Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 July 8

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 03:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Necromancy in fiction and in popular culture

Necromancy in fiction and in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is another trivia-like article which is listcruft and that also contains a wackload of original research and very mostly unsourced which fails in majority WP:V. Mahybe some content can be merged with the parent article, but delete most. --JForget 23:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - laundry list of trivia relating to, about, or mentioning necromancy, necromancers, things named after either, things that resemble, things that look like, or things that sound like the above. --Haemo 00:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Author writes decently, but the definition of "necromancy" is made overly broad to include everything involving evil. Mandsford 02:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The overly vague definition of "necromancy". Hermione is a dude 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. CaveatLector^Talk 12:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 13:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of films about mathematicians

List of films about mathematicians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another "about" list. Alone the fact that 21 grams is on this list shows a problem. Other than that, this is an indiscriminate list, as having lists of films that feature some random entity is unmaintainable. Bulldog123 23:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - as lists go, it looks interesting, and small enough to be manageable. Gordonofcartoon 00:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be interesting if the entrees were actually about mathematicians. They're not. And there's hardly enough that are to fill up a list anyway. Bulldog123 00:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

it was interpreted as "scientist who uses a lot of math" which is a little vague, but the non-mathematicans are actually theoretical physicists, which is reasonably closely related--its a fairly good list. DGG (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; "films about mathematicians" isn't a film genre, Wikipedia has no article discussing "films about mathematicians". Most "Films about..." lists should be deleted as they are generally lists of loosely associated topics, ie Straw Dogs and To Sir, with Love (and many others listed) have so little in common that grouping them together has no encyclopdic value. Masaruemoto 01:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant with Category:Mathematical films. Chubbles 01:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with the mathematical films category listed above. I think, however, that the definition of mathematician is made overly broad to include physicists, engineers, and in some cases, the character's occupation has little do with the plot. There are few films actually about mathematicians, A Beautiful Mind being one of them. Mandsford 02:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the list adds extra content (brief synopsis of film) not included in the category. Some items could be removed, although having a mathematican in a film is a rare enough event to justify inclusion. --Salix alba (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 04:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete suffers from the same problem as most "films about" articles: how "about" the subject must the film be and who tells us that it is at least that much about it? And as for "having a mathematician in a film is a rare enough event to justify inclusion" as suggested above being the standard, the article is an indiscriminate list per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep annotated lists serve different purposes than categories. dml 19:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep "Some random entity"? That's just silly. As for merging with a category, it is long established Wikipedia policy that the existence of a category is not grounds for deleting a list. Lists have advantages that categories lack. (And some say vice versa too, so maybe it's both.) Michael Hardy 18:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep I see no good grounds for its deletion, and the case for WP:NOT indiscriminant collection of information does not seem to have been clearly presented. Silly rabbit 18:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact that the list needs some pruning does not establish grounds for its deletion. This list is manageable with a clearly-defined purpose. VectorPosse 19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 03:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rich Roberts

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

Does not meet WP:N or WP:PORNBIO Duane 22:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete if it had credible references, I would probably change my vote to keep... but without references, it needs to be deleted as non-verifiable.Balloonman 23:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I also must agree if it has references keep it, otherwise get rid of it. Callelinea 02:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing notable on imdb. Probably included as an adjunct to Sindee Coxx, his former spouse. --Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 03:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Fele

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

Non-notable per WP:PORNBIO. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, Non-notable porn actor. No award nominations, no real solid references. Callelinea 02:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rescue Me characters. Walton^One 16:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colleen Gavin

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

Non-notable character per WP:FICT SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into List of Rescue Me characters.  RGTraynor  19:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not present any secondary sources to establish notability, per WP:N. --maclean 22:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, preferably--the subject of the article appears to have become one of the chief plot drivers for the series. Barring that, Merge all information into List of Rescue Me characters. Lockesdonkey 14:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but add a picture and references. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS ^talk 10:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vinnie Caruana

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

does not assert WP:N and neither do band articles. aliasd·U·T 16:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The formation of his latest project was covered in The Long Island press - [1] --Darksun 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A few other sources - [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] --Darksun 16:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of those links are blog links. aliasd·U·T 16:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but they're well established, dedicated music blogs, not just random fan blogs. There is also coverage on MTV (as mentioned in the I Am The Avalanche article). Keep. --Darksun 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to I Am the Avalanche. Precious Roy 07:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Because Caruana is the founding member of two notable bands (The Movielife and I Am the Avalanche), it does not make sense to redirect, and the fact that he has created two notable bands should be enough to establish notability such as to warrant his own article. Chubbles 01:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The entire contents of that article boils down to: his birth information, that he was in The Movielife and I Am the Avalance, that his cousin is in a non-notable band, he "appears" (sings? plays guitar? it doesn't say) on a Bayside song, his current band is a member of a non-notable "group of bands and artists", and that he has "many tattoos". Not to mention the fact that the single reference only verifies that he was in those two bands and nothing else from the article. Nothing that can't be merged into both the Movielife and I Am the Avalanche articles. Precious Roy 09:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep I feel that he qualifies for notability under WP:MUSIC. However, his article as it stands is unsuitable. The article lacks references from multiple, independent sources. If the article is cleaned up, expanded and properly sourced, I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. Trusilver 00:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 03:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking_Free_(Asian_song)

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

Not notable enough to have its own page, it is already mentioned on the page of Breaking Free graphitesmoothie ^{(talk | contributions)} 16:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as there's nothing to merge to the main article (it's all already there) or redirect if you prefer, but it's not a very likely search term. GassyGuy 16:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. Not independently notable from the main article. DWaterson 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Breaking Free, if already mentioned Giggy _U^CP 01:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 03:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Signs of Frost

First Signs of Frost (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not Notable. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). Also, most of the article is taken directly from the bands website: [[7]]. Bill.matthews 15:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom. Also article is unsourced except for the band's own website. Oregongirl0407 01:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Claims of media coverage are unverifiable. Precious Roy 09:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as it asserts notability by touring, although it needs some work and Internet links. Bearian 18:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete db-band Giggy _U^CP 01:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (without prejudice to creation of an article on the school). Walton^One 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aryabhatta Maths Competition

Aryabhatta Maths Competition (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A non notable local competition. Hardly any media coverage. The most prominent Ghits are either the wiki article or its mirrors. Tagged orphan for almost two months now. soum ^talk 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable local math quiz. If I'm reading it right, the prize is the equivalent of about $3.00 US. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oops, I missed that prize money bit. Its more like 2.50 USD, not even 3.00! Seriously, what were the organizers thinking when they annoounced a 100 INR prize!!! --soum ^talk 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but there's also a certificate! ;-) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete 8th grade local math competitions are not notable Corpx 16:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I found a article in one of India's national newspaper which has the competition as its subject [8]. Also apparently its results are covered by mainstream media (see [9] for example). Finally regarding the comments on prize-money: In Indian the spirit of amateurism still holds sway, especially at school level (Recall that the prizemoney at the Olympics is still zero, AFAIK, thanks to its historical legacy) and while I don't have any personal knowledge of this competition, if students at IIT [10] and Stanford [11] are citing it on their resume, I guess the "certificate" is of some value. Abecedare 16:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Indiatimes.com has sites for many schools called "school homepages". The search results you indicate in your second link are nothing more than mentions in long lists of what prizes, etc., that students for particular schools have won. For example, right above one such mention we see that "The Limca Book of Records organised a quiz at the Air Force Auditorium and the Class XI children received the audience prize" and "In a group discussion held at the computer forum, Navjeet Chatterjee won the third prize." The most extensive coverage of this competition is in a list related to the school that runs it.
  • As for the resume stuff, I don't know what to say except people stick all sorts of stuff there. Does the fact that an undergrad that lists being "computer secretary" for his hostel also lists this competition there convince me of its notability? Not really.
  • The first link is interesting. It is to a segment of Young World], which is apparently a weekly supplement to The Hindu, intended for young readers. It has features intended to appeal and inform its young readers, including a "crayon corner". I don't think a short article on this competition titled "Maths can be fun", really fits what I would consider national coverage, despite The Hindu being a national newspaper.
  • I happened to be online chatting with a friend in India, so I queried him about this competition and sent him the Young World link. He graduated from an IIT and has in-depth knowledge of many of these important competitions. He had never heard of it, but said it's probably because it's Delhi only (as explained in the Young World article). So my conclusion from all this is that it may be a somewhat notable local competition. Is that enough? Well, Delhi is a big, important city, but ... I'm not convinced. For example (I'm really asking), do we have articles on competitions that take place only in (possibly parts of) New York City, Los Angeles, etc.? Also, because of the localness of the competition, it's hard to judge how notable it really is within this very large city. How many of the total schools in Delhi vie for the trophy? For example, the Young World article mentions that the response was "overwhelming" in 2006, and numbers are expected to increase. Is this because more schools are participating? Or each school is sending more students? --C S (Talk) 10:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Create a one-line article on Summer Fields School, New Delhi(which conducts the competition) and merge this stuff into that article. As Abecedare points out, the competition seems to be somewhat more important than average an average inter-school contest, but the mention in the media is trivial and doesn't establish notability. utcursch | talk 14:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Create school article and keep - as others have said, its national coverage brings it up to significance. The nearest equivalent might be the UK's annual King William's College General Knowledge Paper. Gordonofcartoon 00:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the fascinating reference. Furthermore, this contest is national, not just for a single school. DGG (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

See my comment above. This is not a national contest, only for Delhi. --C S (Talk) 11:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. If someone wants to write the school article and include a paragraph, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 04:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yonden Lhatoo

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

• Delete, lack of notability Gnome84 14:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Even the Chinese-language newsreaders in HK are likely non-notable; the English-language ones are certainly non-notable. 170 GHits, all are his employer, forums, blogs, or bylines [12] cab 09:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. cab 09:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, If references were in the article I would say keep. Callelinea 02:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above, non-notable. Bearian 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 04:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QuadV

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

No independent, reliable sources. Written by companies PR manager. Many redlinks on members, the vast majority of whom do not need articles (and the blue links just happen to be autobiographies). Blatant conflict of interest. Drat (Talk) 09:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CORP, WP:RS, WP:COI and goodness knows what else. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Kim Dent-Brown and those 3 policies. I would find some more but...you know... :D G1ggy ^(t|c|p) 07:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SPAM, and per above. Even 'Paul Chaloner' and 'ReDeYe' are very suspect, IMHO. Ohconfucius 06:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas ^talk? 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sara Von Gillern

Sara Von Gillern (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Game show contestant. No assertion of notability. Ford MF 05:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because it was just a duplicate article:

Sara von gillern (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete. Although it does assert notability ("received great reviews") and therefore I don't think it falls under CSD A7, I don't think she's any more notable than any other game show/reality show contestant. --Charlene 05:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: So You Think You Can Dance is not a game show, but I do not disagree with the nomination. Corvus cornix 17:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I dunno. Shows like this usually have ridiculous, windy descriptions (like "dance reality show and competition"), but they're basically just long-form game shows, aren't they? Ford MF 20:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it's a dance competition, pure and simple. Corvus cornix 22:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, ALL reality television programs are game shows, no exception. SYTYCD is no less a game show for requiring dancing talent than Jeopardy! is for requiring intellectual talent. --Charlene 12:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Agreed. If there are non-fictional contestants (i.e. real people), and a carrot at the end of the race (i.e. cash/prizes), and a limited number of contestants receive them (i.e. some win and some lose based on performance), then yeah, most reality tv shows are clearly just dusted-off game shows. Ford MF 14:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no news before a month ago. John Vandenberg 11:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, If she wins to keep, needs references. Callelinea 02:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article about an eliminated contestant in a reality show. The article absolutely fails to cite any reliable sources Ohconfucius 07:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both as per above, and Comment: I think we should get a consensus on what should be the rules for reality show contestant notability (e.g., winners and well-reviewed contestants might be notable). Bearian 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 real reasons to keep posted in over 2 weeks. Wizardman 14:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abashera

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

Article gives no indication of notability with multiple independent reliable sources. Whispering 11:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

keep. The game is still available for download (freeware) and it's annoying when searching for older games and there's no info to find on them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.87.68 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The IP's "keep" argument is similar to WP:USEFUL. Shalom ^Hello 07:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There is currently no valid argument for deletion. The article is accurate, properly-categorized & size-appropriate for its popularity. -75.130.90.56 15:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)-
  • Comment Huh? The article doesn't have any reviews, commentary or any sort of source noting how it is notable in anyway. Per Wikipedia policy that is plenty of reason to delete the article. Whispering 16:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article cites no reliable secondary sources, and does not even assert especial notability within the category of games like this. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 23:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 looked at the sources personally and think they establish some level notability, the nominator apparently doesn't agree. So no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limbo 41414

Limbo 41414 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not assert notability under WP:CORP. Was nominated as a prod but tag was removed so bringing it here. Article read more like an advertisement then an encyclopedic entry. Vegaswikian 22:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable...Balloonman 03:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The references listed do not qualify as independent third-party reliable sources. The article has no content that is not advertisement for the subject company. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Having checked on the search engine, I could see a considerable number of secondary sources, although most of those sites aren't very mainstream. Borderline.--Kylohk 12:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I've added an additional source to the article, which I believe sufficiently asserts notability when combined with USA Today's article. However, I think the page could use a rewrite or the addition of content that doesn't focus directly on Limbo's products.
  • I'm not convinced that those sources meet the requirement for "Significant coverage" or "Reliable" sources (means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability). They do support that the company exists. However one is a press release, not reliable or NPOV. Vegaswikian 18:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^One 17:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eoin Pattison

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

According to an anon's edit summary: "lacks notability related to Irish politicians and didn't get selected himself- and thats it. not widely known in ireland" I concur. The polician was never elected, but was a candidate who lost in the elections. Sr13 11:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and per precedent for losers of local elections. In this scenario, history really is written by the winners. :) YechielMan 16:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, normally I would agree with you guys, but since he is a third generation of a political family running for office, I must say to keep it.. In this case I do think he is notable. Callelinea 02:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Sr13 and Yechielman. Being related to a politician is not per se notability, except -- possibly -- being a nobleman. He's a hole in the ground. Bearian 18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, insufficient notability in his own right. NawlinWiki 00:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, if he had got election to the Dail I would have said keep - he didnt therefore delete as he is not notable.--Vintagekits 17:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 04:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The razor mephistos

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

No evidence of WP:MUSIC notability (i.e., no national sources, no national touring); prod tag disputed without comment OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 04:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of notability - No independent reviews/mentions in the article and I cant find much more through google. Corpx 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

*Keep Despite creators removal of AfD tag during debate, I can see numerous sources on the first google search page. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• CommentYes there are google hits, but a closer examination of them reveals that most don't qualify as a "non-trivial coverage" from a reliable source; I was only able to find one that met that criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete after closer examination the sources do appear to give only trivial mention of the band in question. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Four self-released albums + no references = non-notable. Precious Roy 10:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Corpx, and as completely local -- their web site lists only Florida tour dates. I think the growing consensus is that, if a musical group does not have a major hit or CD, it must have toured far and wide to be notable. This may be the second musical act I've agreed to delete in five months. Bearian 18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS ^talk 10:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Setia (songs)

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

possible violation of WP:LYRICS Xiaphias 03:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• For the sake of all involved, I would like you to explain why this fails WP:LYRICS, rather than just saying it does. Also, Keep. Conditional delete per below. We could use a lyrics-free article on the song. Just because the article is bad does not mean the topic isn't notable. See WP:RUBBISH. Morgan Wick 04:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability can be established. At present the article is simply the untranslated text of what is said to be a patriotic song. The relevant portion of WP:MUSIC says that:

A song is probably notable if it meets one or more of the following standards:

1. ...has been covered in sufficient independent works.
2. ...is a released single by a notable artist, band or group.
3. ...has been ranked on a national or significant music chart.
4. ...has been recognized by journalists, biographers, and/or other respected cultural critics as being significant to a noteworthy group's repertoire.
5. ...has won a significant award or honor.

