Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 3

< January 2	January 4 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Discussion on the current notability guidelines Use of global rights on English Wikipedia Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a stub. i withdrawn my afd since its better now The Uber Ninja 03:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GameGuard

this article mostly contains orignal research about how the anti-hack software works. it cannot be sourced, because the offical website doesn't release these info. this article is also poorly written. IMO this article needs to go. The Uber Ninja 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It doesn't matter if the company making the product releases the information or not. What matters is that the source being used is reliable. As it stands, there may be elements of original research, but that is likely correctable. And being badly written is not a deletion criterion. But lack of reliable sources is. I'm not sure at this point whether reliable sources can be found. -- Whpq 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Rewrite or Delete~~ The issue of reliable third party sources aside this appears to read mostly as a how to or at least an indiscriminant collection of information whose primary use is in reverse engineering or defeating this software. Wikipedia is not the appropriate for this information. I admit there is some information contained in the article worthy of a wikipedia article but with most of the article being inappropriate a rewrite from scratch would not be a bad idea. I would delete the sections that need to be deleted but it would either not stick or be unappreciated by well intentioned editors who care about this article who could do a better job than I.--Nick Y. 21:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I went a head and rewrote it for some silly reason. Still needs citations.--Nick Y. 01:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

rewrite starting with a stub. Almost nothing there is worth keeping, but the subject is probably notable enough to warrant an article. — brighterorange (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. GameGuard is a pretty widely used piece of software -- well-established games like Lineage II, GunBound and MapleStory use it. Sure, the article needs a rewrite, but that's a kind of an unrelated issue. -- Captain Disdain 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and just to add to that a little -- we do have articles on other, similar applications, such as PunkBuster and Valve Anti-Cheat. The problem isn't that the topic isn't valid, it's just not a very good article right now. -- Captain Disdain 22:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Inclusion is not an indicator of notability The Uber Ninja 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if we were to remove all information, then we will only have 1 sentence and there's no point keeping it The Uber Ninja 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

GameGuard (sometimes abbreviated as GG or GameMon) is a rootkit developed by nProtect. It is bundled with many multiplayer online games specifically to reduce or eliminate cheating.

- That's what we often refer to as a "stub". Simply including the missing information about which games use it would be an improvement, and certainly some information about how it works can be included. It's not that hard to find a basic source for that. -- Captain Disdain 09:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. Seems notable enough, but desperately needs more sources. --Alan Au 05:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep: It's notable and used in many popular games. Agreed with above proposals of rewriting as a stub; disagreed with nominator: deletion is not the answer for WP:OR. --Scottie theNerd 16:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MissFit001 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Used it widely available, notable, commercial games. WP:INN is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Alan Shatte 21:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as a stub per Captain Disdain. Jessica Anne Stevens 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep needs more sources. Paul D. Meehan 05:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as a stub which would also limit the number of sources required. Brad Guzman 20:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. I call upon those who said things like "keep and rewrite" or "keep, but fix POV" to actually do it, or I'm sure we'll see the article back here in a couple of months. Mango juice^talk 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CIA sponsored regime change

The CIA may not have supported ALL of these movements, and I heard the article itself is questionable anyway.

If anyone wishes to rewrite the article into an NPOV manner and/or choose a better title to save the article, feel free! :) WhisperToMe 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Regardless of whether or not the CIA actively sponsored these movements, the very premise of this article appears to be hopelessly POV; fails WP:SOAPBOX. "Regime change" is also inadequately defined besides the POV issues. (The World Bank/IMF or even the United Nations could be said to actively sponsor regime change for instance under the vague criteria in the article) Bwithh 03:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Proposal made in order to push a POV and suppress another one. As the proposer states, he would accept the article if it stated a different point-of-view. Being POV is not a criteria for deletion, but for improvement. -- Petri Krohn 04:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- AfD is not a vote count, it is a discussion on the merits of the article in question. You do not seem to have given a reason for the article to be kept on its merits.
Keep this is not the venue to argue about content. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- AfD is not a vote count, it is a discussion on the merits of the article in question. You do not seem to have given a reason for the article to be kept on its merits.
Strong Keep - The nominator "heard" that the article is questionable? From whom, and if this mysterious source is so troubled by the article why did the source not nominate it? If the nominator believes the article is not NPOV, why does the nominator not re-write it instead of telling others to "feel free" to do it? Crap nomination, no valid reason offered for deletion. If not wanted as a separate article, then merge into CIA controversies but this material can certainly stand on its own as an index/synopsis of the various main articles on the topic. Otto4711 05:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Otto, it is inherently acceptable to AFD some article titles that lead to inherent POVness. WhisperToMe 03:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is inherently unacceptable to me to Afd an article with the reason "I heard it was questionable." Otto4711 05:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The nomination is not a very good argument for deleting the article, but this is a discussion, not just a series of opinions on whether the nominator got it right. I don't think NPOV is a very good argument against this article; I think saying that it is redundant, badly named, and a POV fork are good arguments. If we are trying to rationalize the structure of the information here, I think logically this article should be a subsection of the CIA article; instead, it repeats - badly - material already in that article. We just don't need it. --Brianyoumans 07:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep The article referes to regime changes instigated by the CIA which have had multiple independent reliable and verifiable coverage in the mainstream press for decades. They are notable and encyclopedic. Sorry if truth seems POV. Edison 05:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Axe-grinding listcruft. Hard to imagine this ever being NPOV. —Chowbok ☠ 05:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete pending editing There may be an article topic here, but this one needs NPOV editing and a better definition of "regime change." My favorite entry - "failed coups against Chavez." How can a failed government overthrow constitute a "regime change?" GassyGuy 06:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete. This has POV issues, particularly in the lead. Furthermore, a better name is needed if this stays, "regime change" isn't well defined. I suspect this would be better collapsed into CIA controversies, but I can't suggest a merge in its current state. BryanG^(talk) 07:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete per BryanG. Bjelleklang - talk 07:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep but fix POV in lead.Vints 07:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep although the name is arguably POV, as "regime change" was a neologism/euphemism of the White House relating to the Iraq war (and prewar period). --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Petri and Otto, Needs work though. Where are Indonesia and Chile? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 09:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect: To CIA. All these ops and more are covered in the CIA article. Redundant. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. "I heard the article itself is questionable anyway"? Thats not making a strong case for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Conversely, you have not made a strong case for keeping. AfD is not a vote count, it is a discussion on the merits of the article in question. You do not seem to have given a reason for the article to be kept on its merits.
Keep Factual, no POV issue. Could do with improved style and there are many other examples that could be included, but otherwise OK. Emeraude 10:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

*Comment As it stands, a rather worthless POV magnet of an article. This is exactly the type of page that needs solid referencing, including inline citations - and it has none. Needs a wider range of sources too (also please note: Lew Rockwell's website is probably not the ideal place to go if you want to create factually accurate, NPOV pages). If that's not enough to delete then stubify, remove unreferenced and possibly POV content pending a rewrite. (Actually, that first paragraph has got to go right away as a violation of WP:SOAPBOX).

Delete Having read the other CIA articles, I agree with Brianyoumans below that this is an unnecessary duplication of material easily available elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Folantin 12:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. CIA involvement in overthrowing various governments (Mossadegh, Lumumba, Arbenz, Trujillo, ...) is well documented. (See 'Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since WWII' by William Blum.) A page like this is handy if only to point to a lot of more detailed articles. Being a POV magnet is not reason to delete. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as redundant with CIA#Historical_operations and Category:CIA_operations. Alternately, transcat to a subcategory of Category:CIA_operations. This article doesn't add anything that isn't currently in those sources - if the authors eventually develop CIA#Historical_operations to the point where it needs a spin-out, that's fine, but there will be better editorial participation if the drafting occurs in the main CIA article rather than in this fork. TheronJ 15:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep All it needs is some work, andj per Reinoutr. — Arjun 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep but Rename The page conveys a point of view before one even opens it. The word "regime", while neutral in its dictionary sense, carries notions of repugnancy or totalitarianism. The central contention of the article - that the CIA were involved in the overthrow of a number of governments - is supported by numerous reliable sources and I do not believe NPOV is a content problem with this subject as long as editors adhere to Wikipedia policies/pillars. The current content is suspect but cleanup is not a reason in itself for deletion - whacking a big "cleanup" tag on it and inviting editors to improve it is the answer to that problem. I wish I could think of a better title. Orderinchaos78 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How about CIA involvement in involuntary removal of foreign governments? Otto4711 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How is "involuntary removal of governments" less POV than "regime change"? -- Petri Krohn 04:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Involuntary removal of governments" is not POV at all. It means that the existing government is removed against the will of the government. Are you suggesting that when the CIA has taken action to remove a foreign government from power that there has been even a single such foreign government that has welcomed the CIA's efforts to remove it? Can you cite an example of such a case? A thank you note from a deposed head of state perhaps? I mean seriously, are you joking? You're the one claiming that the phrase is tainted with POV; instead of just repeating it, try supporting the assertion. Sheesh. Otto4711 05:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me and I you. There is nothing POV in "Involuntary removal", it is just a clumsier way of saying "regime change". I do not think there is anything POV in "regime change" either, besides it has an article. Reading the article does bring up some questions though. The article assumes that external military force is needed for something to be called "regime change". It seems that this is a post Iraq War misunderstanding. I think the phrase was used long before G.W. Bush. -- Petri Krohn 08:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep but rename and expand. It's way too short to be a real article, especially on such a potentially controversial subject. The title needs to have a word like "suggested," or something. Danielfolsom 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete These are all covered or have links from the main CIA article. This is just a POV fork. --Brianyoumans 19:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and expand: this is clearly a valid, notable and verifiable encyclopedic topic which is too complex to deal with in the main CIA article in anything other than summary form. Perhaps the title could be improved: in which case it should also be renamed. -- The Anome 19:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Are we really saying this doesn't happen? Anyway wanting an article written in less POV manner is a job for POV tags, and wanting a name change is what we have a section for, neither of these are concerns for AfD. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- No one is saying that these CIA actions did not occur. The only question is how many redundant badly-named articles we need pointing to the information. If someone is looking for information on a coup in Guatemala supported by the CIA, where would they look? The article Guatemala? The article CIA? Or would they search for "CIA sponsored regime change"? Both Guatemala and CIA have links to the main article on the CIA operation in Guatemala, Operation PBSUCCESS. Eliminating this article is not a coverup, it is getting rid of a piece of badly-named listcruft. --Brianyoumans 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment: I agree. I would search using 'CIA coups' or 'attempted CIA coups' anyway. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite to have a neutral POV.--Eva ^bd 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your !vote is effectively for the article to be rewritten completely. In effect, you are arguing for deletion of this article in its current form. Zun aid ©^{Review me!}
Delete per user Brianyoumans. --SECurtisTX | talk 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as redundent with CIA controversies, CIA#Historical_operations, and Category:CIA_operations. Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but Rename/Rewrite Brian1975 05:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your !vote is effectively for a completely new article to be created that does not use the POV stance from this article. In effect, your argument supports deletion of this article in its current form. Zun aid ©^{Review me!}
Strong Delete. In its current state, the article exists only to push a point of view. It is also made redundant by other (more neutral) articles on the CIA and the corresponding issues. Perhaps summarizing the content in one article is warranted, but only under a different title, and after a complete rewrite that contains more than zero sources. There is nothing here that merits a keep. (|-- UlTiMuS 08:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Ultimus. Mamalujo 09:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep but merge all the information on this page is factual. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a POV fork of content already available in more WP:NPOV form elsewhere in the 'pedia, and per WP:SOAPBOX. Zun aid ©^{Review me!} 14:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unless npov issues are cleared up FirefoxMan 20:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete Wikipedia already has more than enough magnets for left-wing POV. Such articles are walking, long-term, blatant demolitions of the entire WP:NPOV philosophy. -- BryanFromPalatine 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Lars T. 17:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Please give an argument. This is a discussion, not a vote. --Folantin 18:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Keep - the fact that some people see facts as inherently POV is no reason to follow them. Lars T. 23:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment - My issue is with the way the data is presented. Something's not right about it, so, what we should do is change the page name and/or merge into other CIA articles. WhisperToMe 02:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - seems to be pretty much redundant and I agree completely with Bwithh when he pointed out that this article title is in itself heavily POV and violates WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The meagre contents are already in the CIA article; there's no need for another list article dedicated to these three operations. Sandstein 21:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Ditto from above. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 10:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Inherently POV title and duplication of material elsewhere. Appears to be hobby-horse topic.ALR 11:12, 11 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 (by default) -- there is significant support for either keep or merge, but not enough for either to clearly choose keep or merge. Those arguing against merging and those arguing for merging have good points and what will be done needs further discussion. Mango juice^talk 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masamune (video game weapon)

This article was probably unnecessarily split from Masamune#Masamune in Pop Culture. It also manages to copy, almost verbatim, text from Masa and Mune, List of Final Fantasy weapons#Masamune and Masamune#Masamune in Pop Culture while at the same time being completely WP:OR and unverifiable (except by primary sources and fan sites). Delete as WP:NOT#IINFO and possible WP:POVFORK. Axem Titanium 00:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note Multiple accounts who contributed to this AfD are suspected sockpuppets per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Infomanager. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I like this organization better than merging the video-game Masamune weapons back into the article on swordmaker Masamune; that clutters an article about history with useless gamecruft. I also like this organization better than splitting Masamune mentions across the pages for each video game; this illustrates the connection between them better. In my opinion, the split from Masamune#Masamune in Pop Culture was appropriate. --Hyperbole 00:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. We don't need gamecruft in a history article, and something known widely in the gaming community shouldn't be sprinkled across several pages. This is much better organization than several sprinkled bits over several pages. TRKtv t c e 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above discussion. --Dennisthe2 03:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- This article fails W:N. I suspect most other video game weapons will fail it as well.Librarylefty 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you mean WP:N since a letter can't be criteria. --Wafulz 04:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete for being non-notable. A weapon from a computer/video game might be notable within that game, but not outside. If any information could be merged with an article about the relevant games, fine, but a fictional weapon should not have it's own article. Bjelleklang - talk 07:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this isn't a weapon from a game, it's a weapon from several games. I'm neutral though, because I haven't decided if it's fancruft or not. It could also use more citing. -Ryanbomber 12:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Merge back. Deserves to be covered somewhere, no strong opinion on whether it needs its own article or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge back to original article. Orderinchaos78 16:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as an acceptable fork per Hyperbole and TrackerTV, if its a copy and the copy didn't have NPOV issues before, I don't see how it has it now. hateless 18:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge - This doesn't need more than a section in the Masamune article. The information should, of course, be heavily trimmed. Wickethewok 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It is a reoccuring element across many of Square's games (and also many other games by other companies), and therefore its popular usage must be noted in at least one gaming magazine. However, it should have a brief overview in the Masaume in Popular Culture article that links to it. But merging it back into the article is fine with me too. Blueaster 19:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere Between Merge back and Keep. Andrew Lenahan says it all for me. Just H 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Wickethewok. I think I've done most of the necessary trimming. (NB: This meant dropping a lot of info from the article but didn't mean cutting anything significant from Wikipedia as a whole, since everything I cut could also be found in the respective game articles.) Neon Merlin 21:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
DO NOT MERGE/Delete or Redirect As much as I agree with the non-notability of this subject I also agree with the organizational argument and I think the worst choice is to merge non-notable gamecruft back into an excellent history article. I would suggest converting this page to a disambiguation page or a category with links to all of the videos games that use the weapon which is not too far from wha it is now. With that said there is little reason not to outright delete as non-notable.--Nick Y. 21:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Split and Merge The Masamune may or may not be a big deal outside of the gaming community, but inside the vast majority of the population it is a big name. I would recommend, rather than outright DELETNG the article, all the data for the FF section be moved to the appropriate page, and all the data for the Chrono Trigger section be moved to either the Frog page or the Masa & Mune page. Chimeraman2 23:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sort of stumped about what to do with this. I guess I'd go with split and merge for various pieces of the article, where appropriate: a very short blurb in the historical article, and mentions in the individual game articles. --Alan Au 06:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. The pop-culture section in the Masamune article is as informative as the entire article - this is basically a list of video games that contain a weapon named Masamune. —Xenoveritas 07:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I've complete Chrono Trigger (who hasn't?), and yet this is adequately covered in the Masa and Mune article. There's absolutely no need for a separate article chronicling where the name has popped up. There's absolutely no space for this subtrivial crap at the main Masamune article whatsoever, other than a one line mention and link to the two games. The votes of "merge back" are ridiculous, why the heck would anyone researching Masamune, give a shit that Sodom, stage 2 boss of Final Fight wield two swords labelled Masa and Mune?! - hahnch e n 19:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge back unto where it came FirefoxMan 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge per Hyperbole and tracker. Alan Shatte 21:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. Crossmr 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This isn't nearly noteworthy enough to merit it's own article; you might as well post up Japanese-gaming stereotypes up, as well. This should remain a small section inside of the swordsmith Masamune article. BishopTutu 04:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge per Alan and others. Paul D. Meehan 05:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. Crossmr 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge per discussion above. Brad Guzman 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. Crossmr 23:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep This article explains what others do not and people may only be interested in this certain aspect of the idea.

User:Iammeheremeroar 12:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Yomangani ^talk 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Computer System Manufacturers

“	Wikipedia is NOT a Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles.	”
	— WP:NOT

Also, no assertion as to what qualifies as a computer manufacturer (component? systems? sales requirements?), or possible way to verify information contained herein. This isn't a structured list, nor does it assist in organizing articles. If anything, this should be a category. /Blaxthos 00:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. Also it;s a potential spam magnet. Artw 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above, "Computer System" is too general of a term. - Tutmosis 00:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The criteria for inclusion is too broad, potentially unmanageable. This is what categories are for. --Ezeu 01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I agree with all said above. The criteria for the list is too broad and really, what's the point. TSO1D 01:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete even though I disagreed with a previous attempt (on different criteria) for a Speedy Deletion. It really should be a categotry (if there isn't one already. Mmccalpin 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Computer companies by country and Category:Computer hardware companies seems adequate. --Ezeu 03:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. MER-C 03:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rename to List of Computer hardware companies 100% compatible with the category Category:Computer hardware companies. Let users decide which navigation method they prefer. This list is sorted by country and state and I find it useful. All of Wikipedia is a spam magnet. The requirement for listing appears to be that they already have an article in Wikipedia since I don't see any red links. It has no appearance of a directory, which would contain NON-LINKED entries. It is no more unmanagebale than the categories. If you want to limit it, set a $100 M in sales requirement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete for being unmanageable as per Ezeu. Is better replaced by a category. Bjelleklang - talk 07:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: A merge with other lists or a rewrite should be better than a simple delete, because computer system producers, IMO, do need an organized list. --Der yck C. 10:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. — Arjun 15:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per Wikipedia is not a directory. To produce a complete worldwide list would create an unmanageable article that would become out-of-date readily (computer businesses go out of business all the time) Orderinchaos78 16:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per above reasons ::mikm t 18:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Richard Norton Jcuk 00:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Realkyhick 06:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Move or Create Category I am undecided. Before all you deletionists go crazy on the issue, you should probably look at why the list was created. The original reason for the creation of this list was because there was discussion about the inclusion of "competitors" on the pages of all the computer system manufacturers listed here (see Talk:Acer (company). The discussion basically said that the inclusion of a 'competitors' section on each computer system manufacturer page was not neutral and came across as an advertisement. I don't mind changing or moving the page, but I vote for keeping. -- Bboyskidz 00:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Pilotguy as nonsense. --Wafulz 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sabugram

No unique Google hits, obvious violation of WP:NFT. Quarma 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Sounds like something some kid drew while bored. TJ Spyke 00:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nonsense. - Tutmosis 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V. --Hyperbole 00:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable, WP:NFT. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete A hackneyed attempt to make the Dos Equis label into a counterculture emblem is not notable. Caknuck 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is a neologism, and it's also unverifiable too. There is nothing to indicate that it's notable in any way either. --SunStar Net^talk 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete obviously non-notable. Violates WP:NEO, WP:CITE, WP:NOTE, and WP:NFT. The author couldn't even be bothered to fire up Microsoft Paint for this? I'd be very tempted to go with speedy delete under CSD:G1 - wtfunkymonkey 01:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nonsense, little context. One ghit for this nn neologism, the WP article. Tubezone 01:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete definitely, non-sense padded by no context. TSO1D 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - nonsense neologism. MER-C 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative synth

A musical genre that almost certainly does not exist. A google search for the words "alternative synth" throw up a few usages of the phrase "alternative synthpop", although not much, and alternative synths, referring to synthesisers, but no mention of this as a genre. Surely any genre could have 'alternative' placed on the front? 'synth' isn't really much of a genre, so much as a description, in the same way I could invent 'Loud Alternative Black Gothic Christian Synth Metal'. The only link to this page on the rest of Wikipedia is a list of music genres. Oh, and, it is unsourced, furthering my belief that the genre does not exist outside this user's media library. Delete from me. J Milburn 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V - appears to be something made up in school one day. Note that the "founder" of Alternate synth, H-sie, is 14 years old. Incidentally, I suggest we delete that page as well. --Hyperbole 00:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete/Speedy delete, fails google test as well as the listed bands. Assumed as "nonsense". - Tutmosis 00:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I don't know if it's non-sense but should be deleted as it fails WP:V. TSO1D 01:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above, plus the music sounds boring anyway (ha!)--Tainter 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 03:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, completely unsourced (WP:V), despite requests. Odd vanity article on the 'inventor' calls the validity of the subject article into question. 'Loud Alternative Black Gothic Christian Synth Metal' sounds intriguing, though. Kuru ^talk 03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Appears non-notable and unverifiable. —ShadowHalo 06:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, genre started by non-notable artist. Bjelleklang - talk 07:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Absolutely Non-notable Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete' Well first off verifiability is a problem here and per above. — Arjun 16:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Unverifiable as this is essentially a neologism. I too am curious about LABGCSM :) Orderinchaos78 16:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete it does not appear to be a real genre (hoax?) or, if not an outright hoax, would then badly fail notability. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per above ::mikm t 18:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, violates WP:V. Realkyhick 06:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. If you wish to achieve consensus on a single article, it is strongly suggested that it be nominated on an individual basis. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rough Cuts

Also nominating

Delete. Every page on Rough Cuts appears to be a hoax except for the film. External links on each article lead to nothing having to do with the supposed topic. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 00:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The film festival might be legit, but nn. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 00:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete all but keep Rough Cuts (TV series), which seems to be highly regarded.[1] Its host was Michaelle Jean, who now holds an important post in Canadian government. --Dhartung | Talk 02:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge Rough Cuts (books) with Safari Books Online, which is a stub. See also the similar Short Cuts service[2]; they don't all need a page. --Dhartung | Talk 03:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I was bold and did the merge. I would move Rough Cuts to Rough Cuts (books) and redirect if considered necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 04:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per above. I won't comment on the TV series. MER-C 03:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Separate out articles. The CBC television series in particular appears to be for real, see e.g. [3], and is likely to be notable and a Keep. On the other hand, there's no evidence of notability for the business, just using a published business model doesn't make a business notable, so Delete Evidence for the film festival and radio program needs to be produced, otherwise Delete. --Shirahadasha 03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep the TV show. Clearly notable multi-season Canadian documentary television show on a major network which (if that wasn't enough) was once hosted by the current vice-head of state. Deletethe others unless notability is proved. This is why multiple AfDs aren't a great idea; the nom has lumped in a very notable subject with three that may not be notable at all. --Charlene 07:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep TV Show per above. Delete others... The radio show based on crystal ball, Delete the film festival and Rough Cutson WP:N --Nick Y. 21:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Radio show based on being officially announced--Nick Y. 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I have withdrawn my nomination of the Television series because the apparent concensus is to keep that page. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 21:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom except for TV series. Realkyhick 06:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 12:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep radio show. I've no idea why it's lumped in with the others, but per the link at the bottom, it's not a hoax (NPR is a fairly reliable source). While the show won't be broadcast for a few months, it has been officially announced on another NPR show, and content is available now in podcast form. --Interiot 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep radio show. Per Interiot - this is no hoax. --rogerd 12:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep all. Rebecca 10:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Ezeu 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tay taking

Delete unverifiable nonsense Daniel J. Leivick 00:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete G1. Dude. --Dennisthe2 01:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Britney Spears bootlegs

No evidence is presented that these fan-made/pirate-made mix CDs are in any way notable. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above, for failing WP:N and probably WP:NOR. - Tutmosis 02:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V and WP:OR. MER-C 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete for being britneycruft (if such a thing exists ;) ). These bootlegs are as far as I know not notable, and fails the requirements. Bjelleklang - talk 07:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable or else lets allow all bootlegs material on Elvis, Beatles etc Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete In ye olde vinyl days, "bootleg" actually meant something, and many were even released on labels of sorts (see Kornyfone for an example). In these days of file-sharing, MP3, and CD-R, anybody could make a "bootleg" in minutes if we really wanted to. This article also has some quality/verifiability problems: the first bootleg listed is scheduled for release in 2008! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Notability. — Arjun 16:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete It is nonsense.
Delete. Non-notable. -- The Anome 16:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, I can't imagine pirate recordings can be notable. JIP | Talk 17:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above ::mikm t 18:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Does not seem interesting, or notable. Navou ^talk 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete arbitrary, unsourced, unverifiable.-- danntm ^T _C 00:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Realkyhick 06:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable and nonsensical. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, leaning towards a speedy delete. This appears to be the quintessential non-notable Wikipedia article for a myriad of reasons. The Mob Rules 10:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. —ShadowHalo 22:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 and G7 (no notability asserted, author-requested deletion) by User:Pilotguy. ColourBurst 04:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moshe Lavi

^{[Check Google hits]} Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. No evidence any of these claims are notable or even true. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per nom --Mhking 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete nn Daniel J. Leivick 01:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete reads like CV, and doesn't even assert notability in my view. TSO1D 01:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a perfectly fine article. I believe that in the future it will just grow and improve. However, if you wish to delete that, just do so - Supernedved.
Speedy delete - slightly more elaborate high school student vanity. This doesn't deserve a five day discussion. MER-C 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete A7. So tagged. --Dennisthe2 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
'Speedy Delete per above. Jyothisingh 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually I must admit that it was a joke of me and my friends on the expense of this person we wrote about. Yet, we found it funny that it survived until now. I must offer my apologies to the Wikipedia staff. It seems like you do act fast. Hence, I am asking for the deletion of this page. I tried to make it blank, and by the policy I can, but for some reason it always came back. - superndeved

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

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

The result was early closure due to merge of AfD with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handjob. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fingering (sexual act)

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

This AfD has been merged with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handjob. Please make all comments there. CyberAnth 10:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability beyond high school acting. NawlinWiki 02:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Powell

There is nothing in this article that asserts notability, and it looks more like a CV/advert than an encyclopedic article. Unless any sources can be found that assert notability, I can't see any reason to keep this for now. SunStar Net^talk 01:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:BIO --Mhking 01:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This article sould remain they have cites and they are reliable plus I'm impressed with this kid. I vote it remain.~Squashmania—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Protester101 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 January 2007.

I vote it remain even though i'm new i think it's fine in all honesty plus it's rude to delete someones stuff if they took the time to cite it.=MonsterJamz—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Protester101 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 January 2007.

Yeah it should STAY.~Protester 101 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Protester101 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 January 2007. — Protester101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete fails WP:BIO, does not comply to WP:CITE and WP:V. I'm also led to believe, due to certain user's conduct during this AfD that WP:COI comes in to play here. Article can probably be speedied by CSD:A7 since what little assertion of notability there is does not satisfy WP:NOTE requirements, so tagged. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fate of a Hero

A non-notable fan game. Scepia 01:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete the first line says it all: "not yet approved yet"; since Wikipeida is not a crystal ball, I say delete. TSO1D 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn advert. Daniel J. Leivick 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 01:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete because this is a non-notable fangame in production for... 2010? It reads like an advertisement, contains no indication of notability or verifiability. Honestly, it's like someone decided to merge Fable and Zelda in their minds. 74.117.39.48 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Jyothisingh 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete: This particular crystal balling doesn't even look that likely to come true. Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise the project you're working on in the hope Nintendo will adopt it. Heimstern Läufer 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete fangame, the end. Danny Lilithborne 05:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as blatant advertism and crystal balling. WP is not free web space for the world's pet projects or daydreams. QuagmireDog 05:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Sorry, folks, but Nintendo doesn't take requests. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! Bjelleklang - talk 07:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete advertising spam Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, chances of this game being made are non-existent.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete whilst trying not to laugh. Even completed fangames are always deleted, and this one won't even be done for "about three years or so" according to the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Arjun 16:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, of course. Fan game, crystal ball, creator has half a dozen überg33k nicknames, article uses first person voice... Get a blog, dude. JIP | Talk 17:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL ::mikm t 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete a.k.a. this is crap a.k.a. nobody cares. --- RockMFR 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The creator of this article hasn't had any contributions since December 13th, and has only ever edited this article. It therefore seems that he doesn't care about the article any more. Furthermore, after reading through this whole article, there is no mention that anything has been done about this game yet. It's exactly like my brother likes to say: "Hey! I've got this cool idea for a fan game! Code it for me, and I'll take all the credit!". Therefore, couldn't this be speedy deleted? JIP | Talk 12:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, and good luck on getting that one published. I mean it. Really. Crystalballery, vanity, promotion, and with a side of non-notable! Seraphimblade 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jersey Youth Reform Team

The aritcle itself lacks citations, sources and references. The article is written with a strong POV. Whilst there is some truth to the events, they have been 'spun'. Please see the discussion page from the original article for further issues which have arisen.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DariusJersey (talk • contribs)

Delete non-notable DariusJersey 13:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The BBC does mention the group, albeit trivially (no mention in the main article, just a link to their website), and it seems that the ECHR case was never heard (did the court accept the case? was a complaint even formally submitted to them? it's unclear from [4] who exactly Small was testifying before). Therefore weak delete, possibly mention the reform of Jersey's law on homosexuality in Politics of Jersey or States of Jersey. Demiurge 14:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that this is a subsisting group. The article is unclear and needs modification however the group is recognised by the national society for the prevention of cruelty to children (NSPCC) which, it is submitted, gives this article sufficient credence to be retained and modified.

The page has been edited after being proposed for deletion is it possible to revert while debate takes place DariusJersey 06:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless external sources can be found that proves notability. Trivial mentioning, or a case that wasn't accepted by ECHR shouldn't be grounds for inclusion. Bjelleklang - talk 07:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:N None of the sources in the article even mention the group, and the BBC article brought up in this discussion does so very peripherally, There's currently no evidence that its the subject of any of its publications as required. Claims that the group, such as that it had a significant role in bringing about a change in the law, don't seem to be verified anywhere. View can change if additional sources provided. --Shirahadasha 09:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, non-notable. Realkyhick 06:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Schwager

nn. Just H 01:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Delete nn vanity page, almost a speedy delete. Daniel J. Leivick 01:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Sounds like a vanity page. TJ Spyke 01:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete ditto....--Tainter 02:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 03:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - as noted on the Talk page for the article, if there are grounds for keeping this then they're due to his career as a comic book artist - WP:CMC, not WP:Music notability. Schwager's currently graded as 'low' importance to the WP:CMC project. --Mrph 08:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per CSD A7 -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete for being nn. Bjelleklang - talk 07:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - as noted elsewhere, the style of it is very much a vanity page. But Schwager is a professional (and arguably notable) comic illustrator, currently working for Marvel Comics on projects that WP:CMC agrees are notable. Not sure if that justifies his own page, but... --Mrph 08:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This article doesn't have any sources meeting WP:RS at all, so as things stand vote would have to be Delete. If you have sources establishing Schwager's notability etc., perhaps you could add them and this could be reconsidered? --Shirahadasha 09:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom, vanity. Realkyhick 06:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosary ASA

A church association; not notable. Might have been created by someone with an agenda. Suggest it be deleted, or if something is salvageable merged into the church article. Akihabara 01:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Del Does not read like an encyclopedic article to me. Navou ^talk 02:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Most of this reads like a recruiting poster masquerading as an article. Citicat 03:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Jyothisingh 03:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete this appears to be a branch of an international association, the internatioal group may b notable, but this branch would not be. My guess is that this is their bylaws. SkierRMH 04:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Non-notable youth group at a single church with no evidence that it satisfies WP:ORG. Article includes complaints about members allegedly refusing to greet adults and use of the term "chairman" instead of "chair", as well as inexplicable listing of "pseudomembers". --Metropolitan90 05:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above, non-notable chapter per WP:ORG. MER-C 06:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Citicat. Bjelleklang - talk 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. All the sources here are self-published, hence don't meet WP:RS. So there's no evidence at all the church or its altar server's society has any notability at all, let alone enough to meet WP:ORG --Shirahadasha 09:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable and advertising or similar Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete an organization at a single church is not national, thus fails WP:ORG.-- danntm ^T _C 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jared Lane

Non-notable bio, fails WP:BIO. Only serious hint of notability is an award, which seems to be presented by a small organization of 13 student newspapers (which I don't believe constitutes a notable award in itself). Other references are a link to his own website and a wiki.

I am also listing the following related articles as they are related to his work:

--AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete: I see no reliable sources for any of these articles. Heimstern Läufer 04:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and above. Bjelleklang - talk 07:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 08:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable Bec-Thorn-Berry 09:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete, not enough independent non-trivial sources ... but if they can be found and added it could make a notable article Alf photoman 17:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per above ::mikm t 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
delete - non-notable --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 03:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 03:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NuComm International

This article has been around for almost a year, and has been subject to regular tides of promotional edits and negative criticism, but in all this time I've yet to see a single reliable source added to supplement the sole link to the company's website. It's pretty much just been a battleground for current employees vs. disgruntled ex-employees.

At this point it's borderline speedy-able as an unsourced blatant advert, as there's nothing here that I wouldn't expect to find on a fluffy "about us" page on the company's own website. However, I'm listing it for a full AfD since it's been around for so long and to allow for the possibility that good RSs can be found and the article cleaned up. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Notability is not asserted. Akihabara 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - it's a copyvio too, the entire history section was copied from [5]. MER-C 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete for being non-notable. Being a company is in it self not enough. Bjelleklang - talk 07:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete NN Bec-Thorn-Berry 09:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, WP:V, unsourced. --Shirahadasha 10:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Notability is not asserted and fails WP:CORP Orderinchaos78 16:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I've cleaned up the article and provided references to my redone History section. Acid0057 05:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Acid0057: Thank you for your hard work. However, are there other sources that might better meet WP:RS standards? Of the 4 links currently present, 1 is the company's own website, 2 are to the company's press releases, and the last is a brief description (self-description, most likely) on a job site, which any company posting job listings can have... --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment AbsolutDan: I'm trying but with a Newer company like this it is hard to find resources other than the companies own postings. The press releases are compiled from an indepentant resource. Doesn't that count? Acid0057 20:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Ok I've added more independant news stories on NuComm. Is this better? Acid0057 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment Looks better - can't vouch for the reliability of the new sources, but consider my opinion to be Neutral now. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep for now to see if Acid0057 can come up with more sources. Realkyhick 06:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the support. Acid0057 20:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I worked with Acid0057 to improve this article. With more sources and less resemblance to the company's site, the article is showing potential. Idjit 22:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Thanks Idjit. I'm thinking that this article is upholding Wiki's standards now. Acid0057 13:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was to speedily keep the article ~ trialsanderrors 02:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split infinitive

Having an adverb within an infinitive verb is completely normal, so this article doesn't make any sense. There is really no point in this article existing.--Renowned linguist 02:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep Umm...yeah. WP:SNOW? Gzkn 02:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep Perfectly reasonable topic and article. Not sure what the rationale is or why this has been nominated. Akihabara 02:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep and close. No valid reason for deletion given. There are a lot of things that are quite common that have articles; Hydrogen anyone? wtfunkymonkey 02:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus to get rid of the article. There is not a clear consensus on whether it should be merged, or deleted, so I have gone with the majority. If someone wishes a userfied copy of this article in order to merge it into the List of Chinese musicians article, please let me know. Proto::► 10:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that given the short length of this list, and many of the names are on the other list already, there would be little if anything to merge. Proto::► 10:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese singers

Meets criteria for what Wikipedia is not; not a directory - WP:NOT#DIR. The role of this page as one editor has pointed out is redundant with categories that have already been created. The purpose of this page would be better served through the use of existing categories. Luke! 02:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. see Category: Chinese Musicians. --Tainter 03:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge with List of Chinese musicians and redirect I am an avowed opponent of our keeping lists the members of which ought properly to be comprised by categories—I am, that is, on the category side of the category-list divide—and so I'd generally be inclined to support deletion here, but I think merging to be in order in view of the ostensible lack of consensus for the deletion of lists of musicians by nationality (this is, IMHO, a list rather than a directory), toward which absence, see, e.g., the existence of the many constituents of Category:Lists of musicians by nationality; if a consensus amongst editors is to develop for such deletion (which deletion I'd likely support), it ought probably to happen in a less insular discussion. Joe 05:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep: I created this article, so people can expand it later on. musician and singer are not the same. if this site is not a directory, how come we have so many list of this, list of that then? i didn't want to use the name "list of chinese singers," because i want people to add more contents rather just simple names. --FabulousRain 06:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Meets WP:NOT#DIR Bec-Thorn-Berry 09:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Lists are useful in cases where they can be a complete set of the subject matter, e.g. Lists_of_office-holders, but that clearly doesn't apply here. There is not even a clear criterion for inclusion; judging by the one line of text on the page, it's not nationality, so is it ethnicity or language? Somebody might want to find Chinese-language singers including those who are not from China, Taiwan or HK, but this would be better done by making a new category that would incorporate the existing categories for those countries. Fayenatic london 14:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - should be a category rather than an article, due to the inclusiveness aspect. Orderinchaos78 17:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge to List of Chinese musicians per Joe. hateless 21:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - should be a category rather than an article. List of Chinese musicians should also be a category.--Nick Y. 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Off topic, but can you explain why? There are several things that a proper list can have -- such as vital statistics, native-language names, redlinks, and a full page history -- which a category cannot. -- Visviva 04:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge to List of Chinese musicians as a subsection. This may not be strictly correct, but in practice Wikipedia treats singers as a subset of musicians; in fact there are several singers on that list already. -- Visviva 04:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge to List of Chinese musicians, give it a subsection and if the list becomes too long in the future it can be spun back off as a separate article. TheMindsEye 01:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice. This list doesnt take advantage of the benefits of using a list as opposed to a category. John Vandenberg 06:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 18:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brothers Past

Jam band from Philly. Speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review since the article contains an (unsourced) assertion of notability. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep according to their website they were at Bonaroo which I suppose means they're somewhat notable. page needs a lot of improvement.--Tainter 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment A personal web-site isn't generally a reliable source for notability, needs independent sources for WP:MUSIC. --Shirahadasha 10:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep major jam band, besides Bonnaroo, has played at SXSW and many other festivals and venues. Here are some references which I also listed on the deletion review: Bio on Jambase.com, a major jamband website, Profile of their appearance at the South by Southwest festival, A listing about their Bonnaroo performace, Album review from Glide Magazine. Milchama 11:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I started a temporary page in one of my sandboxes and I have just moved it over. Though it is slim as of right now, I will try and add more tonight (there are other sources I haven't added in yet). As for notability, I now have the first paragaph as the following: "Brothers Past is a progressive rock band from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania who has been called "one of the most talked about independent acts in the nation." They have been featured in Relix and their self-released albums have been reviewed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News and the Village Voice." The statements also have sources to these claims. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Although not a big band on a big label they seem to meet WP:Music as they have several albums according to [www.gracenote.com] and their most recent is on amazon.com at rank 117,780 with effusive reviews (could be the band members, but I don't think so). They are on a small but reasonably notable record label started by a major force in a small but notable musical movement. I have seen string cheese incident (the creator of their label) in concert before and they definately have a major following all over the internet. This band is more on the edge but definately not your run of the mill myspace wannabes using wikipedia for promotion.--Nick Y. 21:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valley Cristo

fails WP:MUSIC Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom vanity page. Daniel J. Leivick 03:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - unsourced and promotional autobiography of a non-notable person. Borderline speedy. MER-C 03:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, conflict of interest. —ShadowHalo 06:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above and the big shiny crystal ball! Bjelleklang - talk 07:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, fails numerous guidelines. Realkyhick 07:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mother Vinegar (3rd nomination)

Jam band side project. Was deleted in 2005, then renominated and speedy deleted as identical recreation. This second deletion was overturned at deletion review since the band has now released an album. So the discussion begins anew. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per precedents. Article does not warrant recreation with the inclusion of one album, WP:BAND specifically states "two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels...", MonkeyFuzz Records does not meet notability requirements and garners a whopping 195 [[6]] ghits, thus they still fail WP:BAND -- wtfunkymonkey 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - "Hay guyz, my band gots wun albumz! i get an wikipde artikel, amirite?" The answer is no. You still fail WP:MUSIC. And a lot of other things too, like WP:V. Maybe deletion review was a little too lenient on this one. Axem Titanium 05:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - still fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 13:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Realkyhick 07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete lack of reliable third party sources to back up the info in the article. All indications are that the band is too obscure for these sources to exist. Pascal.Tesson 09:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. I don't believe WP:NEO applies to a phrase with a specific meaning that reliable sources establish to have been in use for decades, and to still be being used for the same meaning. Given the sourcing (please use it to improve the article, or even just to add citations to the article), the WP:NOR concern also fails to be persuasive. GRBerry 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ladies who lunch

del. I am afraid it is a piece of original research about a phrase from play, song, and TV show. I failed to find any refefence that explains this phrase. In any case, the text in the body of the article is highly dubious. At best, this page may stay as a disambiguation for the song & TV show. Mukadderat 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - nn TV neologism. MER-C 08:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Agree with nominator Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, WP:OR --Shirahadasha 10:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment The phrase "Ladies who lunch" goes back at least 60 years and was commonly used by everyone from Bennett Cerf to Letitia Baldridge. It predates the television show it's currently used on, and may very well predate network television in the US. The only problem is that someone would have to find back pages of the New York Times and other newspapers of the late 40s and 50s to find reliable sources from society columns and some such, and I don't know if anybody's going to bother. --Charlene 01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Charlene. There is more than enough reference to this term right now in books and periodicals to be satisfactory for inclusion, like: Rotunda's GM leaving ladies who lunch for Bergdorf's in the San Francisco Chronicle, Ladies Who Lunch in the Port Folio Weekly, and especially Brewer's Famous Quotations By Nigel Rees, which clearly states the term is for "(mostly middle-aged married) women who have nothing else in their lives but to organize and take part in lunches for charity." --Howrealisreal 14:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. Also, I disagree that the phrase is original research. Just because we may not hear the phrase these days, doesn't mean someone is making it up. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep a common enough phrase (I used it last week). Probably should be merged somewhere, but there are still ladies who lunch (gnews search for ladies-who-lunch). References to the phenomenon don't quite run from A to Z, but C (for Cole Porter's Miss Otis regrets) to V (for Vita Sackville-West's All Passion Spent about a lady who doesn't want to lunch) is better than Katharine Hepburn's emotional range. Would need hard work, and care to avoid WP:OR, but there is an article in this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I don't see how this article can ever grow past being a stub -- its been here a year and is still only a paragraph, TheMindsEye 01:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 16:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Rosinton

Following precedents of mast stub deletions, I'm nominatiing this batch of US masts below 540m in height. None of the masts that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Most stubs are over a year old, and have remained in the same, sorry vegetative state since creation, some have not even been categorised. None of these articles have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. This information already exists albeit in more concise but no less informative tabular form in List of masts, so I see no point in redirecting. Delete per WP:NN, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR. (see User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts for rationale and fuller list of precedents ) Ohconfucius 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete all per nom. TJ Spyke 03:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

comment and delete since we've done, oh a dozen or so or these batches recently, all with total consensus and usually little debate, would it be possible just to prod these? or speedy them or something? Or issue a standing deletion order for admins? I mean, I respect the amount of effort that some editors have put into weeding out this non-notable towercruft, but it's getting kinda silly to have to go through and AfD every batch. Wintermut3 04:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete More fungible vertical steel structures lacking evidence of notability. Edison 05:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. MER-C 08:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. Can I get a Wikipedia article on the water main on my street? --Shirahadasha 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete OUT!!! --Brianyoumans 10:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete one of the few true examples of "cruft" that still exists on WP (and I hate the term cruft, by the way). Basically just a holdover from WP's early "anything goes" days which have now worn out their welcome. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that 'cruft' is usually an unessisary slur, but in this case, it seems to be as close as you come to the dictonary definition... Wintermut3 19:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as too indiscriminate.-- danntm ^T _C 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete by precedent. Realkyhick 07:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toufeeq Hussain

Delete per WP:BIO. Jyothisingh 14:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - not notable per WP:BIO. Jayden54 14:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Seems to be a respectable Open Source developer working for Linux kernel, however not notable enough. -- Root exploit 15:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 08:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Realkyhick 07:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There are hundreds of W3 conference speakers and thousands of Free Software developers; these facts alone aren't sufficient to establish notability. —Psychonaut 12:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Seifert

Another article in series on OSVDB "manglers": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susam Pal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sullo. No notable Google results. Delete per WP:BIO. Jyothisingh 14:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - References [7] and [8] are notable IMHO. -- Root exploit 15:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[9] says that he is one of the two winners of an scholarship program. [10] is an article written by him, and says that he is a member of the New Zealand Honeynet Alliance. How does this make him notable for Wikipedia

Delete Graduate student who won a scholarship. Fan-1967 06:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that WP:BIO is met. MER-C 08:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. Press releases and web sites are not a reliable independent sources. Article's effusive language ("well-known", "elire") doesn't help either. --Shirahadasha 10:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless additional reliable sources are added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I think Root exploit fails to grasp what reliable sources are. Christian Seifert is, it appears, a talented and dynamic graduate student. However, Wikipedia, I'm sorry to say, does not care. Pascal.Tesson 09:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable genes

Of the ~25,000 human genes (not specified in the title) this list provides no good criteria for inclusion and is pretty meaningless, it could conceivably have potential as a category for genes associated with human disease (about 60% of the genes listed), but as is delete --Peta 03:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep- Definitely could be expanded. I find it akin to List of major opera composers, which eventually attained a featured list status. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Rename and Keep List of notable human genes. This project has real possibilities, can be sourced, and can be verified. Obviously it needs some expansion, and some trimming, and some consistency, but I see no reason to delete this list. wtfunkymonkey 05:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutral The list, as it currently exists, is completely worthless. Why are these genes notable, and why would I care? It is basically biologycruft right now, but there is potential, which is the only thing that stops me from voting delete. Resolute 06:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep I Googled several of these genes and found over 40,000 Google hits for individual ones. The list is supposed to be of genes so notable they have Wikipedia articles. It is thus an overview of an importaant part of 21st century science and medicine. There is no proposal to list every gene whether or not its function has been detyermined. My training is far from this field, but even I have heard of the BRCA genes which predispose to breast cancer, and the gene for lactose intolerance, but I would not eaasily find most of them because of their cryuptic names. This is a crucially important field, and a Wikipedia level treatment of the various genes will be useful to people with a diagnosis of genetic disorder, or who want to follow up on something in the news. The future development of the article may require breakup into sections for developmental genes, genes related to cancer, etc. For now the present list should be kept and improves. If we have articles for 493 Pokemon video game characters, which get featured status, since Wikipedia is not paper, we should keep a list of human genes to help find articles on individual ones with non-rememberable names. Edison 14:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, started improvent myself, see below.~~Neutral~~, if kept it needs a lot, a lot of work. For starters, it should mention why these genes are considered notable. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep This falls under the Wikipedia Is Not Paper group for articles. As said above it needs a lot of work but there is real potential here. Some genes are more notable than others, especially from a medical point of view. MartinDK 16:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, the criteria in italics works for me. hateless 21:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep and rename Although there is some potential here for disputes etc. This is a very valuable effort to do a good editing job of interpreting a very complex subject matter and pointing the reader to information they may otherwise miss. The human genome is very notable and the most notable genes within it notable as well. I don't think that this would do well as a category alone. To be truely useful it need more information attached to each entry but let's call this a stub and move on.--Nick Y. 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep this list is certainly workable, with a limited scope and annotations for each gene.-- danntm ^T _C 04:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rename per above. --- RockMFR 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment, at this time I have started a rigourous cleanup of the article, starting at the top of the list [11]. As you look at the article now, the top of the list is already adjusted, the bottom is still the old list. Many internal links were fixed, external links were directed to genecards instead. Most entries were corrected with regard to names, notability of genes was explained where not provided and a few will be removed from the list as I continue. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rename as said. This will be a great resource with proper cleanup and expansion. --Howrealisreal 16:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment, cleanup is finished now, links repaired, each gene now shows either a disease or a description why it is considered notable. The article is ready for expansion, since the list is still highly arbitrary. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I've heard it said that the list of genes discovered will one day be as important as the Periodic table, so I suppose a listing has to start somewhere. Static Universe 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fire Emblem Archetypes

Unreferenced fancruft and original research. Salad Days 03:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --- RockMFR 03:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete, I'm 8000% certain a similar article as AfD'd before. Axem Titanium 05:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it was. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete because it's unreferenced, almost certainly original research, and a indisciminate collecxtion of information. Reyk _YO! 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Subtle original research: "They are named after the first character to possess such qualities (usually Fire Emblem 1 characters).", which pretty much indicates that those "archetypes" are something that the editor made up himself. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 08:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 08:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as pure original research. If it wasn't OR, it would still be deletable as game guide material.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete this is exactly why we need a Wikiversity game research group, or something along those lines. =) However, I'm afraid this is by definition weakly sourced. Just because it's a fact that's apparent to players of the game series is not really enough of a verification... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I have heard these archtypes stated in more than a couple FAQ's and online walkthroughs referring to the Fire Emblem series in general, and while the article doesnt cite sources, it shouldent be that hard to go online and find multiple websites with lists of the same archtypes. For many people who are very familiar with the series, they use these words to describe characters in online forums- a new person to the FE series might find it very confusing. I vote to keep it Ageofe 14:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that FAQs written by Joe Blow count as reliable sources. Salad Days 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This has come up before. Furthermore the majority of entries aren't even actual archetypes per se (for all that archetype is really the wrong term... a better one was proposed some time ago but it never caught on and I've forgotten what it was). For the unenlightened, an FE 'Archetype' is a character type which has been repeated in several games, a la Char_Aznable#Char_Clones. The best example is Kain and Abel, which are a pair of cavaliers in the first game that are red and green respectively and are friends from a long time back. In the majority of the following games, there are also pairs of green and red cavaliers the same as this, following on the tradition. This is a 'true' archetype. But somewhat recently some people have started creating 'archetypes' based on just about every FE1 character and then trying to fit characters from later games into them. Example from the article: Gato, who is basically 'a powerful character you get late in the game'. People like Athos aren't powerful characters you get late in the game because Gato was, they're powerful characters you get late in the game because characters you get that late that AREN'T powerful would be somewhat worthless. Yet this is becoming increasingly prevalent... 'Davros' (who isn't even called that) is one that I've never even heard considered before. Deleting this article won't stop it, but it will make it less 'authentic', if only a little. --Dark Twilkitri 04:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP is not a game guide. Pascal.Tesson 09:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Micro-collaboration

Yet another nn neologism, 213 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 03:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, absolutely no references, and none to be found from quick searches. Could find precious little on the startup mentioned in the article or its creators. Appears to simply be a promotional article for a non-notable concept. Would need sources and removal of the adcopy. Kuru ^talk 03:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Just H 03:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Kuru. - Aagtbdfoua 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, but I haven't salted as, so far, there is no evidence that it will be recreated unless there is genuine eveidence of the projects existence. Yomangani ^talk 17:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xbox Handheld

Nomination for deletion Wikipedia is not a crystalball as per WP:NOT. Whether a Xbox handheld will be launched in the future is a speculative question at the moment. The linked to image is a unofficial mockup of what a Xbox handheld might look like, not even an authenticated prototype image[12]. Bwithh 03:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note Multiple accounts who contributed to this AfD are ~~suspected~~ confirmed sockpuppets per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Infomanager. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete There is no evidence that the Xbox handheld is anything other than a crazy rumor. If anything, this should be mentioned in a paragraph long section on the page Xbox, but is not deserving of it's own article. --Wikischmedia 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- No Change in Vote (Merge with Xbox article if possible) This could be merged into the Xbox article as a footnote. --Wikischmedia 03:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. A similar article about the same thing (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox 180) was deleted recently. There is no handheld Xbox announced, only speculation. TJ Spyke 04:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Total speculation and/or Photoshopping. This doesn't even deserve a mention on Xbox, as there isn't a single reliable source mentioned. (It's possible that the rumors turned out to refer to the Zune, but that's neither here nor there.) Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- No change in vote, even given the modifications to the article. Although there's some verifiable information now, it's very limited in scope. This article can (and should) wait until Microsoft makes an official announcement of some sort. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - unsourced crustal balling. MER-C 08:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:HOAX. Just H 21:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Rumors of MS coming out with a portable device designed to "target the huge potential audience that embraces the iPod" are true. Rumors of a MS video game handheld have been around since the first Xbox was released, and I'm pretty sure that picture has been as well. This is a hoax/crystal balling, whichever. Koweja 04:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. If such a device were to be announced at a later date, it would go under a proper product name anyway. --Alan Au 06:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Better with sources, but still just a rumor until such time as Microsoft makes an official announcement. Article can easily be recreated at that time. Until then, the article may as well be called "Xbox handheld speculation", which obviously isn't encyclopedic. --Alan Au 04:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:HOAX and WP:CRYSTAL. Self-explanatory: handheld does not exist, and Wikipedia is not for making guesses to it. --Scottie theNerd 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Still maintaining my stance after rewrite. One quote is not enough for an article; currently it fails Notability. Wait until more information is revealed (which may take years) before creating an article rather than a one-line stub. --Scottie theNerd 04:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Uber Strong Delete Pure rumor, doesn't need to be mentioned anywhere.Meow07 19:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Even with the page move and rewrite, there's nothing to prove that the device is still in development.Meow07 01:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Microsoft is indeed working on a handheld, as is mentioned in Dean's book [Xbox 360 Uncloaked]. Next-Generation includes the text: "Following the launch of the Xbox 360, the hardware team was divided up and put on two different tasks. The first will work on cost reducing the Xbox. The second will design a new portable system to compete with PSP and DS. The book indicates the strategy is to launch it in the middle of the Xbox 360 cycle so that the business has a hedge against the crushing generational transition costs (only one system would be going through transition at any given time)." [13].

Comment I have re-written the article, citing sources which indicate that an Xbox handheld is forthcoming. I also tagged it with the "work in progress game, speculative information" tag, which seems to be more applicable than simply deleting the article. Alan Shatte 22:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment All the article says now is that Microsoft is working on designing a Xbox handheld, as claimed by one writer. That's not enough for an article, and its still crystalballism - Microsoft must have dozens of major R&D projects going on, many of which probably won't see actual public release. Bwithh 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep as a stub The information is verifiable via Next Generation. Passes WP:RS Infomanager 22:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as a stub. Jessica Anne Stevens 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment those who voted before the re-write should be contacted so that they can vote again. Jessica Anne Stevens 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have contacted everyone who participated. Alan Shatte 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I have striked out Jessica's first vote due to her second vote, it seems she has changed her mind about the article. Dionyseus 07:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - While it has been confirmed that they're working on a handheld Xbox, there's no telling that it's going to be called Xbox Handheld, no telling when it's going to be released, indeed no telling if it's going to be released, as company plans can, and do, change. So, it's still in a crystal ball. Secateur 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually the release date will probably be 2008 since that is in the middle of the 5-year business cycle of the Xbox 360. Wasn't the tag created because plans for a game [console] in development can and do change? Alan Shatte 22:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  - It's still has to be almost certain to happen. I believe the tag was created for games certain to happen, like Half-Life 2 I suppose, but not before the company itself had announced it and started the marketing campaign. This is too early. Secateur 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's still crystal balling. Microsoft confirmed they are already working on the successor to the Xbox 360, but that doesn't mean we should have an article about it. The article should be deleted unless some actual info is announced (and Microsoft themselves say something). TJ Spyke 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Note I moved the article to Microsoft handheld game console. Koweja 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Week Keep now per stubification and sources. Koweja 23:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Why? Did you read my comment? Sony has confirmed they are working on the PS4 and and MS confirmed they are working on the next Xbox, both of which is more than this article can claim. TJ Spyke 23:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and Page Protect, even with the new sourcing. It's still total speculation and might not even be in the alpha stages of development. I doubt it'll simply be called the Xbox Handheld and it could be that Microsoft cancels it because right now the only information we've got is from someone who's already left Microsoft over a year ago. I'd support mention of it in the Xbox 360 article until more information is released, however. Lankybugger 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I am hesitant to approve deletion of the article because I have a feeling that it will be recreated continously, especially as more website and people become aware of the book. Infomanager 00:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: That's what protection against recreation is for. No doubt Microsoft isn't going to announce a single thing about any potential handheld until they've come up with a brand name for it. When that happens, the article can be created under that brand name. Lankybugger 00:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and protect but include the line of text in the Xbox 360 article. Paul D. Meehan 05:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete page move stub to Xbox 360 page. Jessica Anne Stevens 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This seems to be Jessica's secont vote in this discussion. Dionyseus 20:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Redict - Perhaps redirect to Xbox 360 and include the line there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brad Guzman (talk • contribs) 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC). ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Change vote to merge into Xbox 360 - The line should be added to the Xbox 360's sales section. Alan Shatte 21:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I still think that the article should be kept as a stub, but I have added the information (and sources) to the 360 page. If and when Microsoft officially announces the portable, we can split it off. Infomanager 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It has nothing to do with the 360, don't place it into that article. Meow07 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as stub - Information is succinct, and verifiable. Joel Jimenez ← See checkuser request on this user. ~ trialsanderrors 09:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment This article, besides having unencyclopedic content (are we going to have articles on every single R&D project by a major corporation, most of which will never see public release?) is not verified. A single journalist's claims based in "insider sources" is not sufficient - not multiple, not solidly reliable, not verifiable. Furthermore, the article is misleading to say that Microsoft has "confirmed" this story. Microsoft has called the claims "highly speculative"[14]. Bwithh 13:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Even in its reduced form the article is reporting that one source has speculated that Microsoft is working on this product. Until we have confirmation (not speculation) that it is being worked on it cannot warrant an article. Gwernol 14:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Completely speculative, also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dionyseus 03:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not just is WP:NOT a crystal ball, but there's barely even any speculation. A couple of articles and an unofficial mock-up do not equate to a Microsoft handheld. -- Kicking222 12:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete If wikipedia published everything which might have been thought of at any point, it would be a terrible reference source. WP:NOT, per all other deletionists. Mart inp23 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep: WP:SNOW --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wanker

RATIONALE FOR DELETION:

Inadequacy of prior AfD discussion
- Votes appear primarily based on whether people were amused by the article or not. This violates WP:N#Notability is not subjective.
- The admin decided "Keep" but did not follow WP:N: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other."
  - NOTE: Wanker has only one non-trivial published work cited about "Wanker". (No blame to the admin - no one even mentioned this omission in the prior Afd discussion).

Is about a neologism (WP:NEO), a slang term, and fails notability (WP:N)
- WP:NEO states that, for all articles about neologisms, all article claims must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia.
- Per WP:NEO, this is so "even though there may be many examples of the term in use", such as listed in the article's sections Wanker#Usage and social acceptability and Wanker#Wanker in popular culture.
- Per the section "Reliable sources for neologism", To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. This article contains only one reference about the term. It also contains a trivia reference from the 1990 U.S. Census stating, "'Wanker' is the 53,492nd most common surname in the United States".
Mergability
- Any pertinent cited information in the article is best merged into Masturbation where Wanker may be described as one of many colloquialisms for a person who engages in the act.

CyberAnth 01:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:WINAD, WP:OR, and WP:V
- The article violates WP:WINAD because the references support only a dictionary definition.
- The remaining of the article violates WP:OR and WP:V.
  - See User:CyberAnth/AfD/Original Research of Wanker and non Verfiability_of_claims for proof of violation of WP:WINAD, WP:OR, and WP:V.

Non-improvability
- Wanker has existed since 17 March 2004 and has been subject to nearly 1000 edits since then, over 500 since August 2006.
  - Nothing regarding its above violations have changed, even after surviving its prior Afd.
    - Reliable sources are not currently in existence to justify Wanker's claims beyond a Wiktionary entry. WP's standard is verifiability, not truth.

