The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Howards Alias. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:35Z

Skylar[edit]

Skylar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 15:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep at the moment. The article could do with some sources but obviously meets point 5 of WP:MUSIC, 'Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable'. Nuttah68 15:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No opinion about the deletion, but if we do delete it, can we keep the redirect to Skyler, the Scandinavian name that Skylar is a variant of? --elzr 03:41, 15 February 2007 (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 00:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Howards Alias.--TBCΦtalk? 00:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. with Howards Alias :^) §†SupaSoldier†§ 00:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nuttah68. Only just notable is still notable. Jcuk 20:07, 17 February 2007 (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. A Train ^{take the} 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of hypocoristics[edit]

(View AfD)

List of hypocoristics for Portuguese names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of hypocoristics for Spanish names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of hypocoristics for Dutch names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of hypocoristics for English names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of short name forms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:WINAD. These article are merely lists of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted.

• See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic surnames, etc.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 23:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the articles have already been transwiki'd.--TBCΦtalk? 00:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreed, not really encyclopedic material and the precendent is clear. -Elmer Clark 01:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The explanatory material in the first paragraph could include more information, but it's still more than a list of names.Circumspect 07:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to merge any intro material to an article about hypocoristics, but such material doesn't justify the keeping of a word list, or all word lists would be kept. Dmcdevit·t 09:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any explanations of what hypocoristics are, and how they are formed in various cultures, belongs in the article on the subject, which is hypocoristic, and which, as one can see, has plenty of spare room for further expansion. Uncle G 13:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All as dictionary material. Nuttah68 10:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and everyone else, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per arguments above. Noroton 18:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this seems to provide useful and structured information about personal names in the English Language. Expanding the article to give more info about the derivation and conventions for nicknames would improve this article. Dave w74 23:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Could never hope to be comprehensive, and if not comprehensive is useless. Reverse Gear 05:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this article is useful. I found it with a google search and it answered my question. It is as comprehensive as most other wikipedia articles and could be expanded. There are plenty of other wikipedia articles that are effectively just lists. Poujeaux 09:03, 22 February 2007 (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 deletion by admin Proto as the article falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 01:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andromeda Han[edit]

Andromeda Han (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article created and edited by two banned users, who vandalized a number of articles, including that on Zionsville, Indiana. Of the 37 google hits, the only two in English refer to a student from Zionsville named Andromeda Han. Pretty sure this qualifies as a speedy. AniMate 00:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Hoax. Article claims it is an actress in a major movie, but no listing for that actress at IMDB. SchmuckyTheCat 00:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as a hoax, but do not speedy delete (see WP:CSD#Non-criteria).--TBCΦtalk? 00:59, 17 February 2007 (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. - Daniel.Bryant 10:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Baur[edit]

Gene Baur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Spammy bio. Written by the PR shill for the organization as a promotional piece. Even the referenced stuff is inflated puffery. SchmuckyTheCat 00:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In my opinion, this page is completely factual and not at all biased. It seems obvious to me thatSchmuckyTheCat just has a problem with Gene Baur or maybe animal welfare in general. Who knows. The sources look really solid to me. If he could even point out one sentence that is biased - it might be helpful. Brooklyn5 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You work for the organization. SchmuckyTheCat 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CIV and WP:NPA, both of you are starting on a way you don't want to go - feb^talk