This song may be notable by one of these criteria, and if an editor can find a source for this and improve the atricle, I would change my vote to keep. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 16:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete with no prejudice to recreation as a properly sourced article about the song. As it stands, there is no indicia of notability and no real content but for the lyrics.-- danntm ^T _C 18:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I've added two links to verify it is legit. It will expand in time. John Vandenberg 03:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guys, this is a song. The song must establish notability in itself (not from the album) in order to be included here. Sr13 06:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] She Could Be

She Could Be (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The song does not have notability outside of the album. Xiaphias 03:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. If and when this single achieves its own notability, it could have an article. At this point in time, it appears NN. --Stormbay 03:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Further to the subject of this article: the single has not received any particular fame or notability as a single and is known largely because of its inclusion in the album It is generally agreed that these types of subjects are non-notable in themselves. --Stormbay 22:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, then redirect (you can't really merge and redirect at the same time). —Kurykh 04:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of SMS abbreviations

List of SMS abbreviations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Deleted as an expired prod - the reason given was Unsourced and hopelessly unencyclopedic. The article has been undeleted as a contested prod at DRV but I tend to agree with the nominator of the prod. This article lacks sources, has no clear definaition of what can be included and is effectively 100% original research. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge & redirect - into List of Internet slang phrases which is essentially the same list but with citations.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect as above. Eusebeus 10:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge & redirect. Deleting before creating a redirect eliminates a page's revision history, and therefore violates the GDFL. However, what sourced/sourceable material there is in this article seems like it could be merged with List of Internet slang phrases, per Elipongo. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Non admin closer: keep as disambiguation page. John Vandenberg 03:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rounder

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This "article" is actually just an overgrown disambiguation page, covering a number of radically different topics. It could be plundered for relevant information to add to articles such as Card sharp, Rounders, Methodist and Roundhouse, but nothing at all is sourced in this "article", other than its meaning prior to the Card sharp definition. The other definitions are not even related to this at all, but arose independently. I'm in favor of simply deleting it, due to the lack of sources, though the sourced etymological point should be added to the Card sharp article, if the term appears there (or to Card shark, which needs to be merged into Card sharp anyway.) When deleted (or simply blanked) it should be turned into a standard disambiguation page. I bring it here rather than simply doing it, because I'd like to get consensus on whether the unsourced (but probably sourceable) material should be saved (and I'm not willing to do the research to source it myself, as I have many other articles to work on). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Turn into Disambig Why are we deleting this? There are at least three things that have the word "rounder" in them - Rounders, Rounders (film) and Rounder Records. That justifies a disambig. Chubbles 23:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Huh? That's what I'm proposing. Mergers, splits and other actions besides deletions per se get discussed at AfD, too. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per nominator and disambig per Chubbles. Send to cleanup for help, since no one seems willing to be bold or do the work. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. OK, I've made it into a disambiguation page. I'm not sure about Methodist circuit riders being called rounders though. I haven't been able to find any GHits for that usage. Clarityfiend 02:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as modified, it is now a perfectly acceptable dab page. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Yay! I guess this can be closed now, since it is moot. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 06:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Adams (political candidate)

Steve Adams (political candidate) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable presidential long-shot, the article admits that he can't even be in the ballot in most states Delete-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article contains no reliable third-party sources to establish notability among presidential candidates. Wikipedia is not a campaign advertising host. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the article contained no sources at all to establish notability at anything. Campaign platform, and, if it wouldn't be stretching things too much, an advertisement speedy-able as G11. DGG (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, reads like a campaign ad. If it was written like a real article with independent sources then I would say keep. Callelinea 02:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'll admit it needs some work, but thats no reason to delete it. If it reads like an ad, rewrite it so it doesn't. Previous AFD debated (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Schriner) have confirmed that as long as the candidate has a campaign, it is notable. It just can't be some guy who says he is running but doesn't actually campaign. I actually listed Schriner for deletion, but I changed my mind after the debate. 11kowrom 03:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The AFD you cite was closed as "no consensus" so it certainly is not a precedent. Of four votes, I rate two as highly suspect single-purpose accounts. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, we need sources to establish notability, not guesses. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:BIO. Any idiot can call himself a candidate for President and set up a website. Doesn't make them notable.Montco 05:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an unsourced biography of a very minor candidate.-- danntm ^T _C 16:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as noted above. I am genuinely sorry about this one, as he seems to be nice guy (although pro-life). This guy is a hole in the ground, and I can not even guess whether he has a real campaign or not without at least one reference. Bearian 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot believe this kind of junk exists. Speedy deletion, poste haste, thanks. Gautam ^Discuss 22:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Assuming this page gets deleted, would this be grounds for deletion for Joe Schriner as well? 11kowrom 05:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Go! (album). Sr13 06:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Go! (song)

Go! (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I have no opinion on this song or its performer, except that people are edit warring over whether or not this will be the next single from the album. Since there is no reliable indication that it will be, deleted until such a time as the single is officially released. Corvus cornix 22:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• If there are no reliable sources to establish what sort of single this is, then yes, delete it. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, we need sources to establish the notability of this song or the performer. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the singer is Grammy nominated, so there's no question that he's notable. Corvus cornix 01:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Go. There are several songs named "Go" and "Go!" and this page is not properly disambiguated. GassyGuy 02:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per user:GassyGuy. Article can be re-created if the song is released as a single. Precious Roy 08:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleting - consensus equals Wikipedia is not a directory. --VS ^talk 10:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of universities that offer the PPE degree

List of universities that offer the PPE degree (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory Corvus cornix 22:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I fail to see how it is notable to list what universities offer a certain course. Resolute 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This article was created by an editor who felt that a list of such schools was important. I'm absolutely against having such lists in the main article Philosophy, Politics, and Economics -- I fail to see why a general list of schools should be added to any academic subject. The first college to cover the course is of historical value (in this case Oxford) but the others hardly seem important. But I'm indifferent to the List of universities that offer the PPE degree and await with interest which way this discussion goes. Keep it, delete it, I don't care. Just so long as it doesn't get bolted back onto the main article. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ultra-Delete per nom Bulldog123 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Merge to Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. The list seems mildly useful for those trying to study that sort of thing. Mystache 01:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A merge does not resolve the WP:NOT violation. Corvus cornix 01:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Sorry, I didnt mean necessarily a direct merge, but some integration of the information into the parent article. It mentions the growth of PPE from Harvard/Oxford to other schools and it might be noteable to track some historically significan schools. Mystache 03:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• merge these degrees are manifestly patterned after the original degree, and I thing a list of such related programs would be appropriate at the end of an article. DGG (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: As I've said elsewhere, while it may be interesting to mention the first university *other* than Oxford to teach the course, or the fact that Harvard teaches the course under a different name, simply listing dozens of schools teaching the course is ridiculous. Lists of institutions offering classes belong in DMOZ or Yahoo! not Wikipedia. It also sets a bad precedent for spammers to add links to their products or services. Should the article on Audi cars list every dealer selling them? Or an article on The Hobbit list bookshops selling it? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Bduke 04:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and propose a merge in the normal fashion. The nomination doesn't state what possible problem there is with this lists inclusion criteria or its goal. Talk of precedents for spammers is FUD; spammers dont offer PPE courses. Each list should be taken on its merits. This is a list of notable institutions offering a notable accreditation. A list is more appropriate than a category in this case because universities offer thousands of courses and adding thousands of categories would not work. Adding a University to thousands of lists does work, and the factoids of which Universities offer which courses is information that future generations will want to know about. A merge looks like a reasonable approach, but Afd is not the place for that. John Vandenberg 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment John, please explain what the notability of the institutions and the degree has to do with listing them in an article? Should medical schools be listed in the article on medicine? There's (oddly) an article on Medical schools that seems to be nothing more than lists of schools of that type. So there's a precedent for keeping this particular article as well. The precedent of spam in the article obviously (as well you know!) didn't mean people pushing porn, pills, and mortgages. No, what I'm concerned about is opening the door to every school around the world adding its class or course to articles about academic subjects. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to my opinion that a merge is a good way forward as you have said you are ambivalent to this list being kept separate. I can understand your reluctance to have this list merged into the main article, as the field of study is distinct from the places that offer it, but this is an obscure degree and so keeping it all together is the best approach to serve the reader. Medicine is a very broad and well developed discipline, whereas the PPE article and this list are not a topic many readers will likely ever run into unless they know what they are looking for. Sadly, two small articles are considered undesirable on Wikipedia whereas one larger article is deemed a good thing. As a result, a merge is appropriate in this case, but not in the case of Medicine.
Can you provide some diffs to versions of either the PPE article or the list that have included "spam" entries? I assume you are worried that it will end up like this historical version. In response to that (assuming I understand you correctly), the other institutions can be added to the PPE article down the bottom in an appendix fashion. My guess is that people of all walks of life have honestly (in good faith) added other institutions that offer this course where ever it seemed to fit into the flow of the article. Sadly that has meant they have been trying to cram a list of institutions into the lead of the article. If we were to provide a nice table at the bottom of the article, and order it by year that the course was first offered, people would augment that table appropriately rather than modifying the lead paragraph. Additional columns can be added to list to record key faculty staff that were involved in the course, and any notable alumni from that institution. When the course is offered by a university of questionable notability, the row for that university will be unable to fill in the additional columns. The intent of this approach is to ensure the reader is well informed. As it is, the PPE article has no sources at all, so its present form is hardly a model article that should be protected. Have you been unable to find any reviews of the Oxford course? John Vandenberg 13:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• PPE is an unusual major. It's useful to be able to find a list of schools that offer it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.60.210 (talk • contribs) moved from top.
• Delete per nom. Am of the same mind as Resolute. --Malcolmxl5 07:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, complicated by the rewrite. Daniel 04:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tirk Recordings

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

Non-notable record label run by non-notable man full of peacock terms with no sources Corvus cornix 22:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - label with hundreds of artists including notable artists we have articles on here. It reads like an ad at present, but we should be encouraging creator to improve the article instead of WP:BITEing with hair-triger deletion noms. BenB4 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Reads like a press release. No prejudice towards recreation, though. Blueboy96 22:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I intend to re-write it and the newbie's other ad-like articles, as I did for Secondfest. Please do not speedy unless I haven't gotten to it by 10 July. BenB4 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• No vote - Maybe the major copy-edit will make it more notable although it failed WP:V before.--JForget 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep pending cleanup; BenB4's comments indicate that the record label is probably notable. Chubbles 01:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, just one trivial mention on Google News Archive (in an article about amato distribution, which is probably notable). --Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge, I have refactored the article and started to tidy up Sav Remzi. If not keep, this article can be merged with newly formed Music Rights Collective. John Vandenberg 09:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep pending user:BenB4's re-write. Some notable acts. Precious Roy 10:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks to whomever re-wrote it before it got to it. Note to closer: please compare nominated version to current version. BenB4 17:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Article is in better shape now but no sources have been added. Additionally I can't find any on various news/reference searches. --W.marsh 21:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas ^talk? 17:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of military veterans

Lists of military veterans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Yet another "article" that should really be turned into a category. Just a waste of server space. Blueboy96 22:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep Anything thats good enough for a category is good enough for a list, since when was server space an issue? Jcuk 22:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, listcruft. Categories do this better. Corvus cornix 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete: As a list this would be utterly useless and eventually so large it would probably crash people's browsers. Categories exist for this purpose. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Corvus, absolutely useless list of links--JForget 23:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom & per Corvus; I also doubt the keepability of the sublists; the categories are much better for potentially huge lists. Anyone up for nominating them? Carlossuarez46 23:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above: it is the mother of all listcruften. Bearian 18:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete "Lists of military veterans" is not an "article" nor a "list" per se as is the norm within Wikipedia's "lists". I'm not a deletionist, However if I see soemthing like this, a waste of space which only leads to other lists, then I feel that it is my obligation to add my vote to "delete" Tony the Marine 19:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, or at least No consensus. NawlinWiki 13:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secondfest

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

Non-notable "festival" at a minimally notable website. I tried to redirect it, but the redirect was speedy reverted. Corvus cornix 22:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - 95,000 google hits; I went to wikify the article to help the newbie creator, and saw that it had been redirected moments after creation. There was no mention of the redirect on the creator's talk page. I think there are major BITE issues here. BenB4 22:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NPA. Address the article, not the person making the nomination. Corvus cornix 22:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, sure: The article originally had three paragraphs of perfectly salvageable content before it was redirected. If you consider my description of what happened to be a personal attack, then it seems to me you think you could have done better. BenB4 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I did do better. I redirected it to the minimally-notable website's article. BTW, there are only 476 unique Ghits, most of them from blogs and myspace pages. Corvus cornix 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
        • That would have been better if you had bothered to merge any of the content into the article you redirected to. BenB4 22:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the Second Life article is huge, and this event is quite unique with a number of very notable bands. Aleks Krotoski has written a day by day analysis of the event.[13] John Vandenberg 09:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weeak keep as per above. Bearian 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 00:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Midori (web browser)

Midori (web browser) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability to come. Chealer 21:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totally Radd!!. NawlinWiki 00:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shark Attack Day Camp

Shark Attack Day Camp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Album by probably non-notable band currently failing its own AfD. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 has not (yet?) been any significant coverage about this product. The 2 reviews mentioned are about an other device (a FM transmitter). -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MU-STIK

MU-STIK (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is little different in this than from a standard USB flash/stick drive, and the article is basically an advertisement. Maybe merge into or redirect to the USB flash drive article, but I see no reason to keep the article in its current state. However, I can see people disagreeing, so I didn't try a prod. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I concur with your assessment. It's also worthwhile to note that the product in question is very new and it's unlikely it has had a major enough of an impact to warrant such coverage. --Agamemnon2 21:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The nominator said all of my points. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is like a standard USB flash drive as it includes software, has a user interface. This product seems to be customised for music sales and distribution. BradNotBrat 13:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - there's a couple of reviews from reputable sites [14], [15] but no reviews from major newspapers. -- Whpq 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 notability established. Sr13 06:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sagan om hjältarna

Sagan om hjältarna (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable YouTube films. Corvus cornix 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete YouTube-only movie, fails WP:NF. Blueboy96 21:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nonnotable - article don't even attempt to establish notability. WegianWarrior 13:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas ^talk? 17:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Kraushaar

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

WP:BLPWP:N and WP:COI violation, assuming the author (of the same name as the page) is the subject. tennisman 20:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete WP:BLP doesn't apply here, but definitely WP:N (of which there's none to speak of) and WP:COI.Blueboy96 20:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• My bad. I meant WP:N. --tennisman 20:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:N isn't met or even asserted. Although I think user was just trying to set up his userpage and screwed up. Same text appears there.Horrorshowj 21:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, No notability claimed nor and references to what is in the article. Was the writer of the article notified that his article was up for AfD? Callelinea 22:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes he was. Twinkle was used, and it auto-notifies, and I personally checked after listing the AfD. --tennisman 21:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I probably would have speedied, as there is nothing notable even suggested, but I personally dont wish to do so in the middle of a discussion. DGG (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above; also, a former radio station owner and retired COP is not notable without stating why. Bearian 19:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as non-notable, and COI. Katr67 22:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and advertising. >Radiant< 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pownce

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

Previously speedy deleted as spam. While on DRV, where all opinions were to endorse the deletion, the article was recreated. This is advertising about a non-notable website. The article about the parent company, Megatechtronium, has been deleted twice now. Corvus cornix 20:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Salt it, because I'm barely restraining myself from doing so. It's been meets A7 and G11, and it's also on DRV with consensus leaning very strongly to endorsing the deletion. Клоун 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a "salt it" for you: shut up with your stupid AFD tags! Honestly, you people? Don't you have better things to do than go about deleting stuff on AFD????? Sheesh! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete, but don't salt It can be recreated once it gets more notable (i.e., on the level of Myspace and Facebook).Blueboy96 21:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly a valid AFD criteria. Fix the bloody thing, don't delete and recreate. Bloody hell! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete A consensus has been reached in DRV and I must support it. (Ke5crz 21:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

• Delete and salt: not notable, no reliable sources at all, borderline spam, still a good speedy candidate. The DRV isn't complete yet, but no valid arguments for undeletion have been offered. It's fairly obvious that this will keep getting recreated unless we salt it. If it ever does get more notable, than a new review can be opened to petition for unsalting. Xtifr _tälk 23:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Wait for the DRV no point in two processes at the same time. The only indication of notability at this point is the founder--but that might just be significant.DGG (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PlayerWorlds

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

Current incarnation of this non-notable software. Player Worlds and Playerworlds have already been deleted before as non-notable. Corvus cornix 21:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves me correctly, this article has been pending deletion before, however it was fought off and this article was not deleted. Why bring it up again for a reason which seems to be for no reason at all besides it clone-articles have been disbanded? . Jeaton89 16:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC-6)

• Speedy delete G4: Recreation of a previously deleted article. Should this version be sufficiently different from the previous ones (and no, a missing space in the title is not enough), delete it as unsourced and non-notable. By the way, according to his user page, Jeaton89 is the current programmer of PlayerWorlds, leading to a possible conflict of interest. Finally, I couldn't find a previous AfD for this article. --Huon 22:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playerworlds. Corvus cornix 22:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure, I found that one, but that can't be where "this article has been pending deletion before, but it was fought off", as Jeaton89 put it. --Huon 08:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 transfered the info to wikinary. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Womanizer

