Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 14

< December 13	December 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep, as keep is unopposed, and nomination withdrawn. Patstuart^talk|edits 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle land speed record

Wikipedia is not a list of things; claims to have been "under construction" by creator who's not returned. Patstuart^talk|edits 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What this article really needs is a {{cleanup}} tag in place of the "under construction" phrase, and serious re-writing by someone who knows the topic. The term itself has plenty of ghits appears to be commonly used in the world of speed enthusiasts, and is highly capable of a proper article. Bad writing and lack of proper wikification really doesn't mean the article ought to be deleted. Agent 86 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is worthwhile material and there's precedence for this kind of material on the Wiki. As Agent 86 says above, AfD is not Cleanup. A Train ^{take the} 01:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was in the middle of editing Flight airspeed record when I took a break and saw this AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article can be cleaned up but is important enough not to be deleted. TSO1D 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Daniel5127 <Talk> 02:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, some encyclopedic material that needs lots of cleanup. Not worthy for deletion though. Ter e nc e Ong 08:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with massive re-write. SkierRMH,09:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not ready for deletion yet. --Sapphire Flame 13:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thank you all for your input. And thank you all who are knowledgeable about the subject for cleaning it up at that. I withdraw my nomination, as this is clearly a more important subject than I realized. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — ERcheck (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voipgo

Does not meet WP:CORP BJ^Talk 00:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searched and could only find various directory listings and advertisements. Original poster, Pasca^contribs, has only added Voipgo to List of commercial voice over IP network providers and added this single entry. User has also removed the WP:CORP concern from the article without addressing it. Jay Jenkins 01:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 04:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - smells like spam, in any case it's not notable. Perel 04:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 05:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vyt Bakaitis

Lots of people write poetry. Seems NN compared to many other poets in existence. Contested prod figured I would send it for afd. My nom is Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references seem to demonstrate notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Truthbringer- I also admit to my bias toward keeping people from non-Western cultural traditions (provided there are assertions of notability, of course).--Dmz5 03:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TruthbringerToronto. Notability established by sources. Many poets, few published in major poetry or literary magazines. --Dhartung | Talk 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reference satisfy objective criteria as per WP:N. Ccscott 11:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. What else is needed? WilyD 16:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and move to Lan Yu (general). ~ trialsanderrors 08:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lan yu

non notable stub on an obscure person, fails WP:BIO. when typed into google, the results are for Lan Yu, a controversial 2001 Hong Kong film and Orchid Island of Taiwan. Abstrakt 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Delete for reasons above. Abstrakt 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lan Yu. Otto4711 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect fails WP:BIO -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 00:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, keep, rename and cleanup. He seems to be an important historical figure, so far I can tell. ([1])-Patstuart^talk|edits 01:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That he is obscure in the US or UK or wherever we might be editing from does not mean he's not notable. This is just a stub in need of attention. Keep. --Dmz5 02:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, you have to search in Baidu in Chinese to find more, and translate into English. We have tons of info on Simpsons characters and ones on historical people get deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was an important historical figure. TSO1D 02:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think Google searching for romanized Chinese names of ancient historical figures is a very helpful "indicator" of notability. Even then, I still found dozens of references [2] in scholarly journals, films and history pages on Google about this person. Please include your search criteria so we can see what you searched for to get such a result. --Canley 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Lan Yu (person)" to differentiate from the film. Perel 04:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, I would move to Lan Yu (general). --Dhartung | Talk 05:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, on the balance of arguments presented plus a quick sanity check which finds that (a) the article is unreferenced; (b) there are only 26 unique Google hits for "Copperfield Death Saw"; (c) Copperfield's own site does not figure in that list, so that doesn't appear to be what he calls it. Wrong content, wrong title. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copperfield Death Saw

It's hard to fix although the trick is curectly discribed, doomed to remain a stub, would be better if made into a section of a bigger article.

Delete if author doesn't show up to cite a reference; merge to David Copperfield if they do. A Train ^{take the} 02:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified Coperfieldcruft. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 06:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into David Copperfield. Probably pertinent enough there. --Moralis 07:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. SkierRMH,09:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's already a section of a bigger article, being described in sawing a woman in half in pretty much the same way (as a variation on a tried-and-tested illusion) as it is in this source. Uncle G 14:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Moralis. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all magic tricks deserve their own artice FirefoxMan 16:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because sounds fascinating, or make a list of Copperfield tricks. Best, --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Firefoxman. --K yo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 23:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FirefoxMan and it's not sourced.≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 22:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sawing a woman in half, or delete. (I do not oppose a delete consensus.} Says very little not already in that article; chiefly that the saw appears to be automatic. Reads like fancruft or copyvio. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there is no information of value that is not already found in Sawing a woman in half. A Merge would simply amount to a delete, anyway. ZZ 16:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequately referenced. WMMartin 17:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and merge with Four Ppillars of destiny. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Pillars of Destiny

This article and the similar Four pillars of destiny should have any verifiable and useful text merged to Chinese astrology. At this time, though, there is no verified text to merge, so anyone with sources should begin a section at Chinese astrology rather than here. Delete because it's unverified, unsourced, because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and because I suspect that both pages are advertisements for astro . fungshui . com masquerading as articles TheronJ 00:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Four pillars of destiny for deletion, for the same reasons. TheronJ 00:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove the spamminess. One of the central concepts of Chinese astrology/religion and is discussed in numerous reliable sources. For example, here, here, here and even in that august resource the Complete Idiot's Guide to Feng Shui. It's even the subtitle of a book. JChap2007 03:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Withdrawal: It seems clear that there's a consensus not to delete. I think there's also a consensus to merge Four pillars of destiny and The Four Pillars of Destiny, keeping at least one of the two articles, and cleaning up the remaining article, but none of that needs AFD. If someone wants to close this AFD, with result merge and keep, I think that's appropriate. TheronJ 14:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Agreeing with this. I think it's obvious they need to be merged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JChap2007 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to single article Not a hoax, enough of a seperate concept to deserve an article of its own, but since there are apparently two, with different cases, merge them. FrozenPurpleCube 04:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Chinese astrology should be pared down, it's way too long right now. So pull off some it too. FrozenPurpleCube 04:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese astrology If an article is big its not a reason to delete information. You break it into smaller articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I meant by "Pull off some of it too" as in "take some of the content from that article, and put it into this one" . Or others. FrozenPurpleCube 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The two articles, The Four Pillars of Destiny and Four pillars of destiny need to be merged, obviously, probably at the latter title. But it seems that this is a concept of Chinese astrology that can support its own article. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am surprised at (but respect) the number of keep opinions. Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that the articles should be deleted for all time, only that (1) there is literally nothing in the articles right now that is sourced; (2) there is almost nothing in the articles that is useful for the encyclopedia. Explaining how to calculate a Four Pillars astrology analysis is not what Wikipedia is about, IMHO. Thanks, TheronJ 14:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The condition of being unsourced, much less unsourced with inline citations, is not a ground for deletion. Were this so, nine tenths of the text we now have would be deleted. Nor is the fact that the existing text is incomplete, confusing, or wrong grounds for deletion. My typical test asks two questions: is the topic itself a worthy one? and if so, will the text now there be helpful to writing an adequate article on the topic? I think these articles easily pass the first test, and the text currently at the pages, while not very good so far, is not so useless that we should conceal it from non-admin editors or readers, or require that an improved article start entirely from scratch. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge with Four pillars of destiny - both need references and cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion, rather a reason to add references and clean them up! Squeezeweasel 15:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Merge, and cleanup. It is a valid concept in Chinese astrology that should be included in the encyclopedia. Just needs some work. - Eron ^Talk 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Four pillars of destiny per Squeezeweasel. And Cleanup. WMMartin 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of footballers (Gaelic football)

A very undefined list that really is to vague to serve any use Gnevin 00:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is marginally useful list-cruft, and if I had my way it'd be deleted. Unfortunately there is a great deal of precedent for this type of list on the enWiki. List_of_football_players is just the tip of one of many icebergs in that particular ocean. A Train ^{take the} 02:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be bold, and not be governed by precendent. That's what I'm doing in my opinion ( below ). WMMartin 17:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although I can see the possible benefits of the list, I am afraid that its title might make it too inclusive and that might eventually result in a list too long to be useful. Perhaps it would be better to rename it to something like List of famous footballers (Gaelic football). TSO1D 02:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Category:Gaelic footballers seems enough, I can't really see how the benefits of a list outweigh the benefits of a category in this case. I'm open to persuasion on that point. riana_dzasta 08:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LIST please knock off the can be replaced by categories nonsense. WilyD 16:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This list could basicly consist of the entire panel/squad of the major inter county teams every year its too vague it could be made into huge list without anyway to limit it (Gnevin 16:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
delete Even if this list was restricted to just county players, it would contain:
32 counties * 25 players per panel * 125 years of GAA / 5 years average career length
would give a completed article of 20,000 players!
If you take worst case, based on this article's title, the article would require ~80% of all Irish males to have lived in the past century to be included. far to unwieldy to be of use to anyone! Fasach Nua 18:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are not a repository for lists, and appropriate categories already exist. WMMartin 17:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:LIST, it's hard to see how this potentially vast list could effectively meet any of the three purposes for a list. I can see productive use as a category, which already exists, per riana_dzasta above. --Krich (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak move If it were a list of 'major' gaelic footballers then that would stop it getting out of hand. However, there'd need to be a good definition of 'major.' --Eamonnca1 23:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete redundant to category which covers the topic better. Eluchil404 08:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wily D, excluding the replaced by categories part. Sometimes that works, but not here. Just H 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deal, delete ~ trialsanderrors 07:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dealmaker

This article, which is unreferenced at present and reads like an ad, was originally speedied under A7/G11. The magazine was launched "this fall", so I question it's notability. The creator, who by his own admission [3] is associated with the magazine and/or company and whose only edits are to this and one other related article [1], maintains that it's notable, so I'm bringing it here for review. I'm indifferent to it myself. -- Steel 21:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like an ad? It reads like a summation of what the magazine is: a 100,000 circulation magazine by a notable publishing company covered in Reuters and the New York Times. Notability, in this case, is purely subjective and I respect your questioning but it cannot be definitive. What, by the way, is your definition of reads like an ad? I am not attempting to coax someone to read this magazine. I am just providing circulation and subject matter information for this particular magazine to anyone who is of interest in the magazine. It is true there is no sourcing concerning the press coverage and the notability of the magazine, but if that is the problem the article should not have been deleted, just asked to be sourced more thoroughly. Sabadu 21:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like advertising/press release copy to me Bwithh 00:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Dealmaker does not have 100K circulation; according to the article, it has about 50K. The 100K circulation number in the article is for a different magazine. --Brianyoumans 02:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google news turns up this[4] from the NYT. quote:

Advertisers and journalists made up most of the crowd. Many of the financial professionals that did make an appearance were featured in Dealmaker’s “Top 30 Rainmakers” list

This article is painfully inaccurate; this and Trader Monthly are the sort of standard freebie[5] trade magazines that anybody who works in an office is likely to find themselves "subscribed" to, but they do seem to give out enough quality free food to get regular coverage from the real press. I'm not sure where that sits them on the notability scale. BCoates 11:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

based on the NYT, speedy keep DGG 05:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Uh... just because it's in the NYT or on the NYT website, doesn't make it automatically encyclopedically notable Bwithh 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article comes across like corporate spam/PR copy. Article creator's apparent relationship with publication creates a conflict of interest. Encyclopedic notability hasn't been established. All we have are marketing claims made by the launch of a trade magazine. Policy against marketing usage of Wikipedia is tougher now. Bwithh 00:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bwithh, the "citations" seem only to confirm that this magazine exists. Most of the meat of the article is still unverified and notability is not established.--Dmz5 02:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering the magazine is probably about 2 issues old, let's wait a bit. A mailed-out-for-free specialty magazine known only for its lavish launch party - and, well, lavish launches aren't that unusual. --Brianyoumans 02:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Bwithh. The article even mentions what it costs for a subscription. The article has numerous wikipedia links to articles that don't exist (yet) for associated people and companies. --Jay Jenkins 03:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a standard PR statement, and the article largely asserts what it aspires to be. If it becomes notable, great, there should be an article about it. But no evidence that that notability exists now. -Markeer 05:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, potentially notable but this would be unusual for a new magazine of which hundreds are launched annually. The WP:COI violation seals it. --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - corporate vanity. I would speedy but it's been protested some what. MER-C 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as converted to disambig page. Agent 86 00:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fenella

There are no links to the page, and have not been since August at least, and the article of the book from where this character originates is a stub. Character not deserving of an article, should be included on a "List of Characters" page at most. --MPD01605 (T / C) 00:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The article is too short to be helpful. In my opinion, the corresponding book's page is too short to warrant even a List of Characters page. PullToOpen 01:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, even if the book's page is brought up to par, the book itself would have to become a lot more well-known before every minor character in it warrants a page here.--Dmz5 02:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 06:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nocontext, and even with context, still nn. SkierRMH,09:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The article gives no context to the character at all and sticks out like a sore thumb. Why create a seperate character page when the main article is a stub? No assertion of notability, absolutely no hint given that the character would need a seperate article at all. QuagmireDog 11:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 12:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add the information to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapphire Flame (talk • contribs)

PAGE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO DAB AFTER ALL ABOVE VOTES New voting on dab replaced at 15:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC) begins below.

Keep Useful. TonyTheTiger 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. dab is much better and more useful. --MPD01605 (T / C) 02:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now useful disambig. Good work. QuagmireDog 09:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much better. PullToOpen 22:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new page. Danny Lilithborne 22:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed, the disambig looks fine now. --Krich (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Custom essay

This appears to be a made-up term for an essay written on a subject of choice. When I prodded it, it was half how-to and half-completely made up- the links added by its author bear no relevance to the article. Anyway, I think this is an unverifiable neologism. I should also mention the Wiktionary article does not exist, and the Essay article has no mention of such a topic. Wafulz 00:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOT dictionary, esp for this kind of "term". meshach 02:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Not for essays on neologisms you originally made up in school one day.Koweja 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TSO1D 02:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, somewhat like a how-to. MER-C 06:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this belongs on Urban Dictionary. BJ^Talk 07:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & eologism & V & Fails evertying testSkierRMH,09:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this really a neologism? My university's campus is covered with adds offering to write custom essays - reading the article, it reads like SPAM with the company link removed. Anyways, it's unsourced. So I'm-a say delete unless sources are added. WilyD 16:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 03:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. appears to fail WP:OR. Ohconfucius 04:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. -- Satori Son 05:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Nihonjoe. MER-C 06:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Murray (Copywriter)

Looks like a resume, and if not, a bio of a company that is not notable. JudahBlaze 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not a resume service, either. --Dennisthe2 02:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering this article is written by Divinewrite and according to web searches, Glen Murray is the director of a company called Divinewrite (which specializes in SEO), I would say that the author may have some personal interest. Jay Jenkins 03:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, perhaps a db-bio is in order. CSD A7, so tagged. --Dennisthe2 04:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced resume of a non-notable person. MER-C 04:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 23:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Tax

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JudahBlaze 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep while the tax law isn't written yet, it is still notable and covered in several different notable sources. The article should be rewritten to discuss the debate rather than the [possible] tax code, however it should not be deleted. Koweja 02:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a plethora of sources for this: Legal Affairs, New York Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, etc. JChap2007 03:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's speculation until a bill is introduced in Congress and scheduled for a vote, then it would be a proposal. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, reading the text raises the important question "What is a gammer?" B.Wind 06:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, w/ same concerns of Koweja. SkierRMH,09:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As JChap2007 says this has been widely discussed in the popular media thus making it notable. Even if voted down, this proposal was notable for its time and may be of interest to those in the future. Ccscott 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an interesting law school hypothetical. The fact that the IRS will assess you on the imputed income received in barter exchanges, including exchanges of intangibles capable of valuation, should appear somewhere in wikipedia (most likely Income tax in the United States) and this topic could be adverted to there. But until this notion leaves the realm of thought-experiment by becoming the subject of proposed legislation or Treasury regulations, it should not have its own article. Pop Secret 12:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: One reason why I am suspicious of this article is exactly what I said above -- I.R.C Section 61(a)(3) already includes "gains derived from dealings in property" in gross income. There won't be any such thing as a separate virtual tax. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pop Secret (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - crystal ball doesn't mean we can't have information on an important event that's being considered. That way, we couldn't have articles on the year 2100, or space travel, or any such thing which are clearly important concepts for an encyclopedia. However, my only concern is that it's factually true, as people are claiming above; it would be nice if someone could add the sources to the article. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as I see this article in the same light as the Net Neutrality article. Many of us have heard new reports on this kind of this, and there was an article on fark on virtual tax. Just have to search it but I don't have time. Break at work is over --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The article provided as a source states "...the Congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC) is examining the issues involved in imposing real-world taxes on virtual transactions that don't leave the virtual world." It doesn't say anything about actually considering a tax, only looking at the issues involved. While this subject may merit an entry, it would have to be entirely rewritten, as I can't find any basis for the claims in the article. —P^urple ^RA^IN 19:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up and expand. This is a valid topic, but a sub-par entry. Steve Curtis 20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information is valid, I don't doubt that, but it belongs in an article on MMORPGs, not in it's own article. I also don't think it will be called the "virtual tax" when and if it's implemented. If anything, we should wait until the tax has a name before it gets an artilce, and maybe not even then (does every type of income tax have it's own article?) Plus, it's ugly. UsaSatsui 22:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Needs a complete rewrite if kept. It has a lot of info in it that I think even most keep voters here would agree needs trimming. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no there there. (There are no sources, either.) As I understand it, it's not a proposed law, it's a proposal for a proposed IRS regulation. (Yes, the double-proposal is intended.) Sources for that could be given, but there are MANY proposed IRS regulations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's also unclear whether it's a proposed IRS regulation or a proposed tax on virtual currency within games. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the IRS attempts to collect such taxes, or there is more serious discussion of this issue (although it would be interesting to see if "money" earned in MMORPGs would qualify as income under Glenshaw Glass standard).-- danntm ^T _C 03:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up and expand - Valid topic, but not a very good entry. Needs work. (Cardsplayer4life 09:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Why should the main space become everyone's sandbox? At best it's a wikitionary page. The sources are not associated with the statements. Statements within quotations have spelling errors. For such a short article, I say, if it hasn't been cleaned up by the end of this AfD, delete it. Alan.ca 10:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A real proposal discussed with multiple non-trivial mentions in mainstream sources. JASpencer 11:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, largely per Arthur Rubin, but also because I have an uneasy sensation that there's some sort of agenda- or POV-pushing here, though I can't put my finger on why I feel this way. WMMartin 17:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this kind of tax is already being used on a game me and me friends play. we discussed it on a blogs in gamespot and many others were saying this tax is already being used. they told me to look it up here because this is where all the information about things like this is at, but i see you all want to delete it. The fact that it hasnt been made a "real tax" doesnt mean that it hasnt been talked about or acctually used already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.85.43.78 (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep As a concept and idea, has been discussed enough in mainstream information sources for the topic to warrant an article. Sources have been provided. However, the writing isn't clear and the presentation is shallow - more needs to be done if this is going to stay. --Krich (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as long as it follows WP:V

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 00:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Drdla

delete fails notability Buridan 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep A minor composer, but it seems like he produced a few good pieces; I found recordings of his work by people like Fritz Kreisler and Jascha Heifetz on compilations including other works; here is the list of recordings of his work at Barnes & Noble. I'd say keep him. --Brianyoumans 02:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment- he's not in the Grove, which I usually use as a yardstick for notability, but I'm willing to err on the side of keep...--Dmz5 03:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete for the same reason that DMZ5 offered above. SkierRMH,09:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Minor composer, but satisfies WP:BIO with multiple sources including Google Books/A9 hits. More sources turn up on his Hungarian name, "Frantisek Drdla". Best known work seems to be "Souvenir in D Major", most recently recorded in 2000, according to Allmusic. --Dhartung | Talk 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same sentiment as Dmz5. --SECurtisTX 20:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Minor composer, but notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Googling for "Frantisek Drdla" or "Franz Drdla" gives enough non-trivial results and shows that his pieces are still recorded in various compilations. Not sure though whether this should be moved to "Frantisek Drdla", as this seems to be his native (Czech) name. --Henrik Ebeltoft 04:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia naming conventions specify that articles should be at the most common name, not the most correct name. During the first part of his life his hometown was in Austria-Hungary, so using a German version of his name was probably a political, legal, or economic accomodation. --Dhartung | Talk 07:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:BIO. WMMartin 17:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BIO, especially when one takes into account the sources where he is identified by the Czeck name. --Krich (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 23:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Britting

delete fails notability, only nominated, did not receive academy award Buridan 01:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote (for COI reasons), but I'd like to point out that the information is verifiable by reliable sources, and he gets a decent 8300 ghts on "jeff britting". !vote as you feel right, though. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I looked, this wasn't actually a vote, but something more like a discussion where we try to reach a sensible conclusion. WMMartin 18:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I put the "!" in front of "vote"; i.e. it means "not a vote". Antandrus (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't believe the subject satisfies WP:BIO. He has very few film credits. [6] Furthermore, he personally was not nominated for the Oscar for Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life (note that the article doesn't actually say that he was). --Metropolitan90 04:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 06:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BIO and probably COI. SkierRMH,09:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user Antandrus . The info is verifiable by reliable sources. --SECurtisTX 21:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Associate producer of movie he is by my understanding less notable than the Producer who is not a wikipedian. TonyTheTiger 22:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A difficult one. Doesn't appear to be widely known to the public at large, and I couldn't find a review of his book in a widely-read publication. Further, I don't think his composing/film work hits notability on its own. However, when googled his name pops up all over the Randian world, so he's clearly important in that niche, and his book appears to be reviewed and regarded as consequential there. So I'm inclined to say Keep. I can't imagine most people will ever want to read this article, but the same is true for other biographies of niche experts. We're aiming to be encyclopedic, and we're not paper. WMMartin 18:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could see the argument for inclusion, but a minor figure in a niche arena does not really seem to me to be encyclopedic. I could see him being in say a dictionary of objectivist bibliographies, but that's about it with the stub article that we have. --Buridan 18:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have made myself clearer. I'm not an expert in Objectivism, though of course I've heard of it, but it seems to me as an outsider that within that realm Jeff Britting is well-known as an archivist and biographer. Certainly, when you google him and look at the way other objectivists discuss his work it seems that he is taken seriously, and his contributions are valued. That is, though he works in a niche area, within that area he appears to be more than a minor figure, and for that reason I believe we should keep this article. What we really need, of course, is input from a couple of objectivists, but failing that I'll stick with my original assessment. WMMartin 13:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with people who say that his role as associate producer of a movie is not notable, by the way. It seems to me that his notability arises from his work in the field of Rand-studies, not his dalliance with Hollywood. WMMartin 13:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the book is interesting, being a book of photos... i could not find sales numbers on it, and it does not seem to be cited anywhere, but I ouldn't expect that. I'm not sure that the book lends notability as much as popularity for those people that want pictures of Rand. --Buridan 13:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can work out, the book takes the form of text, copiously illustrated with photos. One reviewer even comments on this when he notes that the photo captions include information not mentioned in the main text. WMMartin 21:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep based on his film work, I'd say delete as nn - however, that minor work combined with the fact that he does appear to be somewhat notable within a specific literary/philosophic niche due to his book, seems to meet the minimum level of notability. Per WMMartin above, just because the area of notability is a niche need not alone preclude inclusion. --Krich (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable on his own. Just H 21:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 23:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montada

This article sounds like an advertisement. It does not state what makes it notable. There are thousands of forums on the Internet. We cannot write an article about each one of them. Meno25 01:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone adds refs supporting notability. Akihabara 02:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until someone proves it passes WP:WEB. MER-C 06:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Someone please tell my why this shouldn't be CSD A7 --jaydj 06:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Weak Keep Author has made significant changes. Although the Forum Community section still contains self research. --jaydj 23:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Author has made significant changes to article, citing sources and asserting notability. --jaydj 02:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Forum Community section marked for author --jaydj 23:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Section has been cited. Thanks. ← ANAS ^Talk? 11:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The section should be cited from external refs, not from the subject's own website. --jaydj 00:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry, but what other than the site itself can I cite for what boards does it have and how many admins are there. In a similar manner, statistics in German Wikipedia are cited from the site itself. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Anas, I made references to the Montada site clearer to avoid confusion. Cheers. --jaydj 02:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This forum is ranked 2400-something according to Alexa, which is why I thought it would be OK to write the article. Before writing this article, I saw an AfD which wasn't deleted because someone said it was ranked 20,000 on Alexa, so I went ahead and started the article. I have not read the policies, but if you still think it should be deleted, please do. It was my first edit/article by the way. ← ANAS ^Talk? 08:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexa hits mean nothing. Inclusion in Wikipedia is not governed by day-to-day popularity rankings. It is the WP:WEB criteria that you should aim to satisfy, right from the start. Uncle G 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:WEB, ghits include the site itself & copies. SkierRMH,09:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A 2400th place ranking in Alexa is notable and google will be strongly biased against arabic language sites. Keep in the interest of WP:BIAS. Perhaps more references would satisfy other editors? Ccscott 11:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that ranking is not notable. See Wikipedia:Search engine test for one of the reasons that the Alexa test does not form part of our WP:WEB criteria. And keeping this purely because it is an Arabic language site does not rectify bias. It introduces bias. To answer your question: The other editors have already said that they want cited sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. So please cite some. Uncle G 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologize if I was not clear, but I did not intend to imply that the site should be kept solely on the basis of being a non-English site. I was merely observing that finding references for foreign-alphabet web sites will be extremely difficult for the average editor to do and introduces systematic bias as discussed in WP:BIAS. Therefore, in my opinion, subjects like these should be held to a slightly lower standard considering the fact that any references that may exist are inaccessible to most of us. The site is currently ranked the 79th most popular Arabic language site and although WP:SET is by no means accurate or conclusive, I submit it is sufficient in this case. Ccscott 17:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not, for the reason already given. That finding references is difficult for some (not all!) editors is not an excuse for using bad criteria, or for waiving the requirement for sources. Uncle G 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article is referenced. Whether these references are sufficient is an editorial decision; one that we appear to disagree. Ccscott 20:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite strong keep - It gets 350000 ghits, and that's only in English; I don't think google takes Arabic hits. What more, important events, like carrying messages from Al-Qaeda have come from this site [7]. It satisfies WP:WEB, as this has been carried by well known news outlets (ex: Bloomberg.com). -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That Bloomberg article has exactly 1 sentence's worth of information about this web site, which could quite easily be included in Al-Quaeda. WP:WEB specifies non-trivial works, i.e. in-depth information about this web site. Please cite some sources, independent of this web site, that have more than one sentence of information about it. Uncle G 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Asia Times is another. I'm sorry, but I must say that my first reasoning stands as stronger than my second reasoning. WP:WEB is a guideline, and if we it doesn't include a website with hundreds of thousands of hits in a foreign language, and that has notable newsworthy material, well then it should. But, I'm not convinced that al-qaeda parts don't give it WP:WEB credibility. It's a shame we're allowing every stupid character and talisman from the Buffyverse on here, but when we come upon a website with tens of thousands of users that carries information from al-Qaeda representatives, it's considered non-notable for the encyclopedia. Right. -15:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    - That Asia Times contains 1 sentence's worth of information (the meaning of the web site's name), too. You haven't made a case that this web site actually is "notable newsworthy", because you haven't cited a single news article that is about the web site (rather than one that merely mentions it in passing in 1 sentence and is actually about Al-Quaeda or some other group).
      As for WP:WEB: That has been in use for a long time now. "It's only a guideline." cuts no mustard at all. You are making a bad argument that has been made many times before, and that has been rebutted many times over long since. For one thing, not having an entire article on something is not the same as not including information about it. See Wikipedia:Notability#Dealing_with_non-notable_topics. As I said, the aforementioned one sentence of verifiable information (now one-and-a-half, with the addition of Asia Times) can be easily included in Al-Quaeda, a very natural home for it. For another thing, until you can cite as many independent sources for this web site as Bulbasaur#Notes_and_references cites, your Pokémon argument (for that is what it is) will hold no water at all. Uncle G 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisment FirefoxMan 16:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added some references to the article. I also made it NPOV, and you are all right, it sort of sounded like one before. I think it should be OK now. Thanks everyone. ← ANAS ^Talk? 18:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ARTICLE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY in response to tag.
Keep Editor responded well to criticisms. TonyTheTiger 23:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is cleaned up and the article asserts notability enough. By the way, Google Arabic gets close to 19 million hits, though I can't tell how many are relevant. The point is don't use the English language Google to test for notability of non-English topics. Koweja 23:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't use Google to test for notability. Wikipedia:Search_engine_test --jaydj 00:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally speaking, yes. But 3 million hits is enought to say something. Patstuart^talk|edits 13:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would like to see this web site reviewed exclusively by a mainstream media outlet. I noted a mention in a news headline, but I haven't seen the site extensively discussed anywhere. Point of interest, google hits mean nothing. Try putting a porn term in there, if that was our measure of notability, just imagine the articles we would have on here. My policy of choice here, would be violates wp:v. Alan.ca 10:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has anyone considered what the word Montada actually means? If it does in fact mean forum, try putting the word forum into english google and see how many hits you get! It's 1,360,000,000 ... I guess the english version of this web site would be more notable. Alan.ca 10:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but searching Montada will not give you results similar to what you might get from forum. It would give you similar results if you search using the Arabic word for forum, منتدى. Try searching فورام, which is a transliteration of forum in Arabic. As for a media review, I'm afraid it is almost impossible to ever find one, since Arabic websites aren't really well featured. I'm sure it has been featured on Arabic media, but not much of Arabic media is published online. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tried montada.com (not just montada) on English and still got 3,000,000 hits; it got 300,000 on Arabic (as many appear to be from another language). Still, that's an obscene amount of hits for an average forum, and probably the most prominent Arabic forum that exists. I find it frustrating that forum surely has outside media mention, but we can't access it because it's in Arabic. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear case of systemic bias. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To call this systemic bias is insulting to the people who participated. Anas has gone through great lengths to improve the article. Many of the votes were previous to this rework. I feel that if the same people were to view the improved article, that many votes would change. --jaydj 05:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the article is certainly informative, it seems to me that notability has not been established. Simply being a popular forum is not, it seems to me, enough to establish notability: there are plenty of forums. It seems to me that notability, for a forum, would arise if the forum were doing something different from other forums. This is why I don't think it is enough to note that Al Qaeda has posted messages on this forum: Al Qaeda need to post messages somewhere, so this could be just a random choice. We need to know what this forum is _doing_ that makes it different and special: notability arises from actions taken, not things that "might have happened anyway". So, I'm suggesting we Delete this article. I should stress that this is not, so far as I can introspect, bias: I've applied the same criterion in plenty of other AfD discussions, including for other forums ( though I haven't been quite so explicit in my reasoning ), and imagine that I will do so again in future forum AfD discussions. Obviously, if my concern is met, I'll change my opinion. WMMartin 18:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very reasonable. I am not a frequent visitor of the forum, but I do drop by every once in a while. This forum is different; apart from the popularity and Al-Qaeda massages, this forum has had interviews with celebrities, particularly Saudi football players (2 actually, one of them was Yasser Al-Qahtani. I'm not sure though, as I can't recall well) and with a few game designers. Also, this forum has some famous and notable members, mainly journalists and writers. Of course, I can't find any sources to back my claim. :) ← ANAS ^Talk? 19:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people of the 20th century

delete list cruft, it would contain everyon by definition in wikipedia in the 20th century.. Buridan 01:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 02:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Define notable? This article would be huge and would cause a huge amount of POV. Culv e rin ? ^Talk 06:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Since inclusion in Wikipedia automatically qualifies them for inclusion on this list it is unneeded. We have plenty of categories for people. Koweja 03:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete indeed, but who spent all that time creating this?!--Dmz5 03:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And what constitutes notable anyway? MER-C 04:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the purposes of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Notability (people) will tell you. Koweja 04:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list doesn't say that, so it's arbitary and indiscriminate. Not every entry on a list of x people has to meet WP:BIO. MER-C 05:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless and a waste of space. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly useless. And I'm not on it, so it's inaccurate. SkierRMH,09:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too long and impossible to maintain ... and even less to monitor Alf photoman 15:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list. Punkmorten 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to avoid possible POV issues FirefoxMan 16:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too subjective, indiscriminate, and pointless to ever maintain such a list. Yamaguchi先生 03:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. It would have to include every single person considered notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people) or be subject to endless argument as to what is considered notable enough for the list. Pointless. Caim 03:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a bit too arbitrary and broad scope for a list.-- danntm ^T _C 04:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would create to much argument on what to be included. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) 22:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Qandnotq 02:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 23:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Hull

