proper tag team like Cryme Tyme. If we made a page for every team that won the titles, where's Booker T and Test's page, Tazz and Spike Dudley, Jericho and Benoit etc etc etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WackadooXanadu (talk • contribs) 02:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
• Delete. Totally makeshift tag team that won't last more than a month. As Xanadu said, if this deserves a page, than so do Austin and Undertaker, or Batista and Mysterio, etc. MarcK 02:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete By the time the tag team is finished there'll hardly be enough info to make an article. Just write it up in their individual articles. Normy132 03:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - NN as a tag team. They most likely will be transitional champs. Clay4president2 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Both have own articles, article of them as a tag team is unnecessary.--Jersey Devil 03:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above-- bulletproof ^3:16 04:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete completely unnecessary, better off merging into Shawn Michaels and John Cena. Resolute 05:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain Just because I wanted to abstain!! Also, this is a relatively new article, I am not inclined to delete or keep it. You don't know what the future holds to quote Yoda! "Always in motion, the future is!". So ye, lets just wait and see! Mind you it probably will be short lived!! Govvy 10:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --  oakster  TALK  14:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 15:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete every tag team championship pair really does not need their own article.-- danntm ^T _C 20:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete They JUST formed a tag team on Monday night, and the fact that they won the World Tag Team Championship does not mean they should have their own article. Now, if they continue on as a team, perhaps, but for now, it is way too soon to have this article. Anakinjmt 07:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteIts not important and it is good if it is merged with both John Cena and Shawn Michaels articles..Cometstyles ^talk
• Speedy Delete They're a makeshift tag team. Not every tag team that wins the championship NEEDS to have an article BBoy
• Delete to the face The content of the article gradually slides into talking about the WWE Championship. Not even close to a worthy article. --SteelersFan UK06 01:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• DON'T DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.229.13 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. We don't need articles on every tag team unless they are already deemed notable or more stable. For example, we don't have an article on "Rikishi and Rico" (I sure hope - I can't find one). --Dave. 14:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. If they become a permanent fixture on television lasting a long time, then maybe this article should exist, but it is far too early to predict that and as of now the article is completely unnecessary. --DaHumorist. 12:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable cruft. -- The Hybrid 03:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Now they are going to face Undertaker and Batista at No Way Out. Like I said, you don't know how far these two might go! Govvy 12:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Even with that they're not notable.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 13:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as the person who originally prodded it. They are a temporary tag team. Govvy, Batista and Rey Mysterio won the titles and wrestled on Armageddon too. TJ Spyke 01:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. as redundant and arbitrary. Opabinia regalis 04:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trickjumping

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

This article is a list of articles in a category. Delete as redundant material. Exarion 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, while the article as-is is just a redundant list, there's no other article that "leads into" the general topic of trick jumping, and since it's not specific to any one game there's no clear place to merge it to. The article could probably be expanded and improved. Krimpet 03:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Krimpet  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it duplicates the category needlessly and does not state any WP:N to maintain it. Jeepday 03:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• STONG Delete and every article it links too. It's hard to even explain how backwards the human race is evolving by allowing crap like this in our encyclopedia. I hope this offends somebody MiracleMat 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to delete an article. Resolute 06:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a rather random a crufty list that has no content. I would also nominate that all of the other articles that it links to be deleted, except for Rocket Jumping since that is a rather popular move. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 06:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete arbitrary list.-- danntm ^T _C 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as simple, unvarnished original research, unless there are some sources that confirm its notability other than Quake demos. If nothing else, all of these gaming techniques should be condensed.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Avi 20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Gasior

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

Page markets non-notable, one-man training consultancy Ronnotel 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as textbook commercial spam. No books by Gasior appear on Amazon (which should be his primary sales channel if he really is a well-known US finance author). The only mentions he gets is in the middle of a list of names in the acknowledgements of a couple of books by other people[6] . Yes,he had his own radio show on an internet talk radio station in 2005, but according to the radio station's website, anyone can become a host with their own show on their station if you pay $$$[7]. Also, what does "300,000 people read his monthly newsletter" mean (300,000 people on his spam email list?) and what's the reliable source?. Bwithh 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - Michael who?  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete obviously self-promotion by a nobody MiracleMat 05:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete Vanispamcruftisement (note: this was first AfD tagged back on 29 June 2006) Pete.Hurd 07:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't find the discussion now, but I believe the issue was Gasior's so-called 'publications'. Kudos to Bwithh for his debunkment. Ronnotel 15:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete who? Jefferson Anderson 16:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Winterborn 06:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Vox Rationis 05:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 20:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chance cards

Chance cards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Community Chest cards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This nomination is also including Community Chest cards. Their page content seems to qualify as an indiscriminate collection of information, the majority of which is devoted to listing the text on each card. Information pertaining to the dates of their introduction already exists in the article History of the board game Monopoly. ~ PseudoSudo 03:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Not entirely true. What's mentioned in the History article has to do more with which artwork was implemented when (Uncle Pennybags/Mr. Monopoly starting in US editions in 1936, but not in most of the rest of the world until later, and even then only on the game's logo). A major point that tried to be made in the two articles is how the cards, and thus the gameplay, changed from 1933/34 through 1936 in the United States, and how further changes were made from US to UK editions (and elsewhere), because of cultural differences. The articles deliberately do NOT go in depth into EVERY variation made for EVERY edition of Monopoly since the 1990s, as that would be ridiculous and an absolute violation of the point you made. They are currently brief lists, and works in progress. My only OTHER suggestion would be to merge them with information about selection/retirements of tokens (and the UK wartime spinner, etc) into an article along the lines of History of Monopoly game equipment. --JohnDBuell 03:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Bwithh 03:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep but develop it, the current version of the page is not acceptable Pernambuco 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The nom is quite mistaken: these do not violate WP:NOT by a long shot. The articles discuss key aspects of Monopoly, the seminal board game. The Monopoly article is extremely long. For that reason, separate articles are absolutely required to cover Monopoly fully. For an example, see History of the board game Monopoly. --JJay 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia does not need "to cover Monopoly fully" and WP:NOT for that purpose. Wikipedia needs to cover Monopoly "encyclopedically", that is, describe how reliable sources discussed it and how it influenced culture, game design, any gaming hobby that may have existed then, the modern gaming hobby, or other things that might pass the "hundred year test". Changes in particular cards -- cards which do not drive the game and rarely have more than a minor influence on who wins or what choices players make next -- don't belong in this category, unless multiple sources clearly demonstrate that they do. Barno 00:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into the main Monopoly article and redirect after improvement  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I have to disagree here - I'm in full agreement with what JJay states (which is why these articles got forked off in the first place, along with the history article, which is an FA, and the pop culture references article, which is also a work in progress). The Monopoly article is TOO LONG to take on any more material. Again, I'd go for a "Monopoly Equipment" article, but I wouldn't upmerge these into Monopoly (game) or History of the board game Monopoly, simply because of the length. I just pared down the lists to reflect the major differences between the 1935/1936 US editions and the 1936 UK edition, the two most widely known versions of the game in the English speaking world. Cards in other editions (South African, German, French) have based their texts on the UK edition. --JohnDBuell 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Create Monopoly equipment article and merge these articles, along with additional information from the main Monopoly article per previous comments. Monopoly article is too long to take on the additional material. Otto4711 03:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. The monopoly game has been heavily analyzed in reliable sources. The contents of the individual cards are not too small a detail. YechielMan 04:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and develop per JJay and JohnDBuell. Newyorkbrad 04:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• M E R G E List cruft! Why is this even a discussion??? MiracleMat 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• What kind of a comment is that? These articles are not lists. And where exactly do you think the articles should be merged? That needs to be specified. I agree with you, though, that this should not be a discussion. AfD is singularly unsuited to address complicated editorial questions involving featured articles. I'm willing to venture that few of the commenters here have read any of our extensive coverage of Monopoly. Given that, drive-by comments by editors who have devoted one or two minutes to the issue do not serve much purpose. It is insulting to the editors who have devoted extensive time to working on the monopoly articles. The articles should not have been nominated without a prior discussion on the article talk pages. --JJay 12:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per JJay. The articles require improvement rather than deletion, and the merge candidates are too large already. Resolute 06:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The general gist of the Chance and Community Chest cards could be elaborated on in the main Monopoly article better, but this listcruft is unnecessary. Krimpet 08:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both articles per guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games. Monopoly is widely noted, but there's nothing in this article (nor in its Community Chest brother) that helps a non-fan understand anything important about the game. I don't see any information describing how the card changes affected gameplay, and as a veteran gamer I disagree that someone knowing both versions would make any strategic or tactical changes between versions. I disagree with the opinion that these are "not too small a detail". Barno 19:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: These articles (as has the history article) have been developed wholly independently of ANY WikiProject. I'm offended that anyone would want to impose ONE project's guidelines on any article or series of articles. One project should NOT decide content or rules or guidelines to apply everywhere, not even EVERY game article. And even if these were developed by project members, exceptions are, should be and will be made. These two articles were developed with the game's early history in mind, modified to reflect cultural differences, and I'm pleased to see others calling for either a more in-depth view of the game's elements as a historical whole and others calling for a broader cultural view. --JohnDBuell 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to "impose one project's guidelines" on this, I'm trying to hold it to Wikipedia's core standards. The guidelines at the BTG project are clarifying how those core standards apply in more detail to boardgame articles, which is why I referenced them instead of WP:V or WP:NOR. If the significance of these component changes in the game's early history is so significant that it should be featured in encyclopedic (not fansite) coverage, then you need to show why this is strong enough to be an exception. (I agree that the guidelines have flexibility for special cases, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a special enough case.) This is "excessive detail not appropriate for an encyclopedia" in my view as a gamer and as an editor; show me where reliable sources demonstrate great impact of the "cultural" "historical" differences, or stop being offended by people upholding WP policies. Barno 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: After a day-and-a-half of this discussion, the nominated article still contains only trivia about minor component changes, and only one reliable source, a book about the game's early history. The article still contains no claim of notability, no content about cultural influence, no content about how gameplay might be affected, no references indicating that anyone except the single niche author has ever cared, not even a link to anything on BoardGameGeek or other modern gaming reference sites. I would consider this article (and its Community Chest twin) candidates for speedy deletion were they not part of a Featured Article walled garden worked on by sincere (though policy-weak) editors. Barno 15:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If I were to execute a create and merge (as has been suggested by several editors), then the two existing articles would wind up being redirects, and the AfD notices (while not necessarily deleted) would not be visible. That's in violation of the spirit of the process, as near as I can tell, and I'd rather let the process run its course rather than trying to conclude it prematurely as you seem wont to do. --JohnDBuell 19:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the nom. This article is no more necessary than an article on the wheelbarrow or top hat pieces. What really needs to happen is a serious copyedit to prune the main Monopoly (game) article. Reducing the verbage and some of the unnecessary detail would do away with the need for an article on every game piece. Agent 86 23:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If you really feel that way, put Monopoly up for Featured Article Review. Many of its sections have been laid out and developed in an attempt to mirror the structure and layout of the article on Chess, which has been an FA for about eight months more than Monopoly has. --JohnDBuell 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• keep What these articles need is expansion to include other countries, not deletion. The changes are a significant social index. DGG 02:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Create a new article as suggested by Otto4711 and merge in. Doesn't need its own article but shouldn't go on the already overstuffed main page. DB (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Create Monopoly equipment article and merge these articles, along with additional information from the main Monopoly article per Otto4711. Winterborn 06:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both: whether in own right or per User:Otto4711's suggestion. The articles record and provide some explanation for variations in the rules of a well-known game. -- Simon Cursitor 08:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge The article although different certainly should be kept but would read better when merged with the main monopoly article. It doesnt really stand on its own very well, and there has been a considerable amount of wokr done on the article, it is by no means just a list of the cards so deserves to be kept. As said above it does contian useful info--PrincessBrat 15:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per many reasons stated above. -- Kevin ^(TALK) 18:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep please per many reasons above the article needs expansion not erasure yuckfoo 21:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into the article about the game itself. /Blaxthos 00:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, or alternatively what Otto4711 said would work well if anybody does do that. Mathmo ^Talk 13:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep both per JJay. --- RockMFR 23:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Dismiss this AfD without preduice (ie Keep for now). Although I'm not convinced that these articles should stay, I agree with a couple other commenters that AfD is not the proper forum. I'd suggest taking this to their talk pages (which have a total of 4 lines of text between the two of them, so there's definitely room) and everyone who's interested can hash this out there. If a AfD is needed then, let's try again. - grubber 16:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 11:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Gandolfi