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

Delete - a couple of months after the conclusion of the first AFD, in which it was earnestly asserted that this article could easily be expanded into more than a dictionary definition, the article remains a dictionary definition. Its "sources" are novels and biographies that use the word "womanizer" in the title, its "reference" is a page out of thesaurus and its "external links" are two journal articles (inaccessible without a subscription) that again mention the word in the title and a random article about Martin Luther King in which he was supposedly called a womanizer by somebody's teacher. The article has been given more than enough time to show improvement and no improvement has been made. Otto4711 19:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and redir. to Promiscuity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because it a) passed an AfD already, b) has multiple references and external links, and c) is a familiar term and therefore definitely encylcopedic. If anything, just expand the discussion with more textual examples and perhaps an image or two of a classical example of such an idividual. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. On the day the first AfD ended with keep, the nominator deleted wikilinked examples of fictional womanizers with edit summary "removed all unsourced or POV/OR information" [16] Is a reference section stating the source required when the main text says which work it is from? Some of them may be unsourced for the actual word "womanizer", but most of them seem uncontroversial to me when the plots (with more details in wikilinked articles) are considered and it's fictional people. PrimeHunter 01:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Response - yes, sources are required, just like for any other article. I noted in the first AFD that the information was unsourced OR/POV but didn't remove it in the course of the AFD. When the AFD closed, I removed the OR. Not seeing what the problem is or what bearing it has on this discussion. Otto4711 13:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The reason it looks more like a dicdef now than in the first AfD is that you removed that material, for example the sentence "Ariel Levy reports in Female Chauvinist Pigs that women are also now being referred to as players if they treat sex in a similar manner to male players." The text gives author and title of book with wikilinks on both. Deleting it as "unsourced" because the author and book is not repeated in a "references" section seems odd to me. It's unfortunate that nobody has come along to improve the article (and I don't have the will to do it), but I think the topic is clearly notable and the article had sufficient stub content before. I don't know the removed works well so I don't personally want to add them back (with titles repeated in a references section), when I cannot vouch for what the article says about them. By the way, several of the wikilinked fictional characters have articles calling them womanizers. Are you also going to delete the word "womanizer" from James Bond (character) if no reliable source using that exact word is given in the references? PrimeHunter 17:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, a good reason to remove the sentence you quote would be that it does not appear to be about the subject of the article from which it was removed, which is "Womanizer." Even if it were, in the absence of reliable sources in the article that state that a female player is a womanizer (or even the equivalent of a womanizer) then the assertion made by including it in the article constitutes a previously unpublished synthesis of previously published works, or in other words, original research. I note that you edited this article no fewer than five times after I made my edit (including reverting an edit back to my reduced version). I can't fathom why, if you found my action so objectionable, you would not have sought to restore the material during one of those many edits. Your unfamiliarity with the various works mentioned in the excised materials would seem to be an argument in favor of removing the material in the absence of sources. You could certainly have raised an objection to the deletion on the talk page. Instead, you apparently accepted the change without comment until such time as raising it became useful.
• Regardless, with that material or without, it does not change the fact that this article is a dictionary definition. A dictionary definition with examples is still a dictionary definition. Otto4711 19:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete as dicdef, although there's potential for expansion here for an actual encyclopedia article discussing the characteristics of such "womanizers" instead of a mere collection of trivia stuck on.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; nothing more than a dictionary definition. Furthermore, it would be difficult to expand because "womanizer" is a derogatory term, so including information on living persons would be nearly impossible, and fictional information would be purely subjective. - Chardish 12:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• N Delete and redirect to Promiscuity. Possibly transwiki to Wiktionary. Previous passing of an AFD does not automatically mean Keep. Articles and policies change, not to mention consensus. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and as this article does not provide any information beyond what constitutes a womanizer, it is simply a dictionary-like entry. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —PrimeHunter 23:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a dicdef.-- danntm ^T _C 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Player (dating) or philanderer and expand. This is a legit encyclopedic topic, but womanizer is too narrow and forces a dicdef article. A Casanova, a Don Juan, a lady's man, a lady-killer, a wolf, a man on the make, a skirt chaser, a playboy, a flirt, Lothario, Prince Charming, Romeo, a lech or lecher, playgirl. This topic has a rich history, predominantly from literature and culture. ZueJay (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• The two suggested move targets both redirect to this article. I am unclear as to why an article about people who are promiscuous needs to exist separate from the article on promiscuity. Otto4711 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, I'm aware that those two articles redirect to Womanizer; I feel that they are more appropriate titles for the topic contained within the Womanizer article - they're more general. And I'm not totally convinced that someone who's a Player is necessarily Promiscuous - it really depends on your definitions of these terms. I'll need to think about that some more. ZueJay (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (but not necessarily with this name). Notable subject with neglected article does not require deletion. I have finally expanded it some (sufficient for stub) and added some references, although it feels redundant when the reference only says what is already in the text. PrimeHunter 02:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to Promiscuity and transwiki to Wiktionary, as per User:VanTucky. — OwenBlacker 11:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep highly notable term.--Sefringle^Talk 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The fact of this being a notable term is not a reason to keep, because notable terms are made into unacceptable dicdef. articles all the time. This article is simply a dictionary-like definition and a few cultural examples. The only possible expansion is for a longer and largely trivial list of examples of womanizers. So not only is this now a simple dicdef. but it has the distinct potential to become a nasty trivia dumping-ground. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect, or merge, or tranwikify to Promiscuity. Bearian 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I thought this article would have been better by now and it still lacks sufficient information. Perhaps integrating and redirecting the content to Promiscuity may very well be needed here. Deleting it would be bad, as the information and sources would be lost. Lord Sesshomaru
• Merge with Promiscuity and take Rake (character) with it. I started a Male Promiscuity section on that article with a bit of content from both. I think it fits the topic, although quality of content could be improved.

Canuckle 23:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - it is a term; not an topic. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romano-German Pontifical

Romano-German Pontifical (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page has no sources and is a questionable article in it's self. Also made by an author who has a history of making nonsense or fake articles. Xtreme racer 19:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - a quick Google, especially Google Scholar finds respectable sources referring to it. I've added one (of the few online). Here is detailed description [17]. But some of the facts about its origin and location need checking. Gordonofcartoon 21:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  Update: multiple sources and more information added. Gordonofcartoon 11:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep, I also must agree with Gordonofcartoon. Callelinea 22:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I traced the Krakow/Tyniec bit; it was merely inaccurate. Gordonofcartoon 04:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - After fact checking, it will be perfectly notable. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 04:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - article is well sourced. John Vandenberg 16:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: The article was originally not sourced at all but it has become apparent that the article is for a valid piece of literature though given the starting author's history suspicion was well founded. Xtreme racer 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per above; old saying: even a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day. Bearian 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Bearian 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Bearian 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas ^talk? 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Cotter

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

Seems non-notable. No indication that he's a financial planner of great repute. No indication that he's a figure of great accomplishment or fame through the mentioned regatta or club. JamesAM 19:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The ref relied upon to show he's an expert in his professions says nothing of the sort. it says his co-presenter is an expert.DGG (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. MetsFan76 21:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability claimed, otherwise its a good short article on the person, it has references. Has the writer of the article been notified that their article is up for AfD? Callelinea 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No; I have now notified Jimsonweedz (talk · contribs). John Vandenberg 16:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for non-notability. References, such as they are, don't inspire confidence ("He was at a conference where he talked to this one guy" "He likes windsurfing") and there aren't any news sources that claim notability.--Ispy1981 16:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete -- "charter member", "founder", "led to" ... may be read as assertions of notability. I'd like more, however. 19:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georgetown International Relations Association

Georgetown International Relations Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about another Model United Nations group. Organization doesn't appear to meet the notability or verifiability guidelines, with no reliable sources. Had a proposed deletion tag on it for nearly three weeks before being disputed by another user. If kept, needs a severe cleanup because current tone sounds like a brochure or an advertisement. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. For clarity, the article did not have a WP:PROD tag on it for nearly three weeks; it was deleted during that time and then restored upon request through Deletion review. However, the organization is still non-notable per WP:ORG. Individual conferences or organizations of Model United Nations are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 19:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless the some historical value UN conferences or organizations of Model United Nations are non-notable.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dharmanidhi Sarasvati

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

I originally proposed this for deletion, but the proposal was challenged. There are claims of notability but it does not seem to establish notability per WP:ATT, so it fails WP:BIO. It also seems to be somehwat promotional in tone. Delete TheRingess (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I challenged the proposal for deletion and I'm one of the primary contributors to the article. I've reviewed the WP:ATT page and the WP:BIO pages. I see that [Dharmanidhi Sarasvati] does not meet many of the criteria for notability laid out in WP:BIO, however I suggest that notability may be established by the fact that Dharmanidhi is a recognized lineage holder in the Sarasvati lineage under Swami Satyananda and Swami Niranjananda. There are hundreds of more popular Hatha Yoga teachers in the west, but most of them are not lineage holders, authorized by their guru's to teach authentic and classical yoga. Perhaps in this case can notability be established based on rarity?

Furthermore, although Dharmanidhi may not be popular, or highly referenced, he is a holder and teacher of accurate and verifiable information on yoga, classical tantra, and non-dual philosophy. In contrast the wikipedia entry on non-dual lists several people under the "Contemporary Teachers" heading who are self-proclaimed holders and teachers of information and systems that only they can verify as reliable, truthful, or accurate. Some of them are highly prolific writers and well known in popular culture and therefore have plenty of references, secondary sources, and third-party information about them. However, this doesn't actually mean that what they are offering to world has any alignment with reality or lasting value. I'm not making a judgement either way. I'm saying that no-one has verified the informtion that they are representing. Of course, this isn't the mandate of Wikipedia to exercise that kind of discrimination and I understand that.

By comparison, this is the importance and notability of a living lineage in the area of spirituality. First, the lineage has lasting value because it has demonstrated it by having a multi-generation history of masters who have demonstrated their mastery in one way or another. Second, a person who is an authentic lineage holder has verification from their teachers that they have reached a level of understanding and experiential attainment that has been confirmed by their teacher(s). So, the one thing that would obviously be useful to verify is that the assertion that Dharmanidhi is a lineage holder. Unfortunately, the relationship between teacher and disciple is in this case between the teacher and the disciple only. There are no reliable secondary sources that I know of.

My main point is that users will find it useful and helpful to find reference to an authentic, lineage authorized teacher (however rare and non-notable in the academic sense). There is a lot of incomplete or plain inaccurate information out there about spiritual topics. And there are a lot of spiritual teachers out there who, in contrast, have academic notability (references, prolific publications, and popularity) but the actual content of what they have to say is not backed up by anyone but themselves. This, I think, is the ultimate dis-service to Wikipedia users, to offer a notable source of un-tested information on spirituality, but not offer a reference to a source that is not notable in the encyclopedic sense but is a source of very well tested and refined information on spirituality. On the practical side Dharmanidhi has been quoted in Yoga Journal, one of most popular yoga magazines in America, and an article that he wrote was published in Yoga Magazine which has been in circulation since 1963 and is based in Europe. A writeup in Yogi Times, a free yoga magazine based on the west coast, on his yoga studio in Berkeley mentions and verifies several other pieces on information [18]. Do any of these things help in any way?

Ms2i 20:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete based on scarcity of sources. The Yogi Times article Ms2i found is the best we have, and it's not enough to either establish notability or verify major parts of the article. --Huon 21:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, based on Ms2i resonings. Callelinea 22:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Strong delete - see Special pleading. Nothing much the way of reliable sources, and the whole thing has a promotional smell to it. Gordonofcartoon 23:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Upgraded to Strong Delete on grounds of likely factual unreliability. See my further coment below about different versions of the biography. Also, having looked at the article history and seen it was created by someone who represents the Trika Institute [19], I've passed this on to WP:COI/N. Gordonofcartoon 04:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Question I do not know to what extent the yoga magazines mentioned might be RSs. DGG (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is, these kind of New Age publications tend to be completely uncritical of their subject. A publication called Yoga Times or Yoga Journal is not going to grill a yoga practitioner along the lines of "Prove you read the Tibetan Book of the Dead at seven / wandered the Himalayas in your teens / whatever". They're probably perfectly reliable as sources of what practitioners say about themselves, but not for the verifiability of the content of such statements. Gordonofcartoon 03:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not clear on what the priority is here? Is the first priority reliable sources, or is it notability? If the first priority is reliable sources and the community is willing to be flexible on notability, then I'll work hard at getting reliable sources. For example, the IRS has records that state that Trika Institute is a church and a non-profit group. The Ayurvedic Institute probably also has records of Dharmanidhi's tenure there. Also, I'm perfectly willing to pare the article down significantly to remove any suspicion of promotional material and to remove any information that can't be reliably sourced, or to make it into a stub. In that case I'd make sure to get reliable sources for the information that remains. Also, what is RSs? I can verify that the Yogi Times magazine got all the information for that article from the Yoga Mandala studio staff. Thanks. Ms2i 03:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A little Googling finds Dharmanidhi Sarasvati to be the same guy as Kolbjorn Märtens who's into Stav. Compare the biographies at the Trika Institute [20] and Märtens Stav [21]]. Same core biographical details ("born in Chicago in 1962, moved to New York before the age of two, and lived in New Jersey and New York until the age of 21 .. etc") but with entirely different spins on his spiritual lineage. This casts a lot of doubt on the factual accuracy and neutrality of the article - and on the reliability of third-party accounts that just parrot the Yoga-only version. Gordonofcartoon 16:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Covered in relevant media. Yoga Times, and per Ms21.Bakaman 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

But these sources are telling a demonstrably incomplete account - like ignoring that he has a completely different version of his background when he's wearing his Stav hat - so how can they be treated as reliable? Gordonofcartoon 22:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom.Anwar 12:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not only due to the sourcing concerns but also a likely COI, see WP:COIN#Dharmanidhi Sarasvati. MER-C 13:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alison Weir. utcursch | talk 14:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley

Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability in any previous version, has hung around inexplicably for years, time to get rid of it. Also, in current form it's just a bit of fancruft, and if trimmed down would say not much more than it exists, and what it's about. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Article may be bad, but that's no reason to delete it. Book is notable, as evidence from these reviews shows. JulesH 18:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge whatever is useful and redirect to the article on the author, Alison Weir. No reason for a separate article on every book by an author until the author's article starts to get too unwieldy. Pharamond 18:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete We may need better guidelines on the relative importance of books and authors. In general I dislike ways of working that will lead to the multiplication of articles. The present article much resembles a book review for a class--a combination of straight description and unsourced opinion "This is a fascinating look into a world where even a Queen with considerable will and international backing could be dominated and used by the noblemen and clergy around her."DGG (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This is not an article about either Mary, Queen of Scots or about Lord Darnley. It's about a book, and it's a lousy book review that was accepted back in 2004, when Wikipedia was hard up for donations. "a scholarly (un-romanticized) but eminently readable book"... "a fascinating look". Oh please, where can I buy a copy? Mandsford 21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I actually have that book and other books by the same writer. On the subject matter both the writer and book are notable. Callelinea 22:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge: There is not enough material present (much less sourced or even vaguely salvageable material) to support an entire article about this book, and the author's article is not so large that it needs subarticles for the books. Some day maybe it will need to split off and be its own separate article, but that is not this day. Alternatively, delete: It is so bad, I'm skeptical anything of value can be pulled from it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge: The article has been improved since some of the above comments were made, but with no justification of notability, the information belongs best on the author's page. Matchups 13:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas ^talk? 17:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Celebrity Washington Redskins Fans

List of Celebrity Washington Redskins Fans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Sourced, but not exactly encyclopedic; qualifies for WP#INFO. Pats1 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not encyclopedic and it will be impossible to maintain.TheRingess (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Who cares? Hey, I'm a Redskins fan too, but save this for the website. Mandsford 21:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Sadly, lists like this are cruftacious in the extreme. Blueboy96 21:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete that it is totally unnecessary and unencyclopedic.--JForget 23:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rusty trombone

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

Following my nomination against Cleveland steamer, I thought it'd be time to tackle this one as well. Essentially, most of the same arguments that I put forward in that AfD apply here as well. The article is essentially a dictionary definition ("performing analingus and a handjob on a man simultaneously" is all that it is once you strip away the original research) with an attached set of trivial references in culture. This article does not have non-trivial (the operative word being "trivial") multiple reliable published sources about it. To quote Wikipedia:Notability, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. Note 1: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992-01-06. ) is plainly trivial. All of the references here are merely trivial, passing mentions of the term. See the guidelines for articles about 'in popular culture' articles, which is all that this is with a dicdef (which can be explained in less than ten words) attached. To anyone who is thinking about keeping this article, consider also whether a deletion review of "over the hill" (Wiktionary definition) would be appropriate, as the term "over the hill" probably appears in mainstream media (i.e the lyrics to the One Foot in the Grave theme song) more than "rusty trombone", yet would still read as a slang dicdef with trivia attached. The sexual act itself is probably extremely uncommon, and certainly does not merit its own article. Belongs in Wiktionary with a short mention in the analingus article, that is, if there are any reliable sources that even define the term. Delete. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If this does get deleted, then I suggest the closing admin considers WP:SALT to prevent recreation.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Wikipedia is not a directory of (definitions of and references in pop culture to) slang, vulgar definitions of highly uncommon extreme sex acts which are known more as apocryphal jokes than as things that people actually do. Who would truly dispute that per WP:NOT?-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree that this is no more than a dicdef with citations of trivial instances of usage, but no sources actually discussing the term or its significance. -- Donald Albury 17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable per above comments, and possibly redirect to Anal-oral contact. EyeSerene^TALK 18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for all the reasons given in the previous arguements. Aren't there rules on how long you have to wait between AFD nominations? Lugnuts 19:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Please state precisely which reasons you are using as the basis of your keep argument.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment well this for one: Offensive, but does not violate WP:WINAD, does establish notability per WP:N, may need more references but does not violate WP:V, does not violate WP:OR or WP:NEO. Lugnuts 19:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. If you read my argument in full for this AfD, you'll find that I believe that it violates WP:WINAD as well as WP:N, as well as WP:TRIVIA.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• And the other poster apparently disagreed. CraigMonroe 13:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep the opposition seems to be at least partially based on the personal opinion that it is uncommon. DGG (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Unless it can be verified that it is truly common as an act, we have no evidence that it is. Verifiability is more important than truth on Wikipedia.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

my point is that it does not have to be common; it just has to be shown to exist and have been noticed. DGG (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not really taking into account the full implications of my initial argument.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel the need to state that AfD is not a vote and it does not matter how many AfD nominations there have been previously. If you're basing your arguments on invalid inclusion criteria that do not fit with policies and guidelines, then the closing admin has no reason to accept them when weighing up the debate at the end.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I feel the need to take issue with the statement "verifiability is more important than truth on Wikipedia". Are you honestly saying that if there were enough sources to veryfy that Julian Clary was a rampant heterosexual with 4 wives and 63 children, the truth would be unimportant? Jcuk 22:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. That's why we have the reliable sources guideline to keep out mistruths, gossip and factual inaccuracies. Your example doesn't really work as we could add it to his article that "it is claimed that he is heterosexual with wives and children..." if the sources were thought to be reliable and were multiple.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I really so no reason why its even up for AfD. Not a subject I would be interested in, but no "Real" reason why it should be taken out. Callelinea 22:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• The argument is given right there at the top of this AfD message. Read it in detail. You're not making a valid "keep" argument.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per rational previously stated. The nominator seems to be stretching wikipedia policy. This isn't a topic I would truly be interesting in but it has been mentioned in numerous cited places. Whether the act is common or not is absolutely immaterial. For someone that seems to criticize other peopels arguments, you should be aware of it. Then again, from what has been written. Even if the AFD is turned down, you will simply re-nominate. Ce'st la vie. CraigMonroe 23:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• These are trivial, passing mentions, as I said. No reliable source appears to have covered the topic in detail and as such is not worthy of a Wikipedia article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What sources do you want? Porn sites??? If you want something that is reliable, do a quick yahoo search. I got 77,000 hits and numerous photos, and several places with definitions. However, most of these don't seem quite appropriate for use as sources. Whether you like it or not, the topic meets WP:V the issue is finding suitable sources; they are out there. So the proper thing to do would be tag it for a clean-up--not AFD. The article has already improved the last 24 hours. It can still be made better. CraigMonroe 01:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- all of the "references" in the article are trivial. Fails to cite any reliable sources which either assert, or support, notability. --Haemo 00:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I disagree. The sourcing may need some fixing but it does assert notability. It is a relativelly common cultural reference in numerous stand-up acts, and a few television shows. This is enough to make it notable--note these were all sourced by reliable sources. What more do you want on that issue?CraigMonroe 01:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• A dictionary definition with a trivia section attached do not an encyclopedia article make!--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

CommentYou seem to be misunderstanding the WP:Trivia guideline. The intent of the rule was to apply to lists of trivia:

"Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation — they can just add a new fact to the list. However, as articles grow, these lists become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read."