• Weak keep. Founder of a somewhat notable organization; has been interviewed by the New York Times.--TBCΦtalk? 01:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like a good enough article to me. His organization, as far as I can tell, is notable enough - at least there has been no talk of deleting its article - and he has been mentioned by CNN and other notable outside sources. I don't see anything too "promotional" either, seems neutral enough. -Elmer Clark 01:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not noticeably NPOV and seems sufficiently sourced to me. If anything were actually inaccurate or incomplete then it should be corrected but no obvious reason to delete the article. --Zeborah 01:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The article has references and he is the president of an notable organization, although I can see this article being merged with Farm Sanctuary. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 01:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per not violating WP:V i kan reed 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But does violate WP:NPOV and WP:COI SchmuckyTheCat 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep So what's wrong with PR people writing an article? If it's NPOV and sourced, then they're doing their job well. Denni^talk 01:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's NPOV because other people keep having to come back and police it. The sources are fairly poor for what the article says until other people come along. SchmuckyTheCat 02:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's a spammy article, but there are plenty of sources especially when searching on his married name Bauston.Google News ArchiveGoogle Books --Dhartung | Talk 02:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, at least until someone can make it into a proper biography instead of a resume -- feb^talk 04:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given some work, can be transformed into a good article. Minor violation of WP:NPOV and WP:COI can be changed. --[|K.Z|] ^{T • V • C} 04:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Provides sourced bio of prominent leader of major organization of a social movement. Kaydee1970 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Had a go at rewriting for better NPOV. Text seems to have remained more or less as in my version, though some additions have been made. Author was understanding about NPOV and providing citations. A couple of citations from the organization's web site might be iffy, but discount those, and there's sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NOTE. Could use some more work, but don't see any major concerns that'd suggest deletion. Shimeru 07:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The person passes the notability test and if the POV and citation issues are resolved it can be a good article. Whether one agrees or not with what he does is completely irrelevant. --Kimon 21:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I tried to write the Gene Baur page in a non-biased voice. Everything in the article is true and factual. You can find any of this info about Gene in newspapers published all over the web. The article includes numerous citations from reputable sources, as suggested by Shimeru. I definitely welcome any other suggestions or constructive criticism on how to make this a better article and if any changes need to be made to conform to Wikipedia standards. FarmSanctuary 22:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep' provided it is heavily NPOVized. Now reads very much like a PR firm's braichild.--Ramdrake 17:46, 18 February 2007 (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:37Z

1001 Ways to Beat the Draft[edit]

1001 Ways to Beat the Draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod; A partial copyvio of a non-notable list. Article fails WP:N and WP:RS. Soltak | Talk 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per just about every single item in WP:NOT (I'm not sure i've seen that happen before)i kan reed 01:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tuli Kupferberg.--TBCΦtalk? 01:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- not suitable. Turgidson 02:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to author's page -- feb^talk 03:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Wikipedia isn't an advice Column.Corporal Punishment 03:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or merge) - along with the play "Fuck Nam" probably the principle 1960s work of artist. It seems to pass WP:BK notability criteria 1 (subject of multiple published works mentioned in articles references), 4 (is a part of the syllabi of university courses on the Beat Generation and the antiwar movement [1]), and 5 (author is significant beat artist). Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Save or Merge with other Vietnam War articles. This is an article related to an historic event, and is therfore notable. ZimmerBarnes 05:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Smmurphy. Citations:

• The Portable Sixties Reader says "As the Vietnam war continued, both mainstream and radical presses in the US kept up the antiwar protest in magazines and books. Three of the most notable were 1001 Ways to Beat the Draft...." (the other two were poems by Denise Levertov and Robert Bly).
• Capsule bio of Kupferberg in Kerouac and Friends: A Beat Generation Reader says: "Tuli Kupferberg -- pamphleteer, poet, publisher of Birth, and author of over 20 books, in particular, 1001 Ways to Beat the Draft"
• The Buddhist Third Class Junkmail Oracle: The Art and Poetry of D.a.Levy (another sixties figure) writes: "Levy was inspired ... by Tuli Kupferberg ... Tuli's Birth Press published multitudes of things (probably the best known was 1001 Ways to Beat the Draft"
• The New York Review of Books reviewed it [2] (1968)

• As I mentioned on the talk page, the NYRoB didn't really review it, its just mentioned in a review of a legal-type guide to avoiding the draft, and they give its information at the top, as they like to do when they mention any book in a review. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult to find online sources of material for any period of history, so when we have this much we should take it seriously. This is a de rigueur inclusion on almost any list of Vietnam protest literature. --Dhartung | Talk 07:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep well known and notable, even in the UK. Nuttah68 10:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As stated above, this was a hugely important protest document. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 11:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is both asserted and cited. Why is this article listed on AfD? -Markeer 13:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, verbatim as by Markeer and Dhartung Alf photoman 14:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or perhaps better Merge with other similar Vietnam era or anti-war texts. It's notable and had an impact at the time. I even remember it being brought up over the recent talks of bringing the draft back. --Kimon 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as its own article, I don't see any valid reason for deletion, and it passes N, V —siroχo 03:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per common sense. Thedreamdied 00:02, 21 February 2007 (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; article is highly unencyclopedic, WP:SOAP and WP:OR. ~ Arjun 14:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God in everyday life[edit]