Delete Fails wp:prof, only a few edited volumes and nothing else Buridan 01:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Akihabara 02:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & WP:PROF or WP:BIO SkierRMH,09:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (note for google searches: there is a guitarist of the same name with quite a big web presence). Sam Clark 15:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Written books/articles of general interest; founder of a college LaszloWalrus 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. TonyTheTiger 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founder of a college is not subject to wp:prof. Fg2 01:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is not a college of any note until it earns acceditation. There are a thousand closed colleges and many forgotten founders. Founding a new college does not establish notability, or we'd have every no-name fake diploma company founder in here. --Buridan 02:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The college was so notable that it was proded, and then deleted thereafter. [8] So let's skip past that. The typical notable professor has tenure. He doesn't. That may be for good reasons of his own philosophy, but it also causes it to be more difficult to make a case for his notability. The article doesn't make that case, and it doesn't use independent reliable sources. So it fails to demonstrate that he meets the primary notability criteria. I can't see any other criteria of WP:PROF (proposed guideline) or WP:BIO (guideline) that he meets. GRBerry 03:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fairsing 23:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on books; WP:PROF is only a proposed guideline and is IMO too restrictive. JamesMLane t c 15:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fails wp:bio too, doesn't it? --Buridan 17:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal - The Game

Non-notable. Basically nothing can be written about it (self-admitted in the article). Basically all speculation. —Mets501 (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article for a game that never was and never will be. And it isn't even Duke Nukem Forever :). A Train ^{take the} 02:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 02:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly fails even the most lenient notability standards. Koweja 02:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a perfect example of what not to bring on to Wikipedia. Delete - just put it out of its misery already. --Dennisthe2 03:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, but the sentence that's there could go in the Arxel Tribe article. — brighterorange (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all reasons above. The article also does not assert its notability. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 06:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Not much else is known about it". MER-C 06:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It rubs the AFD on its skin or else it gets deleted again. QuagmireDog 07:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, lame stub. --MegaBurn 09:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my prescious, while eating fava beans and sipping Chianti. SkierRMH,09:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Not much else is known about it", indeed. UsaSatsui 22:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Following the success of (other pointless articles), someone began developing a (page about) a computer game after the Hannibal licence in 2001. Though some (very short sentences) exist, the (page) was eventually cancelled and never (replaced). Not much else is known about it." Jeendan 01:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the game was cancelled, then it is extremely unlikely to be expanded if no further information actually exists. Plus, it serves no purpose to anyone reading it whatsoever. On that note, it is very likely to remain in that state indefinitely, and hence doesn't deserve an article. Bungle44 21:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 23:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnnie Baima

Nom - non-notable "star" of non-notable video (a video previously AfD'd). Other than the non-notable video, this person has no other claim to notability. If the video fails notability, and its "star" has only this to his/her credits, then it follows that the star is also not notable. Rklawton 02:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete - flawless reasoning. --Dmz5 03:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Borderline speedy. MER-C 06:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which establishes any attempt at notability, that he's a drag queen? That he had polio? That a video of this drag queen is making the rounds on the Internet? To me, the answer seems to be "none of the above." Speedy delete CSD A7 B.Wind 06:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Moving to Speedy... SkierRMH,10:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. the piece can be catagorised as "internet phenomenon". it is a disturbing piece of work - known as "the goddess bunny" - since wikipedia is the online information source, i would want to have the background information regarding the piece. Candymoan 11:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This AfD is about the person, not the video. The video has already been AfD'd. See also WP:NOT. Rklawton 20:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 23:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dime Magazine cover athletes

I reckon this should be deleted as failing WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Otherwise, this will certainly grow into a collection of lists of each and every person who has appeared on each and every magazine in the world. Note that, this article is already much larger than the article on Dime Magazine itself. I would suggest merging the contents to Dime Magazine (already done), and deleting the article page as redundant. Ohconfucius 02:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Akihabara 02:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 06:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as everything here is already in Dime article. SkierRMH,10:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SkierRMH, and listcruft. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Away mission

The result was Redirecting to Away team under WP:SNOW. Morwen - Talk 13:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total, unapologetic original research. I thought about a merger into Redshirt or Away team, but there does not seem to be anything worth saving in this article, which violates Wikipedia is not for things forwarded in e-mails. JChap2007 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as or and unsource nonsense. meshach 02:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know what this really is, but it looks more like a jaded essay about the flaws of every away mission in Star Trek. --Dennisthe2 03:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete In-universe OR cruft bollocks. Most depressingly, this has been here for two and a half years [9]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redshirt away mission and redirect to away team. --Dhartung | Talk 05:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. delldot | talk 08:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with phasers on kill. SkierRMH,10:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly written second-person non-npov. Anything salvageable in here (although I don't see any) should be merged with away team or some such. --EEMeltonIV 15:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to away team WilyD 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Set phasers to redirect per WilyD FirefoxMan 16:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tactical Nuke from Orbit as externally unverified, OR material that belongs at an Evil Overlord List, not in a Wikipedia article at this time. Support recreation as redirect to away team. -- saberwyn 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason I shouldn't just redirect this to away team and speedily close this? Morwen - Talk 00:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, deleting anything relating to Star Trek is likely to generate much hand-waving, combined with trips to deletion review and WP:AN, causing needless wikidrama. Better to just let this run its course so it will be harder to undelete. The AfD can run the full five days without causing us to miss our deadline, which is never. JChap2007 00:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care to get involved in further drama right now, but the article really is indefensible at the moment. Do we really want to waste our time with this? I'll give it til tomorrow and then redirect under WP:SNOW. Morwen - Talk 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Set phasers on kill. Delete and then redirect to away team. (And I am a trekkie. According to reports, my wife and I appeared in Trekkies 2.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 23:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay lisp

This article should be deleted on the grounds of WP:OR and that it is offensive. - Gilliam 02:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Gilliam 04:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced original research. MER-C 04:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. Keep, possibly rename. The article has sources in the external links, which is no longer acceptable, but they are strong sources -- The Economist a scholarly journal, and an article that references scholarship. It's pretty easy to find more sources, too: [10], [11], [12], [13]. Summary: not all gay (men) have a lisp, but almost all gay men have shared language characteristics that set them apart. (This is a common social marker in linguistics; see Northern cities vowel shift, code switching.) The title is a problem. Gay speech characteristics, perhaps, would be an NPOV replacement. --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Gay speech characteristics per Dhartung. --Dennisthe2 05:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Gay stereotyping. Grutness...wha? 06:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gay stereotyping or rename to something like Gay speech characteristics, but a name that doesn't imply that it's necessarily a characteristic that all or most gay folks share (they don't, or it would be easier to tell who is gay!). Stereotypes of gay speech? Horrible, I know. delldot | talk 07:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that mergining to Gay stereotyping is the best course of action, it should not be renamed "gay speech characteristics." This is tantamount to having articles on "Jewish nose shapes" and "reasons minorities are lazy." Articles on those subjects, when presented in context of "stereotyping" or something of that nature, can be encyclopedic.--Dmz5 07:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I wouldn't advocate doing such a merge until Gay stereotyping is majorly cleaned up.--Dmz5 07:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Gay stereotyping SkierRMH,10:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per Grutness. Danny Lilithborne 12:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/no redirect Although the idea of a lisp is a stereotype associated with gay men, there appears to be some evidence of a sociolinguistic phenomenon. Just as it would be wrong to include African-American Vernacular English under African-American stereotyping, it is likewise incorrect to suggest that any perception (by gays or straights) of social markers in the speech of gay men is merely repair to a stereotype. Pop Secret 13:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, do not rename or merge. The difference is there really is such a thing as African-American Vernacular English. To suggest that there is a peculiar style of speech that goes with being gay smacks of agenda-pushing. There is no such peculiar style of speech. Dragomiloff 14:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

follow up comment: the gay stereotyping article is a mess too. Needs serious work. Dragomiloff 14:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The study cited by Dhartung, supra, suggests that there may very well be distinctive speech features in gay men. I think writing the study off as "agenda-pushing" is a bit unfair, not to mention conclusory. Pop Secret 14:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename if necessary. - Gilgamesh 14:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gay stereotyping Koweja 14:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as by Koweja Alf photoman 14:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gay stereotyping. Jeffpw 14:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename - I wouldn't merge to Gay Stereotyping as that article notes it is about "common misperceptions about homosexuals". My reading of this article is that it refers to a manner of speech which - the cited references suggest - actually exists. If agenda-pushing is a concern, then the article can be NPOV'd by adding references that suggest that it does not, or that it is not actually widespread among gay males, and that refer to it as a possible stereotype. - Eron ^Talk 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge along with Gay stereotyping to Homophobia. Lets be honest about what this is. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 16:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To address the 'sources' of this article:
  1. The aticle from the Economist says little and is from 1995
  2. The 'encyclopedia article' is non-notable and admits to having data only on white middle class American gay male identity
  3. The study from the Cambdridge journal involved a grand total of 25 male voices. In any event only the project abstract and not its conclusions are cited. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 16:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's homophobia, explain Out magazine writing about it.--Dhartung | Talk 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Beg pardon, the Economist article says enough, and it's clearly the main focus of the article. What's wrong with being from 1995? A reliable source can be from the 4th century BCE. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I completely misreading the Economist article, or does it simply not support what the article actually says?--Dmz5 17:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially the bit that says: Oddly, though, in a range of pitch measurements taken from the actual sound waves of the four gay and four straight men’s voices, there was no significant correlation with the listeners’ judgements. The experiment, then, could provide no quantifiable reason why the listeners’ perceptions about gay and straight speakers were correct. That seems to completely contradict the argument in the article.- WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's so obvious it's rediculous. The article is sourced (albeit not not perfectly) and encyclopaedic, so it's not really a candidate for deletion. Merging to Gay stereotyping may be worthwhile, but probably isn't necessary. WilyD 16:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information has been taken so liberally from GLBTQ encyclopedia it borders on copyright infringement, but it is evidently a real subject. SHould be kept, and it totally different from gay stereotyping. GLBTQ.com suggests it is a scientific thing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, am I misreading the GLBTQ article or does it also not support what is actually in the article? This article still smacks to me of original research synthesizing several other primary sources (each of which is, in itself, problematic as a source.)--Dmz5 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per Dhartung. The best source, the Economist article, starts by saying the lisp isn't the main characteristic, it's the voice pitch. Here is another by the University of Toronto: [14], about the same thing. Those are good sources. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename This is a real phenomenom, however the word lisp could be construed as somewhat homophobic. Nlsanand 17:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To address why I don't think this content should merge into Gay stereotyping. At the very least this article needs an overhaul pretty soon, but I also have reservations about the purpose it serves. There are no articles on Wikipedia about:
- ~~black stereotyping~~ (see below)
- jewish stereotyping
- stereotypes of women etc.

and I think that is rightly so. Why is it that a specific article is needed to cover gay stereotyping or a sub-facet of it? - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 19:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually there are pages for other minorities - see Ethnic stereotypes in American media and the articles link to from it. Gay stereotyping and homophobia are not necessarily the same thing, though there is obviously a strong correlation between the two. However, this is not the place for it. If you do feel that Gay stereotyping should be removed, then feel free to nominate it for AfD and we can discuss it there. Koweja 21:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, I'm wrong about the bias I point out above. Credit to Koweja for pointing it out. There is an article on Stereotypes of Africans/Blacks and it is presently subject to its own AfD.- WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 23:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per discussion with WJBscribe, I move that this article and Gay stereotyping be merged into the Homophobia article. Jeffpw 20:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I agree that "gay stereotyping" is equivalent to homophobia...also to be honest I am surprised that there are no articles on black/jewish/etc stereotyping, not that I am necessarily advocating they be created.--Dmz5 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that a gay stereotype is equivalent to homophobic - let's face, a lot of gay men DO act like that stereotype in varying degrees. It's not homophobic to say that, and fuck knows I'm not homophobic. Really, this shouldn't be merged. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about gaydar? Should that be merged, too, or is gaydar also equivalent to homophobia? --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's clearly nothing wrong with gaydar, which has no link to homophobia. But I suspect that if there were articles about typical black speech patterns and black stereotypes, these would rightly be pointed out to be inherently racist. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 23:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But see African-American Vernacular English. Nor is it racist. Imagine telling Gwendolyn Brooks that because her poem "We Real Cool" was written in A.A.V.E. her work was "inherently racist!" The use of distinctive speech forms among social sub-groups is well-documented and an element of sociolinguistic diversity. By no means should we blanche out any reference to this phenomenon in a misguided attempt at political correctness. Pop Secret 01:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: we already have an article on gay slang and nobody's accusing it of homophobia. That would seem to be a comparable example to the article on African-American Vernacular English. Now on the other hand if we had an article taking the claim seriously that Black Americans are genetically prone to speaking a certain way because they are black... Dragomiloff 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Being offensive is not a criteria for deletion. It does seem like there is literature on speech mannerisms which are associated with gay stereotypes. However, there is little support in the literature for the current title and really its just part of the larger stereotype and not notable on its own. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Interesting topic, needs to be expanded with more references. "Offensive" is irrelevant, this is factual and relevant, and people's emotional reactions to articles are not our business. Haiduc 01:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BrenDJ 02:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably rename Gay speech characteristics. Danbold 06:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I hope the people adovcating merges are not advocating merging "Gay speech characteristics" (which renaming is how this debate ought to be resolved) with Homophobia, a course of action that makes as much sense as merging African-American Vernacular English with Racism or Received Pronunciation with Anglophobia. Those advocating a merge into Homophobia or Gay stereotyping have provided no justification for discounting the scientific evidence beyond conclusory assertions that any suggestion of distinctive speech patterns among gay men must be stereotyping. Deletion cannot be justified by so little. Pop Secret 09:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Economist article and others report that scientists study the human voice of gay males, but do not support the stereotype that the speech impediment of a lisp is a uniquely gay trait. - Gilliam 10:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. There is plenty of literature on the subject, so a reasonable sourced article could be written. The current name isn't good tho. Mairi 18:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename and Cleanup. I'd like to see the references cleaned up, but it appears that references to valid research confirming the presence of these speech patterns can be found, or, at least, that this is a valid area for scientific research, so this is not prima facie OR. It's clearly notable, as it documents a phenomenon widely referenced in broader culture. A redirect or merge to Gay stereotyping should be discouraged: as I understand it, stereotyping is about misperception and generalisation: this article, and the supporting research, do not seem to imply that this speech pattern is present in all gay men, or only in gay men, only that its presence is to some extent correlated with sexuality. As and when the stereotyping article is expanded, it may usefully refer to this article. WMMartin 18:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only if cleaned up. If not, delete. This article is a mess. Lots of unsourced POV and conjecture going on there. ExRat 02:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Alkivar with the rationale of "WP:NOT a Crystal Ball". Sandstein 09:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3

Unsourced rumours about a non-released game. Reposted twice, The previous AFDs are here and here, results were no consensus and delete respectively. Contested prod. MER-C 02:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This game will definitely be released soon. A google search shows almost 400 unique hits for this game title. Moreover, the last two AfD pages regarding this article was about a year ago when there were even plans not to release this game. One year has passed and it seems that EA is about to officially announce the release of this game. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Google search Siva mentioned has no reliable sources. Everything relevant links back to this page, which has no information and lists its related links as "Network forums". If EA officially announces the game, then it can have an article. --Wafulz 03:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it seems that every mention of the game's development stemmed from an unofficial announcement in 2004. It looks like the game was never officially announced and abandoned rather quickly. It's crystal balling at this point to say anything else. --Wafulz 03:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as repost. Looks like the same content with the same (non-)sources as in the last AfD. What part of "it can have its article once it is released" is so hard to understand? Sandstein 05:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreleased game with no reliable sources stating that it's actually coming out ever. Save the crystal ball for the circus gypsy act. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When more information comes to, then off course the article can be remade. Culv e rin ? ^Talk 07:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete till game is announced. BJ^Talk 07:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crytsalballin'; create when there's something substantial. Now I'm off to create the Conquer: Red Alert 7 article. SkierRMH,10:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if there is to be an announcement soon we know nothing about the game yet and cannot write about nothing Alf photoman 14:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as speculation. Koweja 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Thunderbrand 15:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 400 Ghits? For a game series as huge as C&C? Get real Siva. That's not notable for a free fangame, never mind a supposed sequel to Red Alert 2! WP:NOT a crystal ball, WP:V, WP:N all failed. The Kinslayer 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Look Skaggs was important while it looks like it will never come out now it's still notalble that someone as important as Skaggs said it was coming. Plus for the crystal ball thing were not saying it's coming out Skaggs did. Jamhaw 18:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)jamhaw[reply]
Delete - Looking at the subject as an upcoming game is crystal balling. Looking at the subject as an abondoned, non-existant game makes it non-notable. Well, the game doesn't exist. How can it possibly be notable? Secateur 21:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn with no alternative opinions to "keep" given. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engro

non notable Pakistani corporation; about $350 million in sales, they make fertilizer and sell or resell various agriculture-related products. I don't see any real claim of notability. Brianyoumans 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, about $350 million in sales. Also per WP:CORP. Kappa 02:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only part of WP:CORP that the company might meet would be the 2nd provision, "The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications." The company is listed by Forbes Asia as one of "200 Promising Firms Under $1 Billion" or something like that, but I would argue that that isn't a list of important firms, but instead of promising ones. And I suspect they have a new list of firms every year; making it one year isn't that notable. Other than that, I can't see much notability. $350 million in sales isn't that big, even for Asia. --Brianyoumans 03:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How did you exclude #1 and #3? Kappa 03:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the article doesn't include two press accounts, and I haven't seen any cited here, with the possible exception of the "The News" link below (although that is brief and may well be based on a press release.) I assumed that it didn't meet #3, since nothing of the sort was cited in the article, but to my chagrin it appears that it is in fact part of the Karachi Stock Exchange 100, and in fact in the top 25% or so by capitalization; given that, I think I will have to withdraw this nomination. I wish that had been in the article to begin with, as it took a bit of digging to find out. --Brianyoumans 04:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed in Pakistan's stock market, relatively easy to source.[15][16] [17]--Wafulz 03:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is listed in Forbes Asia - but nt becuase it's on the stock exchange/market- that shouldn't be a measure of notariety, as may non-notable companies are publicly traded. SkierRMH,10:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doug ruby

NN; author has repeatedly removed speedy tags Perel 03:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Not notable, doesn't claim to be - satisfies CSD A7. Mytildebang 03:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - attack page. MER-C 04:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 00:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Ray Wing

Businessman and former mayor of Springville, Utah (pop 20,424). Fails WP:BIO. 17 unique Ghits, nothing which indicates he is anything but a very local figure. Ohconfucius 03:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not so sure. This "Entrepreneur Of The Year 2005 Regional Winners" award confers some notability. This article, though probably from small media, helps: [18], as does this brief write-up about the aformentioned award (Wing's at the very bottom). Then there's this third of an article, and this local write-up. This probably came straight from his PR folks, but I think the rest of it establishes notability, though coverage from more impressive sources would be better.--Kchase T 07:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references, although minor, qualify him as notable as per WP:N. Notability is not subjective. Ccscott 11:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Mayor and "Entrepreneur of the Year..." are sufficient. This isn't a paper encyclopedia and shouldn't limit our scope too narrowly. CuriousGiselle

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clay3D

The author sealed the fate of this one: "Clay3D is aiming to be blah, blah, blah" and "currently in the planning stages of its development. As of January 2006, no binary or source releases of the software have been made yet". It also is a vaporware product and does not meet our notability criteria for software. TTV|talk|contribs|email 04:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is blatantly non-notable vaporware. Perel 05:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 05:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V and looks like advertising for something which may never exist. QuagmireDog 11:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystalballism. Danny Lilithborne 12:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert FirefoxMan 16:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore H. Rowell

At first it looked OK. On second glance nothing of particular note or importance, likely just a puff piece. Akihabara 07:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, was ready to give it a second chance as he's from around me, but he was just a local businessman/politician. --Dhartung | Talk 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on reconsideration. Some poking around indicates he may be notable as the "discoverer" (although the science was done by somebody else) of burbot liver oil's vitamin content, making the "trash" fish an economic resource. There are very few sources, though. --Dhartung | Talk 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Seems to be notable, if barely. I added an award reference to the article but unless someone is willing to do some more digging and clean up this article I'm not really ready to argue all that hard for its inclusion. NeoFreak 19:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Overall I found it to be good article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think this squeaks in as just notable enough to keep, but it really does need better sources. Perel 05:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The multiple references indicate he meets WP:N and therefore should stay. Ccscott 11:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable "enough". --Alvestrand 11:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is not subjective... in other words, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck (you know the rest) Alf photoman 15:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 00:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy Burner

This was listed on DRV, where the lister was self-admittely confused about the process regarding renomination of kept articles. The debate, which was withdrawn by the applicant, can be viewed here: [19] The original AfD can be viewed here (closed as no concensus), that took place about five months ago.

The reason for listing was:

Delete or Merge with article on Election -- WP:BIO. Proponents for keeping the article during the July discussion centered on her viability as a candidate in the November 2006 election. As the election is over and she has lost, her notability seems to have declined. AndrewSaint 06:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The concensus from DRV was to relist at AfD, so here it is. Eat your heart out - this is a procedural nomination, so no opinion from me just yet. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Former Microsoft employee and NN election candidate. We keep articles on politicians, not also-rans. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Islay. MER-C 05:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed candidate. Nothing else suggests notability. Montco 05:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The original AFD happened before the election; since she didn't win, perhaps it's best to remove it. --Dennisthe2 05:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Diane Farrell another congressional candidate went through several AfDs and I believe was ultimately kept. Burner was a real candidate in one of the most contested races this cycle and she nearly won. She may run again or she may run for another political office. Even if she dropped off the face of the Earth tomorrow an article about her would still be useful for anyone interested in Washington state's political history. Personally, I've used articles on failed congressional candidates in the past to learn more about the opponents current congressmen have defeated. GabrielF 05:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Considering she received 48.5% of the vote[20], local[21] and national[22] [23] press coverage. The Republicans considered her a big enough risk that WA-08 made it on their final push [24] and the Democrats included her in the first wave of their Red to Blue program [25]. She easily meets WP:BIO even if you don't agree with WP:C&E. Bobblehead 06:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 140,000 google hits for "Darcy Burner". Content is useful for history, if nothing else. Wikipedia is not paper rewinn 07:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete loosing candidate. There is news coverage about the election but none about her specifically is cited in the article and nothing suggests any notability outside the election so she should be mentioned in the election article and nowhere else. Eluchil404 08:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are a handful of articles with meaningful links to this one. Why should those all become redlinks? — Sebastian 09:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This canditate generated signaficant media coverage thus making her notable under the primary criterion. Wikipedia not only keeps articles on politicians, but on notable individuals as well and the subject of this article clearly meets that definition. Ccscott 11:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable nationally-watched candidate in closely-fought election. Not all losing candidates are notable, this one is. --Dhartung | Talk 18:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Acquired national significance by attracting much soft money pro and con, her own surprising fundraising, and a top-tier progressive netroots candidate. That said, all these facts should be mentioned in the article (and the verb tenses revised). David Brooks 22:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a very high chance she will reappear in the Washington State political scene, potentially as a candidate in the 8th District again, or in some other capacity. Her political career is far from over. It would be foolish to delete at this time. If she is not considered significant, then Wikipedia will wish to reexamine its definition of what is significant, as it would appear to be far too limiting. Robert cruickshank 22:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Deletion does not mean obliteration If she does return as a high profile political candidate, we can just take the deleted article out of mothballs. "Delete" just means to remove from public view. Everything is technically kept on Wikipedia servers, even total nonsense articles that have been "deleted". Bwithh 02:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of verifiable sources with which to write at least a modest article. --Delirium 23:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for an article Bwithh 03:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. --Delirium 06:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Losing an election does not relegate you to the category of no longer notable. FinFangFoom
Keep. This was a close race for a long time. Her political career is far from over. Losing an election to the House of Representatives does not mean she is not notable, just like the hundreds of other candidates who lost. --Db099221 00:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Political also-ran. No evidence - just speculation - given that "her political career is far from over" Bwithh 02:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolutely mystifies me why anyone would have a problem with this being in an encyclopaedia that is not made of paper. Grace Note 10:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment John Lake closed the AFD early. I have reopened it - non-admins cannot close articles for deletion debates early unless they are non-controversial (i.e. nom-withdrawn speedy keep, or a unanimous keep after five days). --Core desat 05:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Burner got substantial media coverage both nationally and internationally, and on that basis clearly meets the inclusion criteria under WP:BIO. There were dozens of articles in local, regional, U.S. national, and international press about her specifically, including coverage on the front page of the New York Times, a feature article in New York Times Magazine, a feature article in Vanity Fair, a feature article in the UK Guardian, and dozens of articles in the Seattle Times, the Seattle PI, the Tacoma News-Tribune, the Mercer Island Reporter, plus coverage on television both locally and nationally by way of CBS, NBC, FOX News, MSNBC, ABC, etc. She was one of the top Congressional challengers of 2006. Mere fact of non-election does not negate the notability criteria under WP:BIO, which she clearly meets. (Are the repeated attempts to delete politically motivated?) --Zentalon 23:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all articles about major-party candidates for Congressional seats, per GabrielF's point about historical research. JamesMLane t c 16:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Nihonjoe. MER-C 07:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mojo Energy Drink

Mojo Energy Drink seems to be an advertising page. No references are given and Google searches return almost no unique articles. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP and WP:V with 13 ghits. MER-C 05:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, spam. Speedy template placed. BJ^Talk 07:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KOS | talk 08:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cook

Apparently the author looked in the bathroom mirror, said "Biggie Smalls" three times, then signed the resurrected rapper into an English football club under the pseudonym "Joe Cook" ...Admin refused to speedy this, so here it is... I already copied to WP:BJAODN Tubezone 05:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 06:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trash. Culv e rin ? ^Talk 07:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was already speedy deleted once before by Malo on 21:52, December 13, 2006. Essentially the same article, still non-sense, still a hoax. I'm going to close this AfD and speedy delete the article. KOS | talk 08:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easypath

Contested speedy. Sure looks like egregious spam to me. Proprietary name for particular manufacturing process. I'm happy for them, but we don't need an article consisting mainly of unsourced crowing about how their technique shaves great wads of cost from making FPGAs. Only ref is company site. Herostratus 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 06:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is spam act. It may be permitted to be speedy deletion.--Naohiro19 07:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was turned into a redirect, by the way. FirefoxMan 16:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of MegaMan Battle Network viruses

A poorly-formatted list of inconsistently named extremely minor opponents in a game series. This list of minor, interchangeable viruses is comparable to a list of every single piece of furniture in the Final Fantasy series, or every single kind of block in the Super Mario games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 06:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Nor for that matter is it a GameFAQs mirror. QuagmireDog 11:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 14:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional diseases, though these might not even be notable for that. Koweja 14:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote against that. The viruses in the game in question are computer viruses. --69.156.206.236 22:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, it isn't relevant enough. I change to delete, though if someone wants to create a list of fictional computer viruses that would be acceptable. Koweja 22:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Listcruft, gamecruft, cruftcruft... -- Kicking222 15:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Huge, unmanageable and totally unencyclopedic. The Kinslayer 15:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Same reasons brought up by other users. --Benten 15:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT GameFAQs. Not worth merging. A Train ^{take the} 18:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Shouns 00:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badly written, nearly indiscriminate, and better suited for a game guide where useful information like strategies could actually be included. Without the game guide info that we aren't allowed to keep here, it's useless. --tjstrf talk 02:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why would anyone need this for anything other than a game guide? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:VERIFY. -- Satori Son 05:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G4, A7). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Turtle Records

Non notable young record company. Article was deleted in september after an uncontested prod, but is now recreated. The record label gets only 11 distinct Google hits excluding Myspace [26], and 24 if you include myspace [27]. None of these hits indicate any notability, outside reviews, famous bands, ... Could perhaps be speedied for spam, but I prefer to give it an AfD and get it done with. Fram 06:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - {{db-corp}}. So tagged. MER-C 06:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agnosticalia

Unnotability, never heard of it Splintercellguy 06:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - smells of WP:NFT. MER-C 06:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Nick Graves 06:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. one unrelated google hit. See also Atheist Kids Get Presents Day, coming soon to an AFD near you.--Kchase T 07:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, or redirect to Festivus, which is sort of the same thing. Tubezone 08:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Neil916 (Talk) 09:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Festivus for the rest of us this ain't. Delete Danny Lilithborne 12:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it somehow isn't a hoax the article asserts its own lack of notability. Koweja 14:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While agnosticalia may or may not exist, and may not be possible to tell, it fails to comply with WP:V and WP:RS so must go. Antandrus (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. 1 google hit! TH 08:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Doczilla 01:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft at best, hoax at worst. —ShadowHalo 03:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Claire McCarthy

The result was Speedy Delete as nonsense (without comment on previous admin's decision). AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A kiddie prank article, no monarchs in Bohemia until 910, and they didn't have Scottish names like "McCarthy"... Again, an admin declined to speedy this obvious nonsense. Tubezone 06:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. MER-C 06:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Good catch. WP:NONSENSE defines "patent nonsense" pretty strictly.--Kchase T 06:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been speedied as vandalism, anyway... First line of WP:VANDAL:Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, which pretty much describes what this article is. Tubezone 07:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This daft article was happily sitting in its rightful place - the Proposed Deletion queue - with no further interference from the original author. Why did it need to go through AfD? 193.60.222.2 10:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete garbage. Danny Lilithborne 12:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedly Delete garbage. Who decided not to? What a waste of time to have read it to check.KP Botany 16:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (normal speed) - Yomangani ^talk 00:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peartowers

Speedy deleted, reposted, prodded and speedy-tagged again, but this time around sort of asserts notability. What do you think? Procedural nomination, no opinion. Sandstein 06:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - doesn't even exist. 3 unrelated non-wiki ghits. MER-C 06:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a speedy deletion criterion. It takes more than on or two pairs of eyes to reliably determine that something is unverifiable. Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. Uncle G 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent hoax. No sources.--Kchase T 06:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per MER-C Akihabara 07:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought being a hoax was not a speediable offense. I am routinely told this when I make a comment like "speedy it, it doesn't exist."--Dmz5 07:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true. Hoaxes are explicitly listed at WP:CSD#Non-criteria.--Kchase T 07:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- However, blatant hoaxes may count as vandalism and thus are speediable. MER-C 08:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not to be a jerk, but who says? I mean, check out Factory: The Musical. Is this speedyable? I once got a rather curt message from an admin who chewed me out a bit for using that kind of reasoning during an AfD debate, so I have been eager to see it applied consistently.--Dmz5 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, I see who says, its in the criteria, but nonetheless, it's tough to be consistent on this one--Dmz5 16:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The key words are "blatant" and "may". Taking an existing article about a figure, replacing the name with something else, and then posting it as a new name under that new name is a blatant hoax. (People have already done this, most recently with Fictional Jimbo Wales (AfD discussion).) But something that is not self-evidently a hoax, but that requires some amount of actual checking to determine that it is a hoax, is not a blatant hoax. One of the very purposes of AFD is to enable multiple editors to do the research, allowing one editor to spot what another may have missed. Uncle G 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        So then, is this article a speedy candidate or no?--Dmz5 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete There was a link to the page at some point, but it has no alexa rating, fails WP:WEB, and I have had a difficult time trying to keep a speedy tag on it, since they were being removed improperly without an admin checking it over.Booshakla 08:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning why hoax is not speedy is, or at least ought to be, that this is not the sort of judgment a single person should make, as its basically saying "I have never heard of it." DGG 02:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small amateur blog or kid fun site for one of the several towns called Ashton in the UK. Fails WP:WEB for no proper references in the article that verify notability. Tubezone 15:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 00:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rustoleum as an automobile paint

WP:NOT for how-to content. Tagged for speedy deletion, but meets no criteria of WP:CSD. Sandstein 06:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 06:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Grutness...wha? 06:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. You can just prod stuff like this.--Kchase T 06:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John Lake 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. list of state sponsors of international terrorism