CyberAnth 07:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.86.77 (talk • contribs) 194.176.86.77
Keep incorrect rationale use of WP:NEO.--Jersey Devil 02:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The word has been in use since at least 1950 (source: OED) so it's hardly a neologism. The current article has problems but a verifiable article can certainly be written so this is by no means a rationale for deletion. --Cherry blossom tree 03:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The article has existed since 17 March 2004 and has been subject to nearly 1000 edits since then, over 500 since August 2006. How long do you propose articles be given until they meet notability standards? Nothing changed in these regards even after surviving its prior Afd. CyberAnth 09:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep footnotes would be desirable, but there is a reference section, and the term is well-known. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Soft redirect to Wikitionary Certainly not a neologism, but fails WP:DICDEF. (WP:DICDEF was the main argument for deletion in the first afd). The article content is in very bad shape and is not encyclopedic in its current form. Recommend soft redirect to Wikitionary. At minimum, please let's remove the "popular references"/trivia sections altogether which as is so often the case, are out of control and a net negative - and well, a crap magnet in themselves in this such a case. I absolutely agree that the consensus reached in the previous afd was inadequate - in terms of taking the discussion seriously in policy terms. Bwithh 03:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

note this rational for WP:NEO has shown up in a few recent sexual-topic AfD debates, so be wary. Terms widely used in publication, or defined in third-party works are not neologisms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wintermut3 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC). Wintermut3 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Merge with Masturbation It's just the British term for someone who masturbates, no reason for it to have it's own article. TJ Spyke 04:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It absolutely isn't just the British term for someone who masturbates - the word is almost never used in that context. To merge with masturbation would be irrational and misleading. --Cherry blossom tree 11:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep as another ...let's be charitable and say misunderstanding of WP:NEO. Otto4711 05:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. WP:NEO does not apply, it is notable, and being a slang term is not a reason for deletion. --- RockMFR 06:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect I don't care if it goes to masturbation or if it's a soft redirect to Wiktionary's wanker page. It's a valid search term, but not really a valid article topic as it can easily be discussed within masturbation. Heck, "Wanker" was also the b-side of The Darkness's "One Way Ticket" single, so turn it into a disambig page if you like. <shrug> Any of these options would be suitable, but an article really isn't appropriate at this time. GassyGuy 06:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - recommend nominator read WP:POINT. Catchpole 08:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment, the nominator appears to be on a quest of some sort to eliminate earthy Anglo-Saxon terms relating to sex from Wikipedia, always using the justification WP:NEO ("recently coined" words that do not "appear in dictionaries") although these are established slang terms or colloquialisms. This nom is at least better formulated, but see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handjob, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fingering (sexual act), and yet others. I am unsurprised that other editors are bringing up WP:POINT. --Dhartung
Keep, this is one of the most used insults in the UK. The article is more than a dicdef. I recommend the nominator read WP:NEO. I also recommend this AfD be ended now because of WP:SNOW. Malla nox 08:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Make personal attacks against me as you will. However, the deepest problem with the article is its lack of established notability: "A topic is notable if and only "if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." "The subject of" does not equal merely mentioned in. Right now, the cold hard facts mean the article does not meet that criteria. Note: Culling together sources that merely mention Wanker as a colloquialism only asserts that the article is, in fact, Synthesis and Original Research. I suggest if you want to keep this article, you best expend your efforts finding sources where Wanker "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." Right now it has only one which does not equal "mulitple". Meeting notability per Wikipedia policies, and only that, is what will keep this article. Notability_is_not_subjective. - CyberAnth 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment, it's "merely mentioned" in the dictionary. This nomination is pushing the envelope of WP:POINT. Mallanox 08:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- POV Pushing by whom, the authors or the AfD nominator? Wanker as an offensive colloquial term for "masturbator" indeed needs to be mentioned as such in masturbation, nothing more, unless and only unless notability for wanker as a term worthy of an article as such is verified as "the subject of [not merely mentioned in] multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other" (bracketed verbiage added for clarity). CyberAnth 09:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Firstly, wanker is slang, it is not colloquial. Secondly it means more than simply "one who masturbates". If I called someone a wanker it means I consider them to be irritating not because I think they go home and masturbate. Again, wanker is in the dictionary, it is the subject of a definition of its meaning. Mallanox 09:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    - So if you can establish that Wanker is notable because as a term "it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other" with "subject of" not equating with merely mentioned in articles - then fine. Otherwise, Notability is not subjective. CyberAnth 09:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Comment If we are to merge wanker with masturbation, we may as well merge fuck with sexual intercourse and cunt with sex organ. Where will it stop? Gretnagod 01:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, far from a neologism, so all arguments based on WP:NEO are futile. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - this is not a neologism - check the dictionary. Article needs to improve its refs, but they are certainly out there. I don't understand why this one keeps popping up. Chovain 09:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The article has existed since 17 March 2004 and has been subject to nearly 1000 edits since then, over 500 since August 2006. How long do you propose articles be given until they meet notability standards? Nothing changed in these regards even after surviving its prior Afd. CyberAnth 09:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely whether an article meets notability standards is based on the inherent qualities of the subject, rather than the quality of the article, as long as the article makes these clear. Do you mean verifiability? --Cherry blossom tree 11:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to Wiktionary. The article is a long dicdef. Mention it in the Masturbation article as a synonym. Edison 14:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to the article masturbation, as per the insult Jerkoff ~ IICATSII punch the keys 15:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Not a neologism, the premise being false the rest doesn't follow. Akihabara 16:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Article is about the term wanker, not about "wanking," so redirect to masturbation is not appropriate (much as a redirect of fuck to sexual intercourse is not called for). The word is not a neologism, but has been in common currency for quite a long time. Multiple published references support both the word's sociolinguistic notability and much of the content of the article. The article does need to be trimmed to remove original research and/or uncited claims concerning usage within specific circles. Nick Graves 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Nomination for deletion is ridiculous. Neoligism claim is plainly wrong. I'm confused by the notability claim. Surely many Wikipedia pages would fail if this standard were held up as compulsory for inclusion. The size of Wales for example. Jooler 17:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to masturbation. -- The Anome 17:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- The wanker article is not about masturbation - Bollocks is not about testicles and fuck is not about sexual intercourse. All such redirects are inappropriate. We have articles about the words Bloody, Nerd, Naff, Smeg etc. Jooler 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable and far from being a neologism. A few more references and some cleanup would be nice, but there are several tags for requesting that. Prolog 18:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, too much information to consider Transwikiing, and appears well-researched; notability should be obvious to just about anyone (and I believe the current article documents this sufficiently), and it isn't a neologism unless you think words that originate in 1945 (according to Random House Unabridged) are still "new." Tarinth 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
KeepNot a neologism - dated to the 1940s and at least 1972. See here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RHB (talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Strong Keep Not a neologism, it's a well established slang term. Commonly used in popular culture although primarily in British English. --Nick Y. 22:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep, this term is a dominant insult in most, if not all, of Australia. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It's not appopriate for a redirect. The term may have come from a slang term for masturbation but it's used in much wider contexts now. The article is not a mere 'dictionary definition', although I think it has a lot of scope for improvement. That's what should be done: improve the article, don't delete it. Meanwhile, editors from countries where the term isn't in use should look upon it as a chance to be more informed about the world. I know our articles about non-UK topics help inform me. Sam Blacketer 23:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

'Keep well established slang term. DXRAW 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep The word has nuances of meaning that go beyond a dicdef. It also shows up in numerous works of fiction, one of which was on my niece's Grade 12 syllabus last year (thank you Martin Amis). I don't even think it's slang any more. I'm trying not to assume bad faith in regard to non-US language or censorship issues, but this is clearly notable. And by God: if you're going to redirect "wanker" to "masturbate", let's just go ahead and redirect asshole to rectum and creep to Richard M. Nixon. --Charlene 01:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Did the people suggesting this should RDR to masturbation actually read it? The content has nothing to do with it. What is the problem with only having one source? One is more than none, and its hardly surprising, for a slang regional word. pfctdayelise (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Surprised to find this even listed for deletion. The only reason seems to be to remove profanity. But WP:NOT#CENSOR and if this is removed, we may as well say goodbye to the likes of fuck and cunt. I would ask people to look at other articles the user who nominated this for deletion wants removed. Gretnagod 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep this is a well known slang term.-- danntm ^T _C 04:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Well-known British slang. Realkyhick 07:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep: This is a commonly used term in Australia, as well as Britain and New Zealand. Given this, frankly, only an American would consider the term a neologism. Given this, to delete the article would be to pander to an American cultural Point of View. I would also like to add that an article needing improvement (e.g. more sources, etc.) in spite of very common usage and clear potential for improvement should not be deleted. I would further add that it is often not used in its literal sense (i.e. often someone is called a 'wanker' even if they do not regularly engage in masturbation), and thus anyone who thinks that merging the article with masturbation is... for lack of a better term... a wanker. - AmishThrasher 07:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Where to start? 1) Inadequacy of previous AfD - the result of the AfD was overwhelmingly for keep, and appears to have been so for non-trivial reasons - virtually none of those who voted keep appear to have done so "based on whether people were amused by the article or not", as anyone actually reading that AfD should be able to clearly see. 2) Neologism, including the bit about "non-trivial sources about rather than using the word" - I'd regard the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang as such a source. It cites the term Wanker as having been used since at least 1950 in its listing of the word. 3) Mergability - the popular usage of this word per se, as opposed to its usage as a term meaning masturbation, is enough for it to survive as a separate article. Grutness...wha? 07:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Can we please end CyberAnth's campaign to Bowdlerize Wikipedia.
Strong keep a very notable term. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - My "campaign" is because this article does not meet Wikipedia policies. It is possible it could be made such, but it is not now.

Notability is not subjective. WP:N says article topics must be the subject of multiple reliable sources. Right now, this article has only one source about Wanker. That is not enough.

I suggest the best use of your energy might be to find other articles about the term rather than attacking me.

CyberAnth 08:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In what way was my comment attacking you? --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Given your choice of articles to nominate for deletion, the claim claim that the nomination " is because this article does not meet Wikipedia policies" is clearly disingenuous and I urge you to consider WP:POINT before making any similar requests for deletion. This is advice and not a personal attack. This nomination should probably be put on WP:LAME Jooler 10:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not subjective. WP:N says article topics must be the subject of multiple reliable sources. Right now, this article has only one source about Wanker. That is not enough. CyberAnth 20:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you've said that a dozen times. I think the policy needs review. But thepoint is that in reality that fact was NOT your motivation. Jooler 18:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the best use of your energy might be to find other articles about the term rather than attacking me.

Keep. I've just added a reference to a reputable article dedicated to the word and its etymology. I could probably dig up some more if necessary. The term is clearly notable and is certainly not a neologism. —Psychonaut 12:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - do you really consider the Maven's Word of the Day reference you added to be anything more than trivial? I suppose now we can go through the entire archive of Maven's Word of the Day and start creating articles about them all. CyberAnth 21:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to speedy keep per WP:SNOW - 'nuff said? Tarinth 15:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:N#Notability is not subjective. CyberAnth 21:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep definitely not a neologism by any means. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The article is chock full of Original Research, as I noted in my initial nomination. But I just noticed another very glaring example of it: The photo and its caption. The one non-trivial source in the article does not describe the gesture. Neither do any of the trivial sources. CyberAnth 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- CyberAnth - I and probably every single person over the age of 5 in Britain, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa and a host of other country can firmly attest that the image is a fair representation of the wanker sign. Are you seriously suggesting that despite 200 million odd people knowing and recognising this gesture that the image should be deleted because it is not verifiable from a reference book? That is sheer madness and red-tape bureaucracy against common sense. Jooler 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Then almost every article in Wikipedia is chock full of original research. --Cherry blossom tree 21:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. For two examples, consider our articles about Frederick Douglass and Cardinals. We add photos of these subjects because reliable sources have already published photos of them. In contrast, no source in Wanker either describes or depicts the gesture. Including the gesture and a photo of it is thus Original Research. CyberAnth 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the image, rather the assertion that since not every fact in the article is currently cited it should be deleted. --Cherry blossom tree 22:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"...not every fact"?? You're kidding, right? But sure, let's talk facts: The sole non-trivial source, would support ~~an article the length of stub~~ a dictionary definition. But one such source is not enough, since Wanker must have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published sources to be included in Wikipedia. The entire sections "Usage and social acceptability" and "Wanker in popular culture" in the article, about 85% of the article, are completely unreferenced. Perhaps an example of what a well-sourced article free of OR looks like will be helpful, and here is one. CyberAnth 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is the majority of articles on Wikipedia are in the same state. I just hit special:random five times and found four articles without a source between them and one with a few external links. This is not a situation to be encouraged but the correct solution is not to delete these articles unless none of the information is verifiable. (Verifiable is different to currently cited.) You have failed to persuade people that this is the case and have even acknowledged that it isn't yourself.--Cherry blossom tree 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So because Johnny down the road is bad Timmy gets to be bad too?

Verifiability does not come via cited references?? You must be just kidding me again.

Do I need to conduct OR to verify an article's OR? Is that how articles are "verifiable" in your book?

Everything in Wanker beyond a dictionary definition in its sources is Original Research.

For example, I am going to need to call User:Reinoutr on his/her apparent reference-padding regarding his/her insertion on January 3, 2006, of Jenny Cheshire, 1991, English Around the World: sociolinguistic perspectives, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521395658. Following is the entire use of wanker in the book:

A number of the formulae ["you wanker" and "fuck off, wanker" (from page 205)] use as a form of address the word wanker. Literally, the word wanker in New Zealand English denotes a male who masturbates. But it is also used as a general term of abuse among New Zealand males. Masturbation is popularly regarded as a sign of sexual inadequacy. Therefore a wanker is one is sexually inadequate (page 206).

Source here.

A mere dictionary definition contained in a book, used as padding in an article to make it appear as a cover for OR. Nice.

WINAD, and that is what Wiktionary is for.[15]

CyberAnth 00:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Your Johnny and Timmy analogy is a straw man. I specifically stated that the situation was not to be encouraged and explained how the it should be remedied. --Cherry blossom tree 00:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. Wanker has existed since 17 March 2004 and has been subject to nearly 1000 edits since then, over 500 since August 2006. Nothing substantive regarding references has changed in this article, even after it survived its prior Afd. How long do you propose articles be given until they meet policy standards? CyberAnth 01:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as it takes. I don't see the fact that an article is not fully referenced now as a reason to delete it if I think it could be referenced after some work has been put in. See m:eventualism. --Cherry blossom tree 12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we're in little danger of missing the publishing deadline. --Maxamegalon2000 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep part of 50's song72.184.201.3 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wooo.. wait a second. I resent the accusation above by CyberAnth. The refs I supplied are certainly not refs for all the information in the article, but I NEVER claimed they were. They back up some of the things and prove that there are descriptions of the word in books dealing with English language and swearing. That's all they prove and that's all they are for. No need to "call" me on my "reference-padding", thank you very much. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the reference adds nothing except a dictionary definition and two quotes showing usage, as a dictionary would contain. CyberAnth

keep Silly Americans. Artw 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment about WP:WINAD - I created a version of Wanker supported only by the references on the page and removed all of the OR that the page represents. As you can see, what is left is a dictionary entry. CyberAnth 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment about real encyclopedias - they are full of "stub" entries. Out of curiosity, when was the last time you picked up one of those old fashioned things? ;-) Silensor 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

But this is not a stub but an article of OR whose references support only a dictionary definition. CyberAnth 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep, one of the few instances where I believe that WP:SNOW actually applies. Silensor 02:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is not subjective nor is it determined by majority votes but policies. This should not even have failed the WP:WINAD nomination in the past (as you can see, what is left after all OR is removed is a dictionary entry), where apparently people misunderstood this. Apparently also, some people have thought that if you just pad enough OR into an article, it saves it from an AfD (see Talk:Wanker#Wiktionary move). CyberAnth 02:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. From WP:NEO:

Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities

From Online Etymology Dictionary:

1940s, "masturbator," British slang, from wank "to masturbate," of unknown origin. General sense of "contemptible person" is attested from 1972. Cf. sense evolution of jerk (n.).

It's obvious that this isn't a neologism by any stretch of the imagination. As for redirecting to Masturbation, that's blatantly misleading. In modern usage, "You are a wanker" does not strictly mean "You are a regular masturbator". That's exactly why this article needs more than a dictionary definition, to make it clear what the expression actually means nowadays, and show examples of how it's used nowadays. Quack 688 08:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More reference-padding

Above I demonstrated by evidence that the reference in the article, Jenny Cheshire, 1991, English Around the World: sociolinguistic perspectives, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521395658, verified nothing in the article except a dictionary definition.

I again have uncovered what appears to be more reference-padding.

The following is included as a reference in this article:

Anthony McEnery and Tony McEnery, 2005, Swearing in English: Bad Language, Purity and Power from 1586 to the Present. Published by Routledge, ISBN 0415258375.

Just as with the book, I searched its entire digitized contents for the term Wanker.

The word appears once in the book, on page 36, within a table that categorizes British "swear" words from "Very mild" to "Very strong". There under the "Moderate" section we find the word Wanker in its sole entry in the book.

The mention was so minor that Wanker does not appear in the book's Index on page 275, where it would appear otherwise between "VALA" and "warrants". In contrast, the word fuck is discussed in some depth in the book, and appears in its Index as such, on 40 of the book's pages.

Page 36 of the book, other pages, as well as the book's entire index can be viewed at here.

The reference verifies nothing in the article beyond what a dictionary does.

CyberAnth 05:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still more reference padding

In Wanker, the sole pertinent reference cited in specifically the reference section is:

Cameron, Deborah "Naming of Parts: Gender, Culture, and Terms for the Penis among American College Students", in American Speech Vol. 67, No. 4 p372.

In the entire journal article, the word wanker appears only once, indicating nothing more than the fact that college students in the researcher's study group used the word wanker as slang for masturbation. Here is the exact sentence:

Apart from the two fellatio-related terms above, there are two references to anal sex, rectum wrecker and anal intruder; and one to masturbation, wanker.

This is the full extent of the coverage of wanker in the reference. No further discussion or mention is made.

Wanker claims,

Wanker...is also a slang term for penis used by American college students. This usage implies that the penis is primarily a tool for masturbation.[1]

Obviously, based on the cited source, the claim that wanker is a term for penis is not verifiable, patently false. This speaks nothing of the ludicrous Synthesis/OR claim that follows, "This usage implies that the penis is primarily a tool for masturbation."

The specfic page entry for page 272 of the journal article is at here. The entire journal article is here. You need JSTOR access.

In conclusion, the journal article referenced in the article provides nothing but a dictionary definition for wanker while saying college students sometimes use it.

CyberAnth 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The stated fact is absolutely verifiable from the source. Wanker is discussed in the context fo slang terms for penis. The article also connects the 'sexuality' category to an earlier discussion of 'tool' related terms, which is where the comment comes from. --Cherry blossom tree 12:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - See User:CyberAnth/AfD/Original Research of Wanker and non Verfiability of claims CyberAnth 09:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep If other non-American editors feel this is a common slang term in their respective environs, who am I to disagree? --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep despite very impressive research and justification by nominator. Certainly not a neologism, and in my opinion the nominator's definition of "notability" and "reliable sources" is a little rigid (oo-er!). I have experienced a similar situation with "Bogan", a very widely used term in Australia and very difficult to reference from "academic" sources... although there's an interesting story about the loss of impact of the term from the Australian National University here relating to a court case. Sorry CyberAnth, you've done an amazing amount of work but I think this article is salvageable without too much difficulty. --Canley 09:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I just want to mention here that the nominator did NOT nominate this article after extensive research. It was listed for AfD based on "Inadequacy of prior AfD discussion", "WP:NEO" and "mergability" [16]. Only when after two days almost everybody disagreed with these arguments, the nominator did research on the article and switched to the arguments of "WP:WINAD", "WP:V" and "WP:OR". [17]. On the brink of not assuming good faith, that makes it appear the actual deletion of this article is more important to the nominator than the actual reasons why it should be deleted (see also this statement by the nominator, regarding a previous AfD: [18]). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 09:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
keep please good nomination but really this term is so notable erasing this would be a bad idea Yuckfoo 10:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've just added a reference attesting to it's more modern broader usage. Malla nox 10:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, are you seriously suggesting that "wanker" is a neologism? You wanker. Lankiveil 10:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Comment. Nice example. Can we use it in the article? :-p Quack 688 13:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep if we're going to delete Wanker on the grounds of WP:NEO ... then Nigger should go next. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment, I would also point out that over 150 pages link here. Ok, a good chunk of them are talk pages but a good chunk of them aren't. Deleting will leave a lot of redlinks. Malla nox 19:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - popular, notable term. Needs better referencing, but that is not an AfD worhy issue. Johntex\^talk 04:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Term in widespread and common use. Notability goes well beyond merely being a synonim for a masturbator. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Extremely well known in New Zealand. The illustration is correct - just one eg. it was recently featured in advertising a chocolate milk shake drink. There are tone issues and excessive pop culture references, but these don't justify a delete. Seems to be making WP:Point Mostlyharmless 08:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think users of British Sign Language might be able to find one or two references for the gesture. Jooler 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep a valuable part of the English language. Atlantis Hawk 11:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Lankiveil. Qwghlm 12:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Notable, referenced, commonly used term (not a neologism). No reason for deletion. Atom 12:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Regarding referencing, I've added one ref, I'm sure a Google Books search would yield many more. Oldelpaso 13:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I've added another reference, an entire article about the word being banned from football shirts, "Footie team 'W*nker' strip ban", from the UK's best-selling newspaper [19] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - As all of Great Britain says: this AfD needs to wanker off. ju66l3r 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Clearly a notable term, well sourced, etc. --Maxamegalon2000 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Notice - respondants to this AfD may be interested in this proposal at WP:V to clarify that article improvement is preferable to deletion or blanking. Johntex\^talk 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - this article is excellent especially for non-native English speakers. The wiktionary entry only doesn't help these people much. So keeping this article is more important than to care for the feelings of a fundamentalist Christian that tries to AfD articles with sexual content by using false pretends.

St blac 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep yet another tiresome an pointless nom by a serial offender. Albatross2147 00:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Besides being a bad-faith nomination by a person who seems to be in process of trying to delete all article with any trace of sexual content, it just happens that today, I got the latest emailing from the World Wide Words site, which contains a discussion of wanker as "Most Useful Import from British English to American English: - http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.com/2007/01/words-of-year-2006.html User:Zoe|(talk) 00:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notable term which is not a neologism despite nominator's own persistance to the contrary. Meets all standards for verifiability and thus should be kept. bbx 04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Close AfD?

It appears to me that a consensus has been reached... Mostlyharmless 09:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. I recommend taking this discussion to the Talk page of the article as it seems to be moving in a productive direction. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of films with similar themes and release dates (second nomination)

Here is the first nomination. This article consists pretty much of subjective comparisons of movies. There are exactly zero citations, and two shakey (at best) links at the bottom- a "discussion" and a "blog discussion." Obviously some movies will bear a striking resemblance to each other via ripoffs and such, but how do we draw the line? Are they similar because of genres? Actors? Plots? How do we define "similar release dates"? What critics and sources would we consider notable or numerous enough for movies to be "similar". This list is just too vague abd subjective. I think this fails original research and What Wikipedia is not. Wafulz 03:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ I've read about this in Entertainment Weekly, but don't have that article anymore, and from what I see here (and looking at random revisions in the edit history), this is completely unsourced, and both links are blogs. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep good cleanup, illustrates a film phenomenon. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Seems like we're having a hard time coming up with an apt title for this article, and yes it is open to subjectivity, but I find the article very interesting and valuable for anybody interested in the film studio system. It's not as if it's a list of movies that make you feel good or something subjective by nature; it's a list of movies that seem to be made just to compete with another. Additions need to be moderated or the text should be changed so people better understand the purpose, though (having Master & Commander and Pirates of the Caribbean listed together is just silly) -Asriel 04:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- My argument is that it's really not possible to create an objective list here. How many critics (or other important people) must mention that one movie is similar to another? How do we define "similar" release dates? I feel that the last question in particular would just end up being completely arbitrary. Would a movie like Toy Story be considered similar to Small Soldiers? --Wafulz 04:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Be careful not to use WP:ILIKEIT arguments in AfD discussions since they really don't stand up to Wikipedia policy giants like WP:OR. Axem Titanium 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 05:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete. To compare to movies on Wikipedia without an independent source discussing it first is the very definition of original research: An editor went out and saw (ie researched) both movies and made his/her own decision about their relatedness and then decided, "I want to feel smart and tell the world about my discovery on Wikipedia!" Unfortunately, that's not the way this place works. I'm surprised that it survived the first nomination with people basically saying "Keep, it's an interesting subject". Axem Titanium 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Lots of these similarities have been noted in major media. I grabbed three bullet points from the 1990s and easily found New York Times and Toronto Star articles noting the similarities. I've added the references to the article: [20]. Let's prune out the silly Original Research from this article and keep the good stuff. Cas510 05:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The subjective nature of the list, and the almost total lack of external sources, makes this a clear cut case of original research. Reyk _YO! 05:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It already passed an AFD. Perhaps the nominator should have done his/her resaerch and noted that we want to keep this article. Calicore 06:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Consensus can change. Resolute 06:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- The first word in the nomination is a link to the previous nomination! --Wafulz 07:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete indiscriminate list, highly subjective - ie: Flushed Away and Ratatouille (film) being considered similar because the protagonists are rats? Nevermind that the actual themes are wildly different. Possibly WP:OR. Concerns about WP:V. Criteria is way to subjective to be valuable. Resolute 06:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete I think this article would fail an ANOVA if you could run one. Miserably. Looks to me like within-group variance is at least as large as between group variance! In other words, it would be just as easy to match two films from different categories as they stand now as it is to agree with the match of the films IN the categories as they stand now. So I agree strongly with original research comments. Great point above on "Flushed Away and Ratatouille (film) being considered similar because the protagonists are rats? Nevermind that the actual themes are wildly different." There are tons of examples throughout the page of this. "Event Horizon (1997) and Sphere (1998), both involve an abandoned U.S. spaceship that contains a giant orb and members of the search or rescue crew who hallucinate their worst nightmares." You could just as easily argue that Nightmare on Elm Street should be on that list with the hallucinatory nightmares. While we're at it, I don't know about you, but those Aliens were pretty awful, and they were birthed as eggs (spheres) and Ripley does have nightmares... (*tongue in cheek*). If something like this is going to stay, I'd argue strongly that it should be stripped down to things that can be supported with citations(similar to the pruning comment earlier)...which, since there are currently no references, sounds like a fresh start might be a good idea. The list is also haphazard, so I don't think it meets Wikipedia's quality standards. Maybe these things would make more sense in the "Trivia" that appears at the bottom of some film entries.

Katsesama 07:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete this information absolutely. It's simply original research, and we shouldn't be expected to keep this garbage around on the basis that maybe some kind fellow will come along and clean it up. I'm more than happy to overturn the last AfD due to the ridiculous amount of non-arguments such as "I like it!", "It's useful!", and "It's interesting!" ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 08:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WP:OR and WP:NOT#IINFO are non-negotiable. MER-C 08:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~, this is packed full of original research, and I agree that the relatedness may well be illusionary. A lot of the similarities seem to be related to the presence of stock characters common in a genre. Having said that, an encyclopedic treatment of this 'phenomenon' may be possible (but very difficult to do). This article is nowhere near, however.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to withdraw this delete comment as sources have been added. Neutral for now.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete The information is original research. TSO1D 14:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Unsure Some of the current article is reaching a bit (V for Vendetta and Children of Men for example) but I do think there's an article to be written about direct-to-video films with a clear connection to popular theatrical films (e.g. When a Killer Calls, Snakes on a Train, and those dollar-store "generic" versions of Disney cartoons). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, it got merits since this phenomenon its indeed often seen and reported. It deperately needs sourcing though (a source for each item in the list that is). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as original research and an unmanageable list. YechielMan 17:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as unmaintainable original research. JIP | Talk 17:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I can see the case for this article, but it is currently unsourced. The only way we could have a list like this is if a good secondary source discussed the correllations. Tarinth 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I think the idea has merit. Could be better organized and or written perhaps. Tuttt 20:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I just looked over this article again, and I think some contributers were confused as to its intention. Many films are/were listed just because they happened to have similar surface content (ie probably a coincidence), but the article should only be listing films that were made seemingly to compete with eachother (Deep Impact, Armageddon) or capitalize on a trend (Matrix, Thirteenth Floor, eXistense). Perhaps it should be retitled/repurposed (again), maybe to "List of films made to compete with eachother", which would be notable and would be much less subjective (and printed reviews could probably be used as sources). --Asriel 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (Used the wrong signature code first time)
Delete An unmanagable, subjective list of non-notable information stemming entirely from original research.--Nick Y. 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia at its worst. Pavel Vozenilek 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Pushing personal theories about relationship of two movies: original research. --maclean 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep The idea has merit and I keep running into articles in the mainstream press that mention this phenomenon. Some of them contain suspiciously similar examples to this very list. I think it would be more productive to come up with more specific objective characteristics for what this list should and shouldn't contain, rather than deleting the whole thing. Ravy 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep - Criteria are relatively clear, and it's a phenomenon that's reported on in the mainstream media. Could be a little better sourced, but these are not just a bunch of coincidences. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I still maintain this list is arbitrary and unmaintainable. We have a vague definition of "similar release dates" which would, at best, be arbitrarily decided by the community as some form of consensus-driven original research- even then, we're still left with the whole principle of drawing a line somewhere- are movies considered similar release dates if they're in the same year? Two years? Five? How about ten? If we were to eliminate the date criteria, we'd simply be left with "lists of films with similar themes/plots/whatever", which could be indefinite and unmaintainable seeing as any critic could compare any two movies and declare them similar. This leaves out that there's a question of how similar two movies must be, whether through plot, actors, score, theme, etc. This whole article seems to hinge on an undefined concept of "similarity". I completely agree that it's a phenomenon noted in the press through common ripoffs and movies riding trends, but I don't think it can be made into an article because it's essentially a collection of "Hey, these two things are sort of alike according to so-and-so" --Wafulz 03:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I still maintain that this is a phenomenon that is widely reported on in the media. Have a look at this: [21]. I think it would be easy to find consensus that a year would be an appropriate cutoff for this phenomenon, and that we should make it clear in the comments of this article that people should not add their own original research, but should only add verified, notable similar films with similar themes and similar release dates. Cas510 04:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- How can it be easy to assert that? Would we be allowed to create articles for two years or more? This opens the door to all sorts of slippery slope arguments and bad precedents. --Wafulz 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I'm saying it would likely be easy to find consensus, if we tried. All of the copycat movie articles I've read, and all the typical examples (Bug'sLife/Antz, Capote/Infamous, TrumanShow/EdTV) are very close in release dates, usually under a year. Movies take about a year or less to make; for two movies that are very similar to come to fruition within a year is notable. I'm going to keep trying to improve this article during this AfD, adding references, removing OR, and trying to find consensus on the talk page about what the list definitively is for. I thank you for bringing this article to mine (and others) attention. Cas510 04:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Like people have said above, the idea has merit, unsourced things should be put on probation for a fortnight and then removed though I believe. If you can't find sources for the facts given then delete the fact, not the article. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment regarding sources, I just added about 10 source links to the article in as many minutes. All I did was Google the two movie titles together and always found articles discussing or at least mentioning the similarities. Shouldn't be too hard to source every movie listed in the article, and any movie where a source can't be found can be removed. --Asriel 05:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Well researched and good to read. Thank you bringing it to my attention. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep Now that somebody has gone through and diligently sourced this, there's no grounds for calling it original research any more. As for Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory this article does not fit. It is a common phenomenon, as demonstrated by the size of the now-sourced list. The improvement has negated the original grounds for deletion.--JayHenry 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Being well sourced does not make it not original research. This is a common misunderstanding. It simply makes it good original research. All good OR is well sourced but reaches novel conclusions. The conclusions reached here are either novel or so specific and a nearly verbatim recounting or someone else's work as to be inappropriate for wikipedia.--Nick Y. 19:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I am not following the above argument at all, its an oxymoronic argument. Its saying the article is either OR or stealing someone else's words, which is it? It can't be both.

Delete for reasons listed above. Classifications, to be valid, ought to have bright lines around them, not 'this-is-funny' lines. This list is mildly amusing, but it belongs somewhere else, not Wikipedia. Bigturtle 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. To take the first entry, no unsourced claims in "Hoodwinked (2006) and Happily N'Ever After (2007) are both computer-animated films that send up fairy tales. Both also happen to feature Patrick Warburton and Andy Dick.". (The claims are sourced in the articles on each film.) The addendum, "The Shrek series also bears a notable resemblence to Happily N'Ever After." is vague (and weasel wordy), but that's easily fixable, and not a reason for deletion. Looking at the rest of the list, I similarly see very few unsourced claims. — Kwi | Talk 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That the information is verifiable is not the only criteria for inclusion on wikipedia. This article is a thesis that uses multiple sources to reach novel conclusion never before reached. OR just well written and supported and compelling OR such that it could be a chapter for a PH.D. in comparative filmology. It would never pass the thesis committee without good sources, but that is not how we judge articles here. At wikipedia they must be verifiable and not novel, otherwise it belong elsewhere like a novel or a thesis.--Nick Y. 20:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Never before reached? But those conclusions have been reached elsewhere. Have a look at the Washington Post article in the references at the bottom of the article. Cas510 22:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's still the question of why we should be mirroring a critic's sentiment just because it fits very arbitrarily selected criteria (ie released within one year). --Wafulz 20:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of those conclusions have been reached elsewhere. They have never been compiled before. We should change the name of the article to List of films noted by film critics as having similar themes and release dates.--Nick Y. 07:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. "reported on in the mainstream media." as noted earlier.--Connection 00:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. WP:OR — Ultor_Solis • T 15:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
KeepGnrlotto 06:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom - Ozzykhan 22:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete inconsistent and sometimes very POV comparisons Jooaakim 21:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep What is the point of continually resubmitting fter a keep decision? The is not OR Encyclopedia articles are made by compiling other sources. DGG 02:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- One resubmition is hardly "repeatedly". The reason I submitted this is because it is a magnet for OR and I believe it is arbitrary and not entirely encyclopedic. You have every right to disagree, but there's no reason to use hyperbole. --Wafulz 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Pure original research with no way to ever rise above that flaw. Yes, its an interesting idea, but that does not make it worthy of an encyclopedia article. Let the author publish this essay somewhere else, Wikipedia is not the proper forum. TheMindsEye 03:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Definitely encyclopedic, shows trends in film. - Troy 18:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep But comparisons still unsourced should (soon) get removed... highlunder 02:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks to Wafulz for directing me here. I think the compromise is better than deletion. I'll let y'all work out the details. YechielMan 05:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested compromise

This discussion is pretty much headed in the direction of no consensus. Since I (and many others) really dislike the article in its current state, I say we compromise:

Rename and restructure to List of trends in cinema, or something similar. This eliminates the criteria of "similar" themes and release dates. These trends will cover things like the current trend with penguins in movies, Bond ripoffs, etc. Of course, trends need to be cited (which is pretty easy to do in most cases). These trends are far more significant than "movie x looks like movie y" and they are noted for historical importance by many critics and film historians.
Provide some examples. Trends obviously exist, so what we could do is have a small selection of, say, two or three films (cited, of course) which are the best examples of such trends. I think something like "This movie started the trend, this movie capitalize, and so did this one" or something like that.

I'm sure other details can be hased out on the talk page. I'd like to know what everyone thinks of this. --Wafulz 18:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A good topic for an article, perhaps "Trends in Cinema" with an appended list. I'd suggest you do it regardless of the outcome here. Not the same as the list here tho, as this deals with specific pairs. Re-examining the list, I think its present state is quite respectable, with good annotations on all items. Meets the guidelines in WP:LIST, and the standards seem to be applied fairly rigorously. Very few red links. It may attract spam, but spam can be removed. DGG 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I (and a few others) disagree about it meeting WP:LIST because of somewhat vague criteria- I believe that the list of movies following trends would be much better suited and much less arbitrary. --Wafulz 19:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia always had the policy that when in doubt about an article, don't delete it. If the criteria are vague and there is no consensus if this article meets those criteria, there is doubt, so no deletion. The sourcing of the article has improved dramatically since it was nominated (from 0 to 36), and the few I checked indeed supported a link between the movies they were supposed to deal with. A better introduction to the article would be wanted though. Concerns about POV and "really disliking the article" are no reason for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember that wikipedia is not a democracy and there have been plenty of well reasoned valid points made for deletion, so don't count on your no consensus wash.--Nick Y. 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Relax please, I was asked on my talk page to comment on this proposal. I do not count on anything, nor do I have affection for this particular article. My only concern with is was sourcing (as I already stated on the 3rd of January) and this has been largely solved. If an administrator decides to delete, then that is his call. The one "counting" on no consensus was Wafulz, who writes above "this discussion is pretty much headed in the direction of no consensus", and apparently disliking that potential outcome he states "I (and many others) really dislike the article" as an argument to plea for essentially removing this article and replacing it with List of trends in cinema, an article he has all the right in the world to write anyway (regardless of the outcome here). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In this context, "don't like" means "don't believe it meets Wikipedia policies", as many have stated above. I'm just clarifying that I'm not using WP:ILIKEIT. I would prefer to have a compromise where we can decide to keep an article rather than to have no consensus with what many believe is not an appropriate article. --Wafulz 22:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this idea has some potential and credibility if implemented properly as a history article and not particularly as a list. I think the similar theme and date issue could be covered within such an article without the issue of being an exhaustive subjective list. Examples noted by critics could be cited without the issue of original research that we have here. With that said I still object and vote delete regarding this article as an unmanageable subjective list containing original research. I applaud your sensible suggestion and encourage others to see the value of converting this into an encyclopedic article.--Nick Y. 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, in fact if there isn't an article about cinematic trends over the years there definitely should be. However, the thing I like about this article as-is is how it insinuates a level of subtrifuge on behalf of the movie studios. That many movies are made with the blatent intention of taking the audience from--, hoping to be confused with--, or attempting to be compared to-- another movie. This seems to be a separate (more conscious) movement from a trend.

I suppose the problem with that is that there's no clear way to source whether a movie was in fact just conforming to a trend or trying to mimic another movie. In fact, if you asked anybody point-blank if their movie (say, AntZ) was meant to copycat or compete with another movie (say, A Bug's Life) they would probably say no, even if they had. I guess that makes it impossible to make the distinction between trendiness and a knockoff, so a list of cinema trends would be a fine compromise.

The only question would then be, do we format it the same as the current article by date and list "2000s': Penguin Movie trend: Happy Feet and Surf Penguin Or Whatever It's Called" etc, or do we sort it by trend. "Penguin Movie Trend: Happy Feet and The Other One (CGI Penguin movies) seemed to follow the popularity of the award winning March of The Penguins."

--Asriel

Support the superb suggestion made by Wafulz above. Bigturtle 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Support proposal but still delete the article, I rather like Wafulz's proposal here. My main concern (after the OR and verifiability bit) was the notability of these comparisions, especially in light of the plethora of sources. Sure, someone decided to compare two movies in some reliable source, but is the comparison notable? I can't imagine every single one listed could be notable enough to include on Wikipedia. With Wafulz's proposal, some criterion for inclusion seems inherent in that the movie must have started a trend, rather than simply an isolated and possibly coincidental similarity. In this way, the article becomes much less indiscriminate than the current article as well. Axem Titanium 22:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose proposal, but let's work on this some more. Wafulz's suggestion is a good start, but let's keep talking before we put anything to a vote. These are not "trends in cinema", which is pretty vague (CGI is a trend. Jump cuts are a trend. Science fiction was a trend in the late 1970s, and adventure in the early 1980s. Film noir was a trend, if not a movement). What we're talking about is the fact that studios often go head-to-head (or close to it) with two, or occasionally more, similar films. I agree that the reason for why this is so is often unclear, from great-minds-thinking-alike to copycatting to coincidence; and I also agree there's no reason for us to decide why this was, either. But "trend" is just too unclear for me. I still think a variation on the present title would be a little more apt, i.e., List of films with similar topics released within a short time of each other. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no. One argument for deletion mentioned by many above is the vaguely defined scope of the current list. A list of trends in films, while perhaps not a bad topic for an article per se, would be even more vague, and would almost certainly have to exclude items on the current list. The fact that "Turner & Hooch (1989) and K-9 (1989) are both movies where a police officer gets a dog for a partner" is not notable as a trend on its own, but is probably notable as an example of the specific trend of films with similar themes and release dates. I don't see a reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include this information (yes, I realize that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information). On the other hand, a list of trends in films would be able to focus on the larger picture, which is obviously also important. For instance, inclusion of Flushed Away and Ratatouille on the current list may not be justified, just because they are computer animated films from 2006/07 with rat protagonists. However, a list of trends could accomodate the fact that DreamWorks and Disney have their own "trend" of releasing films with similarities (Antz/A Bug's Life, Shark Tale/Finding Nemo, Madagascar/The Wild, Flushed Away/Ratatouille). — Kwi | Talk 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep: as Kwi said, movies that bear an uncanny resemblance are often put out at the same time, and that is phenomenon notable. All the arguments about POV and OR will mean nothing when this is properly sourced, and the lack of sources is not a reason to delete an article. --Daniel Olsen 03:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep I agree with Daniel Olsen; he said it so well, and I won't bother to repeat it.
You're more than welcome to enact your proposal, but let's get rid of this indiscriminate listcruft first. MER-C 06:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep With respect to film, this is as important an article as any. To be honest, I'm surprised that it hasn't been addressed before now. I agree with ProhibitOnions (and others) that what you're proposing is not about trends in cinema per se. However, I disagree with his/her suggested name change. A better title would be "competitive implementations of thematic devices in cinema," or something to that effect. Also, when you limit it to similar films that were released a short time apart from one another (i.e., The Time Machine / The Butterfly Effect), you are effectively ignoring longstanding patterns of competitive pseudo-plagiarism. An angle worth exploring would be studios' years-long infatuation with releasing cookie-cutter blockbusters: alien movies, disaster flicks, superhero films, mobster films, spy films, neo-noir, the whole gamut. This phenomenon has as much relevance to the matter at hand as any two similar films released in practical simultaneity, and in fact would serve to establish a broader framework for a more thorough investigation. Best of luck to you. TrevorPearce 14:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the keep votes such as you don't understnad that the delete votes don't think that the subject of competition in the movie industry by closely mirroring the themes of other studios is not real or notable or worthy of an article. It is simply that this article as it currently stands is not appropriate for wikipedia. It is an exhuastive subjective list. If an article was written to explain and demonstrate this phenomenon without caliming to list every example tehn this would probably be all keep votes.--Nick Y. 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- But Nick Y., that's precisely the reason many of us are arguing to keep the article. If even you believe that it's a worthy topic for an article, how about helping improve it, suggest guidelines that you find suitable (or at least give people some time to get it up to shape) before chucking the whole thing out the window. The solution for a topic worthy of an article with problems is improvement, not deletion.--JayHenry 23:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I believe what Nick is trying to say is that this article is inappropriate, but a different incarnation of it with better, more encyclopedic criteria would be good. --Wafulz 02:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I think this list works fine, but within the context of a more complete article. I suggest it be kept and improved. It needs a larger introductory statement, with referecnes relating to the practice of "borrowing" ideas over the history of cinema. Begin with genres of film that obviously mimic or were inspired by another. Spaghetti westerns and samurai films, for instance, or Brian DePalma's Hitchcock infatuation early in his career, both of which are well-documented. One doesn't need to be a film historian to see that this kind of thing has gone on for a very long time. A lot of these references are solid, and it'd be a shame to let the research go to waste. The appropriate call is to enhance the article with more history, and to pinpoint objective relationships between sets of films. If the release dates of two films were very close together, one could easily reason that a studio got word of another's idea, but it is important to be able to substantiate the claim with either hard evidence, the opinions of several journalists, film critics, or industry insiders, or an overwhelming public belief in the existence of such a connection. Look up pre-production dates and cite IMDB and other sources for things like scheduled release dates versus actual ones. If you could show that film X was rushed through production to compete with film Y, it wouldn't hurt. TrevorPearce 06:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of psychedelic trance artists

Unmanageable list of psychedelic/trance music artists. Probably better served by a category.Dennisthe2 03:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete; it's an indiscriminate list, way too long and unsourced to be manageable. I'm seeing non-psytrance artists on the list, too, which makes me wonder about the list's accuracy. -/- Warren 12:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Without sources justifying the entries, the list is useless. The inclusion criteria are not well-defined. Most of the entries aren't even notable enough to warrant their own articles. Nick Graves 16:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Wolfram and Hart. Robdurbar 09:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The White Room (Buffyverse)

*Delete fancruft, fails to claim notabilty, also WP:NOT a repository of rooms in a tv show KnightLago 03:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Wolfram and Hart instead ~~per FrozenPurpleCube~~ per Otto4711. KnightLago 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whataya mean, "per FrozenPurpleCube"? It was my idea! Otto4711 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete non-notable cruft. - Aagtbdfoua 04:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and expand as a notable location in multiple episodes of Angel. Otto4711 05:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Merge to Wolfram and Hart per Otto4711 below. Otto4711 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Angel (TV series) unless multiple non-trivial third party sources can be found - Wikipedia Guidlines, WP:CITE WP:NOTE and WP:VERIFY are very clear on what is required for an article. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete in its present state, I see nothing that can explain its notability. MaxSem 08:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable fancruft. WP:WTH applies. MER-C 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Angel (TV series)#Setting. Google books shows some sources that an enterprising editor may wish to use, and the editors may want to think about creating a page for the settings of Angel. However, at this point, there isn't enough material to justify a separate page. See WP:Article series: "Don't split a medium length article into a series of stubs unless more information can be added, and the sub articles become a reasonable length." TheronJ 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I think merging to Wolfram and Hart or Senior Partners would also be fine, but in any case, merge. TheronJ 14:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually if it's merged anywhere it should probably be to Wolfram and Hart. The setting section is not about specific locales within the series. The White Room is accessed through the Wolfram and Hart office building so that's the more logical place. Otto4711 17:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong ~~Delete~~ Merge to Main Buffy Article Non-notable fancruft. and ~~delete~~ merge Wolfram and Hart while we are at it.--Nick Y. 22:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That someone would suggest deleting an article on the major antagonist of a notable series leads me to discount that person's opinion completely. Otto4711 14:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why either of these need their own article. It should be covered in the main article. I understand some sub articles such as for a list of episodes or I might even give you a list of characters; however I am of the (sane and thoughtful) opinion that not every fictional entity and room in a notable show is necessarily notable independently of the show. There are many characters or entities that are, such as Darth Vader, Mario, Willy Wonka, Guy Montag or Mordor because they have entered into main stream popular culture. These article deal with subjects that are exclusively for fans and are not in common use outside of the fan base. Please give me an example of use of "The white room" or "Wolfram and Hart" in a context not having directly to do with the show and I will change my mind. Fictional characters and organizations can be culturally and historically significant these two are not. The show is, although not in a major way.--Nick Y. 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Used in a context not having directly to do with the show" is not the standard for includion in Wikipedia. Also, it's pretty clear that you have little understanding of the topic (since you're suggesting merging W&H to the Buffy article when W&H never figured in that series) so with all due respect your opinion isn't one that I hope anyone takes for guidance in this matter. Otto4711 01:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

All articles must assert and support notability. The first line of WP:N is "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."--Nick Y. 21:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good to know that you've read WP:N. That means you won't ever throw out lines like "find me a use not having to do directly with the show" again since that's not at all the standard. Otto4711 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that I do not believe that "The White Room" or "Wolfram and Hart" have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. They do not appear as subjects of articles and certainly not independently of Buffy the Vampire Slayer or the marketing engine behind the show. While buffy the vampire slayer is notable, these are not as independent subjects. Darth Vader is notable on it's own despite being a character within a movie. There are thousand or jokes, stories, allusions to etc. regarding Darth Vader that meets this criteria. I recognize that you may disagree but my position is not ridiculous or ill informed.--Nick Y. 07:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Wolfram and Hart. And if anybody wants it deleted, please explain why a major feature through out 5 seasons of a television series including being the focus of the last season should be deleted. FrozenPurpleCube 16:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Wolfram and Hart. This location does not need its own article since it had much less screen-time than the other Buffyverse locations with their own articles. - Buffyverse 04:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 04:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Days

Minor webcomic. I couldn't find any reliable sources. No Alexa rank. and no reliable sources found by Google links or a fine-tuned Google search to exclude the term "walking dead days". The article is not verifiable and does nto meet WP:WEB. Wafulz 03:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless notability can be shown through verifiable sources. Heimstern Läufer 04:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, A7. Axem Titanium 05:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:WEB. MER-C 08:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, A7. Pascal.Tesson 09:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space Cat

Probable non notable underground comic. Couldn't turn up much on Google, but there's nothing really clear cut on comix. Dennisthe2 04:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep it can be hard to guage notability for this sort of thing, but it does appear to have been carried in a number of newspapers/magazines. Here is an article about an exhibit by the artist where the comic is referred to as "infamous". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep; I've seen this comic in a number of newspapers. Should easily pass WP:N. —Psychonaut 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly West

I'm not sure where to begin with this article. I think it's describing a fictional person within an online video game, and that it's using Jamelia as a model. I found nothing on Google, which is significant since this is an online topic. Anyway, article is unverifiable. Wafulz 04:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable game character. MER-C 08:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable game character. Unsourced.--Nick Y. 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete no encyclopedic value whatsoever.Pascal.Tesson 09:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 03:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Jimmy Don't Leave Me / Go Away Rebecca-Sue!'

This sentence fragment is certainly not an article, and mentions (but does not describe) an entirely non-notable single. ➥the Epopt 04:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I'd go speedy, but can't fidn a good reason. --Dennisthe2 06:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Failure to establish notability. —ShadowHalo 06:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'd say redirect it to the artist page, which contains better info, but this is an unlikely search term. GassyGuy 06:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 08:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: whether delete or not, we need to educate the initial writer how to select a good topic and write a good article. --Der yck C. 10:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Question Is it too late to bundle 'Baby Darling / My Love Loves Lovin' with this deletion? GassyGuy 12:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yep. Separate AFD. --Dennisthe2 23:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It's just to short and doesn't have enough content to significantly inform someone. One speedy could be the "empty" one Dennisthe2.Danielfolsom 19:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good enough. Change to Speedy Delete as empty. --Dennisthe2 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Heights Lutheran Church

Delete Depsite the obvious POV issues, the church does not seem notable, or that notability can be established. Also, the church has not assessed verifiability, since the only link is the one to the church. --Адам12901 ^Talk 04:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Very POV article, utterly unsupported by any independent sources Its doctrinal controversies might satisfy WP:CONG if someone could find independent and reliable press articles about its rebellion against ELCA. Edison 05:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above, not to mention that half the article was a copyvio. MER-C 08:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. With a few proper citations other than the church's own website, I may be a bit more interested in keeping it. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Kotheimer

If I had a nickel for every conflict of interest article made by a musician, I could fund Wikipedia myself. This is about a minor musician who does not meet WP:MUSIC or [[WP:|verifiability policy]]. No sources from Google, and no news hits either. Wafulz 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Non notable 203.57.241.67 06:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Encise
Delete - unsourced autobiography of a non-notable person. MER-C 13:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
(Speedy?) Delete, no notability established in the article. Quite likely a conflict of interest. Pascal.Tesson 09:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per all above. Self-published non-notable artist. Ohconfucius 04:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Gustafson

Does not seem to have multiple sources. I really doubt this meets any of our notability requirements. Also going up for discussion is Reach the World, the organization he is in charge of. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 04:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reach the World. --Core desat 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:COI. --Core desat 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Heh I got beat to nominating the second article. Oh well! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 04:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 08:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, completely unsourced Alf photoman 17:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as this person is not discussed in multiple, non-trivial sources, he fails WP:BIO TSO1D 19:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete both per nom. Ohconfucius 04:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reach the World

Article on a recently-established charity, which doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable. The article has been edited primarily by the charity's founder, Marcgustafson, who also created an article about himself (which is also on AFD) and the charity's cofounder - this is a conflict of interest. Google is inconclusive.

Also nominating the following article:

Heather Halstead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

--Core desat 04:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 08:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Reach the World is not a recently established charity. It is almost ten years old. Reach the World is sponsored by National Geographic and Columbia Univeristy and works with over 5,000 students per day in New York and Chicago. Reach the World was featured on CNN, the New York Times, the Miami Herald and the Christian Science Monitor. The article is notable and should remain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.174.184.72 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete no evidence of notability offered for Reach the World in a self contradictory article. If some of the sources mentioned in this debate are offered I may my change opinion. Delete Heather Halstead regardless as non notable. Nuttah68 14:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORG. Heather Halstead fails to assert notability, and so tagged for speedy. Ohconfucius 04:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as above --BozMo talk 12:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete per WP:BIO. Fails WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jodi Weatherton

I don't think this passes WP:BIO, but at the very least, it needs some sources, per our verifiability policy. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 04:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete -- No-notable character in a reality tv show.Librarylefty 23:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Week Keep - fix up sources, and verify the info. The subject is somewhat notable on the show. --theblueflamingo^Speak 10:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete reality show contestant of no note. I bet she won't be quitting her day job anytime soon. Ohconfucius 04:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Clear Delete no independent sources, very limited assertion of notability as tv personality. Eluchil404 09:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] San Jacinto Mall

Delete an admin removed my speedy request so taking it here, mall is nn, fails to claim any notability KnightLago 04:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Weak delete 1.2 million square ft of GLA per one of the references makes it a regional mall per WP:MALL . Edison 05:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Added: Per KnightLago: None of the sources in fact state that the GLA is over a million, but they consistently say it is "sprawling" and far too large for its community, suggesting that the figure does refer to GLA, but the Mall History site also says that only about 60 of 170 stores are operating, which means it is not functioning as a regional mall. The press articles I could find do not really support notability. Edison 14:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Gross leasable area and square feet are different. The site you are referring to here just says the mall is 1.2 million square feet. Leading me to conclude that they are counting the entire mall. The proposed guideline says the the "gross leasable area must be more than 1 million." Thus, in my opinion this still doesn't make it notable unless the GLA can be confirmed. But I was unaware of this proposed guideline, so thanks for pointing it out. KnightLago 13:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A further thought, there is absolutely no assertion of notability. This needs to be done in order to qualify under the proposal at WP:MALL. From there, this can be done through "A significant amount of non-trivial media coverage." KnightLago 13:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

According to http://www.icsc.org/apps/dmmdisp.php?dispid=TX0280 the Gross Leasable Area is larger than 1 million square feet. --DMAJohnson 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Delete per failing WP:CORP. On another note: WP:MALL as you well know is proposed...not a guideline, not a valid rational for any arguements, hence trying to keep or delete an article based on a propsed guideline is makes an that arguement invalid. The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy". --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 18:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment A guideline's acceptance hinges in part on whether it is referred to in AfDs. That seems to be how consensus is developed that the guideline is used and useful. At this point it is absolutely not the be all and end all of keeping or deleting an article, but it can hepl to avoid endless criterion-free handwaving arguments here.Edison 18:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep At 1.15 million square feet of gross leasable area, this is a large regional center that justifies inclusion under the proposed criteria specified at WP:MALL. Google News and other sources show numerous articles which can be added to the article. Alansohn 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep It seems to me like this mall probably has an interesting history which could be expanded in this article if someone cares to bother. However, the article is currently rather POV and doesn't describe the mall itself very well. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep It still needs a good deal of work, however I believe the mall is large enough and notable enough in the Houston area to warrant its inclusion. --DMAJohnson 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prussian Blue (British band) (second nomination)

This article was kept under no consensus last time so they would not be confused with Prussian Blue (duo). As unfortunate as this is, I don't think a band merits an article just so they can say "we are not two racist girls". The article is not verifiable and the band doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. No information on either allmusic or Google (other than articles about the twins.