Failed election candidate, got 43% of the vote in a seat in the South Australian election. No other notability. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• keep because being a public candidate in a public election gives this person notability, there is press about this, and a historical record of the election and of the candidates, this is something that is valuable to keep, even if it is only a stub, and who knows, maybe the person gets back in politics later Pernambuco 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Pernambuco  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete review of the article does not provided any WP:N other then ran and lost. Jeepday 03:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above MiracleMat 05:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete failed political candidates are not inherently notable. No other assertion of notability. Resolute 06:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete just another NN failed candidate. Pete.Hurd 07:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to the electoral district article. This is one way to improve the Electoral District articles, which, apart from this sort of thing, will never be more than stubs describing who is the member and where the electorate is. * JROBBO 10:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep This article is about a politician and therefore has relevance on wikipedia.Tellyaddict 16:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See WP:SK for criteria for Speedy Keeps; this is not that. That said, I think right now this article should be a delete right now -- WP:BIO indicates that you should be "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage." Ol Pete may be that; probably a little research could uncover significant press coverage if he got over 40% of the vote. But, as the article stands now, there's no assertion of that level of notability. Deltopia 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep It seems to be well established elsewhere that major party candidates in a election for the legislative body are notable whether they win or lose. The doubts come in when the candidate is not from a major party. In any context I would regard getting over 40% of the vote as substantial & notable--at 5% or so it might be different. DGG 02:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#People notes that the precedents are that "Candidates for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability". Pete.Hurd 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - a huuuuuge number of American politicians got AfD'd in the past 3 months because they lost their races. And these were mainstream party candidates running for significant office. A very clear consensus developed remarkably quickly that those articles should go. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - he won no office, caused no significant news articles beyond "Peter is the candidate for", and made no more impact on the world than any other of the dozen new and failed candidates at each South Australian election. He's an ex-political advisor, current small businessman who got a local branch of a state party to endorse him for election....and lost. Nothing there is notable for an encyclopedia - noone else is writing about him and wikipedia is not a primary source - Peripitus (Talk) 11:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 06:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep plenty of articles about his candidacy so he passes WP:N and WP:V, even if it is only because he was a candidate. —siroχo 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, losing an election doesn't make you notable. Lankiveil 02:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete nn. "because being a public candidate in a public election gives this person notability"? Shall we make tousands of articles or lists about candidates. 3000 candidates is Slovenia on last elections. Come on. --MaNeMeBasat 14:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If they all pass N/V requirements, as this failed candidate does, then sure (WP:NOT#PAPER). —siroχo 20:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per first reason listed on this debate. Mathmo ^Talk 16:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, consensus in numerous AfD debates is that losing in an election is not a notable act. As such, this article that offers no other claim to notability, must go. Nuttah68 12:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosemary Clancy

A failed election candidate in the 2006 South Australian election. No other notability, sitting on a local council is not sufficient, in Australia, the local council is only responsible for garbage collection, gardening services. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• keep because being a public candidate in a public election gives this person notability, there is press about this, and a historical record of the election and of the candidates, this is something that is valuable to keep, even if it is only a stub, and who knows, maybe the person gets back in politics later Pernambuco 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I could go to the Australian Electoral Commission, pay $200 and become a Wiki bio? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - At this rate my chances of having my own article are increasing by the day. Orderinchaos78 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Wait and see what happens  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• delete WP:N Wikipidia is not a cyrstal ball, If they become notable then they will be. Jeepday 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom MiracleMat 05:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article asserts that she was a former mayor of a town called Brighton. Given how many there are, and that the article links to an unrelated Brighton, would this establish sufficient notability? Resolute 06:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - being a mayor of a suburban council of 60,000 people isn't really notable - City of Brighton - as in Australia, the local government only does garbage collection, maintenance of parks, libraries, parking fees and not stuff like education or health or infrastructure. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Hmmmm, Clint Eastwood is a mayor, and he's notable, but that doesn't make all mayors notable... Pete.Hurd 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete another NN failed candidate. Pete.Hurd 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to the electoral district article. This is one way to improve the Electoral District articles, which, apart from this sort of thing, will never be more than stubs describing who is the member and where the electorate is. JROBBO 10:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep It seems to be well established elsewhere that major party candidates in a election for the legislative body are notable whether they win or lose. The doubts come in when the candidate is not from a major party. In any context I would regard getting 40% of the vote as substantial & notable--at 5% or so it might be different. Some of the objections seem to be based on speculation about subsequent career. Perhaps none of them are relevant to the proper concerns of this AfD. DGG 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#People notes that the precedents are that "Candidates for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability". Pete.Hurd 15:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete Losing candidate who stood not for the national legislative body but for a state body? Not notable. Hobson 02:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete every town has a mayor, every school has a principal, they don't all need articles.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 06:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable failed candidate. Lankiveil 02:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep per first reason listed on this debate. Mathmo ^Talk 16:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - there is definite precedent for candidates with no other claim on notability not having articles. Hell, if such a precedent didn't exist, I'd have my own article. :) Orderinchaos78 18:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient claim to notability. Caknuck 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 02:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: Rosemary+Clancy — news, books, scholar Addhoc 10:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per sufficient news coverage... Addhoc 10:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The 2006 election article devotes only one line to the race, even though it was "tough" and "key". As that article and Rosemary Clancy stand now, they dont establish notability in my mind. - grubber 16:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Rishworth

Candidate in the 2006 South Australian election - lost badly (33% to 67%) of vote in a seat which she had no chance of winning. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• keep because being a public candidate in a public election gives this person notability, there is press about this, and a historical record of the election and of the candidates, this is something that is valuable to keep, even if it is only a stub, and who knows, maybe the person gets back in politics later Pernambuco 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I could pay $200 to the Australian Electoral Commission, and get my name on the ballot, that doesn't make me notable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Who knows what will happen; wait and see if she does anything else before deletion  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That isn't how it works. Notability needs to be established first, then the article comes. Resolute 06:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep That may be the case, but a) she brought the ALP ahead on primaries to get them on to the 2PP vote, and b) she's been preselected by the ALP to contest the Liberal's most marginal seat in the country for the federal election later on this year. I don't see a reason (yet) for deletion. Also if you remove it, it makes a link on the SA 2006 election page red :P Timeshift 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Remove the link them :/ superapathyman 04:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete WP:N Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, If they become notable then they will be. Jeepday 04:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete just another unsuccessful candidate. Pete.Hurd 04:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. If she becomes notable, she can be easily re-added. superapathyman 04:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. What is the point of deleting an article for six months until the federal election is held? This isn't playing with a crystal ball, it's accepting the reality of this woman being a (reasonably) high-profile figure within the South Australian ALP: she was the Young Labor President of 2000, after all. michael ^talk 05:03, 31

January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And with Kingston being Lib by less than 0.1 percent, somehow I dont think Mr Richardson will be holding that seat for too much longer. All the pollsters are predicting all marginal SA Lib seats will fall to Labor at the next election. Timeshift 07:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and above MiracleMat 05:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Failed political candidates are not inherently notable. No other assertion of notability Resolute 06:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - uncharacteristically, I'm leaning toward delete in a heavy debate. I'm sorry, just being in a race is not enough of note: all ghits are just quick media mentions about her being in the race: [8]. Part Deux 07:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Over thirty media articles mention Amanda between now and February 2000, a seven-year period. Of these, a number make mention of her position as the National Young Labor President and an organiser with the SDA union. "Newly elected National Australian Young Labor president Amanda Rishworth said the Liberal party had failed...", "Another woman at the breakfast meeting, Shop Distributive and Allied Employees union organiser Amanda Rishworth, said...", "Ms Rishworth will attempt to follow in the footsteps of young Adelaide MP Kate Ellis (ALP), who won her seat at the 2004 Federal Election.", etc. michael ^talk 08:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know enough about Australian politics to get involved in this one, but there are failed political candidates with their own Wikipedia entries which would seem to set precedent. For example Raj Bhakta, who recently tanked in the 2006 race for my local district. He stood no chance at winning (good riddance), but still has his own developed, well-sourced article. Krimpet 09:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for the info, it does indeed set a precedent. Timeshift 09:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Bhakta was a candidate for a federal legislature; Rishworth was a candidate for a state legislature (Krimpet, your equivalent would be the Pennsylvania House of Representatives). That's a substantial difference, so I doubt there's much precedential value in the Bhakta article. -- Jonel | Speak 05:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's something I didn't really consider, and looking at all the red links in Pennsylvania House of Representatives for elected officials, I'm going to have to lean towards Delete abstain on this one. Krimpet 05:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Rishworth is a current candidate in a federal (as with the Bhakta article), not state race (though she previously contested a state seat), and stands, unlike Bhakta, a very strong chance of winning. If we're keeping American articles on candidates who didn't stand a chance in hell, and deleting Australian articles on candidates who are very much favoured to win, then this is one hell of a double standard. Rebecca 06:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we need more Australian perspectives on this, I don't think it's appropriate for people overseas to give their approval or rejection (my opinion) on a matter such as this... it really needs the opinions of people familiar with Australian elections. Timeshift 06:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm abstaining again... I'll admit I shouldn't have trusted one biased proponent to explain a foreign election to me, I failed to realize she was running again for a federal election, which is much more valid criteria for a keep. Krimpet 11:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to the comment about failed candidacies in long-shot elections. Bhakta was a failed candidate in a federal election, which in and of itself made him notable. Rishworth's failed candidacy was for a state election; Krimpet and Timshift9's comments indicated they felt there was precedential value in a comparison between those two failed candidacies, which there really isn't. That both Bhakta (reality TV contestant) and Rishworth (current candidacy, youth leadership positions) have other claims to notability was beside the point of the comments. Personally, I think major-party candidates for state legislatures (in whatever country) are notable enough for articles. Clearly, that position is not in vogue; I've written enough subsequently deleted articles to realize that. -- Jonel | Speak 13:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Rishworth has been preselected for the most marginal of 150 seats in the upcoming 2007 election. The Liberals won on a particularly strong 52.8% of the two party preferred vote at the 2004 election, so there is a strong chance that Rishworth will take it at the next election even if the polling showing the ALP ahead doesn't hold out - so she'll either be a successful or non-successful federal candidate. Not to mention she was president of Young ALP etc. Timeshift 14:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to the electoral district article. This is one way to improve the Electoral District articles, which, apart from this sort of thing, will never be more than stubs describing who is the member and where the electorate is. JROBBO 10:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - yet another losing election candidate. MER-C 10:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not sure of the relevance of if whe won or lost the previous election, but as the article states, she is up for election again in 07, making her still a current candidate and notable.Mystache 15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't know Australian politics well enough to infer importance properly, but this sounds like a keeper to me. TonyTheTiger 20:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep it seems to be well established elsewhere that major party candidates in a election for the legislative body are notable whether they win or lose. The doubts come in when the candidate is not from a major party. In any context I would regard getting one-third of the vote as substantial--at 5% or so it might be different. Some of the objections seem to be based on her politics, or speculation about her subsequent career. Perhaps none of them are relevant to the proper concerns of this AfD. DGG 02:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my comments about Peter Gandolfi.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - she's won no office, held no positions of significance, and made no more impact on the world than any other of the dozen failed candidates at each South Australian election. Delete the article and someone can write one of substance IFF she wins in Kingston 2007. As per Blnguyen, I can fork out $200 and be a candidate or get less than 100 people at my local labour branch to endorse me and I'm as notable. Being up for election is not significant. Only ONE recent news article mentioning her and she is not the subject - It's all about her parties leader with her mentioned deep deep in the text.Peripitus (Talk) 11:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Name yields nearly 1500 ghits[9]. Mystache 18:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - not quite. using quotes around the name, removing wikipedia and restricting to Australian sites to avoid all of the other people in the world with the same name yeilds 42 which is hardly impressive. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 06:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - failed Labor candidate. Has not done anything notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If she is elected in the Fed Election then we can try again.I elliot 10:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, failed candidate, and not an automatic winner in the Federal election either. Come back when you've been elected. Lankiveil 02:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep per first reason listed on this debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathmo (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. Rishworth would not have been notable based on her previous unsuccessful run for state office, but she is notable for this one. Kingston is one of the seats most likely to change hands at the next election, and as such her name is repeatedly popping up in the newspapers, and will continue to do so over the next year. An article on Rishworth is good background for our coverage of what will be a vital race in this federal election. Rebecca 03:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Have to disagree with you there Rebecca. There is no interest in her except she's a candidate in a marginal seat....along with all of the other marginal seats. Tony Zappia is running for the same sort of seat but is independantly notable. Noone in the world seems to care about her except us, beyond X is a candidate for Y in the next Z and we're not a primary source. Coverage of the election is more for wikinews than wikipedia. Should not be an article without reliable references which there are not even after this huge debate. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How are there not reliable references? Just about very polling organisation in the country has been looking at Kingston in the last fortnight, and Rishworth appears in just about all the reporting on those polls. It is a patent double standard to keep a whole bunch of American federal candidates who never stood any chance, and to delete an Australian one in one of the most crucial races in the country. Rebecca 12:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't state that as I meant. There are not reliable sources as to her notability just reliable sources that she's a candidate. The seat and related contest is clearly notable but the two references in the article in essence say she's a candidate and nothing more - Peripitus (Talk) 07:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, consensus in numerous AfD debates is that losing in an election is not a notable act. As such, this article that offers no other claim to notability, must go. Nuttah68 12:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