How can this wreck of a page ever be NPOV? There isn't even a single source for this list, and why do we need to promote a single state's opinions about other states? --Nyp 06:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to U.S. State Department list of state sponsors of international terrorism. I have a vague suspicion this could be bad faith, but I'll say no more on that. The US is the third largest nation in population and armed forces personnel so it's governmental reports do have global significance and notability. If India, China, or Russia have similar reports I'd think they also deserve attention.--T. Anthony 07:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are incorrect in regards of me doing this in bad faith, but have a look at the page itself. There is no source whatsoever to such a report, there are no sources for the accusations against the listed states, so in difference to the article Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America this article is pretty much only a promotion of these allegations and I cannot see a way to improve that. There are articles with allegations against certain states, we do not need an article with allegations by a certain state. --Nyp 07:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as the report(s) is notable. Whether it's accusations are fair or not is not important. The allegations or claims in the Parliamentary Commission about Cults in France or the Mazengarb Report need not be true in order for the report to be of historic significance.--T. Anthony 08:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the existence of these articles. Even though I agree with that they justify the existence of the article in question I still believe that a state's opinions should not be the subject of an article, but only be referenced to in articles about the subject that the opinions are about. --Nyp 08:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Category:Government reports. No worries, the place is so big no one could be aware of all of it.--T. Anthony 09:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to U.S. State Department list of state sponsors of international terrorism. Canadian-Bacon 07:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would also be fine.--T. Anthony 07:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per T. Anthony. Akihabara 07:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess you can throw up your hands and send it to AFD or use "the Google" on "the Internets" and get this in a nanosecond: Terrorist Nations Why do you think its a wreck? Bad faith nom. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have stated why I believe this article to be a wreck. If you disagree with my reasoning, it is your issue, not mine. --Nyp 08:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for adding the references to the page. --Nyp 09:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It wouldn't be NPOV if you knocked the "U.S." off the front, but it's fine to include the content as is. Endorse rename, as well.--Kchase T 08:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: renaming: It's a minor point, but since we're renaming, State actually calls it "State Sponsors of Terrorism" (sans "international"), though they obviously are international. Any thoughts on this?--Kchase T 08:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I agree it should be renamed. DelPlaya 08:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Undeniably a notable subject. Obviously needs the proper sources, etc. I have no problem with renaming it, though I personally see no problem with the current title since such a listing is driven by the U.S. 23skidoo 14:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Anthony FirefoxMan 16:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the subject is notable and useful enough. Also support the renaming. TSO1D 21:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily notable enough, it seems to be rather common knowledge since I heard it on the news whenever Libya or Iran was mentioned. I too have no problem with the name, although am not prejudiced to a name change if consensus agrees on a better one. hateless 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I think that even the people who place nations on this list would be very willing to call it "The US State Department list..." or possibly "The US Government list ..." That's what is is, and thats what it say it is. Nobody would claim it represents general opinion; it is not even intended to, it is intended to represent the expert opinion of the compilers. And I suppose it does. How many other people in the US would say it represents their opinions is another matter, but that would be OR. DGG 02:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to U.S. State Department list of state sponsors of international terrorism (Liveforever22 03:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep has the nominator even worked on this article? Travb (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 00:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GameComm

Fails WP:SOFTWARE and has no reliable sources BJ^Talk 06:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Beta software. MER-C 07:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article non-verifiable at this point. Appears to contain speculation as well as original research. Vanispamcruftisement. Canadian-Bacon 07:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing quite a few things, most significantly notability and verifiability. Koweja 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, Wikipedia is not the place to drum up interest in your new beta-phase software. The Kinslayer 15:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in agreement with all of the comments above. Jake b 17:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Neurophyre^(talk) 19:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oxford University Labour Club. Nothing is sourced, so nothing for me to merge directly, but the edit history is preserved if someone wants to include sourced content in the OULC article. ~ trialsanderrors 02:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look Left

Is Rupert Murdoch big enough to save this weekly student rag published by Oxford University Labour Club? This is one great big list to massage the egos of those Labour Club secretaries. Delete or mergeandredirectto Oxford University Labour Club: the choice is yours. Ohconfucius 07:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Oxford University Labour Club.--TBCΦtalk? 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per nom.
Strong Keep Oxford university Labour Club is the breading ground of UK cabinet ministers. That this, its journal, has been at one time edited by a later media baron makes it notable in itself. But that it has also been edited by the current prime minister's son, Nicky Blair, makes it notable beyond simply the society to which it belongs.--Sandy Scott 10:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Not notable independent of OULC but OULC is itself notable. Fys. Ta fys aym. 13:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete keep it simple. Not every organisation a notable person belonged to is notable. At minimum merge and redirect.Obina 23:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Not notable enough for it's own article but info is probably useful enough to be in club page.≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. --- RockMFR 01:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist Kids Get Presents Day

This article was created by the same person who created Agnosticalia, an apparent hoax/nonsense. This has a few more Ghits, but it's all columnists using the phrase as an aside, forum posts and the like. It was used as a phrase a few times, but otherwise doesn't register. Kchase T 07:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 07:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable holiday and possible hoax.--TBCΦtalk? 07:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn till it gets some press (waits for O'Reilly). BJ^Talk 07:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Neil916 (Talk) 09:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Should exist but doesn't. :-) -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 11:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dumb Articles Get Deleted Day Danny Lilithborne 12:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that every day? -- saberwyn 21:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also strongly believe that this is a hoax. --- Tito Pao 13:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BOLLOCKS FirefoxMan 16:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsensce! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what non-sense is this? TSO1D 21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax-like nonsense per commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 03:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete nonsense. Storm05 15:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Doczilla 01:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is pretty non-notable (just 23 Google hits), and a possible hoax. --Kyok o 00:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete bollocks. Are the presents delivered by annual gift man? -- IslaySolomon | talk 09:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original Research, or no citations.Tragic romance 10:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Sharp

Unreferenced autobiography of a non-notable person. Contested prod. MER-C 07:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable.--Kchase T 08:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 00:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Field (musician)

Doesn't seem to be very notable. I couldn't find much info on him. External links are his website, a magazine that has printed 6 issues, and a foreign website with an interview about his artwork.--Joe Jklin (T C) 07:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep: Without really trying I found this article about him in The Portland Mercury. --Howrealisreal 16:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Changing to reg keep based on Dhartung's research. --Howrealisreal 18:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obscure like most K Records artists but I found four independent reviews in no time [28][29][30][31] as well as print cites to The Age (Aus) and Sacramento. I would merge the band article with him, though. --Dhartung | Talk 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough to be deemed "notable." CuriousGiselle 19:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 08:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family dictatorship

This is problematic on two counts. First: it is assumed that there is a definition for the word "dictator", which in today's usage signifies an autocratic, tyrannical ruler - an inherently subjective definition. (Yes, one could re-name the ever-popular List of Dictators to List of people called Dictators or something, but time would be better spent at calling those rulers by their nominal title and instead discussing the political system in depth.)

Second: the fact that an autocrat might choose to pass on the anoint a family membe his successor is extremely trivial. Running a hgovernment racket is profitable and of course one chooses to keep the profits in the family.

Trivial, subjective stuff. Dr Zak 07:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excellent scholarly work. Its only trivial to a trivial mind. I am not really sure what the objection is or what rule is being violated. The material is not subjective at all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked: what is violated is the prohibition on original research because it isn't at all clear what a "dictator" is or who qualifies as a one. Someone below mentioned that calling Lee Kuan Yew a dictator might raise eyebrows, and if Fidel Castro qualifies depends strongly on who you ask. Thanks for listening. Oh, another thing: you said you are not sure what the issue is, yet vote on it anyway. Don't do that, it's silly. Dr Zak 13:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant when I mentioned Lee was that he was the kind of person whose inclusion or non-inclusion would prove controversial without an accepted definition of what a "dictator" actually is. That said, there is such a thing (and I'm pretty sure the Wiktionary entry is good, too), so that needn't be an issue. As with a great many other articles on controversial topics, however, this one would have to be watched carefully to make certain that someone with an axe to grind didn't argue that someone who wasn't accepted as a dictator should be included on the list. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article you are quoting is very clear in that the term is inherently polemic, current in popular use only and unsuitable in serious political discussion. Dr Zak 17:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article I quote does two things. Firstly, it sets out something approaching a definition of the term. Secondly, it explains that in popular usage, the term is thrown around a bit more liberally. The fact that a given term is misunderstood by the man in the street doesn't mean that it doesn't have a valid definition - there's no end of political and scientific terms which would have no definitions if this were the case. Our task, assuming this article is kept, is to make the definition abundantly clear (political scientists love definitions, so it shouldn't be hard) and then to make certain that the only people who turn up on the list are covered by the definition. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the same article at all? Could you point out where either dictator or dictatorship gives a definition that goes beyond "epithet for Heads of State with autocratic tendencies that we happen to despise"? Dr Zak 16:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly." It's not a great definition, no, but it is a different one from the definition in the next paragraph which begins "in popular usage". As I said above, what we have is something vaguely approaching a definition of the term. Our task is to take what's there and (with the usual reference to reliable sources) establish a solid working definition. Once we have one, it's a simple case of comparing those on the list with the definition. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the article on "dictatorship" makes the following attempt: "dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state." Again, not an award-winning piece of prose, but a start. Both definitions are significantly less subjective than the words you've put into their mouths. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Is the "trivial mind" comment really necessary, Richard?--Kchase T 08:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In the words of Triumph the insult comic dog: "I kid, I kid.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 09:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Keep I really don't see a reason to delete either. Arguably communist dictatorships are a distinct phenomenon where power doesn't go through bloodlines. And political scientists argue endlessly about definitions of such words, but that doesn't mean we can't use them. If certain leaders are widely regarded as dictators, I'd say it's NPOV to list them as such in an article like this.--Kchase T 08:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, as this would appear to be a distinct phenomenon from your regular dictatorship in which power is just shared by a party. That said, a list like this could easily attract controversy (I'm sure there'll be some Singaporean editors who won't like the inclusion of the Lee Family here, for instance) either over what's present or what isn't, so it'll need to be kept an eye on. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, describes an existing phenomena and for many of Europe's nobility it is much less than trivial. In most families the elder gets all and has to take care of the younger as he (sometimes she) sees fit. It can be a very lucrative racket Alf photoman 14:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs more sources. The political science term is personalistic regime and variations. --Dhartung | Talk 18:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to write an article on personalistic regimes, more power to him. Handing the power of government over to a family member is but one facet of the phenomenon. By the way, sources are not optional here. Dr Zak 18:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable that some dictators do in various ways transmit their position to family members, and some do not, and it is useful having a list of the ones who do. DGG 02:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information is very useful and deserves a place in Wikipedia. If the term "dictator" is too subjective to some, maybe a new name for the article can be agreed upon. I'd be agreeable to a redirect to personalistic regimes. Jsc1973 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Admonish nominator. Grace Note 09:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Possible abuse of AfD, unforunatly way to common on wikipedia. Travb (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no references to anything scholarly. This is a partisan political term at this point, and it even has invalid coinages in it ("personalistic?"). A Republic has no dictatorships, and dicatatorships do not abide by a republican model. This is the equivalent of saying "Anarchist beaurocracy." There is no scholarly standing. There is, however, partisan political standing. The first usage goes to references to the Kennedy's, and the right wing tossed it about in the US, then the left with the Bushes, and now the right with the Clintons. Until there are some real sources to real political science texts, this is just more partisan thuggery. Geogre 20:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can think of one case where it could have applied: Richard Cromwell, but the fact that he got chased off kind of proves that it wasn't a dictatorship after all. Silly stuff. Geogre 02:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Geogre, I can't find anythign scholarly to back this up. Those references which do exist use it mainly as a synonym for nepotism. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, term used by various geographically and politically unrelated sources, the New York Times, the Associated Press, the BBC, military history professors, Time magazine, The Australian. None of these are blogs or partisan soapboxes, and none of these refer to U.S. presidents, despite Geogre's assertions. — CharlotteWebb 03:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. All of those use the common adjective "family" with the noun "dictatorship," and none of them is a discussion of this as a political phenomenon. That they're not about our own fringe users is a sign of how utterly irrelevant they are. Geogre 13:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there was no political phenomenon, mainstream media wouldn't be making widespread, un-coerced use of the term, but they are. And they are referring, in the most part, to the same political figures listed in the article. The second part of your comment looks like an attack on somebody, so I'll ignore it. — CharlotteWebb 13:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It was no attack on anyone. You said that the references weren't to the U.S. fringe partisans, and I said that was proof of how irrelevant they are to the real press. Don't go looking for insults where none are intended. The fact that all of your references are to the Duvaliers is a demonstration of the echo effect of newspapers. When an organization like the AP uses a colorful term, that term will be picked up by other accounts. The same is true of the New York Times. It is not surprising that an account of Baby Doc is going to have the same usage of a common adjective with a common noun. It does not point to a phenomenon. The phenomenon here is that Baby Doc took over. There was no "republic" there. It was just plain old dictatorship. Geogre 17:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quick! Someone should add Bush in there! </trolling> bogdan 22:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 08:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Network (Logos)

Gallery of fair use images with little context. Contested prod. MER-C 07:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT a collection of image galleries. Might be encyclopedically incorporated into main article, but not in this form. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that a history of Seven Network logos is important. Mabye a description of why each logo was chosen and why it was replaced would be nice, but regardless it is an important part of Seven Network history, and belongs in Wikipedia. -- Whats new? ^(Talk) 19:32, 14 December 2006 (AEDST)
- This article is not such a history, and does not contain any of the content that you describe. Uncle G 16:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Network TEN (Logos) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Nine Network (Logos) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) added to this nomination due to the exact same concerns. MER-C 08:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the following articles Seven Network (Logos), Nine Network (Logos) and Network TEN (Logos), are usefull, as they remove the numerous logo galleries that previously cluttered their main articles of Seven Network, Nine Network and Network TEN. These articles are to reduce the clutter caused by logos from Pre-Network years on the networks page. If wanted, I could change the article title to, for example, History of Seven Network Logos, to encourage other wikipedians to add a description of the history of these logos. However, I personally prefer the page the way it is. Stickeylabel 09:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your preference does not override our Wikipedia:Copyright policy and Wikipedia:Image use policy, or our policy that Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of photographs or media files. Galleries of copyrighted images, such as these, are only permissible as fair use if, for starters, they are used for the purposes of analysis or criticism. If the article contains no actual analysis or criticism, and is simply a bare gallery of images, then it is not permitted. Uncle G 16:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In all of the above cases, the articles should be moved, as "logos" should not be capitalized in the titles of the articles. -- Kicking222 15:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the copyright problems identified by Uncle G. It would also need verifiable information from reliable sources to warrant keeping. Capitalistroadster 01:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Taking into consideration everyones comments, I agree that it would be best to Delete the following articles Seven Network (Logos), Nine Network (Logos) and Network TEN (Logos). I have now reintergrated the logos back into their respective main network articles, and am going to organise them in an uncluttered arrangement through the use of columns. Thankyou everyone, and again, I am sorry for creating these articles.Stickeylabel 02:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to apologise for anything; you haven't done anything wrong. JROBBO 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per What's New, although if Stickeylabel has merged the article back into the Seven Network page, then there's no need to keep this one as well (except that it takes up quite a large amount of room and will make the article too big.) JROBBO 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To reduce the large amount of room that the Pre-Network logos took up, I have moved those logos into their station pages. For example old Seven Melbourne logos are at the HSV-7 article. This removes the non-network logos from the network page, and adds them to their rightful location. Also, to ensure quick access to the pre-network logos, I have added links to their articles below the normal network logos. I hope this resolves the issue. Thanks.Stickeylabel 03:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Stickeylabel's merge. Lankiveil 05:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - page is now unnecessary, due to the merge. (I especially liked the common sense idea of putting all the historical logos into the appropriate local station articles - nicely done!) Quack 688 06:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 02:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metalocalypse trivia

List of trivia copied from old version of List of Metalocalypse episodes. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor does such fancruft deserve its own page. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because some person posted a message on your talk page, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete agreed very cruff like.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BJ^Talk 09:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 10:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is not indiscriminate information it is relevant, it explains many things that casual watchers might not understand. Also Someguy is stalking me. Bobthehun2 23:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Attempted vote-stacking by user. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A page especially for trivia? Ugh. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. --tjstrf talk 01:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is not indiscriminate information it is all perfectly relevant to the show. Aside from that, countless other wikipedia pages have trivia sections that are accepted. This trivia section does not match any of the examples given on the indiscriminate collection of information section of the WP:NOT page. It is not an FAQ, it is not a travel guide, it is not a memorial, it is not an instruction manual, it is not an internet guide, it is not a textbook or annotated text, and it is not a plot summary. Unless Someguy0830 can get an 8th section added to that rule stating that it is not a source of relevant trivia, it's a moot point to even reference. The definition of indiscriminate is "failing to make or recognize distinctions" or "not marked by fine distinctions," anybody reading this trivia can plainly see that the vast majority of this trivia either deals with references to real life heavy metal bands or recurring issues in the show. It is blatantly incisive. The only reason I would opt for deletion of this page is if it were integrated back into the main metalocalypse article. Countless other tv shows have trivia sections in their articles, such as, CSI: Miami, The Sopranos, Seinfeld, NYPD Blue, the list goes on and on. Other tv shows such as The Venture Brothers and Kappa Mikey have "references" or "themes" sections. How about we just change the heading of this trivia section to references and themes"?Karpsmom 20:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this !vote was solicited.
  - It's a lie that my vote was solicited, simply because Bobthehun2 put that message in my talkpage, does not mean it had any bearing on my voting. I found that note after I voted, I would have given this vote regardless.Karpsmöm 19:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified indiscriminate fancruft. An article made up of unpublished analyses. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, add WP:NOT (which appears to have been missed when linking "indiscriminate") in the above by IslaySolomon and it sums up my thoughts quite nicely. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Struck, see below. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's no reason why Metalocalypse can't have trivia when there are many, many pre-existing and well known television series that have trivia of their own.MalikCarr 07:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this !vote was solicited.
- — MalikCarr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- WP:INN. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What the hell is the above supposed to mean? I've argued in favor of keeping trivia sections since the article was created; not being able to upload images anonymously forced me to create an account, hence its relatively recent creation date and lack of edited articles. This just adds to the overtly heavy-handed tactics used in this particular AfD. MalikCarr 09:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A little investigation shows this AFD is not made in good faith, and the page itself is useful. Jtrainor 07:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first reason for keeping is extremely flawed, and the latter is nearly as much. Whether this AfD was made in good faith or not, we are here to evaluate the article, not the nominator. Whether the page is useful or not does not dictate its' inclusion - see WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:V, three core foundation policies that cannot be overriden for purely "useful" reasons. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and information that is notable and verifable (or otherwise critical to the main article) can easily be merged into the article text. --Sigma 7 12:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I like the show, but this is too indiscriminate a collection of information for my tastes (and for WP:Not). --TheOther Bob 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge with Metalocalypse or its related episodes article. This is a large trivia section, yes, but there are a lot of references in the show that many people would otherwise not understand. Personal note: I wrote about the show for my college paper, and referred readers to Wikipedia if they didn't understand the references in the show. --DodgerOfZion 00:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of OR, unverified material, and although WP:TRIVIA semi-discourages it, I would be happy with a slight cut-down, some good, detailed sourcing (see WP:RS), and then a merge into either one of those you suggested. Probably the episodes would be easier - having a giant trivia section on the main article page would be overkill, just as the current article devoted solely to trivia is. However, if it doesn't show any sign of being sourced, I will let my original delete stand. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How would I go about doing this? The only way I could think of possibly sourcing connections between the points made on the page and what they refer to would be through picture files. Would an outside link do? --DodgerOfZion 00:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess...this is the main problem with Trivia sections; they're all mainly OR. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm negotiating with some fellow Dethheads to get some of this trivia verified and hosted off-Wiki. Quite frankly, without this page (or its predecessor), half the people I know who watch this show wouldn't know WTF anything referred to. --DodgerOfZion 00:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy with whatever trivia can be reliably sourced to some degree. That said, I'm against any section specificaly dedicated to such trivia, because such things are what encouraged this in the first place. Merging it into the text would be fine so long as it's not too much. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a couple hours with Google and possibly CaptureWizPro, and I can probably source anything and everything in the article. That said, I'm trying to talk someone into verifying things for me so that it doesn't get banished to Wiki-Hell. --DodgerOfZion 02:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you right now that there's only one place you're going to be reliably sourcing any of this, and that's from creator interviews. You want Dethklok's and its creators' MySpace pages for such things. Either that or AS.com. You won't be combing such things from Google. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more along the lines of photographic evidence using a GIS, and of course I'll look to those places first, but on the other hand, they're not going to be explicit about what refers to what. Did I break your tables yet? :P --DodgerOfZion 02:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tables? Whatever. Photographic comparisons would require you to upload image after image combined to demonstrate that, which would go well beyond any rationale of fair-use. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any and all photographs relating to any points on this page would be on outside sources. I wouldn't use Wiki's image servers to prove a point. For a lot of the facts, I only need to prove that these bands/songs/albums/whatever reference actually exist, it seems. --DodgerOfZion 03:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you need to prove is that any comparison made is an intentional one on the part of the creators, not simply a noticed similarity by a random fan, which is in essence what every one of these trivia blurbs is. Of course the bands exist. People aren't stupid. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Settle down, Beavis. Anyways, I've already gotten offers from people to help me verify these. I'll be scouring and watching for a while after finals. I guarantee if this page is kept, there'll be at least three different outside pages linked from it. --DodgerOfZion 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)--DodgerOfZion 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This information can be found on other sites, so if anything simply provide a link to those sites. The information cannot be sourced, save for fan's "knowledge" of the intricacies of the show, which falls more into the personal research realm, which is not allowed, rather than a verifiable/reliable source, which is. I love the trivia, and find it interesting, but due to it having no sources to back up its claims, it needs to be deleted. -- ModernTenshi04 16:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it would be best to have an off-site link to a repository of the more OR-ish claims, but some idiot or idiots keep deleting any links I put into the Metalocalypse episodes pages. With that kind of attitude going around, what recourse is there but to have a trivia page itself?MalikCarr 09:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. Of course, a lot of the information on Wikipedia can be found on other sites. ModernTenshi's argument just seems kind of weak. It's not just 'intricacies of the show,' but a lot of it seems to be based on a knowledge of trivia concerning heavy metal bands and trademarks.--MythicFox 18:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourceable claims into the episodes list article, delete the rest. Quack 688 07:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia such as this simply doesn't belong here. --71.194.243.237 14:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Episodes list. While some of the Trivia would be nice wtih something resembling official source material, a lot of it is along the lines of "this store or this fictional location happens to have the same name as a well-known musician." I mean, how do you research something like that any further? Most of the individual material is fine as-is. It's just awkward to have a seperate Trivia page.--MythicFox 18:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a collection of interesting information that any person might like to know. I never caught all of the Cannibal Corpse references until this article. We should keep it.--168.103.48.191 18:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Quack 688, doesn't need own article. Makgraf 08:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but split into separate articles for each episode. // Gargaj 22:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A relatively small show like Metalocalypse doesn't need its own trivia article. Coronation Street, maybe, with it's 40-odd years of tenure. But not Metalocalypse. Delete the list, or gut it down and merge it back in to the main article. ♠P M C♠ 02:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TRIV, unless someone would like to attempt a merge now. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the entire article is Original Research with no verifiable reliable sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wickethewok 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity: The Quest For Earth

Game in development (WP:NOT a crystal ball), has only a main website as a source, no multiple reliable indepedent third-party media coverage (WP:V and WP:N) The Kinslayer 12:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 12:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, unverifiable and non-notable crystal ballery. MER-C 13:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, ~~Keep~~, certainly should not be deleted. The article needs clean up but I'm familiar with this one, there are other independent references available. The technology behind it is incredible (and being used in Openlancer). If its deleted I'll reopen it myself! --MegaBurn 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, But it certainly needs some editing. I'll find some 3rd party references for it tomorrow. Communisthamster 21:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 6th Dec 2006 (GMT)[reply]
- Just to let you know, Googles only turning up videos, blogs and froum posts in response to a search, and none of those are valid sources, but if you can find some good soruces, that'll be fine. The Kinslayer 21:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Found the Atomic magazine article but I can't find a decent link to it, doesn't even show up on Atomic's site search. Theres a scan available on the Infinity forums, I'm hesitant to link to it due to the blatant copyright violation but this thread discusses it. Theres another magazine article around but its older and I think it focuses more on the game engine technology than the game itself (UK game dev zine maybe, can't remember...). The Google results do include other notable sources but for each its little more than a paragraph, guess that doesn't help. I'll keep looking. Like I said, do not delete this article - independent sources are available, it is notable, it can be verified, and if it is deleted I will recreate it within hours. --MegaBurn 16:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You really should check wiki polcies before making statements like 'I will recreate it within hours' since then it can be speedy deleted within minutes as recreated deleted content. The Kinslayer 16:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Funny. Not if I edit the article and repost it on the grounds it was wrongfully deleted in the first place. The article is a mess, I'll give you that, but with the Atomic article as a primary source and a couple dozen notable minor sources (Google results, some German) the WP:N/WP:V concerns should be satisfied. "Game in development" is not a valid cause for AFD nomination, thats why the future game tag exists. The WP:NOT "a crystal ball" claim isn't valid, it doesn't need independent sources to be satisfied, any evidence the claims are valid will suffice - like the videos, screen shots, and the combat prototype (a fully functional game by itself). The only logical result can be keep for cleanup. I'm changing my stance to speedy keep and starting on the article cleanup. You're welcome to continue whining or move on with your AFD crusade, I'm just starting to enjoy myself. --MegaBurn 18:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please be civil to other editors. Thank you. Uncle G 17:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Threats and Counter threats are not helpful here. --OPless 22:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the page needs some major work to bring it up to standards, I've done some brief research and edited it. But I think it should not be removed. I will attempt to contact the developers to see if they can generate some "official" press releases, as there are little in the way of (online) primary sources other than interviewing the developers directly and their website.--OPless 22:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding online primary sources, if it helps there's a section on moddb.com including a three page interview with the developer, screenshots and videos. 83.147.168.73 18:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C Nashville Monkey 09:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 08:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate when the game gets some reliable source informaton. BCoates 10:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any reliable sources, as an indie game in early development there is no cast-iron guarantee the project will ever be completed. Once it is, hopefully some sources would become available, but until then it seems like advertising. QuagmireDog 11:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Atomic magazine could certainly be usable in the future but to me doesn't warrant an article about something so early in development, particularly when sources will appear when the game is actually completed. On that note, anyone interested in the game and the article would be well advised to download copies of the article pages and find out the relevant info to provide it as a published source, whilst both are still available. QuagmireDog 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Atomic mag is only one reliable reputable source, but the article needs Multiple, reliable, reputable, non-trivial, third-party sources to cite. The articles must be about the game and nothing but the game (no compliations, no 'in passing' mentions). Right now we have a crystal ball article. Also, "official" press releases, and any articles just reprinting the press releases are not acceptable per WP:V or WP:RS--Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinball FX

Deprodded. Notability not established, no indication that it has been or will be released. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Kchase T 08:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not verifiable. BJ^Talk 09:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 15:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable and reads like a magazine advert. The Kinslayer 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, apparent hoax. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elk trout

Hoax article. There is no species as Salmo cervus, or a fish with a common name as "elk trout". The "the Elk trout have minor horns protruding just above their eyes" sentence is a dead giveaway. Article creation is the editor's only contributions to Wikipedia. Neil916 (Talk) 08:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. There are plenty of lodges named Elk Trout Lodge, but there is no elk trout (salmo cervus). SWAdair 09:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. - Eron ^Talk 16:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax, creator having no other contributions is always a bad sign. Newyorkbrad 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like another version of jackalope. Suggest a redirect? 68.39.174.238 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No basis for that. This is a bogus fish whose name is a pun on the Elks organization, no relation to jackalope. Newyorkbrad 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jackalope is an article about a hoax; this article is a hoax. A key difference. - Eron ^Talk 01:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but that can easily be solved by a redirect. There are tons of these "tourist-fooling" animals, including the close relative to this, the "fur-bearing trout". However, given that I can't turn up pages on Google even about the HOAX, it seems destined for deletion as unverifyable rather then redirectable. 68.39.174.238 07:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. TSO1D 21:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Hoax articles are not candidates for speedy deletion. Neil916 (Talk) 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. Newyorkbrad 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Wikipedia adopted a Limbo namespace, this article could be moved to Limbo during the discussion on deletion. Moving an article to Limbo would remove it from the article namespace and prevent search engines from delivering suspicious content while the community decides whether to keep or delete it. For more information, see the discussion on establishing the Limbo namespace. Fg2 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Doczilla 02:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. —ShadowHalo 03:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But feel free to add a note about it to my discussion page and il get it into a folklore article if it fits !paradigm! 03:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)!paradigm[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Lectonar. MER-C 10:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael's exciting life

A webcomic with no assertion of notability. Renata 08:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - {{db-web}}. So tagged. MER-C 08:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canderson7 ^(talk) 13:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunting-Friedmann Threat Index

The "Bunting-Friedmann Threat Index" was contrived in a one-shot joke in a Penny Arcade blog post. In that post, two levels on this "index" were supplied. The rest of the levels listed in the article were made up by:

Ajmastrean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
141.161.17.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
75.177.10.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cheshirewolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

—MementoVivere (talk · contribs) 09:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:NFT, hoax, 2 non-wiki ghits. Given with a "level 4" "D'Oh". SkierRMH,09:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as prank article vandalism, CSD G3, block the SPA perps for awhile, too, while we're at it. Tubezone 09:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. MER-C 10:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Roland

Several apparent problems with this. WP:COI, article was created by the subject of the article; no assertion of notability, no sources other than the subject's own websites; and the article is about a failed third party candidate from an already-concluded election. This was a contested prod back in August but never brought to AFD. I'm doing it now. Dragomiloff 09:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity article that does not meet any of the WP:BIO criteria - Peripitus (Talk) 10:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, never should have been kept in the first place.--chris.lawson 14:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity FirefoxMan 16:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Two-time nominee for Texas Attorney General by his party. — Bellhalla 16:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanugulen Ravindran

It is a vanity page. "--Railcgun 13:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

As above - this page was deleted yesterday as vanity and has been recreated by the same user. The text is almost all false, and the user certainly doesn't meet notability. gummAY 09:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Fails WP:BIO. Fourth repost. MER-C 10:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as above. Apparent vanity and/or hoax article. Dragomiloff 10:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How would you know that the text is almost all false gummAY? Besides, most of the rookies or senior AFL players who have yet to debut have got pages such as Andrew Collins, Luke McGuane, and Travis Casserly who all play for my club the Richmond Football Club. As I have said in the discussion tab of Thanugulen Ravindran, we are prepared to delete the 'music' sub-heading as it is irrelevant apparently 'it doesn't meet notability'. Thank you. Bit off topic, but did you know 'Asheek Khan' gummAY? -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.105.94 (talk • contribs).
Comment The Collingwood Football Club lists its draft pick of 2006 as Ben Reid, Nathan Brown, Chris Dawes, Brad Dick and Tyson Goldsack. Additionally, the AFL draft lists do not contain 'Thanugulen Ravindran'. --gummAY 02:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's because he's on the rookie list!!!

I read on the Haileybury's discussion page that you graduated in 2004. Asheek is my brother is all.