Also nominating their albums:

Blue too (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Zielasko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Child (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Room At Night (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Wafulz 04:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete all. Although I voted keep on the last nomination, I don't see any indication that since then, this article has been improved significantly. No independent sources have been added, and no indication is made that the band has attained notability under WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 05:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 13:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all. With no independent, non-trivial coverage of this group, its notability cannot be substantiated. Nick Graves 16:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all Pub band, no notability. One Night In Hackney 17:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all no notability offered and from looking at the official site is unlikely to be forthcoming. Nuttah68 14:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge into List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. No sources so cannot justify own article Robdurbar 09:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Squilliam Fancyson

The character appeared in two epidsodes. Article has no references. Does WP:NOT apply: Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article.? 650l2520 04:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

- The merge option is fine, too. 650l2520 06:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable TV character. MER-C 13:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge - Merge with List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters.
Merge to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. --AMK152 (Talk • Contributions) 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No to Deletion - Squilliam has appeared in KEY roles in these episodes. He is too notable to simply be put in the list of characters. Bowsy 19:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge - with List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters no way this minor character needs a full article. Dimitrii 05:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Bowsy. If it is not kept, Merge as above. --AMK152 (Talk • Contributions) 01:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Lacks sources. Merge and Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters. John Vandenberg 06:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pinnacle Towers Tower Mooringsport

The end is in sight for mast stub deletions. I'm nominating this [final] batch of US masts for deletion (below 580m in height). As before, none of the masts that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Most stubs are over a year old, and have remained in the same, sorry vegetative state since creation, some have not even been categorised, and none have any substantial information other than which already exists, albeit in more concise but no less informative tabular form, in List of masts, so I see no point in redirecting. Delete per WP:NN, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR. (see here for rationale and fuller list of precedents and here for remaining prods) Ohconfucius 04:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - more nn tall things. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Stub articles lack independent sources for notability of fungible tall objects. Edison 14:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete one of the few true examples of "cruft" that still exists on WP (and I hate the term cruft, by the way). Basically just a holdover from WP's early "anything goes" days which have now worn out their welcome. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dudley (dog)

Subject of the article fails WP:V -Nv8200p talk 04:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sources, lacks notability. Nice dog. Down boy! Edison 14:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, I just added 3 sources to the article [22][23][24] and there clearly are many more. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The sources Cpt. Morgan added answer the premise of the nomination. Subject is verifiable. Nick Graves 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per Cpt. Morgan, now it's verifiable. Darth griz⁹⁸ 18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trebek effect

Unsourced, orphan, not notable. I feel confident I would have heard this term before in some context if it were really a "common slang term". Robert K S 05:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Fails WP:V. GassyGuy 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per now. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not a notable neologism. The example cited, an SNL sketch[25], doesn't even mention Trebek. --Dhartung | Talk 08:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- I've followed Jeopardy! and Trebek for the better part of two decades, and I've never heard of this one. Certainly fails WP:V as well. Andy Saund e rs 08:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - nn neologism, 6 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Neologism, and that's putting it nicely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I'm convinced that the phenomenon is real and the name is apt. However, I found no sources verifying that this term is notable. The article is unverifiable and entirely composed of original research. Nick Graves 16:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Realkyhick 07:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Move (rename) to Hyperanglicization and add current title as a slang term. Now that I've done further research, let me rework the article with refs etc. Grika Ⓣ 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Response. An entirely new article ought to be created from scratch, in such a case. I can't point to anything in the present article that isn't POV/created from whole cloth/unencyclopedic in tone. Hyperanglicization is the intentional, often mocking mispronunciation of words and toponyms borrowed from Spanish, something that Trebek has never done. Robert K S 12:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No Consensus... so Keep by default. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of years in film

Delete - I'm unconvinced of the necessity or utility of this article. It duplicates the efforts of the articles categorized in Category:Films by decade and its various sub-cats. Add to that the POV problems inherent in any article that describes its included examples as "significant" and the very good likelihood that there will be fighting over what single event gets listed with what year as the "significant" one and the article just seems like way more trouble than any encyclopedic worth it might have. Otto4711 05:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete unmaintainable. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
keep per nomOo7565 06:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Keep per nom"? That doesn't make any sense. The nominator implicitly voted to delete the article. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The choices of which films or events are worthy of notice is essentially a subjective one. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete it lacks information
Keep. I just stumbled onto this discussion, when I clicked on the list as a way to navigate through the years in film. It was precisely the page I was looking for. I see no need to delete, and the page serves a purpose. Kgwo1972 19:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Edit: I also note that six other languages have the same page. You could list the Best Film and largest grossing film as subjective events. Kgwo1972 19:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep If it's good enough for a category it's good enough for a list. Also, we have the same sorta thing for music, so it's not as if we don't have a precedent. Jcuk 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. That article has a lot of the same problems, but at least limits itself to listing a few really noteworthy events on particular years, rather than picking five or six events for each year, as this list does. I suppose this list might be rescuable if an objective criteria for "important" films were determined which would trim things down. Perhaps list the film with the single highest gross revenue for each year? Zetawoof^(ζ) 02:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep. This is how the guys at the various film wikiprojects organise their work. Deleting this list and its sub-lists would be wrong both in principle and in terms of the amount of extra work it would generate. The argument in the nomination that duplication with a category justifies deletion is fundamentally flawed. List are never made redundant by categories. AndyJones 08:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The year-specific lists aren't under discussion. It's just this single summary page that's being nominated for deletion. Zetawoof^(ζ) 11:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Noted, but this article is part of the navigational structure. No merit in dismantling part of it. Besides, a delete here would set a bad precedent if someone deletion-happy were to start proposing the underlying articles for deletion. (There seems to be a lot of deletion-happiness about at the moment. I seem to have spent the last couple of days doing nothing but protecting good work from ill-conceived AfDs. But I digress.) The important point about this article is its place in the organisational structure. Most delete voters here don't seem to like the "significant examples" (although I like them, and it seems to me they can be cleaned up and verified just like anything else). But the examples are just window dressing, and they could be removed or replaced with something else. The CORE of this article is that it's at the heart of the navigational scheme for organising films on Wikipedia, and that is why I'm so strongly in favour of keeping it. AndyJones 13:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that the article was duplicated by a category. I said that the article was duplicated by the articles housed in that category. Otto4711 15:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep and cleanup as needed. This page is pretty harmless and there's evidence that it is sometimes used as a navigation tool. Pascal.Tesson 09:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Keep. This is a perfect chronology, highly useful for navigation - agree it needs improvement on content. Jbmas99 19:27, 7 January 2007 (GMT)
~~Neutral~~. I agree that all the content attached to the years is POV and has to go. However this page is the only way (until now) to navigate in all years in the Years in film series. Please note that in (say) 1995 in film, in the navigation template at the top right, the top leftmost link "Years in film" redirects here. We could replace the content of this page with a more compact navigation, so one doesn't have to scroll down to come to the present. We could also just transclude a template. Alternately, we could put the overall year navigation in each year, but that would be very problematic in the latest years which are very very long and overloaded with tables etc. Hoverfish Talk 21:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I change my previous opinion to Keep: The work Jbmas99 has done since yeasterday is turning this list to a valuable timeline/event article. It still must be cleaned from previous POV film entries though. Hoverfish Talk 13:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as expandable into a highly useful chronology and already a good navigation aid. Eluchil404 09:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, fails WP:BAND. NawlinWiki 16:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foramen Magnum

Totally fails WP:MUSIC, obviously created by the band members Cynicism addict 05:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. In fact, for a band created in the fall of 2006 with no releases listed in the article, I think it qualifies as a speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - unremarkable band vanity. So tagged. MER-C 13:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future Naruto

A fanfic term used to describe future events that haven't come to pass in the Naruto manga. The article has no sources to verify its importance, other than the manga itself, and is essentially a neologism. Prod removed by author. Danny Lilithborne 05:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is important. It will give plot summaries about fanfics. It will discuss the expanded universe created by cover pages from the manga. --Count Mall 05:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no place for fanfic on Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 05:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is absolutely, positively NOT fanfiction.net. --Dennisthe2 05:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

...erm, yeah. --Dennisthe2 05:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Stong Delete I agree enteirly. This is also simply is not notiable enough for inclusion. Short of a well know author becomming involved I see no way it could ever be notiable enough. --67.71.79.225 06:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It does not, and never will, discuss fanficton. It discusses the canon images of the charcters in the future and what they suggest. I feel this is important because it may give us clues to how the story will end.--Count Mall 06:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Art drawn by the author doesn't necessarily mean it's canon. The topic of the article will always be speculative and that violates policy. Danny Lilithborne 06:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It will never be pure speculation. It is a series of possible glimpses into the future world of Naruto. You of all people should know that God works in mysterious way, but such practices are not limited to him. How do you know it isnt canon? Whats truly canon is what the creater considers canon, not what you think. I never intended this page to be a main Naruto page, it was supposed to function as reference. Like later in the manga, if something happens, we can come here and think he totally gave a heads up on this one. I strongly disagree with its deletion--Count Mall 06:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i have to go, dont you dare delete this without further arguement. --Count Mall 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a clear problem with your latest argument. It you are disccussing possibilities without them being properely sourced it is a viloation of WP:OR and WP:V. You may have the pictures but interpretations or theories reaarding what is happening etc, cannont be addeded wothout violating WP:OR. This means that wikipedia rules will not allow any heads up. Without being able to add theories etc all you will have are a group of pictures and they are of little value on their own.--67.71.79.225 07:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL at it's finest. We'll find out at the end of the series, 'mmkay? --tjstrf talk 06:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete- Not sure why this had to go through AFD. --Squilibob 07:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no real criteria it could be speedied under, otherwise I'd have used it. Danny Lilithborne 07:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete This in violation of so many policies it's not even funny. WP:NOT a crystal ball, fan fiction doesn't meet WP:FICTION notability guidelines, it's unverifiable (WP:V), has no reliable sources (WP:RS) and is entirely original research (WP:NOR). NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
IT IS NOT FUCKING FANFICTION. I intended it to focuss on a part of the expanded universe of Naruto, but it can be merged with one big naruto expanded universe page. If you think there isnt an expanded universe, theres filler, and these. If you dont agree with this last arguement, go ahead and delete it, and all of you go to Hell along with it. I have nothing more to say. --Count Mall 07:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Even so, you still have not addressed my points regarding WP:V or WP:OR. I see no way that you would be able to make any article of substance and still follow those policies since almost everything except a basic discription would violate that. Based on your responses that does not appear to be what you want for the article and I don't think that a basic descrption of a few pictures is ebough for an article. --67.71.79.225 07:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

May I point out at this time that you said it gives "plot summaries about fanfic", above? Please be clear: is this (derived of) fanfiction or not? --Dennisthe2 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Any plot summary of this "topic" is inherently fanfiction as it is made up based on a couple of splash pages made for fans. There's no plot summary and no details behind these images. They're just there for fun. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:SNOWBALL. Despite the author's pleas, this has a snowball's chance in hell of not being deleted. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. There's not even anything worth merging there. --tjstrf talk 08:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete both because this article is complete bunk and its creator's attitude makes it clear he doesn't have any substantial reason to keep it. It's just a fanfic. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 10:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete It is inherently speculative, violating the WP is not a crystal ball policy. GassyGuy 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - let's make this as painless as possible, shall we? MER-C 12:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete since even the article admits that nothing of "future Naruto" has been released besides a couple of random sketches, it's hard to imagine anything besides fanfiction that could be used in this article. Besides, do we really want to set a precedent for possible character/age combinations having articles? "Geriatric Animaniacs", "Arthur Teens", "M*A*S*H Babies", etc etc etc... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, don't give anyone ideas about "geriatric Animaniacs", Warner Bros. just might pull the series out again. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete AND SALT I think an end to this debate has already been acheived. Also, from the author's comments, I can see him recreating this page as soon as it's deleted, so a salting to prevent recreation may be in order. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 18:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unsourced neologism. Per WP:NEO, articles on neologisms need to have reliable, verifiable sources establishing the circumstances under which a term was coined, not just using the term. The article does have two sources in which apparent future versions of some of the Naruto characters were represented, but no sources regarding the term. At most, those sources should be folded into the discussion of those specific characters. TheronJ 19:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as neologism and highly probable original research magnet. The article in it's current form is about as far as one can go with sourced information, and even it delves into speculative territory. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete per all the reasons listed above. This is fanfiction and speculation, neither of which belong on Wikipedia. -- 9muses 19:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JRHorse 03:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Relist. Guinnog's rewrite and others' further cleanup have changed the article substantially enough so that many of the below comments may not be relevant. The new location is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bellinghaus (second nomination). AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Bellinghaus

Adding duplicate article Mark Bellinghaus (artist) to this AfD. Tubezone 11:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion The main claim to encyclopedic notability as "the world's leading expert and authority" on Marilyn Monroe fails WP:V. Linked to source[26] for this claim is a website which allows anyone to submit and publish press releases/opinion pieces without any apparent quality control whatsoever[27] [28]. (yes there are google news hits for this "news" service, but that shows google is setting the bar waaaay too low. There are couple of releases from PR-Inside available on googl news about Mark Bellinghaus which are apparently written by a rival (or partner?) Marilyn memorabilia collector[29][30])

I checked this guy's name against Factiva news database. 4 hits (3 unique) in the archive. All 3 unique hits are from Los Angeles Times, in which he is mentioned as a Marilyn Monroe enthusiast and one of the major Marilyn Monroe memorabilia collectors in the Los Angeles area, but none of the articles are primarily about him (all mention him in passing or as secondary quote) and none cite him as a world expert or even the leading LA collector[31] The most recent article is about Marilyn Monroe memorabilia fraud - but is mainly about another collector whose collection is suspected of being dubious - Bellinghaus and his rival/partner Cunningham (the other guy writing the PR-Inside "articles) are mentioned in passing with a quote towards the end as people who have suspicions. They get maybe 60 words out of a 1300 word article.

As for the rest of the article... well I'm kind of overwhelmed. Let's deal with the IMDB TV/film acting credits listing as surely that will come up:[32]. Well, the Name of the Rose movie part is definitely a bit part[33]. The other parts appear to be bit parts or one or two minor roles in German TV series. He seems to have had a lead role in a made-for-TV Swiss movie called Flaming Armadillo[[34].... The claimed stage career isn't verified (seems like a lot of these "reference" links in the article just go to other wikipedia articles or to german webpages that prove a location (a theatre or whatever) exists but doesn't verify anything else). Given the inflation of his Marilyn hobby, and the inflation of his bit part in Name of the Rose, I'm concerned that there is pattern of inflations through the article....

Urrgghh!!! I flail my arms around wildly. Massive suspected WP:COI abuse of wikipedia in one article. If there is really an article about a verifiable, possibly encyclopedically notable acting career here - I recommend that this article be scrapped and the author creates a much more modest article with proper referencing in his userspace and then resubmit it for community review. This article is just not acceptable in its current state.

Bwithh 05:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Aaagh, the vanity! It burns! RedRollerskate 05:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note per AfD Wikiquette — The accusation VANITY should be avoided [35], and is not in itself a reason for deletion. Tyrenius 06:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment OK, I'm sorry. But it's still non-notable and more a MySpace page (as someone else noted) than a Wikipedia article. RedRollerskate 21:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per thorough nomination. Reads like WP:COI, no WP:RS. Note: the article Mark Bellinghaus (artist) is pretty much the same article, and needs to go as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: despite the attempt at cleanup (thanks Guinnog), the subject still appears to have nothing but marginal notability based on WP:RS per WP:BIO, and nothing to indicate a change in my recommendation. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. A hint of WP:AUTO as well, perhaps? --Guinnog 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep but rewrite according to guidelines. WP:AUTO is not automatic grounds for deletion, and I think the subject is marginally notable. I volunteer to do the rewrite. Alternatively, a lot of it could probably be userfied. I agree that the article as it stands is unacceptable. --Guinnog 07:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Somewhere in this pile of vanity and trivia there might be the shell of a salvageable article, but I can't find it. Fan-1967 07:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Potentially Userfy, but Mmmovie (talk · contribs), the primary author, already has a draft copy in his space, and seems to primarily edit Marilyn Monroe and associated articles. If there were a slight chance of a keep, in my book, the WP:COI strikes it. --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mr. Bellinghaus has apparently written the overtly biased article himself [36]. --Downtownstar 09:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT MySpace. The story about the Marilyn Monroe fraud can be merged to the MM page. Tubezone 11:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete this shrine to Mr. Bellinghaus. Montco 12:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete the ego. 172.188.122.189 13:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Only edit by this user —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tyrenius (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Delete per above. MER-C 13:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Mark Bellinghaus' wikipedia article: You will never find a more wretched hive of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. We must be cautious. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 19:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, and keep an eye out for re-creation. Robertissimo 04:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable/vanity. —tregoweth (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Guinnog's offer above to rewrite the article to acceptable standards (made since the above delete votes!). Delete arguments above citing Auto, Ego, Vanity etc are not valid reasons for deleting in themselves anyway, but reasons for cleanup. Cumulatively the activities of the subject, both in acting and the Monroe activism (which gets a good plug in LA Times) scrape him through. It will make an interesting (and much shorter) article. Tyrenius 08:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe the LA Times mention as a "good plug" for him. His acting career still needs to be properly sourced and shown to be encyclopedically notable. There's hasn't been a rewrite yet by Guinnog, but I look forward to it. Bwithh 08:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Even if there was a re-write, there needs to be multiple, reputable, reliable, notable, independent (from the subject), third-party, published sources giving him non-trivial coverage. There isn't any that I can find using Google, or even the ODIN public library search software for the tri-state area (north dakota, south dakota, minnesota). He isn't mentioned in a published book, I haven't found coverage from multiple sources on his MM work. No, 'Cumulative' does not equal notability. Bit parts in movies does not equal notability, and there are no sources to back up the claims made (as pointed out in the original post) of the acting. Monroe activism? Let me say this from the original post:

The main claim to encyclopedic notability as "the world's leading expert and authority" on Marilyn Monroefails WP:V.

There are nothing in the news, in print, or on the web to back up this claim.

I checked this guy's name against Factiva news database. 4 hits (3 unique) in the archive. All 3 unique hits are from Los Angeles Times, in which he is mentioned as a Marilyn Monroe enthusiast and one of the major Marilyn Monroe memorabilia collectors in the Los Angeles area, but none of the articles are primarily about him (all mention him in passing or as secondary quote) and none cite him as a world expert or even the leading LA collector

What this means is ONE notable new sources has mentioned him in an article. HOWEVER, per wikipedia policies, the articles must be primarily about him...they are not. None of them say he is a world expert...or even having the largest or most notable collection.

The most recent article is about Marilyn Monroe memorabilia fraud - but is mainly about another collector whose collection is suspected of being dubious - Bellinghaus and his rival/partner Cunningham (the other guy writing the PR-Inside "articles) are mentioned in passing with a quote towards the end as people who have suspicions. They get maybe 60 words out of a 1300 word article.

That is a mention in passing...a trivial mention per wikipedia policy. A person can have 100 mentions in passing in articles and would not be concidered to pass wikipedia policy. So no...'Cumulative' coverage does not work. None of his acting career is sourced properly, and nothing about his MM activism makes him notable. I still stand by my delete opinion... and actually am changing that to STRONG delete since now that I think about it, the article is a puff piece more suited to Myspace...were you can claim anything without providing proof --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 18:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, without prejudice to Guinnog's ability to write a better one. This would be a bad Myspace page. There is so much there that it is barely possible that Guinnog can eke out a bit, but I'd have to see it. Most of it is intense puffery of a minor actor and obsessed fan, which is all well and good (probably half of us editors are obsessed fans), but no different from thousands of others. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Open letter to "Bschott" & "AnonEMouse": Dear Brian, (I forwarded this email also to AnonEMouse who is not discribing him/herself as a "director on youtube" in his/her profile).

I just read your comments regarding your opinion towards the deletion of my Wikipedia page.

Let me just do a little explanation here, if you have a minute. Last year, I bought original hair curlers at an auction--they originated from "the estate of Marilyn Monroe," and five months later, there comes this "exhibit" into town and shows fake ones. But not only that, they show 95% fake items.

What would you have done? You tell me that none of my action has made me a "noteable Monroe enthusiat?" You discribe yourself as a "director on youtube" and try to make me look as I was a crackpot that has never worked in the business, when I worked in 26 productions, such as movies, tv and theater. Oh I know that is not important, cause it is not youtube. I would really suggest to you to rent a movie, it is called SCHTONK, and it was nominated for BEST FOREIGN ACADEMY AWARD, and it was made in Germany. It is telling a story, which you might recognize, when you read what I have discovered.

I can guarantee, that there will be a movie, which is portraying all the fraud and the ongoing that I found and brought to light. Even Hugh Hefner, the guy who is some day resting next to Marilyn Monroe was supporting this BS fraud on Marilyn Monroe.

One last thing, this is not about me, but I have to state who I am and if you check: I do not have a Myspace page and I don't think that I really want one. But I have tell who I am and what I am, otherwise I would not have been so successful in stopping that fraudulent exhibition, which could have also traveled to your home town and taken money from your family and friends (in case they like Marilyn Monroe).

I have proof for all the work I have done, I am not making anything up. You might be just too young to understand that, but I have stood up against something really ugly. And I am still shocked, that I succeeded. I closed a fake show that could have made $100 million. That is a fact. And I have worked on and for this for thirteen months. And you want to seriously tell me that this is worth nothing? Do you want me to forward you all the emails that I got from all over the world, from supporters and fans of MM?! You got a lot of awards on your site. They must be standing for something as well.

Please think about all of that I just said. The story is not going away, and I am not going away either. I have defended Marilyn Monroe, against sick people and sicker fraud. You'll be the judge.

Best,

Mark Bellinghaus 76.168.210.190 19:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I'm not saying that you were wrong or your cause wasn't just. I'm not saying your life has no meaning or that anyone could get a bit part in a movie, but the facts I am stating is that per wikipedia policy WP:V (all about verifible sources and information) and in relation to that WP:RS (all about what wikipeida conciders reliable and non-reliable sources), and then [[WP:BIO|WP:BIO (what criterias are required or to be met by a person to merit a wikipedia page). While we are not like the Britanica or any other paper encyclopedia that has a fairly high bar for what they will have articles on, and while Wikipedia does have the ability to include many more things that a paper encyclopedia couldn't, we do still have standards which need to me met. The standards are fairly applied to everyone. Two of my favorite bands put up pages here but were removed because they didn't meet the WP:MUSIC guideline yet. I voted delete in both cases even though I love their music.

Now, I am not claiming notability nor am I claiming anything really. I don't have a page in the main wikipedia namespace, it's just a user space about the editor (me), which is really just a quick stub of who I am. A director account on youtube just means you can post videos longer than 10 minutes so it's really nothing special but I mention it so people who wanted to learn more about me could. Not everyone has an account and those that do mainly are posting videos on personal opinions and such. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing notable, nothing worth an article. Never factored into the decision/opinion I had about your article. Haveing a cause is great but the thing is the cause hasn't drawn much media attention outside of the LA paper and even there, the articles are not primarily about you. Even if this were the case, that is only one paper which does not meet WP:V. Multiple major papers or news reports would need to also be reporting stories based primarily on you. It's nothing against your cause or life, but the fact is, the average person needs be able to easily and simply find the sources to back up the claims made about your acting career. The links provided just go to the theater's webpage...great but where are the newspaper articles or tv/radio reports on those plays you were in? Someone that doesn't know you from the common man on the street needs to be able to verify your claims. That's all. I may be young (at 29) but I'm looking at your article with uncolored glasses, making an opinion based on wikipedia policy and standards. Nothing more, nothing less.--Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 21:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good for you. Please note that we are not denigrating you or your life's work, it's certainly a useful thing. It's just not necessarily notable, in the sense that many have heard of it. Notability is not the same thing as value - for example, many dictators, mass murderers, and other actively harmful persons are highly notable, while many perfectly fine people contributing to the world behind the scenes aren't.

I support giving Guinnog another 24 hours or whatever, though I'm still skeptical. Just making the images smaller helped a lot, though I have to say sentences like "Without any doubts, Bellinghaus created the most successful blog article in the history of blogging." still seem just a bit overstated. (For example the Drudge Report article that led to the impeachment of a president would probably find a number of backers.) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Saying "Person X doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article" does not in any way mean that Person X is a bad person who has contributed nothing to society. Lots of good people who do good things don't and shouldn't have Wikipedia articles. I'm sorry to say that due to all the graphics and the congratulatory tone, the article strongly resembles a MySpace page. This is not intended as a personal attack or an insult. After all, you're a newbie and you didn't know. (And frankly, there are a lot of Wikipedia articles that look worse, so you are far from alone.) I suggest you head over to WP:BIO to see what qualifies for inclusion here, and WP:MOS to see how articles ought to look. This'll give you an idea of why people have such strong objections to the article. RedRollerskate 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Update My work so far is at User:Guinnog/mb. It is far from finished. It may be that the sceptics are right and this will have to be deleted. I would only ask for another 24h or so to finish doing what I can do. Meanwhile I made the duplicate article into a redirect, which it should have been all along. --Guinnog 19:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Blatant self-promotion of a blatantly non-notable individual. "In 1988 he played Rüdiger Burkhard in the hit show Verkehrsgericht (Traffic Court), episode 21, "Unfall nach Discobesuch," ... I mean, really. If that's our standard now we have to change WP:PROF to allow grad students to list their resumes. ~ trialsanderrors 09:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Update with kudos to Guinnog, but Dhartung said it correctly: "If there were a slight chance of a keep, in my book, the WP:COI strikes it." In the end the last thing we want to do is encourage people with very marginal claims to notability to post their heavily embellished vitae here and expect us to clean it up for them. This is also relevant for the question whether Wikipedia can in the future operate without advertising, since for-profit vanity Who-is-who publishers are a dime a dozen, allowing such content on Wikipedia undermines the non-profit substructure of this project. ~ trialsanderrors 21:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Further update Well, I've done what I can with it for now. It could still do with some refinement of the prose and structure and a few more references for the second part. I think it works better now than it did, and as I said I think the subject is marginally notable. --Guinnog 10:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Kusma (討論) 10:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Final update Well, I think I've finished. I've taken out pretty much all the unreferenced and POV stuff, and cleaned up the formatting a bit. As I've said all along, I think the subject is marginally notable and the article is, I hope, now marginally interesting and readable. The acting career section would perhaps read better as a table or a list. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; I don't want to overstate my case, but I think there are far worse articles out there. Having said that, if the consensus remains that we delete this article I won't be offended. --Guinnog 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Another update I've now edited Guinnog's edit and cut the article further to the essential points. The early "deletes" were based on an article which is very different to its current form, which shows sufficient acting achievement with lead parts etc to bestow minor notability, added to the Monroe incident. The article has to be judged objectively as it now is, regardless how it started out. In the circumstances, if there is still a desire to delete it, it may be best to relist and start the AfD with a clean slate. Tyrenius 22:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete per WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melech AZA

Delete as there are no WP:RS indicating this club meets WP:ORG. Possibly a CSD A7 candidate, but brought here for consensus. This actually is a subgroup/chapter of the organization Aleph Zadik Aleph, but I see no notability outside of the context of the parent organization. The way this reads, it might be a WP:COI article, unless the statement that they currently "rock" is sourceable... --Kinu ^t/_c 05:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable chapter per WP:ORG. MER-C 13:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete There isn't anything in the article to indicate that it meets WP:ORG. Nor is there anything that asserts its notability, either. If reliable sources could be found, then it would be reason to keep, but there are none cited, so delete. --SunStar Net^talk 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as Melech is a well known chapter (basically, I disagree with Kinu and Mer-C ). Many people from around the country, as well as the world, know who/what Melech is. Although the article does need some cleaning up, it will definitely be fixed up if it doesn't get selected for deletion. CPTGbr 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Unless reliable sources are added indicating this notability, the article will likely be deleted. If you can add any, I suggest you do it now. A claim of "many people... know who/what Melech is" is meaningless without the references to back up not only that assertion, but also that it is more notable than other chapters of AZA. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Bowers

Nominated by 131.107.0.73 apparently due to concerns of notability. Previous discussion resulted in no consensus. I have no opinion. --- RockMFR 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless non-trivial sources are added to the article. Even if it survives this AfD in present form it will be nominated again for lack of verifiability Alf photoman 17:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not Noteable. Although he has contributed some ideas to math with the help of others and writes extensively on such subjects as an amateur, this does not make him notable. There are many many mathematicians both amateur and professional that have made larger more notable contributions than this guy. He just likes to use the internet to promote himself. How about providing a publication list??? Many amateurs that are serious and capable get published in peer reviewed journals. And on a final note: keep up the good work Johnathan (in math that is)--Nick Y. 22:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless reliable sources are added. WP:V isn't negotiable. One Night In Hackney 12:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cold Case - Cases in Chronological Order

It's listcruft that was apparently just copied from a message board. Sunscar 05:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. MER-C 13:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Useful guide to episodes of a current high rated TV program. Not really as trivial as cruft. What is this "apparently copied from a message board?" Was it or wasn't it? Copyvio claims should identify where it was copied from. Edison 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, an episode list can be useful, but a list of cases in order of their fictional chronology is just too much. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)
Delete lol, I agree with Renoutr, this is going a little too far. TSO1D 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I've got a little Cpt. in me.--Velvet elvis81 06:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horizon Coast Chapel

Non-notable religious building/organisation. 16 Ghits. Markb 13:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per Markb. Article started life as a blatant advertisement. Brennen 14:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If the Article could develope further, I think it would be notable at a local level. It might not a national or even international interest, however based on it's local philanthropy, it would be beneficial in its own sphere of influence.
Dizor 15:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete No significant claims of notability; no use of independent sources. GRBerry 02:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --- RockMFR 05:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Notability not verified with outside sources. Re: Dizor: Is it really likely that a chapel founded in 2001 would be of great local interest? I'm not denying that it is, I'm just not thinking it's likely (I don't live in San Diego, although I am from Southern California). Certainly, I'm open to this possibility, but I think that needs to verified through reliable sources, at any rate. Heimstern Läufer 05:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:CONG. Cites only its own websites. 49 Google hits including several from Wikepedia. Could not find evidence of claimed fame of pastor.Edison 15:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] YoYo Records

The result was Withdrawn and closed by nominator - like I said, I got the wrong guy. --Dennisthe2 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Probable non-notable record label, seems to cater largely to Techno scene around the greater Olympia, WA area according to assertion. Dennisthe2 04:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, indie/lo-fi not techno (there's a German label that's techno), released early works by ~~Sleater-Kinney, Modest Mouse, The Mountain Goats, Built to Spill, Elliot Smith~~, Beat Happening ~~and~~ related bands, etc. [37] The Yoyo a Go Go festivals got some press. [38][39]Featured acts included Sleater-Kinney, Modest Mouse, The Mountain Goats, Built to Spill, Elliot Smith, etc. Should probably be merged with Yoyo Records. Potentially move to Pat Maley as it's basically a one-man show. --Dhartung | Talk 07:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe that's a point of confusion. See Space Cat (music) for the source of this confusion. Good call. --Dennisthe2 23:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Aha. Definitely not the same music publisher. --Dhartung | Talk 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Mild keep: seems not much interest to outsiders, but the company is probably famous to people in Olympia. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fiona Sit for an analogy. --Deryck C. 10:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it's of interest to fans of indie/lo-fi because of the subsequent importance of the associated artists. --Dhartung | Talk 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- If that were the case, it would also be an issue of WP:LOCAL - but as Dhartung points out, this may be pointless. --Dennisthe2 23:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Withdraw Nomination per User:Dhartung's findings. I got the wrong guy, sorry. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 23:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Great! Hopefully this can be closed soon. I'll make this article a redirect and improve the duplicate article with the more correct formatting. --Dhartung | Talk 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Is this something that I can do, or should I get an admin involved? --Dennisthe2 19:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup, source, and remove OR. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest chess player of all time

Personal essay. Speculative, inherently unencyclopedic article topic. Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge the factual content into another chess-related article or articles. The article name isn't an official title and some of it seems speculative – it might even fall under WP:OR or WP:NOT#IINFO – but a lot of the article past the "Possible criteria" heading might be well-suited to a more scholarly and less tentative article or articles. – ipso 17:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, but it needs some work (the "personal essay" part). It gives several possible critera and then gives ones according to the various criteria. Bubba73 (talk), 23:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep but needs work. Parts are personal essay, but other editors have added parts and the article is gradually improving. The fact is numerous notable chess players and writers have speculated on who is the greatest, and this deserves to be documented. Rocksong 00:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps this should be moved to something along the lines of Films considered the greatest ever? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, per Rocksong, providing all editors agree that it is Mikhail Tal. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the comment above: I think it is a good idea to change the title, and put in "considered" as suggested above. Bubba73 (talk), 14:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Very strong keep. I have personal familiarity with this topic, although I had not seen this article before. It is a notable subject among chess players and fans. Among the several hundred articles in the Chess category and its subcategories, this one certainly belongs. The first part of the article reads like an essay, but the later part about computer analysis of human moves comes from a chessbase.com article, which I think is cited, and the chessbase.com article in turn cites an article from the ICGA Journal, a serious scholarly publication specializing in chess and other computer games. I would recommend some cleanup. Perhaps the title should be changed to "Historical Ranking of Chess Players," and the article will begin by explaining why such intergenerational rankings are difficult, then it will go into the greatest player ever debate. YechielMan 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep but rename to something like Top Ranking Chessplayers by ELO standards Alf photoman 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep This article outlines some metrics used to decide the best chess player, and offers some suggestions that have made by published sources. Since it doesn't make final statements like "X was the greatest ever, end of story.", I don't have a problem with it. No objection to a rename in principle, but we can take that up on the article's talk page. Quack 688 02:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, and I think this might be aiming towards qualifying per WP:SNOWBALL as well. Cheers, Lankybugger 00:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep - obvious keep. All the key facts are verifiable. Nominator's statement "inherently unencyclopedic article topic" is wrong. BlueValour 13:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep but it should be reorganized pjahr 21:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G11, A1, A7, G1, etc. Naconkantari 06:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NFL Draft Countdown

Blatant Speedy Deletion candidate that has been tagged at least four times in a few minutes but constantly removed by the creator and several of his friends. Thus I am bringing it here to save time and trouble. Fails CSD-G11, A1, A7, not to mention WP:WEB Resolute 06:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy-delete (non-notable website/blog/chatsite, and perhaps spam for it) immediately and with extreme prejudice. DMacks 06:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TNA iMPACT! Community

Delete, appears to be what it is on the surface: a non-notable, defunct forum that was part of the TNA official website. Much of it just appears to be a chronology of what it was and its demise, without any WP:RS indicating that this forum had any sort of notability outside of the scope of the TNA website, and possibly astroturfing/spamvertising for the unofficial fora that have been spawned as a result. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as above (except that I'd never say "fora"). -- Hoary 06:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I felt weird typing it. Glad to see I'm not the only one. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or allow a page for the unofficial site?? BrianRFSU 06:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Amended:- The TNA Community, whether officially recognized or not, is still the #1 form of communication from the federation to their fans, and while the community is not recognized, the promotion is, as I have noted in my unofficial site, the Miami herald, a preeminent newspaper, wrote an article about the "feud" between TNA and MLB. To say that having two of the top ten sports in our country working together, is not notable.. then what is? Also TNA is the #2 wrestling promotion in the US, if not the world. Especially with the introduction of Kurt Angle, an olympic medalist, from WWE to TNA , TNA is becoming more and more notable. What I think is interesting is that there are sites for defunct sports teams. So why couldn't we a defunct to the commmunity page and call it a day
  - To allow an article on any unofficial sites would not resolve the problem that this article has no WP:RS indicating any sort of notability per WP:WEB. Assuming that articles on unofficial, fan-run sites would likely run into the same problem, it seems apropos to say that two wrongs don't make a right here. Please base your recommendation to keep on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, as that will strengthen your argument. Can you provide sources indicating that the particular site being discussed herein is notable? --Kinu ^t/_c 07:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that WP:WEB is met. MER-C 07:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

-Miami Herald not "reliable" ?? BrianRFSU 07:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the article? MER-C 07:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/wrestling/16215395.htm

That article is about the company, not the website. MER-C 13:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete and merge and relevant info to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. No real reason for it's official forum to have it's own article. TJ Spyke 08:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Certainly a relevant part of TNA's history. Itsmeltc 14:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your claim of "[c]ertainly" doesn't assert notability per WP:WEB. How is it a relevant part of TNA's history? The article needs reliable sources indicating such. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable message board. Fails WP:WEB.--Nick Y. 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Nick Y. One Night In Hackney 08:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB and above. --Aaru Bui ^DII 05:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete More wrestlecraft! This is like advertising them and their forum it's goto go! Govvy 15:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, as mandated by the nonnegotionable WP:V and WP:NOR in cases where no reliable sources appear to exist for an article's content. The text is available upon request if anyone wants to recreate the article with proper sourcing. Sandstein 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jiri Turek

Publicity puff with mostly unverifiable content. Turek does appear to be a photographer of note -- and this is not a proposal to delete any later article on the same person -- but I hardly know where to start rewriting this article in an encyclopedic manner and therefore suggest clearing it and allowing a completely fresh start. Hoary 06:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is poor and the editor has made wild claims about Turek here and in other articles that just aren't true (for example, he started an article on Lith-printing and claimed that Turek was "One of its original users" even though the process pre-dates his birth by 50 years or more. Similarly, many of the claims in this article are not independently verifiable. That said, however, I do find Turek to merit an article, just not this one. TheMindsEye 07:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Non notable--SUIT 07:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. There's a conflict of interest in there as well. MER-C 13:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with your criticism of the article as it stands. I also agree that the guy is probably sufficiently notable to merit an article. Therefore, I think the solution is to clear out the fluff and radically stub the article rather than delete it - leave the base for other people to build on.--Kubigula (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep, if non-trivial sources can be added and the article wikified it could make a good addition Alf photoman 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, ad. His biography (in English) could be found on his website (no direct link, Javascript is needed) and even this bio does not suggest any notability in Czech or worldwide context. He is a newspaper photographer later working in advertisement industry. There are dozens and dozens such a people in Czech Republic, some more sucessful, some less. He definitely does not belong among the handful of well known, encyclopedicall notable photographers like Josef Sudek or Jan Saudek. Pavel Vozenilek 23:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- What regards the two awards from the Czech Republic: there are many of them, appearing and disappearing frequently and with low to no impact to the general public (as opposite to specialists). There are also more notable newspaper photographers (Karel Cudlín, Petra Procházková, ...). Pavel Vozenilek 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Saudek: ugh (not that I'm begrudging him an article). Sudek: wonderful! Cudlin: very good too; somewhere, I have a book of his work. -- Hoary 14:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Cleaned up but: More sources needed to establish notability. All we have is one art show at the Leica Gallery and a personal web page with poorly written claims. Obviously a real photographer but notable??--Nick Y. 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Puff piece about non-notable subject --BozMo talk 12:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Seems sourcable, needs improvement not deletion.DGG 02:43, 9 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 07:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Nicholson (U.S. politician)

Not wiki-worthy. Does not have large role in the government User:Freshair123 6:45 AM UTC

Keep. He's a member of the U.S. Cabinet. Fan-1967 06:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Risky call, I know, but I call bad faith nom - and all edits on this user center around the AfD for this article. --Dennisthe2 06:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Being the Secretary of Veterans Affairs makes him notable. TJ Spyke 07:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep, bad faith and all that. No obvious connection but could be related to a recent vandalism.[40] --Dhartung | Talk 07:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HLGuard

Was prodded twice by other editors, but {{prod}} was removed by article creator. AFD'ing now, as it doesn't pass WP:SOFTWARE. Bjelleklang - talk 06:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. Bjelleklang - talk 06:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as one of the prodders for failing WP:SOFTWARE. — brighterorange (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 13:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Globulation 2 (2nd nomination)

This article was deleted before but a deletion review asked to seek for more input than the first AfD nomination, so let's hope this discussion generates more interest. Not from me though, this is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 07:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Where are the reliable sources? Guy (Help!) 10:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not notable per WP:SOFTWARE and no sources or anything else to show notability. Jayden54 15:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Some references have been added. --nct 10:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Naturally any free, open-source Linux game is going to have far less coverage than a PC game with advertising-sponsored media, so one most consider the notability of a product in this market in that context. I believe it is notable given the relatively limited number of games for Linux machines, and the review I found at http://linux.about.com/od/softgame/fr/fr_Globulation2.htm as well as a number of user-rating sites (e.g.: http://www.happypenguin.org/show?Globulation%202 ) that suggest to me that it's in the top-tier of usage for its market. Stop teh Linux h8 :( Tarinth 18:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep: notable free software game. 28,800 Google hits for "globulation -wikipedia". --Michalis Famelis (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ No claims of notability. Looks like fun and I am a big fan of open source software but this does not seem notable. There are many many non-notable commercial games that never became popular or notable and there are many notable open source software packages (such as Gimp, Linux, VLC media player, etc. It is true that open source games are at a disadvantage since there is no marketing muscle behind the, but the solution does not involve using wikipedia as a free advertising platform.--Nick Y. 23:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick, my comments above were not intended to suggest that WP provide an advertising channel for these products--simply that one needs to consider the notability of products differently, since you won't be able to go by the reviews and advertising that pay the bills within the gaming media. Tarinth 15:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Still there should be some sources to indicate it's popularity within the open source game community.--Nick Y. 19:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I had given several indice sof such popularity (distrib inclusion, linux journal article, ...) in the request for undeletion (december 2006), but it looks like the page has disappeared, does anyone know how to retrieve it? --nct 10:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added some references on the page, both for popularity among open source community and some review of the game system. As the game is open source, the most precise reference on how the game works is the source itself. --nct 10:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

*Weak Keep The citations added need to be cleaned up using proper formatting and placed in a more logical place, but they barely save this from afd for me. --Nick Y. 07:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've played this. It's one of the better games available on linux, afaik. I don't consider myself an expert though, so I daren't say keep or delete. Kim Bruning 00:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Tarinth and Michalis Famelis. It seems notable in its market. There are many websites mentioning it, and there is an active userbase. Brendan Alcorn 04:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
KEEP The article needs work, but I'm pretty sure the info shown at http://globulation2.org/wiki/Trackback would make it be considered notable. It's a stub, not an AfD. I also put a blurb on it's talk page --Appleboy ^Talk 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Is a major Free Software RTS CyrilleDunant 09:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep For the same reasons I ask for its undeletion (decembre 2006) --nct 10:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep : enough evidences of third-party reviews. Rama 13:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep : It is the best free strategy game I know. Optimix 14:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep: I discovered Globulation here, and I've come to agree that it's one of the most notable open-source RTS games. Incidentally, the archived Deletion Review is available here, you must click on 'show' to view it. vasi 15:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep : Globulation is alpha cause nobody cared about a difference of alpha or beta. Next release will be beta or 'final' due to this non-sense notability discussion around this 'alpha' (is there any final software out there?). In my eyes it is the best free strategy game I know and I know for example Wesnoth, Stratagus, Freeciv. It has a unique way of controling units allowing to handle 1000 (many more if it would allow for more units on one team) units at a time. --Giszmo 16:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Gentilism

Neologism. Google shows only neo-Nazi and white supremacy websites. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Nn Neologism, and Wikipedia!=Wiktionary. yandman 08:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per yandman. Beit Or 10:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per yandman. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for neologisms: as per Wikipedia:Neologisms. --SunStar Net^talk 13:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - the "concept" - really a vicious libel - is covered extensively in articles related to antisemitism. --Leifern 13:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - nn neologism. MER-C 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NEO. TSO1D 14:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:NEO and Wikipedia is not a dictionary Jayden54 15:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't Delete - I think most of the comments above miss the point: there is a fairly broad spectrum of accusations that Judaism discriminates against non-Jews. Most of these accusations come from antisemitic sources, but there are also less rabid sources, such as Israel Shahak and other commentators. The accusation exists, and if nothing else, it has become a central theme of antisemitism. I see it as something like the blood libel, which has its own entry. Obviously, the term "blood libel" carries its own judgment about the accuracy of the accusation, and I think this article ought to make more clear that the term is an accusation rather than a phenomenon that everyone recognizes. But the fact is that there is a pretty big body of claims of anti-Gentilism and responses to these claims, and I think it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to recognize this fact. "Anti-Gentilism" seems a reasonable name to give to an article on this exchange, although if someone could point me to another article that addresses the matter (I think "blood libel" is too specific), I could see merit in deleting this one. -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.92 (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Israel and Anti-Gentile Traditions shows a reasonable use of the term by a non-antisemite, and Israel Shahak uses "Anti-Gentile" extensively in Jewish History, Jewish Religion : The Weight of Three Thousand Years -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.92 (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Also "Charedi Rabbis Rush To Disavow Anti-Gentile Book" -- DLH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.49 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Exceptional claims require exception sourcing. A couple of usages doesn't make this into a notable neologism, and the topic itself is (at best) a vague charge of xenophobia which isn't encyclopedic or notable, or (at worst) a soapbox for advancing a false generalization. Wherease anti-semitism is a widespread term that can apply to anyone with prejudices toward Jews, this is merely a concocted and antagonistic term designed to position all Jews as prejudiced. Tarinth 18:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as hopelessly POV-advancing by setting up a straw man for debate, premised upon a faulty generalization that in itself constitutes original research. Tarinth 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Soapboxing, POV, neologism GabrielF 18:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- GabrielF 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment At the same time, livius, [41] about the leper myth, and ancient Hellenic Judeaphobia can be legitimately entered into the antisemitism as a subarticle. For example, Livius talks about Jews being thrown out of Egypt for being lepers (an insulting reversal of the Exodus story), and worshipping pigs, hating other nations, being lescivious, making converts renounce their parents, holding adherence to Judaism as disloyal to the host country. These are ancient precursors to modern antisemitism and should be noted. Guy Montag 19:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete As pov fork. Guy Montag 19:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Yossiea 21:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom, Tarinth. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per SunStar and Tarinth. 6SJ7 05:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete POV fork. Not much substance in this article in any case. --Folantin 08:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I was once stopped in the street by an old man who asked the way to Leicester Square. I politely directed him in the right direction, his response: "Thanks for telling a goy the direction". I was startled and continued on my way. I latter thought a good response to his foolish remark would be "Whoops, I thought you had a Jewish nose". For some reason they seem to think Jews intrinsically hate gentiles. No doubt we have good reason to as our history in their hands has shown, but to claim it is "on the part of Judaism or the Jewish People” as a whole is absurd. Chesdovi 14:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! "For some reason they seem to think Jews intrinsically hate gentiles?" Who is "they" in your sentence? -- DLH 66.82.9.92 06:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Scrimshaw7 and others with his mistaken views, like the man in my story. Chesdovi 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete this one-sentence invitation to trouble that clearly goes against Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. What exactly did User:Scrimshaw7 have in mind when he made [42] his one and only entry? IZAK 21:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Isarig 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --GHcool 07:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment This is pretty clearly going down. I have the impression that most people read the "-ism" suffix as connoting a more cohesive social phenomenon than I do, which is fine: the meaning of a word is whatever most people think it is, and, no, I would not say that the term "Anti-Gentilism" with the connotation of meetings to plot how to screw the goys, etc., needs an encyclopedia entry. But I still think the exchange of accusations of discrimination against non-Jews and responses to the accusations is something that merits notice, possibly as a subtopic in the antisemitism article, as I think someone suggested above. Thoughts? -- DLH 66.82.9.92 06:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vanessa Oliveira

Non-notable singer, no record deal or releases to date. Similar articles have been deleted in the past, see [43] One Night In Hackney 07:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete for being non-notable! Bjelleklang - talk 08:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. We really need a specific guideline page on american idol clones' runners-up. yandman 08:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable losing reality TV contestant. MER-C 14:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not notable under WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Jayden54 15:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Article does not demonstrate notability. --Kevin Murray 18:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No Consensus. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Association of Autonomous Astronauts

Notability not shown or asserted. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This is not actually a space activist organization, but an art collective in the vein of situationism, Fluxus, The Yes Men and so on, masquerading as a space activism organization. As such they are deliberately obscurantist. Obviously needs a complete rewrite. --Dhartung | Talk 00:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- They appear to be connected to the Abandon All Art "movement" which is traced back to the K Foundation, Bill Drummond, and The KLF/Time Lords, to be more specific. For all that they seem to have an at least partially serious anarchist perspective on space travel, but I'm not convinced that it began that way. --Dhartung | Talk 00:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I changed the Science & technology tag to Fiction & the arts then. ~ trialsanderrors 09:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest keeping it. Label it as 'Court Jester Material'. OK, I'm ignorant of broader Wiki policy. John August.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note, I've given it a proper intro, so at least you can understand what it actually is (vs. what it purports to be); two of the three sources I've used are print magazines. There are also several results on Google Books and A9. --Dhartung | Talk 09:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable group. Cites are to website or fringe magazines. Edison 15:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - even if the group isn't incredibly notable, I think the article is well written enough to be kept (however it could always be expanded ...). Danielfolsom 19:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete "even if the group isn't incredibly notable, I think the article is well written enough to be kept"...What? The most important criteria of inclusion is notability!!!!!--Nick Y. 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep The militarism of space is an issue of serious concern. This group appear to be notable within the sphere of interest in which it operates and I value the way in which Wikipedea opens my mind to new ideas. Whilst possibly bring an element of humour to the subject, that is nevertheless a valid approach in the situationalist art / activist worlds (I guess - not being an artist myself). The article seems perfectly readable to me too, though there are always more experienced wikipedians that can help tidy things up. Paddedrock 17:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete no independent reliable sources, very limited notability. Eluchil404 09:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep per Dhartung; there are sources, whose reliability might be questioned, but I think that fringe magazines are a acceptable reasonable source for an article like this. I'd prefer a merge, but where to? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
keep the AAA received coverage in the Daily Telegraph and The Observer, both of which are national newspapers in teh UK. It might take a while for me to find the exact dates tho. Notability etc can be added as well - surely the best thing would be to place a call for a rewrite/addition of info rather than a call for deletion? John Eden 16:52, 11 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 Tubezone 11:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angus purdy

This article does not cite its sources and sounds like a made-up story about someone perhaps trying to self-publish. Ronbo76 07:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Fails to assert notability. So tagged. SWAdair | Talk 07:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Committee for a Free Britain

Formerly a rather vainglorious article from what seem to be the same anonymous editors who also puffed other far-right topics of no real significance outside of a tiny minority of disaffected Tories (e.g. Gregory Lauder-Frost and the Western Goals Institute). Cleaned by SandyDancer, but on reviewing the sources I find that all are essentially the group itself (its publications, its founder or a single interview with its founder), with the exception of a single story in City Limits about one party the group organised. Gets 20 unique Googles outside Wikipedia, and Wikipedia and mirrors account for more than half of all the hits overall. Nothing on Factiva. Group appears to have been active for less than five years, which is probably why. Whether Hart is notable I would not like to say, but I'd say this group was of no demonstrable significance. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I do have a fuzzy memory of the Committee for a Free Britain and the controversy over the Calero visit. Though they seem to have left a small webprint, the pre-1994 era often has sporadic coverage. I'm also willing to accept lower Ghits for a UK than a US organization, due to the UK's smaller population. --Groggy Dice T|C 07:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I live in England, you know, and I've no memory at all of this lot - and this was a time when I was politically active, a regular on the Radio 4 letters slots (worked with John Humphrys' ex-wife) and active on the UK Politics forums, I still have an archive of my long discussing with Vincent Hanna somewhere. Honestly, I can't find any evidence that this group had any significance outside the minds of its members. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, notable enough. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I'd forgotten this group's name, but certainly remember their activities. Though a small organisation, its influence was very real. The named members are certainly significant, the campaigns they started or influenced were not minor, the money behind them was very real. Too much in there about Perle - he wasn't a member - but that they could get him to support is in itself an indication of their importance. So there's not much on Google. So what? It predates Google. I'm surprised that Guy never heard of them (or the campaigns they mounted) but perhaps the give away is that he was a regular on the Radio 4 letters slot - what does that mean???? (He wrote letters to Radio 4????) Emeraude 11:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, Torie opinion forming power group, long forgotten except by historians ... yet notable Alf photoman 17:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Whether or not the nominator has heard of this group is irrelevant. The article is verifiable and cites reliable sources. While it may be defunct, it did have a degree of notability (or notoriety) in its time. Agent 86 18:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - ah yes, I'd forgotten them... It's useful to find an article about them. Snalwibma 22:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as an example of their time, and as a "grandparent" article for later groups. -- Simon Cursitor 07:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep but make it better, I just made an edit to the page, it can be improved, but it is a keep page Pernambuco 00:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Servis

Spammy unsourced corporate profile. The deprodder brings up verifiability concerns. MER-C 02:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V. Didn't see anything on google or company's website about news coverage, so doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP, either.--Kchase T 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Withdrawing my !vote and changing to neutral per comments below. Sourcing would be nice.--Kchase T 11:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep. As well-known in the UK as (say) Hotpoint or Zanussi, and the article only needs a little work to get it up to the standards of those articles. Of course, it may be argued that those articles need to go for lack of verifiability, as well... Tevildo 05:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed.--Kchase T 05:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  - The issue, I understand, is verifiability rather than notability. Are the Hotpoint and Zanussi articles considered adequately verified at the moment? If so, the Servis article is equally-well verified, with links to the websites of the company itself and its parent company. If not, additional information is needed for all three articles; what sort of information would this be? Tevildo 17:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    - The issues are both verifiability and notability, as already mentioned above, and the relevant criteria are WP:CORP, as also already mentioned above. That other articles are also bad is irrelevant. The company's own web site does not satisfy the WP:CORP criteria. Look at BETDAQ#References for an example of how to demonstrate that the WP:CORP criteria are satsified. Uncle G 20:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Well-known UK brand: ebay.co.uk has 86 Servis items or parts on offer today. Pam Davies 11:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - this appears to be a real appliance company with some significant presence in the UK, and is probably verifiable with some work. -- Whpq 15:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete for not passing Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Bjelleklang - talk 08:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I'm willing to bet that every consumer in the UK knows the name and the products associated with it. A very large proportion of us have them. A major player, up there with Hotpoint, Hoover etc Emeraude 11:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) point out that it provides 'rough guidelines'.) Emeraude 11:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Player in the UK white good market. See trade press coverage [44], [45] and Government agency report [46]. Catchpole 12:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Obviously a notable brand name in England. They now appear to be more of a waning player with some leverage of the brand name by the new owners for new purposes. At the least they are historically notable (once an important company), like RCA or US Steel. AT&T has remained a strong brand name and recently has re-emerged as an actual company despite nearly disappearing a few years ago.--Nick Y. 00:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Well-known UK company. Ebay.co.uk lists 86 parts or items today. Pam Davies 11:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Youth With A Mission. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Relief & Mercy Services

Spammy article with very questionable notability. Contested prod, borderline speedy. MER-C 03:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, but cleanup - the article reads a bit like an advertisement, but a quick online check sees the charity involved in quite a lot of overseas aid and development work. I vote we keep it and clean it up. JROBBO 06:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Keep, but cleanup~~ Skeptical I agree with JROBBO on all comments. I don't like the article, ~~but I see the subject as notable~~. --Kevin Murray 06:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- AR&MS Annual Statement says that they reached a milestone of giving away their "millionth dollar", and the financials show assets only in the sub-million; pretty small numbers for a notable organization. Now I'm Skeptical! --Kevin Murray 23:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but cleanup - I concur with the above. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Merge per below. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete Sounds like a great humanitarian organization. How do they do all those good works with not a single newspaper article or TV news story? Find same and then you have a basis for keeping the article. Edison 23:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 07:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above, if they've really got so many services and programmes, then why only a smattering of ghits? One would think a notable charity like this claims to be would have more of a public profile. Delete as nn charity/ministry. Lankiveil 06:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Merge per below. Looks like a great small faith-based charity doing some good work but a million dollars is tiny (although the net effect of many of these not-notable charities can be huge and very effective). Keep up the good work.--Nick Y. 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Merge per JROBBO- the size of the org is not important. What is missing here is reliable third-party references. A search of google news and the ebscohost news databases shows no mentions at all. No books on them and all of the web hits I can see are other christian charity sites. They lack verifyability from reliable sources - Peripitus (Talk) 01:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep or~~ merge. Unfortunately the article does not explain that ARMS is part of Youth With A Mission Australia, a notable global youth ministry organisation. ~~I'd prefer to keep, but failing that, merge with the YWAM article.~~ Sarah 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done some more research and I agree with JROBBO. I think the material should be merged with the Mercy Ministries section of the Youth With A Mission article. I favour a straight merge, but for the closing admin, if it comes down to delete/keep, this is a keep. Sarah 09:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or merge per Sarah - I'll lean towards a merge though if we can't get any sources— I had a look again and there isn't too much online besides mentions of the Charity on some web pages (and I don't know where you could find offline sources). JROBBO 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oops... I realise I'd voted keep twice - I've got rid of the above vote. Seems like Ozmercy has done a bit of work on the article, and I'll lean towards a keep now. JROBBO 07:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep but help us to make the page better I am the contributor who first put this up on Wikpedia and I am still learning the ropes. Some coaching would be welcome. I have put in some cross referneces and rewritten sections of the article, I trust that this will set skeptical minds at rest. In answer to Kevin's comment on our financials - true we have few assets - we give everything we can away. The article about the millionth dollar clearly says that it is talking of funds donated over the past seven years. Our momentum is such that we should give away a million dollars every 2-3 years now. Yes we are part of Youth With A Mission but we are seperately run entity and to merge us into the larger YWAM pages would deny us the distinctive place we have cut for ourselves in Mercy Ministries - we are known as ARMS before we are recognised as being part of YWAM.Ozmercy 12:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I may have put my comments on the wrong end of the debate and am not sure of the etiquet of moving them once they have been uploaded. I think we have addressed notability issues.Ozmercy 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I will not make any further defense of who we are after this, you guys will have to do whatever it you are going to do, but I am surprised at some of the above comments. for instance I not sure why Sarah says that the article does say that ARMS is part of YWAM when the opening statement of the article reads Australian Relief & Mercy Services Ltd (ARMS) is a Christian aid and development organization that cares for the poor and needy both within Australia and overseas and is the mercy ministry arm of Youth With A Mission in Australia. The organization was founded in Canberra in 1988. and links to the YWAM page.

With regards to the comments made about our budget size - regular NGOS have admin fees of 30% + that pay wages etc - we do not pay wages- all of our staff pay for their own travel - so effectively our budget could be measured as 30% higher than what it is - even though we have a small budget - our influence in some sectors of the industry is significant. Are we notable? I think so. But money and budget size does not define notability. Have we shown outside sources and news articles - yes. Do we seek organizational fame no. A lot of what we do we quickly and well. When we were in Iraq at the out break of the war we were the first western NGO to be operational in Iraq. The officer in charge of the Humaniatrain operations center medical response commended us on our work and ability to make a quick response - but there were no news articles about it, other than those we generated ourselves - but self praise is usually seen as no recommendation. When we were in Aceh Australian TV news covered our work in the refugee camps there and credited it to another agency who used the footage to fund raise for themselves nationally. We did the work but because of the inappropriate actions of others we lost the opportunity to tell our own story, as the Australian public saw that incident as being someone else. We find these things sad, but we are still detemined to do the work God has called us to whether any one recognises it or not. Thanks for taking time to comment on our aticle, I look forward to your final decision.Ozmercy 10:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Oh dear. Um, Ozmercy, please see: [47] I said the article didn't mention ARMS was part of YWAM because it didn't. I was the one who added that sentence in. This was the version of the article at the time I made that statement, and as you can see, YWAM doesn't rate a mention. The opening statment you quote is the opening now and not what we had a week ago when I commented. I think you are too close to this article and should take a step back. Sarah 13:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete the article, the almost sole contributor has too much conflict of interest. Alternative: reduce to stub, leaving the references, and blank the history. User:Ozmercy should contribute to some other articles of interest until (s?)he better understands policies, practices, and culture of Wikipedia. If they are notable, someone not directly associated with them will write the article. Ga rr ie 03:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wifey's World

Previously kept by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wifey's World but WP:WEB has been refined since then (and the site's Alexa rank has also got worse, now >18k). No evidence is presented of this site being the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources, and the article is unsourced. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Note - I protected the article on this gimped version because there was an edit war going on over the inclusion of personal information. I think this needs an RFC or RFM over that before AFD, as an AFD would be rather unfair to the article in its current state. --Golbez 18:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment -- I concur with Golbez. There are disputes over personal information being included, impacting sourcing. The site has been well known at least since 1998[48][49] and has frequently been a problem precisely because it's well known -- people don't want the proprietors living in their neighborhood.[50][51]. This amounts to a speedy keep, I suppose. Obviously I can't improve the article while it's protected. --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment -- Because of some serious privacy and personal safety issues - I do hope the Wikipedia management either permanently deletes the Wifeys World entry or leaves it as it is presently......... VVVZ 21:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)VVVZ
Comment The inclusion of their names in The Arizona Republic should remove any concerns Wikipedia has about privacy. How is this different from any other adult performer's real name being disclosed along with their "stage name?" Unprotect the article if the only issue is the use of this performer's name (and Keep). Drew30319 00:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- The publication of someone's name in a newspaper does not mean we always carry it. Perhaps we have more integrity than they. Either way, the article is currently protected as part of an edit war, which makes it an extremely poor candidate for AfD. More to point - the nomination on AfD of protected articles should be extremely frowned upon. It was not semi-protected, it was full-protected, which makes one of the cornerstones of AfD - attempting to improve the article - impossible. --Golbez 11:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Dhartung --Dismas|^(talk) 13:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, lack of claiming notability and references is due to the article being protected in a state lacking a lot of (partly private) information. A more complete version is this: [52]. Something needs to be done, but AfD is not the way to go for this article right now. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete One article in Wired.com is a start towards notability, but that plus an article in a local paper about them buying a house and the neighbours being annoyed does not equal encyclopedic notability. Edison 15:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
DELETE Sorry folks but like it or not, this is Wikipedia. There are policies in place that can not be ignored just because you like the article or subject. Where are the Multiple, Non-Trivial, Third Party, Independent, Reputable, Reliable, Published Sources? One wired.com article and a local (read, non-national/not widely distributed) newpaper article does not satisfy WP:RS or WP:V. These are non-negotiable. I want to see 2 or more articles from national newspapers, national TV news stories, or national/international magazines. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Restricting notability to national newspapers seems a bit arbitrary. The Arizona Republic is (according to Wikipedia, at least) the largest newspaper in Arizona, and there are at least six articles about the brouhaha there. According to this (slightly NSFW) there was coverage in Playboy, though I don't think we can grep that. -SpuriousQ 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
comment So by your own admission there is only one notable source reporting about this. The playboy coverage is skeptical unless cited. One source could have 1000 articles on the subject but WP:V requires multiple sources. I don't beleive the Arizona Republic is notable, regardless of the fact it covers all of Arizona. The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead covers all of north dakota, though the primary distribution is the eastern part of the state, and the north-western part of Minnesota, however it has been said not to be a notable source. I don't see how a state only newspaper is concidered notable. Now the washington post? the New York Times? yeah, those are definately notable. Wired.com is a national/international magazine. The Arizona republic is a state newspaper. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe there is any policy that declares state newspapers as a whole non-notable, particularly if it is the largest newspaper in the state and circulated throughout it. I do agree with your other points: I have yet to see any other sources reporting on this and the Playboy claim is currently unverified, but perhaps someone can help out with that. -SpuriousQ 21:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment, additional sources could include:
- Covered by Martin Sargent in his show Unscrewed. [53]
- Not a source, but noteworthy: the site is blocked in China: [54] --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep If this article is considered trivial then this would mean thousands of other articles would have to be done away with. It would be bias to oust this article just because someone does not like it. If this article is deleted then a campaign should be made to remove all articles that real printed encyclopedias would not have. --Margrave1206 23:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. If WP:WEB has been "refined" then there should be either a blanket deletion of all website articles, requiring subsequent resubmission (at least until the next "refinement" occurs to WP:WEB, or some other process needs to be implemented rather than the POV, willy-nilly targeting of one article over another. In any event this article should at least be kept until the dispute described by Golbez is resolved as I agree it is not fair to subject an article to AFD when its content is in flux like this. 23skidoo 03:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jude Rawlins

Nominated for AfD by 81.178.88.149. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Jude Rawlins, whoever he may be, is not prolific, interesting or significant. This page deserves to be removed as it spoils the entire wikipedia project, and was clearly written by Jude Rawlins himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.88.149 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2006
- Note - The above anon editor has vandalized the page since nominating the AfD. Possibly bad-faith? Tevildo 22:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. The nomination makes a nonstandard argument against notability. But the article lacks reliable sources -- this and Subterraneans (band) are both largely sourced from a self-published autobiography by Rawlins. There is an intriguing magazine profile, but by itself this apepars to fail WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 09:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Additionally, Rawlins and Subterraneans lack AllMusic entries, and the claim of multiple film soundtrack works seems to be unverifiable without more information. --Dhartung | Talk 09:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the nominator's behavior disturbing, but I can see no reason to keep the article in anything like its current form. It doesn't truly demonstrate notability, uses weasel words (he was "involved" in a Madonna album), and appears to be narcissistic self-promotion. OinkOink 22:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the anon's edits to the article [55][56] , maybe [57], were merely informal and unverifiable -- I wouldn't call any of them vandalism. It was strange that the edits were after the unfinished AFD nom. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep, it urgently needs independent non-trivial sources or we will see it nominated again Alf photoman 17:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep, per Alf. I looked at the Google list; it appears that this is much more than a vanity article, but no source has individually compelling credentials, and the overall g-hits are not by themselves compelling. What I'm seeing is enough to dispute the premise of the nomination. I would bet that there are sources which could be found by a motivated editor. --Kevin Murray 18:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and/or Merge Sorry to throw a new suggestion into the mix but it seems that the almost single note worth keeping on this guy is that he is/was the leader of a mildly notable band Subterraneans (band). THink about what is worth keeping. Most of it reads as a user page or as a resume.--Nick Y. 00:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Agree with Nick Y - difficult to justify keeping this in. Having looked at Subterraneans (band) which is the only notable justification for its presence I have to argue that Subterraneans itself has a pretty weak case for inclusion. I suspect both this and Subterraneans entries are vanity pieces and have numerous (cleverly worded) claimed associations, none of which have credible sources to substantiate their validity. If they did exist I'm sure they would be there, but suspect the clever wording is there to mask the non-existence of those sources in the first place. I know this sounds very cynical but I've seen a lot of this on Wikipedia and it annoys me!