She's not notable for losing an election. She's notable for being in a current, ongoing race which is receiving quite a lot of attention. Are people even reading the article before voting? Rebecca 22:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Are people forgetting the fact that she's not notable just for that, things like the fact she was Young Labor president? And an organiser for the Shop Distributive Allied Employees Assoc. union, and she's also a psychologist. As was already said, it seems to be well established elsewhere that major party candidates in a election for the legislative body are notable whether they win or lose. The doubts come in when the candidate is not from a major party. In any context, one-third of the vote as substantial--at 5% or so it might be different. The fact she also brought Labor ahead of the Liberals candidate to face them on the two party preferred vote as opposed to the Liberals in 2002, and also the fact she's been preselected in the country's most marginal of 150 lower house seats, Kingston at less than 0.1 percent, where a poll was done a week ago by The Advertiser newspaper in Adelaide of 550 electors in Kingston, with Labor on 56 percent of the 2PP. This is not some fly-by-night person. An article from 2001 shows that. This article should not be deleted given other examples of failed candidates given as examples here, especially when she's not a failed candidate yet. Timeshift 13:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable election loser. Soltak | Talk 23:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

For gods sake, the article is not about an election loser. It's about a current candidate. Can people at least make clear that they've read the damned article before voting? Rebecca 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable, crystal ball. Although she stands a reasonable chance of winning the seat, I would give the same odds to Sarah Hanson-Young, who was deleted and protected after the same debate. Her chances of winning the seat are irrelevant to the debate. I sympathise with Rebecca, but the WP consensus seems to be that she does not deserve an article until she actually wins the seat. 203.20.192.55 07:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per 203.20.192.55. Having key roles in two apparently-NN organisations doesn't confer additional notability. Flyingtoaster1337 07:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. While I would agree with the nomination that her participation in the SA election does not warrant an article, together with her involvement in an important contest in the upcoming federal election, and other positions held, she seems notable enough. JPD (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hard Hat Brotherhood

Hard Hat Brotherhood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NonNotable entry, unable to find sources for it, talk page suggests that it was created by a member. MPoint 03:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ORG and WP:COI, "Head Hard Hat" created the article. Krimpet 03:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete junk. JuJube 03:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}   03:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete:: There are no initiations, no rules and no bylaws. - speaks for itself - rernst 14:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jefferson Anderson 16:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Winterborn 06:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirected to douche. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Douchebaggery

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

Neologism RedHillian 04:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect to Douche, minimal variant on an already widespread insult, doesn't deserve its own article. Krimpet 04:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect per above. BJ^Talk 06:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect without prejudice to recreation. Originally, I was going to say don't redirect, but the term appears to be noteable: [10]; however, the current article has defined it completely neologistically and it's a dicdef. Part Deux 07:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect per Krimpet ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect ok, I too am convinced - redirect the thing. --RedHillian 23:16, 31 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McDonald's menu items

this article was kept before in afd but with invalid WP:ILIKEIT reasoning here, rather uncyclopedic, WP:NOT a resterant menu or a indiscriminate collection of information, looks like every country has their own versions of a mc'donalds menu making it a endless list, unsourced see WP:V, and loaded with WP:OR, similar afd going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burger King menu items Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First nomination resulting in a Keep descision: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items EnsRedShirt 08:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'd just like to point out that the nominator is on shaky ground using WP:ILIKEIT to try and invalidate the results of the previous AfD. Firstly, that is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Secondly, WP:ILIKEIT refers to liking the subject of an article, not liking the quality or usefulness of the article itself. Unless a majority of arguments were "Keep because McDonalds food is delicious" - and they weren't - there is no grounds to use WP:ILIKEIT to invalidate previous consensus. --Canley 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:N wikipedia is not a menu and the article ads no value to Wikipedia. Jeepday 04:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The rundown:

• The subject matter is encyclopedic. The subject? A list of foods served by the biggest chain of restaurants in the world. Millions eat McDonald's food every day. I think this is enough to claim that this belongs in an encyclopedia.
• This is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The minimum requirements right now are any food items sold by McDonald's, past or present. This can be tightened up a bit if need be. The list can't possibly be "endless". Large? Duh.
• Sources exist for this. Whether they be primary (from McDonald's) or secondary, they do exist.
• Secondary sources have covered the subject of McDonald's food as a whole. Therefore, we are not inventing some new concept by mashing a bunch of unrelated subjects together. Here's something that was published just today: [11]
• This article needs a cleanup, yes. But not deletion. --- RockMFR 04:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Also, it passes the Pokémon test, if that's your thing :) --- RockMFR 04:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I cannot state it any better than RockMFR. The article is decent. I think that half of the people who are voting for deletion are doing so because of McDonald's status as a large multination American corporation. Apfox 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I think it's worthwhile. Pretty much everything can be verified (it's not as if McDonald's is a small chain with a supersecret menu) and the original research can be edited out. I think that the "regional dishes" section is important/interesting enough for the article stay. This is more than a menu, some of the entries include history and many others might be expanded in the same way. The article is too long for the intersting stuff to be merged back into any other McDonald's article. superapathyman 04:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NOT encyclopedic. THis is not what we are here for. MiracleMat 05:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Take this to a fan wiki for restaurants (if such a thing exists). Wikipedia shouldn't be a source to read menus ever, period. RobJ1981 05:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think I commented before some of these items might be worthy of their own articles- it is a franchise after all- but this is less granular. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Many users have contributed to this article, and deletion would be an insult to the work they have put into it. It gives a lot of historical and current information on one of the world's largest corporations. --Mrath 05:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a valid reason to keep Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per most of those advocating same. The information is verifiable enough (and that which isn't obviously has no place here, blablablaboilerplate), and this information is encyclopedic enough to be included somewhere. It looks far too big to be plonked in the middle of the main article, so a separate one would make good sense. Strangely enough, my two McDonald's-addicted brothers were just comparing notes on "local specialties" we encountered on a recent trip through Europe. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - wow, this article is surprisingly well written for what looks like it should be a list. Talks about the dishes and their history, and in depth international varieties. The information is worthy of an article on WP - despite nomination by Jaranda, I see no evidence of WP:ILIKEIT here any more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Much of it is also easily verifiable - how hard is it to verify the contents of a Chicken McGrill through a link (blahblahboilerplate per BigHaz)? Part Deux 07:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep interesting and well written especially the international variations.. EnsRedShirt 08:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• McDelete - Wikipedia is not a menu. MER-C 10:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per the Burger King nomination above. Wikipedia is not a place to list all the items available at a retail outlet. Markb 12:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep before looking at the article, I thought the same as several people above: "if Wikipedia starts including menus, then God help us all...". However, looking at the article, I think it's a perfect example of the sort of international collaborative effort that is virtually only possible on Wikipedia. The article is NPOV, this is not a "fan page" as some have suggested. It's verifiable, in my opinion notable, and (at the risk of being accused of WP:ILIKEIT) pretty bloody interesting. Perhaps part of the problem is the title - "Regional variations of McDonald's food" does not seem to have the "Wikipedia as a collection of menus" connotation that the current title does. --Canley 12:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Several items on the menu at McDonald's have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. However, much of this article is messy, pointless OR McCruft. There's nothing wrong with a well sourced article on notable McDonald's menu items, but let's not be afraid to clear out the cruft. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a travel guide, a directory, a publisher of original thought or a menu. -- IslaySolomon | talk 13:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, but article editors should consider renaming. McDonald's has spawned hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles around the world dedicated to it's menu alone. It was the subject of a documentary which saw a nation-wide release in movie theatres. While WP:NOT describes an indiscriminate collection of information, the items this list and the subject itself meet WP:V and WP:N and the article is a narrow, discrimating collection of information. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I won't be placing a vote in this particular AFD since it's pretty clear what the consensus is. However in order to adhere to WP:NPOV I have no choice but to place a keep vote for the Burger King version of this article. Abstain. 23skidoo 13:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - menus change, people should just follow a link to McD's website from the main article. Jefferson Anderson 16:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as Lankybugger notes, the McDonald's menu is itself the subject of frequent coverage, since this is one of the world's major brands. This is not indiscriminate (although there's little point to listing all the soda brands, if you ask me), different international menus is in fact justification for having this article, and WP:V and WP:OR problems may be dealt with via cleanup or dispute resolution. This is a very logical subarticle to McDonald's. --Dhartung | Talk 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep In all honesty, sometimes I support a page because it has been created although I think other ways would be as proper. I would have been satisfied with a template since there are 28 items in Category:McDonald's foods. However, since it is there, there is little reason to delete. I did not check for overlap of article with individual food item articles however. TonyTheTiger 20:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a valid article as per my reasons stated in the Burger King thread. In addition, the menu is not just a collection of products for sale but a form of advertising that targets demographic trends and groups as well as the tastes of the markets these companies operate in. These companies spend millions of dollars and thousands of man hours on developing products that will give them market share and is a major part of their operating budgets; these articles help demonstrate that. To delete these sub-articles would take away from the main articles and fail to demonstrate how one aspect of the modern restaurant chain business works. While I understand his initial reasoning that these articles were just a list of products, it is my belief is that Jarada may never have been fully exposed to the product development processes of modern business that these articles are trying to explain and may not fully understand the reasoning process that goes into creating products at a major, international chain (I am not making a dig or insult of him, just trying to understand his thought process).

Jerem43 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a major difference between a list of products from something like Coca-Cola or Ford from this, the main thing is that it's a store, that the menu here can change all the time and it's different for all parts of the world, unlike ford kraft or coca-cola. You are basiclly saying that you are endorsing articles of a listing of every product for every major brand like Wal-Mart, which wikipedia is WP:NOT for, there is a limit Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed.

1. Wal*Mart is a retail chain, not a manufacturer. Burger King is a manufacturer, specifically of a food product that is designed for immediate consumption. You do not think of it as a manufacturer, but it is. A store is a retail establishment that usually sells pre-manufactured products, while a manufacturer takes raw or semi finished materials and constructs a product to sell. The product maybe sold at a retail establishment, on on-site or through private vendors. In addition, a restaurant while not only manufacturing the product (food) a restaurant provides a place to consume the product (food), but does not have to.
2. The menu does not change on a consistent basis, in fact is fairly stable. BK offers special products on occasion (e.g. special Whopper varieties) as does Coca-Cola (e.g. Special flavors of Sprite) and Ford (e.g. Eddie Bauer Explorer). Like Ford, it removes non-selling (Ford Excursion, CCC's Tab product) products from its lines when necessary.
3. Wikipedia provides an informational source of products manufactured by Hershey's, Nestle and others. They are manufactures of food products designed for resale, while restaurants such as BK or McDs are are manufactures of food product designed for immediate consumption; just because the food is consumed in different venues does not matter, both groups should be treated equally.

Jerem43 22:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As on the Burger King outlets discussion above, you argue that a McDonalds is not the same as any other store, it is actually a factory. Again I ask you for evidence to back this up; McDonalds don't claim their outlets are factories, and where local authorities have powers to zone or designate specific activities in specific areas, they do not class McDonalds as factories. Show me an example of a shopping mall where such a mix is allowed - the shops, the McDonalds, the Ford truck engine plant etc. Markb 08:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your are twisting my argument- At no time did I use the term factory. You are seeking to discredit my argument with data that seem to be applicable but are really not. You do not have to have a giant mill or factory to manufacture a product. Examples would the people who make hand crafted jewelery, weavers who make there own cloth for sale, tailors who manufacture custom clothing, potters who make hand thrown stoneware- all of these people are manufacturing products, usually in a small location that also usually serves as their retail outlet. Yes BK is a retail outlet- it serves food products that are manufactured on site, as do brewpubs, bakery cafes, chocolate stores, small coffee roasting houses etc. Look at the definition of manufacturer from Webster's:

man·u·fac·tur·er: one that manufactures; especially : an employer of workers in manufacturing

Pronunciation: -'fak-ch&r-&r, -'fak-shr&r

Function: noun

What is manufacturing? Webster's defines it as such:

man·u·fac·ture

Pronunciation: "man-y&-'fak-ch&r, "ma-n&-

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French, from Medieval Latin manufactura, from Latin manu factus, literally, made by hand

1 : something made from raw materials by hand or by machinery

2 a : the process of making wares by hand or by machinery especially when carried on systematically with division of labor

2 b : a productive industry using mechanical power and machinery

3 : the act or process of producing something

Notice that it does not say giant factory or mill. Based on the definition, all restaurants are manufactures; just as Coca-Cola, Nestle, Ford, Sony, Dow etc are. Just as these companies' products are important and noteworthy, restaurant menus from these fast food restaurants are too- they affect major societal issues like health (Mr. Spurlock's film showed this), the economy (several million burgers are sold each day generating tens of millions of dollars in revenue) and business practices (these companies spend millions on product development, and the failure of these items can be detrimental to the company). The menu is an integral part of the business operations of these companies and to delete them would be removing an important piece of the main article. I have stated my opinion as why Jarada's argument for deletion is flawed and that the article should be kept. I believe that it meets accepted Wikipedia standards for articles.