Delete and salt per above. I put the article up one of its earlier speedy deletions, and it just continues to grow more ridiculous. --Eyrian 00:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt this silliness. The only relevant ghit for this guy is as a minor player on the Berwick cricket team. If it hadn't been for WP delete logs for earlier deletions, he'd have been be my first googlewhack. Tubezone 00:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see the user's upload log - [45]. He has uploaded three pictures of different people that are named some form of "Thanugulen Ravindran". Unless he's a changeling, something isn't right. BigDT 01:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bartley

The subect does not seem all that notable and may be only of very narrow sectarian interest. Apart from his day job, he writes book reviews in the Guardian. The vast majority of hits for reviews of his book are from booksellers' sites (including several for www.ekklesia.co.uk, which he heads), I only found one independent review for the Subversive Manifesto, and one for Faith and Politics After Christendom, but am unsure about the quality of the sources. Neither book is ranked by Amazon.com. Ohconfucius 09:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both are actually ranked by Amazon [46] [47]. Given the publishing houses, and given that the second amazon listing indicates a recommendation by David Alton, these are not vanity works. By 'Sectarian' I take it you mean Christian? --Sandy Scott 10:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, there is actually a BBC story about this guy [48]. They seem to consider him notable enough to be a rent-a-quote [49] [50] [51] indeed try [52]--Sandy Scott 10:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the independent references make him notable as per WP:N. Ccscott 11:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appearances on BBC mean that some people might want to know about him. JamesMLane t c 16:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 list of towers. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loth Tower

We have been deleting all masts without significance below 350m in height. I propose to knock this 25m wooden observation tower on the head too, unless someone can indicate why this mast may be notable.... Ohconfucius 09:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't have an article on every tower/building/big tree. Almost no hits on the web and no news articles. Not noted and so not notable - Peripitus (Talk) 09:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge why remove verifiable information from Wikipedia? If nothing much can be said, then merge this to an article on the village etc.--Sandy Scott 10:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this information and more already exists in List of towers, how, exactly, is this "removing verifiable information from Wikipedia"? Uncle G 17:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 11:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 25 meters is just a hair below a height exhibiting significance. -- Kicking222 15:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been debated at length at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts. Since it contains nothing except what is already in list of towers Redirect to list of towers, per Wikipedia:Redirect. Uncle G 17:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as an attack article that is a thinly veiled negative characterization of an identifiable person. I was going to let the discussion run its course, with a strong recommendation to delete it if no sources were forthcoming by the end of the AFD discussion period, until I read the Slashdot thread. It's clear from reading that that this is a mis-use of Wikipedia to promote a protologism, and that there is zero chance of sources being provided, since no sources exist for something that was made up on Slashdot one day in the hopes that "people would start actually using the term". Uncle G 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuttling

A somewhat unknown neologism. Might be merge material, but based on a random it doesn't appear to be exactly widespread (Most google hits appear to be in German; I get 38 distinct google hits in English). wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a random addendum: What I searched for. Not all of these are about the neologism either. For what it's worth, witness the birth of this article in Slashdot. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 11:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 13:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OddManOut

Non-notable unsigned kids band without any commercial releases. Also doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). Most likely a vanity page. kollision 10:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - {{db-band}}. So tagged. MER-C 11:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - obvious vanity. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 11:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Might have qualified as a speedy. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Jacinto

Delete per WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:COI. Created by User:Onodream (domain name of his site). 38 unique Ghits for him and 5 unique hits for "Spirit, Concrete, Earth" Ohconfucius 10:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like vanity author--Sandy Scott 10:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced autobiography of a non-notable person. MER-C 11:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Prodded by nominator, who doesn't think this is worth having a 5-day discussion over.. riana_dzasta 13:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Oats

Probably qualifies for speedying under A7, but I just want to err on the side of caution. Hardly notable enough for its own article. riana_dzasta 11:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fancruft of the highest order. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Should have been prodded. MER-C 11:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 08:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of famous bastards

Listcruft, and quite offensive to those people who have (through no fault of their own) parents who were not married to each other. It might be argued to move to List of people born outside of marriage or some such title but that would be a useless list of mere coincidences. Fys. Ta fys aym. 11:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The list is good. At finnish wikipedia even the leading moderator has contributed to it. The list can be limited to non-living persons if it feels offensive. But these days reasonable people do not see being a bastard as a bad thing. The title can be changed but that has nothing to do with deletion. Many readers of wikipedia will sure find the list interesting, especially after it has grown a bit. --Jarkka Saariluoma 12:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment is by the page creator. Note that the edit summary when the page was created was "YOU FUCKING BASTARDS!!!". Fys. Ta fys aym. 13:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? If you do not have any arguments relevant for this discussion, then no need of whining. --Jarkka Saariluoma 13:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The arguments are in the nomination. I merely wished to point to the fact that you were intimately involved with the article, and that your comment on creating it was not in line with your comment that "these days reasonable people do not see being a bastard as a bad thing" - or are you not among these "reasonable people"? Fys. Ta fys aym. 13:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not very reasonable. --Jarkka Saariluoma 13:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. The list is encyclopedic, but needs referencing. The has to be removed from the title per the naming conventions, and the term bastard is too ambiguous. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment per User:23skidoo: the word "famous" needs to be removed from the title as well, since any person on any list on wikipedia needs to pass the notability guidelines anyway. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:NPOV as it requires a POV judgement as to who is "famous", plus it's completely unsourced. If this article is kept it MUST be renamed without the "The" article. I would have moved the article myself but I can't since it's now in the AFD pipeline. 23skidoo 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gross NPOV violation, unreferenced, and would be better as a category anyway. [ælfəks] 14:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just asking to be libellous. We'd need every entry referenced. At leas a category allows those with a particular knowledge of an individual to see them categories and remove the category if it is inappropriate. --Sandy Scott 14:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it was renamed it would still be a meaningless collection of information. On the off chance it is kept, rename to List of people born outside of marriage as suggested above. Koweja 15:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, maybe our problem here is the use of the word BASTARD, which in our language use is an insult, in older times it just meant people born out of wedlock -- but I fail to see how that makes a person notable. In the case of August the Strong of Saxony we would have to include about 180, and their claim to fame would be depleting Saxony's treasure to the point of bankruptcy by alimony claims Alf photoman 15:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Requires subjective judgement on 'famous', many entries are bound to be contested or hard to prove, and an article with that title may as well just put up a neon sign reading "Hey vandals! Come on down!" If this is considered encyclopedic information, perhaps create [[Category:People born out of wedlock]] or something similar. - Eron ^Talk 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it doesn't require any subjective judgement if we change it from 'famous' to 'notable'. We've got policy, there. We've also got policy on verifiability. And if we're going to start removing articles that are likely to be vandalized, maybe we should AFD George W. Bush. He gets vandalized a ton. (You are right, though, that a list is unnecessary. A category would probably do just fine.) -- Plutor ^talk 21:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or (if you must keep) Rename: "List of famous illegitimate progeny". But deleting would be best since it is bound to become a vandal honeypot. In fact, the page was created with a vandalistic first edit. Hu 16:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with namechange. All the entries have articles already, and "vandal honeypot" isn't a valid reason for deletion. If that were true we wouldn't have articles on current presidents. The category isn't "meaningless" the description is tight and accurate if changed to "out of wedlock births". The word "famous" is being used here to mean they already have an Wikipedia entry and are "notable" by Wikipedia standards. If an article is unsourced, it just means someone has to add sources, and in this case its just a matter of taking the source from the individual articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In order to be kept, the name would have to be changed since "bastard" has a strong connotation which violates NPOV, and the list would be referenced. However, I'm not so sure that the list doesn't constitute WP:TRIVIA. —ShadowHalo 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Serves no encyclopedic purpose, even if renamed, and fails WP:NOT. That the article may be "interesting" is not encyclopedic. Agent 86 19:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep but rename to "List of persons born out of wedlock" or some such. Illegitimacy was an important legal status in many countries (including Russia); the illegitimate couldn't marry, own property, or even work in some professions. Having such a list, especially for people born before ca. 1918, would make it easier for a student looking at the changing status of the illegitimate. I think that at least with respect to historical individuals it's quite encyclopedic. --Charlene 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I can see how this article is similar to other similar classifications, but I don't believe it is particularly useful. TSO1D 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep. I think the list could be useful and interesting. It's got to be absolutely perfectly sourced, though...calling someone illegitimate could be considered slander, expecially if it's not true. Probably more trouble than anyone would want to put into it. Plus, as said by many others, the name really needs to be changed. UsaSatsui 22:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the simplest remedy is a move. hateless 22:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tzaquiel 22:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is liftcruft, or random, non enyclopedic information. I also think this is un-manageable over time, like famous people with black hair, since it will include too many over time - driven by whether the information is referenced, not true. But if we do keep, bastard seems like the right word. Wikipedia is factual, and unbiased, but not PC.Obina 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But article titles also should be as unambiguous as possible, and fact of the matter is that bastard is an ambiguous term. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but probably move. Should have a source for each person on the list and shouldnt contain people who arent notable enough for an article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is per UsaSatsui's argument above. Hiwever, Agent 86 also makes a good case for deletion too. The title of the article made me think it was about a list of famous obnoxious people (not 'bastard' in the sense illegitimate) but it is misleading. --SunStar Net^talk 23:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see no encyclopaedic merit in this article. Inevitably some kind soul will add a living person to the list, feeling will be hurt, legal action, etc etc. Also appears be contrary to WP:NOT. Mallanox 00:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and change name This is a list containing people famous otherwise and generally know for being born out of wedlock. It;s not intended as insult. And because of that the name must be changed, because the literal meaning of the term is intended here, and such is decidedly not the meaning that most people would think of first. It wasnt mine until I read the comments here & looked at the content of the page.DGG 02:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page serves no obvious people, and with the changes in western morality in recent decades is likely to become pointless. Such a list is begging to be troll-bait. A category is a possible way foward. The criterion of "important enough to have a WP article" suggests that a category may satisfy those who want such a thing. Ringbark 17:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize any with valid references. --- RockMFR 01:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.Kerim Friedman

Subject is an academic professional, but non-notable. Text of article taken from here. Media anthro 12:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 23:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kipp Kelly

Non Notable Radio and TV personality, contested Prod. WP:COI voldemortuet 12:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. Unsourced autobiography of a non-notable person. MER-C 12:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD A7 - no assertion of notability whatsoever, not even an (unreferenced) mention of being on the radio airwaves for 17 years. This is in addition to being written by the subject of the article. B.Wind 05:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete a7, per [53]. Patstuart^talk|edits 01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Modica

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Wikipedia is not a place to host resumes of non-notable actors. Gladlyplaid 13:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only claims of notability are winning non-notable local awards. I couldn't even figure out what the "Bunny Award" is. Only 41 unique Google hits, and many of those relate to a baseball player. Fails WP:BIO. -- Kicking222 16:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per comments above by Gladlyplaid and Kicking222. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 18:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as wikipedia is not the vehicle to make someone non-notable seem notable.--Dmz5 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt vanity page. I agree with Gladlyplaid and kicking222.
Delete and delete the picture too. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Blatant WP:COI, obnoxious talk page. Will salt if recreated.--Hús ö nd 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jesse Brown

Wikipedia is not a place to host resumes of non-notable actors. Also, this may or may not be relevant, but a user with the name User:AndrewJesseBrown edited the Jason Modica article (another non-notable resume) and accused him of rape and drug charges, which is a pretty serious claim to make without any citations. See the edit here. Gladlyplaid 13:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)— Gladlyplaid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep, but fix the article. This is not a resume; were it a resume, it would include vital information such as where to contact the individual, statistics regarding the individual (body type, voice, etc.). In addition, Andrew Jesse Brown is a notable actor in the NYC area, having recently performed in several off-off-off Broadway productions. I strongly disagree with Gladlyplaid's movement to remove the Andrew Jesse Brown article. HammerTime32905 13:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Stop. It's hammertime! — HammerTime32905 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Andrew Jesse Brown is an actor in the Bronx and Manhattan area. The Jason Modica article mentioned here is not associated with this actor at all, nor is the user AndrewJesseBrown. Suggestion: take action against User:AndrewJesseBrown (a name that could be created by ANYONE, not specifically Andrew Jesse Brown (actor, whom the article refers to), and not an article you do not know anything about. Silverleaf56 13:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Silv — Silverleaf56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, but add to article. Also, see the Lake Catholic High School article for further information on Andrew Jesse Brown's influence on the community at large. HammerTime32905 13:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Stop. It's hammertime! — HammerTime32905 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP. Article has been repaired, and more will come. AJB's political science works and contributions have been added. The article is no longer fit for deletion because it does not stand as a resume, it stands as an article about a living person whom others may wish to know more about. It has become a biography, and no longer an article to 'promote' this person's prestige. BrandNewCigarettes 14:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Ciggy — BrandNewCigarettes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I linked to WP:NOTABILITY for a reason. Check this out: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Another good one is WP:BIO, which says In general, an article's text should include enough information to explain why the person is notable, and such information should be verifiable. Also keep in mind WP:BLP, which notes Wikipedia articles about living people can affect the subject's life. They must therefore be written with the greatest of care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research. I can't see that his notability is established in the article. If he really is more notable and well-known than other New York area actors working as bartenders, this needs to be explained and cited with independent sources (i.e. not Andrew's own website). --Gladlyplaid 14:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The independent study done by Andrew Jesse Brown contains multiple works. A reference to the independent sources is also made in the article. The article also stands as neutral, since it is composed by a number of different authors and is open for edit by any other wikipedian. Silverleaf56 14:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Silv — Silverleaf56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Not notable. Seems like a number of new accounts have been created by the subject's friends solely to argue in this afd. Ocatecir 14:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet lord, delete and salt. Completely non-notable in every conceiveable way. A lot of high schoolers (or kids now in college) have been in a bunch of plays and been nominated for some local awards. This does not, in any way, confirm importance, much less passage of WP:BIO. None of the 29 unique Google htis do anything to show notability, unless showing us that the guy posts on a lot of forums counts. The article, of course, has no reliable sources, probably because none exist. Can this just be speedied to avoid an {{spa}} attack? -- Kicking222 15:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason why you deleted your previous post, kicking222? It might be because it violates WP:Civility guidelines. BrandNewCigarettes 15:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Ciggy[reply]
  - First of all, I didn't delete it; it's still (very clearly) in the edit history. Second, that in no way violates civility guidelines- among other things, WP is uncensored, and I was not directly criticizing (much less attacking) anyone. I simply changed it because I felt my previous wording detracted from the valid points that I was making. Meanwhile, you and the other people who want to keep the article have not verifiably shown that the subject meets WP:BIO. -- Kicking222 16:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This may be because there are no sources available for this particular subject. All sources are pamphlets and/or flyers, and therefore unverifiable. And the manner in which you are using language is worded to be uncivil towards the authors of this article. You, almighty Brandeis University student, have a disposition towards Fordham University that directly detracts from the neutrality of your postings. Thank you, however, for your input. BrandNewCigarettes 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Ciggy[reply]
      - Reply on user's talk page. -- Kicking222 16:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply on user's talk page. BrandNewCigarettes 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Ciggy[reply]
Speedy Delete as non-notable biography which fails WP:V. As a "keep" voter says above, "there are no sources available for this particular subject. All sources are pamphlets and/or flyers, and therefore unverifiable." I agree. (And with friends like that, this article doesn't need enemies.) - Eron ^Talk 16:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may be because there are no sources available for this particular subject. No sources? No problem, no article. It's just that simple, I don't care what university anyone went to. Delete Tubezone 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN actor. We have enough of these already. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as obviously non-notable. JChap2007 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Eron, who said it better than I ever could. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 17:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE like I said before I was speedily deleted by User:Weirdoactor. Wikipedia is uncensored and all opinions are allowed. Just because you don't like another's opinion on a discussion page doesn't give you the right to delete it. As mentioned in the note on your talkpage, go play in the Sandbox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NewStew (talk • contribs) 13:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Your vote was not deleted because of a disagreement with it; it was deleted because of the rude manner in which you expressed it. I would note that the user who deleted your comment actually agrees with you about deleting the article. I'll see your Sandbox and raise you No Personal Attacks. - Eron ^Talk 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As near as I can tell, User:Silverleaf56 is the subject of the article, i.e. Andrew Jesse Brown. In his contributions list, there's this image, which includes an edit summary: Took photo myself after performance, fair use because I have released it into the public domain. Silverleaf was also the creator of the Andrew Jesse Brown article, if you look at the page history. Take that information for what you will. --Gladlyplaid 17:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 00:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian monotremes and marsupials

Redundant with list of monotremes and marsupials. Delete UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redundant, except for the listing of content by continent is generally useful. Redundancy is not a bad thing, and in this case, the specific nature is unique and informative enough that it's acceptable. FrozenPurpleCube 15:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and because some people will not immediately realize they are found elsewhere. But I don;t think we need a separate page--just a section. DGG 02:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful list with sources. Capitalistroadster 04:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per FrozenPurpleCube. --Bduke 05:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Taxonomical classification for List of Australian monotremes and marsupials is based on the Australian publication of Menkhorst and Knight. Where as list of monotremes and marsupials is based on the US publication Gardner and Groves. If the two list where to be merge such that the work of Menkhorst and Knight was used to replace the work Gardner and Groves would we not be casting dispersions on the validity of Gardner and Groves. To use solely Gardner and Groves we'd be making the same dispersions on the work Menkhorst and Knight. Gnangarra 06:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Groves, the author of the Australian portion in MSW3, lives and works in Australia, but was born in England. He has nothing to do with America. MSW3 is the definitive work. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Something learnt, as Johns Hopkins University is in the US I presumed it was a US publication Gnangarra 13:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gnangarra. JROBBO 11:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Capitalistroadster --RebSkii 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exactly how is Didelphimorphia redundant to a list of Australian monotremes and marsupials? Because of Australia's extraordinarily unique natural history of mammals, deleting this list would simply require an urgent request to create it. KP Botany 19:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parish Episcopal School

From speedy, decided to bring to AfD. The original speedy reason was a lack of notability, but A7 doesn't apply to schools. This is procedural - no opinion. Core desat 13:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a school --Sandy Scott 14:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I was the user who originally nominated this for a speedy. Would someone be kind enough to provide a pointer to a guideline or discussion regarding the minimum requirement for schools? Obviously, the information provided could cause me to have to review my position. LittleOldMe 14:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The article fails to establish any notability- at this point, the subject very clearly fails WP:SCHOOLS3. The school gets a fair amount of Google hits, but I couldn't find any non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. If I missed something in Google searching, then I would certainly be willing to alter my !vote. -- Kicking222 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had put it up for speedy for a copyright violation, which was then taken out (still in the history, everything before my edit). But the article does not establish notability, and no sources I could find give any notability either. As for guidelines for schools, there are currently none, we have long discussions at WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOL3, but although some progress has been made, neither seems probable to become a guideline soon. Still, this school doesn't seem to reach the requirements of either disputed guideline. Fram 21:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my belief that all secondary schools, including K-12 schools, are notable for inclusion. No objection to deleting and starting over from reliable sources though, as this article apparently does not have any unless I've missed them somewhere within the article history. Yamaguchi先生 02:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SCHOOLS3. GRBerry 04:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 21:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who left Islam

the general style of religious converts lists has always been "List of converts to X", because their conversion to X is what has been notable. a "List of people who left Islam" or "List of ex-A" is unnecessary and irrelevant because a) it falsely assumes ex-Y became so because of Y, and not because of their conviction in something else (i.e. religion X); b) it consists of unnecessary duplication, by "leaving Y" they have automatically become a "convert to X"'; ~~c) there is no precedence for this as we do not have a "List of people who left Christianity", "List of people who left Hinduism", "List of people who left Athiesm", nor do we need it.~~ d) the focus is inappropriately on negation, the title and entire purpose of such a list is implicitly loaded with a negative connotation against religion Y, and under the false premise discussed in point a) serves as a vehicle for propaganda/advocacy.

i have also included the following in this nom:

Delete all as unnecessary and irrelevant (previous AfD was no consensus, but it included all convert lists and not those exclusively associated with negatative identification like ex-A) -- ITAQALLAH 15:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 14:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do in fact have List of ex-atheists. We also have List of ex-Roman Catholics, List of ex-Protestants, and Former Latter-day Saints. This does not justify this list, see the essay Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability, however it does give a context that you can interpret as you choose.--T. Anthony 14:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That said I'll add that if it's kept it should be renamed to Former Muslims or List of ex-Muslims for consistency.--T. Anthony 14:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think that renders argument c) as inapplicable. ~~in the light of that, a Rename to 'List of ex-Muslims' may be more appropriate. ITAQALLAH 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Actually I'm not opposed to deleting all these "ex-religionist" lists even if I created one. Although for sake of balance I'd prefer they all be deleted, if not immediately then eventually, if one is deleted.--T. Anthony 14:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

note: i have changed the nomination to include lists of all ex-ABC's. ITAQALLAH 15:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then weak delete all. I think things like this have a worse tendency to be non-neutral than conversion lists. Conversion lists aren't focused on what a person's rejecting, these more are. We have a List of foreign-born United States politicians, people joining something namely the US, but we wouldn't do List of politicians who renounced United States citizenship or something.--T. Anthony 16:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, List of ex-Muslims is a better name. --Matt57 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep or Delete the lists mentioned by T. Anthony with it Alf photoman 15:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But make sure to think about it, according to the extreme Muslims leaving Islam justifies a death fatwa --- we might be endangering lives Alf photoman 15:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If kept it needs to be verified and I'd be willing to put a "verify" deal on it. If people say they are ex-Muslims to the international press nothing we do here is likely to matter on the front you mean, but we should strongly avoid any "outing" or false reports on people. I think I'd mentioned at the talk page that verification is unusually urgent in this case.--T. Anthony 15:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to give in to terrorists? Those people in the lists are in no bigger danger than they were before being included in these lists. Even if they were safe before, we cant give in to terrorists, sorry. --Matt57 19:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find your arguments a little too strident and out of proportion to what you're responding to. The user was concerned for people's safety, but concerns with privacy or safety occur on many kinds of AfD debates not just this one. In addition I fear your statements indicate this list has a political purpose and if that's the case I will switch from weak to strong delete. Wikipedia lists are not the proper place to make "stands against terrorism" or push political agendas, even when they are agendas I agree with more or less. Perhaps these lists do provide valuable names when one is studying a valid cultural issue, but reasons like "the conversion lists stayed, so we need religion bashing lists for balance" or "we can't give in to terrorists/religious-zealots" strike me as invalid and prejudicial.--T. Anthony 11:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont use my statements to change your nomination. Make your own judgement. The primary purpose of these lists is to classify information in another way. The lists are not redundant. I could claim that these lists should be kept because they help save the lives of African elephants, but if you disliked elephants and said these lists should be deleted - well that would be a wrong reason for you to choose to delete the lists. The primary purpose as I said is: these lists are not redundant and there are no lists on the internet like these. If you say Apostasy lists have a negative agenda, then Conversion lists have a positive agenda, do they not? The point is to look at these lists objevtively. Are they useful information? Yes. Are they redundant in any way? No.--Matt57 20:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 15:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Lists are just ways of categorizing people. If they converted from one religion to another, they left the first and converted to the second. IMO, it's non-neutral to prefer only the "positive," lists of what they joined, rather than the "negative," lists of what they left, as one assumes someone left a religion for a negative reason, rather than joined another for a positive reason. Only a weak keep because it's rather a boring category, still, it is just a list. KP Botany 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep all per KP Botany. I was going to say "delete all as meaningless point-scoring", but it's true that this style of list provides a kind of NPOV balance to the "converts to..." lists. — coelacan talk — 17:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be people who leave a religion and don't go to another one that is large enough for a list, or who become apatheists or whatever. One doesn't really "convert to agnosticism", for example, you just realize one day that you're an agnostic and you have been for a while. And since there's no List of converts to Invisible Pink Unicornism (pbuh), then I cannot support any move to fixate only on the conversion lists. I do support a rename of Former Latter-day Saints to List of ex-Latter-day Saints or List of ex-Mormons and from List of people who left Islam to List of ex-Muslims, for stylistic consistency. — coelacan talk — 23:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: This is crazy. We just went through an AFD for this article. There is NO negative connotation to a "List of people who left X". Would you say there's a negative connotation to Criticism of Islam as well? Lets delete that article as well. If you say "List of people who left X" has negative connotation, then List of Muslim converts has a positive connotation. Why should negative connotation lists not be allowed? If positive ones are allowed, then negative ones should also be allowed. Using your arguement, I'll say that List of Muslim converts should not exist because its entire purpose is to give a positive connotation to the religion at hand.--Matt57 19:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "weak delete", but since i'm a inclusionist, ill remain neutral. --Striver 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominator, doesn't List of Muslim converts also 'serve as a vehicle for propaganda/advocacy', in your own words? --Matt57 20:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, nom is arguing that both "convert to abc" and "former abc" is redundant, nothing wrong with that argument. --Striver 22:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not redundant. People from different faiths join a certain faith. People from one faith can join many faiths. This is not being redundant. If you have one list, you should have the other one as well. When you have Lists of people who CONVERTED to Islam, WHAT is wrong with having List of people who LEFT Islam? Can you tell me? If you're saying they're redudant, tell me why the first should not be deleted and the second kept. How are these lists are redundant? Do you see Ibn Warraq in "List of people who converted to Islam"? Where should he be included? List of Athiests? My point is: If CONVERSION is a serious enough issue that a list must be made for it, why is not APOSTASY? Can you or anyone suggesting a Delete tell me that? As USUAL this AFD is yet another of the millions of attempts on Wikipedia to repeatedly censor Criticism of Islam and keep it under the carpet. By the way, the nonimator didnt even know that Apostasy lists of other faiths exist before being pointed out that they did. --Matt57 23:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeh... you did write that to me, didn't you? Did you see what i "voted" ? --Striver 00:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response is for anyone (including the nominator who you quoted) who thinks these lists are redundant. --Matt57 01:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it becomes extremely difficult to discuss with you if your interest is only in assuming bad faith: i think such accusations that other editors are attempting to "censor" material should be reserved for a medium other than wikipedia, 'Brave Steed'. you have not clarified my concerns above to a satisfactory degree. is pointing to the fact that there are 'lists of converts' the only justification you have for defending the lists in these noms? people don't bother with identification through negation, it's simply pointless. i don't see any encyclopaedic use for replicating names onto multiple lists when they provide no new information. ITAQALLAH 01:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your links to Faith Freedom International to yourself. They're irrelevant in this discussion. You keep linking to their forum in every 5th post of yours, yet believe the website is not notable. On to this AFD: The list of ex-members of a faith is just ANOTHER way of representing information. It is NOT duplication of information. Like I said "List of people who converted to X", is one way of classifying information. Prove that these lists are redundant by showing me where these lists of names exist in another page together, classified in a similiar grouping way that brings them together. --Matt57 04:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i think your posts on FFI are relevant to your accusations of censorship, they are indicative of an inherent bad faith you assume of a certain class of editors. "You keep linking to their forum in every 5th post of yours".. a wild exaggeration.. "yet believe the website is not notable" and a non sequitur. yes, it is non-notable. so what? "Prove that these lists are redundant by" .. i don't believe that attempting to meet such requirements is necessary to maintain that there is little value in such lists. ITAQALLAH 06:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see Coricus's comments below which refute your arguments of redundancy for these lists. In summary, these are valuable research tools and in addition there is no other place on the internet which has these lists. --Matt57 04:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

week Keep Im sort of straggling between whether this is notable, but when in doubt... keep. KazakhPol 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean notable? The people in these lists ARE notable. What are you talking about? How can these lists not be "notable"? --Matt57 23:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is truly important that in maters of this sort we be truly neutral and treat all the similar groups exactly the same.

But there is a problem in the definition the article may be using. People who convert to another religion have obviously left their former one. People who become irreligious are less obvious. I think for such individual it would be necessary to have a source where they specifically say: I am no longer an X. (& I believe there are some religions which consider you in their membership none the less) . In particular, there is the problem with people originally of religion X, where someone considered an authority says: So and so is no longer a X. Unless so and so aggrees and says so, how can we judge the validity of this? We could have another category for persons ejected from whatever--not just a religion--but that would be a particularly poor idea for something spiritual. DGG 02:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats where references come in to prove how they left the religion. Also its probably obvious that if they're strongly critical of the religion, they have left it. For those who dont say it clearly, they are included in the Secular category for example Wafa Sultan (she's given conflicting statements about her being a Muslim, although is strongly critical and explicitly secular in her own words). People who are ejected would be a small quantity in number, these are generally few. Also people who are ejected also usually have left the religion already on their own will so they can still be included here. There could be a separate mention in this article for people who were also 'ejected'.--Matt57 14:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's a link to the previous AFD for this article - Deju Vu. In a better world, a nominator who nominates an article soon after it has already gone through its first nomination, would be warned for disrupting Wikipedia.--Matt57 04:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i already explained the distinction above. perhaps you missed it? ITAQALLAH 04:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you just waited a few minutes, you would see my reply above.--Matt57 04:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't answered why you think i am disrupting the wiki, i explained in my nom statement the distinction between this and the previous AfD. ITAQALLAH 06:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. While I recognise the possible repetition of information in these articles and agree with earlier comments that the title "List of people who left Islam" contains a subtle prejudice, I think the concept of these lists is useful. Consider someone doing research on, for example, Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion". Such a person might wish to research people that became Atheists versus those that left Atheism for Agnosticism or even a full religion. Without a "list of ex-Athesits" such a researcher then has to carry out the research that has already gone into the production of this page and we're now discussing should be deleted. Ergo, pages of this type are in and of themselves useful. I think the title of this particular "Islam page" should be changed to move it in line with the other articles and it should be a strong keep -- as should its compatriots. Coricus 04:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After this nomination is over, I'm considering renaming the list List of people who left Islam to List of ex-Muslims to be more in line with other apostasy related lists. Even the nominator said above in his/her striked out comments that they would rather have that list renamed.--Matt57 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and rename. This article AfD is now being used to justify deleting all other similar purposed ex- articles. When people change their philosophical worldview and leave one particular religious belief then they don't always move straight into another but may contemplate for a while pending the establishment of their new identity. It may be an instantaneous conversion or a slow understanding of where they want to be next. Thus they may reside on one list and not be on another as a convert for many years, if at all as WP:LIVING applies and they have to have said in their own words what they are doing. The two mirror-lists (i.e. the ex- and the Converts to- ) allow us to capture what they have said on the exit and the arrival. Ttiotsw 05:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. `The concept is distinct enough to warrant inclusion in addition to the "converts from X" concept. Former Latter-day Saints, for instance, contains people who may or may not have converted to anything, yet the fact that they were once part of that religion and are no longer is notable and serves as a thread that connects such people, and thus should not be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Porlob (talk • contribs) 13:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

comment Thanks, Porlob, for a very good reason. 21:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Forgot to sign. :) Porlob 13:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, According to reasons of user:Itaqallah above. --Mak82hyd 02:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep them all. The people listed are all notable, and the fact that they have left Islam/Atheism/whatever is notable too. -- Karl Meier 09:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Karl et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly rename the Islam list to List of former muslims for consistency. There may also be some POV in the phrase List of people who left x. GabrielF 06:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to be bold and moved the page to List of former Muslims. I chose former rather than ex for the sake of consistency with Category:Former Muslims GabrielF 06:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, thats a good decision. --Matt57 14:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all all these people are notable, and there is no reason to delete this. The only reason I can see for why this is nominated for deletition is because it shows that people actually do leave islam, and the fact that there are former muslims seems to bother muslims.--Sefringle 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims are more vocal, but I think "ex" lists are inherently focussed on the negative and can annoy any group being named. When I created List of ex-atheists I did get an atheist who expressed annoyance. Several atheist sites that discuss atheists who convert to a theistic or deistic system go through efforts to say that the person is lying about ever being an atheist or when that fails they emphasize that the person in question had an "immature" or false atheism. Although in fairness I did come close to a point violation in creating it as most of the ex-lists struck me as religion bashing. (Back then they weren't so much about saying what a person later joined, the focus was almost solely on leaving a religion) Anyway in principle I think Former Latter-day Saints would also irritate LDSers, etc. Conversion lists I think are only irritating if you find the religion in question repellent. If you don't care then people converting or leaving it is likely disinteresting. Otherwise conversion lists are of interesting as conversions have effected entire nations. Leaving is only that significant when the person converts to something. (If Queen Christina of Sweden quit going to Lutheran services, but didn't go anywhere else, I doubt it would've been as significant)--T. Anthony 12:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Can you beleive that the List of former Muslims was taken out of Wikiproject:Islam's main page first by Itaqallah and then by Striver. I asked them to let the list remain on the project page or I would take it to Mediation/Dispute resolution and they said that was fine. That list has everything to do with Islam. They already had a list there List of Muslims but they could not tolerate to see the List of former Muslims there.--Matt57 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strong keep - the included information is encyclopedic, it's obviously not non-notable, it isn't offensive to any tradition, as nearly all denominations have a list, and it's not duplication, as someone that wants to know "who left this religion" would have to scour several articles to find (left X for Y), and in fact might not find them (is there an article List of converts to Buddhism?). the only way I can fathom this to be unencyclopedic is through verifiability: and the solution is not to wipe out the articles to never exist again, it's to find sources, add fact tags, or remove certain submissions. Hope I don't come across too strong. Patstuart^talk|edits 01:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per everyone else. --Wizardman 15:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chris Pontius. Agent 86 00:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Party Boy

Not a notable enough character to warrant its own page. The information is already on the Chris Pontius and Jackass pages. Ocatecir 14:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chris Pontius. Punkmorten 15:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It might get confused with the phrase FirefoxMan 19:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chris Pontius -- Whpq 22:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chris Pontius. UsaSatsui 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chris Pontius. —ShadowHalo 12:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 23:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Walker

NN actress. Fails WP:BIO. Has appeared in a few episodes of a TV series and a few movies in minor roles. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only one of the four characters she has played even has a proper name. No prejudice against recreation if this person actually acheives a greater degree of notability or success. If kept, needs to be written in a less promotional manner. Agent 86 19:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not presently notable Gosgood 14:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 03:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Clark (actress)

NN actress. Appeared in a single film in 1985. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dancer was not even an important role in the film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Punkmorten (talk • contribs) 15:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete one role, and not even a named role. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Broadway credits[54] including original Broadway cast of Pippin and Chicago and the key role of Cassie in A Chorus Line.[55] (Many of the Broadway cast were given cameos in the film.) Short career, but that's dance. --Dhartung | Talk 18:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete, if sufficiently expanded by the end of the AfD I'll change to Keep Alf photoman 21:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded to show actual notability.≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 22:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 01:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Clarke

NN actress. Appeared in a minor role in a single film. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, choreographer with Broadway credits[56], and a longer resume than "one film"[57] (although yes, most of her roles are minor, she also has a number of guest roles on TV).--Dhartung | Talk 17:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be notable as per Dhartung. Canadian-Bacon 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename to Wikipedia:Encyclopodia. Redirect was deleted, since it's cross-namespace. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopodia

In the absence of any mentioned notability I propose moving this article to Wikipedia:Encyclopodia but would be happy if instead some thrid party references could be added. --BozMo talk 16:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless it is notable to warrent an article by itself. Here is the question: is it well known or published OUTSIDE of Wikipedia? As far as know, the answer is no. FirefoxMan 19:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move I believe that this is useful, but not aricle notable. Imagine having wikipedia on your ipod. This should be on wikipedia butnot in article space. The Placebo Effect 20:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:Encyclopodia as suggested. While useful, it isn't notable enough for a mainspace article. Koweja 20:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move per nom Shas 21:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move. I just searched for this today and found the info I was looking for. Why do people always want to delete everything... it's so stupid. If it's moved, will I still be able to find it by searching for "encyclopodia" .. if not, Keep. --JeffryJohnston 01:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a genuine issue that WP pages don't get delivered by the main search on WP even though that's how most people try to find them. Whether that should influence these kind of decisions is a matter of opinion and of course I respect yours. --BozMo talk 21:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Owen Hart. Let's put this one to bed. Deizio talk 15:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No Consensus. Davnel03 21:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon admin review of non-admin closure, the discussion is re-opened. Even admins aren't supposed to close discussions they participate in, and this hasn't run the full five days. Discussion may continue.--Kchase T 22:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAW is Owen

Note - not added to AfD log when nominated. Added as of this timestamp. Deizio talk 16:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a normal RAW except it has been dedicated to Owen Hart. It should not be singled out due to this. Also, we will not remember last weeks RAW for years will we? Davnel03 17:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note from closing admin in previous AfD - There has been no material change in the content of the page or nomination since the previous AfD in October. This return to AfD was first proposed yesterday by User:86.20.53.195 who is currently serving a 48hr block for inserting "CUNT" on my userpage [58] after I discussed with him the ins-and-outs of a second nomination for this article. I noted then and note here again that User:Davnel03 shares extremely similar editing habits and interests with 86.20.53.195, and from that and the contact I had with these editors yesterday I believe them to be the same user, although this cannot be confirmed without a checkuser. If that is the case, then the nominator here is a sockpuppet of a currently blocked user. I would be interested to hear if User:Davnel03 would be happy for such a check to take place. Deizio talk 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really notable and precedent has been set since the last afd, the tributes to Eddie Guerrero page was removed, various other "raw specials" like homecoming and such have been deleted, and tribute to the troops will be deleted soon. And this creates a non-npov slant, anything about the page that needs to be said can be put on Owen's main page. Booshakla 10:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One single tribute to Owen Hart is not notable. Better placed on his page but not in separate article.--John Lake 16:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in that case, don't you mean merge instead of delete? Koweja 20:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main owen heart article or with the Raw article NegroSuave 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Owen Hart. Koweja 20:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge ot Owen Hart. I remember this show, but I don't remember the show officially being called by that name. Is there an official cite for that (from WWE)? Is the show available on tape or DVD for sale under that name? If there is, keep it, if not, either move the title to the "official" name or merge it. In any event, this was not "just a normal show". ~~Odd...there's nothing about his death at all on the Owen Hart page.~~ UsaSatsui 22:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, fixed that. UsaSatsui 22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nothing has changed since the last nomination, and that it appears that this nomination was done in bad faith. kelvSYC 08:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are dead wrong on that. Since the last nomination, the Tributes to Eddie Guerrero page, which is quite similar to this, was merged/deleted

[59], not to mention that most other "special" editions of RAW have also been deleted: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]. So based on that precedent, there is no reason for this article to be there as well, a merge to Owen Hart is also acceptable.