Mixu L 11:22, 4 January 2007 (GMT)

Delete Fails notability IMHO --BozMo talk 12:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anime Fight

An article about a category of fan-made maps for Warcraft III. Doesn't appear to be notable. Unverifiable (WP:V), no reliable sources (WP:RS) and is original research (WP:NOR). Additionally, it talks about how to play such maps, violating the policy that Wikipedia is not a game guide or a manual. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Delete per nom. Warcruft. MER-C 14:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - seems like WP:OR and fails WP:RS and WP:V. It's typical fan work, which is really great, but unfortunately not really suitable for Wikipedia. Jayden54 15:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete fan maps, like fanfiction, must go. Obviously also fails WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want to delete this because it's a "warcraft map", why not delete DOTA as well?
- Re-read my nomination. That's not the only reason I'm putting it up for deletion. And if that's non-notable and unsourced, that too will eventually get deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, it's not Defense of the Ancients. New Notability Standard: When Swedish techno artists start writing songs about playing it, then we can have an article on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete , Warcruft. Non-Notable, Unsourced. SirFozzie 23:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. DotA is pretty much my standard for determining map notability, and this thing doesn't even come close. --Alan Au 06:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nom and above comments. It's a game guide for a non-notable custom map for Warcraft III. --Scottie theNerd 16:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:OR and WP:RS Alan Shatte 22:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per discussion above.Jessica Anne Stevens 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR per above. Paul D. Meehan 05:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
'Delete per all discussion above. Joel Jimenez 04:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Stevenson

Unremarkable trade unionist and political activist. Writing career seems limited to a magazine for a fringe political party, apart from his unpublished manuscript. Lacks reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney 00:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Active trade unionist and communist politician who partook in many activities around Canada, is well known at York (where his manuscripts are) and the Universty of Toronto. --Mista-X 17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:BIO. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - if York University thinks he's notable enough to keep nine metres of his records in their archives, I think there should be a tiny little corner of Wikipedia available for him. Ground Zero | t 22:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:Verifiability is not negotiable; this lacks reliable sources. I'll change my vote if some are found.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - the Northstar Compass link is now to his obituary there. I think notability is established, in combination with the York U archive. (Limiting the google search to site:yorku.ca is helpful. -- Bpmullins | Talk 00:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually that raises a slight problem, most of the article is a possible copyright violation now. One Night In Hackney 03:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

comment - How so? I wrote the article and it is reworded based on the different sources including the NSC. Plus permission to use anything has been given from NSC anyways, which I could verify if necessary. --Mista-X 17:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The article was not re-written. Compare [58] and [59]. Feel free to check just the first paragraph, it is word for word the same. Do not remove the copyvio tags again, or re-insert the disputed text. If permission has been granted, this should be established first. One Night In Hackney 23:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep: Notability is borderline, but Wikipedia is not paper. Problems like sources, verifiability, copyright etc. can be fixed. Peter Grey 18:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, was a senior official of the World Peace Council in the 1970s when it was a notable organization. Notability also established by a major university holding his archives. Bulk needs to be rewritten for copyvio or permission needs to be obtained from original publisher. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. GreenJoe 19:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I have rewritten the article to remove POV, deadlinks and the possible copyright violation. I have removed the COPYVIO tag. If anyone feels there is still concern about copryright, the tag can be readded. I ask that those who have voted here review the article to see if my re-write has addressed their concerns. Ground Zero | t 20:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Question I read on his obituary he was the Canadian secretary of the World Peace Council. At first I assumed it would be a somewhat minor role, but according to the WPC article the Secretariat are one of the governing bodies. The WPC site has been done for (at least) several days, so I am unable to find any more information on this. How many members of the Secretariat were there, and I assume they were elected positions? One Night In Hackney 09:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per DukeOfDuchessStreet. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per nom. --SunStar Net^talk 14:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Here is another potential reference if the pedigree passes WP standards: http://www.yorku.ca/julabour/volume3/hernden_justlabour.PDF --Kevin Murray 03:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep In a n organization of this sort the secretariat is more or less equivalent to bnoard of directors. I hope votes to delete were not affected by the feeling that his oranization was a "fringe" party.DGG 02:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Ninja-rpg

Non-notable MMORPG based on the anime/manga Naruto. Fails the WP:WEB notability guidelines. Unverifiable (WP:V), no reliable sources (WP:RS) and has game guide information, something Wikipedia is not. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 14:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fully agree with the nominator Jayden54 14:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable MMORPG, Wikipedia is not a game guide. JIP | Talk 17:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Agree with the nominator. However, I am a newbie and I am wondering, in order to qualify for deletion, how many of Wikipedia's policies must an article break? If an article only breaks, say, Verifibility but not anything else, would it still be considered fair game for deletion? Where is the line? Thank you very much. Sue H. Ping 15:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep all. I've removed the {{inuse}} tags, as the pages are no longer being edited actively, and am prepending {{wikify}} instead. Sandstein 06:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ICCF national member federations

Wikipedia is not a directory. This content is more appropriate for the organization's own website. The encyclopedic content for this organization is already addressed at International Correspondence Chess Federation. Also nominate for deletion the following sublists:

Accurizer 17:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge the main list into International Correspondence Chess Federation. As for the rest it isn't really nice to AfD articles with an underconstruction tag when that tag was added yesterday so keep on the rest until we see what the author of those have planned. If they aren't properly expanded then bring them back so we can delete them. I don't see them as inherently bad ideas so there is no reason to delete them so fast. MartinDK 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think it's better to have this discussion now, rather than after there are 50+ additional lists to deal with, which seems to be planned based on all of the redlinks. As for the timing of the nominations not being nice, if I were the author I would prefer to have this resolved before spending days creating more lists that may be deleted. Obviously I can't speak for the author but this was my motivation in making the nominations at this particular time. Accurizer 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment You know when I look at these again, especially the England one which he has worked on the most, I am beginning to think you are right. I still want to see where he is going with this beyond making lists but the articles do indeed seem to have been created prematurely. Especially the fact that he is trying to work on so many at the same time concerns me given his very low edit count. Right now I am tempted to say move to userspace rather than keep on those articles. MartinDK 05:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep big potential for development. frummer 05:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Could you elaborate on what potential that would be? MartinDK 08:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole idea was that I will create the infrastructure and then the federations themselves will fill it with the data. Only the federations keep record of how it all began , the history and so on. It must take some time , until the federation will fill it with content. If the article is to be deleted so quickly , I think that i will change the order of what I do : I will stop (of course) to create new articles, and wait till the federations will give me the material and then I will try to post it again.

If then you will think that it is to be deleted - so be it.

I believe that the subject is interesting at least to some of the readers , but maybe I am wrong. --YoavD 10:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Thank you, that was very informative. In light of what you just wrote I think the best situation would be for you to move the articles to subpages of your user page and work on them from there. I don't think it is a bad idea, in fact I think it is really great that you want to expand this apparently underrepresented topic here but keeping the individual country articles in main space right now probably isn't the best idea. I really hope it doesn't discourage you, it is meant as a help to give you peace and time to expand the articles without being concerned about someone trying to delete them. MartinDK 12:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, How, though, will these satisfy the WP:V and WP:OR policies? Being factual or interesting does not necessarily mean that these are appropriate Wikipedia articles. Accurizer 15:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment True but they are not inherently unverifiable or original research. If he moves them to user space we don't have an urgent problem and we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Its not like we are salting these articles after all, he has the right to try and improve them. The author is encouraged to read these policies along with WP:COI, all of which are reason for deletion. MartinDK 16:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment the user is new and needs yet more time to learn about writing up articles and improve these ones, he is clearly serious and able to bing them up to standard. He is a valuable contributor in the general chess field and we must remember WP:BITE. Give him more time to sort it out. No consensus for now. frummer 07:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Like stated above the editor of these articles clearly has good intentions and I don't see the reason why they should be inherently bad ideas. The problem is that rather than leaving the editor prone to biting of the newcomer it would be in his own best interest to work on these from within his userspace until he has gained experience and expanded these articles to a level where they are no longer candidates for deletion. We should not bite the newcomer but on the other hand there is no reason why the newcomer should be left vulnerable to such biting. MartinDK 09:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I hope that the updated version is nearer to what an article should be. I will wait now till you reach a decision, as it may be a waste of time to spend on other articles if the whole idea is incorrect. Thank you all for the encoraging words for the beginner!--YoavD 13:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You are off to a better start now. First of all you need to stop putting your signature on the articles themselves. Second, they need some copyediting. WP:MoS is your friend. I still think you would be better off working on these in userspace rather than mainspace but as the articles improve that opinion might change. Happy editing! MartinDK 13:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Thank you for the comments , specially for the manual on the style. I will read it and try to adjust according to the recommendations.--YoavD 11:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Thanks, happy to help out. If you have any questions please feel free to ask on my talk page. I promise I don't bite and I am always nice to new editors! To the closing admin: If these articles are deleted please move them to his userspace instead so that he can work on them from there. MartinDK 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Added text in the ICCF Belgium in the same manner as the other federations. It might explain my view of how everything should look when it is finished. --YoavD 15:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devotional Marriage

Delete as neologism, original research. Single source provided is a blog. A Google search for "devotional marriage" finds no relevant hits. Article created by User:DevotedMan as their first, and so far only, contribution. Writing style of the article appears similar to that of the blog: for example, the use of "dominate" as an adjective. The Anome 09:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, clearly original research. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, neoblogochristianism. yandman 13:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:NEO and WP:NOR. Jayden54 14:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable protologism. Prolog 18:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete the usage of this term is very limited thus violating WP:NEO and most of it appears to be original research, violating WP:OR. TSO1D 20:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete absurd POV and OR article which clearly exists to link to a blog with wonderfully insightful articles such as "Why be a Submissive Wife?" This is a good blog to post on a crank.net ...Tarinth 20:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. External link seems to be to the blog of some bizzare BDSM fantasist. No evidence at all for the term being used elsewhere. Tevildo 20:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, but possibly redirect. I wonder if this should be a redirect to Covenant marriage, which is what I assumed this article would be about before I read it? Pinball22 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Valid Topic.This topic is widely practiced and discussed. Devotional Marriage (D/M) is a form of D/D marriage (D/D is a current valid topic on Wikipeda) except those engaged in D/M use love rather than discipline. The book Fascinating Womanhood, with Devotional Marriage is based has sold more than 2 million copies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DevotedMan (talk • contribs)

If that's true, you need to source the article much better. Since you know about some of these books, it sounds like it is possible. It would not be the first time a topic went from almost unanimous deletion to 'keep' when the article became much better sourced. As it is now it looks more like an ad for your blog rather than a legitimate topic that's been noted by the media. In addition to book sources, I think you'll need to provide some sign that the news media has recognized it as a concept/term. I'll change to keep it if it can be shown that this can be well-documented with multiple independent sources (which means a couple of sources beyond those pushing the concept directly). Tarinth 15:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

- In light of the above, might a redirect to Domination and submission (BDSM) (or an appropriate equivalent) be better? Tevildo 02:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete but redirect to Covenant marriage. The burden of proof is on the article creator to provide legitimate sources that state the two things are different, and I don't see them. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I see no evidence that anyone is using this term in any WP:RS verifiable way to refer to anything at all. A covenant marriage is an entirely different thing than is being proposed in this article. -- The Anome 00:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment: I agree that there's perhaps no one using this term, I just thought it might make sense as a redirect. Now that I've read some of the linked websites, it seems that if they're what the article is meant to be about, then it's even more different from covenant marriage than I thought, though. I also wonder, from reading them, if there could be an article about those ideas. This article, though, doesn't seem to go conceptually with those references, even, so if there is something out there for there to be an article about, this isn't it (and apparently isn't the right name for whatever it is), so I'm still for deleting it. Pinball22 02:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Without firm sources, I'm doubtful whether this qualifies for inclusion. Possible neologism, possible synonym for other term, possibly "something made up"; on the other hand, possibly a groundswell of traditional values. An unimpeachable reference would go a long way to helping the community to decide. -- Simon Cursitor 08:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Article Improved:I have re-written the article with greater emphasis on its long established underlying principals as laid down by Helen Andelin. This topic does warrant its own entry as it does not fit with any other marriage or power exchange topic. The D/D, D/s and BDSM topics have a strong sexual and violence component which is not present in a Devotional Marriage. Equally this form of marriage due to its very traditional and conservative foundations is not defined in common law as a typical modern marriage. There is a very large following of these values within Western Society which makes this topic of interest to a wide range of people. -- User:DevotedMan 5 January 2007

Unfortunately it is still lacking references that are encyclopedic. You need "secondary sources" (sources which provided summary and analysis) not primary sources (like the Bible, which requires interpretation) or websites that are mostly run as personal sites. Find some magazine articles (or websites with an editorial staff) that deal with the subject and use those as references. Tarinth 16:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biohacking

Deleted by me on prod last year, undeleted per talk page request, prod rationale was "neologism and original research". Procedural, abstain. - crz crztalk 09:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as before. yandman 13:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. The rationale behind deleting it is not justified. In my opinion, 'neologism' is not at all bad if general consensus agrees upon the term and is ready to accept it. And moreover, it is not at all personal research. Just take a look at the number of distinct hits google gives for the term 'Biohacking' [60]. - Paras Chopra
- Please read WP:NEO and WP:NOR - crz crztalk 13:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll abstain for now, but as a professional working in the field of molecular biology, I want to state here that "biohacking" is certainly NOT a term used in the scientific community. The closest correct term would probably be genetic engineering. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and redirect - to genetic engineering which seems to be the correct term for it. Jayden54 14:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- No need to delete when redirecting. But an alternative target would be Biopunk, although I am still figuring out what the value of that article is. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge? and redirect to genetic engineering. Yuser31415 19:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I object a merge with genetic engineering. That article is about the scientific concept and this word is unused in the scientific community. A redirect to Biopunk would be better in my opinion. If not, a redirect (but without inclusion of this term in the target article) to genetic engineering. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, not a used term in the scientific world, WP:NEO. Terence Ong 14:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not just about scientific community. It should not be a matter if scientists agree on a term or not. It should be a matter if general public agrees on the term on not. -Paras Chopra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.9.39 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 5 January 2007
Delete, science fiction-inspired term used by pseudo-scientists. --ChrisWakefield 16:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Now since you brought up the topic, discussions can go smoother if you define scientists and pseudo-scientists. -Paras Chopra
  - It is a term that enthusiastic students and other types of promoters (its a great title for a popular book that describes the real science) like to use to sex up an existing scientific field. It makes it sound cool since it uses the word "hacker" but there is not journal of "Biohacking", there are journals about "Computational biology", "Systems biology", "Molecular engineering" and what not. Just as there are no "hacker" job titles outside of a few fringe shops, there are "Software engineers", "Software developers", "Senior software analysis", etc. This is a slang term, which enthusiastic students such as yourself are attracted to since it is how you like to view yourself. --ChrisWakefield 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    - In my opinion, judging scientific fields from the journal names is not a very bright idea. Even if we use that to judge, If I start a journal named "Biohacking", would that make this term more acceptable to you than what it is right now? Also remember that terms such as "Software Engineers", etc. did not exist always, they were also coined some time in history and if Wikipedia were present at that time, Software Engineering would never have been allowed to be accepted as a scientific term. -Paras Chopra —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.180.123.247 (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
deleteThere really does not seem to be any non-idiosyncratic use. Among the links in the article are links to the S-F, which does seem to be the inspiration, and the S-F article is enough.DGG 02:53, 9 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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi

PRODed and contested. Asserted to have published multiple books, but most of these seem to be online. Zero google hits for the name off Wikipedia (may be a latinisation issue). Majopr source for the article seems to be al-islam.org. Not a lot of coverage outside of that. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a firm, non-online source (? biography) ?? -- Simon Cursitor 08:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 12:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep nominator must have missed the multiple al-Shia.org references, a site that belongs to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. I'm confident that Sistani don't publish non-notable or bogus books. --Striver - talk 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if nom had made a simple google search he would have found this:

But maybe he did a search and concluded that they are all in a grand conspiracy and are in reality a walled garden?

Maybe he figured that translating Tafsir al-Mizan by Allameh Tabatabaei and having it published by World Federation of KSI Muslim Communities is just a marketing trick by KSI in order to enhance the credibility of the wall garden?

Maybe he figured victorynewsmagazine.com was exaggerating when they said "The sudden and sad demise of Allamah Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi in Dar es Salaam on Thursday 20th June 2002 (8th Rabi-ul-Aakhar 1423) came as a shock to the community and Muslims at large, around the world. Marhum Maulana Rizvi was more like an institution rather than an individual considering his intense involvement in propagating the Shia faith around the world."?

Or maybe he just didn't care and wanted to see a afd, without any real interest in the subject of the afd. --Striver - talk 22:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I get so very frustrated over this kind of things, specially when it's me that needs spend hours fixing this kind of non-sense, specially considering that the nom did not even bother do make a single amazon search, but rather decided it was better for wikipedia to just drain some afd resources. Nom, can you withdraw so we can speedy close this and not waste any more of my time? --Striver - talk 22:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

biography --Striver - talk 01:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And another --Striver - talk 14:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment (negative): At the risk of feeding the troll, are you stupid? ... the problem is that "references" which are just links to anonymous pages on non-notable websites do not even come close to satisfying WP:Verifiability for WP:Notability in any category. —72.75.85.159 (talk · contribs) 05:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Is Amazon.com a non-notable website? Is al-Shia.org a non-notable website? You think that his translation of Tafsir al-Mizan is just a hoax? Did Google Books co-conspire and brought two non-notable books [61] [62] online for view just to boost the credibility of some non-notable websites? Hey, maybe i work in the CIA and have a finger in it? But that would not explain why he is quoted in other Google books, for exmpale one by Robert Spencer, but you never know how far this non-notability wall garden conspiracy truly is! Better to delete when in doubt! --Striver - talk 10:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, al-shia.org is a non-notable website, because it redirects to The Aalulbayt (a.s.) Global Information Center, another one of the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani organizations. --72.75.85.159 02:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

lol, that is a good one, "Al-Shi'a is non notable since it's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani site". --Striver - talk 13:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop mis-quoting me, Striver ... what I said was "it redirects to" ... what I meant was that Al-Shia.org is not notable as a website because it does not have it's own Wikipedia article as you seem to be keep trying to imply by using a wikilink that is actually a redirect to the article for the website's parent (as per WP:WEB and the AfD that deleted its article) ... my comment has nothing to do with to what (or whom) it redirects, just that it is a redirect because it is not notable enough to have its own article ... period. —72.75.85.159 (talk · contribs) 18:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Froogle [63] is also hacked in order to boost the credibility of this non-notable author... man, the guys promoting this guys non-notability must be in some huge cabal... but maybe that would make him notable? --Striver - talk 10:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nearly every book published is listed on some website ... show us some verifiable, non-trivial, reliable source articles where Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi was the primary subject of the article and not just mentioned in passing as "one of the people who agrees with (or denies)" something said by someone else ... that is how notability is established in Wikipedia, and it's a moving target, so be sure that you are familiar with the current policy.

As another editor has already reminded you in another AfD, "Having an ISBN is not an indication of notability in itslef, but lack of ISBN is an indication of lack of notability." Right now, the article makes the impression that his books are only available for on-line reading at al-islam.org and al-shia.com ... if you can change that impression, then you should.

You have the resources to locate, copy, and upload pictures of his funeral, and copy& paste sections from his obituaries on other websites, but you can't create a proper Wikipedia entry according the MOS for biographies that has his birth date after his name? If he's so notable, it should be trivial to find and add! (Yes, I found it on one of the web pages you referenced, but I'm not going to add it for you, mostly because I don't know how reliable it is, since there's only the one citation for it ... I've found other conflicting birth dates while checking refrences and citations for living people.) --72.75.85.159 02:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The article does state his birth and death day, and i don't get what an ISBN has anything to do with an author article. So what if the articles gives the impression that his books are only available online on al-Islam and al-Shi'a, you seem to be under the impression that this somehow demands the works to be published on line for the author to be notable. --Striver - talk 13:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per striver. --- ALM 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Keep If we don't think publishing on line is worthwhile why are we here? This may be an unfamiliar type of scholarship to some of us, and it should be evaluated on its own terms. Article needs to be wikified, not deleted. The ones that need to be deleted are the ones that cannot possibly be wikified.DGG 02:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep KazakhPol 23:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all, discounting the odd WP:ILIKEIT argument and taking into account the analogous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Before Dishonor (ROH). The serious WP:NOT and WP:N problems – no third-party coverage of these DVDs! – have remained substantially unaddressed by those wanting to keep the articles, and would apply to a merged article also. Sandstein 07:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let the Gates of Hell Open: The Best of The Rottweilers

Compliation DVD consisting of various matches released by independent wrestling company. Doesn't seem notable or encyclopedic, only real purpose seems to be advertising One Night In Hackney 09:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

One Night In Hackney 10:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete all - not worth having an article on each separate dvd. Maybe it's worth merging them all together to one article, but they might not even be notable enough for that. Jayden54 14:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all they arent even notable enough for merging. Resolute 14:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all or listify/merge if anyone has the time and effort to bother. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all. Why should every wrestling DVD released have an article? It's not as if we have an article for every issue of the Donald Duck comic ever printed, or anything. JIP | Talk 17:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
'Delete all WP is WP:NOT a DVD listing SirFozzie 23:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge into one article Ring of Honor is one of the largest independent promotions in the company. The wrestlers featured in the DVDs have gone on to WWE and TNA. Milchama 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment It should be noted that a similar debate regarding Ring of Honor shows (which are more notable than these, but still not notable) recently finished. One Night In Hackney 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge into one article Without a doubt, these should be kept. Other DVDs have their own pages, as well as other wrestling promotions' DVDs (WWE and TNA, most notebly). They are the 3rd largest promotion is North America. I would rather these all be in one article, as not to annoy people. Noah's Arc 00:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Wiki is a encyclopedia, not a book of popularity contest. It doesn't matter how many people want it or not, it is still informative.
Delete all - Content such as this is better suited to a special-interest wiki.
Keep These articles are under the protection of {{Project MoW|class=NA}}

Go to Documentaries/DVDs TheRiddler2306 01:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment A Wikiproject doesn't give you carte blanche to introduce fancruft as you see fit. It should also be noted that you added them to the project after the pages were created [64] One Night In Hackney 02:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment So if a page is created about (let's say) a person, then it shouldn't be later added to the Wikiproject on biographies?PepsiPlunge 08:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment No, that's not what I said. None of the DVDs under discussion were at any time proposed for an article by any members of the project that I can see. The articles were created by an editor who is not a member of the project, and who has had no contact with the project. One Night In Hackney 08:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge into a single article. Note: these articles have an intro paragraph, and a contents listing. I'd be happy to merge all the intro paragraphs together into one article, preferably the article of the company that makes this stuff, but I don't think we need to keep fight-by-fight contents lists, even in a merged version. Quack 688 09:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment There was a page that these could have been merged into, but it seems to have been deleted.[65] I'm not sure why it was deleted as it wasn't included as part of the Afd discussion mentioned.[66] One Night In Hackney 09:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising for book. NawlinWiki 20:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beneath the Clouds and Coconut Leaves

This user is trying to create a market for the books by Moncy Pothen by advertising them here. Please examine other contribs. Ronbo76 10:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete, this write-up on the book is promotional in nature. Pretty much all of it direct copies of other sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as WP:SPAM. MER-C 13:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - blatant advertising. Jayden54 14:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete obvious spam. When an article starts out with "Source: Amazon.com", it's a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deleteand will tag it as such. TSO1D 20:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Humanities Festival

notability ForrestLane42 22:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"STRONG DELETE" - Not notable, this page seems more like a page for personal advertisement, it does nothing to informed the wiki reader. Just because it has a 15 year stint, does mean that Wikipedia is a place for it. It seems more like advertisement!!than a webpage. Not every festival needs to be known on an encyclopedia - unless it is Saturnia, Roman festival - thats more appropriate ForrestLane42 22:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

Keep. Subject of article is highly notable, as any remotely interested Chicagoan can tell you. Article can be greatly expanded. Bad faith nomination — User:ForrestLane42 is wikistalking me. He seems to know nothing about the Chicago Humanities Festival. He only nominated the article for deletion because I created it. When I asked him to stop harrassing me, he removed the comment from his talk page. I would appreciate some help with this user if anyone is interested in mentoring him or her. — goethean ॐ 03:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

goethean, please stop besmearing me, I have set word to Larry V on this. U are the one who have gone on pages making unfounded accusations. No, I nominated this article because of the above reasons. I would appreciate if you would stop harrassing me and for being so arrogant. You have not even shown good faith to me. ForrestLane42 04:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

You seem to have declined to rebut my supposition in regard to your motivations for the nomination. — goethean ॐ 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

goethean look above - I said because of the above reasons - not notable, sounds more like an advertisement, just because Chicagoans, and I might assume from your statement above, are an Chicagoan, maybe u can make a Chicago Wiki, since its of local interest but as for an encylopedia, its not mean for such trivial local stuff. It seems like a bulletin at a local library inviting u to come to this festival. So there is my elaboration of the reasons for delete. Let people decide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ForrestLane42 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Keep — but expand. It seems obviously notable to me. Over 15 years of history with strong institutional sponsorship (Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago Symphony, University of Chicago, etc.) and notable speakers every year — to pick just a few, Arthur Miller (1990), Toni Morrison (1991), John Updike (1992), William Safire (1993), Tom Wolfe (1994), Stephen Sondheim (1995), William Styron (1996), ... Francis Fukuyama (2003) ... Take a look at a recent program (PDF) if you like. Eleuther 10:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Clearly a stub, this festival is a major event. The article needs to be expanded and its importance added, but that shouldn't be too difficult to do. Shsilver 12:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Eleuther. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Eleuther. The duelling editors could use Wikipedia conflict resolution tools such as RfC or RfArb. This is not the place for it. 15:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Edison
Keep A quick Google search shows a good number of mentions in books and hundreds of archived news stories in reputable publications going back more than a decade. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So Keep it is, but I think that the name of speakers is not necessarily at least it is a little less than a stub. If goethean reduces the name of speakers to many one or two, then I with draw my desire to delete this article. As for Eleuther, I do not mean to be "dueling" but goethean and I are at cross purposes and he has insulted my reputation that I will not tolerate. I think you have seen him in action, it is hard to be restrained when he posts messages on my talk page saying im harrassing him when he is the originator of the conflict. Eleuther I invite you to look at his archives, it is not just me who he has gotten into conflict with...there are least 5 or more previous incidents..ForrestLane42 17:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

DELETE This article is not notable and should be deleted. This festival is a minor one in Chicago, with very limited reach and interest and as such, need not be cluttering wikipedia with excess minutia.

As said, this festival has been long running, but this alone does not make it notable. I am for deletion of this article.Walleyeone 16:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep and obvious enough without the needf for capitals. Editors edit history and talk pages are not relevant and I invite people to avoid looking at them. The proper procedure to end an edit war is notto delete the article altogether.DGG 03:00, 9 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. Nomination withdrawn. Agent 86 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whanganui Journey

Actually, merged rather than simply deleted. There's nothing wrong with this article, but does it warrant its own page? In my view, it really should be part of the Whanganui River article. I can't see anyone who might want to look this up typing in anything other than Whanganui, which will take them to the disambig page and so to the River article. Emeraude 11:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

keep. I created the stub as it was the only one of New Zealand's Great Walks that didn't have it's own page and each of the other walks have pages separate from the parks they are in. It's on my to do list to add the stopping points, camp sites etc - so it'll hopefully grow big enough to warrant it's own page anyway. Malathos 18:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
keep - great walks are notable. well documented what they are etc. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 03:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)\
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 03:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In the light of Malathos' asssurances above, I'm happy to withdraw my nomination. Emeraude 10:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voter Rights Party

Political party, no indication of notability in the article. The only member listed ran for a town supervisor office and didn't even make that. No sources/references in the article, 20 unique google hits discounting wikipedia mirrors, no notability coming from there either. - Bobet 11:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - non notable political party, with no or very little press coverage. Jayden54 14:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I have to agree with the nom; doesn't seem sufficiently notable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was TRANSWIKI to Wiktionary. Herostratus 06:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of idioms in the French language

Another couple of lists of unencyclopedic dictdefs per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of idioms in the English language (A). Contested prods. MER-C 13:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete or transwiki - per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Although this is an useful list, it's more suitable for Wiktionary. Jayden54 14:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unsourced and original research. Some are matter of opinion or are not idioms at all. Not all maxims, axioms, literary allusions and metaphors are "idioms". Inconsistent to keep after (rightfully) deleting the 27 "List of idioms in the English language" articles. Agent 86 18:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I like it, but I feel that this somehow fails WP:NOT. Ohconfucius 05:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phi Beta Epsilon International

Wikipedia is not a free web host. Contested prod. MER-C 13:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - non notable student organization. Very little Google hits and nothing noteworthy. Jayden54 14:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Someone has mistaken Wikipedia for their own organisation's homepage. JIP | Talk 17:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Entirely self-promotional. No prejudice against stubbifying (see Phi Beta Epsilon, an unaffiliated organization), (drastic) re-writing, or some other effort to create an encyclopedic article, as it appears there may be the seeds of a proper article on the subject. Agent 86 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep As the article stands, it's anathema to Wikipedia--not a free web host and all that. However, I think that topic itself is proper article material and the proper thing to do is to stubbify and try again.--Velvet elvis81 06:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete no sources, appears to be limited to the Philippines. Eluchil404 09:53, 11 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 close, as keep. This AfD was never listed in the logs, but it looks like nom-withdrawn, the notice has already been removed from the article, and it's way over 5 days now. I'm listing it in today's logs for recordkeeping. If anyone wants this deleted, I recommend starting a new AfD. --ais523 13:18, 3 January 2007 (U T C)

[edit] Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi

The personality is completely unknown and an advertisement of some Sufi Mystic person and is a violation of WP:BIO policy. Also this page has already been deleted, kindly see here:Sheik_nazim. --TruthSpreader^Talk 05:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Although there is some chap who's spamming WP with shaykhnazim2.com links, Shaykh Nazim himself is a rather prominent person. Check here [67]. --Nkv 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about this very chap(s) who is/are spamming wikipedia with this link. This article has already been deleted. He is not notable according to any criteria as per WP:BIO. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure if google is the right place to search for info regarding a "master and spiritual guide of the Naqshbandi Sufi Order" born in 1922 ... --Striver 06:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Can you tell me why Shaykh Nazim is not noteworthy enough? The Naqshabandi Tariq is rather widespread across the world and Shaykh Nazim is one of the oldest shaykhs of the Tariqa currently alive. --Nkv 07:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My assessment is according to WP:BIO. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

keep - Shaikh Nazim is amongst the most well known Sufis in North America today. What exactly is it about the article that violates WP:BIO? According to Google Scholar, he has been referenced in several scholarly works. (But can someone please do something about the guy who keeps spamming with the shaykhnazim2.com link?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barastert (talk • contribs)

You have convinced me here! How can I stop this afd? TruthSpreader^Talk 08:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy close per above. --Striver 11:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Mr. Nazim al-Qubrusi is a very prominent Sufi Scholar of North America. I understand due to his past links with Hisham Kabbani (probably the most hated North American by Wahhabies) they would hold a grudge against him as well. The votes for speedy deletions would be more of a very biased POV. (I would not understand why a Shia would share that grudge. Please educate me). I would vote to keep the article about everyone I would hate, and not call him not notable. I would however vote for removal of Honorific title Shaykh from the title. Hassanfarooqi 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy close does not mean speedy delete, only that the afd should be closed, obviously as a keep since the nom has been withdrawn. peace. --Striver 18:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Union

Wikipedia != Wiktionary . Apparently, this isn't a reason for speedy deletion, so let's get it over with... yandman 13:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-keep but I can't help thinking there's someplace to aim a redirect. I couldn't find an obvious target while reading through Trade union. Dekimasu 13:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a quick look before nominating, but this article isn't even about opposition to trade unions, it's just about people who don't happen to be in one, so I don't think there's anywhere to redirect to. yandman 13:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article offers nothing more than a single sentence definition. Jayden54 14:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete not a dictionary--Velvet elvis81 06:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 09:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected to thieving bastards Guy (Help!) 15:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Estate and house agents

Reason Vivaverdi 00:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Simply copied from a totally out of date 1911 reference.

Comment This AfD was malformed. I'm correcting it now. --ais523 13:24, 3 January 2007 (U T C)
Delete Looks like a misquote from the 1911 EB; there are sentences cut off and much of it is hard to understand ('to take out yearly a licence upon which 2 is charged as a duty of excise,', anyone?) It's hard to tell from the article what it's about. --ais523 13:24, 3 January 2007 (U T C)
Why bother? Redirect to Estate agent. Content is both poo and much less likely a search term than its simpler cousin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was already speedy deleted. This nomination was never listed; I'm listing it in today's logs for recordkeeping. --ais523 13:32, 3 January 2007 (U T C)

[edit] Pussing_zits

This page is a target for vandalism and IS in itself useless 03:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'd probably say delete - if the page existed. It does not .... huh. WilyD 16:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Already deleted as WP:CSD#G1. --Richmeister_talk 16:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Riki Yamashita

Fails WP:BIO (self-published author) and Google tests (those for both "Riki Yamashita" and "Yamashita Riki" yield mostly personal profiles on other Internet sites). Created in triplicate by a single-use account. May be vanity, since the picture is tagged as the author's creation. If not, the image is probably a copyright vio as well. Dekimasu 13:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - not notable per WP:BIO. Nothing shows that this person is notable in any way. Jayden54 14:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:AUTO and WP:COI Guy (Help!) 15:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was already speedied. This AfD was never listed; I'm listing it in today's log for recordkeeping purposes.

[edit] VR Man

No sources, not neat either --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 04:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability, unreferenced. —ShadowHalo 07:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - under CSD A7 - no notability and no assertion of notability. Jayden54 20:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was already deleted per parallel debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foulacy. This debate was not listed; I'm listing it in today's logs for recordkeeping purposes. --ais523 13:38, 3 January 2007 (U T C)

[edit] Peter Dietrich (electronic sports player)

Reason Arrashju 18:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Peter Dietrich has been featured on MLG's Pro Circuit on USA Network. MLG is a very significant league - it offers the most prize money for its permanant games and has broadcasted shows on USA Network featuring every single player and team on the list. Most if not all players have had articles written about them in their local newspaper. EGM magazine - the most popular gaming magazine (you can get it in any of your local pharmacy stores) regularly feature MLG and its best teams and players. Wall Street Journal published an article about the first contract deal MLG offered to its top gamers.
SMerge to Major League Gaming. Isn't notable enough on his own to merit an article, but a brief mention (i.e. two or three sentences) in the MLG article wouldn't be out of line, something along the lines of the header at the top of his article as is not exists. It could go under a new section for "notable players", or somesuch. Failing that, delete, since it can't pass WP:V on its own (due to a lack of reliable sources). It doesn't help that more than half of the text is a quote from another website, either. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, too many problems. Takling it up with the user. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theory of a Brighter Galaxy

Original research / pseudo-science. Note this is not a copyvio but a self-promoting copy from the author's own website. -- RHaworth 13:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, original research and a POV essay as well. Demiurge 13:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - complete WP:OR and no sources at all to back up any of this information. Jayden54 14:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Hurtak and The Keys of Enoch

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

An author and his book. Almost certainly self-promotion. Described as futurology, the term "pseudo-science" also springs to mind. Are they notable? - RHaworth 13:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, makes lots of claims but little to back them up. For example, claims to have been a founder member of the Mars Society but this search returns nothing, and this search only says he's a speaker, not a founder. No mainstream sources to back up his "Tomb of Osiris" claims. Alice Coltrane isn't a particularly famous artist, and their collaboration album isn't even released yet. Demiurge 13:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless some independent sources are added by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Regarding James Hurtak: This person has two credible Ph.D.s and for the person who said founder member of the Mars Society what it says is founding member of the Mars society which I checked and it is true. Alice Coltrane is a very popular musican and is already listed in Wikipedia and this supports her reference. I see no reason to delete this person as he is an important person to have listed. He is connected also with the United Nations -- you cannot say that for too many people. Regarding "Keys of Enoch" although I don't see why these two are linked together -- there are now several independent science sources that have been placed at the end of that page and some interesting science sections that should be kept on Wikipedia. It appears to be a valuable source of information from something that has been a popular term in some circles for over thirty years.User: PriscillaW 1:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC) — Informed1212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 24.6.140.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Can anyone specify what fields his Ph.D.s are in? Both articles are horribly POV, written in a very noncritical way (especially the "science references" in the one about the book). Also, I don't know if "discussing particle physics with physicist Burkhard Heim" should be considered an accomplishment, or something to be ashamed of. HEL 15:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Re Comment Ph.D. History and Oriental Studies (Univ. of Minnesota), Ph.D. Social Sciences and Linguistics (Univ. of California, Irvine). Davidkuff 15:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Regarding the Keys of Enoch: this book is quite uncommon but definitely worth a read and already translated to about eight languages. Regarding James Hurtak: he is not very present in the net but his work has influenced a lot of different people and he did not write just one book, it is more like 20 books and papers not counting the audio books. The Keys of Enoch are just his main book and it is already over 30 years old. James Hurtak is also quite often a guest in TV and radio interviews. I already seen him twice in Austrian local TV. In my opinion the book and the author are defenitly notable. --MetaByte 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) — MetaByte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep As a “surface user” of Wikipedia I have never before added or contributed to an article (though use it often for encyclopaedic references). But seeing an article on Hurtak I felt it was about time someone did that. I am a psychotherapist working in Germany and first read about the Keys of Enoch in an article on somatic psychotherapy and biosynthesis in the renowned German journal ' 'Energie & Charakter' ' where concepts of that book were taken in psychotherapeutic practice. (I have added the link.) The book contains valid concepts that have contributed to this work in Germany. Years later I heard Hurtak speak in Munich at the so-called "Genesis Symposium” where he spoke with physicists Simon Shnoll and V.P. Kaznacheev on cosmic radiation fields and their impact on mind and behaviour. Yes, I think the man is notable.Given the notability of both the book and the man, the two articles are probably not self-promotion as whoever wrote about Hurtak would almost certainly also post on Keys of Enoch.Soundscape12 07:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC) — Soundscape12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. Notability not established, and Keep votes seem to be variations on WP:ILIKEIT. -- Fan-1967 14:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
KEEP Rencently read the book co-authored by Dr. Targ and Dr. Hurtak... a book well worth reading. I find nothing objectionable to what Dr. Hurtak has to say...I believe his "Book of Enoch" shows his great diversity of knowledge and understandingLerenardargentelerenardargente 01/04/07 — Lerenardargente (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete per Fan-1967. --EMS | Talk 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination and all deletion arguments made above. Anville 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Help Can you give us more and concrete hints? Someone above said that “references” are needed. We have put them in. Please go back and re-evaluate. I think it’s on a par now with other articles. What else can we do? (David and I, who wrote the articles, have a hard time understanding the “shorthand” you are using.) Any help appreciated.Davidkuff 15:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment References keep getting added to sites and articles that either: (a) do not mention Hurtak or his book at all, or only mention Hurtak or one of his organizations tangentially (b) are press releases or other self-promotion by Hurtak or associates, or (c) are not from sources that fit our definition of Reliable Sources. In fact the only reference I noticed that was a reliable source is a NY Times review of an Alice Coltrane concert that briefly mentioned Hurtak; Not a "non-trivial report" as required in our notability guidelines. --Fan-1967 21:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

- Re Comment Thank you for concrete hints that help understand. Nevertheless I am surprised that when the original complaint was against an "author and his book" under a) you now WANT us to to cite articles that mention both together. We have taken care not to. And we have deliberately entered the book and the author separately. Re c) The publications of the American Astronomical Society, the Annals of Air and Space Law, the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine ARE reliable and peer-reviewed.Davidkuff 09:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Again Keep both pages have been stronly modified (fact oriented). Regarding notability: Writing several books, scripting films, being a well know scientits and specialist for comperative religions sounds quite notable to me. --MetaByte 20:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, no Reliable Sources have been provided to demonstrate that he is, in fact, a well-known scientist. Fan-1967 21:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

- Re scientist We tried to show that he is well-known as an author writing in many fields and not as a scientist. I know you don't like this argument, but what are the Reliable Sources on pages like Bauval, Hancock or Urantia Book which is sometimes compared with Keys of Enoch?Davidkuff 09:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No RS sources have been given to show he is a scientist of any sort. or even a scholar of any sort. He may have Ph.D's, but he has published no scholarship in any subject whatsoever except in self-published sources or work published by his organization. Even his scholarly-sounding first book is published by his organization. the only RS listed at all is the symposiums on space law.

- As for Keys of Enoch, the only RS's cited in the article are sources that talk about other people's work on which he has also written about--but not his work. Check them out. The article fails RS , V, NPOV --let alone notability. all the arguments for notability made above come down to "it sounds notable to me"--that phrase is actually used in the discussion.
  strong delete on both DGG 23:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSGuard

Non-notable software, failing WP:SOFTWARE. (Contested prod.) — brighterorange (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - not notable per WP:SOFTWARE. Jayden54 14:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. ju66l3r 17:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summer solstice 2005

Contested prod. Article reads as original research. There is no notability assertion and almost no context. Not sure that the topic is encyclopedic; it appears to be here to serve as a gallery for the pictures (WP:NOT a web host). Has been in this state for a year. Dekimasu 13:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - don't think this is a really notable event. Couldn't find anything in Google or Google News to show any notability. Jayden54 14:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT a web host, as the nominator said. I'm sure these folks had fun partyin' the solstice away, but WP is not the place for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete WP:NOT a blog or free web host. This belongs on MySpace or somewhere. Else. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails notability. Summer solstice happens every year (surprisingly), every year some groups of people celebrate it. Nothing special about 2005. --Folantin 15:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete The article itself does not make clear how its existence is important. Dkreisst 21:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:NFT and fundamental lack of verifiability. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whiteboard pinball

NN, someone's office game ccwaters 14:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete - outright WP:NFT. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:NFT - obviously. Jayden54 14:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Bloody vikings... Guy (Help!) 15:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skiathos achladies apartments

This should be deleted for a few reasons. Number one, because it reads like a advertisement, it is filled with POV, and it is not really notable. --Sir James Paul 14:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete--Sir James Paul 14:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, blatant advertising. So tagged. Demiurge 14:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - advertising Jayden54 14:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of common misspellings in English

This list has been transwikied to Wiktionary and for internal Wikipedia use we have Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and there also seem to be no clear criteria for deciding what makes a misspelling "common". Has no encyclopedic content. Dekimasu 14:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - seems rather pointless to keep this article if it's already available on Wiktionary and in the Wikipedia namespace. Jayden54 14:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete indiscriminate, arbitrary (define common), already in all the places it might need to be. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Deleet, htis si unmaintaible, posible origonal resaerch, adn rendundant whit Wiktionarry. JIP | Talk 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I wish I had thought of saying that. I will say Delete, however. Agent 86 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delte peer teh impeccible resoning off User:JIP.-- danntm ^T _C 19:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Deleate Git a sphell checquer y'all, t'aint two expensieve. SkierRMH 02:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete since it has been moved to Wiktionary. List is quite interesting but it's not for for an encyclopedia, even though paper sources such as the World Almanac have lists like this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Baleeted cuz it's our jorrrrb! Danny Lilithborne 10:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, criterion A1 (lack of context). What is RSHS and why should we care? Probably not even worth asking, per nominator's comment. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Subjects taught in RSHS

A science curriculum for some unknown school somewhere in the world. Indiscriminant list, and lacking context. Just about as unencyclopedic as you can get. Prod and Prod2 tags removed by author. Resolute 14:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Ramah in Wingdale

non-notable, was already put through proposed deletion, but it was contested Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The camp might actually be notable, but it doesn't say it's notable. YechielMan 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No assertion of encyclopedic value. Agent 86 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Previous summer-camp AfDs have ruled against individual camp pages unless they are substantially notable in their own right and contain info that is not reasonably generic/boilerplate to many similar camps. DMacks 08:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, fails WP:N and has no reliable sources. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris. J. Wright

Self-published author with 59 Ghits (and not all of them are him); fails WP:BIO. Single-purpose editor has made somewhat of a walled garden with Heidi Wright and Orpha Klinker. Article reads as a bio rather than an encyclopedia article; no sources. There may be a notability assertion in writing for the magazines, but the magazines are also minor, and he has not been a topic himself. Dekimasu 15:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unless sources asserting notability are added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per nom, and the Orpha Klinker article is just a cut-and paste from here. Static Universe 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Wright's historical work on the subject of a front page feature article in the California bay area newspaper and in national magazines qualify him for his Bio.DoDoBirds 05:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all the newspaper coverage appears to be local and/or trivial and the notability of the fiction is, at best, unclear. Eluchil404 10:13, 11 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 and discuss merge or other options on the talk page of the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of nuclear power plants

Essentially a copy of List of nuclear reactors. Only has a few minor changes, as noted himself by the page's author on his talk page - User talk:VAR-loader. I thought it was an original article made by him, until I asked him... Since its mainly a copy, it would be better to have a re-direct to the original page - list of nuclear reactors. xCentaur

Original list of nuclear reactors has reached limits of size. So it's splitting is the only way for adding new information--VAR-loader 16:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge and keep as a redirect only. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to list of nuclear reactors, this page appears to be an unhelpful fork. I don't know what VAR-loader means regarding the size limits. Tarinth 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment This list is a subset of the list of nuclear reactors, since many reactors are researce, weapon production, or military. There would be nothing wrong with having this list in the larger article except it might make the article too long. If VAR-loader is correct about the other article being too long, then the list should be deleted from List of nuclear reactors and kept here. Edison 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to List of nuclear reactors. Yuser31415 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Just try to save this version of the article about nuclear reactors! :) It seems to me, that list of nuclear power plants could be easily turned into detailed stance (plant location, type and capacity of reactors, year of grid connection and shutting down, some comments) then list of other nuclear reactors. Now I'm editing the list of nuclear power plants by adding features I said, but I'm afraid when matter will go to USA's power plants 52K size limit be reached again--VAR-loader 19:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Rework I know I nominated it for deletion, but I believe it should be a redirect. xCentaur | talk 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And now that I look at it, the whole thing could do with a face-lift. How about we shift USA's list into a new page and expand on that there? At the same time, Canada,China,France, ie. all countries occupying major size on that page shifted to new pages. If all the larger countries have links, the page will turn tiny. I'd be happy to take this on as a project, and expand on those individual pages later... xCentaur | talk 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

May be the list should be divided geographically: America; Europe and CIS; Asia, Africa and Oceania. When the list of ever existed tram systems was composed, the problem of it's size was solved the same way--VAR-loader 20:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems right. So then lets redirect this page...and get to work on list of nuclear reactors! Agreed,then? Template:Emot
xCentaur | talk 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I saved the last edition of the article for myself and will start the articles about nuclear power plants by world regions and place the links to them in the head of the "List of nuclear reactors" article--VAR-loader 20:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Question This is confusing. What is being done? A "List of nuclear power plants" is useful. It's the sort of information people seek on the internet. By country would be good. Keep if this is what is going on, namely the discussion of whether or not to keep this list. A nuclear power plant is not the same as a nuclear reactor. A List of nuclear reactors could be a page with links to the various types of lists, although there are so many small research reactors, it seems unwieldy. KP Botany 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would make list of nuclear reactors a list of reactors by type, and the power plants one would cover just the power plants. FrozenPurpleCube 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, and a List of nuclear reactors by type could be sorted into BWRs, PWRs, etc., and also usage categories, research reactors, pharmaceutical, physics, whatever. Still not quite clear on current state of proposal. KP Botany 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be better to present list of nuclear power plant as a tables with detailed information by world regions, countries and plants. I did it for several European countries - List of nuclear power plants of Europe and CIS.--VAR-loader 01:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The tables do carry useful information, especially containing, as they do, the type of reactor at each facility. I would like to see the number of reactors at each facility listed, also, and the designer, like Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Westinghouse, PWR, 2. KP Botany 01:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of active reactors at each plant could be counted by a reader. For to make it easiear, active plants and active reactors could be highlighted by bold text.--VAR-loader 01:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong object Nuclear reactors and nuclear power plants are not the same thing. KP Botany 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment power plants would be a subset of reactors. power plants should be turned into a redirect. reactors to be sorted countrywise. in other words, im nominating one page be made a redirect, and the other be re-written to sort out the size issue. hope that clears things up... xCentaur | talk 11:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment So, then List of nuclear submarines, should also be a redirect to List of nuclear reactors, because nuclear submarines, like nuclear power plants, contain nuclear reactors? And it would have to be nuclear power plants, because, obviously, not all power plants are nuclear. KP Botany 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment Where in the world did submarines turn up from? That would go under types of submarines - turbine driven, jet-stream, fuel-type, nuclear-run,etc. would it not?Template:Emot of course, if needed, we could always put in a link in the nuclear submarines page, linking it to nuclear reactors, their main assembling bases, et cetera. that wouldnt be a redirect, IMO. xCentaur | talk 19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Where it turned up is that nuclear submarines, just like nuclear power plants, have nuclear reactors. You're suggesting that something with a nuclear reactor, nuclear power plants, be redirected to nuclear reactors. I'm asking if everything with a nuclear reactors should be redirected to nuclear reactors. Power plants, just like submarines have different types, coal-fired, natural gas, riveted boilers, welded boilers, different types of turbines, different types of coolants. So, nuclear power plants and nuclear submarines both have nuclear reactors. If nuclear power plants should be redirected to nuclear reactors, shouldn't everything else with nuclear reactors be redirected to nuclear reactors? And if not, why not? And if other things with nuclear reactors are not redirected to List of nuclear reactors, why should power plants with nuclear reactors be redirected there? By your submarine answer it seems that nuclear power plants should not be listed in List of nuclear reactors, but rather in List of power plants. KP Botany 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment As for power plants, well, of course they're not all nuclear. Maybe I fail to see the point you're bringing up... you wish to redirect anything related to nuclear applications to this one page? That would be stretching the concept of encyclopedia integration, no? Template:Emot xCentaur | talk 19:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment Again, as above, if not everything, why set aside only power plants with nuclear reactors and require they be redirect to List of nuclear reactors? A nuclear power plant is no more or less a nuclear reactor than a nuclear submarine. KP Botany 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
My most sincere apologies if I offended any reactor purists by even vaguely suggesting that one is more a reactor than the other. The fact of the matter still remains that nuclear submarines deserves to be listed under types of submarines. we're looking at the context here, are we not? as you've explained at length above, different submarines have different types, all the types and sub-types could be listed on one page. on that page would be a little heading 'nuclear submarines', and under that heading it would explain how reactors are used, and somewhere there would be a small link which takes you to 'list of nuclear reactors'. there is a very big difference between linking an article and re-directing one. xCentaur | talk 20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, we are straying off topic. lets stick to the current discussion concerning a list of terrestrial power plants. xCentaur | talk 20:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I don't think we're even talking about the same subject, so there is not point in continuing. You seem to think that a nuclear reactor is the same thing as a nuclear power plant. It's not! A nuclear reactor is not a nuclear power plant or vice versa. KP Botany 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I assure you, I know very well what you're talking about, don't clutter this page with your condescending assumptions. You miss my point here. Its absurd to redirect every single page related to reactors to the list in question. xCentaur | talk 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - It's not condescending, it's from your statements, and your failure to assert any reason why nuclear power plants, which are not nuclear reactors, should be in a list that redirects to nuclear reactors. That you consider something absurd is simply your POV, as you have offered no evidence for its absurdity, particularly in the face of your asserting, without any reasons, that one category of things that contain nuclear reactors should be treated as if they are nuclear reactors, while other categories of things that contain nuclear reactors should not be treated as if they were nuclear reactors. I have to understand the underlying reasons for a move in order to make a decision. I don't, so I asked. You haven't answered, and you have given no reasons, and you appear to again be equating nuclear power plants with nuclear reactors, as if you don't understand the difference--if you don't understand the difference, there is no point in discussing the issue with, or with you responding to my questions. If you do understand the difference, then user your understanding to clarify for me why you think only one class of things that contain nuclear reactors should be treated as if it is synonymous with nuclear reactors, but others shouldn't. If it's absurd to direct every single page, then why is it not absurd to direct some, and what is the qualifying characteristic for which ones should be redirected and which ones shouldn't? KP Botany 21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Just to clarify,the list of nuclear power plants was taken from list of reactors, that is the only reason that I'm saying that we do not need two lists with the same content. Which is why for nuclear power plants, I suggested a re-direct, and not for everything else. Now, you can go ahead and re-direct a dozen pages, with my blessings. I've just lost interest here. xCentaur | talk 05:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Oh, okay. And as you no longer are supporting the deletion, then let's leave it as is, with a List of nuclear power plants, sorted further by country as is being done. KP Botany 20:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I had divided the article "List of nuclear power plants" into three regional parts: List of nuclear power plants of Europe and CIS, List of nuclear power plants of America and List of nuclear power plants of Asia and Africa. The second one should be widely expanded (esp. USA section). I'm going to place links on these articles in "List of nuclear reactors" and to rewrite that article by splitting power plants and research reactors in different sections. So, there's really no need in keeping the existing article "List of nuclear power plants"--VAR-loader 22:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Var, be bold, do whatever you think is required, I'm sure if anything is amiss, someone will inform you. Good luck with the article, take care xCentaur | talk 05:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment The nice list of European reactors by Var-loader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_plants_of_Europe_and_CIS ) includes some but not all closures of December 31st 2006 (7 reactors), see PRIS database of IAEA at http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/ .
Regarding the plant-reactor discussion, I propose to simply use the general reference for reactors, as eg by the IAEA, numbering the reactors of the same plant (eg: Doel-1, Doel-2, Doel-3 and Doel-4 reactors for the Doel nuclear power plant or NPP). If you make a table, you name the reactors that way in the same column, and it at once makes it clear that they all belong to the same plant. Sorry I am totally new to Wikipedia, hope this comment is ok, sorry if not. --Jputte 13:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is standard American format, numbering the reactors. I didn't know it was IAEA, also, so, yes, it would have been clear, as the table is not complete, that this was what was done. Always useful to add clarity to a discussion, Jputte, and thanks for contributing. Good work, Var.KP Botany 20:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep as List of nuclear reactors, further sorted by regions per Var-loader. KP Botany 20:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had re-wrote the article List of nuclear reactors. Now it contains only non-power plants reactors and links to three lists of nuclear power plants sorted by region and country. France, UK and USA sections of these lists should be expanded. Does anybody help to do it?--VAR-loader 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
'keep--keep and work out how to divide the material. if it makes sense to have one list for nuclear reacxtors in powerplants and one list for other one, the titles should be changed to maker that clearer. Its up to the editors involved.DGG 03:06, 9 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 due to improvements and citations added since nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iskin

Contested PROD. Yanksox 22:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am contesting the PROD. I just need more time to gather more information. Dazednconfused693 23:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - let this discussion run full 5 days - as of now it's just an ad, no notability, but author (above) requests time to fill out and make it encyclopedic. SkierRMH 05:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment 2, I would suggest adding Griffin Technology as an AfD depending on the outcome of this vote, as it is very similar in content & style to this article. SkierRMH 23:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 04:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep passes WP:CORP.Comment: A quick search on LexisNexis yields:

. iSkin Claro(TM) High Style Protection Now Available for 60GB & 80GB iPod with Video; Stunning iSkin Claro(TM) Provides Double Layer of Sleek, Stylish Protection , PR Newswire US, September 28, 2006 Thursday 4:26 PM GMT, , 438 words, TORONTO Sept. 28
. iSkin Launches New Protector for iPod(R) nano (2G); Capturing the essence of the iPod(R) nano, the iSkin for the iPod nano (2G) delivers dual-layer design with stunning style , PR Newswire US, November 1, 2006 Wednesday 5:44 PM GMT, , 468 words, TORONTO Nov. 1
. iSkin Releases Second-issue tokidoki iPod Vibes; Japanese-Inspired Illustrations Add Style and Whimsy to the iPod With Video , PR Newswire US, November 6, 2006 Monday 5:03 PM GMT, , 600 words, TORONTO Nov. 6
. Fashion Meets Function With the All New iSkin SiLo(TM); Chic design that combines full silicone and leather coverage for the iPod nano , PR Newswire US, October 6, 2006 Friday 4:39 PM GMT, , 369 words, TORONTO Oct. 6
. iSkin SiLo Luxury Case for iPod nano (No, Not the New One), Gizmodo, October 6, 2006 Friday 3:07 PM EST, , 103 words
. iSkin Claro Hands-On, Gizmodo, July 13, 2006 Thursday 8:25 PM EST, , 173 words
. New ISkin EVo3 Case First Look, Gizmodo, August 17, 2006 Thursday 7:58 PM EST, , 77 words
. Hot, The Sun (England), August 11, 2006 Friday, FIT SQUAD, 58 words, Nicki Waterman, Amanda Ursell and Erica Davies
. Gizmodo Today, Gizmodo, July 14, 2006 Friday 12:59 AM EST, , 276 words
. iPodweek - The Best of iLounge, Gizmodo, July 14, 2006 Friday 6:36 PM EST, , 184 words
. iPodweek - The Best of iLounge, Gizmodo, July 7, 2006 Friday 3:47 PM EST, , 302 words

The upper half of these are press releases from iSkin and the bottom half are from Gizmodo, a blog. Thus I'm changing keep to comment and will dig around a bit more. -SpuriousQ 05:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete nn-company fails WP:CORP, does not WP:CITE sources, and the product itself is not notable either. It's only saving grace is that it won an award which distinguishes one of it's products from the thousands of other non notable ipod accessories. Article has been tagged with WP:SPAM template wtfunkymonkey 05:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and improve. I find enough news hits that together with the references in the article convince me that this is a notable company. I'm concerned that we may not have enough information to make a complete article, but the company does seem notable. The top hits that for articles primarily about iSkin:

Legend Mobile Becomes Authorized iSkin Reseller; Companies to Develop Custom Cases Based for Popular Brands, Market Wire, February 16, 2005 Wednesday, 406 words, Feb. 16, 2005; ANN ARBOR, MI; MARKET WIRE
iSkin Takes Wraps Off 2 'Active Lifestyle' Products for iPod nano, Wireless News, March 24, 2006, 286 words
iSkin creates glow-in-the-dark iPod protectors, Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee), February 21, 2005 Monday, LOCAL LIFESTYLE; Pg. D1, 197 words, By Kim Ossi; Knight Ridder Newspapers
iSkin Offers '1st' Dual-Layer iPod Shuffle Protector, TWICE, November 21, 2005, ACCESSORIES; Pg. 83, 157 words, By Staff
Transform your iPod; Eye-catching way to listen to your iTunes, Herald News (Passaic County, NJ), February 24, 2005 Thursday, All Editions, CLIQUE; Pg. E12, 194 words, By Kim Ossi, Knight Ridder News Service, Wire Services

Of course there are many mentions of iSkin in iPod accessory articles, but these are trivial coverage. -SpuriousQ 12:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 16:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, blogs, fansites and repackaged press releases do not count as reliable sources under WP:CORP. Demiurge 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The article cites one press release only to establish ownership or at least claim of ownership to the trademark "Si" and it cites the iLounge blog only to establish that they won the award from that site. -SpuriousQ 16:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I direct your attention to WP:CORP: "Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary." [68] falls foul of this rule, and the Chattanooga Times Free Press story probably does as well. MarketWire, PRNewswire etc. are merely republished press releases. Demiurge 16:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    - My understanding is that stipulation is meant to identify press releases that are not identified as such, and it's quite clear to me that the TWICE article is not a press release. It was written by the staff at TWICE who do seem to be working off a press release (with their wording like "said to be" and "said the company"), but it is an independent source that found the product interesting enough to publish about it. The Chattanooga article was written by Kim Ossi of Knight Ridder Newspapers and picked up elsewhere; it is not a press release either. You are correct that the MarketWire and PRNewspaper sources are press releases, as I identified above. The "Legend Mobile" article is a press release, but from another company: Legend Mobile. -SpuriousQ 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per WP:CORP, company has been noted multiple times by independent media. Tarinth 17:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Demiurge is right. -- Alan McBeth 02:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Here are a few more printed articles that give iSkin or its products more than a mere passing mention:

Looking hot and iPod ready, Boston Globe, The (MA), December 4, 2006, Author: MARK BAARD
GIVE YOUR VIDEO IPOD SOME SKIN, San Jose Mercury News (CA), December 19, 2005, Author: -- Therese Poletti, Mercury News
Great gifts for guys, Herald News (West Paterson, NJ), December 15, 2005, Author: KIM OSSI, Knight Ridder News Service
iPOD EXPLOSION, It's not just the sound, it's how cool you look, Newsday (Long Island, NY), November 20, 2005, Author: RONNIE GILL. STAFF WRITER
ACCESSORIZE, Record, The (Hackensack, NJ), June 3, 2004, Author: Eunnie Park
ACCESSORIZING YOUR IPOD, Palm Beach Post, The (FL), December 19, 2006, Author: STEPHEN POUNDS, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Granted, the reviews/descriptions are quite small, but there's not much one can say about an iPod cover :-). What's important is that multiple publications found it notable enough to write about. I'm omitting the many very trivial coverages along the lines of "iSkin is a company that makes iPod covers" in an article about iPods. -SpuriousQ 03:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep via the wealth of sources provided. Obviously meets WP:CORP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy A7 & G5 —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colten David Swan

I created this article. It's not yet complete. Not sure if it should be posted on wikipedia or userspace. Ghostbusters in NY 06:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete - under CSD A7 (no assertion of notability). Ghostbuster, who is Colten David Swan? If it's you and you want to write something about yourself, use your user page. Jayden54 13:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Electric CFE738

Note: the nominator, User:Burbank, didn't offer a reason for nominating this article. Akradecki 20:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the creator of the original article, but I saw it needed a bit of cleanup so I pitched in. I take it this deletion is the result of an article rename? According to this General Electric page the engine is referred to as the "GE/AlliedSignal CFE738" Itsfullofstars 19:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as there is no initial reason offered for deletion, and it is standard practice to have an article on each model of jet engine. Akradecki 20:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment After doing some checking, it seems that there are two articles, this one and CFE CFE738. As there is no company called "CFE" (as there is with CFM International), it seems to me that that article should be the one eliminated. Yes, I understand that the CFE738 is a partnership between GE and Honeywell, but since GE is taking the lead in the marketing of it, I believe that the title should properly be that of this article. Therefore, I propose that this article be kept, and that the other article be redirected here. Akradecki 20:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose This article and CFE CFE738 were created one day apart by the same user, User:Burbank. This is not the proper way to rename an article. However, given that the 2 pages are only one day apart, and the edits so far not that significant, discussion should be held on which title to keep the article on, and the other page converted to a redirect. - BillCJ 21:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: please take into consideration this discussion regarding merging the two articles. Akradecki 02:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Georgewilliamherbert 01:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
DeleteAccording to http://www.geae.com/engines/corporate/cfe738.html there is a joint company called CFE (GE plus Honeywell) that manufactures the CFE738. I only realised this, after I created the General Electric CFE738 article. I then created the CFE CFE738 article as a replacement!User:Burbank 17.02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment What you have done is essentially to move the page, but this is not the way to do it. Even if the article remains on the other page, General Electric CFE738 should remain as a redirect to CFE CFE738. But is a different issue, and is currently being discussed on Talk:General Electric CFE738. - BillCJ 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - On paper there might be a company called CFE, but if you read the reference provided, the "CFE" company isn't doing the work, GE and Honeywell are, and since GE manages the core, that makes it a GE core, meaning this is a GE article. Akradecki 17:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giannoulis Fakinos

He does not play in first team squad. Read Wikipedia:Notability (people) KRBN 19:28 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If he indeed has a squad number at Olympiacos, he actually meets WP:BIO by: "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" Punkmorten 13:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 14:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Punkmorten. Olympiakos clearly passes the test mentioned. -- 207.62.247.30 19:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Punkmorten. ArtVandelay13 21:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete no first team appearances. Catchpole 08:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Do you have any source that says that he is a first team squad member? Because I think he is not. And it is not even at all a noted player. KRBN 2:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment the official site seems to list him. ArtVandelay13 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep per Punkmorten's point. An article seems a bit premature at this stage of the guy's career, but I suppose there's no harm.--Kubigula (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Punkmorten--KaragouniS 22:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 10:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harvey Freeman

non-notable bio — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 20:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And for the sake of being explicit, I recommend we Delete. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 06:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep as stated before, I don't see the value of deleting a factual article with sources. Two be Countdown champion you need to win 11 televised shows, that's over 8 hours of screen time. Nobody is saying that every Countdown contestant should have his or her own page, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that the Champions of the game show (55 in 22 years)) should have their own articles. Mglovesfun 02:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. Unless something apart from merely doing well on a game show vaults Harvey out of obscurity (example: a movie like Quiz Show, or even frequent television appearances outside the game show like Ken Jennings), I don't see how this deserves a Wikipedia entry. Who even remembers who wins these things? The fact that it has sources does not in and of itself make it notable.--Velvet elvis81 06:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per MG. Reasonable argument, and would likely meet WP:BIO because of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete This article would likely qualify as a speedy delete as an unremarkable person. He certainly is not notable under WP:BIO. The major qualifications: He hasn't made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." Or qualify as a notable TV personality as he does not have "Multiple features in popular culture publications," a "large fan base," "independent biography," "name recognition" or "commercial endorsements." The references in the article are merely lists, not news articles. TheMindsEye 01:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Even more to the point; all of the references are to http://www.thecountdownpage.com/, which if you read to the very bottom is a single fansite; "The Countdown Page is run by Series 48 contestant Mike Brown and has no official affiliation to either Channel 4 or Yorkshire Television, who remain the copyright owners and producers of Countdown. Countdown is an Armand Jammot game." Subject does not meet WP:BIO on available evidence. GRBerry 04:14, 12 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. No sources appeared in the article or here. GRBerry 03:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Janneke Parrish

The subject of this article is a sophomore, and while she has been named "poet laureate" of a county, I don't think that's nearly notable enough to be worth an article in Wikipedia. If she publishes some books or received some national award, she'd be as prominent as many of the 1,500 or so American poets who have articles here, and I wouldn't object.