The guideline even goes further, it states if the lists are found, the information should be incorporated in the article's paragraphs:

"Don't simply remove such sections; it may be possible to integrate some items into the article in a more organized fashion."

Note how the guidlines even say removal of such sections is innappropriate. It seems as if you are misunderstanding the rules. Not to mention, attempting to get into a wikipedia policy debate which has been occuring for years on the issue of whether Wikipedia should even contain trivia. As for now, the guidelines explicitly allow it. This is all that matters. Again, part of the notability of this topic is its pop-cultural signifigance. There are sources to back this up. CraigMonroe 13:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Though it pains me to point this out, this act is much more notable than the Cleveland steamer and is a definite fixture in pop culture, even if primarily as a joke. The article provides adequate sources for a sex act. The fact that popular mainstream comedies use the term without stopping to explain in detail what it means, speaks more to the notability of the act than a lengthy discussion would. This nomination stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me, Wikipedia is not censored. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This is being presented as a censorship issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship, so be wary of comments like "WP:NOT#CENSORED you censorer". -Amarkov moo! 05:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete content and redirect to anilingus; it's simply a variation of that act. --FOo 06:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Similar to Cleveland Steamer (put up for deletion for the same reasons), this is a verifiable and nontrivial act with significant pop-cultural relevance. Chubbles 07:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• strong delete for reasons of foo plus wikipedia is not a democracy. If you can't prove it should be on here you can't vote it's continuation. wikipdia does not record all info and none has proved it's relevance. plenty of things are relevant to pop culture but that doesn't prove they need an article or even a reference. take the idea that Bush and Condolezza are sleeping togetherYVNP 10:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I disagree on all counts (we have shown notability, and expansded the article beyond a definition, not to mention it appears there is not a consensus for deletion), though I agree that a Bush-Condolezza sex article is not needed or allowed under the rule without legitimate sources. However, that is such a bad comparison, I don't know where to start with the differences. How about for one, WP:BIO and WP:BLP applies to the Bush example. CraigMonroe 12:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per VanTucky. SalaSkan 17:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or transwiki to wiktionary. The nomination of these two articles sort of play into bad faith censorship, in my opinion. CaveatLector^Talk 19:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is enough reliable source material to develop a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts about rusty trombone. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas ^talk? 17:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erotic music

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

As written, this is impossibly broad and subjective—the article describes something defined by "rhythmical cadences, melodies or suggestive lyrics", independent of style, and thus it could comprise any number of otherwise unrelated things, just by virtue of the "sensations" they induce. This may also have been a companion piece to the other article by creating user Adictum (talk · contribs), which, as evidenced by talk page, was speedily deleted as spam. Unint 17:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete as unsourced original research. It may be possible to write an article about this subject, but it's probably easier to start from scratch than modify this one. --Huon 17:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. A textbook case of original research that a reliable encyclopedia cannot afford to have.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ATT etc. Totally subjective. EyeSerene^TALK 18:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete clearly original research Emmaneul ^(Talk) 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Personal essay. Greg Grahame 21:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless reliable sources can be provided to support this kind of music, it should be deleted. Spellcast 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 13:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ikachan

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

Article gives no indication of notability with multiple independent reliable sources. Whispering 17:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, I just added an independent source, further ones may be found. --Huon 17:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if that's as good as the sourcing is going to get, forget it. One little capsule review on a website (lumped in with other freeware games) won't support an article. Come to think of it, Cave Story and Daisuke Amaya look pretty deletable too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Why exactly are freeware games less deserving of articles? The suggestion that you delete the article on Cave Story, one of the most popular original non-commercial games of recent years is bizarre. The article is worth keeping purely because of Cave Story's popularity. People will want to find information on the creator's other works. Abigsmurf 13:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Notability is not established by the article - we can't include every freeware or PD game ever released. The Daisuke Amaya article looks pretty dodgy as well if this game is pretty much the only claim for his notability. EyeSerene^TALK 18:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The source used is the game itself. This game is notable in that it is one of Amaya's earlier works and there is very little information (in English or Japanese) about it on the web - this article serves as the only English page dedicated to it that I know of. --PhoenixJ 20:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The game itself does not count as an independent, reliable source as mentioned by the notability guidelines. If the game is as popular as claimed, there must surely be more reviews, articles about the game, etc. Find them and add them! They needn't be online; reviews in game magazines will be just as good or even better. They needn't be English, either. Has the Japanese Wikipedia an article on this game? Maybe someone who speaks Japanese could have a look. --Huon 21:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Will do, just give me a few days to collect and summarize everything :) --PhoenixJ 00:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Week keep As I hit google, there are possibly relevent sources on the Web. ([22][23][24][25]) These can be non-trivial, reliable sources in that they are not contributed by random persons nor are they placed on personal websites. In terms of indepency, however, Vector.co.jp stuff are not complete since the game is offered download via the site. Anyway, other two sources are fully independent. --Neko jarashi 15:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Japanese sources would be perfectly acceptable, as long as they are provided with an English translation in the Footnotes (see WP:VERIFY#Sources in languages other than English). This AfD is pretty much up though - and as it stands the two sources that have been added are untranslated. Notability at present remains unestablished. EyeSerene^TALK 09:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^One 13:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of atheist Nobel laureates

List of atheist Nobel laureates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article does not merit inclusion for the following reasons:

• It duplicates List of Humanist Nobel laureates.

  No, it doesn't. A humanist can be a religious person. RS 03:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• This article is a synthesis of published material to advance a position. Religion, or lack thereof, has no relation to Nobel prizewinning. There are no published works which discuss atheism in connection with the Nobel prize (and if there is a significant body of writing about this, I will withdraw the nomination). It thus also fails WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:NOR generally.

  Well, then why do we have list of Jewish Nobel laureates, etc? RS 03:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• The argument has been advanced that since there is a list of Christian Nobel laureates, list of Hindu Nobel laureates, etc., that the article merits inclusion. I believe this argument boils down to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and depending on the arguments advanced in this AfD I will consider nominating all of them for deletion as well (including the Humanist list above). Chubbles 16:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't actually see how classifying the Nobel laureates by religion serves any real purpose per WP:LIST. Perhaps better as categories.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Categorization doesn't need it either. There's nothing special about the intersection between one's religion and being a Nobel laureate. --Hemlock Martinis 19:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Tell that to the people who kept my mass nomination here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanist Nobel laureates. I wouldn't be opposed to renomination if you don't think it's too soon. Bulldog123 20:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Aye, that should've been deleted as well. It is too recent a nomination to renominate at this time; wait until August, then renominate all the Nobel Laureate religion lists individually. We can whittle them down much easier that way. --Hemlock Martinis 22:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• They're not all religion lists, though I suppose they could be interpreted as such. Humanist is more of a philosophy and Jewish could be interpreted as an ethnicity, but I think regardless of religion, ethnicity, or belief system, they are all WP:OCAT#Irrelevant intersections, just in a list form. It that doesn't do anything but give a random selection of names; if it was more of an article it could barely pass. Bulldog123 22:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Yes delete this and delete all as an irrelevant interesections like it. Bulldog123 20:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It seems to be an over-categorization to classify Nobel laureates by their beliefs. Unless them being non-religious has significant bearing on their career, it should be deleted. The same goes for the above Christian and Hindu list. Spellcast 20:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  Then, try to delete those list. If you can delete all those list then this list should also be deleted. RS 03:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As a category, it would fail WP:OC as a Non-notable intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Chubbles 20:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, then try to delete them first. Look if you guys are interested in deletiong those articles, then all should be deleted at once. Otherwise, none should be deleted. RS 03:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Anybody planning on nominating List of Christian Nobel laureates, List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners, List of Muslim Nobel Prize winners too then? The last mass afd didn't meet with success. Bulldog123 20:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  I am considering doing each one of them individually if this AfD is successful. Chubbles 20:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  The central argument the keep voters made is that their beliefs are important, religious or not. People who are awarded a Nobel Prize are done so because of the work they accomplished in their field of study (medicine, physics, literature etc.) and not because of their belief system. What's next, List of Scientologist Academy winners? We don't keep categories such as the deleted Category:Muslim musicians or Category:Christian musicians, so it shouldn't be any different here. Spellcast 20:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  A mass AfD is less likely to be successful, as some people may be in favour of deleting some lists but against deleting some others.  --Lambiam^Talk 21:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete - this should be done through catagor(y/ies) rather than as an article. I further note that this list is WP:OR. Bigdaddy1981 21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with List of Humanist Nobel laureates This article has a real ass-backwards approach to its subject, mentioning very little about the person's views on religion in the text, but a lot in the footnotes. If we're trying to find out about Linus Pauling as an atheist, do we need to have a World Book summary of his discoveries? Hopefully the Humanist list is better. Mandsford 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  if you don't like the discoveries of Pauling, does this mean that we should delete the page? RS 03:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It's not better. It's even worse. "Humanist" isn't even synonymous with atheist. Bulldog123 21:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Irrelevant intersection. Resolute 22:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  Bulldog123, "Humanist" isn't even synonymous with atheist. That is why we need this list. RS 03:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Humanist Nobel laureates, due to mostly duplication per nom.--JForget 23:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  No, humanists and atheists are different. List of humanist Nobel laureates doesn't have any source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Devraj5000 (talk • contribs)

• Remain - If you guys want to delete an article please go and delete List of Humanist Nobel laureates, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, List of Muslim Nobel laureates, etc. RS 02:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Look, if you guys want to make certain change in the List of atheist Nobel laureates, you can do it. RS 02:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• This list should remain. Only if Female Nobel Prize laureates, List of Christian Nobel laureates, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, List of Hindu Nobel laureates, List of Muslim Nobel laureates and Nobel laureates by university affiliation are to be deleted, then List of atheist Nobel laureates should also be deleted. RS 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment above argument is good example of (illegitimate) argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. By the way, I agree the other articles should go - the information is more suitable for categor(y/ies) per Chubbles, I agree that a category of this type is overcategorisation.. Bigdaddy1981 03:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would reiterate here my belief that, as a category, it would still fail as a Non-notable intersection by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Chubbles 03:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree with the argument that this list is a non-notable intersection of characteristics. It also looks like POV-pushing. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Procedural keep IMO, these should all go, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, an essay not a guideline or policy, contains an exception for singling out one of several equivalents: "Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS). Sometimes the nomination of one of a series of articles that have relatively equal merit would further the bias (e.g., deletion of Fooian this but not XYZian this if XYZian represents the majoritarian culture at Wikipedia." I would think that atheist, Hindu, Jewish Christian, and Muslim nobelists are all potential equivalent articles to rise or fall together to avoid bias. Carlossuarez46 23:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  I think there may be different arguments to be offered for the lists - in particular, the Jewish list, because I think there may actually be a significant body of published work on specifically Jewish Nobel winners. The same is not so, as far as I am aware, of the other religions, and as I said, if I am wrong about that, I will withdraw a nomination. However, I think each case should be decided individually depending on the existence of prior published works on the religion/Nobel combination. Chubbles 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, apples and oranges. Corvus cornix 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, far better sourced than List of Humanist Nobel laureates. -- Petri Krohn 01:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete their religion or lack thereof will typically have no bearing on the work that won them the Nobel prize. Quite a ridiculous over categorisation. Viridae^Talk 03:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

• Delete or Redirect The creator of the list strongly states that his intention is to promote his belief system, atheism.[26] "I am an atheist. I don't believe in the existence of God. I would like to promote atheism in the Wikipedia." The list is merely a reflection of one editor's belief system, and his desire to find others with similar belief systems, and Wikipedia is hardly the place. I think enthusiasm is wonderful, but again, the place to develop your brotherhood of atheism is not Wikipedia, and creating Wikipedia articles for this purpose and celebrating each and every declaration of shared brotherhood on an article's talk page is just too much, imo. In addition the editor has no issues about doing original research to come up with who's an atheist or who's a nontheist and who isn't, it's a matter of the editor's opinion and desire to include some particular person into the brotherhood (Emphasis added throughout is mine):

[27] "The father of father of modern computer science is in the List of atheists!! I am adding the name of Alan Turing in the List of atheists. Yes! He is considered as the father of modern computer science! Great!"

Einstein is apparently a nontheist based upon this editor's personal conclusions and original research into the matter, "Well, I had discussions with a teacher of Physics about the faith of Einstein. I also studied about the religious views of Einstein. My conclusions are: The faith of Einstein has nothing to do with the faith of Christians, Jews or Muslims. Einstein had a faith in the rationality of nature."[28]

• But no bad guys can be atheists, only good guys, because adding bad guys to a personal brotherhood would make it seem, well, more human, I guess, so Mussolini can't be an atheist, no matter what any sources say:

[29] "Benito Mussolini was not an atheist. The two sources in the article that call Mussolini an atheist are pro-Roman Catholic. Fools like John Pollard should be punished for trying to demonize atheism. The website (see orginal) is a Catholic website. These two ridiculous, nonsense and stupid website should be removed. And, of course, Benito Mussolini was a Roman Catholic. I have found two reliable sources which shows Mussolini was religious...."