I still maintain my original argument that it was the first notable in-ring death in pro-wrestling (or at least for WWE), and the first wrestler to have been tributed from their passing while an active member of the WWE roster, and as such it should be kept. kelvSYC 17:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge and Delete I have had a good look at the page and at Owen Hart's page. I think this can be scaled down and easily fitted into his profile/article. But this type of event will probably become available on DVD in the future. They haven't made an Owen Hart DVD yet, but probably will. Govvy 10:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Owen Hart Fairly importent show, but i'm not sure if it deserves an article. TJ Spyke 23:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Owen Hart. This deserves mention, but probably does not deserve its own article. (Though for what it's worth, if I had to choose between outright keep or outright delete, I'd go with keep.) Croctotheface 09:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Owen Hart. James Duggan 03:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Seeing as how it was already successfully merged now, I think we can close this. --Wizardman 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lorenzo Reynolds

This was first marked as a speedy and the tag was removed then it was marked as prod and the tag was removed by an anon without comment so here it is at AfD. No Ghits, commendable academic record but non the less non notable bio. John Lake 16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy. Vanity page of a college student, using a claim that being an African-American president of a fraternity makes him notable. Author & subject has attempted to cover his tracks and remove speedy tags using a sockpuppet accountTheNinthPlayer (talk • contribs)and anonymous account 67.82.29.1 (talk • contribs) despite multiple warnings not to remove the speedy tag himself. Neil916 (Talk) 17:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (Forgot to sign when I originally posted my comment)[reply]
Delete per above. Hopefully the user will be blocked for infractions. --Dhartung | Talk 17:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though the subject may be a great person, contributions to a fraternity, no matter how much they change the fraternity or are seen as pioneering, do not meet the notability threshold. Apparently self promotional (see creators name, with 83 on end, corresponding to birth year of subject). Wikipedia is not a place for a person's CV. — ERcheck (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Addendum: Also, see WP:Verify. — ERcheck (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable vanity page. Squeezeweasel 18:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. T e ckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67.82.29.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has attempted to remove the AFD tag from the article. Neil916 (Talk) 01:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Jaramillo

There is nothing in this article that asserts the subject's notability per Wikipedia:Notability, and it appears to read like a promotions piece. SunStar Net^talk 16:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but stubify as current text is a copyvio from Women's Boxing. She was promoted by Don King so she's not a nobody. --Dhartung | Talk 17:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I nominated this at AFD based on the fact it looked more like a promotional piece, rather than an encyclopedic article. Now that notability has been mentioned, I may change my vote to a Weak keep per above. --SunStar Net^talk 18:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs to be cleaned up, but jaramillo has done enough for notabllity, I hope this entry is not being bashed because she is a female boxer, and not male. --zoso_uk | Talk 13:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, if in the boxing hall of fame she must be notable Alf photoman 21:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search for the alleged "hall of fame" only returns 8 hits on Google [65] 81.155.178.248 00:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by admin as reposted content. Agent 86 19:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

300 shots

Delete It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.

Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. LILVOKA 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batesville High School (Arkansas)

~~Delete~~ Keep This article has made serious improvements, and I think it is now acceptable. --Adam Riley ^Talk 02:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really could care less about this individual school, but I think all high schools are notable enough to be listed on wikipedia. Many high schools are larger than universities, and all universities (at least all of them I have ever searched for) are considered notable enough. (and if you only consider some high schools notable enough, then what are the criteria for a high school being notable enough? I would think being the only one in a city, as this one is, would qualify as much as a library or any of the other types of things listed here.) If this high school is not notable enough, then there are thousands of high school wikipedia entries out there that need to be deleted too, since it wouldn't be fair to single out one high school over the others. (Cardsplayer4life 05:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

In addition to what I wrote previously, the Wikipedia:Schools which was brought to my attention by the nominator for deletion clearly shows that (per item #3) the school (and most schools) are "locally distinctive". I just wanted to add this point to my original statement, even though discussion about it is also included further down. (Cardsplayer4life 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per nom; I'm quite comfy with weeding out all those thousands of school entries, thanks. As a side note, since the very largest high schools in the US top out at 5000, that "many" are larger than universities is plain inaccurate. Ravenswing 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what your definition of "many" is, I suppose. There are plenty of universities/colleges smaller than 5000, and plenty of high schools larger than the smallest university, I can assure you. (Cardsplayer4life 20:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

As a side note, I have fleshed out the article a bit more, and intend to do so even more in the coming weeks/months, if that is why the original poster was concerned. However, you have to start with a stub to be able to work up to a bigger article as you find more information sometimes. (ok, I suppose you don't have to, but it is easier for me to do it that way sometimes.) The objection raised, however, was that the article itself is not notable, no matter how much information is there, which my original objection above deals with. (Cardsplayer4life 05:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

For a description of what the criteria for notability is, please see Wikipedia:Schools. --Adam Riley ^Talk 06:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under the #3 point, I think is where most high schools on wikipedia (including this one) fit. Especially when it is the only high school in a fairly large (for Arkansas at least) city. I can come up with hundreds (if not thousands) of wikipedia entries exactly like this high school, so my question is: Why is this one being singled out? (Cardsplayer4life 06:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - appears to be verifiable, factual, and a school. Trollderella 07:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. High schools are inherently notable. Nlsanand 17:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are provided to show that this school is the subject of multiple external non-trivial sources that show notability, and that we could use to write a verified encyclopedia article. The only sources in the article now are websites associated or affiliated with the school. After a cursory look at Google and Lexis-Nexis I see nothing non-trivial (this is not a surprise since most schools are not the subjects of external sources). Pan Dan 19:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Wikipedia:Schools page cited by Adam Riley above, it makes clear that high schools (or, schools in general) are considered notable if "The school is locally distinctive in any two of the areas listed under criterion #2, or in any other areas for which it has received local press or other coverage". It can clearly be shown that most high schools in general (and this one in particular) are either locally distinctive or have received local press coverage in one of the following areas (from point #2):"* Academics * Age * Alumni * Architecture * Awards * Events that have occurred at the school * Extracurricular activities, including sports"

Most notably (for this high school) there has been a lot of local press coverage for the sports teams, there are lots of events (sports, musical, and otherwise) that occur at the school, there has been local press coverage having to do with academics, and since the school is the only one in the city, approximately 90% of the people who live or work in the city are graduates, so by default (almost) any local story on a member of the community is also a story on an Alumni. Thus, at the very least 4 out of the 7 stated areas are relevant, and the 3 remaining ones could possibly be included as well, when only 2 (by the wording of #3 quoted above) are needed. Remember, it only needs to be shown to be "locally distinctive" in the case of a school. (Cardsplayer4life 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

(1) WP:SCHOOL doesn't enjoy consensus approval (and I for one don't approve of it). (2) The press coverage you refer to will in most cases be trivial with respect to the school. Coverage of an alumnus, a football game, a school play, etc. can't help us write an encyclopedia article about the school. You said above that you intend to expand the article in the coming weeks and months; I'm all for that, but there's no indication that it's even possible to do that. The material that's in the article right now is either not encyclopedic (e.g. the mission statement), or doesn't come from external sources that show notability. Do you know of any non-trivial external sources that we could use to write a good verifiable article about this school? That's what notability means at Wikipedia. Pan Dan 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Wikipedia:Schools may not enjoy approval by everyone, but it is nonetheless the standard by which the notability of schools is judged. If you have a problem with it, then I would urge you to lobby to have it changed or removed, but until then it deserves at least partial consideration. (2) The press coverage is coverage by local media of the school. If you consider this trivial, then I would estimate 90% or more of all the content on university and high school pages is not notable, because most of the information is only verifiable via local media. Also, how can a building such as a library or a train station or anything else like that which is used less and recieves less press coverage be more of a subject of an article than a school? In short, if this high school page is not notable enough to be on wikipedia, then the thousands of other high school pages which are not any more notable need to be deleted as well, and there needs to be a mass campaign to get rid of all of them.(Cardsplayer4life 20:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

No, it is not "the standard", it is a standard some people use. Other people use WP:SCHOOLS3, or their own judgment, or just go with (their interpretation of) wikipedia policies. And I wouldn't mind to get rid of most of the school, library, fire station, train station, ... articles, since most of them have the same problems: only (very) local notability. Wikipedia should decide (perhaps urgently) if it wants to include everything with only local notability (local sports people, local festivities, local schools, and local shops for local people), or if it wants to restrict itself to those things with at least regional or preferable national notability and coverage. Fram 21:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I would say according to WP:SCHOOLS3 it still passes, but that is not really the overarching point. The overarching point is that there is sufficient disagreement about whether these types of articles (those showing local or regional notability) should be allowed, and until that is decided and there are sufficient guidelines one way or the other, then these types of articles should not be removed. (Cardsplayer4life 22:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Pan Dan, in WP:N says that "A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because, though it may be found in reliable, non-directory sources, it is mentioned trivially rather than being a main subject of the published works. ...One common recommendation across all notability guidelines is not to nominate articles on such subjects for deletion but to rename, refactor, or merge them into articles with broader scopes...." I don't see why, if the subject ends up failing to meet notability, we shouldn't instead of deleting, merge it into, for example, Batesville, Arkansas. schi ^talk 18:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general a merge can be a good idea. In this case, I'm not sure there's any material that's appropriate to merge. The town article already mentions this high school and already mentions that it's the only one in town. The mission statement and athletics sections are verified only at the school's website and other outlets associated with the school itself -- and I think that external sources have to take note of any information before we consider it notable enough for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia. That leaves us with the school song, mascot, school colors, and administration, which to varying degrees are somewhat likely to be verifiable in external sources. If someone wants to merge this info into the town article, I guess that's OK by me, except that it would sort of knock the town article off balance, because the school song, etc., seems pretty trivial compared to the rest of the information in the town article. Pan Dan 19:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Adding to comment) I note the school article says "Batesville High School has a long history of success in many different sports." If it's true with Batesville, as with many towns, that high school athletics are a big part of the town's cultural life, and someone can find external sources, e.g. the local paper, that discuss the history of this school's athletic exploits, I think it would be entirely appropriate to augment the town article with a section on sports at the high school. Pan Dan 19:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is shown by WP:V sources. Fram 21:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until an official guidelines on schools will be adopted I will not favor the removal of any single school article. And this is one isn't even as bad as hundreds of other still up. TSO1D 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have good news for you! We already have an official guideline on schools. And on train stations. And fire departments. And everything else. It's called WP:N. This school doesn't appear to meet it. Pan Dan 23:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete and comment on the above. It would make just as much sense to say that unless there is a std I will delete every one, or more realistically put them in there own wiki--TSO1D, who makes the standards? We all do, to some extent in the discussion pages for the policy, but also in what we actually do here, which very much affects what is needed as policy. It is not likely that there will be a policy on this that has consensus enough to stick. In the meantime we can use the criterion listed just above by Pan Dan, or--what ammounts to the same thing--use our judgments as a group. That's why we are posting here--if not to express group consensus, why bother, we could accept every other one using a bot. DGG 02:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's verifiable; I can check Lexis later, but a Google news search turned up several stories about the high school in the Batesville Daily Guard. You need a paid subscription to read them on the website, but here's the list of search results. schi ^talk 23:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the previews, none of those results appears non-trivial ("Marching band enjoys success," "Student lost his wallet," "Damage to the gym Monday morning," etc.). Pan Dan 18:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools are relevant to wikipedia. (Liveforever22 02:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Keep sourced, encyclopaedic, keeps with precedents. WilyD 18:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not show any evidence of meeting any of the criteria at either of the proposed guidelines WP:SCHOOLS3 or WP:SCHOOLS (which to my surprise are nearly identical today). GRBerry 04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believce all high schools are relevent and notable enough for Wikipedia. --Wizardman 02:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment If this were indeed the WP policy the school would not have been discussed here in the first place. Not perhaps a relevant vote.DGG 08:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, this vote is relevant. One of the criteria is well-known sports teams (i'm paraphrasing), and I would think that a high school state title is enough to warrant an article. Besides, if it wasn't the school policy it may have still been discussed here, you can't confirm that. --Wizardman 19:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All High-schools are inherently notable. -- Librarianofages 03:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment If this were indeed the policy the school would not have been discussed here in the first place. Not perhaps a relevant vote.DGG 08:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is not a vote. So every vote ever cast in AfD is irrelevent. Instead, talk about the argument. Although this argument is as good as about half the ones here, especially those that attempt to apply WP:SCHOOLS as though it were policy. WilyD 15:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Metros232 21:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chante

This person does not seem notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --Adam Riley ^Talk 07:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX as far as I can tell. Poss. redirect to Chanté Moore? (If real, they aren't the same person.) --Dhartung | Talk 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a hoax. No female solo artist named Chante appears on the Billboard charts, and none of the names of the movies are mentioned. —ShadowHalo 19:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung FirefoxMan 19:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ~ trialsanderrors 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaylon Brewster

Article fails to establish notability, and vast majority of google search results are copies of this article from various sources rernst 10:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - rernst 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if this page is deleted, someone might do well to remove the redirect Nevski as well.

Delete, created by single-purpose account, probable WP:COI self-promotion. No evidence of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 17:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable per nom.--John Lake 17:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what needs to be done to save this article? This is not sell promotion, adding it for artist from my home town that won an ECMA award. john2005crab

The truth is, very little. As the three points above outline, and my own point, detail why the article should not be kept. There is a certain level of notability required for inclusion on Wikipedia. For music-related entries, see WP:MUSIC -- Mr Brewster seems to not meet any of those requirements. Perhaps he may at some point, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball either. If it is deleted and Mr. Brewster qualifies in the future, the page can be recreated. Neither is it necessary to create substub-level articles on every alias of every single hip-hop artist. I hope this clarifies your concerns - rernst 18:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what kind of notability needs to be added? He has been on Much Music, won an ECMA (East Coast Music Award), etc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.222.210.2 (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

There are now at least three links in this discussion to the wikipedia page that outlines music-related notability requirements. The article must *at least* meet one of those (the more the better), must be verifiable (citations are nice). A lot of people seem to think that this article is self-promotion. Such things are usually dealt with harshly. Also, contributions from logged-in users are usually given consideration over anonymous IPs. - rernst 19:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque

The article has no reliable secondary sources and is just connected to one person's ideology, and this ideology is not notable at all. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 103 results from google, if searched for this term:[66]. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible Keep. I've updated the article with references from CNN, BeliefNet, WNYC, The American Prospect, Al Jazeera, The Washington Post, Sojourners, Center for American Progress, and Brandeis University. This is WP:SNOW now. — coelacan talk — 17:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the article still needs to be expanded, discussing how the Bill of Rights was inspired, derived, arrived at, how it was posted in a mosque, what the reactions have been around the world, and so on. But that's all improvement that can easily take place. No grounds for deletion. — coelacan talk — 17:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as a copyright violation. Right now, this is just a reproduction of the author's work, no different than an article on a song that consisted of the name of the artist and a verbatim copy of the lyrics. If the copyvio portion was removed, there would be precious little left. - Eron ^Talk 18:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Amended to Keep following rewrite. Good job. - Eron ^Talk 16:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced and documented. Not in copyright violation if properly cited and sufficiently brief. This "Bill of Rights" was obviously intended to be distributed. CuriousGiselle 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think it is at all obvious how the author or rights-holder intended for this to be distributed. The Beliefnet page reproducing the Bill includes the statement "Reprinted from 'Standing Alone in Mecca' by Asra Q. Nomani with permission of HarperSanFrancisco." This suggests to me that its reproduction here, without permission, would be considered a violation by the copyright holder. A fair use case could be made, if there were any sort of commentary. But that is not the case. - Eron ^Talk 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete per Eron as copyvio. With no other content in the article than the copy violation, it ought not stand. Keep - good job on the rewrite; I've no further problems with it. RGTraynor 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I have removed from the article the copyrighted text. ~~I have no opinion on whether this subject meets our inclusion guidelines.~~ Jkelly 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is notable enough. It needs [more] content, but that is not a reason to delete. I would be willing to work on it should the article not be deleted. Koweja 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and extend Alf photoman 21:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Islamic feminism. Jkelly 01:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it is ntoable enoguh to be discussed specifically by outside sources, not merely as part of the general topic, it's notable for our purposes by the general definition.DGG 02:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Asra Nomani, since the document is entirely related to her as an individual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barastert (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 03:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep --CltFn 04:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:CltFn has significantly expanded the article. — coelacan talk — 05:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough not to merit a merge or a deletion. KazakhPol 05:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coelacan's comments. -- Karl Meier 11:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Women's rights are very important. Good article and has been improved now. --Matt57 23:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad's slaves

Article is based on [67], which is an Islamic propagandist website (see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Answering-Islam.org). And as reason given by User:Truthspreader on talk page that Zad al-Ma'ad is a historical document, and hence a primary source.

Major flaws include:

Implication that Muhammad had sexual relation with these slaves, when even the source doesn't say that except Answering-Islam.org
Many of the slaves were freed and it is not mentioned, as if mentioned then the article would be giving a false impression from it's title
Bernard Lewis 1994 does say that Muhammad and his companions had slaves without these details from Answering-Islam.org, hence this topic can be easily merged with Islam and slavery or Muhammad article, in which former already discusses this issue.

--Herald_reply 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Part of AfD rational is illogical - the claim that the Zad al-Ma'ad is a primary source because it is a historical document is illogical. The Zad al-Ma'ad was written by Ibn_al-Qayyim who lived around the mid 1200s i.e. over 600 years after Muhammad. It is all historical to us, yes, but the definition of primary source is one in which the document was created at or near the time being studied, often by the people being studied. This is obviously impossible so is it a secondary source ? Ibn_al-Qayyim was a "commentator" who would have used the Quran (a primary source) as well as Hadith and other stuff - it goes on. Anyway, Ibn_al-Qayyim though would be veiwing the events of the life of Muhammad from a historical perspective as it happened 600 or so years prior to his own life. The Zad al-Ma'ad (and other relevant works of Ibn_al-Qayyim) are thus historical works derived from primary sources and are thus secondary sources and if Ibn_al-Qayyim is accepted as a notable commentator then his works are notable secondary sources. Ttiotsw 20:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with conditional Merge. As per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it, it is pretty clear now that this is coming from answering-islam.org. And even if the source is correct, to conclude using Zad al-Ma'ad is Original research, being it a historical document. And as per nom, if the author can find some good sources, this article can easily fit into Islam and slavery or Muhammad article. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is too obscure to merit its own article. KazakhPol 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly mention in Islam and slavery if the information can be verified by a more reliable source. In any case this topic in no way needs a separate article. Koweja 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment actually, the article could be keep worthy, if it was sourced adequately, sourcing from ONE book through a non-reliable extremist web-site is not acceptable, specially considering that the author of the book is controversial in it self. Removing the OR and POV is a first step... i think i will vote keep on the condition that it is cleaned up to everybody's satisfaction before the end of the afd. --Striver 21:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and on the condition that it is renamed to Muhammad's ma malakat aymanukum. --Striver 21:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the topic on its own is not notable enough and the sources provided are of a dubious nature. TSO1D 21:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems like this deletion nom takes issue with the content of the article, not the suitability of this topic for an encyclopedia. If he did have slaves (as is implied in the nom, if he freed them) then its possible that there should be an article for that, even if it doesn't look much like the current article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but even if it is true, does it need a separate article? Verifiable is one thing, notable enough is another. I simply cannot see how this information cannot be added to Muhammad's article if it just about his personal life, or the article on Islam and slavery if it is more relevant. Koweja 00:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And change title to Muhammad and slaves. The fact that the founder of Islam was a slaver, killed men and enslaved their wives, etc is very notable, and we could have a thorough article on the topic. Arrow740 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and improve. So far just the one quote from Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya is enough to stand up it's crediblty. It ought to be expanded and research though. frummer 03:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the article is solely based upon an unreliable source attributing information to another source (i.e. Ibn al-Qayyim). the entire reliability of these extracts is thus dependant upon the credibility of the resource providing it (as outlined in WP:CITE), which as we know is zero. ITAQALLAH 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems to be original research with no reliable links to back up the article --Soft coder^Talk 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient material from traditional biogrpahies of MUhammad to justify the existence of the article. Beit Or 09:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a person who wish to delete all the article created on Muhammad [68] even with good sources. However, here he is supporting an article which presents no good sources. First thing we must make sure is that he never evaluate any Islam related wikipedia article. --- ALM 10:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This topic is no less legitimate than Muhammad's marriages. Beit Or 10:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete: Delete it and recreate when you have very good sources to justify your big claims. --- ALM 10:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the source is no worse or better than the islamic sources used in wikipedia, Athesists, christians and jews have the right to write about islam, they cannot be discredited just because they are not muslim, naming this wbsite as "extremist" is ridiculous, I myself find all islamic websites as satanic but I have never asked to delete a whole article just becasue it has a satanic sources (you call the website in question "exresmist", allow me to use my own POV words).Toira 19:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and improve as necessary. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename and solve the contentious issues, such as the freeing of slaves. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I know of Victor A. Gunasekara (humanist, I'm an atheist thus the overlap) who has commented on this with e.g. http://www.uq.net.au/slsoc/manussa/tr05manu.htm in which he says " After the slaughter of the men of the Jewish tribe of Quraiza, and the enslavement of the women and children, Muhammad took Rihana, the wife of the chief of the Clan as a concubine. Of this incident Gairdner asks: "What of Rihana, the beautiful Jewess, taken to Muhammad's tent on the very night of the slaughter, she with a face yet wet for a husband massacred in cold blood, he with a soul newly stained by the blood of that husband?".(19) Rihana later tried to poison Muhammad." The reference is Gairdner Reproach of Islam, p. 96-7.. This sounds that there is a bit more to this and it would be suitably encyclopedic for Wikipedia. Ttiotsw 07:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Ah yet another attempt to censor relevant material that has to do with Islam. Amoruso 14:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep--CltFn 04:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Slavery was neither something specific to Muhammad, nor other encyclopedias or books I've seen have such sections. Slavery was not a significant point in life of Muhammad that could deserve an article. Usually, we should have an article on something where it is a significant part of someone's life otherwise it is violation of undue weight policy. Slavery was practiced until recent times and was approved by all religions. --Aminz 07:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Islam is credited by many as reforming the lives and circumstances of slaves. This article should record the lives of the founder of Islam's own slaves. That other encyclopedias have no articles on this need not be a reason to reduce Wikipedia to the least common denominator. Ttiotsw 09:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, we have an article on Islam and slavery. I am afraid this article might touch the "easy association of slavery with Islam" issue discussed here [69] --Aminz 09:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Amoruso. -- Karl Meier 11:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article should be expanded on. I'm not sure about the title as well. Maybe "Slaves of Muhammad" is better. There are a lot of hadiths giving a lot of information on his slaves and so, this article can be more than just a list of his slaves.--Matt57 23:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per my recent changed to the article, the topic is even more credible. There are actual articles on indevidual slaves. frummer 05:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable and sourced. Patstuart^talk|edits 01:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Muhammad. This article doesn't look like it has enough information to stand on its own. If it stays up, it needs a HUGE amount of work done on it. --Wizardman 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 explanation of creator and sole editor that this was a mistake. Uncle G 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People from Lamont County, Alberta

Was meant to be a cat, not an article Kevlar67 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as {{db-author}}. --Dhartung | Talk 17:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as the author requests deletion - could have used {{db-author}} instead. (aeropagitica) 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Alonso

DELETE : Now that I think about it, this is a pointless article that I shouldn't have created. This character was only on B&B for a short time and no longer has any connections on the show. Kogsquinge 01:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - hahnch e n 19:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Throw the Jew down the well

Delete, the subject of this article fails WP:Notability. FrummerThanThou 07:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~If there had actually been any media coverage on this song, WP:Notability would have been fulfilled somewhat but there hasn't.~~ In addition this article has included the entire copyrighted lyrics to the song several times which is what caused the redirecting of this article the first time. Gdo01 10:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Once again a user has tried to put the lyrics to this song on the page. Gdo01 19:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Borat. --Dhartung | Talk 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Throw the Jew Down the Well It has been covered by more than enough media sources (hell, more than enough conservative anti-Borat media sources) to exhibit notability. Just take a look at the dozens of Google News hits, including articles from Israel (natch), Australia, and India. (Aside: 82,000 G-hits for "Throw the Jew Down the Well".) While some of the articles only relate to the song or mention it in passing, many are specifically on the song and the controvery surrounding it. -- Kicking222 17:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually its closer to 677 unique G-hits of which most are fan sites or video clip portals. I'll accept the fact there are many news articles but other than stuff about the Anti-Defamation League, what more is there to say? Gdo01 19:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. Notable and interesting in its own right based on the controversy, but could be merged into a Borat article. References must be included. --GunnarRene 18:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be a redirect to Borat--Dmz5 21:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic gets 81 thousand hits and was discussed even in prestigious publications such as the New Yorker. Personally I would favor keeping the article under its current name and expanding the text. TSO1D 21:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Change of mind due to insertion of refs. It seems it is one of his acts that people feel the need for further reading up on. frummer 04:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Frummer: What are you doing? First you nominate this article for "deletion" [70] and now you vote to "keep" [71] it? This is just another example of the trouble you are causing on Wikipedia as you have done in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 14#Template:Bruchim and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox Halakha. You must stop your disruptions ASAP, or face the consequences. IZAK 10:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per above I changed my mind. Simple as that. frummer
Keep and rename Throw the Jew Down the Well OMG OMG OMG how much more famous can you get! - crz crztalk 05:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Open and shut, really, one of the most notable parts of the US Da Ali G Show. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's well known comedy by now, And yes, it also belongs in Category:Antisemitism for its contents and depictions. IZAK 10:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the condition that it is properly categorized (per IZAK) and analyzed. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep =) MetsFan76 18:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ironicly the strongest argument to delete was made by someone wanting to keep it... ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series

Original research synthesis about a Yu-Gi-Oh! parody fan series on YouTube. Now, as a disclaimer, I think it's hilarious, but I'm afraid it doesn't meet the Web content notability guidelines. Specifically:

The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
The content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation, as far as I know.
The content is not distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators. YouTube would fall under the "trivial" hosts clause, as in "Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial," as anyone can upload videos to the site.

Additionally, the article in is current form is an unencyclopedic analytical guide to the series based upon personal observation, not information published in reliable sources. --Slowking Man 17:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Articles about this subject have already been to AfD twice before, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Abridged Series and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series (although it appears those AfD debates ran concurrently). Nevertheless, from glancing at the deleted revisions, this article appears to be significantly different, so I feel that continuing this AfD may be useful (CSD G4 states, "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject."). --Slowking Man 02:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time someone has wanted to delete an article I have written under rights of notability so you'll forgive me if I sound...unhappy. While I will admit when i first began the article most of the infomation provided on The Abridged Series was from my own personal interpretation (It has since been edited several times) It is simply because I am not Little Kuriboh, and therefore can not give use reliable sources, short of asking Kuriboh himself (Something I have been trying to do, but have been unable to due his busy lifestyle). Another thing to point out is not every article subject on Wikipedia has been the subject of published works, nor has every article subject won a notable independent award. As to the host issue, Youtube is hardly a trivial host. Although, yes, anyone can upload onto the site (I myself own an account there) some of the contributors are well known companies such as NBS and CBS just to name a couple. I would also like to point out that episodes 1-14 were recently realeased onto Bittorrent (As close as it will ever get to a DVD release) thus taking it away from hosts all together. I am aware that the article doesn't read like other pages, but I am trying my hardest to change it. Also, unless the article is deleted, I am trying to improve it as best I can (Episode guide, etc) Finally, People LIKE this page. The articles talk page only has one person wanting to delete it (For it's notability) I have worked hard on it, and am pleased that people have taken an interest in updating it. in other words, I don't think you should delete this page. Dearing 19:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, asking Kuriboh for information would still conflict with WP:OR as well. Neier 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NOR, WP:WEB. Unfortunately, neither the number of people who (allegedly) like an article nor how much work the creator put into it are factors in whether it meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. RGTraynor 20:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, as much as I like this series, there's no way to keep it from failing policies all across the board. It's actually been deleted in two previous AfD's and I was nervous about the present article. I wish I could vote Keep, but it's not possible. Danny Lilithborne 21:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable online series, and there are much more obscure things on wikipedia. I also fail to see this agenda against YouTube videos.J'onn J'onzz 23:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it notable? Has it won any major award? Has it been re-broadcast on another media? Has it been subject of mutliple non-trivial sources? If not, it fails to meet Wikipedia web content inclusion guidelines. --Kunzite 01:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepVeemonjosh 23:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a debate, not a vote. Please provide reasoning for keeping this article. i.e. Add sources to the article that provide information that in someway meets the standards at Wikipedia's web inclusion guidelines --Kunzite 01:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Shouns 00:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Danny Lilithborne above. Neier 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Depending on our criteria for honours it (the original episode) may have 3. However those honours that it has earned are Youtube's internal ranking honours, so if we intend to start admitting them as criteria for notability we would need a decent discussion at WP:WEB on where to draw the line at, and they would probably be best put into briefly summarized lists someplace rather than their own articles. That discussion seems to have not taken place, so delete for now. --tjstrf talk 07:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per J'onn J'onzz. Birdboy2000 22:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it notable? J'onn didn't really provide a reason. --Kunzite 01:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "People like it" is not a reason to keep. The article provides no sources on how it meets Wikipedia's web inclusion guidelines. Has it won a major award? Has it been re-broadcast on another medium? Have there been multiple nontrivial mentions of it in any published work? I can't find any. --Kunzite 01:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.-DE SU 11:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to be noteworthy. I don't think it has escaped YouTube.--Cloak' 14:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Failing to have the article would be a serious deficiency on Wikipedia's part - Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people watch this. 140.247.146.103 18:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to delete this article, I will not stop you (I know other people simply keep putting old pages back up after being deleted.) However, I would like to say two things. The first is that I will be keeping a copy of this page in case THe Abridged Series reaches the specifications needed to to be classed as a wikipedia article. the second thing is that after reading the articles talk page, I discovered several people found the article to be useful (Note i said useful, not "They liked it".) Cactus Bob said and i quote "I personally searched for this topic myself. I believe that this page is a valuable resource for finding references that would be different to research on one's own", while MoChan said "I actually found out about this series in the first place thanks to this article". I always thought Wikipedia was here to inform people, that was the only reason I began this article. I think that the series is notable enough to get a page here, even though it's hasn't won any awards or been featured in publications, but judging from this page, many of you don't think the same. I can understand that. We all have to follow the rules, otherwise we'd have chaos. Dearing 16:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite accurate; Wikipedia's purpose is to be an online encyclopedia, not to "inform people," a vague aspiration under which damn near anything could be justified. That being said, you saving a copy of the article in the event the guidelines change or the subject meets those guidelines just makes good sense. RGTraynor 17:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Encyclopedia-A comprehensive reference work with articles on a range of topics." extract taken from Wiktionary's article on Encylopedia. Now to me, that just says "A Reference book used to tell people about all kinds of stuff," Which is what I use Encylopedias for, to look up info on things I want to know about. I couldn't find a page on The Abridged Series, so I wrote one in the hopes I could tell other people about it, and they'd find it useful. and for what it's worth, they did. Dearing 11:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Comprehensive" is not "all-inclusive." Again, you're using a fallicious defence: It's useful so we should keep it. We could data dump the New York City telephone directory into Wikipedia and some people would find it useful. Usefullness is a subjective argument. The page has to pass the objective guidelines for content inclusion. --Kunzite 18:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Comprehensive-Broadly or completely covering," so yes, essentually it IS all-inclusive. The most recent watched episode of THe Abridged series as of the date of this message was 257,526. three of it's episodes currently hold positions in You tube's top rated comedy section. It's featured on thousands of dirrerent forums. If this is notible, then I don't know what is.Dearing 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only is the page being worked on constantly, the fact that many other Youtube video series that are not as popular, or have even less information on them, exist on Wikipedia surely would mean that they should be up for deletion before this article? KatsuyaJounouchi 18:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. If there are other articles on Youtube vids that don't meet our Web Notability Guidelines then you should nominate them for deletion. (Or mention them here and someone else will.) --Kunzite 18:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page shows a lot of jokes people may have missed, and certain quotations.