God in everyday life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a stubby POV essay, not an encyclopedia. "God in everyday life" might be a potential article, but even then would face endless POV issues, as it is, this is Original research, Unverifiable and has point-of-view issues. Wintermut3 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This reads somewhat like a personal essay and somewhat like a soapbox piece. I'm not sure an article could really be developed on this topic, but if it can, this is not the place to start. GassyGuy 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -Elmer Clark 01:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inherently POV; maybe then redirect to Immanence (or not). --N Shar 01:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not one to usually bring up WP:SNOW, but honestly, this article would never survive under any conditions. Inherently fails WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV--Wafulz 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, and WP:OR.--TBCΦtalk? 01:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Also fails to adhere to the requirements of WP:CSB for being a strictly Western, monotheistic, and apparently Protestant American Christian diatribe. --Charlene 01:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:OR i kan reed 01:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per WP:SOAP. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under about half of WP:NOT -- feb^talk 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Cedlaod 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT --[|K.Z|] ^{T • V • C} 05:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nice title, nice sentiment, but it violates several policies. ◄Zahakiel► 05:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redundant delete - per everyone else. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Is this religious spam? ZimmerBarnes 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile-on Delete fails WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, and is thus eligible, essentially, for WP:SNOW. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 15:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Had we a better umbrella article on religious devotion I'd suggest it be redirected there. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Obvious POV essay --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article has no substance and no apparent workable form. While there's a good chance the article creator is new to Wikipedia and would need help on the learning curve of article creation, this particular form has no future. Bbagot 19:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It reads like the text you'd find on a religious inspirational card. This has no place in an encyclopedia. --Kimon 21:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Laughable content :) Madhava 1947 (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2007 (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 Beyoncé Knowles in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:39Z

Speak My Mind[edit]

Speak My Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I noticed this page while it was protected. Apparently it has been the subject of much edit warring. Anyway, the article claims to be about an unreleased album by Beyoncé. I actually don't doubt the claim, but the problem is, there doesn't appear to be a reliable source to verify it. It has good Google presence, but most of the sites are either references made on message boards or MP3 piracy and purchase sites, but not the sort that could be called reliable as sources of information or as retail outlets. Some of the hits are unrelated (e.g., references made to Beyonce and the site's writer speaking his or her mind). I tried to search a newspaper database and came up empty. All of that said, I believe this should be deleted. GassyGuy 01:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as per the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" guideline. Also, I couldn't find anthing about the album on allmusic.--TBCΦtalk? 01:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless the information can be attributed (confirmed through the use of reliable, published sources - WP:ATT proposed core policy merger). -- saberwyn 01:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure Possibly delete per WP:HOAX as burden of proof is on the editors of the article. i kan reed 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If official details are released to verify that this artist is planning an album of this name, it can be recreated. Resolute 03:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Save if factual information can be verified. ZimmerBarnes 14:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until album actually comes out, per WP:CRYSTAL, at which point an article can be created that actually contains correct information about the album. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 15:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There seems to be some confusion. There's no claim that this album is ever being released. Rather, it's about a scrapped compilation album. Any information should already be sourceable, because it's unlikely that any new sources will appear now. GassyGuy 20:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Save Although there is confusion over this article the fact that it is well known throught the web should be just enough to keep this article. I suggest re-wording it. 134.241.194.110 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC) — 134.241.194.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete future gazing at a mere possibility of notability, and there are no possible facts at this time. --Bejnar 03:17, 22 February 2007 (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. - Daniel.Bryant 06:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Somerset Wrestling[edit]

West Somerset Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet WP:ORG criteria Samw 01:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability, and the fact that it was created in September 2006 doesn't exactly lead one to believe that any will surface. -Elmer Clark 01:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; fails the WP:ORG and WP:ADS criterias.--TBCΦtalk? 01:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tornado DD_eleT_e Non-notable wrestling federation, fails WP:V. Caknuck 01:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Entirely non-notable / made-up "group". (Although we should be honoured to have an article written by the Heavyweight/Intercontinental Champion himself...) Bencherlite 01:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax. A Google search only brings up 3 Google hits (the articles page, this AFD page, and a WP mirror). The fact that the logo looks like it was made by a 3 year old with crayons doesn't help it. Lrrr IV 11:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also recommend deleting the picture. Lrrr IV 11:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. -- The Anome 12:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:ORG. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable wrestling league, possible WP:OR, certainly fails WP:ORG and that logo doesn't help.--John Lake 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack notability Warfieldian 22:20, 18 February 2007 (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, and possibly mention at Anderson High School (Hamilton County, Ohio). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:40Z

Southern Ohio Patriots[edit]