• So, when articles are written by editors desiring something other than an encyclopedia article, namely a sense of belonging, and they allow their needs to be put ahead of the Wikipedia guidelines for articles, to the extent of calling everything that says anything against them stupid, and calling other editor's comments stupid and nonsense when they don't support the editor's search for belonging,[30] along with celebrating anything that can be used for them, it makes it tough for other editors and users of the encyclopedia. I think deletion is the right way to go at this time for this list. With a more reasonable editing system, that doesn't include berating other editors and personal research that is heavily biased towards those Nobel Prize winners who personally appeal to the author (a concern considering the Musolini comments, although I'm pretty sure he didn't win one....), this might be an appropriate list. KP Botany 03:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• KPB, if you have any problem with me visit my talk page. RS 03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: I have blocked User:Devraj5000 for a 3RR violation in removing User:KP Botany's comments. The block is the standard 24 hours. --Hemlock Martinis 04:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, along with the other lists too- crusading on behalf of a cause produces problems with reliability in these types of articles and requires OR conclusions that will be debated endlessly. They do not show any correlation between the award and those that are placed on the lists as winners of those awards and thus each list is not explicitly promoting a conclusion that is referenced, its a back handed attempt to promote an OR conclusion. Hardyplants 04:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this article should be deleted only if other similar lists are deleted. R-1441 04:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC) — R-1441 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Hut 8.5 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• That vote was actually cast by a sockpuppet of User:Devraj5000. Chubbles 14:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• I made that comment on the behalf of Devraj5000. R-1441 is my account and I am not interested in this argument. Ravi. RaviJames 02:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that RaviJames has also been blocked as a sockpuppet of Devraj5000. Chubbles 14:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Categories are great and need to be used more often. Many lists on wikipedia can be solved with the use of categories. This one though is an exception, I believe. I think this because atheism is a heated subject here in america. And I have seen heated debates over including/removing various people under/from the rubric Atheist. The reason I think this article should stay is that it has a very well researched reference section. This reference section helps insulate edit wars by providing real support from one's inclusion in this list/category. I can see that the majority of people have voted delete and the article will most likely be deleted. I have also seen someone say they will, excuse me are considering, nominating other such articles for deletion if this one passes. I implore you to either nominate all the articles together or if the other nominations do not pass reinstate this article. As for duplicating that other list, this list has much better sources than the other list, if anything that list should be deleted because of it's lack of sources. Also if this list should be replaced with a category shouldn't the other, less referenced list? How can one support both statements? It's almost like saying Socrates was an atheist and he created new gods. It just doesn't make sense to say this list duplicates the other list so it should be deleted and it should be replaced with a category and be deleted. Perhaps, at least, the references in this article should be Merged with a Atheist Nobel etc. category. Naufana : talk 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The problem lies not with the sourcing; the basis of the article is inherently flawed. There's nothing that intrinsically links one's religion and one's Nobel Prize. It's like having a List of atheist Grammy winners or a List of atheist Tony winners - did their atheism influence whether or not they got that award? No. --Hemlock Martinis 05:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete being an atheist has nothing to do with being given a Nobel prize, thus overlistification, and is also trying to push some connection between the two, thus original research. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping this article, though I think that the other list of Nobel laureates by religion should be AfDed individually in the event that this list is deleted. Hut 8.5 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Overcategorisation -- Agathoclea 13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This list is much better referenced than the other lists of Nobel laureates by religious belief. Just take a look at the near-absence of supporting citations at List of Christian Nobel laureates, List of Hindu Nobel laureates, List of Humanist Nobel laureates, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, and List of Muslim Nobel laureates. Rather than being deleted, this article should remain as a stellar example of how the other articles of this type could be improved. Lists of this type are not a meaningless intersection of categories for the simple reason that many readers do find it meaningful to see how many Nobel Prize winners happen to have been members of a particular religious group. This list cannot be adequately replaced by a category, since lists provide something valuable that categories cannot: footnotes, supporting citations, quotes and details. This list does not duplicate List of Humanist Nobel laureates, since not all atheists are Humanists, and not all Humanists are atheists. Even if it were a duplicate, the quality of the atheist list justifies keeping it in preference to the Humanist list. The article is not original research, but reports faithfully what its sources say without coming to any new conclusions synthesized from those sources. The article does not push a point of view either--it neither disparages nor exalts these Nobel laureates' atheism. I have worked before with RS, the creator of this article, and it is true that he is a very enthusiastic proponent of atheism. However, the article should be judged on its own merits, and not according to suspicions about the neutrality of the author's motives. This is a very well-referenced article, and a fine example of how the other articles of its type could be improved. If this article is deleted however, I would support deletion of the other such lists, to avoid systemic bias. Nick Graves 17:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Bigdaddy1981 21:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• How is that relevant to what I said? I never said that this list should stay because the others remain. Nick Graves 14:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete silly listDcker 23:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC) — Dcker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep, as per argument by Nick Graves. Digwuren 23:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why this is a "notable intersection by religion". Why is it worthwhile to classify Nobel laureates according to religion? Chubbles 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, To Chubbles: atheism is not religion. The classification atheist/non-atheist is a major watershed in worldview of scientists, and hence notable, unlike, say, List of gay Nobel laureates. `'Miikka 00:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Please, the "non-religion" status of atheism is immaterial. To rephrase, Why is it worthwhile to classify Nobel laureates according to religion, or lack thereof? To respond to your comment, Nobel prizes are not awarded solely to scientists. These lists appear to exist so as to point out, "Hey, my religion (or lack thereof) has smart people, too!". They are inherently NPOV. Chubbles 00:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• The Nobel Prize is not 1) given solely to scientists and 2) not given based on religion. It is a non-notable intersection of the two, just like your example. --Hemlock Martinis 01:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, per Nick Graves. – Freechild (BoomCha) 05:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Nick Graves. It is well referenced and if this article is deleted all other articles that list Nobel laureates by belief/non-belief in a deity should also be deleted. -- Alan Liefting 05:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Is this some Bizarro version of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? --Hemlock Martinis 23:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Are you saying that List of Christian Nobel laureates is crap? Do you think it should be deleted as well? It appears to me that this is as if we were talking about deleting "List of Nobel Laureates from Wyoming", but ignoring all the other state lists. The lists of laureates by religion should be treated as a group, rather than choosig one unpopular religion and deleting it while leaving the rest. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Of all those lists, it is the one that should not be deleted. It is without comparison the most well-researched and sourced. All people on it have repeatedly (and in many cases, militantly) professed their atheism, and furthermore they're all famous (more famous than your average Nobel Prize winner, that is). Makes you wonder how many laureates not as famous and/or not as prone to propagate for their religious convictions are accurately listed as Jews/Hindus/Shintoists.--Victor falk 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter, they should all go for the same reason - they serve no encyclopedic purpose. If this was a almanac of trivia then they would have a place. Further you last comment or two proves that this is a problematic addition Hardyplants 22:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Kudos to those that have sourced this list. Too bad it's an example of over-listification. This, and all the other lists of Nobel Prize winners by religious alignment should be deleted (just as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (3rd nomination)) because it's based on a single trait that has no logical bearing on being a member of said institution. — Scientizzle 15:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Nick Graves, basically. I also want to address the three main arguments for deletion:
  1. The article implicitly pushes a POV. The mere existence of the article does nothing of the sort. Is the content itself POV? No? Then move on, please.
  2. The article is original research. It is not original research to state that a person is atheist when there exists a reliable source to support that assertion.
  3. Irrelevant intersection. This is the dominant deletion rationale and has been challenged by numerous editors above. However, I want to pose a question: even if this is an example of over-listification, should we delete a perfectly sourced lists solely on that basis (and, moreover, a basis which has been challenged). Lists that are examples of over-listification should usually be deleted because they are unsourced, original research, or just pointless trivia; none of those designations apply to this list. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• You're wrong. "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" None of the sources and no part of the article insists why is it notable that any of these people are atheists; it does not say what influence, if any, their atheism had on their work. The lack of any sources that establish that this synthesis is a fair one is what condemns this article. It is as irrelevant as a List of atheist Grammy winners, or a List of atheist Academy Award winners, or even a List of atheist Medal of Honor recipients. That's why this article should be deleted. --Hemlock Martinis 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Umm ... I think your statement basically proves my point. The article does not insist that the intersection is notable. Nor does it insist that the atheism of these people had any sort of influence on their work. It might be original research if it did, but the fact is that it doesn't. There is no synthesis required to note that a person who is "a Nobel laureate" and and "an atheist" is "an atheist Nobel laureate".
• The OR argument is inaccurate for this article. A better case can be made for this being an "irrelevant intersection", but I'm hesitant to agree to deleting a well-sourced list for that reason alone, especially when similar, lower-quality lists have survived deletion discussions. The survival of the other lists alone does not justify the retention of this list, of course, (WP:WAX, after all) but it suggests that a bundled nomination with the intent of reaching a general consensus may be a better approach than targeting individual lists (because the "irrelevant intersection" argument, if applied to one, applies to all). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• If their atheism had no influence on their work and the article doesn't indicate so, why does this list exist? Why does it matter? --Hemlock Martinis 08:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Meh ... you have a point. My "keep" recommendation was partly in response to the inaccurate accusations of original research and POV. I've changed to "weak keep" as the list, despite issues of relevance of intersection, seems perfectly sourced. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - lists are not articles by their nature; there is nothing notable about individual beliefs or lack thereof; it seems POV to even mention it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. WP:SYN --Kjoonlee 11:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nominator. WP:SYN. I can't understand how the only rationale for "keep" seems to be WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Kjoonlee 11:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What, exactly, is the original synthesis? That these individuals are atheist Nobel laureates is supported by reliable sources. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • A list of atheists would be perfectly acceptable, and a list of Nobel laureates would be perfectly acceptable (except insofar as either of these would be better as categories). Both of these phenomena are easily documented in and of themselves. However, I know of no reliable sources that discuss atheism and Nobel winning together. To combine the two is a synthesis, to advance a position (that this intersection is somehow an important or positive aspect of intellectual life). Same for Christian Nobel laureates, Hindu Nobel laureates, and so forth (the case of Jewish Nobel laureates may be an exception, as I think there actually is a body of scholarship on that particular intersection). As I said above, if a significant body of work on this topic does actually exist, I will withdraw the nomination. Chubbles 16:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • No, it is not. Noting that someone who is "an atheist" and "a Nobel laureate" is "an atheist Nobel laureate" is simple addition and does not constitute a synthesis. If the article claimed that their atheism and status as a Nobel laureate is related in some way, that would be an original synthesis. However, it does no such thing. The existence of the list itself implies no POV as the title is neutral/descriptive; if the content is neutral (it is), then the list is fine as far as POV issues go. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Falling back on semantic nitpicking is just evading the issue. --Kjoonlee 07:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. An irrelevant conjunction of 'atheist' and 'Nobel laureates'. --Malcolmxl5 08:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• This list is apparently part of a set of lists of Nobel prize winners by religion or even by alma mater, all listed in Category:Nobel laureates. I think that's a silly way of arranging things, but apparently people like these kinds of lists. I'd support a motion to delete the entire set, but it doesn't make sense to delete them piece-meal. As for the "humanist" list, I think that atheism is a clearer criterion than humanism, which is less easily defined. In sum, I say let's keep this article until we are ready to get rid of all such lists. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retroshare Instant Messenger

Retroshare Instant Messenger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable piece of free software. No references in Google News archive, Technorati search returns only 10 hits for "retroshare", most of which are either non-notable blogs or file download portals. No indication that this software is in anything other than niche usage. Chardish 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and thinly-veiled spam Will ^(talk) 01:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Deleting is nonsense, remove tha tag! Every downloadportal has retroshare, it is a Sf-Net TOP 200 Project., even more popular than lame mp3 codec or amule. It is technically a new serverless protocol for Instant Messaging, which is discussed in several pc magazines.

A few hints here, since you're new:

1. Register an account before editing - it makes your voice more respected, especially in deletion discussions, where moderators are likely to ignore the comments of unregistered users.
2. Sign your name when you post by typing ~~~~.
3. Read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for a better understanding of why things get deleted.
4. The tag will not be removed until the discussion is complete. That's why it says on the page not to remove it.

Happy editing! - Chardish 22:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I think as it stands, the article is an inch away from A7 or G11. While it may not qualify for speedy, it should nevertheless be deleted. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 06:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Res-q healthcare

Res-q healthcare (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No claim of notability in article; first several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability. Previously tagged with speedy, but creator of page immediately removed, claiming if IBM is notable, this company is notable. Kathy A. 16:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced, probably spam. No Google News hits. --Huon 17:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as spam; I agree with both nom (Kathy A.) and Kayvdb. Bearian 19:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Blatant advertising. --Sbluen 04:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirected to Wild Hope - no sources for any of the claims in the article. Feel free to revert if/when sources are found. NawlinWiki 13:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing That You Are

Nothing That You Are (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another unsourced, original research-filled and crystal ball-gazing article by Parys (talk · contribs), again about a Mandy Moore song that he claims has been announced as a forthcoming single but hasn't — see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extraordinary. The single cover looks like nothing more than an MS Paint job. Because nothing is referenced, there's nothing to merge into the relevant album article. Extraordinary Machine 16:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to make disparaging comments about other editors to get an article deleted. Your argument should stand up by itself. 86.138.190.41 17:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That the article was written by a user who has a history of adding unsourced material, original research and speculation to Wikipedia is pretty relevant to my rationale for nominating it here, I would think. Apologies, however, if I make disparaging comments about a user who deliberately adds false information to Wikipedia. Extraordinary Machine 17:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unsourced. What sources I could find about the song contradict the article. --Huon 18:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that you're comments are professional, nominate this article but keep your rude comment on the other side of yor screen. 76.226.26.40 14:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not intending to be rude here; the article author's history of adding inaccurate and speculatory information to Wikipedia is relevant to my AFD nomination of the article. Extraordinary Machine 19:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

First of Extraordinary, you need not give attitude or slander, because with the first single Extraordinary i was right. Why link something that makes you look wrong. Secondly it has reached radio. 1^{[not in citation given]} Parys 18:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The original Extraordinary (song) article written by you was AFD'd and redirected to the album article before its single release had been reported in reliable sources — read its AFD page. That the song was later announced as a single does not justify your inserting of your personal speculation into Wikipedia. The link you provided mentions nothing about "Nothing That You Are" being played on the radio or released as a single; I see someone has already tagged it with ::{{Failed verification}}. Extraordinary Machine 19:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically what you are saying is i was right, the information i put in the original article for "Extraordinary" was also correct and you were just sitting there looking foolish. Don't spreads lies like basically saying i am putting false information on wikipedia, all my information has tunred out true. Parys 08:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Crystal ballery—even if it eventually ends up coming true—is still crystal ballery, and does not belong on Wikipedia until it is verifiable in reliable sources. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate" (emphasis in the original). How difficult is that for you to understand? Precious Roy 09:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Needless to say all is true, the release date via myspace, the tone of the song, the writers and the number of collaboration all are right.!69.246.55.105 14:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • None of it is backed up with reliable sources (MySpace is not a reliable source). Precious Roy 14:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article can be re-created if and when it's actually released as a single. Also, I don't see any disparaging comments (or "attitude" or slander) coming from user:Extraordinary Machine. Precious Roy 09:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Very weak arguments for inclusion amounted to "we'll find sources for non-directory information one day". I will userfy this content if anyone wants to work on adding those sources. W.marsh 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicolas Masson

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

This has no references other than IMDB. After searching google I could only find directory and forum listings, and of course this articles content spread over many mirrors. I am proposing that this article had not been shown to meet our notability criteria. Until(1 == 2) 16:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, The only English related reference is IMDB, but in Romanian their are other references in his list.. Since he has only filmed in Romanian I would presume most of his reference would be from there. So I say keep, seems like a notable film director in Romania. Callelinea 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Can you point me to the source you used to determine his notability? I really did look for such a source. Specifically a source that meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Until(1 == 2) 16:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice, allowing re-creation if the subject later can be established as notable. I don't actually see any citations in this article to Romanian-language sources. Also, I couldn't find evidence that he has an article in the Romanian Wikipedia (which could have helped establish notability). --Metropolitan90 17:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, of course I agree that the article should be recreated if it later meets inclusion standards. Until(1 == 2) 17:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep lack of sources is not a reason for deletion if the material is verifiable, see WP:DEL. With some effort sources can be found. Tag it as laking references and let editors respond to the request. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, one feature film with no notability (e.g. awards, reviews, int'l distribution) does not notability confer. As for re-creation, I found some thin references to a saxophonist of the same name while fruitlessly searching Google News Archive. --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but add refs, clean up, and expand. Bearian 19:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no notability and self promotion. In response to Callelinea, I'm Romanian, I live in Ro and I'm interested in cinema but no one heard about this guy here. AdamSmithee 13:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sufficiently reliable sources, he could have created his own IMDB listing. NawlinWiki 13:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Kurykh 01:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Democide

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

Democide is a neologism

According to Webster's dictionary [31], the American Heritage dictionary [32], and dictionary.com [33] , democide is not an established word in the english language. Using Neologisms certainly violates Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms guideline. This article should be a candidate for speedy deletion. I have included the relevant sections of the guideline:

Neologism as defined from Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms

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.

Why Wikipedia prohibits using neologisms

Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research—we don't do that here at Wikipedia. [34]

From the Guideline: Why this article qualifies

Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate:

• The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.
• The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.

In many cases, articles on neologisms get deleted (either via proposed deletion or articles for deletion). Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. If you are interested in writing an article on a neologism, you may wish to contribute it to that project instead.

Abe Froman 16:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• delete I am the editor who brought this action. This article should be deleted because it is devoted to one academic's neologism. This violates Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms guideline. Abe Froman 16:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• keep Looks like a bad faith nomination. The term has been cited by 400 academic works[35] and has 200,000 Google hits.[36]. As noted in Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms "the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal" which has been done. The term has been cited, used, and debated by many scholars. If Wikipedia should only include terms found in the above dictionaries, then terms such as state terrorism, anarcho-capitalism, Public choice theory, and Juche should be deleted as well. The contents of an encyclopedia are not limited to that of dictionaries.Ultramarine 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this civil. Please point out the cite to a standard American dictionary that defines Democide. The link given to claim "many" scholars use this neologism turns up four unique scholars, other than the author himself. [37] This is hardly evidence of widespread acceptance. Throwing spaghetti links onto the internet does not a new word make. Abe Froman 21:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding dictionaries, see above. Anyone can see by going beyond the first page of the Google Scholar search that the 400 academic works have been written by many more scholars.Ultramarine 21:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Where are these alleged studies? Like a link to a dictionary that defines 'democide', supporting citations are lacking. Abe Froman 21:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding dictionaries, see above. Anyone can examine the authors of the 400 academic works[38] and see that there are more authors than your claimed five. The sidebar is not a complete list, on the next page there are authors not on the list, ED Richter being one example.Ultramarine 22:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Key to WP:CITE is "saying where you got it." This article does not even meet WP:CITE, as it uses intermediate link farms generated from Google as its authoritative citation. Abe Froman 22:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Using Google Hits as an argument against deletion is on thelist of "Arguments to Avoid" in deletion cases. Google hits is not a valid yardstick to use for judging neologisms like this one. Abe Froman 22:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar is not ordinary Google. Scholarly sources are the most reliable sources available and 400 with many different authors have used and discussed the term.Ultramarine 22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The arguments and cites using Google Scholar, a search engine, fits the definition of Wikipedia:Search engine test. Wikipedia:Search engine test even includes a caution on using Google Scholar. We are on very uncertain ground. Abe Froman 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Now there are claims Google is not google? Abe Froman 22:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• keep the is the epitome of a bad faith nomination. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Google News Archive and Google Books also find plenty of prior third-party use (which further fit the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms criterion of being "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term". Gordonofcartoon 17:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because a term is used does not make it a general term, or even a word. The link given to claim "many" scholars use this neologism turns up four unique scholars, other than the author himself. [39] This is hardly evidence of widespread acceptance. Using Google Hits as an argument against deletion is on the list of "Arguments to Avoid" in deletion cases. Google Scholar hits is not a valid yardstick to use for judging neologisms like this one. Abe Froman 21:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, passes WP:RS, verifiable term. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• It appears to me that Ultramarine and TDC's suggestions of bad faith are due to their own misunderstanding of what Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms means. The sausage king of Chicago Abe Froman is, of course, right that "democide" is a neologism whose use should be avoided on Wikipedia, especially as a pagename. The Google hits provided above show only that the term is used, not, as Gordon suggests, that there are secondary sources about the term.