It also adds a bit about characters behaviors, comparing them to their original behavior, in the original series. There is really no harm done with this article, it's well-built, and actually HELPS, by showing you certain quotations and their origin. N 14:32, 19 December 2006 [UTC]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.66.234.124 (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Now, I think that Wikipedia is the best thing to happen to the world in decades, but for the Wikipedia community to think that this article should be deleted is simply ignorant and dispicable. The article is unbiased and (with the exception of: no third-party publications, no notable awards, and no mainstream distribution) encyclopedic. Perhaps it does qualify as "original research," but as the writer of this article argued earlier, when there are no available primary sources, you are restricted to origial research. And seriously: if there ever are any "primary source" documents that discuss Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series, they will be published on the Internet, just the same as this article should be. That's just the way of modern publication. So what draws the line between this article and a "primary source" article hosted somewhere "non-trivial"? And this is where the ignorance comes in: There HAVE been third-party publications about this cartoon series, on many Internet sites that should be considered non-trivial. But again, where do you draw the line? Compare the entire Internet-savvy population of the world with the hundreds-of-thousands of viewers watching this series. The tens-of-thousands of them who found out about the series by reading about it on third-party Internet sites. I think it's pretty clear which side of your ambiguous line this article should fall on. And in regard to the "notable awards" argument, I don't know how many awards you would consider notable that are given out to online cartoon parody dubs. Especially considering that the series has only barely been around for 5 months. Do you take into consideration the fact that it may be up for nomination for any of these "notable" awards? I think as a rule of thumb it would be reasonable to leave the article up until the series has been around for a year, to see if it gets any of these awards (of course, with a disclaimer that states that many scholars argue it doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia, but it may be in consideration for gaining a quality that would deem it notable). And finally, the distribution issue. I don't know the laws on parody very well, but I'm sure there's someone in the Wikipedia community that can give some insight into this. All I suggest is that it's rather unlikely that something with content as legally questionable as parody would not easily be redistributed outside of open-source free-content-sharing communities like Youtube. Someone earlier in this AfD also mentioned the release of episodes 1-14 to Bittorrent, which sounds to me like it fits the bill of "well known and independent of the creators," although it too would fall under your trivial clause, wouldn't it? But there's the ambiguity again. In short, I think that this article's deletion will prove that Wikipedia's one great flaw is that it cannot understand how to alter the guidelines of "what is encyclopedic" to reflect the changes that the Internet has caused. You can take the paper out of an encyclopedia and put it online, but that doesn't mean you've got an online encyclopedia, you just have an encyclopedia that is online.DoomTree87 04:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment

Perhaps it does qualify as "original research," but as the writer of this article argued earlier, when there are no available primary sources, you are restricted to origial research.

A primary source is usually created by the person or persons being studied. In this case, that would LittleKuriboh's videos, so yes, you do have primary sources, primary that are available for verification purposes to anyone who can get to the Internet—provided that YouTube isn't doing maintenance.

here HAVE been third-party publications about this cartoon series, on many Internet sites that should be considered non-trivial.

Unless they're just fansites, then why don't you use them in the actual article? By the way, we aren't saying that "Internet = trivial". Go read WP:WEB. To see what sort of sourcing we expect of people who became famous on YouTube, see Category:YouTube and especially lonelygirl15.

So what draws the line between this article and a "primary source" article hosted somewhere "non-trivial"?

The most important difference is that a primary source article, or even a secondary or tertiary source article hosted anywhere makes a far better source for this particular article than does this particular article. Also, having an article on Wikipedia just means that someone wrote an article about you on Wikipedia. It means absolutely nothing in the notability department. I have literally seen people stick obituaries on Wikipedia. For obvious reasons, those have been long since deleted, but you can see articles about similarly unnotable people and things here.

The tens-of-thousands of them who found out about the series by reading about it on third-party Internet sites.

How on earth do you know this?

Someone earlier in this AfD also mentioned the release of episodes 1-14 to Bittorrent, which sounds to me like it fits the bill of "well known and independent of the creators," although it too would fall under your trivial clause, wouldn't it?

That's rather amusing, given that I recall hearing LittleKuriboh himself say that he was releasing them in Torrent form on his YouTube profile, which now says something else. That said, I did find this on his LiveJournal:

So yeah... 'm very sorry. Hopefully I can figure out this whole torrent thing, so's at least people can download the series to their hard-drives. That'd be neat, huh?

And then there's this:

Torrential Tribute
Can anybody who knows about torrents check this out and see if it works?
Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series Torrent
If it doesn't, then can ya tell me what I'm doin' wrong? *blush*

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rmky87 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Please be civil when debating articles for deletion. Calling this deletion "ignorant and despicable" is not warranted. Anyway, you said that this article is encyclopedic "…With the exception of: no third-party publications, no notable awards, and no mainstream distribution…" How is it then encyclopedic? It's got no reliable independent sources and it's got no claim to notability. You say: "There HAVE been third-party publications about this cartoon series, on many Internet sites that should be considered non-trivial" What are they? If they exist, please present them as evidence in this article, otherwise this is an empty declaration. How exactly is a series being released on bittorrent an indication of notability? Bittorrent is an open-sorce file sharing protocol that anyone with a pc, internet connection, and a bit of knowledge can use to share files. It's not an indication of notability.

You can see an example list of acceptable awards at the bottom of WP:WEB. If there are similar notable and independent awards that are given for this category of web items, then they can be considered as well. (Remember this guideline if for all web content: blogs, website, webcomics, online videos, etc. There are recognized awards in many of those categories, but not in all.) If the subject of the article has been nominated for multiple awards then it may be considered notable. An article need not be "[left] up until the series has been around for a year". If it became notable, then it can be easily re-created. The re-distribution clause is mainly meant for blog content that is republished in main-stream media. It can also apply to online videos that are re-show on other media. An online video example of this is Canon Rock (song). The video lead to major discussion on CNN, NPR, New York Times, etc…

As for the Wikipedia is not paper argument. Wikipedia does cover a lot of articles that would not be covered in a traditional paper encyclopedia. (Canon Rock (song) is an example.) We've taken the paper out of the encyclopedia. What you're asking is to take the encyclopedia out of encyclopedia. --Kunzite 21:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This series is a very popular section on YouTube. Not only that, but it also shows many old jokes from the series that old fans may have forgotten. It deserves to stay. Red Director 04:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest. Wikipedia doesn't exist to explain inside jokes for YouTube videos. Has it gotten any third party sources? Has it won any major awards? You can't just say it's popular. You have the burden to show evidence that it meets objective web inclusion criteria --Kunzite 20:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This series has been steadily gaining fans and been getting popular by the day. I personally found this article to be helpful and very handy for the information about the series. It's been mentioned on many places besides YouTube, regardless of what Cloak thinks. If you take an article on something this popular off, might as well take every freaking thing in the internet meme section off as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.176.123 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia isn't a popularity contest. Helpfullness is not a criteria for keeping. I could dump the Moosejaw Canada phone directory into Wikipedia and people would find it helpful, but it's not encyclopedic. If topics in the "meme section" aren't sourced, then feel free to nominate them for deletion as well. --Kunzite 20:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please, please, PLEASE tell me that those "other websites" aren't just messageboards. PLEASE. Not only can messageboard posts be deleted whether you like it or not, and the board in question move to another URL or disappear completely, but those forum posts are usually nothing more than links or commentary on the videos in question and may not be useful for sourcing anything in this article. In any case, it isn't just the quality of publication that matters, but also the non-triviality of mention. A passing mention in a tiny article in major publication doesn't count, either.--Rmky87 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davnel03 21:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Global Warning Tour

I believe this should be deleted as it covers a tour that wasn't shown live all over the world, although it came out on DVD, it was not a Pay-Per-View. Davnel03 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it, like the others was not a Pay-Per-View and not shown all over the world:

Strong Keep ... are you kidding? As far as I figure, the notability of an event doesn't stand or fall on whether it was broadcast live worldwide or was on PPV. I note that all of these are non-US events, and further note that the nom hasn't likewise nominated US wrestling events that failed to be PPVs or be broadcast worldwide. This may be the first time I've waved the Americocentric banner, but it's appropriate. RGTraynor 20:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. This information will do just fine inside WWE. Tzaquiel 22:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable wrestling events. TJ Spyke 00:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Being shown internationally does not mea being shown all over the world. Being shown everywhere but in the US counts/DGG 02:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being shown in a few countries on DVD is not notable. TJ Spyke 03:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all most supercards are usually not notable and have been deleted before. Booshakla 10:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless it's becomes a proper DVD. I don't think we need this. Govvy 17:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Game (rapper) (unsurprisingly), and since it has already been done I shall redirect it. Yomangani ^talk 11:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-Unot

G-Unot was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-28. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-Unot.

This is already covered in greater detail (with sources) at The Game (rapper) L0b0t 17:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom., While somewhat notable, this is all covered in greater detail with sourcing at The Game (rapper), there is no need for a seperate article here. L0b0t 17:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a relevant boycott of the rap group. It's frequently used. LILVOKA 17:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, yes it is relevant, but it is already covered in greater detail with proper sourcing at The Game (rapper). No need to merge (the info is already there), just delete this poorly written, unsourced article. L0b0t 17:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you see duplicate articles, that cover a subject that is "already covered in greater detail" in another article, your first port of call should be Wikipedia:Duplicate articles, not AFD, especially not AFD for the second time. The article already had a merge notice on it at the time of nomination. The nominator should have done the merger instead of bringing this to AFD. Uncle G 18:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Uncle G. I did not know about Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. I went the AfD route rather than merge as the article to merge into covers this subject better that the article to be merged. Cheers. L0b0t 18:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The merger notice itself links to that page. And that the target covers the subject better just means that steps #2 and #5 of the article merger process can be omitted. It does not mean that one should switch to AFD. Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage, even if the entire content of the article is duplicated. Uncle G 18:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lilvoka FirefoxMan 19:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please see The Game (rapper), where this topic is already covered in greater detail with some proper sourcing. This is a discussion, not a vote. Do you have a reason for keeping this article other than "per LILVOKA"? L0b0t 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known to hip-hop fans and has to do with one of the biggest hip-hop acts today (G-Unit and The Game). Just needs some clean up. --Ted87 23:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would like to invite all to check out The Game (rapper), where everything this article tries to cover is already covered in greater detail with sourcing. Just delete this page and make G-Unot redirect to The Game (rapper). This article should not exist, it just duplicates something poorly from another article. L0b0t 14:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I monitor The Game article very closly and have read it several times over. The problem I have with merging is that The Game (rapper) is already being crowded with information regarding his feuds, and it doesn't really need more info. I'd rather this article be deleted then merged. --Ted87 19:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also monitor the article; I believe that the information in the G-Unot article could be cleaned-up and easily merged with similar/identical information in the 50 Cent and G-Unit section; it might add two to three small paragraphs to The Game article. The G-Unot article already reads out of context, as if it's a section ripped from a more informative article; merging solves that problem. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Game (rapper), to the extent which any information in this article is NOT in The Game's article. L0b0t is correct. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 18:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per L0b0t--Thomas.macmillan 18:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Game (rapper). Sheesh. -- The Anome 12:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seeing how this looks like it will be deleted/merged, I too the liberty of adding all the relevant info to The Game article. --Ted87 20:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dandelion child

Just a dictionary definition of a phrase. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And do you have this phrase in english?

If you do then I apologize and won't mind if you remove it..

Delete, dicdef. Ravenswing 20:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of neologisms.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Music Box (magazine)

Speedy tag and PROD tag were removed, but I still don't see evidence that this is notable enough for inclusion. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to assert notability. —ShadowHalo 19:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps with a slight expansion to address whatever concerns there are. The reasoning is as follows:
1) The guidelines for Resources under Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines are basically non-existent, so it is unclear as to what criteria are being utilized to judge the validity of this entry.
2) Even under the more general guidelines for articles/entries, it should be noted that The Music Box and its staff have been resources for and have provided content to other mainstream media outlets.
a) Print: Its editor and staff have been resources and contributors to at least a few mainstream publications/newspapers. Both the Florida Times-Union and the Louisville Courier-Journal, for example, are the major papers that serve their respective areas.
b) Radio: Its editor has made guest appearances on at least one major radio station, where he served as the co-host of a regular segment. WKZE 98.1 FM is a large and well-respected commercial station in Connecticut.
That The Music Box has passed both the editorial and the commercial considerations of at least a few major print and radio outlets means that it has been recognized within the industry as being a notable, reputable, and authoritative media outlet in its own right.
Also, given that The Music Box is based in Illinois, these (Kentucky, Florida, Connecticut) are big geographic distances to traverse for a non-notable publication.
When combined with the 2-year duration of the radio segment, these facts lend very strong credence to the notion that The Music Box has knowledgeable expertise that has been recognized outside the scope of its own existence, which therefore makes it a notable resource/publication.
In addition, I also submit the following:
3) The registered users who created the article in February 2006 (and have since worked on it and categorized it) clearly have felt that The Music Box was a notable resource. It is puzzling that after all this time, it now is being targeted for deletion with a simple 'nn' designation.
4) The Music Box has been published since 1994, and while one could argue that longevity is not necessarily indicative of notability, it also could be argued that its having a track record of 12+ years is.
5) The Music Box is well-written and informative, the latter being the very definition of a useful resource. Again, taken on its own, this might not refute the argument that it is not notable, but the publication's well-reasoned reviews and its attention to accurate historical detail make it worthwhile to include.
6) Perhaps it also is worth mentioning that in its 12+ year existence, The Music Box staff has conducted and published interviews with many well-known artists and music industry representatives, including Bruce Hornsby, Burning Spear, author and historian Dennis McNally, Be Good Tanyas/Po Girl's Trish Klein and Train. For years, The Music Box also has covered quite a few albums from major artists prior to their release. Clearly, the industry views The Music Box as a notable resource. 71.155.233.121 00:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment .121, you have the first few examples backwards. Its not whether MV contributes to other publications, it's whether other publications talk specifically about MB, and here significantly means more than just saying its the source of their articles. Have its interviews been written about elsewhere.DGG 02:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - None of the above claims are sourced, but neither do they show how the magazine is notable. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 04:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Music Box was quoted as a reference in an article written by Sarah Fritschner in the Louisville Courier Journal on July 29, 2006. The article was titled Rogue Rocks, and it was in regards to a beer named Dead Guy Ale. The beer's name is in reference to Jerry Garcia, and The Music Box was asked to provide comment about the Grateful Dead/Garcia. 71.155.229.125 14:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an article from Slate (August 2, 2005) about online music that mentions The Music Box. 71.155.229.125 14:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to the Norman Transcript, a major Oklahoma paper, that distributes content from The Music Box. 71.155.229.125 14:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding fan and band sites (of which there are many that have made mention of The Music Box), here are some other articles that have referenced material that appeared in The Music Box:
e-Notes,
Florida Theatre,
Factbites.com/Bruce Hornsby,
Factbites.com/NRPS, and
San Francisco Mission District. 71.155.229.125 14:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Music Box was the subject of a profile in Capitol City Free Press (March 2005):
Per Notability - Online Content, The Music Box meets the criteria for an online site because it fulfills this guideline: "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." The Music Box's content has been distributed through Jacksonville.com (the online publication of the Florida Times-Union) and the Norman Transcript (see above). In addition, see 2-year long, weekly radio broadcast outlined in 2b above. 71.155.229.125 14:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No cited sources and serves doubtful encyclopedic value. Clearly violates one of three pillars of wikipedia, Verifiability. If it's such a notable subject, why have not more independent articles written about this topic been written for citation? Alan.ca 10:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Wire (Portsmouth, NH), writer Neil Lovett references and quotes one of The Music Box's concert reviews in his article "carrying a torch for Ratdog?". 71.155.230.220 15:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, CSD A7 (:saddowns:)Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byoblue

Color name of questionable notability. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd have said 'of no notability'. No currency outside the forum which named it. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One particular hex colour used on a website? No claims as-to its notability, so delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (aeropagitica) 21:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 22:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. ArchStanton 07:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete You guys aren't very BYOB you should really learn to chillax. :saddowns:--JettOutsider 17:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This color name is chillax and very notable. Everyone needs to know about it as much as Gray-Tea Green. 24.29.87.167 17:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Deleting This is a valuable colour like Gray-Tea Green 69.157.66.65 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and page created yesterday out of Something Awful forums where it's deletion is being discussed. Static Universe 17:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The SA goons were nice enough to vandalize my link. :) Static Universe 17:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' The original article (first in history) reads Byoblue is one of the colors used as a table post background for the forum BYOB on Something Awful. After much research, we found that it is not a named color and took it upon ourselves to name it byoblue. This seems to show that it is original research. Tens of thousands of color names are made up, e.g. by paint manufacturers and I see no cause to start collecting those with no cultural significance and not in any formal standard. Those not familiar with color science might like to note that there are 24 million hex color values, so a project to catalog them all exceeds the scope of Wikipedia. Notinasnaid 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, why the original version was edited, since Byoblue is much more important than just a background color.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 22:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seacourt Pavilion

I'm nominating this article for deletion a second time for several reasons.

The article does not establish the notability of the mall outside of Tom's River Township, New Jersey. Articles in the English language Wikipedia should have a much broader appeal.
The information in the article will probably be obsolete within 6 months. Simply due to the fact that the turnover rate for stores in malls can be high. So an interested editor is going to have to volunteer to periodically check the information and update the article as necessary.
Some of the material is promotional in tone.

Delete unless the above concerns are addressed.TheRingess 18:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP. RGTraynor 20:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons at the original discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seacourt Pavilion. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Err ... the two "Weak Keeps" the original discussion had both gave as reasons that the mall was commercially important in the locality. Well, sure, no doubt it would be, but what makes this notable? RGTraynor 22:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CORP is the applicable guideline for malls and other businesses. It isn't a public company all by itself, so it isn't on a stock market index. There is no evidence in the prior AFD, this AFD, or (most importantly) the article that any independent sources have published anything about this. So it fails the other criteria of WP:CORP. GRBerry 04:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Striking original opinion because I clearly missed the references section. GRBerry 22:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't tell what to do with it based on the sources visible. WP:CORP is the applicable guideline for malls and other businesses. It isn't on a stock market index, and we have no evidence that it meets the ranking index criteria either. The link is to a directory entry, so is clearly trivial coverage. The other stated sources are old enough to not be readily available online, but sources don't need to be online. The New York Times page number looks odd; what does the RER prefix mean? I'm guessing one of the regional or special editions, rather than the main paper. If it is one of the regional editions, that would indicate that the NYT thought it was only of local interest. If a special edition, I don't know what it means. The other appears to be in a trade publication, some of which are just paid advertising and some of which are good sources. I can't tell about this source either, so I don't know what we should do with the article. GRBerry 22:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to general philosophical issues I have with these second (and third, and fourth) attempts at deleting articles after failed AfDs, this article provides materials from multiple reliably sourced publications in full compliance with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CORP that deal directly with Seacourt Pavilion as the primary subject of each of the articles. To address the justifications for this AfD, 1) notability is established per unique feature offered at this mall, 2) There is a very limited number of stores listed, most of those listed are majors and anchors that have made a long-term commitment, and there are more than enough editors who have expressed an interest in maintaining this article to ensure that any changes are reflected, and 3) promotional tone is a wonderful opportunity to dig into the article and make it better, but a very poor (if not invalid) rationalization to delete an article. Alansohn 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not convinced that this article has established why the mall is notable outside of New Jersey. I agree with everyone else that it fails WP:CORP. I see one reference to the New York times that seems to be a simple article about its construction. One other reference is simply a listing in a directory. The other reference seems to be a magazine that is not notable. So I see only 1 brief article from 1988 in a major publication.TheRingess 21:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Yomangani ^talk 23:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CEDESNO: Concerned Electors for Democracy and Equitable Social Nights Out

I believe this article to be a hoax. Fails verifiability, notability and has all the hallmarks of failing WP:NFT too. Demiurge 18:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a hoax. And - even if not - is unlikely to pass notability criteria for clubs, societies, etc. Guliolopez 18:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got no GHits in english, not verifiable or notable, google doesnt see it FirefoxMan 16:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 01:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Shepherd Community Church Scarborough

Delete I have real doubt about the significance/importance of this church. It doesn't seem as though it is important enough to be listed in an encyclopedia. It also reads like an advertisement for the church, listing everything from the address to hours of different programs. I would also make mentions about the lack of NPOV in the section Good Shepherd Community Church Scarborough#Care House, but I feel that the significance and reading like an advertisement are the major reasons why I listed this for deletion. --Adam Riley ^Talk 19:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a problem with this statement: Care House is an expression of God's people at Good Shepherd Community Church showing God's love in practical ways to poor and oppressed in our community. It is grounded in the conviction that providing for the needy is critical to following God. --Adam Riley ^Talk 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an exact duplicate of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Shepherd_Community_Church_Toronto and is a Church Stub, giving information, and help to Scarbourites about this church. This is in NO WAY an advertisement, but just informational. AllanVS 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why does this page redirect to "Delete:Good Shepherd Community Church Toronto"? Diez2 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. --Adam Riley ^Talk 19:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP I was looking to delete "Good Shepherd Community Church, Toronto" and replace with this one (Scarborough), since the legal name is "GSCC Scarborough". If this page should be deleted because of listed times etc, then EVERY OTHER CHURCH PAGE will have to be deleted. Here are some other examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Park_Baptist_Church#Sunday_Services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Thomas_Anglican_Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James-Bond_Church_%28Toronto%29 to name a few. By golly! They all sound like advertisements!!! AllanVS 19:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making note of High Park Baptist Church. It has since been tagged for deletion. --Adam Riley ^Talk 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonnotable. Most individual churches are not likely to be notable enough for articles. NawlinWiki 19:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I looked at the other 3 articles mentioned by AllanVS, and nominated High Park Baptist Church immediately below. The other two seem to have historical significance. NawlinWiki 19:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I have my doubts about St. James-Bond Church (Toronto), but I do feel that St. Thomas Anglican Church has historical significance. --Adam Riley ^Talk 19:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see anything in the article that satisfies the proposed guideline WP:CHURCH or other notabillity criteria, and the article lacks multiple verifiable and independent sources. Edison 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well, if we are to follow the guidelines to the letter, then 90% of all church pages listed, should be deleted, as most of the information on them, are from internal documentations, and therefore, make each and every church listed here as 'advertisement'. Also, Althought written in third party, all articles have some form of advertisement to them. If I look up "Coke Zero" it's because I'm interested in learning about a COMMERCIAL PRODUCT. If someone looks up Microsoft Office, they they are looking up information, and, that is a form of advertisement. Perhaps, people need to stop being so petty, and let a church have an informational page listed. AllanVS 22:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom at WP:CHURCH; I am quite comfortable with both following the guidelines to the letter and in washing out all those articles on non-notable churches. May we turn the gunsights onto elementary schools next. RGTraynor 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certian that you're not allowed to vote twice. --Adam Riley ^Talk 03:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Every product does have some sort of advertising in it. It isn't that this article is blatant advertising; if that were the case, I would have nominated it for speedy deletion. The problem with this article is that the church is non-notable. According to Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations), in order for a church to be considered notable, there is three criteria to be met. 1) Local churches are usually notable if the scope of activities is national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source. While this church may attract members from immigrant communities (which is most likely true since half of the GTA is foreign born), it is not considered national or international scale. I doubt that more than a handful of people in Vancouver or Iqaluit are familiar with this church. 2) Individual local churches in notable denominations are not inherently notable, and do not warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability for the local church itself is established through reliable and verifiable sources. There is a link to the church website, which I will discuss in a moment. 3) Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found. There is nothing listed that it did anything non local in scope. For example, I'm not noticing that it has any national press coverage, or even that there were any abroad missionary trips (although that wouldn't count for notability, either). You could say that the website is considered to be reliable and verifiable sources. However, under assertions to be rejected, Internal documents cannot be used as an assertion of notability. However, they can be used as source material for an article...[i]nternal documents can include, reports, newsletters, press releases, magazines and websites published by the church itself, or any denomination or other organisation it is part of. Therefore, the church website doesn't count. Even if you listed the website for Congregational Christian Churches of Canada, that wouldn't count either. This church does not deserve to have a Wikipedia article. I understand that you are concerned about other articles being able to exist. I suggest and invite you to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where you can take a look at the criteria, and process of AdD, and invite you to even contribute by listing articles that do not meet qualifications, either. --Adam Riley ^Talk 21:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Adam, an AfD is not a vote, but a debate. See Wp:afd#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette. Alan.ca 10:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most local churches are non-notable. I see nothing here to suggest an exception. -- Bpmullins | Talk 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong deleteAnd may we soon do the others. DGG 06:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. It's very rare that a single church amidst a particular Christian sect becomes notable unto itself, and this is an example of one that has not yet done so. We are not a directory of churches; if you want that, you know where to find it. --Dennisthe2 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not want to say this of churches specifically, as contrasted with other community institutions. DGG 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Violates two out of three pillars of wikipedia. Verifiability as there are no cited sources. No original research as it must be entirely written from OR as there are NO sources. Alan.ca 10:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MC TV Network

Unable to verify any of this. Strongly suspect it to be completely fabricated. Delete. StoptheDatabaseState 18:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax; there are ZERO Google hits for "MC TV Network." RGTraynor 20:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 22:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and consider this a speedy if I can find a good reason to speedy it. Nonsense is the closest I can find thus far.... --Dennisthe2 22:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability and unreferenced. —ShadowHalo 22:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, on the balance of arguments presented. As one !voter puts it, We shouldn't be combing through fansites looking for speculative material to make an article out of.. The question of whether or not it is original research was discussed in some depth, with credible arguments for, some creative interpretations of that policy, and some individual elements undoubtedly having credible arguments against OR, but the overall subject - insignia not covered in canon - is pretty much a guarantee that, whether or not it is technically OR in every respect, it contains core elements which must be original research, and it unquestionably represents a level of detail in excess of what is generally considered appropriate for a general encyclopaedia. Material of interest only to a very small number of dedicated fans - carefully avoiding that piece of Wikijargon which I know is on the tips of several tongues. Friends, let's not fight any longer. This can go to memory Alpha, I'll happily hand over the source if anyone wants it, but on the basis of the arguments presented below this is simply too far from the core principles of verifiable material neutrally stated from reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia

A prior "no consensus" closure was overturned at deletion review and is now here for reconsideration. Please consider both prior discussions, especially the questions about WP:OR. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 18:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not cleaned up - I admire that someone has obviously been working on this article trying to source it, but statements like "With the exception of Commodore, Rear Admiral from Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek: The Original Series and vice admiral from Star Trek: The Original Series, no such insignia has ever been deemed official by the producers of the Star Trek series, therefore making the insignia purely conjectural" don't fill me with the idea that this is heavily sourced. The article is written well and has sources for some of what's written, and I'll happily change to keep if the OR stuff is removed. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, violates WP:NOR. Conjectural, non-canon stuff that the article states itself often comes from misconceptions, backhanded explanations or outright costume errors? This is chockful of original research, and probably would be a far better fit over at Memory Alpha or some other Trek Wiki. RGTraynor 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as classic OR synthesis and fancruft. JChap2007 20:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - look, the first paragraph sums this up nicely. "Alternate ranks of Star Trek are Starfleet ranks and insignia that have never appeared in canon Star Trek productions or materials, but have been described in non-canonical literature or fan sources. The main sources of such Star Trek rank insignia are Star Trek novels, technical manuals, fan magazines, and internet websites not directly connected with the publication of the show." This, self-admittedly, doesn't have reliable sources, only unrelaible ones. Therefore it's unverifiable and should, unfortunately, be deleted. Moreschi 20:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Cat is currently blocked and can neither vote nor update the article, and Husnock appears to have left, who were two of the primary editors who were attempting to source the article. Note to closing administrator: Cat would have voted to Keep this article. Please take this into consideration when closing this AfD. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 22:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please consider that this is not a vote, as such, more a consensus. They'd have to provide a good argument to keep it. --Dennisthe2 22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I know you're trying to do the honorable thing, but blocked users are not allowed to !vote and those who try (through socks) have their !votes discounted by the closing admins. It's one of the disadvantages to being blocked. JChap2007 22:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm more concerned that no one who was working on the article can correct it, which makes me feel uneasy about deleting it. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 00:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, in the first AfD, Husnock said that established editors had been working on this for over a year. I appreciate that they thought they were creating a good article (and one that might be a credit to another wiki, let me add), but if experienced Wikipedians put a lot of work into an article and it still failed (by a long measure, I think we can agree) to demonstrate that the topic met our standards for coverage, I am unconvinced that any amount of work could result in the article meeting the inclusion criteria. JChap2007 01:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Besides which I haven't seen anything in deletion criteria suggesting that the active support of an article's editors is a factor one way or another. RGTraynor 05:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Common sense suggests people writing the article would be more in the know in answering questions on potential problems. --Cat out 05:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Anything that is properly sourced can be merged with Starfleet ranks and insignia -- Whpq 22:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I personally enjoy Star Trek, this article is a combination of original research and speculation. As such, whatever content that cannot be properly sourced should be deleted. Any content that can be sourced can be merged into the existing article Starfleet ranks and insignia as suggested above. --Kyoko 00:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand that the contributors to this article have spent a lot of time writing it, and I would suggest that much of the content could perhaps be reproduced on another wiki that is more centered around Star Trek. This would have to be done according to any restrictions in the WP:GFDL, though. --Kyok o 05:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Sorry but I'm a purist however much I love Star Trek. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourcable material to Starfleet ranks and insignia - my contention with this page is that it inherently differentiates between canon and non-canon, and some Trekkish editors incorrectly conflate non-canon with unreliable -- which I don't think is the case. IMHO, excising material because it is non-canon is non-npov. Anyhow, there's a lot of conjecture in this article, but some of it is sourceable to published secondary sources; that material should be siphoned over to the "regular" ranks and insignia article; readers can decide on their own whether to "buy into" canon and non-canon material. --EEMeltonIV 01:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge EEMelton: whoever the hell you are you make uncommon good sense here. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. First, the most common objection I've seen so far is "original research". There's two quotes from WP:OR that I think are relevant:

Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it.