Southern Ohio Patriots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

File:SouthernOhioPatriots.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable minor league (American) football team. Their league, the United States Football Alliance, does not have a Wikipedia article. They return only 19 unique Google hits. They were only founded in 2006 and play their games at a high school. I see nothing in this article that supports this team having any sort of notability. The article was speedied before, but the article was evidently blank at the time, so that is probably not relevant to this discussion. Elmer Clark 01:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ORG; non-notable football team.--TBCΦtalk? 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this a high school team, or a team with a high school homeground. If the former, weak merge (mention in 1-2 lines) to the high school in question (Anderson High School (Hamilton County, Ohio)?). Will support outright deletion in either case, per the eventual consensus developed here. Also note, the logo used in the article, Image:SouthernOhioPatriots.gif, is a direct copy of the New England Patriots logo, as seen in the top left hand corner of the New England Patriots official website. -- saberwyn 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not the logo on their website, but their website does include small copies of the NE Patriots "flag" bit (without the lettering) as decoration. I searched for any indication that they have some claim to being a farm team, but without luck. The NFL hasn't had a farm system for years. --Dhartung | Talk 07:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The "leauge" doesn't even have an article. Corporal Punishment 03:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per other delete recommendations. This is not a high school football team; they just use the high school stadium for their games. --Metropolitan90 06:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Based on the league not having an article. Can be revisted if the league itself is shown to be noteworthy first. Bbagot 19:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete! Why?! Why are you trying to delete the page on the Southern Ohio Patriots?! The article is not nonsense as you may believe. I can show you so many pages like that page that it is not even funny! Some pages like Southern Ohio Patriots have ten times less information and have never been considered for deletion. The list:

• Twin City Storm
• AIFL Ghostchasers
• Akron Vulcans
• Alabama Slammers (Women's American Football League)
• Alabama Vulcans
• Albany Conquest
• All Valley Attack
• Amarillo Dusters
• Arendal Panthers
• Arendal Wildcats
• Arkansas Stars
• Arkansas Twisters
• Asker Lynx
• Aspervika 89ers
• Atlanta Steam
• Augusta Spartans
• Bakersfield Blitz
• Baltimore Blackbirds
• Battle Creek Crunch
• Bay Shore Brawlers
• Beaumont Drillers
• Bergen Storm
• Big Sky Thunder
• Binghamton Brigade
• Birmingham Fire
• Birmingham Steel Magnolias
• Boise Burn
• Bristol Aztecs
• Brooklyn Horsemen
• Bærum Blue Devils
• Canton Legends
• Card-Pitt
• Carolina Bombers
• Carolina Ghostriders
• Carolina Queens
• Carolina Sandsharks
• Carolina Speed
• CenTex Barracudas
• Central Ohio Lions
• Central Valley Coyotes
• Chattahoochee Valley Vipers
• Chattanooga Locomotion
• Chesapeake Tide
• Chicago Black Hawks (football)
• Chicago Bliss
• Chicago Fire (football)
• Chicago Force (football)
• Chicago Politicians
• Chicago Slaughter
• Chicago Tigers
• Christiania Rebels
• Cincinnati Celts
• Cincinnati Jungle Kats
• Cincinnati Reds (NFL)
• Cleveland Bulldogs
• Cleveland Fusion
• Cleveland Indians (NFL)
• Cleveland Lions
• Cleveland Tigers
• Cologne Centurions
• Columbus (NFL)
• Columbus Comets
• Columbus Lions
• Corpus Christi Hammerheads
• Corpus Christi Sharks
• Coventry Jets
• Dallas Desire
• Dallas Rage
• Danville Demolition
• Dayton Bulldogs
• Dayton Triangles
• Daytona Beach Thunder
• Detroit (NFL)
• Detroit Demolition
• Duluth (NFL)
• Eidsvoll 1814s
• Emerald Coast Barracudas
• Erie Illusion
• Essex Spartans
• Evansville Crimson Giants
• Everett Hawks
• Flint Flames
• Flint Pros
• Flint Wildcats
• Florence Phantoms
• Florida Firecats
• Florida Frenzy
• Fort Wayne Flyers
• Fredrikstad Eagles
• Ganndal Giants
• Gazi Warriors
• Glasgow Lions
• Green Bay Blizzard
• Greensboro Revolution
• Gulf Coast Pirates
• Hamar Ruins
• Hamburg Blue Devils
• Hamburg Sea Devils
• Hammond Heroes
• Hammond Pros
• Hartford Blues
• Hawaiian Islanders
• Herlev Rebels
• Houston Cardinals
• Huntington Heroes
• Hutt City Spartans
• Indiana Mustangs
• Jacksonville Stallions
• Johnstown Riverhawks
• Kansas City (NFL)
• Kenosha Maroons
• Kentucky Karma
• Kings Comets
• Kolbotn Kodiaks
• Kristiansand Gladiators
• Kristiansand Raiders
• La Crosse Night Train
• Lakeland Thunderbolts
• Laredo Law
• Laredo Lobos
• Larvik Lions
• Las Vegas Sin
• Lehigh Valley Outlawz
• Lillehammer Wolfpack
• Lima Warriors
• Lincoln Capitols
• Long Beach Aftershock
• Los Angeles Buccaneers
• Los Angeles Dons
• Louisiana Swashbucklers
• Louisville (NFL)
• Louisville Bulls
• Louisville Fire
• Lubbock Renegades
• Lyngdal Snakes
• MCP Ipswich Cardinals
• Macon Knights
• Mahoning Valley HitMen
• Mahoning Valley Thunder
• Manchester Wolves
• Marion Mayhem
• Memphis Xplorers
• Miami Caliente
• Miami Morays
• Miami Valley Silverbacks
• Mid American Buzzards
• Milwaukee Badgers
• Minneapolis (NFL)
• Missouri Minutemen
• Mobile Wizards
• Montreal Machine
• Motor City Reapers
• Muncie Flyers
• Muskegon Thunder
• Nashville Dream
• New England Knights
• New England Surge
• New Jersey XTreme
• New York Yankees (NFL)
• New York Yanks
• New York/New Jersey Knights
• New York/New Jersey Revolution
• Nidaros Domers
• Nordstrand Bandits
• Northeast Ohio Panthers
• Ohio Swarm
• Oklahoma City Lightning
• Oneida Football Club
• Oorang Indians
• Orange/Newark Tornadoes
• Orlando Starz
• Oslo Vikings
• Otra Raiders
• Palm Beach Phantoms
• Palm Beach Waves
• Peoria Rough Riders
• Pesaro Angels
• Philadelphia Bell
• Philadelphia Phoenix
• Pittsburgh Maulers