Jerem43 20:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• To further explain why the argument is flawed, Ford, Kraft and Coca-Cola do have regional differences in their markets, and they do change their offerings from time to time. I don't know if you've ever bought soda for retail, but if you had, you'd have a coke man come visit you and tell you about their new products, or their discontinuations if something isn't selling well. You may also wish to see List of Coca-Cola brands, List of Ford vehicles and Kraft Foods has a brand section which I think would make a good article. FrozenPurpleCube 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info - this is in effect a list. Any useful information that is relevant to MacDonalds, menus or food in general should be merged to those articles. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - NPOV, verifiable history of a very notable restaurant's menu. It's not an ad as some have suggested. The info is not all available centrally on the restaurant's site -- what about discontinued items? Perhaps it needs clean-up, but it should be kept. --Czj 22:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a menu, a directory, a nutrition guide or an almanac. I also stand by what I said in the original AfD, even if I might have phrased it differently today. Agent 86 23:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• You deserve a keep today. The article isn't just a simple menu -- it offers history and reasoning behind the menu items. Besides, some items such as Quarter Pounder have their own articles, and they haven't been deleted yet. I don't see any good way that the article could be merged back into the McDonald's article without causing the main article to become bloated (kind of like someone who's eaten two or three Big Macs.) I'm keepin' it. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 00:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not a menu. Agreed that it tends to attract annoying cruft, but that's what editing is for. I started this article in the first place, and did so because explanations of menu items cluttered the main article and, despite the broad homogeneity of McDonald's menu worldwide, there are significant differences that should be documented. Billions and billions served: that's notable. (Oh, Jaranda didn't inform me of this AfD... tsk tsk.) ProhibitOnions ^(T) 01:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article is not a menu, nutrition guide, or almanac. Contains valuable history of product offerings and regional variations, promotions etc. And, I like it. Fg2 02:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep though the content of restaurant meals is not normally N, it is for this chain and its major competitors, for they are part of what passes for American civilisation, and changes are widely noted in the media. DGG 02:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• McKeep per Fg2 --Candy-Panda 04:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• McDelete' per McNot. --Shirahadasha 05:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Regional/international variations (beef substitutions in India, etc.) and history of popular items (Filet-O-Fish created to appeal to Catholics) are notable business & economics topics, if not also culinary topics. Wl219 06:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per my reasons on the burger king nomination. Winterborn 06:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per several contributors, especially Jerem43. --Goochelaar 10:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete What next: List of things sold by Wallmart ?-Doc^g 10:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the article you're looking for is: List of Wal-Mart brands. FrozenPurpleCube 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuck! But then brands are a lot different from listing individual items.--Doc^g 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you're upset over that, I think it provides valuable encyclopedic content, as it provides information as to what in-house brands Wal-mart has. They are the world's largest retail concern after all. And while I do concur that listing every product produced under those brands might eventually be a bit much, that same problem doesn't apply to a fast food restaurant, which even though they can have a large menu, is still a bit more finite in scope. And besides, if you look at Sam's Choice you will see it does list individual products. FrozenPurpleCube 18:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Let's see, nobody can question McDonald's overall notability, right? What are they notable for? Serving food. Heck, their food gets in the news with some regularity. (I know there were news articles about the Arch Deluxe, and I bet they even appeared on the Today show and Good Morning America. Thus covering their food is highly important. This article does a reasonable job of doing that, and in fact, the nomination for deletion makes a good argument for having this article. International differences are yet another thing people might want to know. I've even seen newspaper and magazine articles that discuss it. FrozenPurpleCube 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep At first I was sceptical about this article, however, the sheer enormity of the McDonald's franchise, and consequentially, its cultural influence around the globe, makes the list more than simply fancruft. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 12:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: I'm not saying I really enjoy every item on McDonald's, but McDonald's has a vast history with many cultural differences, menu bombs, and so on. I was just thinking that this is always a hotbed of activity. There's always a tag at the top. So, what's wrong?

• The article needs a cleanup, nay, complete rewrite. No one's satisfied if their country is plummeted to the bottom, if the countries are out of order and in bullets, discontinuations here, late intros here, and so on.
• This has virtually no source citations. Many items are kept by word of mouth, I've never even heard of the "Mac Jr."!
• It reads like an advertisement. "crisp, juicy lettuce"? That's probably c&p'd from the official site.
• Lack of tables. Tables could work, but it would require a major thinking process.

In short, the McDonald's menu items article is a complete mess, but it does not deserve to be deleted. So I've added a Rewrite tag to the article. TheListUpdater 22:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "complete mess" at all; only the international section is long and unordered. The occasional advertising phrasing that crops up is a separate issue, but usually quickly deleted. I have moved the tag down to the international section; the U.S. section is already ordered into logical sections. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Strong Keep I was looking for exactly this piece of information on the internet and only Wikipedia had it. Makes this a deeply more useful encyclopedia. I'm serious. McD is one of the biggest and most important American restaruans out htere. One could argue there IS some inherent value in studying it's menu. Keep. --Hollerbackgril 15:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Question So you are saying the article should stay on Wikipedia because there is no other source for the information? Jeepday 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

reply one of the values of wikipedia's open source architecture is it's ability to provide information that is shut out from other, more established venue. so, yes i think availibility elsewhere is one among many factors that contribute to an article's value on wikipedia.--Hollerbackgril 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Making this a primary source, and therefore original research? JuJube 19:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

false wikipedia makes this information more accessible, and hence more valuable. i would have to navigate too many menus to get to mcd's original info. I much prefer it here. --137.146.177.86 03:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment": There is as much WP:ILIKEIT as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so don't think that the WP:ILIKEIT is the only factor. TheListUpdater 19:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT. See sister AfD regarding Burger King menu items. /Blaxthos 00:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, you aren't using WP:SCORCHEDEARTH are you? TheListUpdater 03:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Could some one explain why the Burger King Article was deleted, while this one is still here? The history, etc has all been deleted. If McD's has been kept, then the original BK article should be restored. Jerem43 03:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It had been vandalized. It's corrected now... TheListUpdater 03:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Blnguyen (bananabucket) has declared that it was deleted due to consensus.

• Keep per RockMFR reasons. Mathmo ^Talk 10:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Delete for what it's worth. You can't convince me this isn't an indiscriminate collection of information no matter how many sources you get. You want to know what's on the McDonald's menu, then go to McDonald's. JuJube 19:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Hard to justify keeping (also valid) articles criticizing McDonald's menu when we would censor (delete) the menu central to the controversy. Duh! Carlossuarez46 21:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. I don't care how well-developed the list is - it's still a stupid list, and should go the way of the Burger King menu list (which, by the way, is getting shot down at deletion review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YechielMan (talk • contribs) 03:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. Finding out what's on the menu at McDonalds now may be best learned by going to McDonalds, but finding out what used to be on the menu, and when, or what they serve in other countries, is the job of an encyclopedia article about McDonald's menu items. This has clear criteria for inclusion, is notable, and has verifiable sources. Please do not try to stifle opinions or distort consensus by preemptively declaring some opinions to be invalid and unworthy of consideration. That sort of argument is uncivil and needs to stop. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said! TheListUpdater 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, ubiquitous and significant global product line. The reasons presented for deletion seem better addressed by cleanup than by deleting the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete lists of products like this are not what Wikipedia is for. Menu's are essentially a kind of directory. Eluchil404 09:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the article not just lists products, but also provides context and international differences. Although it could require additional sourcing, that is merely an argument for improvement, not deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment To be perfectly frank, I am very irritated at all the Keep votes here. Where were you guys for the Burger King discussion? I think all Keep votes should be discounted unless they can explain why McD's should stay while Burger King's should go. JuJube 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, Afd's are not a vote, but I blame the closing admin for misinterpretating the situation, as I believe that person was mistaken in their analysys. If anybody here concurs and feels like saying so: The Deletion Review is the place to speak. FrozenPurpleCube 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • There's already a DRV, but it's not going well. If this gets closed as Keep (as it likely will), I'll make a second one. JuJube 21:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • So, being arrogant, trying as many times to vanquish an article for good? Do you know how immature that is? You are so like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:SCORCHEDEARTH. TheListUpdater 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, I actually read that as saying that JuJube would take a keep decision as a grounds to review the deletion of the Burger King article, not as an intent to argue for the deletion of this one. Perhaps you might wish to ask if that was what he or she meant? FrozenPurpleCube 22:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I appreciate your passion but I actually meant if this gets closed as Keep, I would argue to get the BK closure overturned and the article restored. Nice try on getting indignant, though. We all love the wikidrama. JuJube 22:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. -- Steel 16:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucky penny records

Lucky penny records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating:

Kris Koran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Seems to be self-promotion, not notable, and no verifiability other than their website Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Kris Koran as {{db-bio}}. DMacks 04:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Lucky penny records as {{db-corp}}. DMacks 04:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete both per DMacks, so tagged. skip (t / c) 06:12, 31 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greenlighting hoax (2nd nomination)

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

Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:WEB. A slate article alone is not enough; no evidence that anyone off the internet every heard or wrote about this. Savidan 04:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and salt; has already been deleted twice. Slate may be a non-trivial source, but it's the only source; WP:WEB requires multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Also the hoax only lasted three days, unlike the year-long, widely-cited toothing hoax which does merit its own article. Krimpet 04:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Bwithh 04:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom MiracleMat 05:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete internet only and no sources BJ^Talk 05:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Do people even look at the articles they vote on? There's a damn good source - an entire feature on Slate Magazine, which is owned by the Washington Post. Phil Sandifer 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment sources a subject isn't notable because it has one internet only article written about it. BJ^Talk 21:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Since, generally, objects that number zero are pluralized (i.e. "there are zero sources"), saying that there are no sources is flatly misleading. Furthermore, that it is Internet-only is irrelevant - we're dealing here with an online magazine owned by the Washington Post. And we're dealing with a full feature on the subject, not a mention or a paragraph. This isn't Joe's Blog Shack. This is well-sourced by any standard. Phil Sandifer 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I think you would find very few objections to adding information from Slate into an article with other non-trivial sources. Good people can disagree over articles sources only to Slate, however. It's really second-tier as sources go. It's certainly not such a gold standard as to preclude the skepticism you attempt to rule out. Savidan 02:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 10:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:WEB is not policy, and the "multiple mentions" was really created to head off various forms of "was mentioned once in passing in the New York Times." This was the subject of a full-length piece on Slate. This is a reasonable exception to WP:WEB. Phil Sandifer 15:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How is a single one-page article in Slate a year and a half ago any different than, as you said, being "mentioned once in passing in the New York Times"? From reading the article itself, I get the impression that it seems to be more of a focus on the (somewhat self-aggrandizing IMO) adventures of the journalist "exposing" the hoax and getting ganged up on by the SA goons, rather than actually being an expository piece describing the hoax itself. Krimpet 20:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, since Slate didn't adopt pagination until this year, the page length isn't exactly relevant - it's a full-length article. As for the focus, I'm sorry that you're not fond of its writing style, but that does seem rather beside the point to its notability. Phil Sandifer 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I never said I "wasn't fond of its writing style" let alone use that as an argument against its notability; you're heading into straw man country here. However I would say that the focus of the article is very relevant. It's a first-person narrative of the author finding and "exposing" the hoax, and being messed with by the hoax's perpetrators afterwards, more of an entertaining piece than an informative piece. I noted that the style is self-aggrandizing because it suggests that elements of the story could have been fictionalized to some degree for all we know; we have no other reliable sources at all, because this hoax was simply not notable enough. Krimpet 01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • That's still a subjective judgment of the piece that is far beyond what is appropriate under WP:NPOV. The piece was published by Slate as non-fiction - that's sufficient to establish its relevance. If you have any objections to its content, they should be sourced, not original research. Phil Sandifer 01:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I think that this illustrates the reason why we need multiple non-trivial sources to write an encyclopedia article. Especially for an article with "hoax" in the title. This is a common sense issue for me. Savidan 02:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. A full-length article on the topic from a reliable source is enough to warrant inclusion. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 17:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