...

An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

The way I read that, quoting a statement directly from an off-screen source (such as a technical manual or a novel) is fine, as long as you make it clear where it's from, and that it's not canon. OTOH, using any source to invent new material yourself would definitely be OR.

"The Branch Admiral rank appears in the non-canon "Star Trek: The Next Generation Officer's Manual"" (the claim that it appears in this book is a verifiable fact)
"Leonard McCoy rose to the rank of Branch Admiral" (not stated on-screen, so it's conjecture)

Here are a couple other examples to illustrate my point (totally made up, of course):

Good, in-universe tone: "Luke blew up the Death Star (source: "A New Hope" movie)"
(based on canon source)

Good, out-of-universe tone: "In the novel "Dark Side", it is suggested that Luke used the Dark Side of the Force when he blew up the Death Star. However, this novel is not considered canon."
(sources the claim, but makes it clear it's only suggested, and it's not an established fact within the fictional universe yet.)

Bad, in-universe tone: "Luke used the Dark Side of the Force when he blew up the Death Star. (source: "Dark Side" novel)."
(it's not clear from this sentence that the source is non-canon)

Bad, out-of-universe tone: "It is suggested that Luke used the Dark Side of the Force when he blew up the Death Star"
(unsourced, dismiss as purely original research by the editor until a source is found)

If anyone has some arguments about this reasoning, please share them here.

Now, onto this article - the old Warrant Officer section was a mess, but it's been much improved. The only section that still bugs me is the Admiral's ranks - four versions of TOS ranks, based on two websites? (cough) OR (cough). I asked for a definitive source last time this came up, but none's appeared, so I'm going to delete this section - it can be put back if sourced.

The main concern that would make me jump between keep and merge is the size of the article - if the current article (minus admiral's ranks) is below the current minimum size for an article it should be merged to the main ranks page (while making very bloody clear that these aren't canon ranks). If articles of this size are commonly allowed to stay independent, then the same standard should be applied. Quack 688 01:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge - I would say that this article does indeed have references to merit some sort of inclusion, so I feel that deletion is unnecessary. As for merging, I'm told that in the past these actually were merged but they were forked as Starfleet ranks and insignia became too large (and is already quite difficult to load with the mass of images). If something can be done to reduce the complexity of dealing with the size of the article, then I would say merge, but if not, it seems like a valid option to keep the article. Cowman109^Talk 02:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep/merge; I agree that this is a bit minor for its own article, but it is an essential part of the Star Trek ranks and insignia coverage. It looks like most of the OR has been cleared out. Ben Standeven 02:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is sourceable into Starfleet ranks and insignia and redirect there. Yamaguchi先生 02:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is there a policy or guideline out there which talks about the size of an article? How big does a stable article need to be before it can stand as an independent article, and not be merged into a parent topic? (By "stable article", I mean it's not a stub, and it's been fully sourced, but it's unlikely to rapidly expand in the near future.) Quack 688 07:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll come out of retirement to vote on this due to my original argument: 17 sources are provided from various star trek manuals, publications, and live action productions. Warrant officer section was heavily re-written to reference exactly where the material came form and how the rank evolved over the years from no apperances at all to heavy apperances in Star Trek literature with O'Brien stated in the novel of "Emissary" that he held a "warrant". I'm sure this vote will not help, since forces at work seem intent on deleting these articles and I am making no further edit controbutions to this website with perhas the exception of reverting obvious vandalism. With that said, please no one bash my vote, call me names (like "Craftateer") or state that I have no idea what OR is. I'm just voting. -Husnock 07:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC) P.S.- Delete folks please visit here -Husnock 07:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quack 688. Just because a tech manual isn't considered canon, does not mean that it is unreliable. Non-canon in Star Trek just means that it has never appeared on-screen. Jecowa 10:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non-OR sections to Star Trek ranks and insignia, is much improved since the last time I looked at it, but more needs to be pruned. It is worth pointing out, per Jecowa, that things which Paramount has clearly labeled non-canon can still be notable for Wikipedia purposes (such as Star Trek: The Animated Series). Eluchil404 11:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article signs its own death warrant in my opinion with the comment, "Alternate ranks of Star Trek are Starfleet ranks and insignia that have never appeared in canon Star Trek productions or materials, but have been described in non-canonical literature or fan sources. The main sources of such Star Trek rank insignia are Star Trek novels, technical manuals, fan magazines, and internet websites not directly connected with the publication of the show." It seems an admission to lack of WP:N and and inherent violation of WP:OR. At most these insignia have been described in a book- the pictures are mostly pure conjecture and OR. By way of example. The 'ensign first class' insig is apparently descibed in the book "Doctor's Orders". I have included its picture right. How much of the book was taken up with the description of the insignia for so accurate a rendering to be produced?- WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 12:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I've got no idea. I've listed it as an unknown for now, until we get some sort of confirmation - thanks for pointing it out. Still, even if the rank is just described in the "Doctor's Orders" novel and not illustrated, we can still list it as a non-canon rank - just one with an unknown insignia. I think I'll have a quick look at some of the other ranks that claim to be only mentioned in novels, but still have rank insignia shown. In the worst case scenario that all the rank insignia listed from novels are bogus (no appearances as cover art or anything), we'd have to replace two or three pictures in one section of the article with an "Unknown". That's hardly a convincing case to wipe out the entire article. Quack 688 14:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't by any means the only rank and insignia I have difficulties with. See the talk page for my concerns with the rank and insignia of Branch Admiral (I've posted there so as not to clog up this already lengthy AfD).- WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How retarded. WP:OR is to prevent users from using Wikipedia as a platform for their own original research. Not to prevent original research or material by non-Wikipedians being the subject of articles. - Mark 14:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. chock full of original research (I've just removed a section that said "We don't know what this rank was but we'll guess it was a Warrent Officer because that what some fan literature said" - terrible. --Charlesknight 18:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:No original research. We shouldn't be combing through fansites looking for speculative material to make an article out of. If someone wants this, publish it somewhere that is not an encyclopedia. Jkelly 18:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is published. They weren't written by fans. The tech manuals are sanctioned by Paramount. Jecowa 18:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Okay, so if everything but the material from the "tech manuals" were removed, we'd be left with... Starfleet ranks and insignia show in tech manuals but never on film or somesuch, which we shouldn't have either. Jkelly 20:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jecowa. VegaDark 22:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like OR to me Glen 04:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete retarded or not, it is still WP:OR (unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material). Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the last couple of OR points - can you please look at the quote from WP:OR I provided in bold text above and explain your position? First, are these the original thoughts of the Wikipedian editor? No, they come from published sources. Second, if a non-canon source says that "Ensign First Class" exists, then we're allowed to say, "According to this non-canon source, Ensign First Class exists." This is not an interpretive claim, or an analysis of the rank, it's a simple statement of fact. Therefore, it is not OR. Quack 688 10:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly an example of unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material which the lead of WP:NOR mentions. It appears that nobody has previously, on the basis of these continuity errors, published a hypothetical rank system which accounts for them. I base this conclusion on the fact that no such study is cited, and that in several cases the article says that no explanation has been offered. If Husnock wants to retcon stuff in the privacy of his own home or cabin, that's fine, but Wikipedia is not the place for it until he gets it published somewhere else. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the whole sentence you took that quote from.

It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation.

A simple list of non-canon ranks, each individually sourced, is not "a novel narrative". (Building a hypothetical rank system with canon and non-canon ranks would be synthesis - but this article doesn't do that.) An article that lists several sources for and against the warrant officer rank, but does not make a claim itself, does not constitute "historical interpretation". Quack 688 13:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be relying on a very narrow interpretation of novel narrative or historical interpretation. This is a narrative, and historical interpretation, of continuity errors, and it is novel. What more do you want? You can easily disprove the claims of OR by citing secondary sources which provide a similar narrative or interpretation. What we get in the article are primary sources. That's no use at all for disproving a charge of original research. Quite the opposite: it vindicates the claim. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Assume that the rank "Dogsbody" appears in the non-canon book "Stuff".

- The statement of fact, "in the non-canon book, "Stuff", the rank of Dogsbody appears" is not OR, since it does not extrapolate the original work. It is a descriptive claim, which complies with the OR policy I quoted in bold, since it is "easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge" - anyone who reads the book can confirm that the rank appears.

- A host of secondary sources is not necessary when making a factual claim about a primary source. (Compare with Hamlet - you don't need a secondary source to simply say, "In the play "Hamlet", Hamlet meets a ghost". If you want to start discussing character themes and motivations, like "Was Hamlet insane?", however, then you do need secondary sources.)

- "Dogsbody is a canon rank" is incorrect, since the source is non-canon.

- Interpretation like "Dogsbody is roughly equivalent to Ensign" is OR, unless this claim also appears in the book. Quack 688 22:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. As per my original nomination. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, conjecture, and speculation. This is all those things, and it doesn't matter if it has 17 references or 653,217 references, it's using those references to conjecture a whole series of ranks in a system based on nothing but guesswork, and making up insignia to support that conjecture. The issue is not whether the references are reliable (personally, I think they are reliable when you're talking about star trek fanon) - their reliability is immaterial to the discussion at hand. The references are being misused, synthesized and extrapolated, which is original research. Proto::► 13:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've already voted delete, with the suggestion to merge sourceable material with Starfleet ranks and insignia, and the further suggestion to transfer content to another wiki following the restrictions of the WP:GFDL. I haven't changed my mind, but I was thinking about this article, and it occurred to me that any illustrations in the article should not be used unless if they are based upon actual pictures or illustrations in the sources. A novel might describe such and such a rank as being in between two known, existing ranks, but unless their is some picture to support that, any illustration of such insignia on this page would constitute speculation. The illustration might make logical sense, but it would still be speculative. --Kyok o 23:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I already changed the ensign first class picture to "unknown", the only remaining ranks that are drawn solely from novels are midshipman and the DS9 CPO ranks. Unless someone mentions where those insignia came from in the next couple of days (e.g. if they're on the cover art), I'm happy to swap them to "unknown" as well. Quack 688 00:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The concensus at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive15#Are most Wikipedia "Lists of" original research? (fork from “Ghost ramp”) seems to be that this sort of article is not necessarily original research. Ben Standeven 01:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. This has nothing to do with our guidelines on Original Research. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 20:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Since there appears to be a level of confusion, let me explain a few things about Star Trek franchise's understanding of canon:

Firstly, I do want to point out that everything on star trek is a fake. It is all fiction, someones original fantasy (not even research).
A lot of material published by the official creators of the show is considered fanon such as Star Trek: The Animated Series. This is primarily to maintain series continuity. They do not want to introduce something that will hunt them later on.
Practically every star trek episode has a novelized non-canon (fanon) version almost always written by the same people who write the script for the episode. These aren't fan work as the word "fanon" suggests but official publication not considered canon. Novel series have a canon within themselves and they often do contradict the official canon TV show. Tucker never died in the novelized version of Star Trek: Enterprise unlike the tv series.
There are official yet non-canon publication such as Star Trek games, Star Trek Encyclopedia, as well as various "tech" manuals of the show that occasionally cover material never shown on TV. These books are 100% original fantasy just like the show. However, the people writing the books and making the show are the same people.

As for wikipedias approach to the matter at hand:

Wikipedia's policy on original research does not care if material is considered canon or fanon. So long as it is published (Star Trek Encyclopedia certainly is published), OR can no longer apply. If you feel there is unpublished material on the article, feel free to comment them out.
Conjecture (speculation) is acceptable on wikipedia provided its not OR (ie my speculation). For example creators of the show have long 'speculated' how ST:TOS admiral insignia supposed to look like. Same thing happened with the movie pins. Different tech manuals and etc have contradicted each other until canon was established with later movies. Star Trek Encyclopedias representation of the pins have evolved over time in accordance with canon. We have entire articles based strictly on speculation such as 9/11 conspiracy theories article.

As for the merge idea:

That is a very bad idea. The article Starfleet ranks and insignia as is is about 32ks and thats just wiki code. A merge would make that article very hard to load on computers with slower internet link. This article originally was part of it and was forked off of it for this very reason.

As for the move to other wiki idea:

Memory alphas project-scope does not include fanon with the only exception being Star Trek: The Animated Series. This is similar to wikipedias project scope. As encyclopedic they can be, dictionary definitions or entire books are not welcome here but instead on wiktionary and wikibooks respectively.

--Cat out 04:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Practically every star trek episode has a novelized non-canon (fanon) version almost always written by the same people who write the script for the episode." This is just wrong. There are exactly two novelisations of episodes or films written by the person who wrote the episode, compared to what, several hundred episodes? (the vast bulk of which have never been novelised) Morwen - Talk 11:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess my knowledge is flawed. I am after all getting old. So please remind me, what is the status of the novels? Are they written by random fans? --Cat out 11:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well not fans but random writers would be about right. The other problem with the novels is that because they are non-canon, the powers that be don't care if multiple writers do follow-ups to the films or novels that don't match up with each other. Take the last original cast movie - there are a number of novels set just afterwards - none of which match up. --Charlesknight 11:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP: Camel Commodore would like to keep this article. It is from star trek books and magazines and shows insignia which we would otherwise not no about. Camel Commodore votes keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CamelCommodore (talk • contribs)

- Camel Commodore is banned! —Centrx→talk • 08:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Banned, sock, whatever. Struck the !vote. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 21:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres commited by Israeli forces

This is partly a copy paste from List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but entirely POV since it's only Israli massacres. Complete original research, POV, and unverifiable by nature. There's been some 3RR over prodding it and redirecting it to List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but I'd rather see it deleted and salted Elar a girl^Talk|Count 19:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. It's not partially a copy paste - it's a complete copy paste. Check the history. In time, some were added which are not massacres by any standards, it's a POV fork. It's such a copy paste that the person who created it didn't bother to add "references" in the end to the sources linked from the original article. Amoruso 19:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Amoruso. RGTraynor 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV forking. Koweja 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV magnet. Beit Or 20:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and also that it'll lead to endless arguments about each listing. --Leifern 21:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another great article written by a true man on a mission.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Your sense of sarcasm is crushingly good. :D --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~question~~ How is this a Pov Fork? One is about a war that spans a year, the other is about all the massacres commited by a nation. One is has several nations involved, and only one year span, the other has one nation span and several years... I think i just convinced myself to vote Keep. --Striver 21:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. POV fork. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Amoruso. 6SJ7 22:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, it's not OR, because the sources are on the other pages. We have Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America which is undergoing AfD for the second time and is going to pass for the second time, this article is the same sort of thing. It would be nice for some of the sources to be carried over from this article, and I would support a move to List of alleged massacres by Israeli forces or something like that if the article name is so troublesome, but the page belongs here. — coelacan talk — 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Then basically you say "Rename". That would be ok but this article is flawed from the beginning as 99% of it is copy paste from another article and the rest is obviously not a massacre and not sourced (the sources provided now are not sources for this at all...). So best to delete it and it's possible to create another article like you say. Amoruso 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, duplicate POV fork. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as sources are provided this article is fully valid. There is no POV in a list of facts. If this article is deleted the articles Palestinian political violence, List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks, List of Hamas suicide attacks, List of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide attacks and Terrorism against Israel are to be deleted as well per your own reasoning. --Nyp 22:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, shameless POV fork for purposes of {{db-attack}}. Weregerbil 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. My reasons are obvious. Its so totally an attack page on Israel. Ilikefood 22:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of Hamas suicide attacks is 'so totally an attack' on the Palestinians then? --Nyp 22:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The references you add don't support that these were massacres (except Palestinains saying so). You can change it to "List of Israeli operations" for example. Note that it doesn't say List of Hamas genocide terrorist attacks which is what it is. Amoruso 23:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How come that you are the one to define what is a massacre and what is not? See Massacre at your own convenience. Israel has done precisely the things listed on that page. Whether it is me, you or the Palestinian people who call the actions for massacres is irrelevant. As long as it can be verified that they did occur and that they fall under the massacre criteria, they are per definition massacres. --Nyp 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel has not done the things listed at all and definitely not precisely like you claim. Massacres="deliberate and direct mass killing" - what you're trying to add wasn't direct and definitely not deliberate. It was colltareal damage or MISTAKES. It was deliberate sometimes during those events already described in the original article it was copy pasted from. Hence, redundant. Amoruso 23:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I stated that the article should be properly sourced. No, not with sources calling the actions for massacres, but with sources verifying that the incidents did occur and that Israel was the perpetrator. Whether it were deliberate actions or not is something that never will be fully agreed upon on this site, thus, a redundant discussion. Find sources for either POV instead, and do remember that UN officials stand above Israeli newspapers. --Nyp 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that Israel did not deliberately do those is not a question for debate and no RS in the world accused Israel of doing that. It's just grinding water now. Amoruso 00:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is laughable, are you insinuating that only sources that are Israel-friendly are WP:RS? --Nyp 01:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, exactly the opposite. There are no RS whatsoever who call it massacre, israeli friendly or not. Amoruso 02:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Appears on the face of it a combination of POV-fork and soap box. I have no issue with "so totally an attack page on Israel" (not leaping out at me from WP:DP that we have an obligation to be nice to Israel) or "endless arguments" (nope, don't see that either; debate is healthy). However, the article has fatal NPOV issues: the title begs the question; the content is poorly sourced, and the list indiscriminate. I do not believe that these issues could be resolved in the course of normal editing, or by better sourcing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Coelacan. Travb (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IZAK 23:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It is WP:V verifiable and WP:RS sourced and does not violate WP:NPOV as well as notable and follow what WP:LIST says we should have lists for. ThanksRaveenS 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - even if it was true, it's simply a copy paste of another article with a a few mistakes and perhaps one more massacre. Amoruso 23:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of pushing for a deletion you could consider improving the article instead. --Nyp 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried. I tried to redirect it to its original article before the copy paste. I then tried to remove the recent military operations from it that were decided in their respective articles that they weren't massacres, hence being a 1 to 1 copy paste. Amoruso 23:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus reached amidst Wikipedia users does not stand above what term definition, international organizations and media call the actions. Personally I support a redirect as per your suggestion though as I partially dislike 'articles' like this. --Nyp 23:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any RS media/international organizations who truly believed Israel massacred there in the meaning of the definition you provided. Good, if you support a redirect then change your vote. the article can always be recreated as a redirect. Cheers, Amoruso 00:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom - unsalvageable POV fork, Tewfik^Talk 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Amoruso. Elizmr 01:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all above.--Mantanmoreland 03:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork and not especially needed.--Rosicrucian 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (after rename) The title is POV, it should be changed to IDF operations with significant civilian casualties, to avoid any hint of bias. My concern arises when the list itself, irrespective of its title, is referred to as "a POV attack page".

Unverifiable - Unless someone wants to argue that one of these incidents is a worldwide media hoax, we should accept that all of these were, in fact, IDF operations with significant civilian casualties - i.e. on date A, some civilians (estimates range from B to C) died at location D, and the IDF was operating in the area at the time. So change the list name to something that reflects that. Any arguments about sourcing, and whether something was a massacre or not, belong in each specific article - this should be just a navigation list, not a full article. (Btw, if someone wants to argue that "significant" is biased, we could change it to just IDF operations with civilian casualties, so even 1 is enough for a mention, but that'd result in a lot of red-linked articles like we see in the terrorist lists below. If we have to go down that road, though, fine, I'm up for it - fair's fair for everyone.)

One-sided - as Nyp mentioned, there are several one-sided lists regarding this conflict on Wikipedia. (I'm assuming those groups took responsibility for every single action listed there, and that there are no "alleged" attacks in those lists.) A "one-sided" approach would be achieved by making it easy to locate articles on incidents involving one side, while making it difficult to locate articles on incidents involving the other side. Quack 688 06:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The list contains events that happened by Jews and not Israelis before Israel was even created. Such a list you propose might be a possibility but it's something completley differnet. This one should be deleted as it's just a copy paste ! Start over if there's a need for a like like you suggested... Amoruso 06:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair call, the IDF wasn't involved in all the incidents listed - my bad. I looked up the other "responsible parties" in that list on Wikipedia and found these:

The Haganah (Hebrew: "The Defense", ההגנה) was a Jewish paramilitary organization

The Palmach (in Hebrew - " פלמ"ח ") was the regular fighting force of the Haganah

Lehi ... was an armed underground Zionist faction

Irgun ... was a clandestine militant Zionist group

The neatest option I see is a split into two lists. All IDF ops can be left in the current list (after a rename to List of IDF operations with civilian casualties, I forgot "List of" before), and a new List of Jewish paramilitary operations with civilian casualties list can be created to move those non-IDF incidents into. If we could think of a good NPOV name, we could keep them together, but it's becoming more and more unwieldy, if we can't use "massacre" or "alleged massacre", and we can't say "Israeli forces", since some incidents occured before Israel was created. "List of Israeli military or Jewish-aligned paramilitary operations with civilian casualties"? is getting ridiculous. Any thoughts on the split into those two lists? Like I said before, as long as incidents on both sides of the conflict are easily accessible, I'll be happy. Quack 688 07:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist operations with civilian casualties? --Striver 14:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That one sounds even more risky.--Rosicrucian 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment if its a duplicate as stated then obviously it goes. equally obviously same logic should be applied to all these lists from this conflict, predating al nakba up until the present, they should all be laid out as in List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war not these random pov 'lists of x by y organisation'. this also provides the most logical/'neutral' way of list massacres whose perpetrators are disputed. ⇒ bsnowball 08:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No one is proposing deleting Terrorism against Israel so why delete this list which brings together important information Abu ali 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Nyp and User:RaveenS though i am not sure about renaming it. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, per nom and violation of copyrite. frummer 14:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a copyright violation, exactly? Quack 688 16:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: compare this list with List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Both lists use the same casualty standards (10 or more). We can argue over the naming conventions, but if both sides have their own list of "incidents", it's hardly a case of POV. Quack 688 16:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Note also that the above suggestion that List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada is an exact parallel does not hold, since that title refers to an event, whereas the title in question here refers, and apparently quite intentionally at that, to a specific group of people. -- Olve 16:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, we can argue over the titles all we want, but when you stop and look at the actual contents, you'll see that there are a lot of one-sided lists in existence. (Just for the record, the list I mentioned contains twenty-three massacres committed by Palestinian forces, and zero massacres committed by Israeli forces.) Quack 688 16:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it refers to an event or a group makes no difference. We have Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America which is passing AfD as we speak, and this is the same thing, referring to a nation's military. — coelacan talk — 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV, if it had original content, which it does not, I would vote to merge, but oh well. FirefoxMan 16:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might not know this, but POV is actually not an argument for deletion. Look right there on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion where it says "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." And at the top of the page it also says "For problems that do not require deletion, including ... POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." So you actually have no argument for deletion. You're welcome to try again. — coelacan talk — 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might not have noticed but his argument is that it has no original content which is definitely a reason for delete. This article is not about whether or not it's POV or not, it's just a copy paste of another article with a few wrong additions. That's why it should be deleted foremost. Amoruso 10:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: per nom and Amoruso. ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 19:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's my belief that words like "massacre" are impossible to square with WP:NPOV. The simple reason for this is that there is no neutral definition of the term, and any classification is bound to involve, intentionally or unintentionally, the bias of the individual author. Even if it were renamed more neutrally, I have specific POV-conflict issues with any listing that includes only one side in a battle, "list of state terrorist acts against israel" would never be accepted as fully NPOV, neither would "List of acts of unprovoked agression by Arab states" so why would this? NPOV also extends to the articles we keep in relation to the ones deleted. Wintermut3 21:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these are not even massacres. --Shamir1 22:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - okay, this POV issue has gone too far. There are two ways that I see this list could be considered POV:

1) The term "massacre" in the title is POV - if so, find a better name. "List needs renaming" is not a criteria for deletion.

2) Any article which only lists one side's attacks is inherently POV - if the group reaches that decision, I'd humbly suggest that all the following lists be put up for deletion on the same criteria:

(If anyone else knows some lists or articles with purely one-sided content for either side (I don't care what it's named, I'm talking about content here), feel free to edit my post and add them below:) Quack 688 01:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada

List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks

List of Hamas suicide attacks

List of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide attacks

Terrorism against Israel

Zionist political violence Quack 688 00:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Coelacan. Facts are not POV. Akihabara 09:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All facts are already covered in another article as stasted. It's a duplicate. Amoruso 10:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It seems that rules apply differently depending on who is doing the killing... The article is only a duplicate since User Amoruso erased all the massacres he didnt like.--Burgas00 16:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's of course not true. It's sad to see this response actually by the user who copy pasted the article and didn't even bother to copy paste it correctly. Amoruso 17:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This and related list concerning Israeli-Palestinian conflicts are controversial. I have seen an Afd for something similar before. Lists of this kind fail the WP:POV test unless there are articles covering atrocities on both sides. Merge with List of massacres commited during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, but there is a need for a list of atrocities commited by Arabs on Israelis in 1948 too for neutrality. Peterkingiron 18:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you miss the point. this article is not confined in time, while List of massacres commited during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is confined to one single year. --Striver 18:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV. Shanes 20:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of POV? Who's point of view? --Striver 20:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not to call them massacres depends on people's point of view. We're taking side by calling them that. We shouldn't. Shanes 20:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I opened up List of massacres commited during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (an example of a list which contains only one side's attacks), and chose Jerusalem bus 19 massacre at random. Two sources are provided on the list, a third appears in the article itself.

[72][73][74]

The only source where the term "massacre" is used is from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Therefore, I suggest that its use to describe that incident constitutes POV, and it should be removed from the title. If this list gets renamed to "alleged massacres", so should that list. Look, either we ban the terms "massacre" and "alleged massacre" all together, we establish a common definition for their use, or we only use "massacre" when the mass media uses the term itself. But whatever policy we choose, we have to be consistent when applying it.

Same for content - I don't care if we ban all "list of one side's attacks" pages, or if we say they're only allowed if each side gets their own page - but we have to be consistent above all else. Quack 688 00:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i agree, i do not appreciate this move to delete this article, while the palestinian "massacre" articles remained untouched and undisputed. --Striver 05:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see nominations to delete articles about the actual/alleged incidents. --Leifern 12:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like Jerusalem bus 19 massacre remain undisputed because Hamas and al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades actually both claimed responsibility, and believe that blowing up the bus is justified. Tewfik^Talk 07:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inherently POV - note how what Wikipedia titles the Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident is labeled on this list as Beit Hanoun massacre GabrielF 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is List of massacres commited during the Al-Aqsa Intifada also "inherintly POV"? Are you saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Israeli forces to commit a massacre and any claim of it will always be a point of view? even if so, why not a simple rename to "killing" or something else? Is it "inherintly pov" to chronologically list the Israeli forces killings, but NPOV to list the Palestinian killings? --Striver 07:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it is inherently POV to take a list of attacks from both sides and copy only one side into a separate article. Further, it is absolutely improper to relabel incidents as massacres when they are not described as such in the article. The intifada list is a separate issue, although I would probably support a name change. GabrielF 18:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are worried that some non-massacress will be included, then delete those, that is an editorial issue irrelevant for this afd. But maybe your argument is that ALL of the Israeli forces massacress occured during that single year? If not, why is it POV to list them, and who's pov? --Striver 19:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm skeptical about such lists to begin with, but this one is begging for trouble. Alleged massacres and other violations should be covered and discussed, but this is a clear POV magnet. --Leifern 12:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holy POV fork, Batman. 205.157.110.11 14:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've had another five "delete - pov" votes, but no-one's directly addressed what I asked before, so I'll try again. Is it POV because of the term "massacre" in the title? If so, rename to List of Israeli operations with civilian casualties, and replace the word "massacre" throughout the list with "incident". Is it POV because it only lists one side's attacks? If that's reason enough for deletion, then every list which only list one's sides attacks should also be deleted, starting with the six lists I mentioned a couple pages ago. Think about the precedent that sets for a moment. Quack 688 16:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People still think that this is a vote, so they ignore arguments. If the presedence is that single-sided lists are POV, then ill start following it. --Striver 19:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single sided anything is PoV, hence the policy WP:NPOV. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why not merge the page with "Terrorism against Israel" that way we solve 2 problems at once/....--Burgas00 22:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: (or possibly merge with all the various list of massacres commited by Palestinians) Abu ali 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I think this is your second vote, isn't it? Beit Or 22:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck out attempt to double vote. Isarig 22:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, my mistake Abu ali 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV. Isarig 22:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And Isarig is never POV. Just look at his edit history :-)
  - Please cease your personal attacks. Comment on content, not editors. Isarig 23:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Were you yourself not blocked twice for personal attacks. Do I not detect certain degree of hypocrisy here? Abu ali 23:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork, magnet.--MONGO 16:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PoV Fork, highly biased / one sided. Magnet for trouble. I mean come on "massacres commited by Israeli forces" we need an article title filter to prevent stuff like this. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now that someone has renamed the ridiculous title, it's actually encyclopedic an relevant. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly every military operation involves civilian casualties, thus the new title just makes no sense. Beit Or 10:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this could be construed as very POV, with weasel language in the name of the article and in the redirect links. For example, it still refers to 2006 Qana as a massacre, even after the Wikipedia community voted to change it to 2006 Qana Airstrike. This could also be construed as racism. Valley2city 03:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes but that can be simply edited (to valley2city) no need to erase the article because there are some things to fix in the content.--Burgas00 11:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - farcical. Define these so-called "civilian deaths" in a NPOV way for me. The very existence of listcruft like this stinks. Horrible POV and is not needed. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary, inflammatory cut-and-paste job. POV magnet. --Folantin 13:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject inherently NPOV. And looking over the article I sense a structural NPOV in the article names. Whereas 9/11 was an “attack”, Beslan & Moscow & Budyonnovsk were crisis, Amish was a shooting, 7/7 in London, Mumbai & Madrid, Moscow were bombings, etc. - all these incidents involving Israel were apparently no less than massacres. Rune X2 14:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pov fork Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (G11).--Hús ö nd 20:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polo Club Of Boca Raton

Contested speedy. Business offering no indication of notability Nuttah68 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. Reads like adcruft. RGTraynor 20:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above FirefoxMan 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 21:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kolko Scandal

Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Yossiea 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DeleteYossiea 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as attack page. If this fellow wasn't notable before, a single arrest in a local case doesn't make him so. RGTraynor 20:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 00:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DM Ashura

The subject of this article does not meet WP:MUSIC. Under the criteria for musicians and ensembles, he could meet number 10, but I disagree with the notion that any of the appearances in games were notable enough to require more than a passing notion in the respective articles, especially considering the great amount of minor artists that are featured in things such as Dance Dance Revolution. The article is not referenced properly, with most of the references being to trivial web sources. The article's subject has been actively editing the article. Voretus ^talk 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I closed the last AfD, see my notes on the debate in the grey box at the top there. If I may suggest, participants in this debate should consider whether the concerns about verifiability from the first debate have been addressed yet. --bainer (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I believe that this article DOES meet #10 under the criteria for musicians and ensembles, and we've already gone through this once before. It's been considered for deletion and kept once already, there should be enough to that page to keep it from deletion again. Bkid 21:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the consensus wasn't to keep; there was none. Voretus ^talk 20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Edit: The last time I checked, when it was last nominated for deletion, the majority of users DID agree to keep the page.Bkid 20:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As is often stated around here, AfD is not a vote - it's the weight and quality of the "arguments" that lend to a decision to keep or delete.B.Wind 23:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To keep it straight, though, the overall consensus was no consensus, while the consensus of the notability argument was keep. The point which was not refuted by the past AfD was the availability of verifiable sources. dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 12:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This falls under the guidelines of Speedy_keep #3, the end of sentence 2: "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments after they were strongly rejected". There was a split consensus for the last nomination, where notability was majority keep and verifiability was majority delete. This has been settled though, since {{unreliable}} has been removed and all of the sources ARE, in fact, nontrivial. Bkid 21:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thus by your own account, Speedy Keep #3 cannot apply as there was no consensus one way or the other ("strongly rejected" requires consensus, which was clearly lacking). B.Wind 06:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect, There was consensus on the point of contention on which ~~you nominated~~ the article was nominated, therefore speedy keep is applicable. Beyond that, WP:MUSIC is not a policy. As it states in the article itself it is, in fact, a ~~rule of thumb~~ guideline. Notability has been asserted and the subject himself has been proven to be notable in the prior AfD. Pumeleon 14:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The extent of my own editing of this page has been formatting, adding sources, combatting edit wars and disruption, and actually removing unsourced information. I have not been contributing new material to the article. I feel like I'm justified by WP:AUTO in doing this, as I'm not violating anything in said guidelines. Bill Shillito 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you'd be justified only if you were making simple edits to fix vandalism - corrections and more sizable contributions from the subject of the article are more properly put on the article's talk page, and then a third party adapts them to the article. B.Wind 06:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why do so when I'm already a Wikipedia contributor, and I can just make the edits myself? I reiterate, I have not contributed any new material to the article.Bill Shillito 07:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see the point here, although the article was not created by him, and the guidelines set in WP:AUTO don't specifically limit to reverting vandalism—simple factual errors could also be edited. While perhaps some of his actions may be questionable, ~~this wasn't a reason for the AfD~~ it was not an issue during the past AfD, and the WP:AUTO guideline doesn't make a reason for deletion in itself. Worst case, there's always the edit log. dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 12:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems all right to me (Liveforever22 03:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. --Strothra 04:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the notability claim was supported by the previous AfD, so unless there is a specific point, I don't think the reason "per WP:MUSIC" is satisfied. Could you perhaps justify your claim a bit clearer? B.Wind does make some good points regarding notability, and maybe something he said could be used to clarify your point. dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 12:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go through the qualifications of WP:MUSIC: not close on #2 through #6, #8, #11, and #12; falls short on #10 (as it appears to be his "only claim" - and he creates music for software, which many would consider less than "notable" per the description); while some people could argue about the applicability of #7, his work is not representative of a specific city, particularly his native New York City. This leaves #9 (won or placed in a major music competition) and #1 (subject of reliable, independent coverage).