As a resident of Wayne County, I assure you that this is a very prominent award in a very bland area of our country. Parrish is a local hero, adored by nearly all who call Eastern North Carolina home. I'd also like to point out that while you may feel that there are 1500 or so American poets with articles, many of these poets were not honored, revered, or even popular during their lives, becoming "prominent" after their deaths. To not recognize the up and coming poets of today goes against what makes Wikipedia great. Not making the poets of today known in their own lives, especially one that has won numerous awards during her short lifetime, is to turn us back to the times before such technologies such as the internet. During his lifetime, would you have allowed Edgar Allen Poe to have his own Wikipedia article? The page should stay.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocklitsnoman (talk • contribs)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless independent and verifiable sources are added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO Even if this person did win these unnamed awards and is a county poet laureate, they are certainly non-notable awards in and of themselves and would not merit an article here. There is no place for the crystal ballery advocated above. Agent 86 18:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Significance is too local. (Age is of course not relevant)DGG 03:08, 9 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JumpStart

I marked this article for deletion because it is a corporate advertisement. A short, purely informative, article would be appropriate, but this is not. Kearnsdm 00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note Multiple accounts who contributed to this AfD are suspected sockpuppets per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Infomanager. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep, very notable series of edutainment games. If you think it is written in an advertisement-like format, be bold and fix it. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 18:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
keep; AFD is not cleanup. — brighterorange (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
keep per invalid rationale for nomination. Tarinth 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but needs cleanup. --Alan Au 06:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited the article per this discussion. I am always happy to make changes; I think the above contributors could have been more thoughtful in their contributions.

Keep Notable software series, and doesn't appear to have a spammy tone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Clearly remember playing them as a kid (although that's kind of WP:ILIKEITish...) and the article isn't that bad. Just completely unsourced and a stub. AFD is not cleanup - although this article desperately needs a cleanup. -Ryanbomber 12:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Needs cleanup, not deletion. --Scottie theNerd 16:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Per above. Jessica Anne Stevens 22:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep although some clean-up is required. Paul D. Meehan 05:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per discussion above. Brad Guzman 20:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep stub seems suitable Joel Jimenez 04:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional doctors

Keep, I do not believe this article should be deleted on the grounds it is a well-organized, comprehensive article about all fictional doctors. ~Gatorgirl623~ 17:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, redundant with category. JIP | Talk 17:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Organized by genre. FrozenPurpleCube 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't believe ANYTHING is "Redundent with category". Jcuk 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but can we include those fictional characters who aren't doctors, but play ones on TV? ;) SkierRMH 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Lists never redundant with categories. AndyJones 08:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. If the nomination is not a complete error, it appears to be someone trying to make a point about a reality show contestant article being deleted. —Centrx→talk • 07:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Palmer

Only reality show winners/runners up get own articles Dalejenkins 18:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wrong reason? Article states Matthew Simon Russell Palmer, born 12 May 1964, was the Dean of the Victoria University Law Faculty from 2000 until June 2006. One Night In Hackney 08:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - well, you could take [User:Dalejenkins|Dalejenkins]] literally and say he is arguing for all non-reality TV show contestants articles to be deleted. However, I think the more likely answer is that there are two Matthew Palmers around and an editor did not realise. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Actually I see what's happened here. Matthew Palmer was a contestant on UK TV series The Apprentice and there's an erreneous wikilink in that article. The Matthew Palmer being nominated doesn't even have an article. One Night In Hackney 07:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

keep - notable. Not only Dean of Law, also a former Secretary of Justice, now at the Law Commission. Also son of a former PM (and also Law Dean). --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 03:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 03:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism by country

Delete or Rewrite with Nuetrality and inclusion: I have nominated this article for deletion because it has a strong POV, it is poorly written, the sources are not cited, it contains original research. It is biased and exclusive of certain countries, see talk page. Certain countries are always removed from the list despite valid content with references. It is not of encyclopedic value but a collection of people opinions of racism by country. Some of the material here is copy and pasted and hence available in the respective sections. If offers nothing of value and is again a serious NPOV.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 05:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't delete: I am from Latin America and this article speaks plainly of things I consider true. I agree that the article has a strong POV with no cited sources, but i believe it is a legitimate POV. The reader can see that the sources are not cited, and thus can benefit from this POV without accepting it.

I am sure your section may be valid but the issue is the entire article. request for diversity and general clean up have been ignored. We need references and inclusion of countries with clear racism, this kind of exclusion is very dangerous--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - there is no original research in the article; the article appears to have a NPOV, and does not appear to violate any existing Policies or Guidelines. Anthony cfc ^{[T • C]} 15:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

the article is full of original research with no references. it is thus a stream of POV which are anything but Neutral, read the article in full. It is like a wild shooting contest. even the sentences dont make sense.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, the claim that it has no references is false, although a large amount of text is unreferenced. The best solution I can think of is that all countries should have their own Racism article (ie, Racism in the United States) and this article should be split into these forks, but those sections in this article that are POV and unsourcable should be deleted outright before the article is split. There seems to be some salvagable nuggets in there that shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater. hateless 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this as you can see from my suggestion this is what i was saying some sections are okay but some are very poor.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 20:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic. No criterion for deletion has been presented. WilyD 14:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I think we solve POV problems by editing to a NPOV , not by discarding the articleDGG 03:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. I don't see POV, but even if it was there, it is not a reason for deletion. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per above--Sefringle 03:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raycom National Tower

Following the failure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KDEN TV Tower but overwhelming success elsewhere (see User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts for fuller list) I'm relisting this reduced list for deletion on the grounds that the failure was but a random quirk of the system. Those in the previous nomination which were nominatively linked to radio/TV stations have now all been redirected tho the relevant broadcaster. This bunch of US radio and TV towers are below 360 meters tall, and we have deleted useless stubs up to 500m, and counting. None of the towers that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. There was one mast (CHCH Television Tower), that was improved during the AfD, which could have been partly responsible for the train-wreck. None of these articles have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. This information already exists albeit in tabular form in List of masts, so I see no point in redirecting. Ohconfucius 05:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete this reduced list per nom. Akihabara 08:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete all - all non notable masts. Jayden54 14:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete all In fact there seemed to be a good consensus to delete these, besides the improved one, in the last AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Evans

Delete - person is not significant enough to warrant a wikipedia entry, article was started by an anony editor that might be himself. Headphonos 10:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: an anony IP editor just added a sentence, I have a feeling that the editor is "Sean Evans". (diff) Headphonos 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - not notable at all, unless he plays with a major club, which I don't think is the case here. Jayden54 13:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per a7, no assertion of notability and the name is to common to research further information about effectively. Tarinth 17:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spangles (restaurant)

Restaurant is Non Notable, and only 19 restaurants in the same area is not exactly a chain. This is also self-promotion and spam. The link contained on the page is only a local website, not national (if it was a national news site like CNN or ABC). The Wichita, Kansas page doesn't link to here anywhere, and Google only gives a measly 35,100 hits. --Red Pooka 22:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Can't see why this is notable outside Kansas, and the article reeks of spam. RedRollerskate 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep As a former Kansas resident, I'm partial, but nearly anyone in Kansas would call Spangles notable (and delicious!) It's certainly as notable as or more notable than most of the bridges, neighborhoods, rivers, etc. that are all over Wikipedia. Nineteen restaurants seems good enough to be a chain to me. There's quite a few small chains with local notability, such as Five Guys in DC/Virginia that are so locally popular and widespread that they meet notability standards based on reputation drift through tourism, migration, etc. and I think Spangles probably fits here. Also, the article does present quite a bit of verifiable information.--Velvet elvis81 06:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Despite being relatively unknown on a national level, Spangles is one of only a handful of successful Wichita-only establishments, and is a full-fledged part of the city's culture. As a Wichita resident, I can verify that most citizens know all about Spangles, its commercials, and its oft-maligned spokeswoman, Rene Steven.--LoonyLeif 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Wichita, Kansas per WP:LOCAL. Clearly a chain of local interest. Vegaswikian 07:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Spangle's is a local icon. The chain is well-known in Kansas and is part of the culture of the area.--Hallm 17:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Serotonin

It has no purpose, delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris Classic (talk • contribs) 23:14, 29 December 2006

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Tarinth 17:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It's not really nonsense as Google confirms its existence,[69] [link switched, see below] but it doesn't seem to be notable enough. Prolog 18:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have no idea if there's any actual content at the link posted above. I was too busy trying to close all the pop-up windows that filled my screen when I clicked on the link. (And that's with IE popup blocker on). Don't think I've ever seen a non-porn page that bad. Fan-1967 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Sorry, I had no idea about that. I got no popups with my Firefox 2 + Adblock + Remove It Permanently combination. I switched it to a Google result link now, as I too dislike popups, browser-freezing applets and the like. Prolog 18:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, a one-shot reference on a TV show is not encyclopedic. WP:NOT a list of everything anyone has ever said. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable referant.

Comment I also "deactivated" the link there, just in case anyone else tries what I did and got frozen from the sheer volume of popups that came from the home page. SkierRMH 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable. —ShadowHalo 22:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No reliably sourced information to merge. —Centrx→talk • 14:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Westgarth Primary School (Marske)

I don't believe the Westgarth Primary School (Marske) article should be deleted. If it is a real school and there is valid information presented in the article, it should be allowed to remain as a fact-providing, useful addition to Wikipedia. Perhaps someone could contact the school's administration and suggest they let the children decide what information should be included in the article as a project and lesson in sharing information. Deleting it seems silly if the article is or could be useful. Perhaps the powers that be should focus instead on removing articles that do not provide actual facts or contain facts that are of dubious or questionable origin. Someone, some day will probably search for Westgarth Primary School, and if the school is gone, this small but factual article may be all that remains of it.

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Schools, especially primary schools, are not inherently notable. I can find no evidence whatsoever that the school has any claim to notability. This may be a candidate for speedy deletion, as the article itself makes no claim of notability (unless one considers the declaration that it is a school a claim to notability; I do not). Srose (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Srose. It's a directory listing (and barely even a directory listing, at that), and I could find nothing on Google that provided any info to expand the article past a small collection of completely trivial information. -- Kicking222 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Marske-by-the-Sea. There's less and less in common between WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLS3, but one thing they both agree on is that schools such as this that do not meet notability criteria as independent articles be candidates for merge and redirection. Alansohn 05:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails to assert notability. Guettarda 06:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect per Alansohn. bbx 07:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect unless significantly expanded. Silensor 23:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No clear consensus to delete. I had some difficulty evaluating this one. When we look at article on "fringe" subjects (such as pornography) we need to evaluate the notability within the context of the subject. In this case I believe that Bob made a strong argument within the context of the industry. However, the arguments for delete were also compelling on a more fundamental level of what constitutes notability. Hopefully when this comes up again in a few months Bob's predictions of continued success will make this issue moot. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xfanz

Good morning! My name is Bob Preston. I'm the executive editor at XFANZ. I submit these reasons for why we're not spam:

We make no money from our users. None. It's free to join our site. Like many Web 2.0 enterprises, we make money from ad revenue.
We're a legitimate news outlet. We're an offshoot of XBIZ.com, a prominent trade Web site and publication that covers the adult industry. For the record, I offer the Alexa ranking of XBIZ as proof of its popularity. Today their aggregate ranking is 7,777: [70] XFANZ, by contrast, is a consumer site. Think of us as Entertainment Weekly for the adult biz. For the record, we launched on October 2, and we're steadily climing up Alexa's rankings: [71] OK, so we cover the adult industry. Pretty goofy, right? But Wikipedia has made room in its annals for two entries on Adult Video News, another prominent publication and Web site that covers the adult biz: AVN_Magazine AVN_Awards But besides AVN, Wikipedia also offers dozens -- if not hundreds -- of other articles on the adult industry, including (at a glance) at least a dozen entries on news outlets, blogs, magazines and Web sites that cover the adult industry or human sexuality in general:Category:Pornography
We're Web 2.0, all the way. (I offer this on a more qualitative, emotional level.) We started XFANZ to offer Web-savvy porn fans a way to interact and connect with each other and porn stars. We offer (again, for free) a full community, a full forum and a growing library of viral videos. Our news stories all have social bookmarking tags (reddit, del.icio.us, Fark). We also have future plans to add other Web 2.0 features, including a social bookmarking portal and a full viral video service, a la YouTube.

In closing: Pursuant to previous notes we've received from Wikipedia editors, we're going through our entry to streamline it and add citations for all the factual claims we make Guys, we fully realize that a lot of jerks from the adult industry have abused Wikipedia. We really want to be a part of the Web 2.0 community and a part of Wikipedia. Thanks for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeeBee25 (talk • contribs)

Delete, site is non-notable --Mhking 03:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good evening, guys. I thought I'd answer the "non-notable" charge. My response has two parts:

I would politely direct anyone to re-read what I said about our commitment to Web 2.0 development. We are the first community-based adult industry portal that goes straight to the fans. The only other site that even resembles us is XPeeps.com, which caters directly to the industry only and doesn't offer any of the news, interviews or videos that we do.
OK, I've done some reading about the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. I'd like to call your attention to the seventh prong: Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial.

Many Web sites use XFANZ RSS feeds for their news content. One prominent site that uses our content is Booble.com (Booble's Wikipedia entry), the adult search engine: [72] You'll see that we are the sole news provider for one of the most popular adult search engines on the Web. Based on our unique combination of adult industry coverage, Web 2.0 development and prominence on outside Web sites, we satisfy the requirements for notability by Wikipedia's own guidelines. We've also demonstrated our willingness to accept and implement notes from Wikipedia editors. We're delighted to do it. I respectfully submit that no common spammer would do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeeBee25 (talk • contribs)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'm at work and can't poke around regarding adult websites so I can't really evaluate the notability of the article. I did however want to note for Bob Preston that arguing for the retention of this article by citing other articles that you believe are less notable than yours is an invalid argument. See WP:POKEMON. The notability of one article has no bearing on the notability of another. Naming off articles you think are less notable than yours won't bolster your case. It'll probably just get the other articles nominated too. Otto4711 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to Otto4711's feedback: Otto, thanks for the feedback! Point taken -- I've deleted that part of my argument. If you get a chance after work, I hope you'll check out my argument regarding the presence of our RSS feeds on external sites, including Booble.com. -- bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeeBee25 (talk • contribs)

Comment -- Bob, I have to thank you for your willingness to come up with ways to make the article work. That being said, my personal feeling is that Xfanz and the other adult sites you mention are all not notable, despite their inclusion in WP. I've voted against more than one adult site that has ended up being included, and will likely continue to. My personal feeling is that the sites in general do not have the independent, empirical citations and sources necessary to qualify as notable. Is this something that you can fix by a wave of a wand? I don't think so, unless you can get citations in either the mainstream media or in the technically-oriented (i.e., sites like Slashdot or other web-centric sources) media in very short order. I don't consider my stance to be an arbitrary one, but I do consider it to be a significant litmus test that must be passed, in my opinion, to be notable. In terms of your other contention (no ordinary spammer would do this), I would agree with you, and would not term you a spammer. However, I would question whether or not you understand that Wikipedia is not a promotion vehicle. A site, company or entity does not have a 'right' to be here, per se, and shouldn't be here simply because it exists. I can't see your company being included in Encyclopedia Brittanica, and I can't imagine you working this much to get your site included there. As a result, my earlier vote to delete Xfanz stands. --Mhking 21:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Weak Delete~~. First, let me thank Bob for his courteous writing here (I took the liberty of indenting responses for readability). I agree the article isn't spam. Unfortunately, Xfanz seems too new to have gained much notice, which is really what Wikipedia: Notability is all about. It may be used by Booble, but, frankly, Booble isn't incredibly notable itself, so I don't think that makes it meet criteria 3 of WP:WEB. The sorts of things that really would prove notability would be coverage from unrelated sources, especially the mainstream press. I don't see that yet, perhaps it will come, and when it does we should have an article on it. If there are two unrelated non-trivial articles about Xfanz, I'll change my opinion. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Changing to Keep after evidence of notability provided below. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(EC): I also fixed formatting at the same time, Anon, sorry. ju66l3r 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Site fails WP:WEB (an RSS feed is not nontrivial content and Booble.com is not an online newspaper, broadcaster, or publisher...which is the third notability criteria that note#7 in WP:WEB is referring). Article borders on WP:SPAM and is an admitted conflict of interest by creator. ju66l3r 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Sorry Bob, despite your eloquence in defending the article, I don't see that this article meets notability guidelines. Otto4711 23:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob here again. Guys, thanks for the prompt and detailed responses. Let me go point by point:

Mhking, you said: I can't see your company being included in Encyclopedia Brittanica, and I can't imagine you working this much to get your site included there.

With respect, if Encyclopedia Brittanica were the leading online source for information, I can guarantee you that I would lobby to have an entry on Xfanz included in it.

But we're long since past the days that paper-based repositories of information could remain relevant for long. If someone wants to find out more about Xfanz, I want them to be able to find it here.

Mhking, I also address your concern about self-promotion in my response to Ju66l3r -- if I could trouble you to read down below.

Bob, while I do appreciate your answer, it does not sway my position. Based upon the guidelines that Wikipedia has set for inclusion, your article does not qualify. I'm sorry. My vote remains to delete the entry. --Mhking 02:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, you said: The sorts of things that really would prove notability would be coverage from unrelated sources, especially the mainstream press. I don't see that yet, perhaps it will come, and when it does we should have an article on it. If there are two unrelated non-trivial articles about Xfanz, I'll change my opinion.

Anon, with respect, asking for mainstream press coverage of an adult site -- no matter how notable -- is a pretty onerous requirement. The mainstream media only looks at the adult industry to laugh at it.

That said, though, I offer these links:

On Oct. 30 2006, I appeared on a panel of five adult industry professionals to debate actor Stephen Baldwin. Baldwin became a born-again Christian after 9/11 and started a crusade against the adult industry. For some bewildering reason, this garnered the attention of ABC and VH-1. VH-1 covered it as a part of a reality show starring Baldwin.

Information on Baldwin's VH-1 reality show.

Information on the debate I participated in with Baldwin.

Here's some coverage from the prominent adult blog Fleshbot about our launch party, which featured Dave Navarro and his band The Panic Channel.

Here's more coverage from Fleshbot, this time after our launch party.

Lastly, Ju66l3r, you said: (an RSS feed is not nontrivial content and Booble.com is not an online newspaper, broadcaster, or publisher...which is the third notability criteria that note #7 in WP:WEB is referring). Article borders on WP:SPAM and is an admitted conflict of interest by creator

1. I read through the WP:WEB page again and found no mention of RSS feeds. From what source or on what basis are you asserting that the use of RSS feeds is trivial?

2. Regarding the self-promotion and conflict of interest issue: I concede that I don't understand this requirement, and I respectfully submit that this has entirely to do with our newness. Six months from now, when we're a far more prominent site, how would it work if we added an entry then?

Otto4711, you came in with a delete vote while I was writing this latest response. I hope you'll give it another look.

Thanks! -- bob

Comment - regarding the sources you posted: one (the Baldwin interview) does not seem to mention Xfanz at all and the other is from the parent company of Xfanz and therefore is not an independent reliable source. If, six months from now, there are independent sources which talk about Xfanz in a non-trivial way or for that matter at all then the article would be much more likely to survive and Afd. As it stands now, the site simply does not meet notability guidelines. Otto4711 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Otto, thanks for dropping back in. Here's a link to a story about the Baldwin debate on KSEXRadio.com. -- bob

The KSEX/debate story might give *you* (Bob Preston) notability, but does not make XFANZ.com notable. As for your conflict of interest, please read the link I just provided. The point is that this site is for building an encyclopedia which requires a certain level of neutrality. Since you have a vested interest in XFANZ, the fact that you are a major contributor to the article forces the rest of us to question and scrutinize the neutrality of the information provided by the article. This is not acceptable practice and goes against the guidelines (just as you should not start a Bob Preston article even though you may have enough notability for arguing with a Baldwin to meet WP:BIO). If you are notable enough, then someone else will write an article about you...which is also usually a good litmus test for prima facia notability too (and not a back-door shoestring attempt at having your RSS feed hosted on a back-scratching company's website who buys advertising on your own site). ju66l3r 02:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete agree with AnonEMouse.--Velvet elvis81 06:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - does not meet any of the 3 points of WP:WEB. Alexa [ranking] of 77k+, no news articles I can find, no independant reviews. Basically the site has not made sufficient impact in the world for there to be a verifyable encyclopedia article about it. --Peripitus (Talk) 12:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob here again: Guys, thanks for all the feedback. I need, however, to reiterate a previous point I made in reponse to Anon:

Anon, with respect, asking for mainstream press coverage of an adult site -- no matter how notable -- is a pretty onerous requirement.

My problem here dovetails with an earlier complaint I made -- that Wikipedia includes dozens (if not hundreds) of articles about the adult industry and adult performers. I retracted an earlier argument I had made about those other articles being less notable than the Xfanz article. I'm not advancing that argument again.

Here's what I am arguing: The requirement for mainstream press coverage to satisfy the notability requirement for an adult entry is not only onerous, but would -- by definition and mandate -- automatically preclude virtually all entries about pornography. That unleashes a host of freedom-of-speech issues, but -- like Mhking said -- something doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia just because it exists.

Mhking, though, did say that coverage by a tech-oriented blog (like Slashdot) would satisfy him. I cited two entries on the popular adult blog Fleshbot.com -- Alexa ranking 3,320 -- but no one here even acknowledged them. Here they are again:

Here's some coverage from the prominent adult blog Fleshbot about our launch party, which featured Dave Navarro and his band The Panic Channel.

Here's more coverage from Fleshbot, this time after our launch party.

Furthermore, as a remedy for the onerous requirement of mainstream media coverage, I submit coverage within the adult industry -- and we have plenty of that:

Additional comment; I would argue that Fleshbot is not a mainstream tech-oriented news aggregator in the same vein as Slashbot. The only coverage you have offered in a mainstream vehicle is the debate you had with Baldwin. That, simply, is not enough to warrant inclusion, as the article (Xfanz) still (IMO) does not meet the qualifications of WP:WEB. --Mhking 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ju66l3r, with respect, I disagree with your assessment of the KSEX article I linked, and I simply don't see how the participation of an XFANZ staff member -- no matter who it was -- in that debate wouldn't raise the profile of the entire company. When someone appears in a political debate, say, doesn't their appearance benefit the image of their party? Or when an author appears in a televised debate, doesn't that automatically raise the profile of his or her works?

I respectfully submit that it's disingenuous to argue that my appearance in that debate didn't raise the profile of XFANZ.

This leaves us with the self-promotion issue. I've read Wikipedia's guidelines about this, and here's what I take issue with:

1. How does an Xfanz entry on Wikipedia even benefit us? The only search-engine-related change I've noticed happens when I search for "xfanz" -- Google returns our Wikipedia entry third or fourth, but that would only happen when someone was already looking for Xfanz to begin with.

2. Without the intrinsic benefit of having a Wikipedia entry, this brings me back to why we got flagged for deletion to begin with -- the assertion that our entry was spam. User Artw initially flagged us, and when we asked him why, offered only this:

The article (by XFANZ TEAM) is IMHO clearly spam. I have no idea what the actual site is like and do not care.

Suffice it to say, Artw's rudeness bothered me, to say nothing of his baseless declaration that we're spam.

I'm also delighted to report that everyone who has taken the time to respond here has proven themselves the opposite of Artw. Thank you for taking the time to respectfully mount your arguments. I appreciate it.

With respect, I believe that I've answered that claim gamely here. At least two respondents here have conceded that our entry isn't spam, and most of the rest of the respondents have fallen back on the notability complaint, which I also believe I've answered.

As for the self-promotion charge, I dovetail my complaint with my unhappiness with Artw:

I respectfully submit that the conflict of interest and notability guidelines -- especially regarding the adult industry -- need revision. I admit that my experience with Wikipedia is a fraction compared to everyone here, but as a member of the adult industry, I find these guidelines to be insufficiently fleshed-out and arbitrarily enforced.

A Wikipedia page filled with hundreds of links to free-hosted galleries and affiliate links (for, say, Tera Patrick) that would clearly benefit one user? That's spam.

A Wikipedia entry for a prominent website (within the adult industry) made in good faith by a user clearly willing to abide by Wikipedia's editorial feedback and guidelines -- and that has no immediate financial or traffic-generating benefit? I certainly don't think that's spam, and I (again, respectfully) submit that Wikipedia has room for such an entry.

On a side note, I readily concede that even though I'm an Internet geek, I'm hardly an expert on search-engine theory or application. If there is some robust benefit that comes from having a Wikipedia entry, please just let me know.

On another side note, how long does this process go on? Will a higher-lever Wikipedia administrator make the final call?

Thanks again for your time, guys. -- bob

Sorry if I offended you by suggetsing that your self-created promotional article was "spam", but IMHO that's what it is, and that's exactly what I do when I come across any other articles of a similar nature. Artw 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob here: Artw, thanks for dropping in. With respect, I don't mind what you did so much as how you did it.

Some people do believe it's useful for promotion, yes. As one of the top 15 web sites in the world (number 12 today, apparently), Wikipedia has a rather high PageRank, directly feeds Answers.com, etc. But whether it's helpful to Xfans is beside the point, we're here to argue whether it's helpful to Wikipedia. Those 4 links do show some notability to me, so I'm changing my opinion to a weak keep: AINews isn't the New York Times and Dave Navarro isn't Michael Jackson, but they're nothing to sneeze at either. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process lasts 5 days on the average, then an experienced user, usually an admin, reads the discussion, decides if there is consensus to keep or delete, closes the discussion, and deletes if necessary. I'm also an admin, but can't close this discussion as I participated in it, so am obviously biased for determining which way consensus fell. For the sake of this one, I'm just an experienced editor. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob here:Anon, I sincerely appreciate you changing your position. Though I feel worse now about my own position after finding out that the mere presence of an Xfanz entry might, however indirectly, bolster Xfanz's traffic. Thanks for the 411 on that and about the final deletion procedure.

Thanks again. -- bob

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

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

The result was MOVE TO PROJECT SPACE. Basically, the arguments that this list as it currently stands is not sourced and therefore is, or is subject to, point of view issues is pretty telling. Will Beback's comparison to List of groups referred to as cults is interesting; it's possible in my opinion that if this list was sourced as rigorously as that list that it might have a place in article space. Flat-out deletion seems unnecessary to me; projects are allowed a fair amount of leeway in their material, and this list with its disclaimer is not really defamatory to the point where its a problem, I don't think. And it certainly seems useful as a navigation tool for editors doing work on the subject. I'm not sure if it should go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience or Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism or somewhere else, so I chose the former, editors may correct this as appropriate. Herostratus 16:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of articles related to quackery

Fundamental issues with point of view, verification and self references. The list should be deleted or moved to project namespace such as WikiProject Pseudoscience.

This unsourced list uses weasel words to tarnish various topics and people with the pejorative term "quack" by stating that some people consider these things "related to" quackery. Discussions on the talk page indicate an unwillingness to provide evidence for an article's inclusion in the list, an explanation of the reasons, or a grouping of list articles in the belief that that would indicate a POV.
The attribute "quack" is in essence an opinion rather than a hard fact. Opinions must be attributed to a source worth quoting. A list of opinions solely of those who support e.g. evidence based medicine over alternative medicine (no matter how worthy those opinions might be), would make an inherently POV list.
Wikipedia self references abound in the title, lead paragraph, lists of wikiprojects, lists of categories and wikipedians.
The inclusion criteria of "related to quackery" is vague and potentially unbounded. The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital is part of the UK National Health Service. Does that mean the NHS is related to quackery? The list currently includes such everyday terms as "dishonesty", "fraud", "ethics", "honesty", "liability" and terms related to logical arguments.
The list contains living persons without supporting sources and as such fouls WP:BLP.
The list is already showing signs of becoming a fertile ground for edit wars as editors battle over how much a practice/substance/person is considered mainstream or quack.

Colin°^Talk 16:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The list is very careful to not express any opinion either way on any subject. No labelliing is being used for very obvious reasons. Any POV problems are in the eyes and thoughts of the beholder. This list is an attempt to avoid the problems that were involved with the now deleted quackery category, where the cat. tag was attached to articles without any comment, thus labelling the article. The editor above has misunderstood and misrepresented what is happening, and any conflicts will be because the concept is hated, and because editors will be tempted to include labeling and POV. Such labelling should not be allowed, and such editorial errors are not a legitimate reason for deleting the list. The list contains strong cautionary notes only visible in the editing mode. I suggest that anyone who investigates this matter read them before making any decision.

~~Strong keep~~ (change to blank page, but leave talk history, see below) The list is a resource for students of the subject and even a casual examination of the content ~~(something the editor above seems not to have done)~~ shows that there are subjects, organizations, and persons on all sides of the issues. None of them are labeled as to their particular affiliation with the subject. Their respective articles can do that. This list is not for labelling anyone, and the attempt to delete it is an editorial attempt (by some editors) to suppress what is seen as opposing POV, in spite of the fact that such POV is not attached to any item on the list. Let readers come to their own conclusions.

Wikipedia is for presenting all major POV, and significant minority POV -- without taking sides -- and the articles listed are representative of subjects of interest to debunkers as well as promoters of quackery. Editorial POV suppression is a violation of NPOV policy and should not be allowed here. The concept of quackery is very real, it exists, and it is unpopular with those who believe in it. They would love to delete the word and attempts to expose quackery. Such attempts should not be allowed to move from the real world and into Wikipedia. The list is still in its beginnings and it should be allowed to develop and strengthen as a valuable resource. -- Fyslee 16:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the personal accusations of carelessness in my examination of the content or that I'm trying to suppress a POV. Both accusations are wrong. There is a belief that by keeping silent on the reasons for an article's inclusion in this list that POV can be avoided. This is false for two reasons:

For people and organisations to be "related to quackery" they pretty much have to be involved in quackery or a campaigner opposed to it. The reader is not given the option of "neither involved in nor campainging against quackery" (i.e. "quietly involved in mainstream medicine"). Therefore an opinion is being advanced that requires sourcing.

For treatments and practices to be "related to quackery", the logical conclusion the reader will make is that someone thinks they (wholely or partly) are considered quackery. I can't see any other conclusion, but perhaps I "misunderstand" this too? Colin°^Talk 18:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for what is taken as a personal attack. I was indeed irritated by what still appears to be a "reading into" the list of something that is deliberately avoided, which is the idea of providing labels, which would indeed create serious NPOV issues. Even without any labelling and with very strong cautions against it in the editorial notes (invisible to readers) and talk page, there are still attacks (from many) based on what appears to be an assumption that such labelling is actually occurring, yet no one can point to evidence of such. If fact it is repeatedly discouraged. Even if it might not be outright stated (above) to be the case (and it seems to to me to be outright stated), readers who don't see the list itself will likely get the impression that POV labelling is actually occurring, which is not the case. I just want to make sure no one comes away from reading the AFD nomination above with that false impression. I will exercise good faith and assume that that was not Colin's intention, but that is the impression I got, and I know the content and cautionary messages very well! If I got that impression, how many others coming here will still get that impression, and then vote accordingly? I'm sure it wasn't Collin's intention, but maybe he could revise the wording to avoid that implication? (Unfortunately voting is already occurring based on a false impression, and even attempting to convey a false impression independently of the AFD nomination above.) -- Fyslee 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. I'm afraid I've got lost with all those intentions, impressions and implications. Can you tell me what wording you think is giving the wrong impression? I don't understand how avoiding explicit "labels" helps (see previous comments at 18:59) Colin°^Talk 20:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that much of the problem hangs on what meaning one attaches to the word "related". I didn't choose the title, but have interpreted it broadly, since a narrow definition would immediately justify deletion. I want this list to be a resource for all parties, so "relation" refers to any concept, method, profession, organization, or person who has ever (including historical) been associated with the concept of quackery, whether on the "receiving end" of accusations, or on the accusing end, or on the study end (hence the inclusion of various terms related to psychology, logic, law, etc.). Thus it becomes a broad NPOV resource that is totally lacking here. (The articles themselves can do the labelling and have the NPOV problems!)

When the category was deleted, it was then suggested that a list would be better, but the list is still not acceptable to those opposed to the existence of the word. They won't be content until the word quackery is removed from the face of the earth. Without the category or a list, how can students of the subject be enabled to study what Wikipedia has to say on each topic?

The long and bitter controversies that surrounded the Category:Quackery led to the deletion of the category. Why? Because of NPOV issues that can be dealt with in articles, but not in categories:

"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." [73] (emphasis added - Fyslee)

A list is "a better option," and that's what we're doing here. By keeping it a bare list, we avoid NPOV issues altogether, yet we have a valuable resource that will make Wikipedia a better resource for many. -- Fyslee 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think can see where you are coming from now and the problem is perhaps few people take your broad no offence intended view of "related to quackery". Try replacing the word with "fraud" or "dishonesty" and you should see why people don't want to be associated in the slightest with those words. A well sourced and informative list can be so so much better than a category. You're just not allowed deliberately bare unsourced lists in article namespace. I sympathise with your desire to find a way to collect related articles for researchers. A solution in this hotly contested subject won't be easy. Clicking "What links here" on the Quackery article is a poor-man's solution. Perhaps shorter, more focused and well sourced lists (not necessarily stand-alone) are the way to go. Colin°^Talk 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I think this is a very valuable list. Bubba73 (talk), 17:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

* If we are not going to keep the list as an article, then I vote to Move to project space. Bubba73 (talk), 03:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I see nothing wrong with it being a list of articles. I use List of chess topics almost daily. Bubba73 (talk), 18:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to project space. This is not fundamentally an encyclopedic topic; it's a maintenance/navigation aid. Lists in main space are not an acceptable alternative to contested category designations.--ragesoss 17:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Obvious Delete. Delineated quite clearly by Colin above. A ‘commies’ list is a bad idea in that those with self-serving POV/agendas obviously intentionally exploit it. Instead of creating an environment of collaboration and community, this immediately polarizes Wikipedians so edit wars break out.

This hijacking of Wikipedia for personal satisfaction of a few does nothing but create ill will and wastes valuable time and energy for many, all in the name of hard-fisting a personal POV in our faces. Good editors are eventually discouraged from continued participation and leave in exasperation. It is obviously a smokescreen by a few editors to exploit the popularity of Wikipedia to further their own self-serving interests.

Clearly, this has no place in Wikipedia and should be deleted ASAP.

Steth 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet another gross exercise of bad faith and another personal attack by User:Steth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Nothing new here from a very biased editor with a grudge against me and anyone who dares to confront quackery and fraud. Let's see now, an anti-anti-quackery person is a ... hmmm ... to figure it out one must account for the double negative, which equals a positive ....;-) -- Fyslee 19:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My, my. Is this always about you, Fyslee? Do you own quack-hate? Why don't we re-name this "Fyslee's personal shit-list". Others seem to agree that this should be deleted. It is obvious that it is a bad idea that doesn't pass the smell test. Why attack me? BTW, how many links have you added in WP to your friend/webmaster Stephen Barrett Enterprises (Donations gladly accepted!) Hundreds I would think by now. Would anyone else be curious to know? Steth 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Steth, WP:AGF and no personal attacks. Shot info 22:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Um tricky. Thing is, criticisms of the article are definitely valid, but so is support. A move to project space has definite merit, and it would be better to have more prose and less of a laundry list (which tends by its nature to imply equal weight for all entries, which is not properly the case). The idea is sound, but possibly not as a mainspace article. Probably move to project space maybe as the foundation of a WikiProject. God knows we need to start chipping away at the puffery of quack remedies and other scams. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Using a perjorative term (quack) violates Wikipedia's core of NPOV.--Hughgr 21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a false charge. No one has used the term about anything or anyone on that list. It's a mixed bag and if readers supply the term in their own head, that is their own doing. In real life one can with impunity (in the USA) call anyone a quack without any legal consequences. That has been decided in court. I'm not recommending one do so without evidence, but that's the case. Free speech allows pejoratives, and since the concept is a serious issue that costs people their lives and money, it is far more than a mere pejorative, but a term describing a serious problem that should not be disparaged and ignored. The government (especially the FDA and FTC) certainly recognizes it as a problem, and deals with it within certain limits. It is in that sense (not as a pejorative) that it is used here at Wikipedia, and whenever I rarely use the term about anyone. It is then a descriptive term for actual behavior that can be documented, and not a careless pejorative. (There are a select few scammers for whom I reserve the term.) When others perceive the use as being a pejorative, it is often because they feel hit, which reveals their own self-described position on the subject. I can't say if that's the case here, but that's often how it is with many objectors, and that is not my fault, or the fault of the list, or of the term. -- Fyslee 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your response Fyslee, is exactly why I support a deletion of this.--Hughgr 21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to project space. "Lists of articles" are better placed outside the article space, and POV issues would not be criticial there. For the future, I recommend using List of groups referred to as cults as a model for how a list of quackery-related topics could be created in a verifable, NPOV manner. We require a reliable source for every entry in acordance with a strict criteria. That list has been remarkably stable despite the contentious nature of the topic . -Will Beback · † · 19:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Strongly Keep~~ Move to project namespace ASAP. This is a valuable tool and resource for reading, investigating, and understanding many different topics on the subject of related in some way to quackery. It does not mean the subject is quackery. Just a relation to it. Both sides of the issues are present in the main articles. The list is the only way for students to resource so many different articles. Without this list it would be impossible to find and research the subject. I hope Wikipedians understand this list is an educational tool for readers of the subject. Perhaps, any misunderstanding are now cleared up. Additionally, there is a strong disclamer paragraph at the top explaining about the list does not define the article or subject as a quack, just a relation to it in some way. The reader can read any article and can easily come to their own conlusions. Again, the list is an extremely helpful educational tool. Possibly, expanding the first paragraph will avoid any more misunderstandings in the future. On that note. This is an article listing. Nothing more. Lists on Wikipedia is encouraged. Cheers. --QuackGuru 19:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The "List of related to quackery" is an excellent representation of all sides of the topic. An Indispensible Resource! --QuackGuru 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed my vote as shown above. Amended to >>> move to project namespace. --QuackGuru 20:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Move to project space~~ Merge with WikiProject Pseudoscience or Delete - This is not a mainspace article, but a place for interested editors to track articles they find to be problematic. It is not encyclopedic at all, but related to Wikipedia maintenance and editing. It has no reason to be in the mainspace. If no one is willing to move it to project or User space, then my vote would be to Delete as non-notable and non-verifiable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kesh (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Revised my vote per Comments section at bottom of page. -- Kesh 01:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep The introduction to the article makes it very clear that the list is of articles that are related to quackery and is not a list of quack remedies etc per se. As a science writer I have found this list, despite its short existence, a great mine of information. I do not see any problem in deciding whether or not an article should be included in the list - if the 'mother' article indicates that the issue is contentious and that there are debates about the evidence related to the efficiacy of the treatment/drug etc, then it should be included. Maustrauser 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a mistake to assume that a list can itself be supported by the content of (esp. references in) the listed articles. Lists are not exempt from the same policies and guidelines for other articles. Relying on such support is effectively using Wikipedia as a source, which isn't reliable. Colin°^Talk 23:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Colin. I think you are misunderstanding the title of "The list of articles related to quackery". The title which I carefully named and created actually has a double meaning. Related to quackery has a broad meaning. For example, a person who is opposed to quackery. Lots of people are gladly and willing to be associated with quackery. Skeptics are associated with quackery. The FDA is associated with quackery. Consumer advocates are associated with quackery. I, the QuackGuru, is related to quackery. We need to give the reader a little credit and allow them to come to their own conclusions. In conclusion, there needs to be a resource for people to learn and educate themselves on this topic. This is only possible by creating a broad list. Thank you. --QuackGuru 01:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete I don't get this "article" at all. I think it is a reaction to the recent deletion of the pejorative category "Quackery". Anyhow, there is nothing encyclopedic about this article. It just lists a couple editors opinions. What qualifies something to be on this list? A subject merely being related to quackery? Who says the subject is related? How closely related does it have to be? The wording at the top is pretty weasel-ly and in the end says nothing. This is a lot of POV pushing and WP:OR. I can't imagine this being any help to anyone other than the person who needs to fullfill some inner desire to see these subjects and quackery existing somewhere together in Wikispace. Levine2112 02:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete Thanks for alerting me to this fundamentally unencyclopedic article. I am not sure what "moving to project space" means, but I tend to agree with User:Ragesoss. I think Quackery can be discussed - and rightly has it's own article. But when it comes to associating things to it, it almost always ends up being a matter of opinion. TheDoctorIsIn 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Projects are items not in the main article space. Wikipedia has several "spaces." Main articles are in "mainspace," while Users are in their own space, Help is its own space, etc. Project space is for pages about a specific project people on Wikipedia are working on. Things like WikiProject Doctor Who are in Project space. Because the link has that Wikipedia: designation in front, it won't show up when people search for normal articles. Just like you have to put User: in front of a user's name to get to their page. -- Kesh 02:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And now I know! Thank you so much. I still think this should be deleted. The project space solution seems to be alright. TheDoctorIsIn 03:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Kesh said "Because the link has that Wikipedia: designation in front, it won't show up when people search for normal articles". That seems like a drawback to me. Bubba73 (talk), 03:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"It's a feature, not a bug." The idea is to keep information that only relates to Wikipedia itself seperate from the actual encyclopedic articles people are looking for. So, Wikipedia:Template has all the information on Wikipedia's templates, versus Template which is the general encyclopedia article. -- Kesh 03:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

But it seems to me that if someone searched on "quackery" and it found this list, they would think that they have hit the motherload. Bubba73 (talk), 05:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per the reasons enumerated by Colin above. CuTop 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I think this list would be risky even in project space for defamation reasons; project space is still visible to the whole world. The present article I think is way below WP standards for NPOV and sourcing. A good article might be written in this area. As examples see Pseudoscience and Junk science. Even the present Quackery article might be brought up to WP standards by adding sources. But it would take tons of work and added references to bring this list up to the WP standard. EdJohnston 05:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Move to project space. I think the use of the word quackery is valid in this context. I'm not sure there is another word with the same meaning which doesn't have the perceived negative connotations due to the very nature of the subject matter. -- Qarnos 07:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The list offers no value and it so scattershot it seems that someone put words/phrases up on a wall and threw darts at the words -- whatever scored a direct hit was added to this rather ignominious and slapdash collection of concepts/ideas/words/etc. •Jim62sch• 09:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. A [[List of articles related to x]] offers no more use than a category x would. Having such a category would be unlikely, though because of the problems the nom mentions. —Ruud 12:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. There was a category, but it had problems. It was suggested that a list would be better, and that's what this is, without any labelling or namecalling, with subjects on all sides of the issues. -- Fyslee 13:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There are several problems with this list. The vague and fuzzy criteria for inclusion in the list violate WP rules that state that a list should have a precise scope. It also opens for endless edit wars with no way of determining who is right.

(It also gives POV warriors in the pro Alt Medicine camp a tool to make a mockery of the list and destroy it by including everything under the sun: US Senate, Ronald Reagan, senator Kerry, Coca Cola Company, Monsanto, Prozac, Prilosec, Zoloft, Paracetamol, Merck, Wyeth, CNN, Nature, Financial Times, NY Times, JAMA, European Commission, Spain, US army, FBI, Truman Capote, Kevin Costner, Sharon Stone, Snoop Dog, Rolling Stones, organic chemistry, all amino acids, genocide, carbon, zinc, selenium, lead, magnesium, the Hubble Telescope, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.)

I also have problems with the claimed purpose of the list as a “guide to the subject”. Making a list with a disclaimer is new to Wikipedia. In my mind it is a self-serving and hypocritical trick to deceive readers and circumvent WP rules about verifiability of claims. The “quack-busters” lost the debate over the Category Quackery that got deleted. Now they want to reintroduce a way of indirectly labeling everything outside conventional medicine as “related to quackery”.

If the list is not deleted I can foresee endless POV wars when the Quackbusters will try to add reciprocal See Also links from most of the mentioned articles. The readers of the other articles will only see the link but not the disclaimer, and hence be deceived.

The article Pseudoscience has a sub-list List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts that works fine. The list clearly states the Reasons for inclusion which by the way are that there is a scientific consensus about the included items.

The problem is that the “Quackbusters” want to label everything outside medical orthodoxy as quackery [74] (including a center at the National Institute of Health, NIH) without any arguments or justification.

I am sorry but the claim that everything outside conventional medicine is quackery is plainly an extreme position, that should be dismissed and removed from Wikipedia in the same way as other extreme and crackpot POVs. MaxPont 13:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Short comment. I certainly don't see any claim that "everything outside conventional medicine is quackery," nor do I believe that to be the case. That's a straw man. Otherwise you are correct about the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. It has developed even further than this list, and it had a start. -- Fyslee 18:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No its not a straw man but the obvious conclusion from observing the deeds and actions of the “Quackbusters” – on Quackwatch and here on Wikipedia. Examples: The Fyslee user page that labels alternative medicine as “sCAM” (so-Called "Alternative" Medicine) and the various warning lists on Quackwatch that include almost everything outside hard core conventional medicine. MaxPont 15:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

***** Isn't "sCAM" degrogatory? It's a no-win type of description. It leads one to believe that ALL Complementary and Alternative Medicine is a scam. Medicine has more fraud, scams, deaths, yet it's not all a scam. Who invented this term? Why does it get a page on Wikipedia if it's a pejorative POV from someone's prejudiced imagination? Steth 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete The inital edit history,specific discussions & Talk:List of articles rel'd to quackery reveal its flawed & POV premises as a list with unresolved (-able) WP:V, WP:RS issues. I agree with Colin & MaxPont I disagree with this list (article or project space) as the solution to ill-defined or recognized "quackery". "Quackery" is politically a very asymmetric area of scientific address. If some of the more technically literate editors began to try to achieve technical symmetry with questionable "conventional" medical therapies and branded products on this list, I suspect rancor, chaos & outside commercially related threats will ensue when it is found out these links can be longer than all the usual suspects linked so far. I strongly oppose project pages as even aggravating the previous Category & (article space) List problems with looser standards as a pet project. This is only a "help list" for someone's personal POV pages.--I'clast 13:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Riddle Here is a riddle for us: According to the article on Quackery, A "quack" is "a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill. A person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan." Quackery

Now for some bizarre reason, Linus Pauling, the only winner of two unshared Nobel Prizes makes this list either as a quack or is related to quackery, but ex-psychiatrist Stephen Barrett, who failed his boards yet has represented himself in courts of law as an expert witness in psychiatry, is considered by his disciples to be the expert/guru/clearinghouse of who is and isn't a quack. Shouldn't he be considered a quack, too?

Links to Stephen Barrett Enterprises sites(Donations gladly accepted!) are liberally sprinkled here and around WP by his followers. Shouldn't his sites logically be purged from Wikipedia as unreliable? Just some thoughts that strengthen my reasons as to why this list should be removed. Steth 13:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Though an attempt to find a way to present the concept of quackery without naming names is not without merit, this method is an example of why avoiding NPOV doesn't work. It confuses the reader and leaves the wrong impression about most of the articles listed, creating a feeling of nonsensical disbelief. If this has some value to Quackbusters, so be it.. put it in a work space and use it for whatever purposes it might have value for, but I would think it will only take up space because they already know what they want on the list. --Dematt 15:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dematt made the above posting but forgot to sign. MaxPont 15:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

Delete Hell, no -Doc^g 15:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge & Relocate - the list contains many topics that I personnally indeed do view as more of a New-Age religious belief system than real verifiable scientific clinical therapeutic systems. As such some form of collection of articles on twaddle (for want of a better term) seems useful.
- 1) However the term "quackery" is problematic - it presumes a deliberate intent to mislead or defraud customers, and whilst much of alternative medicine I would perceive as mis-guided or wishful thinking, I am sure that most practitioners of homeopathy, accupuncture or herbal medicine do not have criminal intent to lie. Whereas any claims from someone practising Crystal healing as curing cancer I might so view. I think items in the list that contains this term must, as far as an encyclopaedia trying to protect itself from any libel liability, be only practices for which reliable sourced third parties have made the claim.
- 2) The second problem with the list is "related". I appreciate that this allows inclusion of both for and against articles, but its usage in the article is so wide as to make the list less useful. As an example Confirmation bias is a straight forward piece on psychology of interpreting results and data, but is it useful to so include it in the list between Complication (medicine) and Consciousness causes collapse (that concious thought has quantum effects thus linking meditation with hard science)?
- 3) As MaxPont mentioned above, List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts seems a better constructed list, i.e. has more clearly defined purpose and inclusion criteria. The maintanece of the two lists seems duplication, and whilst I would vote to keep a modified form of List of articles related to quackery if it were the ony list, for now I vote for relocating the information; but I welcome opinions as to why these are different or separately worthwhile.
- Should not therefore this list be dissipated - some items already included in List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, others might be moved there (and that might include the articles dealing with underlying concepts needed in understanding the scope of pseudocience such as the Confirmation bias article). Other topics perhaps should be incorporated into Quackery, or the concepts that distinguish conventional from alternative scientific opinion might be mentioned under Pseudoscience (or if specific to a particular scientific discipline, then under that subject e.g. Medicine).
- Finally suggestions for project space seem one means of covering much of the information, but that too I forsee as problematic - it will be objected too as POV as might Wikipedia:Wikiproject Allopathy watch. In essence it is really just an attempt to ensure that NPOV guidence is maitained across scientific/medical topics, namely that minority opinions whilst needing to be mentioned do not need to be given equal space in the encyclopaedia. Is not though this part of teh remit of such projects as Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine ? David Ruben ^Talk 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Blank page, but leave talk history. (The history is important as a historical lesson.) Okay, we're not getting anywhere, and I can see the NPOV approach isn't working, and making it like some other lists will be too time consuming, so I give up. I didn't start this list, so let's hear what the prime mover has to say, and let him do it himself. -- Fyslee 19:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I'm leaving my vote as 'Delete' (already registered above). This is just a comment on moving the list to project space. The latter space is not a Wild West for defamatory material. If you do move the list, I advise you shouldn't call it 'List of articles related to quackery'. Instead it should be the work list of some project (formal or informal) whose mission could be explained. For example, a 'List of articles in topic areas where bad medicine is sometimes alleged'. I.e. explain how the list relates to a project, formal or informal, and then show how the project's activities are using the list to develop better articles. EdJohnston
Move it to project namespace. This list is way too broad and confusing but it is still worth saving. I recommend it be shortened and not include everything under the sun. LadyLiz 22:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep why not, it doesn't violate anything other than some people's opinions. Prehaps the headings under each item need to be carefully articulated but I cannot see what the big song and dance about this is, other than a couple of editors don't want their sacred cow of choice even waved near the word "quackery". Shot info 22:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid your assumption is incorrect. I have no vested interest in any of the articles listed, but still believe it should either be moved to project space or deleted. Please don't assume bad faith on the part of other voters. -- Kesh 23:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"some" Shot info 23:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be me:) I am a chiropractor. Though to be fair, there are "some" here that "benefit" from the quackery cow as well. That's okay, too. --Dematt 03:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

CommentWith views possibly moving towards moving "List of articles related to quackery" to project space, please note that there already is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience which maintains a watchlist of topics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience/Paranormal articles/publicwatchlist. In addition there is a further project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism; I'm still trying to distinguish the purpose of this project from that for pseudoscience - both for example include Acupuncture as a topic to watch. A third project I think is likely to be triplication, so might I suggest merging the list into various aspects of the pseudoscience project (claimed quackery to WikiProject Pseudoscience watchlist, surrounding concept and statistical articles to a WikiProject Pseudoscience sub-page) ? David Ruben ^Talk 00:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I support first moving it to project space (WikiProject Pseudoscience sounds good) and using another name without the Q word. Then blank this list ASAP so it doesn't continue to detract from our other tasks here. In the project space it can get pared down and some parts merged into the existing articles and lists. (Merging takes time, and this list shouldn't exist here while it's going on.) There they will fit in better, and with good sourcing. The current approach isn't working, so let's blank this list ASAP!!