  From looking through the Google scholar hits, I gather that "democide" loosely means the killing of people by their own government as used here for example, though it's more precisely defined by Rummel himself. The multitude of Google hits are, again, not about the term itself. But they are about the general concept of the killing by a government of its own people. The Wikipedia article should focus on that concept, not on Rummel's coinage of the term. The article should be renamed to Killing by a government of its people, or something less unwieldy, per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. The article should also be refactored to include other scholarly work on such killing, not just Rummel's, per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Pan Dan 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this is bad faith, as the only reason it wqas nominated was to support as set of tenidtious edits on another article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Many of the Google scholar works discuss the term itself, such as Rummel's own academic works published in academic press, and also other studies discussing the concepts and definitions of genocide and democide. The article has material from other authors than Rummel. The first table is based on a study by Barbara Harff.Ultramarine 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The link given to claim "many" scholars use this neologism turns up four unique scholars, other than the author himself. [40] This is hardly evidence of widespread acceptance. Using Google Hits as an argument against deletion is on the list of "Arguments to Avoid" in deletion cases. Google Scholar hits are not a valid yardstick to use for judging neologisms like this one. Abe Froman 21:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can examine the authors of the 400 academic works[41] and see that there are more authors than your claimed five. The sidebar is not a complete list, on the next page there are authors not on the list, ED Richter being one example.Google Scholar is not ordinary Google. Scholarly sources are the most reliable sources available and 400 with many different authors have used and discussed the term.Ultramarine 22:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The arguments and cites using Google Scholar, a search engine, fits the definition of Wikipedia:Search engine test. Wikipedia:Search engine test even includes a caution on using Google Scholar. We are on very uncertain ground. Abe Froman 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A search enginge for scholarly sources, the most reliable available, is different from one going through all the web. The only caution against Google Scholar is that "Google Scholar should rarely be used as proof of non-notability" since it may miss material not available in online journals. That is not the issue here, Google Scholar has found many 400 academic works, so if it have missed some academic works that are not available online, these would only makes the notability stronger.Ultramarine 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, it says clearly at the top of the article you keep referencing "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its author(s)." It isn't a policy or guidline therefore you cannot cite this for deletion. You're fighting a one man battle.

• keep as per the preponderance (existence) of secondary sources that imply verifiability; the article itself needs more of these cited, however.Tsunade 20:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please point out the cite to a standard American dictionary that defines Democide. Abe Froman 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Democide is well past the neologism stage. Greg Grahame 21:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that so. Please point out the cite to a standard American dictionary that defines Democide. Abe Froman 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Spurious argument, and a common misunderstanding of how linguistics works. Words are not defined by their presence/absence in a dictionary, because there's invariably a time lag before dictionaries document a word - maybe years after it is widespread in published text. Gordonofcartoon 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It is necessary in this day and age to define what is happening in other countries. Read the article "avoid neologisms" - it doesn't say that an article with a neologism in it should be considered for "speedy deletion" as you call it. It says that neologisms should be avoided WHERE POSSIBLE. And of course, an AMERICAN dictionary would have nothing democide. The very idea of wikipedia is to be uncensored and provide the public with information. Just because this term isn't written on a manuscript, doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. A book written in 1987 is hardly new as well. Rich

It seems this is just one man against everyone else. one man thinks his voice is greater than everyone else's. It says avoid using neologisms as it may be confusing for the reader. There is nothing confusing in this article. It has set out a complete definition for the word and why this word needs to be defined. Therefore I say keep and stop this one man from having so much power!!!

• Keep. Used in many books.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice that all of those books are written, in part or whole, by the original coiner of the neologism? Abe Froman 23:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, on the first page, the original coiner of the phrase would appear most frequently. But check the subsequent page. And the others. rich

Here is a good reference that both uses and describes it. Gordonofcartoon 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - "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." The number of sources available about this term clearly qualifies the article. - Merzbow 04:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, excellent treatment of a term that is promoted by a small group of scholars and has been increasingly accepted for wider use. Notability is established, and the origins are discussed neutrally such that we are only describing an academic term. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NPOV doesn't just mean that the tone of an article should be neutral. It also means (perhaps more fundamentally) that the article should represent all points of view from reliable sources on the topic. From Google scholar, it appears that the amount of source material that discusses the concept of killing by a government totally dwarfs the amount of source material (independent of Rummel) that discusses the term "democide." For this reason it would be much more reasonable to have a Wikipedia article on the concept than the term. The article already is mostly about the concept, not the term--but it gives undue weight to Rummel's work on the concept. Finally, the article's conclusion in the first paragraph that the term "has found currency among other scholars" is precisely the kind of original research that is permitted (and scrutinized) on Wiktionary but not on Wikipedia. Pan Dan 12:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting suggestion - I would be inclined to back this approach. Pexise 12:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that washes. John Maynard Keynes had an innovative take on economics. No-one says the Keynesian economics article shouldn't exist because plenty of other people write about economics. It's not undue weight to focus on a particular person's take on a topic. Gordonofcartoon 15:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A red herring. Keynesian [42] is a word. Democide is not. The new term should be moved to an article about Rummel, or to an article name about governments killing their own people. Wikipedia:Avoid Neologisms demands nothing less. Abe Froman 15:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Keynesian is a word ... Democide is not.

From Merriam-Webster's FAQ, If a word is not in the dictionary, does that mean it isn't a real word?"

Most general English dictionaries are designed to include only those words that meet certain criteria of usage across wide areas and over extended periods of time ... As a result, they may omit words that are still in the process of becoming established, those that are too highly specialized, or those that are so informal that they are rarely documented in professionally edited writing. The words left out are as real as those that gain entry".

Which bit of that do you not understand? Gordonofcartoon 16:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I am concerned that this is a neologism, as it has no entry in standard dictionaries. Will be happy to keep if someone can provide a peer reviewed source, other than Rummel's own that dicusses the term (not merely mentions it) as required in the WP:NEO guideline. As yet no one has done this. Pexise 12:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done - see the three refs at the end of the first para. More where they came from if need be. And read Merriam-Webster's comment on "If a word is not in the dictionary, does that mean it isn't a real word?". As pointed out right at the beginning of this discussion, many well-established terms in political philsophy don't get into general dictionaries. Gordonofcartoon 15:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The examples are either phrases or words in other languages, such as Juche, which is North Korean. The suggestion was to change the title of the article. Pexise 15:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I will change my position, I no longer back deleting this article and agree that changing the name and adding some other sources is the best way to go with this one. It is a useful concept but at the moment it is too POV. Pexise 13:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, we're not supposed to use neologisms in our articles because they may be esoteric jargon and difficult for readers outside the field. That in no way prevents us from having articles about neologisms, especially ones widely covered. Truthiness is a perfect example. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point - truthiness is an amazing word, but it is also in the dictionary: [43] while democide isn't. Pexise 10:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The word does exist! I belive that this article does have a place in the Wikipedia confines. It is accurate and has been suppoted up by some sources, but i hestiate that this must be acknowledged all sources to be considered as an academic work.--Pcu4bct 08:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a neologism, but it's a good one. Wikipedia is rife with helpful neologisms, such as womyn and Parahuman and having them available as well written articles makes wikipedia better. Paladinwannabe2 22:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• keep many scholarly terms are not in the dictionary....Travb (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Such as? Pexise 13:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator sounded like he/she was combing the list of Wikipedia policies and guidelines just to find a deletion rationale, and even commented that his/her rationale is now weaker per cleanup near the end of the debate. Also, some "delete" arguments were based on that the subject was disgusting, which is true (unless you have the fetish or something). However, Wikipedia is not censored in regards to these topics. However, the "keep" side is not immune from problems: voting "keep" because this is the article's 8th nomination is not a valid argument. Consensus can change. —Kurykh 01:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland steamer

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

This has been a tough topic for those who suggested its deletion in the past, but many were in favour of deletion in the previous attempts throughout this article's 18-month-plus history. Anyway, I think I've finally nailed it: this article does not have non-trivial (the operative word being "trivial") multiple reliable published sources about it. To quote Wikipedia:Notability, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. Note 1: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992-01-06. ) is plainly trivial. The article currently has three references, followed by an unconsolidated collection of unsourced trivial passing mentions of the term. Let's examine the references in detail, in reverse order: 3. The Family Guy reference - undoubtedly trivial. 2. The Complete Asshole's Guide to Handling Chicks reference. I can't see this in the preview on amazon.com, so I have no idea whether this is a non-trivial mention or not, and I expect it would be, and even if not trivial, it would be the sole example of a non-trivial source about the subject. 1. Partial transcript of the Deminski & Doyle Show reference is totally trivial as well. I also searched Google Books and found two references that refer to this sexual "act" and not to steamboats, both of which appear to be highly trivial, the latter even having to explain what the term means. Ultimately, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and when the triviality of the references to this term are stripped away, it does not merit a stand-alone article. Strip away the original research and you have a permastub. It deserves a place in Wiktionary and a mention in the coprophilia article as an apocryphal sexual act, but certainly not its own article which consists of mere WP:TRIVIA. Delete. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete trivial, not expandable beyond a dicdef. Article is basically a small collection of times this has been mentioned in popular culture, which is by nature trivial information (there's a reason that all the "x in popular culture" articles are being deleted left and rght). Poorly sourced, to boot. Suggest that closing admin necessarily ignore any and all votes whose rationale is simply the number of times this has been nominated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I definetly would not have voted delete in any previous AfD's, but after looking through the history and checking numerous sources, i see no way of making this article long enough to make it worthy of wikipedia. It is simply a dictionary definition and i would also seriously consider the term far from widespread. -- Jimmi Hugh 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If this does get deleted, then I suggest the closing admin considers WP:SALT to prevent recreation.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Wikipedia is not a directory of (definitions of and references in pop culture to) slang, vulgar definitions of highly uncommon extreme sex acts which are known more as apocryphal jokes than as things that people actually do. Who would truly dispute that per WP:NOT?-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for all the reasons given in the previous half a dozen arguements. Aren't there rules on how long you have to wait between AFD nominations? Lugnuts 19:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Precisely, which reasons are you referring to? And no, there are no such rules and it's been a few months since the last nomination anyway.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment well it's sourced and doesn't seem to violate any WP policies. Lugnuts 19:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. If you read my argument in full for this AfD (as with the one for rusty trombone), you'll find that I believe that it violates WP:WINAD as well as WP:N, as well as WP:TRIVIA.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia used to have an article (and this was a while back) called Unusual sex acts, which was a very long list of these sorts of things. Now, the article was entirely unsourced, most of the content was unnecessary, and it was very poorly written, so I, along with everyone else, voted for it's deletion. Now, I see that there are a number of articles now, Cleveland steamer being one of them, that is not exclusively an obscure piece of vulgarity. It has enough context within popular culture to be considered notable, but not enough to warrant it's own article. Could we perhaps revive this list in some way, shape or form, but including only the small handful of notable topics that meet this criteria? Calgary 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Interesting idea, but I think that this should have a mere mention in coprophilia and other unusual sex acts/made up slang phrases for them could go into the relevant related articles, such as rusty trombone being worth a mention in anal-oral contact. Making a list would just be another collection of trivia.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, totally trivial sex act, impossible to expand beyond dicdef. And lemme add this too... Eww. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Article has already been expanded well beyond dicdef. Chubbles 06:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment No it hasn't. I could easily add that much trivia to every word in wiktionary. Doesn't mean we should though, if you strip the trivia, there is no real information in the article. -- Jimmi Hugh 15:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If one wishes to delete an article, one can propose it however many times until one day the balance of people at AfD should by normal variation happen to be towards delete, and then it cannot be reinstated without Deletion Review. It is necessary to win only one time in eight (or ten or twenty). If one wishes to keep an article, it is necessary that the balance favor keeping all eight times.Tthis is different from all other closure rules in any sphere of activity, except for knife fights, where you also have to defeat every possible opponent.DGG (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I feel the need to state that AfD is not a vote and it does not matter how many AfD nominations there have been previously. If you're basing your arguments on invalid inclusion criteria that do not fit with policies and guidelines, then the closing admin has no reason to accept them when weighing up the debate at the end.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 21:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP:N seems to be an irrational argument. The article cites sources that discuss the topic. The sources are from a third party. One is even an FCC notice of liability discussing the topic. If you want, I am sure there is a porn site or two that can be used as sources but that seems to be a bit unreasonable, what is used seems fine to me. As for WP:WINAD, the article is already expanded beyond a simple definition. Like it or not, this is a pop-culture issue. Also, the argument using WP:trivia was equally bad. The article does not contain a trivia list. From what I see, this seems to be a deletion based more or less on the limited use of the term. This is an invalid rational. However, given the history of numerous nominations. It will only be a little while before this is nominated again. Ce'st la vie. CraigMonroe 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• To say that "the article does not contain a trivia list" is technically true, because it's in paragraph form. The second paragraph is nothing but trivia. The first paragraph is a dictionary definition.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per CraigMonroe. The issue here is definitely its status as a pop-culture item, and its general disgustingness; there are a lot of articles dealing with unpleasant things that just keep getting nominated for deletion over and over until deletion wins out (remember Gay Nigger Association of America?) If the article's got third party sources, it deserves to stay, and it does. This is a nontrivial act with numerous mentions in current culture. Chubbles 01:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• A dictionary definition with a trivia section attached do not an encyclopedia article make. It's not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia on these grounds.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see, also, why people are so eager to defend this. Just because it's disgusting does not make it notable. It's sourced, but it's not a proper encyclopedia topic.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

And the truth comes out. You admit it is cited but think to topic is innappropriate yet you still claimed as a basis that the article was not sourced. The basis for deletion is in violation of WP:CENSOR With this evidence, it appears this may be a bad faith nomination. Also, to respond above, the fact it is disgusting does not inherently give it notability. The fact it has become a pop-culture reference because of its disgustingness does give it notability. Can't you see the difference?CraigMonroe 13:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is you who misunderstands. This article is not encylopedic. It doesn't matter if you list a million sources and everyone in the world decides it is a fun and not disguisting thing todo, because it remains a definition that is in no way expandable. Also, the comment above your own doubted the Notability, it did not claim it should be censored, you seem to be taking this way too personally to prove a point that is simply not neceasary to make. -- Jimmi Hugh 17:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hate to tell you but if there are verifiable third party sources that discuss it, it is notable. See WP:N. h i s admitted it is sourced (contrary to what was originally stated). Now the argument is its unencyclopdiac. You argue it is not expandable beyond a definition, but ignore the fact it already has expanded beyond a simple definition--it is a pop-culture issue. I can think of other things to add to it. How about health concerns? Something dealing with its actual level of popularity? Etc. But hey, lets ignore these things because it is disgusting. Again, from the evidence, this appears to be a bad faith nom. The nominators rational has already changed once and admitted his original basis--a lack of sourcing--was innaccurate. CraigMonroe 18:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont't care about notability, as i said, there is no way you could expand it. It is not wide enough for verifiable studies into health to have been done and it definetly does nto need more trivia about popularity. On the note of notability though, i don't not see numerous verifiable citations, so unless some are added it will be deleted. Three citation, with one being from a bad cartoon known to make up details for the sake of comedy do not class as proof of notability. Perhaps if you can add 5 reputable sources with some details that are not trivial this article will be deserving of an article. As it stands you are assuming people's reasoning and entirely wrong about it's deserving to stay. -- Jimmi Hugh 18:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't care about notability? That is the basis proferred for its deletion. As for not being able to expand it further, I can think of more, how about a section about where the term came from? As for a claim I am assuming peopel's reasoning, he said it was sourced after originally saying it wasn't. And don't tell me I am wrong about an opinion. You have a different opinion than me. Fine. I can live with that. There is no right or wrong. However, the fact remains, there is evidence to show this was a bad faith nomination, and that even the nominator admits there are sources; which means it meets notability requirements. Nothing more is needed.CraigMonroe 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I added four or five sources, and split the article into thre distinct sections. Anything else? CraigMonroe 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

They're all still trivial mentions of the topic (http://www.femdomale.com/human-toilet.html doesn't even mention the term "Cleveland steamer"). I'm sure you could go around creating many articles on obscure practices from sex dictionaries that would be exactly like this one, without the pop culture section attached as they haven't been given trivial references in culture - but that's exactly why they don't exist, because they are not expandable (beyond dictionary definitions with a list of cultural references) as encyclopedia topics without making the article into a coatrack article by adding information about other topics that do not address the subject in detail directly.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment To quote r e s e a r c h "I'm sure you could go around creating many articles on obscure practices from sex dictionaries that would be exactly like this one, without the pop culture section attached as they haven't been given trivial references in culture - but that's exactly why they don't exist, because they are not expandable (beyond dictionary definitions with a list of cultural references) as encyclopedia topics without making the article into a coatrack article by adding information about other topics that do not address the subject in detail directly." You are starting to understand why the other references don't exit, why this is not "just a dictionary definition," and why it doesn't fail WP:N. The fact the act has been discussed in numerous pop-culture references makes it notable--unlike other non-notable sex acts. Without its pop culture basis, it wouldn't be notable. You keep claiming it is trivial, however, in this case, the pop-cultrual references are a basis for its notability. Its not trivial. CraigMonroe 13:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment You are really stretching. There are four sources that cite the term and discuss it. All from third parties. There is a book about Adolf Hitler that discusses him practicing the act. There is an article that discusses the health risks involved. There are several articles that discuss the pop-culture r4eferences of the term. You yourself stated "It's sourced." After back and fourth communication, your argument changed to it "not being a proper encyclopedia topic." The number of sources seems to state otherwise. I spent 10 minutes online on the term and pulled five seperate sources. There is still mroe that can be added. For example, the source of the phrase, or a "how to" discussing the use of human toilet furniture. The article has been expanded well beyond a simple definition. Again, the proper thing to do would be tag for cleanup and actually clean the article up. It isn't tough. Just use your brain and think of ways to make the article better. How about a discussion of the begative cultural view of the practice? From my perspective, and this topic does not really interest me (I only noticed it because of the numerous nominations for deletion--all of which make the same or similar arguments) the AFD tag is improper. CraigMonroe 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment All your "expansion" has done is cause the page to become full of even more trivia. Please note it does not matter if the nomination is slightly off as long as the point that this can not become an encyclopedia article is made. The fact is that you have tried to expand it and all that has happened is that the page has even more trivia on it. -- Jimmi Hugh 23:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I disagree. For example, a mention of health risks is anything but "trivia." Not to mention a psychological profile that discussed one of the 20th century's most infamous leaders is not trivia. Furthermore, WP:Trivia does not prohibit trivia, as long as it is incorporated into the article and serves a purpose. As stated by numerous other posters--particularly during the last seven nominations, is that the pop-culture references are part of its notability. Furthermore, you also argued it could not be expanded. I expanded it. I added several sources. I found alternative definitions, noted its effect on a famous leader, and found health risks which you argued could not be found because it was a minor act. It appears as if there is more out there than people are willing to admit. Again, AFD is improper. CraigMonroe 23:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional Comment How about a discussion of the psychological factors involved? CraigMonroe 23:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple, This is a form of human eroticism and should not be judged by the reader on the validity of or opinions of the those offended. Information is king, censorship is wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.60.120 (talk • contribs)