One Slate article is not necessarily enough. We could create billions of non-notable bios from single mentions in Slate-or-better news sources. Savidan 21:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be impressed if we could actually get 1/3 of the world from mentions in Slate or better, actually... And this is not a "single mention," it's a detailed feature. Please do stop misrepresenting things - it negatively affects the debate when you do. Phil Sandifer 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge that. I didn't mean to imply that this was a trivial reference, but just a single article. Savidan 02:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep WP is the place to look for this sort of article. Slate is used a a RS for internet culture, even more so than WP itself. DGG 02:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But in this situation the Slate article is written by the person claiming to have debunked the hoax; not really a qualified person to determine its notability. Savidan 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be relevant only if Slate were self-published. But it's not - the editors of Slate (and thus, by extension the Washington Post company) have vouched for the event's notability. Phil Sandifer 18:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the implication that Slate/Wash Post is "vouch[ing] for the event's notability." Even the New York Times does human interest pieces on things that obviously aren't notable. Savidan 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that totally goes against the entire distinction we make between self-published and independent sources, right? Slate thought the event was significant enough to pay for an article on it and publish that article. Slate is a highly notable publisher. In judging notability, I consider Slate's judgment that it was worth publishing on very important, and your judgment that Slate was wrong more or less irrelevant. Phil Sandifer 23:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Slate's credibility is an entirely separate issue from whether everything that they write about is "notable" in the sense of the Wikipedia guideline. It is unlikely that Slate's editors took a look at our notability guidelines before publishing this article. This is why multiple non-trivial articles are necessary to establish notability. For example, in the current issue of Slate, there's an article by this guy about his wife's post-partum depression [12]. That doesn't make her notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Savidan 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's multiple non-trivial mentions. One mention of this kind of substance is also, I think, significant. Phil Sandifer 02:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Show us a second source, then. Savidan 02:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point, which is that a full-feature coverage is at least as significant as two "non-trivial mentions." Phil Sandifer 03:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's pisses the point of having multiple non-trivial sources, i.e. not having to rely on a single source. We can dress this Slate article up all you want. The fact is that this greenlighting hoax is no more notable than the average internet meme and definitely not up to the criteria of WP:WEB, which doesn't say "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself or one really sweet full feature coverage in an internet periodical." Savidan 03:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's also a guideline, and we're allowed to sod it if it seems poorly phrased, off base, or otherwise not useful. They're guidelines, not rules. Especially not WEB, which is disputed on the relevant section. And especially not since we're not talking about a website here, so it's not even clear to me that WP:WEB is the operative guideline. Phil Sandifer 04:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEB is definitely the operative guideline for an internet hoax. In this case the article violates both the letter and the spirit of the guildine because the purpose of requiring mulitiple non-trivial sources is to limit out minor internet hoaxes which never achieved significance in the non-internet realm. We seem to just be repeating ourselves here. Why don't we just let some other people weigh in. Savidan 07:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that [{WP:WEB]] probably should cover internet memes. But no text in it does, and the website rules don't necessarily translate well. Phil Sandifer 14:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not really encyclopedic material and reads like a badly written novel Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per DGG. Winterborn 07:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the references just aren't there, this was a flash in the pan.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - does not seem notable, and a single article as a source does not make it verifiable. Perhaps it warrants mention on the Something Awful article, but even in the grand scheme of things there it seems trivial. ContivityGoddess 16:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete & Salt per above. /Blaxthos 00:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, failing that do not salt - This is one of a handful of events that highlight the metamorphisis of "news", how it is reported, and how it is manipulated or successfully fabricated as a result of the sudden availablity of widely accessed forums due to the advent of the internet. It's historically noteworthy, almost unique, and well worth referencing if attempting to describe the concept of how news or widely evidenced cultural trends can now be created rapidly and on demand, and should be availble for reference at wikipedia. Normalphil 05:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Users only contribs are too this afd and the Cyrus Farivar afd, which was linked from his blog. Savidan 05:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how this incident "highlights the metamorphosis of 'news'", though, considering it was a failed three-day hoax that received no media attention whatsoever outside of this single Slate article. Toothing, which "greenlighting" was just an attempt to recreate the success of, is a much better example of news fabrication. Krimpet 11:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Pare down heavily then merge to Toothing as a section (title it "Further impact" or "Attempt to duplicate" or something of that nature). Serpent's Choice 07:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

An interesting suggestion, but ultimately one that succumbs to most of the same problems as having a full article, I believe. Savidan 17:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is a really good idea - there is not a two source minimum, to my knowledge, for inclusion, and the Slate article would surely provide a reliable source for the addition to Toothing. Phil Sandifer 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A Train ^{take the} 09:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bottle soccer

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Unverifiable, and of local interest only. Note: PROD tag removed by IP editor with no explanation. FreplySpang 05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE per nom. Absolutely MiracleMat 05:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The T-ness (of which WP is NF) is essentially written in the article itself. DMacks 05:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no sources, no claim of notability, and reasons already listed. BJ^Talk 05:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; a 100% literal case of WP:NFT. Krimpet 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - just prod this kind of stuff; people rarely come back to remove prods from this kind of article. Part Deux 07:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment From nom: "Note: PROD tag removed by IP editor with no explanation." BJ^Talk 07:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, well, then what I mean to say is WP:SNOW delete. Part Deux 08:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 10:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It! Sounds like a FABULOUS GAME!!! It will spread even faster if people can hear about it! Thats What Wikipedia is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.140.24 (talk • contribs)

• Begging your pardon, but that's actually not at all what Wikipedia is for; Wikipedia requires verification and generally covers notable subjects. We prefer to avoid original research or very novel ideas, instead generally considering ourselves a repository of information which is already known, if that makes sense. For more information, see what Wikipedia is not. Thanks! Luna Santin 04:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's what Wikipedia is not for, as Luna points out. Sorry, chief. Part Deux 05:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - definitive WP:NFT. --Dweller 07:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Street football, people do often play soccer with a bottle. But the current article is completely unencyclopedic. Mathmo ^Talk 13:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Inadequately referenced. No redirect for the same reason. WMMartin 16:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A Train ^{take the} 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skies of Arcadia things and events

Skies of Arcadia things and events (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Listcruft and/or fancruft. "Things and events" for one game (or even a series) don't need a list page here. Take it to a video game wiki. Wikipedia isn't a discriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - as much as I'm a huge fan of Skies of Arcadia, I'm sure that a indiscriminate collection of vehicles, objects and events from a video game do not belong here. WP:FICT also states that for fictional subjects, there must be an establishment of any real-world importance and impact the subject has had. Considering all of the information in the article would only be of importance to those that have played Skies, it fails in that respect miserably. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. No real world significance. MER-C 10:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - game trivia -- Whpq 17:51, 31 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. A Train ^{take the} 17:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T.O.N.Y. (Talk of New York)

If and when this album is ever released, I'm sure it will meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. The problem, as it currently stands, is that there are no reliable sources available to support this article. The scheduled release date, much like the rest of the article, changes from week to week. Suggest immediate deletion without prejudice against recreation once said sources turn up. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No way to establish if it meets WP:MUSIC yet. Madmedea 17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - no sources -- Whpq 17:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:RS (plus fails because of no play for Nelly Furtado. . .Just kidding). TonyTheTiger 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - unsourced and unsourcable information. Recreate if (and when) such information becomes available and sourcable. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the above _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politics in The Simpsons

Politics in The Simpsons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a rare self-nomination- I wrote a bit of this article because when I found it it was a list and I was trying to broaden its potential. But, it's redundant to the plot summaries of the episode articles and to the article on cheese-eating surrender monkeys, and the list seems to attract OR- in case you're curious, Homer was originally listed as a Democrat, was then categorized as a Republican, and is now labelled a communist. I'm curious as to whether it will survive, I abstain. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Perhaps the article should just be improved. The point of having theme articles is because in the main Simpsons page, you have to deal with people who say "a section The Simpsons stance on politics should be included", but instead, there is simply a link to this page. The Simpsons archive has a section on political leanings and other references. As for Homer, I don't think he has a specific party, but he has had republicanish thoughts. And, he has done Communistish things, which is why he's listed under a communism section, but perhaps that one can go. -- Scorpion 05:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep and improve per Scorpion. It's certainly redundant with the episode articles, and some of the categorizations are suspect (really Homer's political views change depending on the plot, compare Sideshow Bob Roberts and There's Something About Marrying), but I agree that the topic is kind of unavoidable given the show's length and popularity, and The Simpsons has been analyzed on its religious and political content throughout the years. The article could certainly improved, but it's not bad as-is and at least close to the standards of Education in The Simpsons and Religion in The Simpsons Krimpet 07:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep and improve per Scorpion. Politics is a very big subject on The Simpsons.- JustPhil 12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Per Scorpion and Krimpet.--Skully Collins ^Edits 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Yikes, in-universe speculation and OR. The only reference listed applies to a topic we already have an article on. It really doesn't matter if "politics is a very big subject on The Simpsons" JustPhil, what matters is "is the politics of the Simpsons a big subject in the real world?". So far, this article does very little to assert that it is. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis ... not solely a summary of that work's plot. -- IslaySolomon | talk 14:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm guessing that this article, along with the articles on religion, education, etc. in the Simpsons were originally spun off the main Simpsons article. So I would say keep and cleanup and if the resulting article is very short, merge with The Simpsons. Natalie 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Satire is a large part of the show in question, and political satire is prevalent enough to warrant an article focusing upon it. Arakunem 17:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep: It's a good article, it just needs to be cleaned up. --takethemud 17:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OR and WP:FICT and duplicative content; no indication of any real-world notability or influence except one article with a passing reference to this show being the source (actually just the popularizer) of one pejorative phrase. If all the unsourced (except from the show itself) and WP:OR material is removed, there isn't anything WP:V remaining that isn't already in the parent article or the "monkeys" article. Recreate this when multiple independent reliable sources, including real topical analysis and not just an opinion column, demonstrate that Simpsons political humor has had substantive effects. For comparison, fat jokes are another recurring point, and we could probably find Simpsons lines quoted on an "I Love Donuts" website, but that doesn't mean that "Obesity in The Simpsons" would be an encyclopedic article. Barno 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I want to set the record straight and say that this is not a spin off from the main article as can be seen in the first edit. This article should provide a discussion of the politics, but all it does is to summarize anything that happened on the show related to politics. You can write a good article about this, but it takes sources, which are hard to find compared to religion, psychology and philosophy, which has been the subject of some books. Since I can't find anything out-of-universe worth keeping that isn't already mentioned in the main article, then the best solution is to delete it and maybe someday somebody can start a fresh sourced article. --Maitch 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, to really set the record straight, much of the intro comes straight from the main article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but that was added later. This page wasn't created because there was too much information in the main article. --Maitch 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I love the Simpsons as much as the next Wikipedian, but this is article considerable novel synthesis and duplicative.-- danntm ^T _C 19:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep and clean up so that it focuses on satire in the Simpsons, not lists of characters by political affiliation (since this fails WP:OR. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - any factual information in this article can be relocated to one of the (many) other Simpsons articles here. It is clearly OR. --Lee Vonce 22:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete For reasons listed above Jellonuts 01:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep iff there is a way to keep this of reasonable encyclopedic quality after removing any whiff of OR. Grutness...wha? 06:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't think it's salvageable, actually.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FICT - does Wikipedia need so much Simpsons cruft? 207.34.120.71 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep--M W Johnson 01:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep And improve. Gran2 17:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per article author. WP:OR and no real world notability. /Blaxthos 00:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Navou ^banter 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Modahl

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

Rachel Modahl is Not Notable. Additionally, information in articly is unverifiable and most likely incorrect. Rahzel 05:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete CSD A1. In any case, even if it doesn't qualify for speedy, it's a cruft article with no verifiablity although it does assert notability, it really doesn't hold up to a threshold that is standard for inclusion Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 06:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I wasn't sure if this qualified for CSD A1, so I listed it for normal deletion. But now I have changed the article's current status to CSD A1. --Rahzel 06:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per above, vanity trash. Krimpet 07:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy it - a1, a7. Part Deux 07:44, 31 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. W.marsh 22:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tan-Hauser Gate

Tan-Hauser Gate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Tan-Hauser Gate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. Shawnc 05:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Added Template:Tan-Hauser Gate to the nomination, don't forget to get rid of those vanity/fair use pics too. MER-C 10:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Agathoclea. MER-C 12:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purgatize

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable neologism. superapathyman 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. WP:WINAD, neologism and a total of 3 ghits. skip (t / c) 06:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. Neologism. Even if it were a real word, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Creator now seems to be using this article as an editorial platform to criticize Wikipedia. =Axlq 06:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete CSD G10, it's apparent that it's some kid who is using this to attack someone. Ina ny case, not only is this a neologism but even IF it was legitimate, it belongs in wikitionary anyway. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 06:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NFT gallore. We need to make up a new CSD category for obvious NFT neologisms. Part Deux 07:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - attack page. MER-C 10:52, 31 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. A Train ^{take the} 17:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shite (band)

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

Does not assert notability Shawnc 05:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - google gives 36 ghits: [13]. Part Deux 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - who? --Mike Payne 05:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 10:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and MER-C.--Skully Collins ^Edits 14:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Jefferson Anderson 16:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C - fails WP:MUSIC ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. In fact, speedy - that's what the db-band tag is for. Natalie 04:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 09:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friendbear

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

Appears to be NN/unencyclopedic/webcomic cruft —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, vanity article for non-notable webcomic. Krimpet 08:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:WEB, alexa = 1,469,836: [14]. MER-C 10:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turgidson (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as blatant advertisement. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr paul

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

Promotion for the theories/books/products/services of one psychiatrist. No evidence that these theories are influential, widely recognized, or notable. No external sources. And did I mention, blatantly promotional?