The difference between a pseudoscience (science, including medicine) list and a quackery (only medicine) list is simple -- they overlap alot, but are not identical. Not all pseudoscience ends up as quackery, and not all quackery is based in pseudoscience. Some quackery (a minority of cases) is just plain criminal fraud, while most of it involves no deliberate fraud, but is based in pseudoscience, ignorance, faulty education, well-meant attempts by true believers, etc.. "Quackery's paramount characteristic is promotion ("Quacks quack!") rather than fraud, greed, or misinformation. Most people think of quackery as promoted by charlatans who deliberately exploit their victims. Actually, most promoters are unwitting victims who share misinformation and personal experiences with others." While quackery and quacks deserve criticism, it's the actual frauds and scammers that deserve most attention, exposure, and often prosecution. -- Fyslee 09:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The AfD banner says "please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." It looks like you'll have to be patient. Colin°^Talk 09:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Further Comment I am not sure if Quackguru (POV name!) jumped or was pushed into starting this ill-concieved venture, but it was a bad idea from the get-go. If the Wikipedian community finds that this article should be deleted, then why should it be moved to a Project Space or any other space except Outer Space? Why save used toilet paper? Flush it and be done with it! Steth 04:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Question. Where in outer space do you prefer? --QuackGuru 11:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Where else but in the Taurus constellation! Steth 14:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete To me, this represents everything an encyclopedia is not ... biased, attacking, POV, and just another public relations trick to regurgitate the Quack Lists put out by the NCAHF [75] years ago, and the Quack Files and its biased, related Webring of today (to which most every article here links to). There are vast commercial interests at play in the business called "anti-quackery" and they are, in my most humble opinion, using Wikipedia right now to further their perjorative campaigns. Thank you. Ilena 14:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

move to project space i think Colin makes a compelling argument but this is a useful resource. Just out of interested it should be noted that TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs) CuTop (talk · contribs) both have less than 300 edits. I know this is against AGF but I hope these are not sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts being brought out to help a cause. Both have contributed to previous AfD's on this topic. David D. (Talk) 17:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst it is true that I don't edit hereall too often, you can rest assured that I am nobody's puppet (meat, sock or any material with which one might bludgeon a loved one). If you are curious how I arrived here, I was invited here by the cause (as you call it)... I call it "like-minded Wikipedians who share in the belief that this website should be kept as fair as possible and not dominated by Western, ethnocentric opinions". I suppose cause is more succinct. As for my edit count being under 300 edits, well on first glance at user contributions, the same can be said for the QuackGuru (talk · contribs) and Shot info (talk · contribs). I, however, am confident that these are actual editors and only assume the best faith in my fellow Wikipedians. I love you, David D. CuTop 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

CuTop, it was your complete lack of activity prior to your appearance on this AfD that made me wonder, I probably should have made that more clear. I was just thinking aloud. As for shot info, s/he has been editing in related areas recently so was less of an anomaly. I had not thought to look at QuackGuru since he had a blue linked name (rather than red). But you're right, his first edit was on this page so I should have included that user in my musings too. Glad you are no puppet. David D. (Talk) 18:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am more of a Wikipedia reader than an editor. Occasionally I contribute and am invited to participate in voting like this. However if my edit history precludes be from voting, I am more than happy to abstain. Although - as David mentions above about Shot Info - my edits tend to be in related areas. TheDoctorIsIn 20:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it was your editing pattern (plus red user name) that made me wonder aloud about socks. By pattern, I mean no editing since Sept except for a CfD in Dec (Quackery) and this AfD. But if you are a reader then that would it explain it. David D. (Talk) 20:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorize or Move to Project Space. This serves no real purpose as an article, but I can see some value here as a navigational tool.--Isotope23 18:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Quackery" category was recently deleted. Bubba73 (talk), 21:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Inclusion is subjective and lacks any clear criteria. Dragomiloff 01:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Alert. The contributor TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs) has freely admitted his/her vote was invited to vote here? See here> [76] Also see here> [77] It seems clear someone is trying to swing the results. I wonder who? Please tell us TheDoctorIsIn who told you to vote here. Thanks. --QuackGuru 17:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

To be precise, you - QuackGuru - alerted me to vote here [78]. I find it astonishing that in this, your very first edit, you were so well versed in Wikipedia code and programing. I've been here for nearly a year now and I hardly understand anything beyond leaving comments or adding or deleting a word here-and-there. Have you edited on Wikipedia before under a different name or IP address? Or did you study Wikipedia editing policy a lot before making this first edit. I understand that as a Quack Buster you like to point fingers a lot and feel it is your duty to tell others who is to blame for all of their troubles. Just remember what happens when you point at others ~ you end up with three fingers pointing back at you (and your thumb is pointing up at God or something). I've seen the Assume Good Faith policy brandied around here and I think this is as good a time as any for its invocation. TheDoctorIsIn 18:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To be precise you explained you were "invited" to vote here. See here> [79] Also see here> [80] Again, who invited you to vote here. Please answer the question. BTY, you comments sounds a lot like Steth. Are you Steth? Also do you know the editor Cutop? Who told the editor Cutop about here? It was not me. Was it you? --QuackGuru 18:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, you invited me here to vote. I am not Steth. I am not Cutip. I am not QuackGuru. I am myslef and none other. Please read WP:AGF (I hope I am linking correctly to this). TheDoctorIsIn 18:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice. TheDoctorIsIn has falsely stated I invited s/he to vote here. I did not invite you to vote here. I never made contact with you. You are telling me to assume good faith while you and your friends Steth and Cutop continue on your cause on Wikipedia. This conversation has been informative. See you around. --QuackGuru 18:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to stop engaging in this conversation now and return to the world of the intellectually mature. Bye. TheDoctorIsIn 19:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you are in a position to point fingers, Quru?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shot_info#Greetings

Steth 18:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The hypocrisy here by QuackGuru is mindboggling. I thought this is a voting page; not gripe and point fingers page. TheDoctorIsIn 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is some discussion on the talk page about this issue. It would appear both sides have canvased for contributors using email, talk pages and project pages. QuackGuru has himself asked editors to reconsider their "vote". I don't see any evidence that this debate has been overwhelmed by one group of editors or that such canvansing has always produced the result the canvasser would have desired. Colin°^Talk 18:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. I originally brought the point up because I was unsure about policies on the matter. Upon further investigation, I've found a proposed policy, but no explicit rule against canvassing for votes. Plus, it does not appear that either side has affected the outcome anyway. The point is moot. -- Kesh 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Alert. Bad faith edit by Steth. We should not count the vote of Steth (talk · contribs) because he/she has used the word murderous in a sentence on the talk page of this list. It may appear a little strange but perhaps Steth would like to clarify what he/she means by this. Are you Steth threatening another user? Please explain. --QuackGuru 19:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you completely misread or misrepresented what was said on that page. Read your linked diff again: he was talking about how another editor characterized a third party. -- Kesh 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Could we please stop discussing editors and focus on the article. There are plenty other forums on WP for such issues. Colin°^Talk 14:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Currently the consensus is approx even between Delete and Move to Project. My own view is that it should not be moved verbatim (as has been done here: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Rational Skepticism/List of articles related to quackery) and this view is shared by many of the Move and probably more of the Delete editors. The word "quack" is interpreted differenty by editors, with some taking great offense. Many editors feel there is value in a wikiproject maintaining a list of medical articles that are controversial and may benefit from improvement or watching in order to achieve NPOV, V, etc. Can this be done in a non-confrontational manner? Could the moved article be simply Wikipedia:Wikiproject Rational Skepticism/Medicine? The list can be broken into sections that would help with navigation. The word "quack" needn't appear as an entry criterion. The list also needs trimmed to remove the every-day words. Colin°^Talk 14:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The name you have suggested does not match the list. Another name I was thinking of was > the List of articles related to skepticism. Note the "Q-word" is gone but still has a similar meaning. I still prefer the original title though. I would like to know what you think of this title. The list could be categorized better and improved as you stated to help with navigation. Everday words could be put into there own special category. My concern is I do not want to lose any valuable info which is important as a navigational tool for the general public & students in the field of research on a variety of topics. I want this list to be complete. That was my idea from the start. --QuackGuru 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

But this is a medical/health list, not just all skepticism. A long name isn't required and the prefix of "Wikiproject Rational Skepticism" tells you most of what it is about. Maybe "Health" rather than "Medicine"? I really don't see what "everyday words" have to do with the project – why should project members be interested in the article on honesty? Ultimately, the organisation of "articles of interest" is a matter for the Wikiproject so perhaps you should take the discussion to their talk page. However, if you want to collate info for the "general public & students", a Wikiproject is not the place. If the purpose of your collation is to further a campaign against quackery, then Wikipedia is not the place either since it is not a soapbox – there's the whole rest of the Web for that. Several editors (including myself above) have made suggestions on different approaches you might take to collate the info in "articlespace": more focussed, neutral and well-sourced. Look at how other controvesial topics have been handled, ask for help on the Wikiprojects. Colin°^Talk 18:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Well, the list should have a genuine title. What title will describe the inclusion of the list? The project is to develop the list to bring back to mainspace. Once everything is focused it will be back where it belongs. A navigational tool for Wikipedia readers is very good I would think. Here is another title for the resource list. ---->

List of articles related to skeptical health topics. BTW, Wkipedia is for readers of the general public for knowledge. Or what is the purpose of Wikipedia? Schools around the world are telling students about Wiki. That is how I found this place. I hope you welcome students here on Wikipedia to benefit other students. --QuackGuru 18:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: For the WikiProject it will be used only as a watch list. Is that it? I'm afraid it really will be sent to Wiki-Outer-Space. --QuackGuru 21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That title isn't grammatical. I think you misunderstand my point about "general public & students": I said a Wikiproject isn't for them. Wikiprojects are pages and teams internal to Wikipedia for editors only. Of course Wikipedia welcomes students. As someone new to Wikipedia, you might find it helpful to get a mentor (Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User) and to read some more about our guidelines and policies before embarking on too much. Colin°^Talk 21:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep as is, either here or in project-space. I'm beginning to think that project-space would be better, but Delete is unacceptable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Even the basic title is PoV, its tainting the whole article and basis. So on the basis of WP:NPOV I say delete. Quackery? I mean come on. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 20:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Inherently original research attack article. We don't get to decide what is "quackery" for inclusion in something like this. Not one thing is sourced ON the article. Delete, salt. Also, including all of those people? WP:BLP anyone? F.F.McGurk 20:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete the title and inclusion criteria are weaselly, the list is indiscriminate and OR. I wouldn't support a move to project space unless the article is changed to elaborate how this helps wikipedia and the inclusion criteria are rewritten. GabrielF 23:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
DeleteThe logical end-run fails the smell test. The weaselly logic tries to evade WP:BLP by saying a list of names including living persons are "related" to quackery, but some are quacks and some are anti-quacks. This fails, because it is as if someone made a list of persons "related to pedophilia" then as you look at each name, the articles for A, B, and C say they are staunchly anti-pedophile, whilce the article for D just says he likes to invite kids to his home to eat candy and play video games. The inference is made clear to the reader. If the articles about living persons were deleted from and kept off the list, that would reduce the libel exposure of the Wikipedia project. If that is unacceptable, then the article should be deleted. Edison 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thai Orchid

Sounds like something someone made up in school one day. I've never heard of it, no references are given and Google does not show it to be a common term. Strait 16:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Unverifiable and lack of related Google hits suggests lack of notability. Prolog 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable suspected neologism. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. WP:V, WP:NN, WP:NEO, WP:NFT, etc. OscarTheCat3 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not for sexual fantasies dreamt up in school one day. Pascal.Tesson 10:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penelope Jones

nom - Speedied once. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Self-sourced. Rklawton 16:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom Akihabara 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I'm from St. Louis and I've never heard of her so she must not be that notable. Static Universe 08:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua I. Smith

non notable businessman Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep, based on the Bush appointment. Verification for everythings is highly necessary,--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 17:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep as director of several highly notable corporations. Badly needs sourcing (there should be company bios and a gov't press release at least) preferably from independent, reliable sources. Eluchil404 10:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but this article needs to be rewritten. It fails Wikipedia:Verifiability as article cites no source for claims. But Joshua I. Smith easily passes the Google test. TheMindsEye 01:56, 12 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 both. Sandstein 06:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It Stalks: The Legend of Bloody Kelise

WP:NN Movie is not listed in www.imdb.com and is almost non-existent in google. TonyTheTiger 17:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

Delete WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL both apply. Shooting has not yet begun and nothing suggest that it will be notable after (let alone before) release. Eluchil404 10:39, 11 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. No significantly valid reasons given to keep this article. Many are that "it is enjoyable". Proto::► 10:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Shmatrix

Non-notable fan-dub. Google search turns up only 58 unique returns on 256 total for "The Shmatrix". No major press mentions, all seem to be forums and YouTube links. Delete TheRealFennShysa 17:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Okay, so someone somewhere spoofed The Matrix. This is not exactly a world-shattering event. Having an article for this would be not unlike having an article for every single Whassup? parody that popped up back when the Bud ad campaign was going strong. -- Captain Disdain 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - How many of those spoofs are the length of a feature film? It's not a fan film because it pokes fun of the original. No Matrix fan would ever acknowledge it. The movie does a very good job at entertaining those who were disappointed with the official Russian translation. Chronolegion 13:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a question of length, it's a question of significance... and whether Matrix fans would ever acknowledge it is irrelevant. (For the record, I'm not a Matrix fan.) Neither is it a question of whether it entertains people. These are not things that decide whether or not something should be included in Wikipedia. Generally, the topic should have been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Now, I can think of some expections to that guideline, but I can't see why they would apply to this. I mean, is this a bone fide cult phenomenon? If so, fine, that's good enough for me. But if that is the case, surely there are some references to it somewhere? -- Captain Disdain 15:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Goblin's humorous translations created a cult following among the Russian-speakers. Unfortunately, Google does not seem to have much information related to the film. However, if you use a Russian search engine like www.yandex.ru to search for "Шматрица", you will find Russian online articles describing and reviewing the translation. For example, if you translate this article with an online translator like Babelfish or Worldlingo, you will see that Russian reviewers consider Goblin's work seriously (despite it being humorous). Chronolegion 15:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Unfortunately, I am entirely unqualified to evaluate the Russian sites -- I mean, I don't know which ones of them have credibility and which ones do not. Take the kinokadr.ru article that you refer to, for example -- I have no idea if that'd be the equivalent of, say, Roger Ebert's site, The New York Times, Ain't It Cool News or a random internet fan thing, or none of the above. The fact that I'm reading it through a Babelfish translation doesn't really make it easier for me. =) But that said, "Шматрица" gets over 35,000 hits, and I'm assuming that it's not a word that means anything else in Russian. That instantly puts it in a different category. If someone can shed some light on whether these sites qualify as credible Wikipedia sources, I'm quite happy to change my vote here. -- Captain Disdain 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      - The kinokadr.ru website's "about" section describes it as a professional online magazine. Information in their articles is complete and truthful. Their attendance is currently about 200,000 visitors per month and rising. They are actively working with (Russian) movie producers, Internet news resources, press covering major Russian film festivals, etc. They offer reviews, film news, stillshots, photos from movie sets, and other movie info. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia standards are for credible sources, but I would assume that a professional online magazine qualifies. Chronolegion 17:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - No matter what its fans may think, it is definitely a fan-dub/fan film, and unauthorized at that. No legitimate sources as far as I can see. Textbook non-notable, and TheRealFennShysa's argument carries more weight with me than unsourced claims of popularity. MikeWazowski 01:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- How would you define a legitimate source? Goblin's translations are reviewed in serious online magazines. This wouldn't be done to something unless they felt it was worth reviewing. Chronolegion 03:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Seems to have been covered well enough in Russian reliable sources, it seems slightly unreasonable to expect it to have been covered elsewhere. One Night In Hackney 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, lack of English sources does not mean lack of notability. MaxSem 14:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep. I think the article exists in the Russian WP [81]. Hard to form a conclusive opinion on notability without a lot of babelfishing, but it is a reasonable article linked to a notable person and notable movie. WP:FAITH says if its good enough for the Russian WP, it deserves an English version. John Vandenberg 06:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Internet scandals

List was created to give editors who create articles on non-notable internet drama a place to put them after the article is deleted, to discourage recreation. While I understand the sentiment, I don't think it's a good idea. If something doesn't belong on wikipedia, it doesn't belong, period.

Also, this list is likely to be dangerous from a WP:BLP perspective. For a start, the term 'scandal' is kind of inherently pov. Crook and his fake DMCA take-down notices, for example, are imo less a scandal and more a really stupid move on his part. And every time one of these flash-in-the-pan Internet 'scandals' happens, we get droves of people wanting to add their own commentary on it to the 'pedia. Take the whole 'stolen sidekick' fiasco for an example. People who were following that one came to wikipedia to add information that was uncited, and in some cases possibly libelous and potentially dangerous for the young lady accused of stealing the device. We should not be encouraging people to add uncited and non notable material on any subject, but internet drama least of all. -- Vary | Talk 17:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: originally prodded, but prod was contested. -- Vary | Talk 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Lacks encyclopedic value. In addition, the criteria for listing is too vague and subjective. Agent 86 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete Useless and unencylopedic. The notable entries have their own articles or are otherwise covered elsewhere. I this sticks around long it'll become a magnet for all sorts of internet drama. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete As said, vague criteria, probably libellous, POVs, and useless. Plus, the contents are frankly stuff that's a) better covered in the subject articles, if someone gives a damn, (No one's going to make the leap of guess like "Hmm, that famous Orrin Hatch's website goof[82], I wonder if it's going to be covered in Wikipedia. Oh! I know! I'll go looking for it from "List of Internet scandals"!) and b) stuff that's generally so boring that no one gives damn. (Apart of that Shriber thing. That had squirrels and all. Okay, it was actually still pretty much boring.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Internet, or an appropriate sub-page of that. These incidents should be mentioned somewhere in one of the general Internet articles we have. However, we don't need a separate page just for "scandals" - that'd just cause too much debate over just what is and what isn't an actual scandal. Quack 688 03:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lord of the Rings: The Two Blown Away Towers, no evidence of this notability has been provided. "I remember reading in a magazine" is not convincing, I am afraid. Fails to prove notability, and no evidence to the contrary has been provided. Proto::► 10:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the Bum

Non-notable fan-dub. Google search on "Властелин Колец: Возвращение Бомжа" brings back only 169 unique on 479 returns, search on "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the Bum" returns only two, both connected to this article. Delete TheRealFennShysa 17:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. It seems unlikely this will have gained any coverage, so nothing from which to construct an article. Trebor 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed to Abstain in light of developments below. I'm don't feel capable of judging on foreign language sources. Trebor 19:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom ::mikm t 19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keepPlease use Russian search engines for Russian language search. Yandex gives 16718 returns. It is a cult movie actually. [83]Kneiphof 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything that would satisfy WP:FILM? (I don't speak Russian, and number of results is not proof of notability). Trebor 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep, it isn't a fan-dub, it's popular and is sold in many mainstream video stores. Also, please note that TheRealFennShysa's browser seems to have some bugs with Russian, because in fact Google gives over 40K hits[84]. MaxSem 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there multiple, independent sources for it, to show it qualifies under WP:N? And if there are, could you add them to the article? Thanks. Trebor 23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Added one as example. MaxSem 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my search on the term only, not just all the words, is still valid - see here... please double check your sources before making claims like that. And this is most certainly a fan-dub, as the creator was never authorized by New Line, Peter Jackson, or the Tolkien estate to create this project. I'm also highly dubious of the unsourced claim above that this project is commerically available, as the film is nothing but massive copyright infringement. And just because something is a cult film doesn't automatically make it notable. TheRealFennShysa 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is commerically available in vary many locations. This, this and many other sites are online shop. I've got DVD with Goblin translation that was bought in regular film- and music store. Kneiphof 13:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Not all countries enforce international copyright laws. While Russia may officially support them, it works differently on the street. Yes, Goblin did not get Jackson's permission, but I did see an article some time ago about Jackson offering to meet with Goblin in New Zealand to discuss a possible re-translation of the trilogy back into English. I don't remember the article or the magazine, but I thought I'd still mention it. Also, the translation is anything but a fan work, as it makes fun of many things, including the original film. Chronolegion 13:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - No matter what its fans may think, it is definitely a fan-dub, and unauthorized at that. No legitimate sources as far as I can see. Textbook non-notable, and TheRealFennShysa's argument carries more weight with me than unsourced claims of popularity. MikeWazowski 00:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, please don't alter other people's posts. That's bad form. Second, how would you define a legitimate source? Goblin's translations are reviewed in serious online magazines. This wouldn't be done to something unless they felt it was worth reviewing. Chronolegion 03:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Chronolegion. --Comrade Che 1 13:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:57, 12 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. If you are going to claim that the article is notable, provide evidence, rather than just saying it is. Sorry, but no solid reasons have been given as to why this should be kept. Proto::► 10:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lord of the Rings: The Two Blown Away Towers

Non-notable fan-dub. Google search on "Властелин Колец: Две Сорванные Башни" brings back only 196 unique on 382 returns, search on "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Blown Away Towers" returns only two, both connected to this article. Delete TheRealFennShysa 17:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable non-fan dub. :) Goblin invented "Funny translations" and remains the only popular author of such dubs. And subj is the most popular one. There were lots of immitations. Most notable one is Channel One (Russia)'s official "funny translation" of Night Watch, which was labeled as "Goblin's translation" though it's not concerned with Goblin. Goblin tried to make them remove this lable but nickname "Goblin" is not copyrighted so he failed. By the way this version of Night Watch was shown on 31.12.06. Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.76.35.2 (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

keep only because the deletion prod was never put on artcle soc person never know if it world be contested just brought to afd insteadOo7565 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a valid reason to keep. Trebor 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Same reasons as above nomination - no independent coverage so no verifiable information. Trebor 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Same as other nomination, I'm changing to abstain due to my inability to evaluate Russian sources. Trebor 17:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per nom ::mikm t 19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - this translation is one the most popular of Goblin's works among the Russian-speakers. While the film itself it not available for sale internationally (primarily because of copyright issues), it can be bought in Russia both online and retail. There are Russian online magazine articles describing Goblin's works in general and several of them in particular (this might be one of them). These articles can be easily translated (although poorly) into English with free translating engines like Babelfish. Chronolegion 20:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you use a Russian search engine like Yandex, you will find more results about the film than on Google. Chronolegion 15:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the Bum for arguments for keeping another of Goblin's translations. Chronolegion 17:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - No matter what its fans may think, it is definitely a fan-dub, and unauthorized at that. No legitimate sources as far as I can see. Textbook non-notable, and TheRealFennShysa's argument carries more weight with me than unsourced claims of popularity. MikeWazowski 00:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- How would you define a legitimate source? Goblin's translations are reviewed in serious online magazines. This wouldn't be done to something unless they felt it was worth reviewing. Chronolegion 03:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Chronolegion, Goblin's translations are popular and are sold in significant amount of copies. MaxSem 14:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Chronolegion. Russian-language Google search gives about 18 000 returns. --Comrade Che 1 13:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patricia Phelan

Non-notable priestess. Google search minus wikipedia seems impressive, but there several people with same name, at least one of whom in my opinion, deserves a Wiki article, but not this one. Searching with Zen added brings multiple references to this subject, but none say much more than this article, i.e. she is just a minor run-of-the-mill religious personality like millions of other priests, vicars, pastors, rabbis, imams etc. Emeraude 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

keep only because the deletion prod was never put on artcle soc person never know if it world be contested just brought to afd insteadOo7565 18:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per nom ::mikm t 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless some degree of notability can be established, and the article sourced. -- Simon Cursitor 08:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Universal Terran Church

The only source given is a self-published eBook by Mirlin Gandalf Poplar, who also happens to be User:Capike (note signature) who created the article. Therefore I am nominating the article for deletion as violating: notability, verifiability, conflict of interest, and spam policies and guidelines. Jefferson Anderson 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a repository for stuff made up by people who name themselves after wizards and trees. Plus all that stuff per nom. Otto4711 18:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
keep only because the deletion prod was never put on artcle soc person never know if it world be contested just brought to afo insteadOo7565 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete--while it is somewhat unique, it does not cross the notability threshold. COI and Verifiability are also issues. Justin Eiler 18:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
delete per nominator's reasoning. Not verifiable in the least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 18:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernhard Sekles

non noteabel person to be on here Oo7565 18:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nomOo7565 18:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Sekles was a German composer and conservatory teacher, whose students included Paul Hindemith and Theodor Adorno (and he was an important enough influence to be mentioned in works on them). There are articles on Bernhard Sekles in Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and New Grove Dictionary of Opera, both available at Grove Music Online. His name also gets 154 hits on Google Books. up◦land 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, this article supplies one source and the German article appears to also supply another source, thus fulfilling WP:BIO. hateless 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I have made a few quick improvements to the article; there is probably more that could be done. Several sources made much of his introduction of jazz to the conservatory, it was apparently quite controversial due to its association with African-Americans. A lesser figure, but deserving of an article, most likely. --Brianyoumans 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep There seem to be many G-hits for a long dead entity, which to me suggests that there is notability. --Kevin Murray 19:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, per above ::mikm t 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 12:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clone airsoft guns spreadsheet

orignial research. Not what Wp is for -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - wikipedia is not a product review site.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)
Delete Original research. No reliable sources to provide [{WP:V|verifiability]] or to show notability. Gwernol 20:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Provides a useful culmination of info gathered from various sources across the net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.178.5 (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 10:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lokean

appears to be unverifiable original research. Jefferson Anderson 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

keep keep only because the deletion prod was never put on artcle soc person never know if it world be contested just brought to afo insteadOo7565 18:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense. There is no requirement to list with PROD befor sending to AFD. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, only 615 Google hits ::mikm t 19:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - seems completely original research which lacks any reliable sources and fails WP:V. Jayden54 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and violation of WP:NOT. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Icosihenagon

An icosihenagon is a polygon with 21 sides. We don't have articles on all numbers, per Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). I think that we also shouldn't have articles on n-gons for all numbers n, and there seems to be nothing special about 21-gons. Historial note: This articles was proposed for deletion, deleted, and re-created. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

keep only because the deletion prod was never put on artcle soc person never know if it world be contested just brought to afd insteadOo7565 18:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? It's now listed for AfD - judge it on its merits. Trebor 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless it can be expanded. At the moment it seems unlikely to be expanded beyond a dicdef (which obviously WP:NOT). Trebor 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, per G4Delete, notability ::mikm t 18:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Google Book Search returns no hit [85], neither does Google Scholar. How verifiable is this neologism by the way? Interestingly, we could have up to 999 articles on 999 polygons [86]... --Edcolins 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Dicdef. To Mikm, G4 only applies to articles that have been deleted at AfD, not prod. Tevildo 21:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable number/polygon. Jayden54 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The article contains no information not found in Polygon, and doesn't seem likely to. --Sopoforic 06:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- This will also need a redirect, incidentally. --Sopoforic 06:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footballers who have played for rival clubs

Indiscriminate collection of information. You could pick any two rival football teams and find dozens of players who have represented both. This article doesn't even limit the list by country or by level, so there could be thousands, or even tens of thousands of names on the list when it is completed, and it's doubtful it ever could be completed. At the very least the scope of the article should be restricted and it should renamed to reflect that. Gasheadsteve 18:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Gasheadsteve 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Impossible to complete and/or maintain effectively - what counts as rival clubs, what level do they have to have played at, what countries would come under it? It's too broad a list. Trebor 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, could never ever be maintained, and the question on what clubs are rivals could never ever be answered in an NPOV way. – Elisson • T • C • 18:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per above ::mikm t 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete completely arbitrary. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Two clubs in the same league or division are somewhat rival, right... (not even talking about rival clubs in the same area but in different leagues, which may be rival as well). So, any player having played in two clubs in the same league or area could be included in this list. As Johan Elisson put it, the list cannot be maintained. --Edcolins 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - such lists should only be in articles detailing particularly notable rivalries - the list of combinations is nearly endless otherwise. Qwghlm 22:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
neutral - but it does seem clear enough to me. As an Ipswich Town Football Club supporter, this would mean to me any player that has played for both Town and norwich city, our biggest rivals. I think the list of players who have done so numbers five or six, so really it doesn't seem that hard to maintain a list like this once you get a few editors working on it. Jcuk 00:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- You fail to note that there are thousands of "rivalries" around the world. I doubt "a few editors" can maintain that. – Elisson • T • C • 19:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - There are a finite number of football clubs in the world. I would imagine every single one of them have fans who are wikipedia editors. Each club is liable to have one other main rival (Ipswich-Norwich, Liverpool-Everton, Wolves-West Brom). The numbers of players who have played for both clubs in a particular pairing is not going to be high considering all the clubs available for a player to join in his career. I really dont think it would be difficult to maintain this list on that basis. Jcuk 02:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep- Football is a passionate sport with passionate rivalries. It can easily be maintained.Arjan14 01:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Got any practical suggestions for how? Trebor 19:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete- which rivalries are to be included? It's possible to argue massive numbers of them, rendering this article almost impossible to maintain, and possibly NPOV (who decides what constitutes a rivalry? It's not always clear cut). Also, I really don't see what purpose a list such as this is likely to serve- it seems to be just a list for the sake of making lists. There are articles on some particular rivalries which are verifiable and notable, I think they would be the appropriate place to list any players who have switched sides. Robotforaday 01:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Who decides what constitutes a rivalry? Surely every club playing in a league are rivals as they all want to win it. On the other hand, Swansea & Cardiff could be defined as rivals despite playing in different divisions. An argument could be made for any two clubs really. Alexj2002 11:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 12:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nerd Boy

Notability not asserted, no reliable sources cited. Usenet is not considered a reliable source. Previous nomination (2005) bogdan 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Usenet is not considered a reliable source? So what in the Internet can be considered a reliable source. Web pages can change on a whim of creator. This is not the case with Usenet postings, which are there to stay for eternity. Looks like WP:RS is full of bullshit and this is not the reason to delete articles on notable things. Grue 07:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like, you can try and obtain a change of the policies: indeed, we should allow usenet, forums, myspace pages, irc logs, etc as sources! :-) bogdan 10:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We should allow Usenet as source, yes, because it is reliable. Others are not reliable, by definition of the word. Grue 11:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

By "reliable information" we mean "accurate information". Since anyone can post anything under any name on the usenet, I don't think there is any accuracy involved. bogdan 12:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So, anyone can post anything under any name in a book. Let's disqualify books too. They are so unreliable. Let's delete all alrticles that don't currently have "reliable" sources. I'm sure our readers will appreciate that. Grue 13:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no notability established. Naconkantari 18:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per nom ::mikm t 18:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete reliable secondary sources? Guy (Help!) 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable. Jayden54 21:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've been asked by Grue to clarify my vote, so that's what I'll do. The main problem I have with this article is that it doesn't really show what's so special about this webcomic. Although a few vague claims are made, such as being the best known ascii webcomic and the only one that's still produced, how do I know that's true? Especially the first claim, being the best known ascii webcomic, needs to be backed up by a source, if not a reliable source (but any source would do at the moment!). As it stands there is nothing to back up the notability of this webcomic, and there's no reason to believe those claims. Jayden54 10:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - And the fact that it was translated by fans to 3 other languages? Right, I see, it must be really non-notable to achieve that. Grue 11:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep easily the most notable ascii art webcomic. Translated in several languages. Was already kept on previous occasion. Why do we even have this discussion? Grue 07:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete no RS/V. Anomo 10:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- What part of the article in its current iteration is unverifiable? Anyway, this is the reason for cleanup not deletion. Grue 13:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Grue 13:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete No reliable sources to prove notability. One Night In Hackney 17:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Last time deletion was discussed the reason was no alexa ranking. Now it is usenet is not reliable source. What about facts? The comics will be exist with or without this wikipedia article, and the deletion will do harm to wikipedia only. Janusz 17:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. Herostratus 05:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purple Pussy

No notability established. Being nominated for an award does not satisfy WP:WEB Naconkantari 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There doesn't seem to be any sources independent of the subject, so non-notable. Trebor 18:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Changing to keep per Barberio - it appears to satisfy WP:WEB now. Trebor 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)~~

Ahh, changing to abstain (I'm nothing if not indecisive). I'll leave it to editors better able to judge in this particular field. Trebor 19:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. bogdan 18:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep : Needs some editing, but it is a notable site. It gained a short-listed nomination for the 2004 Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. It was also selected as a Keenspot primary comic strip, which satisfies "distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators" from WP:WEB. --Barberio 18:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The nomination doesn't satisfy WP:WEB so that's irrelevant. Does Keenspot count as well-known, as it seems fairly obscure to me? Trebor 18:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty well known amongst comic fans, having published their own line of print comic books. (I even saw copies at my local comic book store) Being selected as one of their main webcomics makes it a notable website. --Barberio 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete if it ever came out in book form like the article said, then I can see maybe having an article on it, but until then it's not notable. Darth griz⁹⁸ 18:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not notable per comments above and lack of any reliable sources to show any notability. Jayden54 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails pretty much all of our content policies and guidelines. WP:NOT an internet guide and this is all original research with no reliable sources, let alone enough sources to write from NPOV. We can't keep an article that fails all of our official content policies by trying to stretch the WP:WEB notability guideline. Notability is what we turn to to decide whether neutral, verifiable articles are on topics important enough to cover. It is not the backdoor to writing original research on "notable" topics. That said, I'll point out that consensus has been that sites like Keenspot do not automatically confer notability (see [87], [88], [89], [90], various other AFDs, PRODs and A7 CSDs). Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards nominations are similarly non-notable as about 125 of them are handed out every year. -- Dragonfiend 09:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

About 125 oscar nominations are handed out every year too. --Barberio 12:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To make a movie may require up to hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of people. Making a webcomic may require tens of dollars and one part-time person. I think you got the scale, right? bogdan 12:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Home movies have gotten into the National Film Registry. Cost is not an indicator of notability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per dragonfriend. Anomo 10:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete for lack of notability & of references. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
~~'Delete dragonfriend pretty much hit the nail on its head. Brendan Alcorn 04:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)~~ ← See checkuser request on this user. --Crossmr 23:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment (negative): as Dragonfiend pointed out, WP:WEB is a red-herring, since the real issue is WP:Verifiability ... there are no WP:RS citations to establish WP:Notability in any category, just an External link to the subject's website ... this article gives vanispamcruftisement a Bad Name. --72.75.85.159 12:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Added a primary source cite for the nomination. It's selection for Keenspot syndication is an immediately obvious fact. Note, I'm not a fan of this comic. I think it's purile, badly drawn, and pretty crappy a comic. But it did have a readership, popularity and significance in the webcomic medium, as evidenced by it's award nomination. (Also, and I've no idea if it'll be taken as a sign of noteability or not, but Comixpedia referenced the comic in a number of it's news articles. [91]) --Barberio 23:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead and cited Comixpedia, gives more weight to it's notability. (Or Infamy rather.) --Barberio 00:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, shortlisted nomination and ran for four years as a selection of a major syndicate. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Deltona, Florida. No reliably sourced information to merge. —Centrx→talk • 14:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deltona Middle School

Not notable. Article doesn't assert notability and I can't find any outside sources that are about the school other than school listings that just provide superficial information. DroEsperanto 18:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable middle school. Jayden54 21:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Deltona, Florida. There's less and less in common between WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLS3, but one thing they both agree on is that schools such as this that do not meet notability criteria as independent articles be candidates for merge and redirection. It's time that those who claim to be supporting either of these standards to follow their own proposals. Alansohn 05:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails to assert or demonstrate notability. Guettarda 06:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect per Alansohn. bbx 07:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete A directory entry and nothing more. I could live with a redirect. -- Kicking222 17:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Deltona, Florida (or district page) per the above. Slightly more than a directory entry and no valid argument has been made against redirection. Silensor 22:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge the stub to the parent locality. Someone could even just boldly do it, but it might be seen as short-circuiting the AFD. Georgewilliamherbert 01:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep - spurious renomination, expert close from last time and its DRV hasn't changed. Please don't do this again without a remarkably good reason for a change backed by someone who is actually willing to back up claims of expertise in the field - anything less would be merely querulous - David Gerard 14:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Able and Baker

Notability not asserted, no reliable sources cited. bogdan 18:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no notability established. Naconkantari 18:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per nom ::mikm t 18:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete IMHO, does not satisfy WP:WEB. Darth griz⁹⁸ 18:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete does not appear to be the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable. Jayden54 21:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete again. I'm almost certain this has been deleted before. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it was kept before. Phil Sandifer 13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - and I agree with above, I think this has been here before, but possibly under a different title. As it stands, unsourced & does not satisfy WEB. SkierRMH 01:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I think anyone looking at this AFD debate should take a look at the previous nominations where there was a lot of acrimony and part of what happened made its way up to the Arbitration Commitee. I myself was involved in the closing (and overturning) of one these debates. Whether or not this webcomic is notable is something I have no real opinion of. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete A very large number of editors have had the opportunity to improve this article by providing evidence of notability during the four nominations for delete. No such evidence has been provided. DrKiernan 12:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep. This has survived deletion by overwhelming margins in the past, and it's all but a violation of WP:POINT to nominate it again. Since we're going for repetition, I'll repost the reason that 20 people voted keep last time: comic is on Dayfree Press, a notable webcomics syndicate of which almost every other strip has an article. As a result, [92] appears as a sponsored link from both Questionable Content and Daily Dinosaur Comics. Furthermore, the editor of Dayfree was named as one of the 25 notable webcomics people in Comixpedia for 2004, and used his interview there to mention Able and Baker as a hot strip. Since Dayfree membership is by application, its membership in the syndicate constittues a jdugment of quality and notability from a highly important source. I also ask whoever closes this debate to glance at User:Snowspinner/Webcomics - I believe I have qualifications that make me a particular expert on webcomics and their notability, which might be taken as relevent in determining consensus. Phil Sandifer 13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep, querulous re-re-re-nomination and !votes from people not knowledgeable in the field. Unless someone who can actually show (not just assert) any expertise in webcomics has a serious objection, I'll be closing this in 24 hours - David Gerard 13:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT an internet guide, article is original research with no verifiable information from reputable sources, let alone any suggesting real importance, let alone enough to write an article from a neutral point of view. Comixpedia is the place for this type of original research. -- Dragonfiend 20:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I will point out once again that the standard you are applying is not the standard intended or endorsed by any of our content policies. This is not OR by any useful definition - useful both in the sense of being useful to writing an encyclopedia and in the sense of actually being used by Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 03:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Phil Sandifer. Notable webcomic and this is the 4th nomination (not quite a Harold Stassen AfD award contender, but getting there). --Oakshade 01:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was MERGE ALL to Tenacious D (album) per strength of argument. Herostratus 06:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kielbasa (song)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Non-notable album track. Joltman 18:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all non-notable album tracks from the same album:

Joltman 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge all to Tenacious D (album). Ohconfucius 05:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge All to Tenacious D (album). And then excise the vast majority of it--this page reeks of original research.--Velvet elvis81 06:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The album is notable and has a cult following. All album songs feature in Tenacious D tours. If you think their is unverified claims, give me a chance to cite articles. Tenacious D Fans 12:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The album is notable, and tracks are notable too. Chedz 12:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing vote. Page history reveals it was posted by Tenacious D Fans and not Chedz. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - As Velvet elvis81 has mentioned, each of the song articles have been well written and researched, and an effort has been made to make them stand out as their own articles. These songs are notable, as they are all signature songs and comedy bits of Tenacious D, even if they haven't been released as singles. Milchama 12:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Alot of effort has obvisuly gone in to this. Dont let it go to waste. — Ell the Ewok (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:10, 4 January 2007.
Keep These are not stand-alone songs about a vague topic; each song is about a specific subject, and as such, each track has a story behind it. Every song has a reason for the lyrics and content. For an example, an uninformed listener of the track "Lee" would have no idea why the lyrics are as they are. The song has a story, a history, and future, too. Every song has had a different impact in different ways. "Dio" inspired Ronnie James Dio himself to join in the production of their movie. Every track here has been well-researched; don't let that research go to waste. Noshemalenocry 17:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC) — Noshemalenocry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - This information is valuable for the entire Tenacious D comunity and of importance to any music fan, there has definitely been put a lot of work in to this and it would be a shame for it to be deleted — Tangellione (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Merge and delete. Not every track deserves its own article; indeed, many of them are no more than a couple of paragraphs long (with no scope for expansion). No research needs to be lost, it would just be a more efficient way of organising the information. Trebor 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge all per Ohconfucius. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect (merge sourced content, although there isn't much). Songs that only appear on an album can perfectly well be discussed in the context of the album. ~ trialsanderrors 20:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
'Merge All to Tenacious D (album) - nothing of any interest outside the D's fanbase. Yorkshiresky 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge all --ro|3ek 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Good for anyone interested on history of the song and valuable information. EJaY 23:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I have now Merged all and redirected to Tenacious D (album) per WP:SOCK, WP:SONG and WP:BOLD. Ohconfucius 04:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up Comment: Has a clear consensus been reached? I think the admin who will close this AFD debate, and not a random user, should proceed with that action. Milchama 21:34, 9 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 as List of popes by length of reign. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of 10 longest-reigning popes

List comrising an arbitrary number of holders of an arbitrarily selected office selected and ordered by an arbitrary criterion. Which is in and of itself very short, most of the article is given over to arguing about whether St. Peter was a pope at all. Are dates from the 4th and 5th Centuries accurate anyway? Guy (Help!) 19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

- The St. Peter part should probably go elsewhere. -- User:Docu
Delete per nom, useless - such a list would be interesting trivia at best ::mikm t 19:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Redirect to list of popes by length of reign. All I would expect is a mention of the longest-reigning pope at List of popes, but this list is trivial and unnecessary. You might want to nominate List of 10 shortest-reigning popes for deletion as well. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutral on the list itself (while "arbitrary", it does offer a finite listing, which is more than can be said than a lot of listcruf, and does state that the dates are " determined from contemporary historical data" (which then begs for verification)). However, regardless the fate of this article, the balance of the article after the list itself should be merged with Saint Peter, if there is anything not already contained in the target article. Agent 86 19:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
it should be Merged to a List of Popes by length of reign. bogdan 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep The Pope is an international leader and listing the longest-reigning such person is not unusual for reference works. A search for "Longest-reigning Popes", with wikipedia and several mirrors removed, gets over a thousand ghits.[93] In addition we have List of longest reigning monarchs of all time and List of longest reigning current monarchs.--T. Anthony 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and expand per bogdan. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep The Pope is a Medieval King, and at one time had a court. A real encyclopedia has this sort of information. I find it bias to lable historical information arbitrary.--Margrave1206 00:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. What next? List of the 10 tallest popes? Ohconfucius 05:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I know you're being silly, but you're not being silly in a constructive way. Length of time reigned is different than a physical feature. The List of longest reigning monarchs of all time has been around for 8 months without leading to a List of tallest monarchs. Further this list has been here for over three years without leading to anything like what you suggest.--T. Anthony 06:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as the "arbitrary selected office" (in the nom of User:JzG) is the one stated in the page's title and matches the content of the list. -- User:Docu
Keep so that it can be merged as List of popes by length of reign, à la List of longest reigning current monarchs. —Psychonaut 12:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it's worth having those
Keep Basically, as above. merge into List of popes by lenghth of reign Darkcraft 14:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to List of popes by length of reign. >Radiant< 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep* This article provides useful trivia. It is especially useful when someone is researching about the popes. Also, the argument about Saint Peter being a pope or not is a viable argument and should be noted and discussed. The statements about utter nonsense are ridiculous. Knowledge of the years of a pope's reign is useful in studing that pope. Captain panda 03:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge into List of popes. It's important and useful information, but isn't big enough for its own article. PTO 21:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The other list is already sufficiently long. -- User:Docu
Delete and merge to list of popes--Sefringle 02:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment List of popes is 86k long, it doesn't need to be made any longer. One article containing the 10 or so longest and shortest reigns would be fine. Gimmetrow 18:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge with 10 shortest reigning popes, and get rid of the POV stuff that follows the list. It has nothing to do with the list, and the only place where it could belong is in an article on Peter or the Papacy (although there it would probably be too POV to stay for long). Pastordavid 18:39, 11 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. Borderline, but Dun & Bradstreet's web directory is not a leading indice, and the article doesn't pass WP:CORP, which is the rule of thumb used. Proto::► 10:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luzzatto & Luzzatto

Non-notable Israeli intellectual property firm. Fails WP:CORP (Criteria for companies). Edcolins 19:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I think it qualifies on the basis of the statement: "Luzzatto & Luzzatto is ranked second in the Dun & Bradstreet 2006 annual ranking for Israeli Patent Attorneys' firms." --Eastmain 20:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Being listed on Dun & Bradstreet web site is not a sign of notability. There are actually 100 millions businesses listed on their database. [94] D&B is well-known, but this very specialized, regional ranking indice is far from well-known. Examples of well-known ranking include Fortune 500 and Forbes Global 2000 (WP:CORP). --Edcolins 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not notable per WP:CORP and lack of reliable sources (I can't find much through Google or Google News). Jayden54 21:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above, and may even be a WP:COI for the creating editor. ju66l3r 21:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Company meets WP:CORP 2 The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications. Compared to the world, L&L is a small firm, but in Israel it is not. Yes, D&B might be a very specialized, regional ranking indice, so what? That's one of the local leading indices. If Forbes bybasses Israeli, Nigerian, and other small country firms, then they are all NN? --Shuki 22:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- You pretend that the Dun & Bradstreet 2006 annual ranking for Israeli Patent Attorneys' firms "is one of the local leading indices." Please cite reliable sources to support the assertion that this ranking table is well-known. There are plenty of rankings around, especially for law firms. Wikipedia is not a business directory. --Edcolins 17:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  - You've unilaterally decided that the D&B indice is not notable and then tell me that I have to prove with sources that it is? Gee, that's fair. --Shuki 22:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Being the authority in knowing what is notable and what is not, I can unilaterally decide if the ranking is notable! Of course not... I am simply questioning the notability of the ranking, that's all. "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". (WP:N) --Edcolins 19:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Are you getting into semantics now? WP:CORP states that the indices need to be well-known and independent. In the Israeli business world, D&B is well-known and independent. --Shuki 21:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Thanks for your note. The issue is whether this particular ranking is well-known, and how we can verify that it is actually well-known. I am willing to believe you, but it would be nice to have some kind of evidence... --Edcolins 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I don't think the ranking is nearly enough for CORP. Strikes me as a "dime a dozen" firm crz crztalk 21:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I am not really sure what all this WP:CORP is. Of course a good encyclopadiea should have articles about all the leading firms in each area and Luzzatto seem to be one of these. There is good information here for anyone to use. 212.179.46.6 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is a small, non controversial entry. There are 1000s of similar entries in all of wikipedia: see for example Yigal Arnon, Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, Eitan Law Group or S. Horowitz & Co. all law or patent attorney firms of standing in Israel or LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, Baker Botts, Fulbright & Jaworski in the USA. If you delete this then you must delete most of the other 1000s of similar articles on other similar firms or businesses from all around the world. Why the discrimination? Our consumers (= the people looking for information on a myriad of topics) have a right to the information provided in this article, it is of specialist interest (patents in Israel and the Luzzatto family and also of general interest (a firm keeping up a family tradition from Italy to Israel, head of firm an author of novels). Keep it. Benqish 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Non-controversial is a) not a criteria for keeping an article and b) not true, since it's here being discussed for deletion. The existence of "1000s" of other similar articles does not affect the decision for any other article to remain here. In fact, I thank you for bringing some of those to my attention, I am submitting at least one of them for deletion per their inability to be verifiable nor meet the notability and source requirements for an article. Finally, Wikipedia is not a repository of all information nor is it personal webspace meaning if the information is important (but not applicable to this website) it should be hosted somewhere else and not here. Maybe you could start a LawyerWiki or WikiFirm. ju66l3r 22:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh please! Don't compare Luzzatto x2 with LeBoeuf Lamb, seriously. - crz crztalk 01:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please crz do not be americocentric. en.wikipedia is an English language web encyclopedia NOT an American encyclopedia. LeBoeuf Lamb is merely ranked 36 in the USA for law firms (see http://www.ilrg.com/nlj250), Luzzatto & Luzzatto is ranked 2 in Israel (albeit of patent attorney firms). An Israeli business can be on wikipedia and so can a US business - as long as they confirm with the rules set in WP:CORP. I (and many others seem to agree with me) think there is a place for the likes of Luzzatto & Luzzatto here. Benqish 09:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nance Lyons

Non-notable attorney. Notability is not established through reliable sources. Metros232 19:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete: per nom. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not notable, and probably even worth of a speedy delete (no assertion of notability). Jayden54 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete - author agrees with deletion, no reason to drag this out. Wickethewok 02:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikevent

Non-notable wiki. Fails WP:WEB, WP:V. Only 4 registered members, which certainly doesn't sound like a notable wiki to me. I can't seem to find an Alexa entry either (for those of you who like that sorta thing). Delete. Wickethewok 19:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's the rule then that's the rule. Delete away. -- MarkJaroski 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete: no assertion of notability. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - not notable and no assertion of notability (CSD A7). Maybe in the future when they've grown, but not yet. Jayden54 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge into recently-created List of popes by length of reign. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_10_shortest-reigning_popes

List seems generally useless ::mikm t 19:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

it should be Merged to a List of Popes by length of reign. bogdan 19:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep If the above named list actually existed I might agree with merge. However making a list of all Popes by length of reign would be a great deal of work made more difficult by a lack of adequate information on some of the earlier ones. Possibly this and List of 10 longest-reigning popes could be merged into something with title to be determined.--T. Anthony 20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Longest and shortest Papal reigns might work as a title.--T. Anthony 20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete list of holders of an arbitrarily selected office chosen by an arbitrary crieterion with an arbitrary cutoff, relying on data something over a millennium old so possibly not that reliable anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Millennim old Church records are records none the less. It would be bias to state any other way, most people find period records quite reliable. Also this is historical infor that would be merged with other Popes. Or is wikipedia a delete factory now? So the Papal office is now arbitrary, as is the past?--Margrave1206 00:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. What next? List of the 10 shortest popes? Ohconfucius 05:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This list is over three years old. In that time no such list has been created, not that I think you thought there was. If you check Category:Pope-related lists there are a few oddball things like List of sexually active popes, which won't ever be deleted as it's "juicy", and Links between popes. However there's not a glut of "list of Popes by insignificant feature." Length of reign is not insignificant in a secular or religious ruler.--T. Anthony 06:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep so that it can be merged as List of popes by length of reign, à la List of longest reigning current monarchs. —Psychonaut 12:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Though this article is trivia, that really is what Wikipedia is. I personally use it for random knowledge. I personally find it interesting that a pope only reigned for thirteen days.Captain panda 03:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Basically the same reason as Captain Panda. I find it very interesting to read about facts such as this one. However we could also do something like merging the shortest and longest reigns into one same article, like T. Anthony said, Longest and shortest Papal reigns could work.Daniel32708
Keep usefullness is pretty darn subjective and no other compelling reason has been given for deletion. I would support a merge proposal but AfD isn't needed for that. Eluchil404 10:59, 11 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. Wizardman 17:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Series of tubes

no reliable sources younger than a year, the article pretty much says it was a temporary item of news, and was only made to live longer by virtue of being a running gag on Jon Stewart. Also, a lot of the references look very suspect, like Fark, Youtube, and Neopets Will ^(talk) 02:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Previously nominated here. Will ^(talk) 02:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think it needs more recent references, here are three 2007 books you could use. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Merge I still see this used all the time and I think it needs to be covered, on its own page or elsewhere. BJ^Talk 02:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Protest -- the article has not been given an AfD tag, so this discussion is out of line. Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment added the tag, I don't think the hour time difference matters. BJ^Talk 03:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, then keep, in agreement with the others. Dicklyon (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep, per BJ. -- RattleMan 03:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable enough and well written. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep, more than one article about the phrase in the paper of record, for goodness sake. · jersyko talk 04:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep I sent my vote through the series of tubes, and it arrived. If there were no tubes, how would the internet work? Notability is established. Alansohn (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep The internet is not a truck! Oh, and it is pretty notable, given the circumstances it was spoken in... Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I concur that it's notable enough to merit inclusion. Was widely reported, and the term is still used regularly. Aussielocust (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Widely used in media and online. Scienceman123 talk 06:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable meme across several internet communities. CWC 12:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete and transwiki we as wikipedians, need to take a step back and ask ourselves if what is basically a gag on the Jon Stewart show deserves an article in an encyclopedia. The target audience for The Daily Show is pretty much identical to the group that edits wikipedia is it not? To elevate a silly analogy used on one occasion to a lengthy and well sourced article is worrying, not laudable. If Jon Stewart is ever stalked he would do well to consider the IPs of the editors who wrote this article. There is no possibility of this article being deleted now and I am not going to make myself popular, but I urge people to take a step back and consider how silly this makes wikipedia look. I remember sadly confirming that Steven Colbert was correct when he mocked the standards of a encyclopedia that has more information on Truthiness than it does on Lutheranism - something which is still the case after about 2 years. Hell, Truthiness is a featured article. You see, what Colbert did not understand is that for there to be a wikipedia article on something, people have to care enough about it to write it up. Though there are far more devout Lutherans than there are Daily Show obsessives, within the demographic of wikipedia editors this is clearly not the case. Who remembers the days when clicking on "random article" would most likely give you a Pokemon article or something about a fantasy world monster of some kind? Wikipedia is all about who contributes. So 20 something editors like ourselves should try and understand that we cause this bias in wikipedia and try to control ourselves, in order that we don't bring further mockery and derision down on wikipedia as a (literal) collection of jokes (which are ruined by this kind of obsessive treatment in any case.) If I was Jon Stewart, and I saw the millions of words on wikipedia devoted to him and his show and everything he has ever discussed I would be very scared indeed. Lobojo (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment, articles on this subject have appeared in The New York Times and other major media. Calling this phrase merely "a gag on the Jon Stewart show [sic]" is a oversimplification. Also, the solution to the problems you perceive regarding the relative coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia is to fix the disparity by adding to articles. I fail to see how this concern is a ground to delete anything. · jersyko talk 15:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, it was mentioned in a trivial fashion at the end of a diary entry. Anyway you need multiple, and the daily show is not a reliable news source. I mean Jesus! Imagine if every diary entry in a newspaper got its own article! This is just so, so lame. You know you are a "digging" when you start bringing "Digg" as a source. This is all BS. I could summarize the article into 100 words and move it. Not only that but the whole damn thing is comprised of an original synthesis. The whole time-line of how it was popularised needs to go, since that is not sourced anywhere. As do all the quotes where it is used in the daily show. Wikipedia does not list Daily Show gags - this is obvious. The NYT article does not even mention the "series of tubes" comment. This needs to be moved to wikitionary. PS I am sorry I didn't cite the name of the show properly I know how important it is to some people. Lobojo (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, don't mind me when I say that this phrase has been used by pretty much everybody ever. I heard it used on radio stations as I was traveling across Canada, news shows in the U.S... it is a pretty big deal, seeing that it was spoken by someone who was making decisions for a nation, and should've known what he was talking about, but frankly didn't. And yes, it has been mentioned in NYT (and TIME, I think... I'll have to dig around my collection). Also, if Wikipedia is not a repository of Daily Show gags, does that mean it is a repository for SNL gags? Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 17:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree it belongs in wiktionary, not here. Once you remove the OR, extendel quotations section and blogs, that is what you are left with. Are you suggesting that every dumb error that a politician makes needs an encyclopedia article? The fact that it has become a widely used and notable phris not ase means that it belongs in wikitioary, not here. It has been mentioned in hundreds of news sources as it happens, that is not relevant here though. Its notablity is not in question. Lobojo (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

So then I don't understand why it isn't deserving of an article. Yes, I agree that it can be worked on, and the 'video game citations' and whatnot should be integrated into the main article. However, I don't think it should be outright deleted. What about Bushisms? That has kept its own article for a good number of years. This one could be used in Criticism of George W. Bush, for example. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 17:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

We are in complete agreement then, neither do I. I mention belongs in the artilce in the politician and another mention in the article on the daily show. Lobojo (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course not every flub deserves an article. Only those with significant coverage in multiple independent sources meet wikipedia's notability criterion. Dicklyon (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Lame late reply, actually, this is the NYT article I was referring to. That's not a diary entry, that's an article devoted entirely to the phrase. Anyway, I'll leave it there, no reason to belabor the argument any further than necessary. · jersyko talk 21:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This deletion debate is a series of nonsense, as this article has notability. ViperSnake151 17:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable, referenced, verified.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep There are whole stories about this on ABC.com, LA Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. Not just stories which mention it, but stories either entirely about the Stevens remarks and the backlash, or about Internet memes generally which lead off with tubes as a notable example. <eleland/talkedits> 18:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete or transwiki to wikiquotes. This is essentially an internet meme; a phrase used by a well-known person which caught the interest and attention of the popular press. An analogy would be Nixon's plain cloth coat; this is covered in United_States_presidential_election,_1952#The_Fall_Campaign, and given more attention in Checkers speech. That speech was significant, not just for the subject matter, but because of the person who gave it (then Republican VP candidate, later President of the US) and the fact that it was a groundbreaking use of TV for political purposes. And, for all that, there's no plain cloth coat article, just a passing mention in a couple of other articles. That is about the level of attention it deserves. If we wrote an encyclopedia article on every dumb thing said by a politician in public, we'd run out of electrons to write with. Our job is to document things which are notable, not be part of the process of making them notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

See Bushisms. Also, having significant press coverage seems to make something notable, don't you think? Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 18:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Bush is a sitting president, Stevens is a senator. Things presidents do are more notable than things senators do. And, bushisms is not about any particular thing he said, but about a long series of things he's said over time. I could see this being notable enough to mention in an article about Stevens. Or in an article about network neutrality, but it's not notable enough to justify an article on its own. And, no, I don't think significant media coverage is inherently sufficient to demand a wikipedia article. That's what wikinews is for. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Ted Stevens#Internet and network neutrality. That section covers it well enough. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep per the existence of multiple sources, and the fact that it's a fairly extensive article, demonstrating its notability in a way.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep, obviously there will not be sources that are older than a year for a concept that was created a year ago. Sourcing is sufficient. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge I just looked this phrase up and was glad to see a Wikipedia article about it. The whole Net Neutrality Debate makes this topic relevant. So Merge it into Net Neutrality or keep it. Swilk (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep and certainly do not merge. --Kieran Bennett (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
keep What a great page! 78.151.159.41 (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danielle Kincebach

Another editor began this AfD but did not complete it. Eastmain 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral. A television series sounds impressive, but I can't find a listing in IMDb.com. --Eastmain 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - can't be a very notable actrice, since Google only returns 177 hits and nothing on Google News. Jayden54 21:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Having notability for this one show would mean that every single cast member of the same series would deserve one... which is not the case. Tamajared 23:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Colby's Clubhouse, the show she was on, apparently ran on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. I suppose it's remotely possible that Colby's Clubhouse is a big show over therebut "Colby's Clubhouse" gets 355 Google hits, so that doesn't exactly make me think that it was a huge hit even among the TBN lineup. The Clubhouse article should probably be AFD'd as well, because I'm not really convinced its significant at all, and at the very least it should be rewritten. (Allow me a slight digression, though: the episode descriptions are awesome. "Krysta finds out her sister, Jan , is taking drugs. Krysta and her sister talk about it, and pray. Jan promises not to do drugs again." Well, that's the drug problem beat, right there -- now, if only there was some way for everyone with a drug problem to know about this wonderful solution! Apparently, the same episode also includes "Psalm 139 Rap". People, I would gladly take rabbit punches to the kidneys just to hear that song. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it would be beautiful and touching and not at all awkward in any way, yo!) -- Captain Disdain 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Since I found the time to do so, I went ahead and AfD'd Colby's Clubhouse. -- Captain Disdain 11:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rama computer cult

Article appears to be unverified original research and the subject appears to be non-notable. -999 (Talk) 20:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per my nom. -999 (Talk) 20:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is a bit silly compared to the Frederick Lenz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Lenz entry). Is anything covered in this article that is not covered there? Also it has many quotations with no supporting citations and the section on “Organisation & finance” mentions specifics on three kinds of students… I don’t see any evidence to support that the cult functioned in that way. Further more isn’t Organisation spelt Organization. Whomever created the original entry was probably not all that serious about documenting facts. So why do we not delete this article?

Delete per nom, no sources given, no notability established. --Pjacobi 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, it looks like the authors of this article have quoted material from interesting locations. Let's give them time to provide citations for their material, and potentially expand the article. Smeelgova 00:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Keep with rename and improvement. I agree that the article is underperforming, but it has encyclopedic utility, as well as the usual insider opponents who may try to suppress the reference to their membership as a cult. • The POV title could renamed to Rae Chorze-Fwaz / Rama, and Rama computer cult should become a redirect. • There aren't enough references, but it's not like they aren't available to rebut the OR charge — the Frederick Lenz article has 81. • The British spelling of "Organisation" is to be kept as found per Wikiguide. • For notability, {"Frederick Lenz"} has 23,400 Google hits; {"Frederick Lenz" cult} has 2,050; and is cult-listed by Rick Ross, Steven Hassan, and others. Wired 2.01, a reliable source used only at List of groups referred to as cults, reports an allegation of "massive frauds" committed against the computer business industry (see alleged fraud details here) The alleged fraudsters were notable enough that Wikipedia disambiguates their nickname The California Raisins (disambiguation). As a matter of public policy, credible warnings of repeatable fraud are generally assumed notable so the warnings will be propagated. • The Frederick Lenz article is large at 63 Kb and focuses on the life of Lenz and his teachings. A second article to focus on the the problems alleged to be caused by his students and his organization(s) referred to as cult(s), is entirely reasonable and could reduce the size of the Lenz article. The Wired businss fraud charges seem incompletely or not at all covered in the article#section Frederick Lenz#Adversity with cult watchdog groups, deprogrammers and former students. Much of this section appears to be pro-Lenz and anti-anti-cult to the point of a POV endorsement of Lenz. Milo 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I am definitely in favor of keeping this article. However, providing references is a bit tricky. I definitely have a positive view of this group and, although I am opposed because of Wikipedia etiquette to just deleting swaths of an article, I have been trying to make edits that give a more positive slant on the subject matter. Thus, I am not going to be the one to provide references for the negative stuff although I can provide references for the positive additions I have made. The original creator of this article seems to have disappeared. However, I do know that, from a neutral perspective, there are references supporting both the positive and negative claims made here.

I already posted my reasons for wanting the article kept on the talk page, but to reiterate:

As someone with a favorable opinion of this group, I do not want to draw too much attention to the press coverage this group received, which unfortunately was mostly negative. Yet the press coverage--albeit largely negative in nature--surely is indicative of the significance of this group. The group was discussed in articles or television programs in Wired Magazine (2.01, again in 7.09), Psychology Today, Dateline (August 1996 and March 1997), New York magazine, Newsweek, the San Francisco Chronicle, Santa Fe Reporter, Philadelphia Inquirer, Portland Oregonian, Gannett Suburban Newspapers, the LA Weekly, and the Hartford Courant. As noted, the press coverage was mostly negative, although the New York magazine did declare Rama to be one of the 100 smartest New Yorkers.

With this level of local and national coverage, surely it must be agreed, even if there is controversy as to the accuracy of that coverage, that the subject is significant.

As far as merging it with the article on Frederick Lenz, I would oppose that, firstly because the article on Frederick Lenz is already long enough, but also because a group is not the same as its leader. What Frederick Lenz advised the group to do through his teachings, and what the group actually did, sometimes were two completely different matters and deserve separate articles. --Dash77 02:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Change or Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.99.10.4 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

I see folks have some strong feelings for keeping the article. The big issue is that the name of the article is slanted. If we could change the name to something more neutral then I would be happy to help create a well rounded article.

The best name for the article would be: “Students of Rama – Dr. Frederick Lenz” The reason I would NOT go with “Rae Chorze-Fwaz” is because Students of Lenz seldom refereed to themselves as “Rae Chorze-Fwaz”. Mostly “Rae Chorze-Fwaz” was known as the fictional secrete society in Lenz’s book about snow boarding, Rae Chorze-Fwaz was only used to refer to his Student’s on rarer occasions… hence a redirect to this article is appropriate. I also think the California Raisins might be another good choice for a rename of this article. But “Rama Computer Cult” is really not going to do it because this article should be about more than the group’s proclivity for computers. What about the group’s history prior to the computer boom. Lenz’ had many followers prior to his endorsement of computer related jobs. Perhaps it was because of his endorsement of computers (and career success) that his more flakey students became turncoats and started creating negative press… people fear change.