• Delete. This is merely a piece of crude humor being presented for shock value. WP:NOT a shock site. --FOo 06:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment The above vote only makes sense to me as an argument in favor of censoring Wikipedia. Chubbles 06:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment I agree. CraigMonroe 12:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  Ah, the joys of argument from ignorance. "I can't conceive of this as being other than X; therefore it is X." Please keep such fallacies to yourself. --FOo 07:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  I don't believe "WP:NOT a shock site" has been accepted as a policy yet, nor have I ever seen it proposed as one. If it were and stretched to cover this, it would contradict WP:NOT#CENSORED without fail. Would you propose deleting the articles about goatse.cx or harlequin type ichthyosis for the same reason? - Zeibura ^(Talk) 12:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Call the argument ignorant if you wish, however, the argument you made is still arguing for censorship in violation of WP:censor. But I guess pointing that out just makes me--wait, or did you say the argument--ignorant ... right? CraigMonroe 13:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment isn't it notable now for being a WP article that's been nominated for AFD 8 times...? Lugnuts 13:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No -- Jimmi Hugh 15:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  He was making a joke. Don't take this all so seriously. CraigMonroe 15:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  Correct! Cleveland steamers all round! Lugnuts 18:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  laugh I don't know whether I should laugh or take a bath. Just the thought makes me feel dirty. CraigMonroe 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Why can't there be another option to outright delete? Like merging into the Coprophilia article? Aditya Kabir 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Absolutely disgusting, but still needs an entry. Also, I think that the fact that this has surviced 8 times and that the nominator openly admits to Wikilawyering this nomination ("i've finally nailed it", i can loophole my way into getting this article deleted now!) screams bad faith. CaveatLector^Talk 19:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  Keep In my opinion the vast number of listed popular-culture references this act has received in recent times makes it notable - while the article could use some cleaning up, I definitely believe this to be a notable concept deserving of an article. I agree with CaveatLector that this AfD really smacks of wikilawyering - it is written as if the nominator has some kind of personal grudge against this article and searched hard for a believable justification, rather than believing in good faith that it truly is deserving of deletion.Mazca 09:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (possibly merge with Coprophilia which is very short at this point). The article appears to be well sourced. It's gross, but Wikipedia is not censored for content. It is definitely more than a dictionary definition. I see no reason to delete this (and think that an 8th nomination is a waste of people's time). Aleta 22:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Actually, it satisfies WP:N. The sourcing is good enough. Delete it anyway because it is distasteful. --SmokeyJoe 03:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I Quote from WP:NOTCENSORED: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific religious or social tasteful to all users or adhere to specific norms or requirements... Being "distasteful" is not sufficient reason to delete. Aleta 03:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is taking notability way, way too far. I support notability to the extent that it keeps us from being obliged to tolerate one biographical article per person/band/group who has ever existed, and one website article per site on the internet. This would make Wikipedia unmaintainable. However, if we start nit picking every article out there and trying as hard as we can to judge the sourcing as "non-trivial" to get them deleted, we will lose a lot of verifiable information. I would be strongly opposed to this article being outright deleted, if you must get rid of the article, merge and redirect it to coprophilia as suggested above, but don't delete verifiable information. Also, I would advise people to restrain from screaming "it's wrong / it's disgusting" in their delete rationales, as this may suggest that such !votes have been influenced by simple narrow-mindedness. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 12:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  CommentSo your problem with this article is that the reasoning is correct but in your opinion "nit-picking"? You don't actually make any claim as to how this page is notable or how the sources can be considered non-trivial. -- Jimmi Hugh 15:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Basically, I see two issues here, one of which I have opinions on and the other I have no opinion on. The first is whether the infomation should be deleted, which seeing as the nominator has brought this to articles for deletion, he obviously believes it should. I disagree. The way I see it, this term, whether written about at length or not, has made it into popular culture and the fact that it has made it into popular culture is verified by the last two references on the list, while the definition is verified by 2, 3 and 4 (which looks like a solid reliable source to me), makes it worthy of inclusion. It is verifiable. Therefore, it should not be a red link, and should definitely not be a salted red link. Notability is not synonymous with verifiability, and the reason verifiability is a policy whereas notability is simply a guideline is because notability is subjective, and can lead to losing verifiable information.

  The second issue is whether it should have its own article, or whether it should be mentioned briefly in the coprophilia article, this I don't particularly care about, so long as we don't lose verifiable information which might be searched for. As for this nomination being nitpickery, yes, IMO it does seem to have been done in prejudice against the article, for the same reasons CaveatLector gave. Also, we've been here seven times, find a new way out other than straight deletion. They do exist. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - OK, from the article name, I first thought this article had to do with shipping on the Great Lakes. Boy, was I ever wrong! Anyway, since I'm here ... in addition to receiving news attention through its use in a U.S. Congress staff hoax email and being addressed by the United States Federal Communications Commission, cleveland steamer has been a topic of radio, television, and music. The real issue is whether there is enough reliable source material to develop a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. In this case, there is enough reliable source material to develop a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. So keep. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Changed to Neutral It belongs in Wiktionary. To those who say this article is more than a dictionary definition, I would answer thusly: There are three sections beyond the definition. One is about erotic humiliation, which has its own article so that section is unnecessary. The second is about the health risks, which could be adequately covered under coprophilia. The remaining one is the pop culture section, which runs afoul of WP:TRIVIA. Strip out the unnecessary crap, and it's just a dictionary definition. --Jaysweet 20:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (Retracted my delete vote after further consideration... I still question whether the non-Wiktionary content is valuable, but I am starting to see the argument from the other perspective) --Jaysweet 17:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I must admit that the article is in a better shape now. I'm not going to withdraw my nomination, but my initial arguments are somewhat weaker as a result of the expansion with encyclopedic content, although the section stubs are lacking.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment This goes to show the article is expandable, and the proper thing would be tag for clean up and not AFD. CraigMonroe 02:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Y Keep This article is sourced even better, and has more varied and encyclopedic content than the nominator's other attempt at deletion. Is it just me, or is there a pattern of nominating well-sourced, notable sex acts for deletion that the user finds distasteful? I mean, come on, Amazon sells Cleveland Steamer t-shirts, the term is even mentioned in FCC transcripts concerning obscenity on Howard Stern's show and you're trying to tell me it's just some obscure term that isn't a notable fixture in culture? And that's after the twelve reliable and significant sources in the article? What a crock. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep VanTucky hits the nail on the head. Yes its distasteful, but its a term used quite frequently so the obscure term argument doesnt hold water. Article is well sourced, Fed Govt transcripts use it... its certainly a notable term.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I retracted my Delete vote, but I can't quite see myself changing all the way to a keep. I have no doubt whatsoever that this term is notable, and should be included in Wiktionary. I still have reservations about whether it deserves it's own article. It's because this is a term rather than an action. Coprophilia clearly needs an article, but I'm not sure that Cleveland steamer needs anything beyond a Wiktionary entry. For comparison, I offer the example that Mammary intercourse has an article (because it is an action rather than just a term), but Boobjob does not. --Jaysweet 21:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Question/comment I don't understand this particular line of reasoning. It seems that the first sentence says exactly what the action is. Aleta 02:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, it seems to me that Cleveland Steamer is comprised solely of an action, rather than Coprophilia, which is a term to describe a fetish that encompasses many different acts. VanTucky ^(talk) 02:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• That seems fairly accurate to me. CraigMonroe 02:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sa Ku Bo

Sa Ku Bo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I can't figure out if this one is a hoax or not. There are no sources, the only link to it was inserted by the newly registered creator and this is his only contribution so far. I tried to look this person up on Google but I got zero hits. Some of the information, like the quote, must have come from somewhere. Until proven wrong delete per WP:BIO. The creator has been notified by me and invited to participate in this debate. MartinDK 16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as not verifiable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ditto, as unverifiable. It also smells of some kind of obscure linguistic joke: Googling "sa ku bo" finds it to be a common word combination in Papiamento. I wonder what it means? Gordonofcartoon 17:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the user who created this articel also repeatedly removed the AfD template. I've also added a hoax tag given their other "contributions", namely Zhang Kui, which I recommend AfDing or adding to this AfD. 68.39.174.238 17:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable -- Whpq 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flipper and Lopaka

Flipper and Lopaka (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article seems to be just a small obscure TV kids show, with no notability, poor grammar and poor elocution. Gammondog 15:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I guess it never caught on in the US, but in Europe and Australia it was a fairly popular show. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Never heard of it, but it's in IMDb and it seems to have been successful enough to spawn Flipper & Lopaka: The Search for Neptune's Trident, also in IMDb. Clarityfiend 17:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Not the greatest show, but still should have a page. Recurring dreams 22:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, but please somebody who's in the know please clean the page up. Lankiveil 11:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC).
• Keep - but as mentioned before, this page practically screams 'CLEANUP'. Although it's a small kids tv show, the page should be kept. We just need someone who can elaborate a bit more. — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 05:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel 04:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CIWS-FM

CIWS-FM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is a local radio station, originally an internet broadcaster, speedy-deleted at another title. I've decided to send this through AfD because I'm uncertain whether the station's government license constitutes a minimal claim of notability. Still, delete for non-notability and COI concerns. (The author admits affiliation with the station in my most recent talk archive.) Xoloz 15:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:AFDP, the criteria that radio stations have typically had to meet to survive here, in the absence of an actual policy that specifically addresses radio stations, are (a) to be licensed by the appropriate regulatory body, and (b) to originate at least part of its programming schedule in its own studios. This station meets both of those; we don't have any other criteria for determining the notability or non-notability of a radio station beyond that. COI issues aren't really a bulletproof deletion argument; those can be cleaned up. I've already taken a weedwhacker to the few truly egregious bits of the article, and while what remains could use a few minor touch-ups for writing style there isn't anything left that presents neutrality issues. COI means "give this an extra once-over for NPOV", not "delete this on principle no matter how NPOV it is". So I guess that puts me on the keep side. Bearcat 15:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, as I mentioned on the talk page this entry is very similar to some 50 entries in the category Community Radio Stations in Canada. I'm not sure why Xoloz would mark for delete without doing adequate research.

Also, while you have changed the main page from WhiStle Radio to CIWS-FM, which is fine, there is a precedent on the Community radio stations in Canada category for sticking with WhiStle Radio as the main page (Ridge Radio).

I'm unclear as to why COI issues are being raised. The station is a not-for-profit, so while I am affiliated with the station, there is no monetary gain to be had.

Last, the section Community Radio in Canada wasn't "egregious", at least, if you understand the word to mean "notably bad". Perhaps it was off topic, and should have been a link to somehwhere else, but community radio in Canada is a special type of radio licence, quite different from a commerical station (or the CBC), and the section in Community Radio doesn't fully describe what the term means in Canada.

WhiStle Radio 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ridge Radio and RAV-FM are different because they don't have CXXX-format call signs. If a radio station has one, then Wikipedia policy requires that to be the article title. Ridge and RAV, however, have a completely different call sign format that consists of a mix of letters and numbers (Ridge's is "VEK565" and RAV's is "CFU758") and is far too obscure to be usable as an article title. And actually, Ridge is apparently defunct and might well be deletable in its current form.

As for the "community radio in Canada" section, that information should be added to the community radio article if it isn't already there, not to individual radio stations. Bearcat 16:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Bearcat. GreenJoe 16:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bearcat for the policy. Call letters is the better system. I don't want you thinking that I thoughtlessly used WhiStle Radio as the title though. My thinking was that most people would use the name WhiStle Radio for a search (I'm sure only those in and around W-S will look up this entry). I note that you have re-directed WhiStle Radio to CIWS-FM, so it all washes out anyhow.

And I will add the information about Community Radio to the proper place. Never having added information to Wikipedia before I was a bit hesitant, but I see now there are plenty of checks and balances. Thanks for your support Bearcat and GreenJoe. WhiStle Radio 16:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Bearcat, in your appeal to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, you appear to be predicting from past AfD's what other participants in this AfD are going to recommend. This is an odd way for you (or anybody) to participate in an AfD. Shouldn't you advance your own opinion about the nominated article instead of trying to predict what others will say? Your lamenting the "absence of an actual policy that specifically addresses radio stations" is equally strange; what's wrong with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? The question we should be asking here is, is it possible to write an encyclopedia article here that passes these policies?

  The appeal to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is flawed for at least two other reasons. One, notability is not a blanket; it makes no sense to say all radio stations that satisfy criteria (a) and (b) are "notable," because to write a neutral verifiable encyclopedia article on a radio station, or on anything, we need multiple non-trivial independent sources. That's what notability means on Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What about article x?. Two, consensus can change; previous AfD's are not court cases, and they do not serve as "precedents." For these reasons (and maybe others I'm not thinking of), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes notes at the top that "This page is not policy" (bold in original).

  Now, we need to actually investigate whether it's possible to write a neutral verifiable article here.[44][45][46][47] Guess not. Delete. Finally, as an explanation, please note that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view doesn't just mean that the tone should be neutral. It means that all points of view from reliable sources, that have investigated the topic in-depth, should be represented. Thus, in a case like this, where no non-trivial reliable sources are evident, a neutral article is impossible. And no, the government-issued licence,[48] which regurgitates what the "applicant" wrote on the application, is not a reliable source. Pan Dan 16:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making any kind of "prediction"; I'm stating what the standing precedent is. And while precedent may not be policy, precedent most certainly is binding unless and until somebody can come up with a cogent and compelling reason to revise or drop the existing precedent. That's what precedent means. Bearcat 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Pan Dan, I disagree with your statement that a government-issued licence is not a "reliable source." It shows that WhiStle Radio is a licenced community station, which is my claim, as well as the things that follow (e.g., WhiStle Radio is not-for-profit, call letters can be found in a predictable registry, power claimed can be verified). In deciding to delete my entry your sole, unstated, reason seems to be that I'm the author and I'm affiliated with the station. I'm still unclear as to why you ignore the 50 precedents I cited. Is the information I provide materially different? WhiStle Radio 17:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• The government-issued license is a reliable source for the attributes you mention. Likewise, my passport and drivers license are reliable sources for similarly trivial factoids about me. But Wikipedia is not a directory and we need more than that--significant coverage in 3rd-party sources--for an encyclopedia article. The non-trivial information on that government website is verified only by the applicant and has been noted by no sources independent of the station, as far as I can tell.

  No, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has nothing to do with my recommendation. As Bearcat correctly noted, conflict of interest is not a reason to delete.

  If you're unclear why I ignored the 50 other radio station articles you cited, then you should read the 2nd paragraph of my previous comment again. Pan Dan 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Another element of Pan Dan's comments that I find disturbing is that he seems to confuse *his inability* to verify with whether the facts I am asserting can be verified with whether they actually can. The activities of WhiStle Radio have been reported in five newspapers and on the radio (I have one copy of one radio segment). I am still unclear as to why Pan Dan is suggesting this entry be deleted, and why he is ignoring the 50 other radio stations. I do note that his tone is surprisingly, and inappropriately, angry. I am curious if those who oversee Wikipedia approve of such a tone from their administrators.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.54.218 (talk • contribs)

• "The activities of WhiStle Radio have been reported in five newspapers" -- ok, now we're getting somewhere! The whole point of this discussion to have many editors, including you, look for and evaluate what sources are available. Please provide the citations to the newspaper articles you mean.

  Since you're still unclear why I am ignoring the 50 other radio station articles, let me repost one of my earlier links: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?.

  If I sound angry to you, it's probably because I'm arguing to delete an article that's close to your heart--you called it "my entry" earlier. You may have an inappropriate sense that you own the article. This is one of the reasons Wikipedia strongly discourages editors from editing articles on topics that are close to them.

  I should point out that I'm not an administrator, as you suggest. I'm just an editor with the same privileges as you. (Which reminds me--please remember to log in and sign your comments as you had been doing up till your last comment.) Pan Dan 19:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: CRTC licence yes. Broadcasting on FM...apparently not yet due to lack of cash. "We are not on the air and we have not yet set a date for launch"as per FAQ on their website. Canuckle 19:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with no prejudice against creating an article if the station actually buys a transmitter and goes on the air. Per their website, they are not even doing webcasts, except when they broadcast junior sports games. Having a license does not make a would-be broadcaster notable when he isn't broadcasting. A complete 50 watt FM station in a box can be purchased for under $4000 US. Come back when you have a regular broadcast schedule and have been written up in independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage (more than directory listings). Edison 20:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Edison. Plus no evidence of independent reliable sources, and no independent ghits, suggesting no notability. THF 10:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pan Dan I will remember to login. "What about article x" ... does this apply - as I think this through I don't think so. I'm saying that the Category Community Radio stations in Canada should include all community radio stations, and I have demonstrated that we are one. I'm not saying we're as famous (or other adjective) as other community stations, just that we, like the other stations, have a CRTC license and must/want to operate within a certain legal framework. So for this type of entry it is the category that meets notability, not each individual entry. In fact, if some community stations are allowed and some blocked, the reliability of the category is diminished, unless you change the name to "some notable community stations in Canada".