• Note: I am also including the nearly identical article Mindos in this nomination. FreplySpang 06:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Vanispamcruftisement Pete.Hurd 06:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the beyond blatant promotion, lack of useful encyclopedic content, and failure to meet WP:N. janejellyroll 07:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above, "Dr paul" didn't even bother to capitalize his vanity articles properly. Krimpet 07:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - g12 spam, and so tagged. Part Deux 07:38, 31 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. While the DFBot summary has this AfD listed under no consensus (50%), the two keep and one weak keep votes seem to provide little to no support for their arguments, other than noting that there are stubs just as bad as this one in Wikipedia. Delete arguments on the other hand provide strong support, and the sudden waivering of former "keep" voters to neutral or delete suggests to me a deletion consensus. Ultimately, there's nothing in this article really worth saving and no one with enough knowledge or ability to research the topic to approve it. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Achargary

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

Prod tag was removed but no information on notability was added to the article. Google search revealed nothing notable about location. Fails WP:N. (see below, I changed my stance to neutral upon learning about precedent in this area) janejellyroll 07:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (changed to neutral) - as a town, seems fairly notable to me. See WP:LOCAL. Has its own noticeboard on bbc: [15]. I realize it doesn't usually go this way, but can you prove it's small enough to not be notable? Part Deux 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you pointing me to that guideline. However, I think this part of it actually strengthens the case for deletion: While some demographic or directory-type information is essential to provide context about the place, it tends to make for a dry article if that's all the article contains. If the only verifiable information is along these lines, you probably shouldn't create a new article specifically about the place. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory. This article provides no information besides location. If information can be found about a landmark or battlefield or "(random famous person) slept here," then I can understand how the "places of local interest" guideline might apply. janejellyroll 07:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment--If it is Wikipedia policy that a town is automatically notable, then I will change to a keep. I searched for a policy on towns and couldn't find one--I'm probably just overlooking it. janejellyroll 07:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. However, it is a stub, and it is probably expandable. Part Deux 08:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep; I'd say that the thousands of auto-generated stubs from USA census data have kind of set a precedent about the notability of towns. It could probably at least be improved to add population info and more detailed information about its location. Krimpet 08:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Given that a precedent has been set, I don't see the point in deleting this particular article. I apologize for my ignorance in this particular area. This is the first town-stub I'd come across. janejellyroll 08:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - What is it? The article states it is a location. A location? Is it a town, a hill, a mountain, a valley? Because towns (no matter who small), and geographic features are notable and should have an article. -- Whpq 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - per Gruntness' reseach. It's not a town or geographic feature. As an archeological site, it doesn't appear to have attracted enough attention to provide reliable sources. -- Whpq 11:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, assuming this is a town and not just some mile-marker. (It seems to have its own postcode, KW11.) Janejellyroll, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Cities and shops, which shows historical consensus at AFD on certain topics (but is not policy). --Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. janejellyroll 20:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 02:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The coordinates given are wrong (I'm about to change them - but even my finest-grained UK map doesn't show this place - and in the Highlands it shows things down to farms. Though I hate to say delete about a real place, this one looks to be infinitesimally important, so... Grutness...wha? 07:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - there seems to be dispute on whether this place actually exists. The coordinates are wrong and the map shows nothing, but there is a post code? Can someone clear this up? If it's just a mile marker or a nickname for a crossroads with a gas station, it probably doesn't warrant an article. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • My bad about the coordinates - I misread the decimals as minutes of arc, which put the place off the north coast of Scotland. It does exist - at least, it is mentioned as existing on quite a number of websites - most notably here, and the coordinates check with those at Rootsweb's location page, which is usually pretty accurate. But it doesn't show up on my trusty atlas, which usually means - as i said - that a place is so infinitesimal as to not be worth mentioning. When you consider that the same map shows that the road between Skail and Rhifail contains two hunting lodges and - a little further south - a farm which is at the site of a former village (population <20), but doesn't show Achargary, I think it gives some indication of its likely size. Grutness...wha? 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - nb - I've found the coordinates on the UK locator are usually wrong. --MacRusgail 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Vote changed to Delete per Grutness and this, which seems to incidate it's a scheduled archaeological site because of a cairn. As there is nothing else confirming residence, I think this has little significance. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trans American Airlines

Trans American Airlines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not remotely notable; there's nothing to say but what's in the Airplane! article. Shay Guy 07:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Krimpet 07:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing to merge not already in the article. Part Deux 07:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - nobody cares. MER-C 10:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and quick Madmedea 17:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FICT. Excessive detail that doesn't help a reader understand anything of significance about the movie. Not even an important plot point nor something widely noted in reviews, ads, etc. Barno 19:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete -- If this airline were more like Oceanic Airlines, I'd say keep, but it would benefit more from a section within the Airplane! article. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Hawaiian717 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Oi

Is this professor notable? I think not quite enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand; as-is it looks like a pointless vanity article but it does have references, and according to Google it appears he did in fact play a big part in convincing Nixon to end the draft, supported by the websites of the U of R, the DoD, RAND, and countless libertarian websites; the article definitely needs major improvement and expansion but I'd say it satisfies WP:N. Krimpet 08:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think this guy is notable enough to have an article, although it needs a lot of work. I've tagged it for wikification and lack of references. Krimpet could you stick the references you found on the talk page of the article?Madmedea 17:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added more information to this article and cited it. Madmedea 20:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and please correct the dollar figure related to all-volunteer force Fg2 02:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep he is undoubtedly N as professor of economics, Rochester being a major research university. However, this articles doesnt depend on that. He's a public figure due to his historical role. Better sourcing is needed, as usual. DGG 02:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but work on those sources to avoid another nomination for deletion. Prof Oi is notable as historical figure yet the article fails to show it (yes I am shocked to have voted keep despite of nn sources) Alf photoman 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International "mini" Hockey League

International "mini" Hockey League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about non-existent ice hockey league. Google search for "'international mini hockey league' -wikipedia" gets no Google hits. The article itself is a cut-and-paste job of the United Hockey League article, with some team names ando ther words changed in some places. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I admire the effort, but with even the slightest intrusive research on their league page, the league just isn't a real one. When you click on game photos on the IHL TV section, you see a boy sitting on his knees in his basement with a ministick and mini-net. DMighton 08:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HOAX, WP:NFT. Resolute 14:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per all above. Skudrafan1 14:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Mus Musculus 15:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This league has over twenty players, it is a real league. although they do play in a basement what is the big deal? thats where the game of ministicks is played. --ihlhockey 15:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC) — Ihlhockey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Ihlhockey has also tried to blank the article [16]. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not verifiable under WP:V, not a "fully professional league" (see WP:BIO for that guideline of whether a sport's players are notable), no chance that reliable sources will be found. WP:NFT. Barno 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete "over twenty players" makes me think this isn't very notable. Maxamegalon2000 20:08, 31 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 per A7 and G11. Sr13 07:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franchise Circle

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

The above debate was closed when the article was deleted as WP:CSD#A7. It has since been recreated in somewhat larger form. I still find the notability rather dubious. >Radiant< 12:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we open a new AFD? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Spam, no claims of notability. No neutral references. Note that the link to the "New Canaan Advertiser" is, in fact, to a pdf file on the franchisecircle website. Corvus cornix 18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Goodday. I believe this article is notable for a variety of reasons, most notably the people who are behind this idea. David Neeleman is behind the idea and the founder of Franchise Circle was featured in a book with the likes of Richard Branson, David Neeleman, and Charles Schwab. The company has obtained sponsorship from american Express and JetBlue (verify the company's website to view this). They have obtained a growing amount of support in the franchise industry and are backed by individuals who are more than notable. Please do not delete this article. If the article needs to be re-written, please provide details as to how it can be improved as it is clearly notable69.157.249.3 19:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC). — 69.157.249.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Wikipedia does not operate upon individual editors' notions of what is personally important to them. That way lies chaos. Wikipedia operates upon the presence of multiple non-trivial published works, from sources independent of the subject and its creators/founders/financiers/backers, about the subject. We may not "verify the company's website". We cannot trust purported copies of source material published by the company on its own web site, such as the purported "New Canaan Advertiser" article, noted above, or other articles claiming that the company has been sponsored by someone. What we need are citations of multiple independent sources. You have not supplied any. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G 19:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, perhaps speedily: a non-notable web forum, written in an inappropriate promotional tone: Franchise Circle was created to be a one stop solution for the global franchise industry. Franchisors and advertisers get a 'Group' page where they can post information and build what’s called "Relationship Capital". Misuse of the word "solution" in this manner is a pet peeve of mine, and a sure indicator of ad-speak. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, but I'm waffling on an A7 or G11. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no independent results (one press release) on Google News Archive. This company may be backed by big names but they haven't done it much good in terms of free publicity. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion on the references:

1. The link to "Anne Ford's Bio" doesn't work. But then, I have to wonder, why would there be a link to a biography of a person who wrote a book featuring this company, unless that person were involved with the company?
2. The link to the Franchise Times takes you to the current front page of that website. You have to pay for back copies of previously featured content, therefore there is no way of telling what their article had to say about Franchise Circle.
3. The link to John-Richard Thompson's page is mangled, but when you go there, you find out at http://www.j-rt.com/JTbiopage.html that he is an actor and playwright. He has also written another book with Anne Ford, Laughing Allegra. "This non-fiction work blends memoir with self-help to reach parents of children with learning disabilities and was published by Newmarket Press in May, 2003". Interestingly enough, if you go to the current home page for Newmarket Press at http://www.newmarketpress.com/, they are featuring another book by Anne Ford and John-Richard Thompson. What are his qualifications to be writing a book about Franchise Times, and why is there a link to the biography of the author of that book on this page? Same questions I have for the Anne Ford link, except at least this page exists. Next Steps does not show up at amazon, and a google search comes up with nothing concrete for any such book. http://www.j-rt.com/home.html indicates that a book which has not yet been released, called The Next Step is coming out, but doesn't explain what it's about. Since Anne Ford seems to write about developmentally disabled adults, I have to wonder what her books have to do with Franchise Circle.
4. The link to Interantional Franchise Expo Debut is nothing more than a list of exhibitors, and I do not find Franchise Circle there, anyway. Corvus cornix 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Ad-spam. Not notable. Poorly referenced. Bad hygiene. Doesn't play nice with other children. Groupthink 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet WP:WEB, only one quasi-WP:RS. Leuko 01:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response but Franchise Circle is listed among the other exhibitors. Can we rewrite the article to provide more notability, etc.??Cartermalloy 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC) — Cartermalloy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Yes, you may edit/improve the article during the 5-day long WP:AFD discussion, and based on the re-write people may change their mind. Leuko 01:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Franchise Circle is not listed among the other exhibitors. Corvus cornix 19:34, 26 May 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. W.marsh 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ISOC (Islamic Society)

ISOC (Islamic Society) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

We deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LivISOC, a specific society, and the same editor has now created this unsourced article about student Islamic societies in general. There is, to my eye, nothing here which is not entirely generic. Replace Islamic and faith with, say, engineering and profession, and the thing reads exactly the same. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: too vague, unencyclopedic. No evidence of notability - rernst 14:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To call it unencyclopedic is going a bit far IMHO. A search will pull up many examples of IS's around the world, although I agree on the notability issue. Zunaid©® 14:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice - Hmmm...tricky one. The concept of an Islamic Society (or equivalently a Muslim Students Association, the two titles are entirely interchangeable and refer to exactly the same thing) certainly has currency. You'd find MSA's/IS's on most campuses/schools where there are large Muslim minority populations. That said, there is not much more to be said about them than the fact that they exist and look after Muslim students' interests. As JzG mentions, this is no better than having a general article on "Engineering professional bodies". For the time being delete without prejudice. Perhaps it is possible to write an all-encompassing article about this topic. However, the current one isn't it, and without references does not provide the basis for such an article to be written. Zunaid©® 14:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. This article was previously deleted by UkPaolo [18]. Agent 86 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete contents without prejudice and redirect to Muslim Students Association Madmedea 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other such that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. Since I was unable to find any Wikipedia qualifying published works about the topic and the article does not cite any, the topic does not meet Wikipedia:Notability requirements. Thus, although this appears to be an important subject, I believe that the article should be deleted per Wikipedia Notability requirements. Comment: If the topic becomes Wikipedia notable in the future, any recreation of the article should try to avoid confusion with the prominent Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC). -- Jreferee 18:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — not sufficiently notable a subject to merit inclusion, it's just a slightly expanded definition _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Inadequate references. WMMartin 16:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Retain: - Given time the article will grow and improve - MSA article (american equivalent) went through the same process. Too many people delete without allowing enough time for article development. Despite the existence of ISOC's all over UK, not many people (especially non-muslims) are familiar with the term or what the generic ISOC may represent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seljuk Soldier (talk • contribs)
• Delete: No reliable sources. Not sure if it really is a real group.--Sefringle 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ElGeko