Anyway I suggest this article be changed to one of the following:

“Students of Rama – Dr. Frederick Lenz” “California Raisins” or it just be removed

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

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

The result was delete. I am going to be very rouge here and actually base the decision on Wikipedia policy (WP:V, WP:NPOV in particular, rather than WP:ILIKEIT - all five 'keeps' are based on 'I like it it is useful' (or lack any kind of dialogue at all). Proto::► 12:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable series finales (1990s)

WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:LC. Nccnc 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete: About the most pointless list I have ever seen - virtually all programmes have finales of some sort. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep I agree with the nom, but it is a terribly interesting list and fun to read and oh please oh please can we bend the rules just this once?--Velvet elvis81 06:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep -- useful "compare and contrast" article. -- Simon Cursitor 08:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Its useful and accurate. My university had a history of television course. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Rename. No stated criteria for "notability". Agent 86 03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. This desperately needs some sort of criteria for notability. --- RockMFR 21:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of English words containing voiced postalveolar fricative

Simple list. There's nothing special about the voiced postalveolar fricative in English or in any other language that it deserves a whole article dedicated to a list of words that it's in. That goes for all other English phonemes as well. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete: per nom. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. "List of English words containing the letter B" would get short shrift, and I don't see how this list is any different. Tevildo 20:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - unnecessary list, and definitely not suitable for Wikipedia. Jayden54 21:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete since regional pronounciation variaitons make some inclusions invalid and one have sources. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it has no significant content GB 06:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete because the voiced postalveolar fricative is the least commonly use phoneme in the English language, and this page can be used to show if the etymology of all these words is from a language with the phoneme (e.g. French). It is also a very nice reference for anyone who just could happen to be looking for words containing the phoneme.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.216.113 (talk • contribs)
- Actually, /ʍ/ is used less frequently. I believe /ð/ might be as well. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Off By One (browser)

OK, I am not entirely convinced about notability of this product. It seems to me to fail WP:SOFTWARE. In particular I do not see "multiple non-trivial published works", nor does it seem to be a "core product of a notable software developer or vendor". It seems to be a minor, experimental product, still in early stages of development. A browser that does not support CSS and JavaScript would be severely crippled and hardly suitable for real use, as the image of Wikipedia front page shows. On the other hand I may be entirely mistaken. It's for the Wikipedia community to decide. Gabriel Knight 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. No sources to show notability, and I can't find much through Google or Google News. Jayden54 21:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The Google test is by no means infallible when it comes to a lot of topics, but when we're talking about a web browser, of all things, it's pretty solid. Just about all I seem to find on Google is a big bunch of links for downloading it, but that in itself isn't notable (particularly as WP:SOFTWARE specifically excepts that as a trivial mention). I don't think it's in early stages of development, though; I found references to it going back to at least December, 2001. It's clearly been around for a while... but I don't think that's a great reason to keep the article. If there was reason to believe that this was a very widely used piece of software, that'd be one thing, but what with the lack of features, it's more of a curiosity than anything else. We're not exactly talking about the equivalent of PuTTY, here. -- Captain Disdain 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:SOFTWARE, but Google does give 120,000 results for "Off by One" browser. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 19:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 12:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholics who have played for Rangers F.C

A trivia page. Fails WP:NOT HornetMike 20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. HornetMike 20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, if anything notable did happen due to the players being Catholics but playing for Rangers, it should be noted in the article on the player, and perhaps in the club article. A list is not the right way to go. – Elisson • T • C • 20:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. In Glasgow, football allegiances have traditionally been linked to religious affiliation. As the Rangers F.C. article says, "the club has traditionally been identified with the Protestant Unionist community of Scotland." Similarly, the Celtic F.C. has traditionally been supported by the Roman Catholic community of Glasgow. So the significance of this list is that the football team has in recent years hired some players without regard to (or in spite of) their religious affiliation, which might not have happened 50 years ago. --Eastmain 21:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - seems like a fairly pointless article, and it lacks any references or sources to show notability. Jayden54 21:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and don't even think about creating Protestants who have played for Celtic F.C.. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - crufty and fails WP:V due to the lax rules of inclusion, as well the divisive tone and nature; many clubs have traditionally white-dominated fanbases but we don't remark on the unusualness of black players playing for them. Qwghlm 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I freely admit that I don't much care about religion or football, so perhaps I'm just biased, but then again, if someone were to create an article about, say, atheists who have made really great movies, I'd want to delete that one, too. This is just utterly pointless. -- Captain Disdain 22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It may have a positive effect in that it might help combat anti-catholic sentiment.Arjan14 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- User's first edit. (And the argument is irrelevant; that's not a valid reason to keep or delete an article. It also looks like a straw man to me -- what anti-Catholic sentiment? I'm not an expert, but is that really a huge problem with football teams?) -- Captain Disdain 09:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I'd also say it's fairly unlikely that anyone in Scotland who does currently espouse anti-Catholic sentiments will read this article and say "You know what, from now on I'm going to stop being anti-Catholic based on an article I read on Wikipedia"..... ChrisTheDude 09:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep handy primer to Scottish sectarianism. Catchpole 08:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)]

Keep- I created the article for people interested in sectarianism in Scottish footballSR4VA 12:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps means something, perhaps not, but nearly all of this user's few contributions relate to this article and this AfD. Archibald 9 9 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ You perhaps have to be Scottish to understand why this is important -Doc^g 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Which, as Angus McLellan points out below, is an excellent reason to delete.--Doc^g 19:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

- Uh-huh. Well, you should perhaps explain this importance to us non-Scots. If this importance is impossible to convey, I have to question its existence. -- Captain Disdain 14:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Well perhaps Sectarianism in Scottish football is worthy of an article itself, but this is a trivia list which has no solid parameters. And no, I don't have to be Scottish to understand this. HornetMike 14:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Agree with HornetMike that best place for this would be in an article on on Sectarianism in Scottish Football, but oh boy, what a can of worms that article would be. Yorkshiresky 15:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There is Sectarianism in Glasgow, which has a Football section, and already mentions the things in this article which have citations. Oldelpaso 18:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or at the very lease Merge with the Rangers FC article. Niall123 22:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete: The necessary information in this article is already in Rangers F.C. and other articles. As said above, it is a trivia page, is unverifiable and fails WP:NOT. Archibald 9 9 21:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Intrinsically POV as criterion does not seem relevant. There are several other religions represented, they shouldbe given equal coverage, and the main article is the place. DGG 03:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, per Doc Glasgow's masterful exposition of why no-one who doesn't live in the former Strathclyde should care, and per Archibald99's explanation of the redundancy of this list. IIRC, there was a Sectarianism in Scottish football, or something like that, but it was deleted as a piece of nonsense. The broader subject would be worth writing a decent article on, but there's nothing here which would be useful for that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Archibald & Angus McLellan. Trivia fork of Rangers F.C. --maclean 06:12, 10 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. Claims of notability are at best weakly established and set out in the article, but better described here. Editors are encouraged to improve the stub. The Math departments bulletin (currently at the MIT Math department website linked in the article), notes a promotion to Associate Professor on page 2, right after a pair of tenure awards. At MIT this rank can be tenured or non-tenured, and in this context I interpret as not yet tenured, contrary to the IP editor's statement below. The MacTutor test is nowhere described as one of our standard tests. (See the proposal WP:PROF and the guidelines WP:BIO and WP:NOTE for what the standard tests are.) GRBerry 03:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Igor Pak

This mathematician does not appear to have sufficient notability. It was never the Wikipedia policy to include all faculty of all universities -- the university websites are sufficient for that purpose. I suggest to stick to really notable mathematicians, like Fields medals or important historical figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabla2006 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 January 2007

Delete - don't think he's notable enough, per WP:BIO and WP:N. Jayden54 21:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I am not going to vote because I happen to be acquainted with the subject of the article. I however urge the voters to look up the nominator's contribs -- the deletion nomination is their 3rd edit on the wikipedia, which seems to be done out of spite following own unnotable article deleted. Somebody bit the newcomer too hard, maybe? In general, when somebody asserts non-notability, I'd expect some backing information, such as the number of citations of the AfD subject's works (clearly appropriate in a mathematician's case), some google testing, or whatever.else. Nevertheless, I think that there is no problem in evaluating any particular article's worthiness even if clearly less notable biographies are still present. Go ahead and see for yourself. --BACbKA 21:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I'd rather abstain from a more definite opinion but as someone who is somewhat familiar with the research area of Igor Pak, let me make a few (hopefully helpful) comments. I'm concerned about the lack of reliable third-party coverage which would be our only chance to create a thorough article. On the other hand he's clearly an above average mathematician. I've heard his name a number of times (although I share some of his research interests so that might not be so indicative of wider notability) and he's definitely a productive researcher (very solid list of publications) and a respected authority in his subfield. He's a borderline case of WP:PROF however because it's difficult to find independent sources that specifically mention him as an important figure whatever "important" is supposed to mean. The situation looks like this: if we believe that Wikipedia should contain articles for every mathematician who makes solid contributions in his field, a few of which will likely still be remembered in 50 years, then we keep this article. If we believe that Wikipedia should only contain articles for mathematicians whose contributions have been central to the advances in mathematics, who will be regarded in fifty years time as key figures of their (mathematical) time, who are or are almost certain to soon be the primary subject of third-party works, who have garnered various mathematical distinctions, then we should delete this article. Pascal.Tesson 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Google test. I got 21,000 hits for "Igor Pak" and as far as I can tell they are all referring to the subject of the article. On the other hand, I should mention here that I personally know him. Mhym 23:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is a no-brainer. I'm a mathematician active in combinatorics. Pak is an enormously important combinatorialist, who has important publications across different subareas of combinatorics. I don't have hard data, but he's definitely cited much more than most mathematicians twice his age. I think he clearly meets the criteria outlined in WP:PROF. Dkostic 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per Dkostic. Combinatorial proof of the Rogers-Ramanujan identities surely qualifies as "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specifc field" as required by WP:BIO. Further evidence of notability is that papers that he has authored or co-authored are cited as references in at least 6 different Wikipedia mathematics articles. Gandalf61 16:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Conditional Delete All of what the keep !votes say may well be true; but none of it's in the article. Delete unless there is a sourced assertion of notability - for example, a statement of what he's done in combinatorics, and in which papers - at the close of this discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added a link to this list of Pak's published papers from the MIT web site to the article. This is a list of over 50 papers, with publication details and abstracts. Is this enough evidence of notability ? Gandalf61 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- While helpful, it does not address WP:PROF. Which of these are more notable than the average professor? (It also makes clear that the proof of the Rogers-Ramanujan identities is simply another, somewhat more direct proof, than the standard algebraic one. While interesting, not necessarily notable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
George Andrews, leading authority in the field of integer partitions for over 30 years, said "The difficulty of describing a bijective explanation of the first Rogers-Ramanujan identity was recognised by the great peripatetic mathematician Paul Erdös ... it is still an open and exciting question whether a direct bijection explaining the first Rogers-Ramanujan identity can be described ... the original discoverers of all these partition identities - Euler, Rogers, Ramanujan, Schur - used methods of proof other than bijections" (Andrews, Eriksson, Integer Partitions, 2004, p41). This shows that Pak's direct bijection proof definitely is notable. Gandalf61 21:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Dkostic and Mhym Alex Bakharev 06:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete -- A good test of notability is presence in MacTutor. If there is no MacTutor mathematical biography, strong arguments are needed to justify a Keep. Also, please no sockpuppeting in this discussion! Per WP:BIO and WP:N, having written more than 50 research papers is not sufficient proof of notability -- virtually all faculty fall in this class. nabla2006 13:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Nom !vote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't vote twice --- you're the nominator already, so you're going to be counted as a delete proponent anyway. --BACbKA 12:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

However, it is customary for a nominator to express his opinion in addition to the nomination; that way we can tell if it changes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

To repeat User:BACbKA's earlier point, nabla2006 made exactly 4 edits, all on this issue. Mhym 20:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And please be specific when throwing around the sockpuppeting accusations. --BACbKA 12:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment If a mathematician is in MacTutor, he or she is probably notable enough to be here. But absence from MacTutor should not be used to support a claim of non-notability. Last time I checked, Herbert Robbins was not in MacTutor. But no one would say he's not notable. Michael Hardy 02:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment:Your MacTutor test is very flawed. The MacTutor coverage is rather weak, e.g. note Mikhail Gromov does not have a bio! Of course, good reasons should always be given, regardless of whether it is for a keep, delete, or nomination. --67.172.164.179 13:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Keep~~:Looking through his publication list, it doesn't appear to have very much padding. A majority of the journals are very respectable (including Journal of the American Mathematical Society and Combinatorica). Just the handful of results from the very best on his publication list should be more than satisfactory, from what I've seen get kept on Wikipedia. He also managed to get tenure at MIT, which means what he has done is already fairly significant. --67.172.164.179 13:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Looking at the earlier comments, there seems to be a feeling that while other professions have to be notable, mathematicians have to be very notable. This is POV. . One standard is clearly, refered to in major works, and that has very clearly been met. DGG 03:26, 9 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional xenoarchaeologists

I am completing an incomplete afd nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as far as I know, all xenoarcaeologists are fictional. And there aren't that many of them. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - original research and no reliable sources. Jayden54 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Question Where is the OR? There is no speculation in any of the names, and if there are, remove them. Sourcing should be done at the entry, not on this list anyway. Not saying keep, if only because this list is so incomplete anyway. And what is the lower limit of membership to have a list? FrozenPurpleCube 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep notable within fictional TV shows. Anomo 10:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per JzG, and per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of crap, and also as there's no evidence whatsoever that the people listed are xenoarchaeologists: Bernice Summerfield says archaeologist for example, no mention of xenoarchaeology in Daniel Jackson, etc. The nominator, Otto4711, did give a reason. Like Jayden54 said, original research. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove that entry then, if no source can be found. (though since descriptions of her do include archaeological digs off the planet Earth, I'd say it possible to find such, but I don't have the books myself). In any case, that doesn't argue against other xenoarchaeologists or the list itself. FrozenPurpleCube 18:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing the archaeologists leaves a list of red- or non-links. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me, this list is so incomplete, it needs expansion before it can be weighed on its merits. FrozenPurpleCube 19:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

keep There's a way to fix red links, which isto write the articles. The list is useful even if that has not yet been done for some of the entries.DGG 03:50, 9 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional witches

I am completing an incomplete afd nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, a common theme in literature and art. This list contains notable examples. Tarinth 21:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Witches in fiction are widely present, and a category wouldn't cover all possible witches. FrozenPurpleCube 23:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Nothing arbitary or unmaintainable about this list. The suggestion that a list is only appropriate if it can become complete is bizarre. (Disagree with a speedy close, though. Lots of us at the mass nomination objected to the fact that it was a mass nomination so this separate listing is procedurally correct.) AndyJones 08:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Convert to category, that's what categories are for. A conversion is no loss of information. >Radiant< 16:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The work the witch appears in would be lost. Amazing how often categories and lists are confused. -- User:Docu

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional Vice Presidents of the United States

I am completing an incomplete afd nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Useful summary of a well-defined topic in a large range of fiction. Passes WP:LIST as a well-annotated list. Tevildo 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete This list pulls together from many different art forms a million different characters that are only tenuously related by job title. I can't imagine how this list is useful and it can never even be close to complete.--Velvet elvis81 06:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Telvido: satisfies "Infomation" and "Navigation" criteria of WP:LIST. It's a broad catagory and perhaps a substantially incomplete list, but it does not come close to being an indiscriminate collection. DMacks 08:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Good list. Nothing arbitary or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 09:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I thought that, at first, but actually his nomination is here, 2nd vote down. I'm against a "without prejudice" close, since that means we'll just be discussing the matter again in a day or so. AndyJones 13:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, very well-annotated list. Easily maintainable, and the notion that this is "indiscriminate information" is just silly: let me break it down for you - must be a US president, must be fictional. That's pretty discriminatin'! --Canley 15:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Not to repeat my comments from the same article for Fictional Presidents, but this is a useful article. Yes, it has trivia, but so what. It's an interesting read, has links to where it's used, and it is fascinating. It would be sad to lose a list like this. Orangemarlin 18:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional vampires

I am completing an incomplete afd nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, a common theme in literature and art. This list contains notable examples. Tarinth 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Vampires are a concept that deserves a list. I think the fictional part is almost redundant though. FrozenPurpleCube 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep but please rename. We are in agreement that all vampires are fictional, I hope? —Chowbok ☠ 04:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, fwiw. AndyJones 13:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep It is a list of characters of a widespread and diverse type in a long-standing and continuing genre. Zahir13 18:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep (and rename per User:Chowbok) - encyclopaedic, no reason presented for deletion, suggest closing this AfD early. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional United States Presidents

I am completing an incomplete afd nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Useful summary of a well-defined topic in a large range of fiction. Passes WP:LIST as a well-annotated list. Tevildo 21:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - useful and well-defined list bogdan 22:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Fairly simple list. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete for same reasons I mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Vice Presidents of the United States.--Velvet elvis81 06:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- No its not; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep: satisfies "Infomation" and "Navigation" criteria of WP:LIST. It's a broad catagory and perhaps a substantially incomplete list, but it does not come close to being an indiscriminate collection. DMacks 23:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep A very interesting list that is fairly well put together. Not necessarily unmaintainable or POV. This list is an interesting snapshot of what the office has culturally meant to different people in different places at different times. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 10:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep This is a very useful list for so many reasons, but mainly for trivia, but it also could be used by writers who don't want to repeat a name. I was just scanning it, and found it quite fascinating. This is one of the examples of why Wikipedia is so great-it has articles that aren't controversial, aren't overly scientific, and are quite interesting to read. Please keep it. Orangemarlin 18:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't see a reason why this should be deleted. It appears to be incomplete, but lists are always needed to be updated. --Nehrams2020 01:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Trival argument given for deletion. StudierMalMarburg 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional United States presidential candidates

I am completing an incomplete afd nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep: satisfies "Infomation" and "Navigation" criteria of WP:LIST. It's a broad catagory and perhaps a substantially incomplete list, but it does not come close to being an indiscriminate collection. DMacks 08:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Looks like an interesting list and should not be too difficult to keep orderly and proper. Nyttend 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as with List of fictional United States Presidents. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 10:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of supervillainesses

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Also an inappropriate sex-based classification, no need to segregate supervillainesses from male supervillains. Otto4711 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Possibly a little too excessively broad, but it is reasonable organized. FrozenPurpleCube 23:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - why delete? Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 12:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Convert to category, that's what categories are for. A conversion is no loss of information. >Radiant< 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - why get rid of information? Either keep it as is, or re-structure it. Jackytar 22:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Further to my vote, I would suggest that it be re-organized alphabetically, as it appears the lists of male and female superheroes are so organized. This would provide improved consistency. Might also be a good idea to cross-reference the various superhero/heroine/villain/villainess lists to each other. Jackytar 22:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. All these groupings are valid and useful as lists.DGG 03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete this list is essentially indiscriminate and is better served by a category in any case. Note that if it were reorganized alphabetically it would be essentially identical to the category. Eluchil404 11:05, 11 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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of sidekicks

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, a "sidekick" is too nebulous to be indiscriminate (per WP:NOT). hateless 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment at Talk:Sidekick there is no trace of the problem you suggest there may be with the concept. -- User:Docu
Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Also suffers from POV/subjectivity problems. Otto4711 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Sidekicks are a valid concept, and there's a fair amount of discussion on them. Even a few books as I recall. I suppose it could be broken up into genres though. FrozenPurpleCube 23:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Well-defined archetype. A messy list is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Convert to category, that's what categories are for. A conversion is no loss of information. >Radiant< 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- This argument was already discussed in the numerous other threads you brought it up. -- User:Docu
Delete per hateless, nebulous indeed; and per Radiant, Category:Fictional sidekicks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) already exists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Overbroad, uncited, POV converns (who decided if a character is a sidekick or not). Category is probably more appropriate despite the loss of quick descriptions. Eluchil404 11:08, 11 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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of heroic fictional scientists and engineers

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keepa common theme in literature and art, particularly science fiction. This list is well-annotated and contains notable examples, conforming to WP:LIST. Tarinth 21:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Also suffers from POV problems as "heroic" is completely subjective. Otto4711 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Convert to category, that's what categories are for. A conversion is no loss of information. >Radiant< 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Question. Can you explain what you mean? To me this seems to be a truly bizarre assertion. Of the first ten items on this list, only two have articles for the character in question, so categorising them seems to me to involve at least an 80% loss of information (or alternatively the creation of 8 AfD-fodder sub-stubs). Then there's the loss of explanatory text: in the same 10 items I make that 125 words out of 177, so that's a loss of 70%. The total loss of information over those ten items converting from list to category: 177 words down to 6, or 96.6% AndyJones 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment - conversion to a category is inappropriate, because this list adheres to WP:LIST in that it provides well-annotated information on notable subjects. Tarinth 17:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    - It does not adhere to WP:LIST: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources...Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit." This article has no source that defines "heroic". --maclean 06:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - useful and well-written article which provides lots of links for other articles. --Taraborn 17:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep As good as the others. DGG 03:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a subjective list with no sources. Inconsistent with WP:LIST. They are "herioc" because the Wikipedia contributor says so? --maclean 06:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete no need for even a category. I don't see any way of properly citing this list or making it consistent with WP:NPOV. There is a real archetype (or two) involved here but I see no evidence that assigning characters to it is anything other than purely subjective. Eluchil404 11:13, 11 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. Sandstein 06:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of mad scientists

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep the mad scientist is well-known cultural stereotype, and this list provides many examples. I'm surprised it's been nominated for deletion. It just needs tidying up - _{but when did mad scientists ever tidy up?} Totnesmartin 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Also suffers from POV problems per trying to define whether a scientist is "mad" or not. Otto4711 23:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Well-defined archetype. A messy list is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't someone change the title to "List of fictional mad scientists" pretty sharpish? Otherwise I'll be tempted to add an astrophysicist friend of mine to it. --Folantin 08:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment if the article survives, good idea - it was split from the original Mad scientist article, which still has a list of real ones. Totnesmartin 12:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Just deal with it. --Calton | Talk 15:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Otto4711 and rejecting the Wikilawyering of Docu & Psychonaut: got actual rationales? --Calton | Talk 15:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Convert to category, that's what categories are for. A conversion is no loss of information. >Radiant< 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I have rebutted this 96% inaccurate observation here. AndyJones 12:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I and my Cyborg Monkey are proud, proud I say, to support the continued existence of this article. Georgewilliamherbert 01:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep If there ever was a list relevant to fiction, this is it. DGG 03:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)03:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep - needing tidying up is not an argument for deletion, and also per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 12:37, 9 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. Sandstein 06:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional psychiatrists

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Easily defined profession. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Convert to category, that's what categories are for. A conversion is no loss of information. >Radiant< 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I have rebutted this 96% inaccurate observation here AndyJones 12:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, as per User:AndyJones. Smeelgova 12:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
Keep If the professional/nmotability factor/etc. is clear, any such list is appropriate. No list of fictional anything will ever reach completeness--and anyway, we have criteria for including the notable ones. DGG 03:30, 9 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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional serial killers

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, a common theme in literature and art. This list contains notable examples. Tarinth 21:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A ludicrously common in theme in literature -- well, fiction -- and art, and thus pretty indiscriminate and unmaintainable. And Lord Voldemort? --Calton | Talk 15:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Just deal with it. Or did you have an ACTUAL rationale? --Calton | Talk 15:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There's this thing called "Categories" which would be more useful for large, disorganized, and indiscriminate lists like this. --Calton | Talk 15:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A category doesn't do what this list does, which is provide helpful annotation (which is a key factor for WP:LIST). Tarinth 15:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Convert to category, that's what categories are for. A conversion is no loss of information. >Radiant< 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I have rebutted this 96% inaccurate observation here. AndyJones 12:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - it is a loss of information, because you lose annotation. According to WP:LIST, a good list provides organization (this one does), annotation (this one does) and needs to be useful (this one is). Tarinth 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as we have kept list of fictional prime ministers, we should keep this. Equally appropriate. DGG 03:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Valuable list; contains considerably more information than the equivalent category. --David Edgar 17:34, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional British Prime Ministers

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Useful summary of a well-defined topic in a large range of fiction. Passes WP:LIST as a well-annotated list. Tevildo 21:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Tevildo. Tarinth 21:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Easily defined profession. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- No its not; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per fictional US presidents... must be a UK PM, must be fictional, how is that indiscriminate? --Canley 15:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Useful list for research and general interest. Not indiscrimnate and clearly notable. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional postal employees

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Easily defined profession. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The article in its current form could stand some cleanup, but it's still a worthwhile topic for a list. Redeagle688 05:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good(-ish) list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as an indiscriminate list. There's no logical connection between Postman Pat and The Postman, but they are both on the list. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The logical connection is the title of the list. -- User:Docu
Delete per Angus. >Radiant< 15:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Angus, rather pointless list Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep not as many as mad scientists, but still OK.DGG 03:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Well-defined list, far from unmaintainable. --David Edgar 17:30, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional Australian politicians

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Useful summary of a well-defined topic in a large range of fiction. Passes WP:LIST as a well-annotated list. DXRAW 01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - what policy does the article breach or standard does it not meet ? if this works as a list of information in other articles the I can't see what the issue is. Is there some consensus on the threashold for lists to be included that this is failing against ? Peripitus (Talk) 01:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Easily defined profession. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu
- The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Otto4711, which policy/guideline etc.. is this list breaching ? Are you claiming that all of these lists are indiscriminate collections of information ? Peripitus (Talk) 07:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- No it is not; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep... must be a politician + must be Australian + must be fictional = not indiscriminate. Well-annotated list. --Canley 15:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as un-encyclopædic trivia.--cj | talk 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And what specific policy is it in breach of?Ga rr ie 04:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment WP:NOT One Night In Hackney 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per DXRAW. JROBBO 05:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, I don't see what policies this page breaks. Lankiveil 21:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
Keep. In no way indiscriminate, interesting, and well-annotated. Rebecca 05:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. One Night In Hackney 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional politicians

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Easily defined profession. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Convert to category, that's what categories are for. A conversion is no loss of information. >Radiant< 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I have rebutted this 96% inaccurate observation here AndyJones 12:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
keep as good and as useful as all the others.DGG 03:52, 9 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. Reasons to keep are neither rooted in policy, nor convincing. Duplicate of the related category. Proto::► 10:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional police detectives

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep as a common and notable character archetype, particularly police procedural fiction. Tarinth 21:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Easily defined profession and archetype. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are just "ingeniously" posting the same explanation. An explanation that was discussed and rejected. -- User:Docu

I posted the same infomation in each of these nominations (which I did not list individually, by the way) so that editors who see them understand why they were nominated. It strikes me as bizarre that you would criticise me for posting the information into each nom when you copied and pasted your text into all of them. And it strikes me as fundamentally dishonest for you to have claimed that there was no explanation given for the nomination. And as I also said and as you either didn't understand or chose to ignore, a number of the opinions expressed at the now-closed mass nom were based in part on the mass nature of the nom. Now those who objected to the mass nom have the chance to weigh in on them individually rather than !voting keep/close on a procedural basis. So, did you have an actual opinion on any of these or is this just a platform for your Wikilawyering? Otto4711 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The explanation you gave was discussed and rejected in the first mass listing. So there isn't really a reason to open all these additional threads (I understand it wasn't you who opened them and it was due to a misunderstanding of person who opened them). -- User:Docu

It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Just deal with it. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A stock character of a genre, of which the only thing they have in common is carrying a badge: not nationality, era, medium, personality, hair color, height, etc. Sounds pretty indiscriminate to me. There's this thing called "Categories" which would be more useful... --Calton | Talk 15:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- A category can't be annotated, so one wont be able to discerne why a particular detective is included. -- User:Docu
Delete per Calton. >Radiant< 15:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Helps keep the list on the detective article from getting out of control. Kafziel ^Talk 18:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Angus McLellan. I thought Calton was just speaking hypothetically, but Angus points out that the appropriate category already exists. Kafziel ^Talk 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Calton. This is what Category:Fictional police detectives (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is for. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I'm convinced. Kafziel ^Talk 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, you can't annotate or sort Category:Fictional police detectives (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Amazing how often categories and lists are confused! -- User:Docu
Keep as per above two comments. -- User:Docu
keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list for the genre.DGG 03:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition. --David Edgar 17:28, 10 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. Two deletes, two speedy keeps I regard as invalid, a keep, and one 'categorise'. No consensus, default to keep. Proto::► 10:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of police and detective characters portrayed in comedy

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Convert to category, that's what categories are for. A conversion is no loss of information. >Radiant< 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I have rebutted this 96% inaccurate observation here. AndyJones 12:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Otto4711. That is an odd, indiscriminate list. --maclean 06:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 00:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional British monarchs

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Useful summary of a well-defined topic in a large range of fiction. Passes WP:LIST as a well-annotated list. Tevildo 21:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, a common theme in literature and art. This list contains notable examples. Quite a long history on this one, with examples dating to the Dark Ages (Arthur, etc.) Tarinth 21:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- No its not; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Good list. Notable and interesting topic. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list .DGG 03:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep reasonably well sourced and annotated. Eluchil404 11:17, 11 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. Cbrown1023 23:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional military people

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is indeed an overly broad list, which could include dozens of folks in just a few novels. FrozenPurpleCube 23:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Just deal with it. --Calton | Talk 15:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A text dump of undifferentiated characters -- potentially thosuands -- of an enormous number of genres, of which the only thing they have in common is wearing uniforms: not nationalities, eras, ranks, medium, personality, hair color, height, distinctive features, reason for being in the service, etc. Sounds pretty indiscriminate AND unmaintainable to me. There's this thing called "Categories" which would be more useful... --Calton | Talk 15:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Calton. "Speedy close" arguments are invalid per WP:CSK and WP:NOT a democracy. >Radiant< 15:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Calton; categorising loses no information. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list although on the long side..DGG 03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Calton. This would be unyielding. --maclean 06:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Calton. Overbroad, indescriminant, etc. Eluchil404 11:23, 11 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of horror film killers

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, a notable archetype from films, and the list contains notable examples. Tarinth 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep and Speedy Close, I started this list, I see no problem with it, it is relevant and categorizes all the archetypal horror film killers/monsters throughout horror cinema, this includes other genres affialited to horror. Yes it may need cleaning but I still have yet to see a decent reason for nominating it for deletion. Piecraft 00:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list for the genre.DGG 03:55, 9 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. Sandstein 12:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional journalists

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Easily defined profession. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep - Very encyclopaedic. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list for the genre.DGG 03:55, 9 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 to delete, default to keep. Any subsequent merge/redirect/cleanup is an editorial issue. Sandstein 12:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of hookers with hearts of gold

I am completing an incomplete afd nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, a notable fictional archetype, and the current list is comprised almost entirely of notable examples. Tarinth 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep - List of characters conforming to a well known storytelling archetype. Further, no original nomination reason specified. --Eyrian 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Hooker with a heart of gold and source (was ~~Keep and clean up:~~ (was ~~Delete~~). Hilarious list, but unverifiable by any reliable source. See also the relevant section of the list guideline, which reiterates that list membership must be established by reliable sources. (Didn't we delete a list of Mary Sues recently? I can't find it, but I can't remember the exact page title to do a log search.) TheronJ 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I agree it could use some sourcing, but that shouldn't be difficult given a large body of professional literature academics who write about this sort of thing. I think the list can be given an opportunity for additional sourcing. Tarinth 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to keeping the list, but deleting all unverified entries, but I think it would be cleaner to just delete the list and include any sourced examples on the main article, Hooker with a heart of gold, then spin off to a full list once there are enough entries. TheronJ 22:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

- Update: Maybe I made my challenge a little too easy (below), but Pascal met it, and it looks like he is (1) capable and (2) willing to clean up the list, so keep and clean-up. TheronJ 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do my best. Pascal.Tesson 20:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

- Update: I know, it's lame to change my opinion twice, but (1) we're reaching consensus, not voting, and (2) my "keep and clean up" was based on Pascal's promise to do that, and now I see that he's willing to merge, which is even better. I think the agreement between Trialsanderrors and Pascal to merge is an even better plan than keeping, so (s)merge and clean up. TheronJ 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Suffers from POV problems as determining what hookers have hearts of gold is completely subjective. Otto4711 23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting; see this subpage — Iamunknown 05:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes he does, see the comment "delete as nominator" a few lines up. >Radiant< 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. Tag for WP:V, though. AndyJones 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete subjective -Doc^g 14:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, POV and original research. >Radiant< 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Highly subjectives- who determines who has a heart of gold? Clearly arbitrary and unclear ground for inclusion. Also term hooker is unnecessarily offensive. If kept, suggest title of Positive portrayals of prostitutes in fiction or similar. But that stills seems to me be highly subjective and invite OR. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I believe this comment misunderstands the use of the term as an archetype within fiction. With due respect, the suggested change of title would deal with a different topic entirely. As for who determines who has a heart of gold, there's quite a body of literature criticism to source for that. Tarinth 20:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply There is no escaping the subjective elements of all the words in the title. Another suggestion might be List of altruistic prostitutes in fiction. Though I stand by the idea that however phrased, the category for inclusion is going to remain a matter of personally opinion, rendering the list indiscriminate and unmaintainable. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 20:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It really is not subjective (at least not for Wikipedia editors). We can point to the body of literature and film criticism who classify characters into this category. As a suggestion, please search on "hooker with a heart of gold" on google (include quotes) and you will find numerous reviews and criticisms which use this, including many from peer-reviewed scholarly literature. I know you find the term subjective or perhaps irresponsible, but nevertheless this is the selfsame phrase you'll read in virtually any creative-writing book that deals with characters based on this archetype. Tarinth 20:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, unverifiable fictional character-cruft. If kept, title needs to be changed to reflect that these are fictional characters and not real hookers with hearts of gold (I'm sure they're out there!). Recury 20:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please tell me you're joking. It's not Wikipedia's mission to be idiot-proof. Pascal.Tesson 10:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep high-entertainment value. All kidding aside, I'd like to address the above concerns about subjectivity. This is not a list about altruistic prostitutes, it's a list of characters which reasonably match the description given at hooker with a heart of gold. It's useful to have this list of examples precisely because it supports that article (which I think all would agree to keep without question). So what if some of the fictional hookers on the list only had hearts of silver? The list still serves its purpose. Plus most of the films cited are so well-known that I bet with a few days work we could actually find at least one film critic supporting that classification. Pascal.Tesson 10:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

One film critic, or even 5, is not enough - all you'd have is a 'list of people some film critics called...'. It is still subjective. It can't be anything but. An article on 'hookers with a hear of gold' can say x has been described as such by film critic y' and thus retain a descriptive neutrality. But lists are Binary, Wikipedia has to decide who is and who isn't, that ultimately is subjective and thus cannot comply with NPOVV. It doesn't matter how many people !vote that this is entertaining, it offends core policy and MUST be deleted. Sorry.--Doc^g 10:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a few minutes' work will do the trick (no pun intended). for True Romance for Klute, for La Traviata, Mighty Aphrodite, etc... And why should we suddenly have gazillions of critics using that term before we use it on the list. This is like saying that when describing Klute we can't write that Bree Daniels is a hooker with a heart of gold unless Entertainment Tonight has proclaimed it. I'm not sure what's the sudden rage to kill this list. Is it listo-phobia or is it political correctness? I'm hoping for the former because, as has been pointed out, this is a very much used term and has to be (and always has been) taken with a grain of salt. Pascal.Tesson 10:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither. It is just that a million years' work can't make this objective.--Doc^g 10:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Extra reply to Doc above. I value NPOV as much as anyone, trust me. But you are applying it without the degree of common sense that is required in this case. Also let me make it clear that I don't think the article should be kept because it's entertaining but because it provides a valuable encyclopedic resource that complements the article hooker with a heart of gold, which is also a valuable topic of definite interest. This list also happens to be entertaining. Also, if you think that helps the lead can be changed to something more elaborate so that it's understood that the list is not intended to be a subjective judgement but rather a list of examples which were deemed significant by reliable sources (see above examples. But please let's not start creating List of fictional characters who have been described as a "hooker with a heart of gold" which we know is an offensive term but hey we did not make it up. Pascal.Tesson 10:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Sorry to have to do it but my vote is a delete. This is a fairly arbitrary list, many of the entries are not actually sex workers. So the list comes close to a random collection of information. Perhaps some canonical examples can be added to Hooker with a heart of gold for readers to look up. Sam Blacketer 10:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment well if some entries have no business there, let's delete them. Why do you feel the need to axe it entirely. While I'm at it, let me also point out to Doc above that noone in their right mind would want to delete List of blaxploitation films. Yet, this classification is not objective in the very strict sense that you mention. So why do we keep it? We keep it because it's a well-known film genre, an oft used terminology and one that allows us to provide interesting unbiased content. The core policy of neutrality (if one takes the time to re-read it properly) is intended to handle controversial subjects and to avoid original research or "truthiness", not to prevent Wikipedia from using classifications of topics, characters, genres and so on. Pascal.Tesson 21:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind this article, which is really just a branched-off list, what about Hooker with a heart of gold? In opera most often portrayed by a mezzosoprano? Can anyone source this or is this all complete OR? ~ trialsanderrors 21:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what that mezzosoprano business is all about but there's no denying that "hooker with a heart of gold" is the standard way to refer to this archetype. I suppose it does not say much but the phrase gets 39K hits on Google. Throw in, say, film + critic and you will still get hundreds of hits. I'm not going to defend the current content of the article (since its overall quality is subpar) but there's no denying that this is a valid encyclopedic topic on which a very interesting article could be built. Pascal.Tesson 21:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm all favor of scrapping the current content then, picking three or four valid references and writing a quick sourced stub. I'm not in favor of keeping unsourced crap content around, even if there is a potential article on the subject. Because it's very clear that once the AfD caravan moves on the article won't be touched again. ~ trialsanderrors 02:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wooooh, hold the flamethrower. I know exactly what you mean about the article never being touched again but there's more than one sentence there to be saved. Actually, is wiki-bribery allowed on AfD? If so, I'd like to offer the following: we keep both articles and I solemnly vow to delete from the list every entry for which I can't find solid references (and by that I mean at least one respected critic's description of that character as a prototypical "hooker with a heart of gold" and to weed out the unsourced crap out of the main article. Pascal.Tesson 02:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. Nothing disappears into the memory hole. If there is support for the mezzosoprano comment it can easily be rewritten or recovered from the edit history. I don't know what wikibribery means though. ~ trialsanderrors 03:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick google book search reveals lots and lots of writing about prostitutes in fiction, including some referring to the "hooker with a heart of gold" stock character as far back as Ancient Greek literature. There should be plenty of material out there, a good opportunity for improvement. Mango juice^talk 15:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

These types of lists are problematic and not terribly valuable, even if you source them. If I saw some solid sourcing on this one, I'd consider keeping, but without that, delete. - Taxman ^Talk 14:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I do see some examples that might conceivably be able to have reliable sources, so it's possible. But I still prefer the merge solution below. - Taxman ^Talk 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I think the article name is just right for the concept, so no problem there. The list is unsourced, but definitely not unverifiable, tag it for cleanup and it will hopefully improve. If we could have a sourced version of this, it should improve from here, not be deleted: there are a lot of entries here, and the buildup of that information will be hard to replicate. There are probably some questionable entries, but then perfection is not required. Finally, unlike many lists, this one cannot be replaced with a category, because most of these characters don't have articles. Mango juice^talk 15:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a challenge. If someone can come up with a adequate, verifiable, reliable references establishing that (1) Blanche DuBois is a hooker with a heart of gold; OR (2) Nandi is a HwaHoG but Inara_Serra isn't, OR (3) that ANY other three entries on the list are demonstrably HwaHoG's, then I will change my vote to keep. If not, what's to keep? A list where no entry whatsoever is verified? What good is that? (Also, if none of the proponents can verifiably source any of the entries, what evidence is there that future editors will source all of them?) Alternately, lets delete all of the unverified entries and stubbify. TheronJ 17:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I suppose that as far as archetypes go, Blanche DuBois is a Southern Belle, not a hwahog and, as I've said, I volunteer to do the cleanup if we keep the list. It's a bit unfair however to challenge proponents to defend the questionable entries since we all agree that the list badly needs some cleaning up. But let me at least try to establish that "hooker with a heart of gold" has been very much used to describe Bree Daniels in Klute [95] [96] [97] [98] [99], Mira Sorvino in Mighty Aphrodite [100] [101] [102] [103] [104], Pretty Woman [105] [106] [107] [108]. Note that while not all of these sources quite qualify as reliable sources, most come from reputable newspaper critics. Furthermore, this is simply a list of sources I could find online and that means I of course haven't gone to my university library to go through the numerous books discussing film archetypes, portrayals of women in fiction and whatnot but the abundance of references is a strong sign that such scholarly references do exist. For instance, I submit as evidence 11B, this Master's thesis [109] (see the abstract) which clearly demonstrates that this is a well-studied archetype. Pascal.Tesson 17:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see how this list can possibly work. Is it going to include anyone who has ever been referred to as a "hooker with a heart of gold" in a reliable source? If so, then the list is too big -- it will include people like Divine Brown (See Feminism, Media, and the Law, p. 11 ("Here, the proverbial 'hooker with a heart of gold' ended up with a small pot of it as well"), despite the fact that Ms. Brown's only accomplishments are (1) blowing Hugh Grant, and (2) selling her story to the tabloid press, neither of which reliably establishes her heart of gold. Alternately, will the list only include people who meet the characteristics of a "hooker with a heart of gold?" If so, it's original research, and also unworkable, because I have no idea what those limiting criteria are. Thanks, TheronJ 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, a notable fictional archetype that is still in common usage. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a proposal to delete the article about the archetype, but the unverified list of them. - Taxman ^Talk 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No shit sherlock, but if the archetype is notable, a list of its most notable portrayals certainly is. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

So not only are you wrong, but you're rude about it too. Nice combo. - Taxman ^Talk 18:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Hooker with a heart of gold. Keeping it as "List of..." seems to me to imply a kind of endorsement, the way List of Nobel laureates kind of makes you think that that's objective fact, they've definitely won Nobel Prizes. If you merge it into Hooker with a heart of gold, the idea is explained, so it's qualified, and not as much a statement that "these people are definitely hookers with hearts of gold". delldot | talk 18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Redirect to hooker with a heart of gold, which itself needs sourcing and which should be the first target of improvement. If the list of sourced examples grows too long to be contained in the main article it can be folded back out. There is no reason to delete the material, but there is also in the current condition of main article and list no reason to keep this separate. Entirely unsourced lists like this are only invitations to add more names without consideration of sourcing. ~ trialsanderrors 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment merging seems like a reasonable solution: it provides better context and (to some weak extent) deters excessive bloating. If this does get merge, I'll prune the list extensively. Pascal.Tesson 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine. Prune it down to the ones that have unambiguous reliable sources and cover those in the article until there are too many verified entries and the list needs to be brought back. Prune the article back to what's verifiable while you're at it. Thanks for being willing to work on it. Earlier you asked why the sudden rush to kill the list and why must it suddenly have only verifiable entries. The answer is simple, that should always be the case, it's just we have a ton of people adding material that don't follow the guidelines. That's not the end of the world, we just need to fix it when we see it, and for whatever reason, people have seen this one now. - Taxman ^Talk 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep fictional archetype. Common in many cultures, such as Hong Kong films. Suggest to group the entries into different languages to make it more interesting and easier to verify. Also suggest rename to List of fictional hookers with hearts of gold for clarity. Merge is also fine, per delldot.--Vsion 18:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There are some non-fictional hookers with hearts of gold portraied in the movies. As an alternative to changing the article name, perhaps the list should have fictional and non-fictional sections. In any event, something needs to be done in this regard to bring the article into Wikipedia compliance. -- Jreferee 15:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think a non-fictional section is most definitely out of the question. For one thing, "hooker" carries heavy negative connotations (of course so does "prostitute"!) and there's absolutely no way to add an actual person to that list without violating oh so many core policies. In particular, this would be original research: in the case of fictional characters we do have the possibility to document some agreement amongst film critics that a given character fits the archetype. Pascal.Tesson 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename or Merge per Vsion above --T-rex 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep (conditional) Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. See Wikipedia:Lists. This seems to be the focus of most of the above comments - the list is subjective because of an insufficient membership criteria and the present entries do not reflect a workable membership criteria. "Hooker with the heart of gold" is a well understood term used in the entertainment industry and there are many third party sources that could be cited for the membership criteria and for the entries made on the list. There probably is a way to identify what is included in this list and to keep the entries restricted to the membership criteria. With more time, I believe that the editors of List of hookers with hearts of gold should be able to use the comments posted in this AfD to bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia policies. My conclusion to keep is conditional on efforts made to address the comments posted here and the article in fact being brought into compliance with Wikipedia policies. If there is need for a second AfD, the requester should identify the efforts made to address the comments posted here in addition to the Wikipedia policy violations. -- Jreferee 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case truly a notably important list for the genre.DGG 03:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is, can it be neutrally and objectively defined - you haven't answered that. If it can't it must be deleted. Notability is irrelevant.--Doc^g 18:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because there is a body of scholarly literary criticism to draw upon. Tarinth 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Scholars have objectively decided who is and who is not a prostitute and who has an has not got a heart of gold? Wow! I find that heard to believe. But can there be an objective scholarly test for whether a someone is a prostitute or has a golden heart? Still seems inherently POV to me. --Doc^g 19:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether or not a given fictional character is a prostitute is most certainly something that does not require the educated opinion of scholars. The problem is with the heart of gold business. Of course, you won't find any deep scholarly debates on whether the heart of Bree Daniels is a full 24 carats but I don't feel that this is the issue at hand. What we are looking for is significant evidence that a large number of independent scholarly sources consider this character to be representative of a well known stock character, most commonly refered to as the "hooker with a heart of gold" (although I'm sure you'll find many observers using different terminology). Yes it is difficult to find a single authoritative definition for this concept and you'll find some discrepancy in its use. The same can be said for anti-hero, villain, mad scientist but I still believe that all these topics and related lists can be constructed in a careful manner so as to include examples which are universally recognized as fitting the archetype. Pascal.Tesson 19:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my thinking is similar to yours on this. The question is NOT:

Can we define the term "hooker with a heart of gold" then demonstrate using reliable sources that a given character fits our definition?

Instead it is the (much simpler):

Do reliable sources refer to a given character using the term "hooker with a heart of gold"? AndyJones 20:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The term is so commonplace, that any new term we might use would be original research in itself. This is the term, for better or worse, that you'll find used throughout literature. Tarinth 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep as a notable fictional archetype, useful as any other list on Wikipedia. Silensor 04:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is, can it be neutrally and objectively defined - you haven't answered that. If it can't it must be deleted. Notability is irrelevant.--Doc^g 18:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, per my previous answer to the same question. Tarinth 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, singificant archetype, list of examples is useful. Perfectly reliable critical sources frequently use this term. Frankly I'm not sure where Doc is headed with his argument -- half the topics on Wikipedia can't be neutrally or objectively defined, e.g. country, city, war, nation, etc. I don't see that this inhibits our writing about the topic neutrally -- we simply need to present both sides of contested issues. A list is quite capable of doing this (unlike a category). Christopher Parham (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To try to explain in a nutshell (and then I'll drop it): articles can discuss whether someone is x or not. They can qualify statement with 'generally regarded' or 'according to reliable source y' - thus Wikipedia doesn't have to decide whether the subject is truly x or not. Lists are different, because ultimately we have to put the subject on the list of x (meaning we agree that they are x) or exclude them. Wikipedia has to make a decision. The fact we can show that a number of reliable sources agree with our assessment doesn't cure that - we are still making an assessment, we are no longer neutral.--Doc^g 21:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't wholly disagree, but I would make two comments: (1) your view basically excludes lists altogether; certainly, I think, it would require the deletion of most of the lists we have on Wikipedia, and probably all of the most useful ones. (2) further, the idea that articles aren't subject to the exclude/include dilemma while lists are is false; the same techniques used to qualify the inclusion of information in articles (e.g. to explain the scope of Western culture) can be used to qualify the inclusion of information in lists. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How about qualifying the whole list by stating that "The following is a list of notable fictional characters generally regarded (or have been described by sources) as hookers with a heart of gold ..." --Vsion 21:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That definitely sounds like a good idea. I think it would also make sense (like it does in so many lists) to hide a note in the source requesting that people add new entries with some degree of care. I've seen that done a number of times and I think it helps somewhat. Furthermore, adding references systematically will probably set a good example for future additions. Pascal.Tesson 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable but I don't think we should bury the article beneath a lot of half-hearted qualifiers either. We just need to focus on providing good sourcing, and after this survives AfD I'm willing to help with that; hopefully others who supported this article will do so as well. Tarinth 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

he he he... now that you've made that promise, it's forever available in the edit history and I can hold you to it! :-) Thanks for volunteering. Pascal.Tesson 00:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per many of the above arguments. The list is well-defined. Needs a dose of WP:V, though. --- RockMFR 21:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Funny, but not supported by WP:LIST: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed... Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit." If any of these entries can actually find a source (any of the currently 71 entries all of which are unsourced) can find a secondary source so it is not just Wikipedia contributors saying that these character are hookers with a heart of gold, then they can be added to the main article (assuming the main article can find a source to describe what a "hooker with a heart of gold" is). --maclean 07:00, 10 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. Sandstein 12:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional hackers

I am completing an incomplete afd nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Computer hackers are a subject of some importance, a list of fictional ones could be helpful. FrozenPurpleCube 23:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would say it would be because something went wrong in the process of adding the entries to the original AfD, a problem which was noted a few days ago, and lead to this whole relisting. I assume that was a simple mistake, and if this user hasn't responded in every one of these new discussions, try to AGF and recognize that there are a lot of them. I know I got bored with doing it pretty easily. FrozenPurpleCube 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Here I am. It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case an important list for the genre.DGG 03:57, 9 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. Sandstein 12:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of coaches in fiction

I am completing an incomplete afd nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete If only because it's such a short, incomplete list, and I'd probably organize by sports anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 23:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
'Delete, lacks merit really. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

- It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes he does, see Otto's remark above. Delete as arbitrary grouping. >Radiant< 15:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list for the genre.DGG 03:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as arbitrary. Coaches of what? just sports? --maclean 07:06, 10 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. Sandstein 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional clergy and religious figures

I am completing an incomplete afd nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Easily defined profession. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Convert to category, that's what categories are for. A conversion is no loss of information. >Radiant< 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I have rebutted this 96% inaccurate observation here. AndyJones 12:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
keep. List is not category; discussed huhdreds of times if AfD Mukadderat 06:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
keep as good and as useful as all the others. .DGG 03:58, 9 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. Sandstein 12:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional butlers

I am completing an incomplete afd nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Butlers and other servants in fiction are reasonable notable. FrozenPurpleCube 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Easily defined profession and archetype. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. And now that I've got to the bottom of this list, may I just add how downright angry I am that some <personal attack removed> could possibly look at the VAST amount of mostly good quality work done by literally hundreds of wikipedians in the articles covered by this mass nomination, then could demonstrate so much contempt for them, and for the project, that he or she would even think of attempting to destroy it all. AndyJones 13:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Convert to category, that's what categories are for. A conversion is no loss of information. >Radiant< 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I have rebutted this 96% inaccurate observation here. AndyJones 12:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list for the genre. I suggest that we salt this and the others, for more or less the reasons as given by AndyJones. DGG 03:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge with List of fictional United States Presidents, which is left as an exercise for the reader. Sandstein 12:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of alternate history United States Presidents

I am completing an incomplete afd nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete the list makes absolutely no distinction between significant and trivial portrayals, and is in any case an arbitrary construct. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge with List of fictional United States Presidents. Possibly rename the merged list to something like "List of United States Presidents in fiction" if the word "fictional" is a problem. Tevildo 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge - per Tevildo bogdan 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Tevildo. -- Captain Disdain 22:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu
- The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The nom did provide a rationale. See Otto4711's 23:45 2007-01-03 post — Iamunknown 05:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge per everyone above. AndyJones 14:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per above. >Radiant< 15:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge with List of fictional United States Presidents. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 10:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
merge seems more appropriate here.DGG 04:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skerries Town Fc

Does not play at a high enough level to qualify for notability. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - a local non-notable football club. Jayden54 21:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, I found a couple of stories in the Fingal Independent local newspaper (which is itself not particularly notable) [110] [111] but it needs at least one more independent source to survive. Demiurge 21:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge. Cbrown1023 23:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of U.S. counties with large Vietnamese American populations

List of arbitrary geographical divisions with subjectively defined population of arbitrarily chosen ethnic group. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge along with List of U.S. cities with large Vietnamese American populations back to Vietnamese American#Demographics; if it's too long, then split it out to a new article Demographics of Vietnamese Americans. cab 00:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 12:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University Hall (University of St Andrews)

Sprung to life in suspiciously substantial form, but we don't have articles on halls of residence unless they can demonstrate substantial external coverage. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - just any old regular university hall, I don't see why we need an article on this. Jayden54 21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable random Halls of Residence location, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 22:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep On the main wikipedia page for the University of St Andrews there are already multiple links to other halls of residence. For data accurancy the largest hall should be included in the listings. This information is vital for those browsing for university selection etc. This hall has a lot of history associated with it as it is the oldest student accomodation in Scotland and is one of the oldest official student accomodations in the english speaking world. User:univega192 23:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy G12. Copyvio from [112]. Tevildo 00:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Article has been completely refurbished, there should be no problem with the content now, this is my first wiki article, sorry for any inconvenience. univega192 03:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (Edit: word struck to avoid double-counting. Ohconfucius 06:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC))
Neutral for now. Copyvio material substantially re-written. Tevildo 04:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. University Halls of residence are not notable by default per abundant precedence. This one may be the oldest hall, but aged does not imply notability. Nothing else in the article indicates why it should stay. Prospective students' first port of call will be the University's own website. Ohconfucius 06:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as re-written verifiable information absolutely no reason to delete it. These are very prominent buildings in St Andrews and of architectural merit. There's several other Halls from the same university that the nom has being crusading against. Why not merge them instead of this silly campaign? --Doc^g 14:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment verifiability is the first and foremost requirement, not the only one. It has to be notable too (please als refer to User:Uncle G/On notability), otherwise we will start seeing articles on all minor listed buildings in the same manner as we have had for TV and radio mast stubs, electricity pylons, etc. Ohconfucius 01:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No notability, and no assertion of it either. yandman 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Halls of residence have been organised into the category University of St Andrews halls of residence. This seems to be the normal approach for posting halls of residences for British Universities on Wikipedia (for example: University of Bristol Halls of Residence, University of Manchester halls of residence, University of Reading halls of residence, etc.) --John345er 01:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: please don't confuse notability of the subject with organisational structure within Wikipedia. This hall is one which few outside the University will have heard of or would ever want to find out about, and those who are interested will go directly to the horse's mouth. Unless anyone can find reliable sources attesting to its importance, it should be deleted. Putting several non-notable articles together just reduces the number of articles on non-notable subjects, and does not make for more encyclopaedic content. Ohconfucius 02:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete article offers no evidence of notability. Nuttah68 15:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No assertion of notability. Full of non encyclopedic material. If there is anything of note if can be merged into the school article. Vegaswikian 07:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete No assertion of notability. "Your dormitory" (or residence hall) is the fourth bullet on Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas. For the argument articles for other halls exist Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability is worth reading - if they are of similar quality they also should go, if significantly better than they aren't relevant. GRBerry 03:28, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ooze

AfD nominated by Kamope with reason: "Why would an article have one sentence of scientific content then all of sudden go to fiction? This article should be deleted." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be reformatted for consistency with other disambiguation pages, because that's what it is, but Keep. -- Jake 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding, it had the disambig template until Kamope removed it while adding the PROD. It was tagged uncategorized later. -- Jake 23:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep but reformat to make more of a disambig. FrozenPurpleCube 23:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I agree with Jake and FrozenPurpleCube. Sorry for removing disambig template. Kamope 23:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

To make up for removing the disambig template, if it is agreed to keep the article but format it to look more like a disambiguation page, I will do it. Kamope 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Useful disambiguation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as disambig. Havocrazy 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above.--C J King 04:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo Review Board Contests

Page is merely an advertisement for a mundane user-created contest.The Page is poorly written and does not have any legitimate sources to verify content, and lacks notability (See WP:verify and WP:Notability). Speedy deletion contested ShadowJester07 21:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable contest on a forum. ShadowHalo 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minisink Valley JROTC

This article is about a club at a small school in a small town in New York. I attend said school and said club is nothing to talk about Joe 21:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7, an article about a group of people that does not assert the notability of its subject. (The article says "more info forthcoming" but hasn't been added to in almost a month.) Demiurge 21:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Small clubs and small schools are not intrinsically notable. Neither are large ones.--Anthony.bradbury 21:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as student club at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 12:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Esoterika Lodge No. 316, F. & A. M. of Washington

Looks like advertising, text is a copy from the website. Lodge was created July AL 6006 (???). It is not clear how this Freemasonry variant is notable. A notability tag was removed with the comment minor punctuation. Delete if not notable or complete rewrite. Chris 73 | Talk 21:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete article offers no sources or notability. Nuttah68 15:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael G. Breece

Artist lacks notability, discography has only 2 entries of dubious notability. All music related citations lead to a page by the artist (myspace, etc). A notability tag was removed without comment. Chris 73 | Talk 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - non notable per WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Jayden54 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom Daniel J. Leivick 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete No assertion of notability. One Night In Hackney 10:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 11:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Khoikhoi 06:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Assyrian musicians

Delete or Possible merge into Assyrian music. I did not count, but it's about 99% redlinks -- NN on its own apparently. Just H 21:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete I counted. It's 215 red links, and one blue link. This has got to be WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 21:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Non-inclusion is not an indicator of non-notability, and the list may serve for development purposes. However, sources would be nice to prove that the other 214 are notable; as I'm not familiar with Assyrian music, I won't vote on this unless I have time to do some research. cab 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep but scale way down. I think it's quite plausible that even the big names in Assyrian music would come out as red-links. Wikipedia tends to do poorly at parts of the Third World so lists help expansion. Still there's too many here and references are needed.--T. Anthony 00:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - the reason I created this page is because unregisterd users (many different ones) kept on adding Assyrian artist names to the Assyrian music page, and it wasn't looking nice by making the list so long and whomever they added was always red. So what I did is kept the ones that are not red in the Assyrian music page, and created a new page for a complete list. The page is basically a list..as people start pages of these artists, little by little the page will show its significance. Chaldean 03:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep Article appears to function as a development list, the third valid function at Wikipedia:List guideline. Most lists these days are not devlopment lists, but that doesn't mean that they have become invalid. However, established wiki editors should not just dump everything onto the list; they should evaluate whether an encyclopedia article is reasonably believed possible before adding them. GRBerry 03:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, and I am not the one that has added these names. Its different people from different IPs. I just created the page, because it was getting annoying rving all the times in Assyrian music and List of Assyrians page Chaldean 20:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 18:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roland Rance

Not notable; subject gets about 700 Ghits, most of which appear to be blogs. [113] RedRollerskate 21:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Non-notable. Morton devonshire 00:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, see no indication why the subject would pass WP:BIO. Seraphimblade 09:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I relisted this article on 1/3/07 to get a better consensus. RedRollerskate 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete we'd be well shot of this.--Doc^g 14:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Minor characters of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Hey, that's Herbert Lom! Proto::► 12:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Pratt

Either an astonishingly poor article on a notable Buffyverse character wihch has remained inexplicably overlooked for ages, or a minor character which does not need its own article. And yes I do get the William Pratt reference, but I bet you don't know who Herbert Charles Angelo Kuchacevich ze Schluderpacheru is without looking it up. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Oh, come on. Woman who appeared in flashbacks in one episode? What's next, the janitor who appeared in the background of three scenes in episode 14 of season 3? Fan-1967 21:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Smerge and redirect to Minor characters of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or delete. TheronJ 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If Buffy's Dad, who made several appearances, only gets coverage as one of the minor characters, certainly Spike's Mom can join him there. Fan-1967 02:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, so sorry, i'm new here! I have got more to add to the page including her character traits before she was sired and after, including the quotes from Lies My Parents Told Me. Its my first article so please give me a break!! I think she's a very important character, albeit she had a small role. But, if it wasn't for her, William wouldn't exist. And, also, my dad used to make me watch all the Pink Panther movies, so I did know who Herbert was without looking it up! Please don't delete my article! Slayer3 23:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless Slayer3 can justify retention by filling iout this stub. -- Simon Cursitor 08:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Theron. Important character in Spike's backstory but really worthy of her own page. Static Universe 05:39, 9 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, leave a redirect to Window tax. No prejudice on a decent article _neutral, non-weaselly, and sourced) being created in the future, but there is nothing in this worth merging into Criticisms of Microsoft, so the 'deletes' have it. Proto::► 12:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Tax

Article is based on WP:WEASEL words ("some users call it a windows tax"...) and is an unsourced essay bordering on an attack of the article subject. ju66l3r 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete nonsensical anti-Microsoft screed. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- keepThe cure for non-neutrality when sources are at hand is cleanup, not deletion. There are plenty of sources at hand, starting with two that are linked to in the article itself. The article links to two sources which discuss "Windows Refund Day". Those sources also mention a "Microsoft tax". That, in turn, can be found discussed here, here, here, here, here here, here, in ISBN 159327064X, and in ISBN 020177061X, for starters.
  Whilst Microsoft tax was merged into Criticisms of Microsoft, the latter makes no mention of "Windows Refund Day", notice. Uncle G 02:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Window tax--Doc^g 14:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge any content to Criticisms of Microsoft, but I can understand a redirect to Window tax with a pointer to that page. FrozenPurpleCube 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
KEEP With a little work this article could add value to Wikipedia. It is about a real-world issue that effects millions of business transactions every day. I don't think it should be a criticism of Microsoft at all, it should be a neutral, fact-based presentation of the effect this business arrangement has on consumers. So keep it, clean it up, but keep it.