Some would argue that his winning Konami's music competition is notable enough, but others would counter that it is not unlike the jingle contests of the 1950s and 1960s and therefore not "major enough" to satisfy #9; regarding #1, triviality is in the eye of the beholder. Almost all of the links provided are not independent of the subject and do not exhibit notoriety beyond that of a limited audience of "the beat game community", and the one that could have worked if the article originated in something a bit more circulated than a college newspaper. It's a very close call - weak delete unless/until notability beyond the beat game community is better established via WP:MUSIC #1 or #9. B.Wind 06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as before. Please stop with the renominations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - A consensus to keep the article on the point of notability was to Keep and therefore cannot be renominated on this point. The article does have proper references, and they are non-trivial in nature. They are, however, specialized, but seen by a wide variety of people in the Bemani Community. This does not lend to the sources' triviality. The subject editing the article is not a point on which you may nominate an article for deletion. Pumeleon 14:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and Amendment - The closing admin placed {{unreliable}} on the page with instructions to remove it once the issue had been handled. This was part of the decision and a consensus was reached on the talk page that the issue had been resolved, therefore, the argument that the sources are trivial or otherwise not appropriate holds no water, therefore my Speedy Keep is applicable. Pumeleon 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This again? This article fits WP:MUSIC. What's wrong? Sharkface217 00:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why must we keep going back to WP:MUSIC? As previously stated by Pumeleon, WP:MUSIC is not a policy. As it states in the article itself, it is a guideline. Bkid 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Bkid. This is a notable person, it fits guidelines, and it has sources. ~ Ed B oy^[c] 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 21:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Purgatory

Non-notable documentary. A Google search for "'Electric Purgatory' -wikipedia" yields 570 hits. The top hits are the movie's website, a MySpace, and various directory entries. Consequentially 03:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 06:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the subjects of the film are notable ie. Fishbone, Vernon Reid. I found a Variety review, a Berklee school of music press release advertising a talk with the filmmaker, a few film festivals [75] [76] another review... I think this is sufficient notability for a recently produced independent documentary -- reviews & film festivals seem the basic qualifications, as well as the notability of the film's subject Dina 16:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC) I'm throwing any other feasible sources I find onto the article's talk page. Dina 17:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, just because it has notable subjects doesn't mean anything. I could make a documentary about the most notable people and it still wouldn't warrant an article or assess notability (the notability is on the subject of the article, not the subject of the article's subject). Cbrown1023 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my argument wasn't "just" that it had notable subjects, it also offered reviews & film festivals. What criteria is being used here to decide the notability of this film? Documentaries, with a few notable exceptions, are rarely blockblusters, yet obviously many rise above "you tube" status. What criteria would a notable independent documentary fulfill that this one fails to? I'm open to to being convinced, but frankly, the nomination somewhat mistates the google hits (there's a Variety review and the "directories" are the schedules of film festivals that this film has been in) and there are no other comments of substance. Dina 03:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Cbrown1023 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ---J.S ^(T/C) 04:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a documentary is simply not going to garner the same sort of press coverage that a feature movie will. Depsite this, it is featured in a review by two independent sources (Variety, and Houston Press), and is also given more than a passing mention in the Boston Globe article about the Roxbury Film Festival. -- Whpq 22:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom FirefoxMan 16:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and No discussion that ties this to applicable policy. ~ trialsanderrors 02:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of two-letter English words

Transwiki, then delete - Though I am an avid Scrabble fan and see the utility of this page, this should probably be Transwiki'ed to Wikitionary. Djma12 20:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Danny Lilithborne 22:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki/Delete unlike the other article, this one has legitimate English words. Ditch the scrabble section as it is a)irrelevant b)quite possible a copyvio. Koweja 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate encyclopedic content. This is something that one would not expect to find in a dictionary, but rather in some sort of encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newyorkbrad (talk • contribs) 00:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Comment See also AfD for analogous three-letter page. DMacks 03:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge-in-part. This page (unlike the three-letter one) seems to have some actual content in addition to being a simple list. If delete, then some of the later sections discussing scrabble rules and changes to them should be merged into Scrabble. DMacks 03:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list includes important linguistic information and does not take much of Wiki's space. It does NOT violate WP:NOT and should stay. It is used by many as a starting point to research acronyms. There are many uses for these lists, for example, people looking for new names for computer communication protocols, for new products (including software products), marketing brands, linguistic trends and much more. --Gabi S. 06:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If need be, remove the Scrabble sections and add them to the respective articles for the Scrabble dictionaries. It would appear this list is more useful for Scrabble players than for people just looking for two-letter words. - Bricks J. Winzer 11:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm sure many readers will find this very interesting just like I do, and it does not violate any rules. --Zero^talk 12:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki This article is very usefull, but not for wikipedia. Send it to wikibooks FirefoxMan 16:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel this article contains interesting information, more so than when I last looked at it (joys of Wiki). I don't see what makes it unencyclopedic (nominator hasn't said). Martin 19:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Words are not notable or important for the number of letters that they have. —ShadowHalo 20:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, add each individual word's page on Wikitionary to an x-letter words category. Noclip 20:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 08:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Gezari

Subject does not meet notability standards of WP:Bio SteveHopson 20:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. Nothing here establishes notability. Ccscott 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --K yo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 23:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's emerging? Let's wait till he has emerged. Delete. -- Hoary 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example of an artist who in my opinion should be listed somewhere. Emerging can be many things to many people. Some artists are always emerging. Is emerging a dirty word? Am I missing something here? Seems the butt of a joke even. Oh well.

Notability standards for artists should be slightly different than say if they were an author or lawyer. People often times are trying to find info on artiists in all kinds of places and obscurity based on notablility doesn't help the seeker at all here on Wikipedia.

Shouldn't Wikipedia make it easier to find things like in a dictionary and isn't it set up to supposedly be democratic at least?

Artist sites are developed differently and react differently and made for differing reasons. These site are established to do something in a totally different way than say a product site. Should the criterion be different here? I dont think it bodes well to pat everyone on the back and say job well done when nothing was accomplished except a delete of someones time and energy.

Maybe the artists themselves should have something like a WikiArtProject site set up separately to deal with all the complex nuancing and exclusivity issues and problems. Who knows? I just have an opinion after having worked with so many artists for over 20 years in galleries, museums and non-for-profits and my background is behavioral psychology, not art.

Also, in googling artists, I realize why so many sites only have one mention of an artist, which is fine by me, depending on the site and the type of gallery, museum or non-for-profit that administers the site. Many public and private institutions only have so much money for space that they are willing to devote and I suspect that if you are a non-for-profit that a single listing can and does go a long way if it is presented in the right, read nuanced, way and this is the point I am trying to make here. Nuance has to occur when subjectively deciding on whether an artist has merit. If a person is a full time artist and pays the bills and if this person is hardly ever mentioned in a googleable manner does she/he not have any kind of merit at all? Please do not bend art and artists into a wikifyable set of information that may only deminish the role they play in our society.

So many gray areas and so many ways to ill-understand them. Please be passionate but please consider that art is truth based in the reality that creates it and our future without it is not a culture. Artsojourner 06:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this guy finished Bard. Know how hard and to what high standards Bard holds? This, in and of itself, is something of merit. I assure you but yet again this is only a nuance that has to be discerned. Artsojourner 06:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a pretty inclusionist view of wikipedia. Just show me two independent reviews of his work or profiles of his life published in legit sources, no matter how small or local, and I would change my opinion. As the article stands, it hasn't quite met that standard yet and should be deleted for now. Ccscott 09:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 08:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-letter English words

Transwiki, then delete - Though I am an avid Scrabble fan and see the utility of this page, this should probably be Transwiki'ed to Wikitionary. Djma12 20:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either major cleanup or delete. Article doesn't adequately cite sources. Monni 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The number of one letter words in proper English is way too small for a list. The vast majority on that list is from internet slang. Either rename to List of abbreviations of incredibly short words that were created because people are too lazy to type three letters or delete. Don't transwiki as it has no place in Wiktionary either. Koweja 21:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need to transwiki. Most of this is unsourced or unverified, and serves no real purpose other than to re-acquaint us with our ABCs. Agent 86 22:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agent 86. Danny Lilithborne 22:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agent 86. --UsaSatsui 22:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upon reflection, no use in wikitionary either. Delete Djma12 23:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form, though it could use substantial rewriting and maybe a rename, as a useful directory of one-letter words, symbols, and codes. Some directories are encyclopedic and this is a reasonable topic. Newyorkbrad 00:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also AfD for analogous three-letter page. DMacks 03:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newyorkbrad. --Gabi S. 07:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Less usefull than 3letter and 2letter. If you do not know most of the information in the article already, you cannot read standard script FirefoxMan 16:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep. Possibly consider moving to one letter English word (or one letter word and internationalise). Though the information is obvious to most of us, it won't be obvious to all speakers of English. I have removed the text-speak, which I agree isn't encyclopedic. Source = any large dictionary. I guess the article could name a specific large dictionary if that would help. Martin 19:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The list of three-letter words is already gone, two-letter words is on the way out, let's not play the multiple AfD game again... in my opinion they should have been bundled. This is not encyclopedic content, it cites no sources for it's linguistic assertions and is simple a list of three 'words'. Wintermut3 21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually, List of three-letter English words was kept and List of two-letter English words has a majority keep so far. Koweja 21:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With another article: I think this article should be merged into another article about short words. To be honest, there aren't enough one-letter words to make a whole article. Theresa123123123 13:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a bad idea at all. Monni 19:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps adding each Wikitionary entry for these to a category of x-letter words would be more appropriate? Noclip 20:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anything that would be notable would be in the articles about the individual letters. Maybe a category at best. Just H 20:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nosferatu (band)

Notability of the band is not established in the article. theProject 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article says the band did a "UK tour", that meets the notability requirements for music. They have a "Best Of" album on Amazon [77], that seems pretty notable to me. Very well-known goth band, I've heard of them and I'm in Australia. --Canley 22:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep qualifies under WP:MUSIC #4, #5, #11 (can't source this), possibly others. Koweja 23:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The band meets WP:MUSIC with their UK tour and their releases, including a "Best of" CD available commercially. On the other hand, this article is one part copyvio, two parts POV editorial. It's clear that the group merits a Wikipedia article, but unless someone has the gonads to do a quick rewrite, this will not be the one, I'm afraid. Keep if it's rewritten to eliminate the POV; delete if not. B.Wind 23:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The band meets WP:MUSIC if they did a national tour across the UK. However, this statement would need a source. —ShadowHalo 22:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, I've found their Best of CD at Tower Records myself. Almost all of their albums are signed onto Cleopatra Records (see here) which meets the Notability standard of having two or more albums on a notable indie label. -- Shadowolf 07:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 21:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Mack

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- non-notable wrestler. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason, therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Appearances on TNA, participation in multiple notable organizations, etc., seem to make him somewhat notable. Not really too familiar with notability guidelines for wrestlers, nor do I know if this article is of significant interest to those researching wrestling. Could very easily be persuaded to change to delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. Nothing constituting a reliable source on Google, after filtering out Wikipedia and Web 2.0 cruft. MER-C 05:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This site would make a fine source. He wrestles for an organization with a history of televising matches and has been with other notable organizations. -Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Competes in a fully professional league. That in itself passes WP:BIO. --Oakshade 23:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Sharkface217 05:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. NeoJustin 22:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Springfield (The Simpsons). No sourced mergeable content, but maybe someone wants to scavenge the edit history and salvage sourceable material. ~ trialsanderrors 03:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Springfield (The Simpsons)

This information can be covered perfectly well in the respective episode articles. Having an article for two unrelated jokes in an 18-year-running (so far) show is ridiculous. Natalie 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move - Springfield (The Simpsons) is already to big for a merge, but moving this article in a new History of Springfield (The Simpsons) and merging the history section of Springfield (The Simpsons) would be better. - Cate |_Talk 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is already a small amount of information ("It was also the site of at least two battles during the American Civil War") in the article. But perhaps a breakout article on the history of Springfield is appropriate.Natalie 15:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – As per nom.--Bryson 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I love the Simpsons but we do not need an article for every piece of Simpsons trivia. -- Whpq 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simpsoncruft. Danny Lilithborne 22:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cate FirefoxMan 16:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 86.31.251.68 20:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge it into this article: Springfield (The Simpsons). There already is a History of Springfield section. takethemud 10:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. Cbrown1023 22:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth College Seal

An article on the seal -- i.e., the insignia -- of Dartmouth College -- not notable beyond maybe a passing mention in the College's main article. Is the seal important beyond Dartmouth? Has it been recognized as historical, ground-breaking, notable, etc. beyond Dartmouth? Has it made an impact on the world beyond Dartmouth? I would characterize this as an indiscriminate collection of information. Dylan 21:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This could very easily be shortened by half and then merged to Dartmouth College.--Dmz5 21:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dartmouth College. -- Whpq 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cleanup, per Dmz5. schi ^talk 23:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - We have articles about flags and other seals. If it has an interesting history, theres no reason not to keep it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Same as above (Liveforever22 02:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete I don't think the history of the seal of a college is notable. FirefoxMan 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of merge It has good, interesting information - why not keep it? An alternate suggestion: perhaps an article on Symbols of Dartmouth College - since in addition to the seal having an interesting history, the Indian mascot has attracted national attention and is barely mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 00:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I like the idea of Symbols -- you're right, the Indian mascot at least deserves as much treatment as the seal. I'm trying to think of what other things could be included there... anything jump to mind? Dylan 01:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Hmmm - Indian's definitely the biggest one, but maybe brief mentions of the Lone Pine, the Seal, perhaps even the "Vox Clamantis in Deserto" motto. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 22:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This much detail in the Dartmouth College article would be clutter there. Include only a brief summary, and the reader who wants more can follow the wikilink to this article. JamesMLane t c 16:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Larry V (talk | contribs) 08:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palace of Pranks

SpongeBob fancruft. Article is about a store than appeared in only one episode of the show. Doesn't need its own article, can't ever be more than a stub. --Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Bikini Bottom - information is alreadya t Bikini Bottom article. -AMK152 22:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. It's a store in a single episode. What is there left to say about it? -- Whpq 22:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect I don't see why there shouldn't be one. Danny Lilithborne 22:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect, otherwise it WILL get created again. Tzaquiel 22:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per AMK152 --SpongeSebastian 04:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. But why do we need Bikini Bottom, either? What about WP:TRIVIA? --MaplePorter 23:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (aeropagitica) 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metroidvania

Although I've put a lot of work into this article, I've recently realized it does not pass WP:NEO, because there has never been a definitive work on the subject (the toastyfrog article does not count). When I first joined Wikipedia, it welcomed neologisms, quirky articles, and even original research with the expectation that such seeds would sprout into full, referenced articles. The current Wikipedia is a very different beast, or maybe I was just deluding myself. This article does not belong in the current Wikipedia. Luvcraft 22:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 23:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Castlevania. Even though it is a neologism it is a likely enough search term. But, Luvcraft, feel free to expand the section in Castlevania that talks about Metroidvanias. No need to loose everything. Koweja 23:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that wikipedia as it currently stands would not even allow the information from this article to be merged into Castlevania because, again, there is no definitive work on Metroidvanias. It would just get immediately culled as "original research". Even if it was allowed, it wouldn't really belong in either the Castlevania or the Metroid article. Luvcraft 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps we should create a disambig page asking if the user meant to go to the Metroid or Castlevania articles, reversing the order of those two for the Castleroid page? Lankybugger 21:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article clearly goes against WP:NEO, WP:NOR. dposse 02:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much as it pains me, I'm forced to agree. Poking around I figured it'd seen some sort of definition in the media, but I suppose the loose definitions in Jeremy Parish's Retroblogs don't count. For the record I'll probably transfer the article over to Egamia.com, though. Lankybugger 14:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be great. I'd love to see this article live on somewhere even though it doesn't fit wikipedia. Luvcraft 15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And it's been done. The un-cut version of the Metroidvania article now resides on egamia. Lankybugger 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Would do well on a gaming wiki, though. Tzaquiel 15:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced article being referred to in press and elsewhere on the web, without prejudice against recreation as a properly sourced article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's sad when very notable terms like these are so unverifiable... I wish we could keep it. Voretus/talk 18:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an a non-encyclopedic interview, better suited to a fan website. (aeropagitica) 23:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Hedges

This is an original interview with the subject, contrary to WP:NOR. Moreover, there's no evidence that this individual merits inclusion per WP:BIO, despite the first sentence in the article: Austin Hedges is a notable member of the Straight Edge movement. However, because I'm uncertain about the relevance of Dark Planet: Visions of America, or his role in it, I've deferred to the community instead of slapping a CSD on it. Mind matrix 22:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the interview conducted for his article was done by a group of straight edge kids for a documentary. this documentary never made it past an amature level and never gained much notice out of the straight edge community. a few people from the crew that made the documentary went on to be Team Empire members. this is why it said that we conducted the interview ourselves. also many of the facts and quotes come from the documentary "Ive Got the Straight Edge". A member of Team Empire knows Austin on a semi-personal basis, and he provides us with updates on things like his MMA and musical status. also, because of the nature of Austin's notability, it is hard for there to be mass media coverage about him. There is little to no mass mediacoverage about anyone in the Straight Edge community. get back to me on any thing else i can clear up. -Steve and Team EmpireStraightxedge 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this meets WP:BIO. Being a notable member of a notable group does not mean that the person is notable for the purpose of having an article here. Vegaswikian 20:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weve had this argument with user: Academic Challenger before. He checked our references and gave us the clearence for the page. i dont see whats any difference this time. you say he is a notable member of a notable movement, so how is he not notable? Straightxedge 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article meet WP:BIO? Vegaswikian 01:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin has had important interviews in 2 films that have a "cult following" within the undergroud subculture of Straight Edge, so i would say so.Straightxedge 04:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as original research, lacking in sources. (aeropagitica) 22:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural manifestations of western Canadian alienation

I am not sure about this article. To be honest, I do not know what it is about, but I am tired and not Canadian. It may well deserve to be kept, that is why I am bringing it here, and remaining neutral for now. Apologies if I have nominated a perfectly valid article. J Milburn 22:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't tell if this is a nologism, original research, or something made up in school one day. The fact that it is "so called" leads me to suspect all three. Delete unless notability can be demonstrated. Koweja 23:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopedic essay that is original research and consists mostly of non-sequitur statements. How rooting for the Flames is a manifestation of western Canadian alienation is beyond me. I'm even willing to suggest Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Agent 86 23:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Mandatory viewing of every single episode of The Raccoons Western Canadian alienation eh? I feel a song coming on... "You can run with us!/We got everything you need/Run with us!/We are freeeeee/Come with us!/I see passion in your eyes/Run with us!"

(Looks like some Canadian kids are just experimenting with Wikipedia. I've just prodded the linked to Bernie Beanie article). Bwithh 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense. Ground Zero | t 23:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, no mention of Corner Gas, The Red Green Show or the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool? Someone hasn't been doing their homework! (or should be doing homework instead of writing deletable WP articles...) I'd say this probably should get a CSD G1 speedy delete for lacking context... Tubezone 00:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So-called "Western Alienation" is a major issue in Canada, on par with Quebec separatism, and as such is worthy of an article if here isn't already one. But this is just a stub with some OR and no sources. 23skidoo 07:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a joke, just a giggle, not funny enough for BJAODN, IMHO, but pretty clearly a joke. Pete.Hurd 06:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, unvierifiable (I also suspect it's false). WilyD 22:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable product. (aeropagitica) 22:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damminix

Non notable product. Article appears to have been created and maintained by parties associated with the product. Talk:Damminix has more information Oasisbob 22:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MiteArrest, a similar product by the same people. Oasisbob 22:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 22:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VCX

I am nominating this entry as a failure of WP:SPAM. The article has been written by a user with the organization's name. They are using an affiliate link to track the amount of traffic comeing to them via the article. I did not bring this deletion via speedy as I anticipated the creator would want to comment.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 23:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you're too kind, I would have speedied this. PS. you forgot to sign the nomination. --Canley 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Debbie Does Dallas is probably one of the most well known porns around. Not sure that merely distributing the movie makes a company notable. Delete unless notability can be show. Koweja 23:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note from the article creator: VCX is an adult film production studio and distributor that's been in business for 25 years now. VCX own the rights to Debbie Does Dallas, The Devil In Miss Jones and hundreds of other classic adult films from the 70s and 80s. Many of these films are still very popular today, which is why there are Wiki pages regarding them. VCX does their own wholesale distribution as well as video production. Whether the Wiki page is created/monitored or maintained by us or someone else -- there should probably be a page about VCX on Wikipedia (because of Debbie and Devil, if nothing else). If a page explaining the company responsible for some of the most popular adult films ever bothers fellow wikians so much, go ahead and delete it so it can get recreated at a later date by someone else (saying the same info, showing the same logo, having the same external link). We are here to make Wikipedia a more useful place, not some spam infested sewer. --VCX Ltd Inc 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a note- no-one owns any article, have a look at the WP:OWN policy. The two movies noted above are notable, perhaps even iconic, but owning the rights doesn not make the corproation notable.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 00:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Woops, semantics.. "Article Creator" I fixed my comment so you don't get the wrong idea... What does make a corporation/manufacturer notable besides their works/products? --VCX Ltd Inc 15:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete Speedy it, soon! FirefoxMan 16:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as withdrawn by nominator, and only objection is that there is vandalism to the article, which is not really a deletion criterion. I suggest doing WP:RM for move to Silver Chips. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Chips Online

Despite the awards, hardly any content asserts the notability or importance of this online school newspaper. The awards themselves appear to be non-notable (ghits), thus not making the article meet WP:WEB. Hús ö nd 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, move to Silver Chips Silver Chips Online is registered with Google News; how many high school newspapers can say that? The Google result produced by Husond is a bit (unintentionally) misleading because the award is noted here. Silver Chips was mentioned in The Washington Post in June 2006 (in the A-national news section, in the headline). Four articles from Silver Chips received awards in 2006 from Columbia University's Scholastic Press Association. Congressman Chris Van Hollen honored the sponsor of the newspaper last year after he retired. An article was also written in The New York Times about the school newspaper in March 2006. However, I would endorse moving the article to Silver Chips to include the print version of the newspaper. -- tariqabjotu 01:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work, Tariq. I should've investigated this deeper... I withdraw and support your suggestion (and perhaps some cleanup to the article). --Hús ö nd 02:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please view edit history for this article. Anonymous edits apparently (based on the IP) from a staff member are being used to delete substantive additions to the article. There are apparent violations of the three reverts rule. If the article cannot be edited according to Wikipedia standards, what is the point of keeping it?

138.88.11.172 04:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think vandalism is usually a deletion critera. The people that are doing the vandalism could be blocked etc. --67.68.155.110 04:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and move to Silver Chips per User:Tariqabjotu. --Alynna 05:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as an unsourced article. Nothing mentioned with reliable sources to merge with Afro. (aeropagitica) 22:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White afro

neologism; unsourced, probable OR; prod removed after Gafro went to AfD B.Wind 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, but mention whites with afros in the Afro article if it isn't already. Koweja 23:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Afro. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete wp:nor FirefoxMan 16:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Merge if citations can be given. ≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism, dicdef, non-notable, something that would be more appropriate on Urban Dictionary Pumeleon^T 09:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as an unsourced an non-notable biography. Proof needs to be offered for claims of notability, using reliable sources. (aeropagitica) 22:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Coyle

non-notable person; only purported achievement in the article is claim he invented instant coffee, which I'm pretty sure was invented by George Washington Carver. (As an aside, I've also {{prod}}ded the article for the grocery store referred to in this article.) Agent 86 23:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, instant coffee was first developed by G W Carver. What else is left in the article?--Anthony.bradbury 23:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 00:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Situation requires some investigation. The word "hoax" implies fabrication by the creator of the article. In this instance, the article creator, User:GVnayR, has hundreds of good-faith edits going back more than a year which generally is not the profile of a hoax creator. Interestingly, however, this user's block log has an entry from August 2006 in which the blocking administrator, User:FayssalF, initially blocked for one week and then indefinite with an explanation of "creating multiple hoaxes articles," but unblocked two hours later with an explanation of "mistakingly believed he was creating hoaxes." I see nothing on the talk pages or archives of either GVnayR or FayssalF that sheds any light on what happened at that time, which was before this article was created. I'm going to leave notes for both pointing to this discussion.

A non-hoax source for believing the contents of this article, linked to in the article although not necessarily a reliable source by current Wikipedia standards, is the company website of Coyle's Country Store, here, which states that "A.J. Coyle was a true inventor, years before the current craze for ready-made foods, he invented instant coffee." This is contrary to the history at instant coffee, which reports that "Instant coffee was invented in 1901 by Satori Kato, a Japanese scientist working in Chicago. However, it was not marketed commercially until Nescafé launched in 1938." This, in turn, is potentially inconsistent with George Washington Carver, which lists instant coffee as one of over 300 applications that Carver developed for peanut products, though it does not say that Carver invented instant coffee itself. Further research is required and it may be that a deletion is ultimately indicated but to simply declare a "hoax" with the suggestion that the article creator is responsible is premature, though I find no non-Wikipedia and non-store Ghits associating Coyle with instant coffee and my hunch is that we may be dealing with a sales gimmick perpetrated by the store, not by the Wikipedian.

With regard to the article about the store, it could be notable if its owner truly invented instant coffee, but I don't see a case for notability otherwise. However, I'm going to strike the prod for now with a link to this discussion. Newyorkbrad 01:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given the importance of WP:V, I have now listed Coyle's Country Store for deletion. Nothing in that article or this one supports the assertion by the company. Agent 86 01:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absent additional evidence being produced, that is certainly true. Newyorkbrad 01:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had blocked and then unblocked User:GVnayR (who happens to be the same creator of this article) on August 18, 2006. The block was executed after reading those discussions (1 and 2) on his talkpage. I then deleted a few articles created by him as being hoaxes see my log on August 18, 2006. A moment later i was contacted by User:TruthbringerToronto explaining to me that Boston, Ontario (another article created by the same user) was a real town, which was true. I than unblocked him. This article should not be considered as a hoax. The creator relied on a primary source w/ good faith. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified and contradicting pages that do or could have reliable sources. Googling finds lots of references, including coffee-company websites and Carver historians, who indicate Satori and Carver, respectively, as the inventor. That's an interesting discrepancy to resolve on the relevant pages. No idea whether the discrepancy is due to different meanings of "invented instant coffee". maybe "concentrated" or "evaporated" vs "freeze-dried"...was freeze-drying even known in Carver's day, for example. But this AfD isn't about that...I found no hits for Coyle. DMacks 04:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:V. The store's site cannot be considered a third-party source per WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Well... re this AfD. I must say that i totally agree w/ User:Kinu above when talking about WP:V. I also agree w/ you about instant coffee being invented by G. Washington in 1909 if not by Nestlé in 1937. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. By the way, Satori Kato created the first instant coffee. George Constant Washington (not George Washington Carver) created the first mass-produced instant coffee. DCEdwards1966 22:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are claims for both George Constant Washington (about whom we don't have an article) and George Washington Carver, along with Satori Kato. Clearly Wikiproject:Coffee has some work to do. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Delete, Delete. ◄HouseOfScandal ►18:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - subject is not notable and not verifiable. I am going to nominate another, related article for deletion: Shell peanut.Glendoremus 20:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as an unsourced biography without any claim as to the notability of its subject. (aeropagitica) 21:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Feilder

The son of a minor nobleman who has done nothing on his own does not pass WP:BIO. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Would have qualified for {{db-bio}}.--Anthony.bradbury 23:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is actually quite well known in aristocratic circles, his family are friends with the royals. I've seen him pictured with Prince William before, as they are friends. --Charles.bradbury 18:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of him before. In fact, there was quite a lot of discussion among certain groups here in London last year, because of his actions. I'll try to find the news article online. It was in the Times last year. Jamie p077 18:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I've heard of him before" does not equate to WP:NOTABILITY. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But as Jamie p077 wrote, there were certainly many mentions of him in the past few years in the papers. In fact, the reason I even ended up here was because I had tried to look him up before, but there wasn't an article, so I am glad that there is now, even if it does only contain basic information. --Charles.bradbury 04:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as speculation and Original research. (aeropagitica) 21:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future technology

I prodded this article a few days ago but an anon editor deprodded without any explanation. The original reason I gave was "Loose collection of ideas related only by the fact that they don't exist, ie, inappropriate subject for an encyclopedia article" and I stand by this assessment. It also looks a little like crystal-balling but I'm not sure. Any objections? Axem Titanium 23:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An assortment of Science-Fiction concepts, with no current reality. If they ever come to exist they will become encyclopedic - but not before.--Anthony.bradbury 23:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those above. This will remain a scattershot list unless and until any of the technologies named are actually invented, at which point they would cease to qualify anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have to say that although this article seems like it shouldn't be in an encylopedia, this page has been useful for me--I'm currently researching the effect science fiction has had on technology, and this page has allowed me to take a new secondary approach to my topic. Although it is a loose grouping of ideas, I think this page should remain here.

However, maybe if the ideas were cited--i.e. "Time travel is referred to in this novel", etc."--then this article would be better. Mewok - Mewok 23:43, 15 December 2006

- I'm not really sure that would help overmuch. Citations would obviously be a great blessing in any event, but surely the best place to talk about time travel being referred to in this or that novel is in the articles on time travel and/or the novels in question? I'm also not convinced that a cited version of the list would be anything more than a cited list of indiscriminate information. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list seems like it could be unconstrained and hence unrealistic to maintain. Dr. Submillimeter 23:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs references that state who has suggested that the technologies on the list might be possible in the future. A merge/redirect with Timeline_of_the_future_in_forecasts might be appropriate. Q0 05:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically speculation and original research.--R613vlu 13:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable football club that apparently cannot even spell its own name correctly - Millennium, ibid. (aeropagitica) 21:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onyx Millenium Football Club

No reply to queries on Talk:Onyx Millenium Football Club or my note to Celtic0106. Presuming non-notable. -- Smjg 23:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence indicating this team even exists (violates WP:V). Even if it does exist, it's probably an absolutely non-notable backyard league. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete - as per Kinu - fchd 06:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no Ghits even vaguely related to sports teams (one interesting one to do with sex toys though!), non-specific details such as the fact that they play in "an amateur league", and a logo apparently drawn by a 6-year old in MS Paint point to it being a hoax. Oh, and as the article states that they play football, which is a disambig page, we don't really even know what sport they supposedly play..... ChrisTheDude 08:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ....and of course the article creator can't even get his or her facts straight, as the article claims they have won the league 11 times but only lists 6 1st place finishes in the chronology..... ChrisTheDude 13:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 14:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:CORP and ChrisTheDude's comments. Qwghlm 14:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like rubbish to me. aLii 18:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable.--R613vlu 13:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salwa Khoddam

NN teacher. Nekohakase 19:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems to me he may qualify as notable. Akihabara 01:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF. Tarret 00:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing from WP:RS indicating that this professor passes WP:PROF. Claims such as one of the foremost C. S. Lewis scholars in the world need to be sourced to lend credibility to the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kinu.≈Krasniy^{(talk|contribs)} 22:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Squids

Not noteworthy, poorly written, fanboiism. As far as I can see, they never even had an album.Grymsqueaker 09:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above Grymsqueaker 09:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only assertion of notability seems to be the appearances on soundtracks which seem to also be non-notable. —ShadowHalo 12:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and tagged as such: no assertion of notability and is autobio per User:Anthony_Marais. --Sigma 7 13:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Luna Santin 09:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendoworldlll

This page is absolute nonsense, it probsbly links to a virus site. --Bezking 23:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Bezking 23:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete; I put {{db-web}} up on it. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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