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

Autobiography of a graphics artist, in my opinion it doesn't meet notability and has Conflict of interests. Prod tag was deleted by author. -- TexMurphy 10:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 11:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

reply from the author: i work for 20 year as an artist visual performance and exhibition in many countries. And i am a pioneer in visual art starting at a time were even the word "visualart" was not existent. I was as artist in EXPO Sevilla 1992, at ARTCORE_05 in paris, made visual performance in front of 400.000 people last year, what must happen to be accepted in wikipedia? Be an artist for 150 years? I don´t know a lot about wikipedia policy but i see a lot entries accepted from thing less important than my 20 years of hard work in art. How can i change the entry 2 be not deleted? ElGeko 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per MER-C, VSCA all the way. The Rambling Man 14:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Alex Bakharev 22:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless independent sources assert notability & confirm priority claims of the article. `'mikka 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Turgidson 21:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horsemen of Apokalips articles

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

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

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

Yurrd the Unknown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These articles are each about a non-notable character who appears in at most three pages of a comic book that came out last week. None of them spoke. I was going to merge these into one article, but there wasn't even enough to justify that. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all - zero real world significance, merely plot summaries. MER-C 11:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- fancruft - rernst 14:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per WP:FICT, as minor characters in a fictional work that isn't verifiable through reliable sources. No indication that enough reliable coverage can be found even for a merge to a "List of minor characters in ..." list. Barno 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment — Believe me, I tried. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the comments above.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antoinette Clinton

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

Unsourced article, claim to fame is winning a competition with an unknown number of participants and no objectively provable significance. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, unsourced claims, even if sourced would still fail WP:MUSIC. The Rambling Man 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:MUSIC and/or WP:BIO Alf photoman 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other such that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. Although I located (1) Macias, Chris. (October 21, 2005) The Sacramento Bee She's got the beat: Antoinette 'Butterscotch' Clinton, an internationally recognized beatbox wizard, puts percussion where her mouth is. Section: SCENE; Page J1. and (2) Liu, Marian. (January 3, 2007) San Jose Mercury News Beatboxing: an oral history:Hip-hoppers turn to voice-based rhythms, there is not enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. Since there is not enough Wikipedia qualified source material that would permit editors to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic, the topic does not meet Wikipedia:Notability requirements. Thus, although this appears to be an important subject, I believe that the article should be deleted as not presently meeting Wikipedia notability requirements. -- Jreferee 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete There's also an article in the Sacramento Hornet about her, but I'm not convinced. One Night In Hackney 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete I am not sure about the significance of a German beatboxing championship. I am not sure about the WP:RS. TonyTheTiger 20:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Turgidson 21:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirected to University of Melbourne. Content already merged. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 07:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Growing Esteem

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

This material has just been copy/pasted from the relevant subheading on University of Melbourne. Given it is highly specific to UniMelb, there is no reason for it to have a page in its own right. Especially since it adds nothing new from the original section. Suicup 11:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is how to do it but, i've stated why there needs to be an extra site specifically dealing with growing esteem: Growing Esteem is significant because it is seen by some as a harbinger of a new two-tiered higher education system in Australia. The plan has been endorsed by the federal government as part of its plans to 'diversify' higher education institutions.

It is an important plan of greater significance than just melbourne university. I believe there may be a significant amount of searches on wikipedia for 'growing esteem' , and if this article is deleted people will not be able to find anything. Maxyk 11:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into University of Melbourne. If really pushed, create a redirect. The Rambling Man 14:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: this has a relationship with the implementation of the Bologna process in Australia, which is likely to become an important issue, although I'm not sure that this article is a useful contribution to the subject.--Grahamec 00:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 06:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, probably important enough to be mentioned in the university article, but there's no way this is notable enough for its own article. Lankiveil 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of common newspaper names

List of common newspaper names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Just a list of names. No encyclopedic value. Jvhertum 11:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- RHaworth 11:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. MER-C 12:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Punkmorten 13:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete if we can Madmedea 17:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no clear criterion for list, arguably violates the WP:NOT section cited by MER-C, clearly violates WP:NOR unless reliable sources have actually surveyed thousands of newspapers and selected those names with at least a certain number of publications. Barno 19:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Per nom. Aep 20:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - per nomination. Turgidson 21:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No clear criteria, original research. ShadowHalo 03:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. -- Steel 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expis.tk

Expis.tk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A software library with no notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Google hasn't heard of it. Deprodded. Weregerbil 12:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - second person spam. So tagged. MER-C 12:24, 31 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ADFE-Français du Monde

ADFE-Français du Monde (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, no references provided. Prod removed without comment. Marasmusine 12:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Kamope · talk · contributions 12:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the page is almost orphaned with only 4 pages linking to it, besides AFD. Kamope · talk · contributions 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Primary concern is the lack of notability. Also, it isn't very encyclopedic. It's really just a list of services offered--for example, the organization will "help you to file for retirement," etc. janejellyroll 20:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Google search gives 10,600 hits. Hardly nn. Article ought to be rewritten though, to become less of an advertisement. --Soman 12:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  08:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is rubbish but the organisation can't help being notable. (Caution: some French required). Start with fr:Assemblée des Français de l'étranger. This is a French government-sponsored organisation. The website is here. The AFE elects 12 of the 331 French senators. The ADFE-FdM (see fr:Association démocratique des Français de l'étranger - Français du Monde) is one of the political groups in the AFE (parties don't sit there as such). It has 53 of the 155 members of the AFE and is represented by 3 senators: one sitting with the Citizen and Republican Movement and two with the Socialist Party. There are plenty of results for ADFE (the common name of the thing) on Le Monde/Le Figaro/Libé. This quite isn't on a par with the Republican Party, but it does worry me a little that an organisation with vastly more representation than the Libertarian Party (United States) could be AfD'd. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - brenneman 06:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creative Coordination

Creative Coordination (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Creative Control (DVD) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable instructional DVDs. Unsourced. Contested prods. MER-C 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Advertisements. Saligron 13:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT, advertising. The Rambling Man 13:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT an advertising service. Totally unverified. -- IslaySolomon | talk 13:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as spamaliscious, no 3rd party verification/coverage = WP:V as well. SkierRMH 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7. Navou ^banter 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Indian School

United Indian School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Merely a directory entry. No evidence of notability, no sources, no external links, no prose and no prod tag; nothing. MER-C 12:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Tagged for speedy deletion, CSDA7. yandman 13:48, 31 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. ST47Talk 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NetSpend Corporation

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

Tagged for speedy deletion, but the article makes certain assertions of notability: A few (minor) awards, a spokesperson, and a claim that they are the largest prepaid debit card processor and marketer in the United States today. No opinion. yandman 13:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Appears to have been created by a single-purpose account, content reads like marketing (but is not copyvio, at least not that I can tell) and could use a bit of a rewrite but its claims of notability appear to be substantiated. Flakeloaf 17:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep almost skipped over this one. At first glance they are notable, but of course it needs 3rd party documentation, like almost everything that come here. I have put a fairly detailed suggestion about how to go about it on the article talk page. Unusually, the ed. asserts on the talk p. that he is writing about the company & wants to write about others, thus implying he is not part of it. DGG 02:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Although if someone wants to work on this per the concerns below, I will make the content available to you. W.marsh 21:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MAX (Dance Dance Revolution)

MAX (Dance Dance Revolution) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fancruft, unverifiable, original research, you name it. Moogy ^(talk) 14:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fan/listcruft and definitely WP:OR in there. The Rambling Man 14:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, 100% WP:OR. yandman 14:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Super incredicruft that doesn't belong in anything non-DDR oriented that even tries to be serious. It's also a gross violation of WP:NOT#INFO and WP:OR. Voretus 15:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. may need a lot of adjusting to became an wikipedic article --Euzebia Zuk 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep on condition of major revamps This could work as an article, but as it stands right now, it's got one source. 'Dat's bad. -Ryanbomber 16:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep on condition of major revamps. I think this series of songs is significant enough to grant an article (there are other articles on DDR song series). But as it is now, it's just fancruft and repeated info from other DDR articles. Pi (π) 17:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Higgins

Steve Higgins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Missing assertion of notability? Although admittedly he does yield a number of Google hits, including an IMDb entry. — Timwi 14:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete agreed, no notability asserted, and definitely WP:COI. The Rambling Man 14:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless rewritten limited to notability Keep if rewrote limited to notability The critereon is multiple non-trivial mentions by independent sources. He has mention at BBC and Times - two equals multiple. The article sucks The article has nothing to do with his notability as underground explorer and is currently vanity spam, but that it no reason to delete Keep if rewritten such that the subject matter meets the inclusion threshold for the notable factors, per the two media articles. But this needs a complete rewrite! --Kevin Murray 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Updated. --Kevin Murray 01:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the policies also include conflicts of interest - Higgins has written this page himself... The Rambling Man 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Counter-Comment Per Wikipedia:Autobiography, under the section "Creating an article about yourself", writing an autobiography is discouraged but not prohibited. I certainly am skeptical about autobios, but if it qualifies in all regards, it may be legitimate. --Kevin Murray 01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. -- RHaworth 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 23:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Houdini

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

Nonsensical and irrelevant. Green Eyes On Television 14:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per db-attack, tagged as such. The Rambling Man 14:49, 31 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". I am not persuaded by the arguments that individual episodes are not notable: how then could they be awarded Emmy Awards? I also understand that this is a work in progress, in common with most of Wikipedia, and that older seasons will be brought into line. The delete arguments mostly appear to amount to "smash them all" which is hardly in the spirit of constructing an encyclopedia. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1:00PM-2:00PM (24 season 6), 2:00PM-3:00PM (24 season 6), 3:00PM-4:00PM (24 season 6), 4:00PM-5:00PM (24 season 6), 5:00PM-6:00PM (24 season 6), 6:00PM-7:00PM (24 season 6), 6:00PM-7:00PM (24 season 6), 7:00PM-8:00PM (24 season 6), 8:00PM-9:00PM (24 season 6), 9:00PM-10:00PM (24 season 6), 10:00PM-11:00PM (24 season 6), 11:00PM-12:00AM (24 season 6)