I can point you to a recent article on the web about our station (e.g. [49] but I have two problems with this. The first is that the CRTC is the only primary source - that is the only source that can ultimately verify my claim that we are a community station (of course, that doesn't mean we're notable), and second, newspaper internet articles have a limited life and the Wikipedia entry will soon become outdated as the link fails.

I'm not sure how TedFrank concludes the CRTC is not a reliable source, please elaborate. That we webcast spirit hockey can be verified on the Spirit Homepage, which I did reference and the OPJHL website too. The statement of who the founder is can be found on whistleradio.com (and in the article I referenced above). True, that Ryan Fabro was the first announcer has not been sourced, but the claim is verifiable in principal and has not been contested - at most you would strike the sentence, not delete the article.

• Comment Feel free to cite newspaper articles. They do not need to be online; the online link is just for convenience. If it is a really obscure paper, the relevant info can be quoted (in a snip short enough to be "fair use") so it appears in the footnote, or can be quoted/summarized in the talk page. I really encourage you to market your station, find volunteers, get a reported to do an article about it, and get on the air. The sources say you won't even do a webcast until there is another game, and that makes you little more than a stadium PA announcer with a web hookup via a computer. Doesn't Canada require broadcasters to actually broadcast to keep a license? You could probably get secondhand equipment on EBAY for a few hundred dollars. Edison 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The activities of WhiStle Radio have been followed by both local papers (Stouffville Sun, Stouffville Free Press). When I say "followed" I mean the story line of: group formed to apply, group applies, group gets licence, group looking for on-air volunteers, group fundraising ... has been run over the past two years in both papers. I don't know if you'd call them obscure, they have ciruclation of several thousand. On the other hand no one outside of W-S has likely heard of them. The Stouffville Sun is owned by one of Canada's largest newspaper chains (metroland).

We've also had a short write-up in the Oakville Beaver (how Canadian is that, eh), another metroland newspaper. That was about our Stouffville Spirit webcasts. There was also a similar article in a Northern Ontario paper.

We've been featured on Q107's (CILQ) morning show, a large Toronto classic rock station, 'cause John Derringer (the main man) lives in W-S, and CIUT a campus radio station at the University of Toronto (the program we were on is also on the Sirus network). We've also been featured on Rogers TV, the cable company serving York Region.

Is this stuff I can put in the article? Does it matter for an encylopedia?

I do think we're more than a stadium PA announcer - at least, as much as any play-by-play program is. We have true (and I might add excellent) live play-by-play with "colour" commentary.

And I do see the theme emerging that "WhiStle Radio may have a CRTC license yet is still only a part-time web station and so doesn't qualify as notable". This argument is somewhat easier for me to understand, although I don't agree.

Aside: Canadian regulations give us 2 years from the date of license to get on the air. The cost of the transmitter isn't the only cost; consequently we've got a project plan in place (and have explored several different options). WhiStle Radio 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the first 2 paragraphs of your comment are the most important. After all, it's those newspaper articles that we can use as sources to write a Wikipedia article. It would be great to follow the excellent advice in the first 3 sentences of Edison's most recent comment. If you can show that your group has been the focus of several newspaper articles (not just mentioned in passing), then we will know that a Wikipedia article can be written here. Pan Dan 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my user-id. (formely WhiStle Radio). I do have archives of the newspaper articles about WhiStle Radio, but it sounds like I should just ask someone local, who has been following the station, to write the article for me. Would be much simpler all around. To make sure I don't have someone's work go to waste, sounds like I'm better off waiting until we're actually broadcasting. DJ-Jim 22:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Edison Giggy _U^CP 03:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable band, WP:BAND refers. (aeropagitica) 16:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BTT (band)

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

The subject of the article fails the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. No albums, national tours or major media coverage, etc. Nv8200p talk 14:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete Good grief ... WP:MUSIC was written for articles like this. No last names, only link is to their Myspace, and the band may not even exist anymore according to the article. Blueboy96 14:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gee whiz ... fails WP:BAND. --Evb-wiki 15:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Snowball delete per everyone.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, absolutely no notability to speak of. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 15:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. High-school students must do more than post an exaggerated resume to warrant an AfD. Xoloz 15:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Wilson (Woodbridge)

Charlie Wilson (Woodbridge) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article looks like a non-notable autobiography to me (reliable sources are missing). --32X 14:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - an obvious, not even borderline A7.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yale Model United Nations

Yale Model United Nations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. NN Student group. Mystache 14:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Could not find evidence of notability. I'm not really sure if it even avoids speedy deletion criterion A7. --Pekaje 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pekaje. Most individual conferences or organizations of Model United Nations are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 17:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Quoting from the Yale Office of Public Affairs at http://www.yale.edu/opa/v32.n17/story2.html : "Yale Model United Nations (YMUN), an undergraduate-run conference that draws to campus some 900 high school students from around the country. During the four-day event, participants serve as "delegates" of U.N. member nations in simulated U.N. council and committee meetings as they debate and address true-to-life global problems and crises." See also:

• http://www.vun.org/english/basiscamp/yale/yaleintro/ymun.html
• http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=4020
• http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=121
• http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/9828
• http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/16418
  • Comment all the above are to Yale or affiliates - they do not consitute independent sources per WP:NOTE. EyeSerene^TALK 19:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As undergraduate publications, the Yale Herald and the Yale Daily News are completely independent from the International Relations Association, which organizes the event and is not affiliated with Yale University in any formal way. As such, they are independent sources per WP:NOTE. The same holds for the Yale Office of Public Affairs. -Levan
    • Comment - Come on, do you expect anyone to think that The Yale Herald and Yale Daily News are independent sources of information on an article about a Yale activity? Their reliability has not been established, and while they may not have any direct affiliation with the subject of the article, they must certainly have a bias in favor of it. Or could you perhaps link to other of their articles where they give equal coverage to the Model UN of some other institution not affiliated with Yale in any way? They fail as sources without even reading the text, which looks like some fairly trivial coverage anyway. --Pekaje 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment "I haven't read this book, but I am sure that it undermines the ideological basis of the Soviet State," as someone said about Pasternak's Dr. Zhivago back in the 1950s. And yes, I do consider The Yale Herald and the Yale Daily News independent sources of information on an article about a Yale activity. The fact that the people who wrote the article and the people who organized the conference go to the same university does not change that for me in the least, because the conference has nothing to do with the university. Hence, both sources can be considered independent, at least as per Wikipedia's standards. And they are certainly not questionable, for that is defined as "those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight." That does not apply in this case, for both are newspapers with an established structure of editorial oversight. And the only instance in which a Yale paper would cover, say, a Harvard activity would be if said activity resulted in Cambridge being taken over by little green aliens. Vice versa holds true as well. Levan
        • Comment - OK, let's try this once again. The reason those articles can't be used to establish notability is that they are likely to be biased in a way that would make them write about less notable events than other papers, simply because it is a Yale event and their reason for existence is to cover Yale-related activities. Just read what they write about themselves: About the Yale Daily News (the other one gives a 404 on the about link). You cannot point to a single paragraph in a policy that would allow these to be considered reliable sources. And don't assume that I haven't read the links. I did, and the coverage was fairly trivial and I really didn't see anything that indicated how this subject was particularly notable. P.S. please log in if you're going to be signing with a username. Right now you're an anonymous IP. --Pekaje 09:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment A local newspaper in West Bushwick is going to be biased towards writing about events in West Bushwick. And yet, when writing about a festival happening in West Bushwick, it is entirely reasonable to rely on this newspaper's coverage. Same goes for a college newspaper. Note that I am not relying on the opinions of the YDN to write about world affairs, for that would be pure folly. On matters related to Yale, however, the YDN and the Herald are the sources of information. As to the official Wikipedia policy, the only thing that I can see there is this: Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I am pointing you to the second sentence. Both newspapers satisfy this definition perfectly well. I do not see anything else in this definition that coverage by these newspapers does not provide. PS Apologies for not signing in Levan 12:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment - They're still not independent. But more importantly, you haven't address my main concern that these sources don't actually seem to establish any sort of notability, should they be considered acceptable sources. --Pekaje 15:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Notability not established by the article. EyeSerene^TALK 19:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - thank you Astuishin (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources, NN student group. Since these are always deleted when they come to AfD, and there seems to be about a million of them, the rest should probably just be deleted as A7/nn-group. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Noted, thanks. Mystache 02:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above, esp. per nom. BTW, Yale didn't do as well as SUNY New Paltz in Model United Nations competitions back in the 1980s. Bearian 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas ^talk? 17:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ricky Millard

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

This footballer has not played for a club in a professional league.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Has only played as high as fourth-tier; is currently seventh-tier. Can't justify notability on that. Mystache 14:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Only played as high as fifth tier.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 14:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 14:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Player from the Isthmian League (6th tier?), who spent most of his career in the conference. -- BanRay 14:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO (though the conference is close to being all-pro these days). Number 57 14:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Mystache. --Malcolmxl5 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. as corrected by Slumgum!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas ^talk? 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bastiat Society

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:ATT. No significant third party coverage of the subject. Having trouble locating the one reference cited Nv8200p talk 13:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article reads like advertising, and the references and links are mostly in-house. It fails notability requirements for significant external attribution. Shalom ^Hello 13:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Asserts no notability. Mystache 14:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per everyone else. I'm trying to find reliable non-trivial published independent sources and I'm having difficultly.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom et al. --Evb-wiki 15:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of external sources.-- danntm ^T _C 17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anas ^talk? 17:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fire from the Sky

Fire from the Sky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album by non-notable artist (article deleted)--WP:MUSIC#Albums. Precious Roy 13:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it's a list of the sole (non-notable) release by a non-notable artist, tagged as unreferenced since April 2007:

Genevieve Little discography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete All- not notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Lamb (talk • contribs)
• Delete both - if she's not notable, then her albums are not either.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above -- artist is non-notable, thus albums are non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 15:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as per TenPoundHammer above. Lankiveil 11:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, someone clean up though, please. NawlinWiki 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Tillotson

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

Article about a reporter. No assertion of notability. In fact, most of this article does not even purport to be about her, but rather a single event she was involved in. A person is not notable because of a single news event. No sources provided. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith 12:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I have not read WP:BLP1E, but I suspect it was written with exactly this kind of article in mind. The event was not notable, and I don't think the reporter is otherwise notable either. Shalom ^Hello 13:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. I don't think we need to invoke WP:BLP since she clearly fails WP:BIO anyway. It's not that I don't believe that WP:BLP1E would apply but WP:BIO is far less controversial so it's easier to reach consensus that way. MartinDK 15:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a White House correspondent for a major news organization. The article as written focuses entirely on one incident, however, posing an undue weight issue. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Tillotson was the permanent host of CNN & Co. for several years (1993ish-1999). Notable enough for an SNL parody. Undue weight problems can be addressed. --Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - CNN host and White House press pool reporter=notable broadcast journalist. As above, article focuses too much on one incident.--Oakshade 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have added a proper capsule bio, and moved the 1992 incident into its own section. I'm still looking for reliable sources that aren't paywalled to write a simpler version (I suspect this one is a copyvio anyway, but I haven't found the source). --Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Said with clenched teeth. I do believe that Ms. Tillotson does meet the conditions to be included in Wikipedia. However, the article is so badly written that it should be deleted on principal, until a complete rewrite is performed. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Kurykh 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IJO

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

Non-notable internet composer. Can't really find any sources to prove any notability, google shows very few results when searching for him; most of these are sites listing his record, and the site of his first net label is down. Delete unless proper sources can be found. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 11:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete IJO stands for so many things. Having checked in the search engine, I see loads of IJos, which have nothing to do with this artist. Had he been more notable, most of the first results should show him.--Kylohk 14:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 07:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fehras

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

I can find nothing about this term and suspect that either the article is a hoax or the term is non-notable. Cardamon 10:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete (no assertion of notability). While it does seem to be a real name (at least vaguely common in Lithuania, judging by the domains of google hits), I see no sources that back up the assertion about its origin, or that suggest it is notable. JulesH 11:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:V.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be the username of someone who uploads to P2P sites after a quick Google search. Likely to be hoax, plus the contributed article has little value. —Tokek 11:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Creator of the article is a known vandal. —Tokek 11:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSDs G12/A7. Xoloz 15:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnamese Student Union

Vietnamese Student Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

High promotional. Saying "It's our hope...", etc. Also doesn't prove notability.... though it looks like it could. DraxusD 10:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Student union of a single university - not notable. —Tokek 11:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete student activity at a single school, probably could have been speedied under A7/nn-org. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Blatant copyvio of [50]. Editor has been warned. Blueboy96 14:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 means of withdrawn nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patlur

I withdraw my nomination as per my comments below. DraxusD 11:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Doesn't assert notability, has no references and is poorly written, Also shows some POV. DraxusD 09:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I cleaned it up. Does assert notability. Punkmorten 10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep as current community consensus is that villages and towns, regardless of size, are notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, given the consensus for notability, and Punkmorten's excellent cleanup, I withdraw my nomination. DraxusD 11:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per above all villages ar notable. Davewild 10:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Anas ^talk? 16:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What the Game's Been Missing!

What the Game's Been Missing! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-Notible album/artist - not charted on any chart - unreferenced article HarryHall86 09:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are Non-Notible singles/albums - not charted on any chart - unreferenced articles

Clockwork (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Oh Yes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

From Me to U (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Blow: The I Can't Feel My Face Prequel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

HarryHall86 09:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep - notable label (Def Jam), videos appeared on notable TV channels.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - While the album may not have charted, I'd like to see some proof, Juelz Santana is famous, albiet not famous world wide, he is well known in the rap world and to a greater extent in New York. As the above poster said, he is signed to a major label. He has appeared on many nationally broadcasted television shows, BET 106 & Park, MTV TRL. He has also seen some fame in the United Kingdom. A look at the template for the group would show he has been featured in many of their albums. Also, I remember a time, in New York, where the songs, "Oh Yes," and "There It Go (The Whistle Song)," received play in both the television and radio for quiet some time.--BaRiMzI 15:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

From Me to U - Strong Keep - Another album that for some may be unnecessary but again garnered fame for the artist in question. This was Jeulz Santana's debut album. Another album that may not have been well know in all of the world but was a hit in New York. A background on the group The Diplomats will let you know that they are a New York based group and a majority of their fame and fans are from New York. Another look at the page will again show that Juelz Santana is featured in a majority, if not all, Diplomat albums. Please reconsider before deleting any of his albums. While a user may have felt these albums were unfitting to be in an encyclopedia, this album was like the album above, released under a major label, Def Jam. How can this man or his albums be seen an not notable enough if a major label, at least in the rap world, both signed him and continues to allow him to release albums. Had these albums not been successful, why I still want proof of the claim that the albums did not chart, the label would have surely released him of his contract and then we would need not know about Juelz Santana and his albums.--BaRiMzI 16:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I referenced the albums, references are links to their respective pages with tracklisting on the Def Jam Recordings website. External Links have also been provided.--BaRiMzI 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, upon searching the albums What the Game's Been Missing!, peaked at #1 on both the Top Rap Albums and Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums charts and #9 in the Billboard 200 chart according to Billboard.com, and From Me to U, peaked at #8 in the Billboard 200 and #3 on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums, on billboard.com, it showed the two albums did indeed chart, contrary to the nominating users claim. Proof can be found here. This has been/will be added to the albums pages with references. If this does not prove said albums notability then I don't know what does.--BaRiMzI 18:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE - All pages have been updated and referenced. My argument against deletion pertains only to nominated albums and not the singles although the singles themselves have been referenced and had external links also added to them. For the singles I say Keep.--BaRiMzI 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep and speedy close. Juelz Santana is notable, imparting notability to his albums (see WP:MUSIC#Albums). Precious Roy 08:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC) (EDIT: keep the other albums and singles, too)

Comment. No, that says albums of a notable musician may have sufficient notability for their own article. WP:NOTINHERITED. --Geniac 14:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment And Santana's notability + #1 Billboard charting album + an AMG review = ?

Also, from WP:NOTINHERITED: "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its author(s)." Why bother waving it around if it's just an opinion? Precious Roy 14:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't saying this album isn't notable; it certainly seems to be, so here's my Keep. You gave inheritance from the artist's notability as your only reason to keep, so I was just pointing out that that's not necessarily a good basis for a keep. Yes, based on an essay, but essays should be able to be waved around if they make sense. --Geniac 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep All Notable artist - notable albums. I may be somewhat skeptical about the notability of From Me to U, but still keep. This nomination is somewhat silly, too, if it's not too bold to say. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 00:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uudet Kymmenen Käskyä (album)

Uudet Kymmenen Käskyä (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This album doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable to have it's own article, according to WP:MUSIC. It should be deleted and merged into the Stam1na article. Hux 08:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep - surely if it reached #3 on the official Finnish album charts, multiple non-trivial published reliable sources about the album must exist? I wouldn't know how to go about finding them, especially if not in English, but this should be a notable album.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep - Needs to be expanded and more english sources/references added as stated in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English - HarryHall86 10:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Foreign language reliable sources are perfectly acceptable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep – A well-known album by a well-known band. Well, at least in Finland. The single Likainen parketti went to #1 on the single charts and the album itself received an Emma Award (roughly the Finnish equivalent to the Grammys) in the category Metal Album of the Year. I'll add this to the article, with sources. –Kooma (di algo) 17:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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