Hendrixski 20:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge the salvageable, neutrally-presented parts into Criticism of Microsoft. -/- Warren 21:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
delete a neologism. --Salix alba (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge/redirect per FrozenPurpleCube. Otherwise, I feel that it is a non-notable neologism and there are WP:OR issues as well. Ohconfucius 04:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mabus

This article has severe problems with vague attribution and an unsourced, highly dubious and speculative list. I can't find any reliable sources for the article's contents via Google, just a lot of self-published speculation. In the absence of peer-reviewed sources that address this subject, I suggest deleting this article as unsourced trivia and speculation. --Muchness 21:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as original research, unsourced speculation replete with weasel words such as "some believe...". (aeropagitica) 22:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Is this character any relation to Doctor Mabuse? If so, and the link can be sourced, then a redirect might be appropriate. Tevildo 23:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Although this article is topic of interest to somebody, that is original research and should be deleted per nom. see Related information. -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 09:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[09:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)]

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 11:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sensation (event), Sensation White, Sensation Black

Bump from speedy. Neutral. If kept, recommend merging the three. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-18 08:23Z

Delete I cannot find any non-trivial mentions in reliable sources for this one. JChap2007 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Article as written is spam WVhybrid 06:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 06:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This article should be kept as this is clearly a major event in Europe and especially in the Netherlands where seats for Sensation white (40 000) usualy solds out in hours. If the article seems too close to spam, maybe a NPOV would be more appropriate than deletion, as this event would surely reappear on the encyclopedia. Sensation has detractors and some factual informations about this can be found to correct the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.224.48.80 (talk • contribs).
Keep Sensation (event), merge the other two into it. Although currently lacking secondary sources, it does appear to be real and notable. --- RockMFR 05:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable organiation, WP:ORG refers. (aeropagitica) 17:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Therapy

notability not asserted; reads like promotional material. Along with Dominic Davies article forms a small walled garden created by a single-purpose account. For GHits I have only been able to find amazon, wikipedia, own website, and publisher; nothing to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY.

Accordingly I add Dominic Davies to this nomination. Akihabara 12:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Pink Therapy as not asserting notability. Not so sure about Davies himself, he seems to have at least some minimal notability as a published author (by a real publisher, not vanity press), he's given a seminar at the British Association for Counselling AGM and I found a magazine article quoting him. Weak delete because although the sources suggest the possibility of notability, they do not prove it, and because of the suspicions of WP:COI. Demiurge 12:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 23:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete book, keep and wikify Dominic Davies and merge relevent book content to the article. (Whew!) -Toptomcat 12:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Pink Therapy. Appears to cover three distinct meanings of the term, none of which assert WP:NOTABILITY. A list or association of notable people is just that, not automatically a notable list or association itself. DMacks 08:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete Dominic Davies. Asserts some WP:BIO notability ("first"/"pioneered"/"earliest example") even if in a relatively narrow category, but does not provide citations to these assertions. Citing the points of notability would convert me to weak keep (weak due to narrow-sounding realm of notability). DMacks 08:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Proto::► 11:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caritas (Buffyverse)

Delete as fancruft, fails to claim notabilty, also WP:NOT a repository of rooms in a tv show, also fails WP:V, and WP:CITE to name a few KnightLago 22:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep - very notable location within the Buffyverse. Dismissing it as a "room in a tv show" indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter. Otto4711 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep The show itself is notable, nothing in WP:NOT that says we can't have articles on fictional places, could be verified and cited. FrozenPurpleCube 23:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep - this is not just another random 'place in a TV show', but an important location that appears in many many episodes, in a very notable show. it is impractical to delete all location articles related to TV series just because some might like to see a Wikipedia that ignores popular culture. Wikipedia is not Encyclopædia Britannica, and can deal with popular culture if it is non-point-of-view, verifiable and not involving original research. This article's referencing can potentially be improved, there is no real justification for deletion based on official deletion policy. - Paxomen 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, for a start the article fails to claim notability in anyway. From WP:N, "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. The show is notable. A fictional demon-friendly karaoke bar is not. And straight from WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Where can I check a reliable source about this article? This article also fails Wikipedia's no original research policy, as the only place this information comes from is original research. I agree that this is not the Encyclopedia Britannica, and I welcome popular culture, but, only popular culture that is verifiable and not involving original research. All of the above arguments have focused on the notability of the show and not this room. KnightLago 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I might take your arguments more seriously if your repeated use of the word "room" to describe Caritas didn't indicate to me that you have no real awareness of what the article's even about. Otto4711 15:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't have to claim notability when it is a sub-article of a television show. Furthermore, there are references. Take the Buffy/Angel magazines, I'm sure they had some information about Caritas, as it was a set used multiple times over several seasons. Try an unreferenced tag next time. FrozenPurpleCube 15:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The television show has notability. This does not. "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." The show has been written about, this place has not. Buffy/Angel magazines are not reliable source that are in my opinion "independent of the subject itself." Furthermore, while you can argue notability and sourcing here, and claim that there are sources out there, they were not cited or used in this article. The entire thing fails WP:NOR. And again, if you want to rewrite, take 5 minutes and do it. I will take another look then. KnightLago 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A further thought, if this show filmed at a gas station, under your reasoning, what stops someone from creating an article about it? It was on the show, so it is notable, and we would have to allow an article? Who decides what is a minor and trivial element in relation to this show? The answer to the question would be we would look at WP:V, and WP:NOR. If it passed both of those we would keep. But, if it failed, as this article fails, we would delete. KnightLago 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While the Buffy/Angel magazines are not completely independent, but licensed, they serve as useful references since they do contain valuable information about the series, and are substantially more than just press-releases. They are reputable sources as far as I'm concerned. And while a set that only appears once may not be important enough for its own article (it would probably best receive an entry in whatever episode description there is for the series), a set that appears multiple times in the same series is another matter. And seriously, if you want people to rewrite it, you should have tried the option of asking first, then if that didn't happen going to AfD. The fact that it can happen though, is enough for me to stick by my keep. FrozenPurpleCube 16:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If they are not independent, they are not reliable. And while they may be useful references for a fan of the show, they do not qualify as sources for Wikipedia. Someone rewriting an article to fix objections happens all the time in AFD. And, I don't want to delete anything that passes WP:V, and WP:NOR, these do not. I am also curious how you respond would respond to my hypothetical gas station article above. KnightLago 16:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

They are not independent, so they are not reliable? Sorry, does not compute. Where in WP:RS can I find support for this claim? Even if it were there, you should note that RS itself says "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Accordingly, you cannot just say that the magazines are licensed and therefore, they are not reliable sources. You'd actually have to convince me that the actual magazine itself was unreliable. Common sense should tell you that something in print is likely to be edited for accuracy and especially when it's licensed and the owners of the media don't want false information about their product to be released. And I have already responded to your question about a gas station. Did you not realize that "a set that only appears only once" was about that subject? And no, I don't think that the gas station in season 5 of Buffy should have its own article. Information about it would belong in the episodes it was in. FrozenPurpleCube 17:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not from WP:RS, but from WP:N. From there "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." And from WP:INDY, an essay not policy, "An independent source is a source which describes a topic from the outside." Clearly these magazines are not. And I am sorry, I missed your response about the gas station. KnightLago 17:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't using the magazines to assert notability, but offering them as references. If you need me to establish that the shows are notable, well, I would say the existence of the magazines would serve that purpose actually, but it's hardly necessary anyway. Television show on a major network? Notability is a done deal. And um, your reference to WP:INDY makes no sense, since the fact is, the magazines DO describe the show from the outside. They are not in-universe, they are licensed works about the show. As such, I consider them reliable in terms of the content they have to offer. Have you read them yourself? Because I get the feeling that you are objecting in ignorance. FrozenPurpleCube 17:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was confused about the content of the magazines, and didn't realize that there they were not "in-universe". And as to the the notability. Notability of the show is a done deal, I agree. But not the notability of a fictional demon-friendly karaoke bar as a stand alone article is not. KnightLago 17:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if knew more about the show, you might recognize that the setting appears in multiple episodes (and is the focus of at least one), so I'd say that establishes the notability, the same way with any other number of places in fiction, whether it be Gondor, the Enterprise, the Baxter Building or any number of other places important enough to have an article of their own. I would probably agree with you if it was in only one episode, or more properly fit under some sub-category but in this case? No, I understand why it's worth having its own article, even absence outside review. FrozenPurpleCube 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, could these all fit into some single new article about the settings of the Buffy world? Say one detailing important places? I don't know, I am trying to come up with something. Then the article could be started and kept well referenced. KnightLago 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(Dropping Indents):I don't inherently object to the idea, but I'd suggest taking it up with the Buffy Wikiproject instead. They seem reasonably well organized though, with a list of locations, so I think it's not being done flippantly, but sticking to major locations. FrozenPurpleCube 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

~~I wrote a quick compromise proposal on my userspace here for posting at WP:VPR.~~ See the discussion here. I have not posted anything yet. Please let me know what you think, and feel free to change. KnightLago 19:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as not notable. If it is notable in the Buffyverse then give it an article at the Buffy Wiki or the Buffy Wikia. In this universe, it is an imaginary karaoke bar. --maclean 07:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't see KnightLago's logic in putting Buffy fictional locations up for deletion when he's updating the page for Central Perk, the fictional coffee shop on Friends. Why is Central Perk treated differently? Static Universe 07:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Because if you read the comment by Paxomen in this (third comment down) AFD he argues for the keeping of the article because of Central Perk. I went to Central Perk and tried to see what sources I could find before I nominated it for deletion. I found a few so I cited them. I am still thinking about nominating the article and the other places in the friends universe when this ends. You are attacking me and my edits because you have yet to find a logical reason to keep this article or the others in the face of Wikipedia policy. KnightLago 13:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - These locations are notable as crucial locations in super-notable series. Wikipedia can cope with few of the most important locations from fictions, I'd never argue that we need an article for every room in a series, that would be madness. I'd agree that they could be improved by citing where information is coming from (e.g. footnotes referencing specific episodes). Wales: "free access to the sum of all human knowledge", we don't need to censor the popular culture bits, instead lets improve them. It's easy to sneer at popular culture, but the fictional narratives that millions share say a lot about us. - Buffyverse
Comment. The main problem with this article at present is that it is, at best, a summary of the primary source material regarding the subject. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), it ought to discuss discussion of the room in a reliable source external to the show. If there isn't any to cite, well, perhaps it really isn't notable then. If there is, I think that will sway those who seek deletion. Deco 03:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to foot fetishism. Proto::► 11:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toe_sucking

There is not enough notable information regarding 'toe-sucking' for an entire article. All notable information regarding the topic has already been included in the 'foot fetishism' article. Rsl12 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep: 162 results for "Toe sucking" on google books bogdan 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- By that argument, Wikipedia articles should also be created for "breast sucking" (283 results on google books) and "butt kissing" (122 results on google books).--Rsl12 23:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Hehe. That is a point. Redirect bogdan 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not merge this and make it a redirect to Foot fetishism? Sam Blacketer 23:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to foot fetishism. Man in California blah blah blah. Pavel Vozenilek 23:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as above, or delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Foot fetishism. It seems to be the most logical choice. Atlantis Hawk 12:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Proto::► 11:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hellmouth (Buffyverse)

Delete as fancruft, fails to claim notabilty, also WP:NOT a repository of places in a tv show, also fails WP:V, and WP:CITE to name a few KnightLago 22:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I don't agree with the arguments given, Buffy the Vampire Slayer's notability establishes this location's notability, there is nothing in WP:NOT that excludes fictional locations in a TV show or otherwise. Given that this is a description of a thing in a television show, it's certainly verifiable. Tag with unreferenced if you feel a need for sources. FrozenPurpleCube 23:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - this is not just another random 'place in a TV show', but an important location that appears in every episode, in a very notable show. it is impractical to delete all location articles related to TV series just because some might like to see a Wikipedia that ignores popular culture. Wikipedia is not Encyclopædia Britannica, and can deal with popular culture if it is non-point-of-view, verifiable and not involving original research. This article's referencing can potentially be improved, there is no real justification for deletion based on official deletion policy. - Paxomen 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I don't even watch the show, and I know that it's an important part of the story. SAMAS 00:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This article fails to claim notability in anyway. From WP:N, "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. The show is notable. A fictional universe is not. And straight from WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Where can I check a reliable source about this article? This article also fails Wikipedia's no original research policy, as the only place this information comes from is original research. I agree that this is not the Encyclopedia Britannica, and I welcome popular culture, but, only popular culture that is verifiable and not involving original research. Again, all of the above arguments have focused on the notability of the show and not this universe, which the article is about. KnightLago 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Hellmouth gets 315,000 Googlehits. The series was set in a town which happened to be on the hellmouth, so much supernatural horror arrived weekly. There have been numerous articles reflecting on the hellmouth as a metaphor for the angst of the highschool years: "The earlier and lighter years depicted suburban American adolescence as a metaphor for the Hellmouth." in "Buffy Rides Off Into the Sunset;" [Editorial]Gail Collins. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: May 21, 2003. pg. A.30. "The premise of Buffy is that Sunnydale, the sleepy California town where Buffy Summers (Sarah Michelle Gellar) and her divorced mom (Kristine Sutherland), L.A. natives, have relocated, is built on the Hellmouth, a convergence of supernatural energies that draws a wide variety of vampires and demons." in "Yes, She's a Vampire Slayer. No, Her Show Isn't Kid Stuff." Steve Vineberg. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Oct 1, 2000. pg. 2.42. "Living in generic Sunnydale, California, which just happens to be on top of a Hellmouth -- the point of entry for vampires, demons, mummies, and other assorted monster-movie creeps -- Buffy is a social misfit." in "Buffy slays Ally: what does a vampire-killing teen have that a miniskirted lawyer doesn't?" Kingwell, Mark. Saturday Night. Toronto: May 1998.Vol.113, Iss. 4; pg. 77. Multiple, independent, nontrivial, all found in 5 minutes on Proquest. Edison 01:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please use the sources in the article. Cite them. Cite all the claims and the plot summary in the article. By your own admission the only way these sources were located was from Proquest. They were not used in the writing of the article. The onus for verifiability is on the person who adds all this information. As it appears now, the article violates WP:NOR, and WP:V. Using proquest you may find sources, but demonstrate their use in this article. This article should be deleted or stubbed to only the information that is cited. If nothing is cited, then it should be removed in its entirety. KnightLago 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest a rewrite to the article if that's your concern. However, that is a clean-up issue, not a deletion problem. FrozenPurpleCube 15:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a deletion problem. The article violates WP:NOR and WP:V, two of the three core principles of WP. Rewrite the article, it should only take 5 minutes to remove everything and then add the information you have sources for. Once it has been rewritten I will take another look at it. But as it stands now it should be deleted. KnightLago 16:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, it's not a deletion problem when the article can be properly sourced. See the deletion policy which pretty expressly covers this kind of situation. So next time, please consider trying clean-up tags first. FrozenPurpleCube 16:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I will consider the tags first next time. But this article as it stands fails WP:V, and WP:NOR. That is a fact. And failing WP:NOR outright is cause for deletion. KnightLago 16:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the purpose of NOR, which is not for things like this article which are based on real things, but for articles that are merely theories. Any OR could be removed from this article and still leave content. Thus it doesn't fail NOR outright. FrozenPurpleCube 17:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NOR, "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position." So, it includes anything not drawn from a reliable source. KnightLago 17:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I really think you are missing the point of the OR policy. Observation of something in a fictional medium doesn't always require independent sources. If Giles says there is a Hellmouth in Sunnydale, I'm comfortable with an article that says there's a Hellmouth in Sunnydale. Thus while some of the content may be questionable, arguing that there are no independent sources is missing the point. Object to theories on the Hellmouth if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that common sense will tell you that the Hellmouth itself is not OR. FrozenPurpleCube 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I don't see how you can claim it's not verifiable. The whole series is available on DVD. I'd say that counts as "published". --Jwwalker 04:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't see KnightLago's logic in putting Buffy fictional locations up for deletion when he's updating the page for Central Perk, the fictional coffee shop on Friends. Why is Central Perk treated differently? Static Universe 07:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Because if you read the comment by Paxomen in this (third comment down) AFD he argues for the keeping of the article because of Central Perk. I went to Central Perk and tried to see what sources I could find before I nominated it for deletion. I found a few so I cited them. I am still thinking about nominating the article and the other places in the friends universe when this ends. You are attacking me and my edits because you have yet to find a logical reason to keep this article or the others in the face of Wikipedia policy. KnightLago 13:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete Uioh 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep - These locations are notable as crucial locations in super-notable series. But improve them by citing where information is coming from (e.g. footnotes on episodes). - Buffyverse 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I found this page incredibly useful and only came here to vote when I saw it was up for AFD. This page is notable and the location is crucial in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It is similar to the wormhole from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine in the way that it provides a seemingly endless list of possible plot devices. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 21:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Wikipedia is consulted also by people interested in scriptwriting, playwrighting, critics of cinema/TV and people generally interested in the Ninth Muse, and storytelling in general. dott.Piergiorgio 09:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Proto::► 11:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hyperion Hotel

Delete as fancruft, fails to claim notabilty, also WP:NOT a repository of places in a tv show, also fails WP:V, and WP:CITE to name a few KnightLago 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notability is as part of a notable show, WP:NOT doesn't exclude places in a TV show, feel free to tag with unreferenced if you want. I wouldn't oppose a merger to a single page though. FrozenPurpleCube 23:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - this is not just another random 'place in a TV show', but an important location that appears in many many episodes, in a very notable show. it is impractical to delete all location articles related to TV series just because some might like to see a Wikipedia that ignores popular culture. Wikipedia is not Encyclopædia Britannica, and can deal with popular culture if it is non-point-of-view, verifiable and not involving original research. This article's referencing can potentially be improved, there is no real justification for deletion based on official deletion policy. A deeper understanding of Hyperion Hotel is crucial for a deeper understanding of Angel, just like to we need an article for Central Perk to deepen understanding of Friends. - Paxomen 00:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This article fails to claim notability in anyway. From WP:N, "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. The show is notable. A fictional hotel is not. And straight from WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Where can I check a reliable source about this article? This article also fails Wikipedia's no original research policy, as the only place this information comes from is original research. I agree that this is not the Encyclopedia Britannica, and I welcome popular culture, but, only popular culture that is verifiable and not involving original research. Again, all of the above arguments have focused on the notability of the show and not this hotel, which the article is about. KnightLago 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources are available on Angel and Buffy. For example, a regularly produced magazine, which has had articles on the Hyperion Hotel. I'd add them as references if I knew what issues, but I'm sure somebody has them. And here: [114]. A first-party documentary enough for you? FrozenPurpleCube 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are a great start. Use them in the article. Remove all the WP:OR and other non verifiable information. But as I have said on other pages regarding this. These articles all fail WP:V and WP:NOR as they stand. KnightLago 16:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd try but I haven't seen the documentary, and I'm not going to buy a DVD set just to update an article on a DVD series. Or hunt down some old magazines. I'll just hope somebody at the the Buffyverse Wikiproject will take up the job. But the fact is, they can, thus I see no reason to delete. FrozenPurpleCube 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I will be able to help out in this regard, I have access to the mags/DVDs. To start with, I'll add this text:

"Angel Investigations found a new base from the episode, "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been". Angel Production Designer, Stuart Blatt outlined the new base: "An old hotel, something [the writers] could use to evoke the past of Los Angeles and some of Angel's history, something kind of creepy and spooky but not too dark because they didn't want something depressing, it's called the Hyperion Hotel. It's based on many hotels in Los Angeles...Angel lived in a larger suite in the hotel, like a honeymoon suite, the producers wanted Angel to have enough room to relax and get away from it all, do a little pondering, a little brooding, a little research. Every once in a while someone will come up to have a little conversation." ("Inside the Agency" featurette Angel Season 2 DVD set, disc 3 (2002).) - Paxomen 14:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I don't see KnightLago's logic in putting Buffy fictional locations up for deletion when he's updating the page for Central Perk, the fictional coffee shop on Friends. Why is Central Perk treated differently? Static Universe 07:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Because if you read the above comment by Paxomen he argues for the keeping of this article because of Central Perk. I went to Central Perk and tried to see what sources I could find before I nominated it for deletion. I found a few so I cited them. I am still thinking about nominating the article and the other places in the friends universe when this ends. You are attacking me and my edits because you can not find a logical reason to keep this article or the others in the face of Wikipedia policy. KnightLago 13:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as not notable. If it is notable in the Buffyverse then give it an article at the Buffy Wiki or the Buffy Wikia. In this universe, it is a set in some studio. --maclean 07:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - These locations are notable as crucial locations in super-notable series. But improve them by citing where information is coming from (e.g. footnotes on episodes). - Buffyverse 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per general precedent regarding notable fictional places in literature, movies, and television. --MCB 07:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus). -Doc^g 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Magic Box

Delete as fancruft, fails to claim notabilty, also WP:NOT a repository of places in a tv show, also fails WP:V, and WP:CITE to name a few KnightLago 22:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise maybe this could be redirected to an article titled "Locations in the Buffyverse".--NeilEvans 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

An excellent idea, which I would be fine with. Maybe we could start that article, and add places that are important (and cited) to the Buffy world. KnightLago 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We are working on a consensus proposal here. Please feel free to offer your thoughts or edit the proposal. Thanks. KnightLago 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Buffy the Vampire slayer is notable, WP:NOT doesn't exclude places in a TV show, it is verifiable and can be cited as well. I would not oppose the single page option though. FrozenPurpleCube 23:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - this is not just another random 'place in a TV show', but an important location that appears many many episodes, in a very notable show. it is impractical to delete all location articles related to TV series just because some might like to see a Wikipedia that ignores popular culture. Wikipedia is not Encyclopædia Britannica, and can deal with popular culture if it is non-point-of-view, verifiable and not involving original research. This article's referencing can potentially be improved, there is no real justification for deletion based on official deletion policy. - Paxomen 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, this article fails to claim notability in anyway. From WP:N, "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." The show is notable. A fictional magic shop is not. And straight from WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Where can I check a reliable source about this article? This article also fails Wikipedia's no original research policy, as the only place this information comes from is original research. I agree that this is not the Encyclopedia Britannica, and I welcome popular culture, but, only popular culture that is verifiable and not involving original research. Again, all of the above arguments have focused on the notability of the show and not this magic shop, which the article is about. KnightLago 00:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Television show claims notability. This is an aspect of the television show. Hence no assertion of notability is necessary. It's part of the show. If it is a minor trivial element of the show, that's one thing, it should be merged into another article, but not deleted. Furthermore, information about the Magic Box is available from Buffy Magazine among other places. If this article didn't use it, suggest a rewrite from such sources then. FrozenPurpleCube 14:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The television show has notability. This does not. "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." The show has been written about, this place has not. Buffy Magazine is not a reliable source that is in my opinion "indent of the subject itself." Furthermore, while you can argue notability and sourcing here, and claim that there are sources out there, they were not cited or used in this article. The entire thing fails WP:NOR. And again, if you want to rewrite, take 5 minutes and do it. I will take another look then. KnightLago 16:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A further thought, if this show filmed at a gas station, under your reasoning, what stops someone from creating an article about it? It was on the show, so it is notable, and we would have to allow an article? Who decides what is a minor and trivial element in relation to this show? The answer to the question would be we would look at WP:V, and WP:NOR. If it passed both of those we would keep. But, if it failed, as this article fails, we would delete. KnightLago 16:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See my responses elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per KnightLago. TJ Spyke 02:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as not notable. If it is notable in the Buffyverse then give it an article at the Buffy Wiki or the Buffy Wikia. Should real magic stores get articles here too? --maclean 07:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't see KnightLago's logic in putting Buffy fictional locations up for deletion when he's updating the page for Central Perk, the fictional coffee shop on Friends. Why is Central Perk treated differently? Static Universe 07:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Because if you read the comment by Paxomen in this (third comment down) AFD he argues for the keeping of the article because of Central Perk. I went to Central Perk and tried to see what sources I could find before I nominated it for deletion. I found a few so I cited them. I am still thinking about nominating the article and the other places in the freinds universe when this ends. You are attacking me and my edits because you have yet to find a logical reason to keep this article or the others in the face of Wikipedia policy. KnightLago 13:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. One location from one tv show without any sources? No. Encyclopedias do not need this much detail. --- RockMFR 05:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - These locations are notable as crucial locations in super-notable series. Wikipedia can cope with few of the most important locations from fictions, I'd never argue that we need an article for every room in a series, that would be madness. I'd agree that they could be improved by citing where information is coming from (e.g. footnotes referencing specific episodes). Wales: "free access to the sum of all human knowledge", we don't need to censor the popular culture bits, instead lets improve them. It's easy to sneer at popular culture, but the fictional narratives that millions share say a lot about us. - Buffyverse 04:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian geostrategy

I came across this when I was cleaning up a mess of vanity edits relating to one Thakur Sher Singh Parmar (now deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thakur Sher Singh Parmar). This article appears to be WP:OR mixed with unverifiable confused synopses of what several people supposedly said about Indian geostrategic options. The only source is a haphazard reference to one newspaper article apparently not about the subject. The subject matter is probably well covered at Foreign relations of India and related articles. Sandstein 23:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete anything useful could be merged into Foreign relations of India, but none of it really is. KazakhPol 00:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Robertissimo 04:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Pinoakcourt 19:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 11:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Td2

Firstly, the reason I didn't tag this as a {{db-corp}} is because it has an assertion of notability, however weak that is.

Page was created in June, and has been tagged requiring references to meet WP:CORP and WP:V since. It makes the weak assertion of notability of allegedly being the Identity and Strategic design company behind Nestlé and a couple of others. Firstly, I'm pretty sure they aren't the only company Nestlé and others have hired to do the same job - international corporations always do. It appears it only contributes to these companies in Mexico, which is the reason why I am nominating it, as a non-notable company. It also reads like an advertisment, and without multiple third-party reliable sources to back up the flimsly claims, it seems like a good candidate to bring here. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SPAM and tagged WP:CSD#G11. Ohconfucius 04:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Want My Western Barbecue Burger!

Non-notable internet phenomenon. Whether the woman who made the call was pranking or seriously distressed is unknown. Fails several criteria, which I won't bother to list. YechielMan 23:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC) YechielMan 23:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete That's pretty hilarious, actually, but WP is not Snopes, and this fails just about every policy (WP:WEB, WP:V, etc.). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Perhaps merge it to List of Internet phenomena? Danny Lilithborne 10:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, not even notable for merging. Anomo 11:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; OK, OK, I get it! Fhb3 12:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)fhb3
Delete although very funny. Still, Wikipedia isn't really a home for jokes. Send it in to Jay Leno...maybe he can put it on Headlines. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 10:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy Bus Driver

Non-notable internet phenomenon. Fails every rule on earth. YechielMan 23:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. per nom. It would need an article in a major news outlet or a million hits to be a true viral video.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 23:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete yet another in the zillions of YouTube videos. The link given in the article says it's had 14K views, which isn't much (the most popular videos have many millions of views). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Anomo 11:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Could possibly include the link to some article about school bus violence (if there is one).--Nehrams2020 01:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samix

non-notable music bio — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 19:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Was winner of a major music award and has produced several different hiphop albums, which is why I added him. Not sure how it's not notable? Especially as Josh Martinez has a wikipedia page himself. stan goldsmith 21:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The page does not meet the criteria layed out at WP:BAND. The producer of a notable musician is not automatically notable by association. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable. —ShadowHalo 23:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whisp e ring 23:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

this is what I put on the talk page, I think it's a reasonable argument for keeping this article:

part of why wikipedia is so great is that it contains info on many obscure bands, musicians, composers and djs like samix, similar artists on wikipedia include Living Legends, Josh Martinez, Retching Red, tilt, The Grouch, Skankin' Pickle, etc. etc. etc. (Particularly bands like Skankin Pickle and Tilt, who never really "made it" but are now broken up and no longer even in existence).

If this article is to be deleted then so are thousands of others, making the whole point of wikipedia moot. If someone is an influential underground artist, they need to be here, just as much, if not more, than Britney Spears or N.E.R.D.stan goldsmith 20:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete No assertion of notability. One Night In Hackney 18:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete For reasons above, plus having myspace as an official site ~~and thinking someone called "ghostshrimp" is illustrating the New York Times~~. Static Universe 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

uh...do your research there Static, here is ghostshrimp's website with his illustrations: http://www.ghostshrimp.net/ (list of some NYT illustrations here: http://www.ghostshrimp.net/pages/illustrations/pages/bookREVIEW.html) stan goldsmith 00:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. :) Static Universe 07:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

also most every band playing music today has a myspace page, how is that evidence of anything stan goldsmith 00:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Static Universe's point is that a legitimately notable or "big" band would probably spring for their own domain. Myspace (in my experience, and I'm sure that of many other editors) is often synonymous with unheard-of, no-name bands. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. Static Universe 07:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, excuse me for saying so but every single band in the world right now has a myspace page, many exclusively so, I'm not sure if you are outdated or what, but that's the truth. Many bands rely exclusively on myspace for promotion, tour dates, networking and more, more so than their own websites nowadays (update for everyone!).... myspace is now, maybe before it was seen as lame, but now it's THE place...

sorry for the arguments, but using your guy's logic, most of the wikipedia database should be deleted....and please get up to date as to what's going on in the online world... stan goldsmith 20:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I never argued that possessing a myspace page should be an indicator for deletion - this article has plenty of valid reason to delete. But I definately contest the notion that every band has a myspace page - that is simply not true. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 18:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erotic spanking

Strong Delete. This page contains much sexuality in its contents and quite a few inappropriate images. A normal encyclopedia would not have an article about this ridiculous erotic spanking. I think it is safe to assume that not too many users view this article, except those who are... unlike most, no offense. It is quite useless, in my humble opinion, and merely taking up space in Wikipedia. I did not expect many people to object. I am sorry if I have done something wrong by proposing the deletion of this article, it is just that I did not expect too many people to oppose my opinion. Please consider my suggestion to remove this article. I doubt it will greatly impact your life in a negative way if this article is gone, but I fear it is possible that the same cannot be said for others, especially younger users. Please support my suggestion. Thanks! Uioh 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- See the Wikipedia page that Wikipedia is not censored. HalJor 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete. Uio, I have pondered your words for a long, LONG, time, and I have finally decided to side by you. However, I am sorry, but please do not get your hopes up too much, as I am still pondering and my vote could change at any time. Thanks. Ntyfj 01:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(Changed mind to Neutral)

Strong Keep. This has been nominated at least twice today with no reason specified at any time. Granted, this article could stand some clean-up and/or citations as noted, but it has existed for almost 5 years. Unless someone can provide a legitimate reason to delete this article, it should stay. HalJor 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable topic, adequately sourced. I would advise Uioh and HalJor to change their opinions to "Delete" and "Keep" as appropriate, incidentally. Tevildo 23:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep + Speedy - it's a legitimate topic. Wikipedia is not censored for content. Tunnels of Set 01:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, but it should be? Why ever reason not? Especially if at least one-fourth of its users ARE minors. If this article was removed, how would that harm Wikipedia or you? It COULD offend minors and their parents that use Wikipedia perhaps daily! At the very least, please remove the images, please! Are they necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uioh (talk • contribs) 21:12, January 3, 2007
  - I'm sorry, but this is one of the foundation principles of Wikipedia. It's the responsibility of parents to prevent their children looking at "offensive" material, not for us to act as childminders. Tevildo 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - this subject is quite a bit more notable than autocunnilingus. Wikipedia is not censored. Lyrl ^Talk _C 01:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but what do you mean by "notable"? Uioh 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Strong Keep per Wikipedia is not censored. The article needs more citations for verifiability, but the subject matter is certainly notable. -- Kesh 02:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - exactly as per Kesh. Chovain 02:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep but definitely looks like cleanup is needed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. You can't nominate an article for deletion because it doesn't violate a Wikipedia policy. —Chowbok ☠ 04:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion given. --- RockMFR 06:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep per above. Akihabara 07:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. Appears to be a part of our BDSM coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Modesty is not a reason for deletion. Danny Lilithborne 10:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep It should be featured. Anomo 11:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep "contains much sexuality in its content" as a reason for deletion? Give me a break. Atom 12:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep 18:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep: No valid reason given for deletion. DCEdwards1966 20:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I have changed again to Neutral. I shall admit it, I am not such a big fan of erotic subjects, but it is my habit to participate in every issue. You are right, Uio, this article DOES contain sexuality and it DOES have images that are not too pleasant. However, HalJor is quite right, Wikipedia is NOT censored. I understand your concern that this page could have a negative effect on certain people, especially minors, and, though I WOULD want to delete the article, it simply does not directly defy the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Uio, YOU must kindly understand that Wikipedia does NOT censor its articles, though I repeat, your suggestion that this page should be deleted is certainly understandable. Ntyfj 22:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - now that the only non-nominating 'Delete' opinion has been removed, I think we have consensus for a speedy keep. I see no reason to keep this one open. Chovain 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keeep as Wikipedia is not censored. This is a notable topic covered in a sensible manner. The whole point of Wikipedia is to have a breadth of coverage that is wider than a "normal encyclopedia". There is nothing ridiculous about erotic spanking that I can see. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong and Speedy Keep This user's reccommendation for deletion seems to be motivated primarily on her personal opinion of BSDM and its practitioners, something that, I'm sorry, is no reason to challenge Wikipedia's longstanding policy of noncensorship. No valid reason for deletion given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.215.139.253 (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
Keep, bloody prudes. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 07:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Delete, with valid rationale

The initial nomination basis is invalid because it is not based in policy. However, think the policies people. Notability is not subjective. This article not only violates but radically violates WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.

RATIONALE:

This article does not establish notability, verifiability, or neutrality per how those are defined in Wikipedia policy
- "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" (from WP:N).
  - The article uses only one book reference. That is INSUFFICIENT to establish notability. Moreover, the one reference in itself fails to meet standard of being a reliable independent source so as to establish notability, and it violates NPOV:
    - "In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors" (quote from WP:N). Clearly, this article violates that because:
      - 1. The lone reference is of a book that is VERY clearly NOT from an "unbiased and unaffiliated source". The author, "Lady Green", is very clearly a partisan practitioner of Erotic spanking. Her book cannot be used in this article but only in an article about herself (see #5 below).
      - 2. The publisher of the lone reference in the article is Greenery Press. Nice sounding, but have a look at their website and tell me if you really think they meet the standard of being an "unbiased and unaffiliated source", or whether it is "independent of the subject itself". Not even close! Thus, even the lone book reference cited in the article fails to establish notability as that is defined in Wikipedia policies - it is not from "an unbiased and unaffiliated source".
      - 3. "Those interested in the article," who have written the article, have very clear been "exclusively partisan or fanatic editors." This is evidenced by the product they have produced that uses the lone book source they have used in the article which is clearly NOT an "unbiased and unaffiliated source" that is "independent of the subject itself". As well, by the act of editing, editors implicitly consent that they know and author within Wikipedia content policies. This article has existed for almost 5 years and been subject to nearly 500 edits yet it violates said policies as just described and as will be described more below. This evidences they are "exclusively partisan or fanatic editors."
      - 4. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (from WP:V). Does anyone want to claim that "Lady Green" and Greenery Press tally to a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?? Hence:
      - 5. The lone book used to justify this article is, per Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_of_dubious_reliability, is a source "of dubious reliability", which are defined in the policy as "sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight." It continues, "Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s)".
      - 6. The dubious reliability is evidenced throughout the article. Here is a radically dubious, and controversial, claim from the article: "Examples [of spankophiles] include the poet Algernon Swinburne and the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau." Wow!!! But per WP:V, "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." Yet here in this article we have only a dubious source that, by Wikipedia policy, can not even be used in this article but only be used in an article about the author, i.e., "Lady Green". Yet here we have it as the lone source!
      - 7.WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored has a crucially important caveat. Yes, articles some find offensive are allowed, "provided they do not violate any of our existing policies", it says. WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored is not a trump card to every other policy.

Notability is not subjective. Almost everyone above chided the nominator for doing this. But perhaps its time for the Keep voters above to themselves check up more throughly on Wikipedia policies. Unless this article dramatically changes in the next few days, it must be deleted for the reasons above.

CyberAnth 10:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Curiously, CyberAnth keeps nominating sexually-related topics for deletion. See Articles_for_deletion/Ass to mouth, Articles for deletion/Ass to pussy, Articles for deletion/Handjob, Articles for deletion/Fingering Articles for deletion/Vanilla sex and Articles for deletion/Wanker. While I will assume good faith, it seems relevant to this discussion. -- Kesh 16:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Who nominated this? Not me. AAR, I will be nominating in the coming weeks hundreds of varied articles for deletion that do not met WP policies. Get used to it. It's about the policies, not whatever else you may think it is about. CyberAnth 19:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that Kesh didn't actually say CyberAnth had nominated this article, but was pointing out all the sexually-oriented articles you have nominated for deletion, as a means (I think) of putting your rationale into the context of your actions. Further, your notability rationale extends what the policy means beyond what it says. "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" does not mean that the multiple sources need to be referenced in the article, but that they have to exist. The article should assert the notability of its subject, but it is not called on to prove that assertion. Pursuing a deletionist agenda does not strike me as being in the best interests of the project. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not taking knives to it. Please consider relevant policy as it relates to your concerns. --Ssbohio 05:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep: This is a WP:V source (the pdf talks about "erotic spanking" as well, though you can't see it in the preview. It is also mentioned in the glossary of this published book[115], and in the references of this book[116]. Not really scientific, but evidence of the fact that it's a common term, is this magazine[117]. The other complaints you (CyberAnth) have require cleanup, not deletion. Fram 13:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Why is this case still open?Nina Odell 13:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Strongest possible speedy keepNina Odell 23:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Because the consensus is not (yet) speedy keep: only one editor has voted thus with justification — Iamunknown 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per the excellent references supply by Fram. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or possibly *Merge into BDSM:
Who even wanted this deleted anyway? I see no reason for deletion, this article in my opinion just needs to be cleaned up a little or shortened and added onto BDSM. Wikisquared 01:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I find it interesting how concerns about verifiability get discussed with such passion in nominations like this. The issue isn't if the current article has been verified, rather the issue is if the article is likely to become verified. I see no reason why that can't happen here. If the article is deficient, the sections or sentences needing verification can be tagged. This is a wiki. Articles never appear perfectly formed. Many articles reach feature status after having a long early history without citations. -- Samuel Wantman 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note about reference-padding

LOL. The recent "reference additions" is what is called reference-padding.

The willingness to reference-pad further evidences that "Those interested in the article," who have written the article, have very clear been "exclusively partisan or fanatic editors."

Here is how reference-padding works:

You write an article based on one book that, per policy, can only be used in the author's biography
Someone calls you on it (me)
You quick scramble and stick some other references into the article while leaving the text intact
You magically think that fixes the article

One of the funniest tactics of this was including this URL in the reference. It screams, "I have never actually read this article". But I have read the article, because I have access to it from my major university's library (the direct URL to the journal article is here). Guess what. Nothing in the journal text provides support for the text in this WP article. Thus, reference-padding.

If you want to prove reference-padding has not been further done, although anyone with integrity and sense will admit what I am saying is true and that this padding is as plain as day, I want to see page numbers to the "extra" references you added keyed by footnotes to assertions in the text.

Here is The Confessions of Jean-Jaques Rousseau, the complete book available to anyone because it is public domain. Perhaps you can start there. Surely if you have even actually read this book (VERY unlikely, of course) you will know where to find the text where he reportedly "confesses" to being a spankophile. Good luck.

However, please be assured I will check the references and call you on it, as I did here. Surely, if no hocus-pocus reference-padding has gone on, no one would fear doing this.

CyberAnth 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The first thing that you just have proven is that you have not looked at the actual reference. There is online access to the article and it is an article dedicated to "sexual spanking" (and more precisely, about how people practicing spanking see themselves), which states (let me quote from the article): The specific activity described in this article is simply called erotic spanking.. The second thing is that I did not include the article in a section "References", but in a section called "References and further reading" (I hope you appreciate the difference). Finally, inline citations are currently NOT required by Wikipedia (although they are encouraged), please read Wikipedia:Citing sources. Yes, in time inline citations would be better, but at least now this very applicable article is already linked to from the Wikipedia article, allowing also others to more quickly find it. You are "calling" me on things that you interpret wrongly and are still ongoing. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to you finding the URL funny, I had to laugh about yours, because it will present users without access with a error message. The best URL probably would be this one: [118], to which I just changed it. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My URL goes directly to the full article. For those without access it does not give an error message but defaults, as the page says, in 10 seconds to the URL you posted. The way to handle this per MOS is to include a note, "subscription required to access".

No one contests that journal article asserts that "sexual spanking" exists. At this point, the sentence you have quoted would only support an assertion that it exists. I am contesting that the journal article, which I have open right now, offers support for specific assertions within the WP article text. Surely, if you have the journal article open, and you apparently do, you will not be afraid to key a few page numbers from the journal article to assertions in the WP article text. I will be checking. CyberAnth 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth, some of your comments above are bordering on uncivil. Might I suggest rewording to be more neutral? -- Kesh 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So did I and I included two inline references and a reference section. The two references are:

1.Regarding the toys used. I slightly changed the listing, but the idea is fully clear from this sentence in the article: Participants’ toy boxes were examined, replete with paddles, straps, hairbrushes, and whips.. Diff from me: [119]

2.Regarding the focus on buttocks, the following quote: defining themselves as solely interested in “the bottom,” or the buttocks, and my diff: [120].

Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, CyberAnth, I would like to ask you to clarify this statement you just made: The willingness to reference-pad further evidences that "Those interested in the article," who have written the article, have very clear been "exclusively partisan or fanatic editors.". --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors" (quote from WP:N). The article radically violates WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV because it is written from one source, "Lady Green", whose book is allowable as a reference solely within the author's biography article. The willingness to reference-pad while retaining the text of an article that radically violates WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NPOV evidences a continued pattern from "exclusively partisan or fanatic editors" who brought the article to the point of this AfD. This is not UNCIVIL. It is WP:N.

I accept the two referenced sentences you added, if the subject itself can be referenced to multiple reliable sources (one reliable source is not sufficient to establish notability). However, this and only this is what the article should look like based upon what is referenced: see here. No images can be included until what is depicted in them have first been clearly described (or depicted by comparable images) in multiple reliable sources, otherwise it is OR and Synthesis. CyberAnth 21:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is currently NOT sourced from a single source as you very well know. And remarkably, above you claimed you had read the article I added as a source... You stated "Nothing in the journal text provides support for the text in this WP article". You contested that it was a good reference. I contest that you actually read the article or that you are even interested in getting the article referenced. If you had read the article, you could have added the references yourself. I admit that I am now no longer assuming good faith here, but from here on it is impossible for me to do so with regard to all these recent AfDs. I strongly suggest you find more collaborative ways of communicating with other editors to improve articles in the future (there was the very good suggestion of contacting the Wikiproject sexuality). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it has been reference-padded. That is what I said.

The purpose of the journal article is to delve into the ontological identify formations of erotic spankers and how they psychologically guide themselves through stigmatization neutralizations.

The piece asks, "How do spanking aficionados understand and explain themselves?" It seeks to understand spankers' "sexual scripts, neutralization of stigma, impression management, and the development of the sexual self". It uses interviews as its primary research method.

It is not about exhibitionism.

Here is a quote that captures much of the tenor of the article:

About spanking aficionados, he did say, "We wonder about ourselves and our 'perversion' endlessly" ... Newer participants were especially prone to these musings. Andrew said, "You know, I can’t believe that I’m here. I look around and wonder what the hell I’m doing here. I mean, I'm not like these other people. This isn’t all I do or anything." He was trying to neutralize any stigma to himself by comparing himself to the other party-goers. He implied that the others had a single-minded focus on spanking–but he was "normal," his interest in spanking was just a small piece of his identity.

The article then expands the above description of stigmatization neutralization, by showing it is done through comparing one's own behavior with others':

One group denigrates another "fringe" group in order to mitigate the stigmatizing effects: "are more normal than they are; they are the true deviants."

You don't "write an article" citing one unallowable reference and then "get it referenced" via reference padding with allowable ones, while keeping the text intact based on one unallowable reference. You scrap the text, go to the reliable references, and then write the article based solidly upon them. You might call that "bad faith", but I call it "how to responsibly write an encyclopedia."

CyberAnth 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't write the article. Second, you don't have to copy/paste random, beside the point quotes from the article to prove that you have access. Finally, although admirable, what you consider "how to responsibly write an encyclopedia" is not how Wikipedia currently works. All the time people are adding unsourced information. Given time and attention, that information will be sourced (by the same people, or by others) or removed íf sources cannot be found. You want to remove information without even having looked if sources exist (as proven above by the fact that you fully disregarded the mentioned article as a source). There is (in Wikipedia) nothing wrong with searching references for statements made by others. It happens all the time and is (part of) how Wikipedia works. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Random text? You're kidding, right? I gave a brief review of the whole article. The only thing it does is verify a few basic facts, e.g., "spanking often occurs on the buttocks". If you want to have entire books reference material, place the page numbers with footnotes at the bottom so people can actually verify it. Otherwise, no one can tell it from reference padding. Would you like people to have to read the entire book to verify some sentences? If you have the book, place the page numbers and reference them to specific portions of the text. That way I can (and will) verify (or falsify) it. CyberAnth 23:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No I was not kidding, you are cluttering this discussion with unrelated things. The article is (as you yourself stated) based on interviews with people engaging in spanking. They themselves have stated they were "solely interested in “the bottom,” or the buttocks". This is the perfect source for that statement in the Wikipedia article. And yes, those are basic facts. Are you now saying that the basic facts do not need sources? What exactly is the point you are trying to make by giving two elaborate quotes from the reference? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to page numbers... you are really pushing it now. This is NOT common practice, even in science. There is some intelligence to be expected from the reader. But if it is you important to you, why don't YOU add those page numbers. I gave you the exact quotes from which I took my references above. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Some time ago I already accepted the two quotes as referenced reliably, remember? I showed what the article should look like based upon what is referenced and verifiable, see here. I am speaking of the rest of the article that I cannot verify. If whoever added the Koetzle and Marcus book did not just reference-pad with them by just finding a book listed at amazon.com or something, it should not be too much trouble to post page numbers footnoted to article text so I can verify (or falsify) the content. CyberAnth 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the "reference padding" Okay, I'm the one who added the new paragraph on the Victorian spanking, the new book references, and the phrase about Rousseau's Confessions. I was relaying facts from a term paper I wrote three years ago for a class on Victorian pornography. If that makes me partisan, then so are many other people working in sex and gender studies. I'm sorry if I don't remember exact page numbers from books I read in 2003, but to impugn someone's integrity without knowing all the facts is cruel and insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.105.69 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 5 January 2007

See anon I.P.'s contribs.[121] Since your term paper is not published by a reliable source, it cannot be used as a source because it is not verifiable. Here is the entire text for free of The Confessions of Jean-Jaques Rousseau. I cannot find verification in it that he was a spankophile. If you can, cite the Book#, entry date#, and paragrapah# number so others can verify the assertion. CyberAnth 22:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Finding that statement in the book itself would be original research, as you very well know. It is a primary source, see WP:RS for info (Any interpretive claims require secondary sources). Secondary sources are preferred, like the one by Sigmund Freud that I already added to the article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In the article, is it worded as an interpretive claim by so-and-so author or is it asserted as fact that can plainly be read in Confessions? CyberAnth 00:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Those interested in giving or receiving erotic spankings are sometimes (rarely) known as spankophiles. Examples include the poet Algernon Swinburne (as implied repeatedly in his poetry) and the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as detailed in his autobiography "Confessions" [emphasis mine] So, I'm guessing the latter. But the wording could be improved - how would you do so?

- I am not listing myself as a source but rather drawing on information I came across while researching my paper (namely, Marcus, Koetzle, and the body -pun unintentional- of Victorian pornography). I realize that doing so would be academically dishonest. I was trying to make this article better by adding historical information. - "Anonymous" (though definitely not Henry Spencer Ashbee) :)

Speedy, strong keep WP is not censored for morality. Parents need to do their own policing of children's surfing. This is a valid phenomenon and topic of interest. Aleta 01:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC) I strenghthen my "keep" per comments of Ssbohio. Aleta 05:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

regarding the Rousseau thing Textual evidence can be found here (4th link down). [122] I apologize if I've miscounted the paragraphs; I didn't include the poetry. The actual passage is shorter, but because of the difference in the language I was careful not to leave anything out that would help people understand what was going on: paragraphs 34-41. How do I need to cite that, again? Do you think I should include a quote in the text? If so, which part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.157.233 (talk • contribs) 21:52, January 5, 2007

Comment - My rationale for speedy keep

Beyond the fact that this topic is extremely notable and has historic significance, it's a part of healthy and consensual sexuality. Wikipedia is not censored for children, and furthermore, children are not idiots. Any minor with access to an unlocked computer (how many of those are around, I wonder) or a library card can and will get whatever information they need on just about any topic.

If they have a couple of bucks and an older friend, they can get everything they need to know in the way of pornography. On any topic related to sexuality, I personally would prefer they got their info here, rather than there. Erotic Spanking doesn't need to be deleted, it needs to be expanded and improved. Nina Odell 01:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep - the article is on a valid subject, notable enough for Wikipedia. If people want to see more references the way to go is to add an appropriate clean-up tag to the article. Johntex\^talk 04:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy & strong keep - The original rationale is not only not supported by policy, it is opposed by policy. The detailed arguments of CyberAnth speak to a need to improve the article. Given CyberAnth's concern about the article, my suggestion would be that his/her energies be turned toward improving it. The subject is notable (close to 200,000 Google hits on the exact phrase "erotic spanking"). It's been the subject of book, magazine, film, and scholarly research. Notability is so clearly and objectively established in popular culture as to render assertions to the contrary doubtful at best. Certainly, the article needs improvement, but deletion is unwarranted. --Ssbohio 05:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep, snowball's chance under this dogpile. Fram and Ssbohio have said all that needed to be said. Notability and Verifiability established. POV is not an argument for deletion, but for improvement. See WP:AFD, "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." CyberAnth needs to remember that Wikipedia is not the place to "fight the good fight". There's plenty of free blog sites out there. — coelacan talk — 05:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep as per all above. Artw 23:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - another tiresome nom Albatross2147 00:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep well established topic. Malla nox 03:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
speedy keep this right away please the subject notable this is not even borderline at all Yuckfoo 10:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Weisblott

non notable TrulyUnited 23:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC) --TrulyUnited 23:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete while he certainly seems to be a prominent blogger, the article makes no claims of notability as required by WP:BIO: The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. Lyrl ^Talk _C 16:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per lyrl. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 19:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jolanta Kwaśniewska, MD

Nominated for prod by Piotrus with reason: "Advertisement of non-notable person created by a relative. Purge." Prod was uncontested and expired. Nominated for AfD by 74.12.67.247. No reason specified - I'm not sure if this is a contested prod or just a procedural error. My opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless it can be shown that that person passess Wikipedia:Notability (academics) test.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I think she does not pass. Medical publications in Polish as well as some chapters in (unidentified) monographs seem not substantial enough. --Beaumont (@) 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Only two contributors, but it's had 13 days to get any requests to keep, and recieved none. Proto::► 11:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cory Cudney

Was about to speedy this before discovering it was kept in a very generous 2004 AfD, details on talk page. Aaaaaanyway, tattoo artist with no claim nor verification of significance. Deizio talk 20:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whisp e ring 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete a Google search verifies his existence and career, but does not appear to be notable. A couple of glancing mentions in Prick Magazine [123] [124] and many message board references does not seem to meet Wikipedia's criteria. Lyrl ^Talk _C 01:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Doc glasgow as "trolling attack page - oh the irony!" (I concur.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikifascist

Contested speedy with discussion, AfD nominated to give opportunity for full discussion and consensus. In my opinion, an unencyclopaedic article about a neologism (WP:NEO). May have potential for WP:BJAODN. Chrisd87 00:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Urban Dictionary is the antithesis of a reliable source. Zero gnews hits for Wikifascist. An unverifiable protologism. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete; nn neologism, violates WP:NFT --Mhking 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete this is obviously an attack page. KazakhPol 00:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete I already placed this on WP:BJAODN before the Speedy was contested. Although a more refined version of this might have a place in the WP namespace. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 01:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment — The only time I have seen the word "wikifascist" was on a site highly critical of Wikipedia, where it was used to characterize me with regard to remarks I addressed to Bernard Haisch. No formal definition was offered, but the context made it clear the intended meaning had nothing to do with rapid deletion of articles. (They chose the bits they wanted from what I said, and added a bizarre spin, so I would not trust their use of the term either.) I might vote to delete this article, but then (according to its definition) that would make me a wikifascist. It is a mere definition page, not an encyclopedia article; and it is Wikipedia talking about itself. --KSmrq^T 02:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang, and the only purported source cited or available is a web site whose goal includes the publication of made-up definitions for words. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as improperly sourced entry that violates WP:NFT, WP:NEO, WP:WINAD, and WP:CIVIL.-- danntm ^T _C 05:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete self-referential and per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 10:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and send to wiktionary. I don't want to enter in details such as the term was used sometimes by Daniel Brandt and that urban dictionary entry was made by an unhappy editor. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not an attack page. Just a copyvio. Most of the article is a copy and paste from urban dictionary. Anomo 11:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
comment perhaps it would be helped by some specific examples? ⇒ bsnowball 12:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-notable. Teke ^(talk) 04:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geoff Webster

Vanity page created by Geoffreywebsterland (talk · contribs). 701 Google results with exact name. Slgr a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

can u be more specific? sorry I just don't follow. how is it a vainity page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffreywebsterland (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete Violates WP:COI, no real notability asserted, so tagged. Also, I want that damn irritating animation to go away ;-) Tubezone 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- u can't just delete something because you dont like how someone looks im going to add more about his other commercials some of which are very popular when i get off class —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffreywebsterland (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was redirect to Henry Foss High School. John254 18:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samnang Kok

Not notable. Only claim of notability is that he was killed in a school - and there are many who fit this description who do not deserve a Wikipedia article. KazakhPol 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC) KazakhPol 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. "I agree that it is not a memorial but the event is very significant, I think we should keep the article." Tblore 07:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. "Wikipedia is not a memorial". Sam Blacketer 00:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ per nom Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Change my vote to Redirect to Henry Foss High School as Tacoma High School Shooting is likely going to end up redirected there. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Tacoma High School Shooting. The event itself was notable and has an article Mikemoto 01:10, 4 January 2007

I doubt the event is very notable as it's only one victim, likely going to get afd it's self Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I dunno... W. R. Myers High School shooting is still there. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete I would suggest deleting the article on the shooting too. WP does not need articles on every shooting that happens, and with only 1 person being killed it's not really notable. TJ Spyke 02:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep So what if there was only one person killed? A human life is valuable, and a horrible death this way should not be forgotten. Please have a heart. Benlumberkid 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete No one is saying his life was not of value. However, there are MANY horrible deaths every single day and all of them can not be listed here. If we keep this article, then it could be argued to include every single homicide as notable, however unfortunate, but let's face it, NOT notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.134.56.20 (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Speedy redirect to Tacoma High School Shooting or Henry Foss High School. No notability outside of this school shooting incident, but no reason to deny researchers the ability to look up this event by this name either. Silensor 04:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and/or Rewrite. This article is very notable and I'll tell you why. Up until now, Tacoma has never faced a major massacre attack outside of the 2006 Tacoma Mall shooting, which ended in no deaths. Also, this news of Kok's death is very recent and will have more information added later, I'm sure. For instance, every 20 minutes more and more information on the massacre is coming out. In fact, just a while ago we've learned the gunman's name. As time unravels, this article will become very notable and will have much information for a nice and worthy article. I created this article as a way for people to learn more about this situation as it unravels and eventually create a great article. Also, this death has more shock factor and worth than any plain death. This boy died in his school, a place which should have been safe for him. And yes, even though school shootings are becoming more and more common each day, this death is quite rememerable and important, as it shows the very first major massacre in Tacoma which has in the end shoved a major city of 200,000 into distraught. Please keep this article as it will soon be very notable indeed. Jacrio 21:08, 3 January 2007 (PST)

Comment - learning more about the situation should be part of the Tacoma High School Shooting. So there doesn't need to be a separate article on the victim of the shooting. -- Whpq 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, Tacoma rocks though. --Liface 05:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete "This boy died in his school, a place which should have been safe for him." Of course it should, but shouldn't everywhere have been safe for him. Regrettably, not sufficiently notable. PatGallacher 10:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Tacoma High School Shooting. Any notability for this individual is inextricably related to the shooting, and as such there shouldn't be an article independent of the shooting article. -- Whpq 17:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Tacoma High School Shooting. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Tacoma High School Shooting. WP is not a memorial site. If multiple independent sources are found, an article could be recreated. Not everything which is tragic or a big news headline for a few days needs an encyclopedia article, since this is not Wikinews, and only things of enduring importance should be included. Reprints of the same wire service story or updates to a breaking story do not count as multiple sources. Edison 20:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Tacoma High School Shooting and merge in anything of worth. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 10:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect not notable. I don't think there's any possibility that this article could be expanded beyond a couple of sentences using reliable sources. GabrielF 01:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] GameGuard

[edit] CIA sponsored regime change

[edit] Masamune (video game weapon)

[edit] List of Computer System Manufacturers

[edit] Sabugram

[edit] Alternative synth

[edit] Rough Cuts

[edit] Tay taking

[edit] Britney Spears bootlegs

[edit] Moshe Lavi

[edit] Fingering (sexual act)

[edit] Aaron Powell

[edit] Fate of a Hero

[edit] Jersey Youth Reform Team

[edit] Rob Schwager

[edit] Rosary ASA

[edit] Jared Lane

[edit] NuComm International

[edit] Split infinitive

[edit] Chinese singers

[edit] Brothers Past

[edit] Valley Cristo

[edit] Mother Vinegar (3rd nomination)

[edit] Ladies who lunch

[edit] Clear Channel Broadcasting Tower Rosinton

[edit] Toufeeq Hussain

[edit] Christian Seifert

[edit] List of notable genes

[edit] Fire Emblem Archetypes

[edit] Micro-collaboration

[edit] Xbox Handheld

[edit] Wanker

[edit] More reference-padding

[edit] Still more reference padding

[edit] Close AfD?

[edit] List of films with similar themes and release dates (second nomination)

[edit] Suggested compromise

[edit] List of psychedelic trance artists

[edit] The White Room (Buffyverse)

[edit] Dead Days

[edit] Space Cat

[edit] Kelly West

[edit] 'Jimmy Don't Leave Me / Go Away Rebecca-Sue!'

[edit] North Heights Lutheran Church

[edit] Paul Kotheimer

[edit] Marc Gustafson

[edit] Reach the World

[edit] Jodi Weatherton

[edit] San Jacinto Mall

[edit] Prussian Blue (British band) (second nomination)

[edit] Squilliam Fancyson

[edit] Pinnacle Towers Tower Mooringsport

[edit] Dudley (dog)

[edit] Trebek effect

[edit] List of years in film

[edit] Foramen Magnum

[edit] Future Naruto

[edit] Mark Bellinghaus

[edit] Melech AZA

[edit] Jonathan Bowers

[edit] Cold Case - Cases in Chronological Order

[edit] Horizon Coast Chapel

[edit] YoYo Records

[edit] Greatest chess player of all time

[edit] NFL Draft Countdown

[edit] TNA iMPACT! Community

[edit] Jiri Turek

[edit] Jim Nicholson (U.S. politician)

[edit] HLGuard

[edit] Globulation 2 (2nd nomination)

[edit] Anti-Gentilism

[edit] Vanessa Oliveira

[edit] Association of Autonomous Astronauts

[edit] Angus purdy

[edit] Committee for a Free Britain

[edit] Servis

[edit] Australian Relief & Mercy Services