• 1:00PM-2:00PM (24 season 6) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 2:00PM-3:00PM (24 season 6) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 3:00PM-4:00PM (24 season 6) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 4:00PM-5:00PM (24 season 6) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 5:00PM-6:00PM (24 season 6) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 6:00PM-7:00PM (24 season 6) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 7:00PM-8:00PM (24 season 6) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 8:00PM-9:00PM (24 season 6) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 9:00PM-10:00PM (24 season 6) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 10:00PM-11:00PM (24 season 6) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 11:00PM-12:00AM (24 season 6) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Virtually no content in any of these articles. Z388 18:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - no deletion reason provided; being blank is just a argumentum ad ignorantiam, all the pages listed above will have content by the 17th of April, seems illogical to delete them. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Standard episode pages about to be filled in. - Peregrine Fisher 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for practicality. It's not worth deleting them all to be recreated gradually (count this as ignoring rules if someone says this is crystalballery). Trebor 19:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. dposse 20:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough, once the episodes will air. In my opinion it's stupid to create these pages before the eps are aired, it will only encourage these kinds of nominations though. Still once they are there, no reason to delete them. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - these articles are pointless - other articles have separate articles for episodes because each episode is a self-contained story. 24 is different as each episode is part of a single series-long story. These are episode articles for the sake of it - i.e. just created because other shows have them. (Same applies to all 24 episodes). -- Chuq 21:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete / maybe merge, per Chuq and other concerns. While I'm usually not a fan of individual episode articles anyways, Chuq is right in that the unique nature of 24 makes these types of articles just stupid (even if you love episode articles, why organize the plot summary like this?). This same logic can be applied to the reason I normally (but certainly not always) discourage individual episode articles, the individual episodes are not independently notable nor do they need to be split for page size concerns. It's this kind of preemptive article creation that leads to the massive misconception about episode articles. WP:NOT#IINFO #7, we are not plot summaries, and other uses of plot summary don't need this kind of formatting. It's being done just because that's what someone did for other episode articles. These episodes, aired or not, shouldn't be formatted this way, even if you like episode articles. -- Ned Scott 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I just noticed that no other season of 24 has episode articles, they instead use season articles. I'm thinking this has had to come up for discussion before in the other five seasons.. -- Ned Scott 00:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all' - I propose that we create season articles instead of individual episode articles. As others have said, episode articles don't really work for 24, and a single season episode which contains the whole season plot plus any other relevant information would be much better and easier to follow for readers. Jayden54 15:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per the Season 1-5 article pages for 24, which indicate that there's a strong way for the entire season to be covered within the scope of one article. Individual episodes are non-notable and might make reading a jarring, unpleasant experience. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per Jayden54 and Ned Scott. If articles are kept, rename to titles that people are actually likely to search for. A Train ^{take the} 16:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If the other seasons do not have episode articles, we don't need them for this season. I support a season article and maybe a link to the 24 Wiki could be provided. The 24 Wiki has episode articles for every episode between Day 1: 12:00am-1:00am to Day 6 11:00am-12:00pm and probably beyond that as well. --Barinade2151 16:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per all reasons given above. Having these makes even less sense for 24 than it does for other series Madmedea 17:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into a Season 6 article to stay in-step with the rest of the articles on this subject, unless there is a compelling reason why Season 6 warrants this treatment. Arakunem 17:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Creator Comment While I of course would hate to see my articles deleted, I do understand they need content. Content which hasn't been provided yet, via Fox. I do believe that we need individual articles to cover each episode. One reason would be the spoiler, some people may want to only read one episode. Second, usually the episodes are covered a bit more in-depth; and you shouldn't really pile them into one larger article. External links to the 24 wiki, while nice, discredit what we are here to provide. One large source of information, to research and look things up. Somitho 17:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  External inks to the 24 wiki don't discredit us.. If anything it helps us by directing editors to the proper place for high level of plot detail. As for the spoiler concern, that's pretty much nabbed in the ass by us not being censored. (Although I do think it is acceptable to write plot summary in a chronological sense. For example: "Jimmy went to the mall, is ok" but " Jimmy, who later died, went to the mall" is needless.) -- Ned Scott 01:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All - articles can be created if they make sense after they have aired or have some semblance of actual content. In any case, the structure of the show doesn't lend itself to episode article anyways. -- Whpq 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per WP:FICT. A season summary (when supported by independent sources, not by Fox broadcasting the episodes) is plenty. Episode articles are excessive detail for encyclopedic coverage and fall within what Wikipedia is not. Barno 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All per other arguments to that affect. Soltak | Talk 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All No guarantee that people will actually write in these articles, and having an article with no content "just to be filled in" is crystal ballery. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree that episode articles are rarely a good idea and even on shows like The Simpsons you just end up with a plot summary and a ridiculous trivia section.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all since the episodes have not yet aired, and essentially there's nothing we can say about them other than existence. I've never watched the show and so can't speak to the wider issue of if individual episode articles make sense for 24; while I'm generally in favor of episode articles, I see that Category:24 (TV series) episodes does not contain anything for seasons 1-4. BryanG^(talk) 23:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No point deleting them when they will all just be recreated gradually after each episode airs.-PassionoftheDamon 01:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Except that they won't.. we've been using season articles instead of individual articles for the past five seasons. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you haven't. I know, because i wrote the episodes articles for the past three seasons while the episode was airing. It was only months later before someone decided to remove them. dposse 12:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Individual articles like this is not appropriate encyclopedical content. In fact I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FAN is referred to on this and all the 24 articles. Whilst yes a popular programme, each hour does not deserve an individual article. One 24 article outlining the plot and outcomes would be sufficient--PrincessBrat 15:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - They are appropriate in a television encyclopedia, which is one of the many things that wikipedia is. - Peregrine Fisher 16:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment To delete these articles but keep separate articles for countless other shows, even those with a sequential plot, would be inconsistent to say the least. If the consensus turns out to be to delete these, then it should be applied to the hundreds of other articles like these for dozens of other series'. Goodnightmush 04:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete individual episodes are not inherently notable. /Blaxthos 00:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but merge into an overall summary etc Whilding87 19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per reasons stated by others in favor of keeping --IvanKnight69 01:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep I like this format, it is easier to read. Also no reason to delete later articles just to later re-create them. Superbowlbound 03:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the intention of many of the "Delete all" votes here is that this applies to 24 episodes in general, not just un-aired ones. -- Chuq 07:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Act of War: Final Option

Act_of_War:_Final_Option (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- (View AfD)

There is no official announcement of this game. --SkyWalker 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The Rambling Man 14:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. "Proposed"? "Popular"? "Unknown"? "It has been said"? Not much more needs to be said. --- RockMFR 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, esp. crystal ball. YechielMan 03:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 00:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chloe Dao

Not notable losing contestnt on a reality television show. No claim to notability outside the show. Difficult to find references that are not PR from the article. Mikeblas 20:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. She was actually the winner of the reality show and a notable fashion designer in her own right. I'm also not sure what "PR from the article" means. Can we stop this continuous campaign waged by a few people (and their sockpuppets) to delete articles for contestants from Bravo reality programs. You may not like the shows. It doesn't mean the contestants, and especially the finalists, and winners, are not worthy of articles here. Crunch 04:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The motivation behind creating the article notwithstanding, the Bravo link is a reliable source. More sources to establish the subject's notability "in her own right" would definitely help things along, though. Flakeloaf 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as the winner (as opposed to an also-ran) of a reality TV series. -- Whpq 18:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. She won the show, and I can't think of a better reason why this article should be deleted. --- Tito Pao 18:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. She won Project Runway and deserves to have her entry here.Scarletsmith 19:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Agreed with all of the above; she won. Also, she was invited to the opening ceremonies of the Smithsonian's "Exit Saigon, Enter Little Saigon" Vietnamese American exhibit, and as such, was listed under "other dignitaries in attendance" by the weekly newspaper Asian Week (1/26/07). Sounds pretty notable to me. Mel21clc 19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, no third-party evidence of substantial notability. DumbBOT, please read WP:RS; Bravo's website is not an independent source about a Bravo program. I don't evaluate "other 'dignitaries' invited to the opening of one museum exhibit" as showing any significant notability by WP's standards. I'm neutral as to whether winning this televised quasi-competition is itself notable enough; if some genuinely independent publications said more than "here was this little show, so-and-so won, they'll do another round of it next year", and showed some lasting influence, and if it's cited, then I'd be much more in favor of keeping the article. If all the coverage is like that (and I assume some will be found), then a merge and redirect to Project Runway would be more appropriate. Barno 20:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:N multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. For example, the Forbes article already linked there; others easily found by Google like Washington Post 2006-03-09 (the links at the bottom of the article seem to have expired). cab 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. She is the winner of a notable reality TV show, and further meets WP:N per the primary notability criterion (as described by cab above). In addition to cab's Washington Post link above, the article already cites CNN, Forbes, and the Houston Chronicle. Other sources on Dao: a People article and a July 12, 2006 article from the Sacramento Bee. schi ^talk 01:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Quinn (footballer)

Sean Quinn (footballer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Never played a league game, so fails WP:BIO on that account. Suggest text merged into Micky Quinn and this article deleted WikiGull 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 21:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom. Note that user has also created Tom Staniforth and Simon Patterson (footballer) whose articles apply to the same reasoning. HornetMike 21:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment- have also put afd tag on Staniforth. Patterson does appear to have played for Wycombe, so is fair enough. WikiGull 21:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - never played a professional match, delete per nom and WP:BIO. Qwghlm 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Qwghlm - and no need for merging any of this into Micky Quinn. - fchd 22:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to one sentence in his brother's article ChrisTheDude 08:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Micky Quinn per ChrisTheDude. The Rambling Man 14:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Micky Quinn. --Skully Collins ^Edits 15:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced. No objection to redirect, however not sure what should be merged - so far we don't have any sources. Addhoc 13:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question: I dont know much about soccer/football hierarchy, so what kind of team was he on? I looked at the articles on the teams, but it still all looks Greek to me! Is he an amateur player? A pro player? Something in between? - grubber 16:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • He was contracted to Liverpool F.C., a professional club and generally considered one of the biggest clubs not only in England but in all of Europe, and was later contracted to Portsmouth F.C. another professional club, however in both cases he never made it beyond the youth (most likely under 19) team ChrisTheDude 16:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Is being on the "youth team" like being a red-shirt freshman in the US? It's prep for the day you finally do get to play with the "real" team? Or is it more like a loose association to the actual pro team, like when two cities are "Sister Cities" or when a high school has a "sister school" in another country? If he got "high" enough in the ranks, I would consider him notable. I think his early death is an interesting fact, though I want to make sure he accomplished enough before that to justify his own article. - grubber 17:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - nothing sourced so nothing to merge. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 22:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terry's Old Geezers/Gals

Terry's_Old_Geezers/Gals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- (View AfD)

completely without merit. Joke article. All relevant content is already in Terry Wogan. Nssdfdsfds 11:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, anything relevant already exists in the Wogan article; this article is heaped in WP:OR and possible WP:BOLLOCKS. The Rambling Man 15:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Whpq 18:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, although if not already present, a redirect from Terry's Old Geezers and Terry's Old Gals to Terry Wogan should be in place. It's just possible that people might hear the phrase and not have listened to the Wogan show. Sam Blacketer 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he ever uses the terms. He often says 'togs', but never the expanded form. The togs redirect is ok.Nssdfdsfds 09:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Staniforth

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

Not notable as a footballer and I don';t think all people who die from drug misuse are notable either. Suggest include details in his fathers page (Gordon Staniforth) WikiGull 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. WikiGull 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, fails WP:BIO. Qwghlm 21:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Qwghlm - fchd 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into his dad's page, although that page could do with some work as the info merged from here would most likely be longer than the content on the page's actual subject ChrisTheDude 08:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep To quote WP:BIO: "Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles.". Any player to have stepped onto the pitch for Sheffield Wednesday F.C. passes WP:BIO... therefore this player passes the notability criteria, even though he never got off the bench. --Dweller 15:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Surely that covers current squad members, who are still an active part of the club (as per the present tense in "the individual is at a club...."), not random blokes from several years back whose career highlight was being an unused sub....? ChrisTheDude 15:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Interesting reply, thanks. I don't believe it's clear that that is the case . If it were, I'd certainly expect the language to include the word "yet" between "have not" and "made a first team appearance". Under the current language, it seems to be inclusive of current and former. --Dweller 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • NB I have posted at WT:BIO in an effort to correct this ambiguity one way or the other, so that future similar AfDs can have a clearer steer from policy. --Dweller 11:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with his father's article. -- Bpmullins | Talk 16:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I found it interesting and informative. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - this doesn't fail WP:BIO, Sheffield Wednesday F.C. first team squad member unless ChrisTheDude's interpretation of "current" is correct. It's certainly ambiguous. He does gain some additional notability from his untimely demise. However, the article does lack WP:RS and needs some to pass WP:V. It shouldn't be too difficult to provide some. The Rambling Man 10:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gordon Staniforth. Catchpole 10:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the relevant information is in his father's article. HornetMike 19:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: reference it, and then we'll see if the references support notability. Everyking 07:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced. No objection to redirect, however not sure what should be merged - so far we don't have any sources. Addhoc 13:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I added references to his father's page. WikiGull 15:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Gordon Staniforth, I seem to remember his death being mentioned on the News Kingjamie 18:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Vosovic

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

Non-notable losing reality show contestant. No "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" after the show ended. Little written about them, aside from PR splash from the show. Mikeblas 14:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable runner up in non-notable reality show. The Rambling Man 14:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - reality show also-ran with no notability outside the show. -- Whpq 18:22, 31 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 nonnotable, g10 attack. NawlinWiki 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heza09

Heza09 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A short bio of user on multiple forums. No actual notability. Could be noted that the user has mistaken using the main wiki for a Userpage? Skully Collins ^Edits 14:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as db-attack, tagged as such. The Rambling Man 14:56, 31 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. Good to see an effort made, but it only demonstrated the original point that there are no reliable sources for this subject. Opabinia regalis 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tower defense

Complete lack of sourcing. A google search doesn't readily reveal any reliable sources. Almost all links are to a flash game of the same name, or downloads pages for websites for maps with this title or the occasional forum. Any information derived from those is original research. Fails WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. WP:ILIKEIT is not a good reason to keep this article. Crossmr 15:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OR. The Rambling Man 15:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - fails core requirements. Trebor 16:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced original research. -- Whpq 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete gamecruft. /Blaxthos 00:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep useful: the term TD and the idea behind it is not obvious to non-native english speakers, and occasional gamers. The article requires clean-up, that's for sure, but it describes an existing term and game-genre even if it's as special as it is. --Shinjin 17:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedia isn't a glossary. The article requires sources for which there is a total lack of. Just because its useful doesn't mean it can be kept in the face of non-negotiable policies like WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. Hence why I pointed to WP:ILIKEIT this is not a valid argument for keeping an article.--Crossmr 23:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Tower defense is a growing genre in gaming and needs an entry, even if it's not the most well done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 153.2.247.32 (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

  If it can't be sourced, it doesn't get an article on wikipedia.--Crossmr 23:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)