This list is only of football teams like the Southern Ohio Patriots!!!!!--Sportman2 20:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, if those teams aren't notable then they should go too, although even with my minimal knowledge of American football I know that at least some of those teams played in the NFL. The fact that another page is less in-depth than article X is not by itself a valid reason to keep article X, and the fact that other non-notable subjects have not (as yet) been deleted is also not a reason to keep an article on a different non-notable subject ChrisTheDude 21:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sportman2, see What about article x?, inclusion is not notability and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The question at hand is whether this article before us now satisfies guidelines. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree if those articles are like this one, please delete them all. --Bejnar 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above reasons; this team seems doesn't appear to meet notability requirements. Also, after clicking on a few of the team links listed above by Sportman2 it appears that many of those articles also need to be deleted if someone wants to take the time to go through them and do the nominations... --The Way 08:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There being no criteria on American football teams, one must revert to WP:V and WP:N, which this fails due to a lack of WP:RS. Given the long list of articles of minor league or defunct teams, there seems to be enough critical mass to develop some sort of criteria. The matter should be brought to the American Football Wikiproject to start developing a consensus. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 16:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is someone being hurt by having this article here? I can understand deleting articles that are totally random. But, football is a popular sport so shouldn't articles about football's many leagues and teams be here? I think if the article provides true and liable info it should be kept.--Sportman2 18:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that no reliable sources exist to verify that the article contains true information. We need a reliable third party source in order to confirm that the information in the article is accurate (and that any future information that might be added later is accurate as well). Since no such reliable sources exist, this article does not pass the requirements set forward in WP:V. Even if it the article was verifiable, there are many who believe that articles on Wikipedia should meet a certain threshold of notability. If you believe Wikipedia should have articles about football teams in America, where do you stop? Are adult amateur teams notable? intramural college teams? How about Pop Warner?? Even though Wikipedia is not paper, it does rely on a an all volunteer group of editors, and they would be quickly overwhelmed by tens of thousands of articles that would need to be evaluated against the basic Wikipedia criteria. The system would quickly break down, and would turn into another clone of Myspace, without the ugly backgrounds and annoying music. Notability is determined by consensus, which is why I feel like a discussion should be started. I personally believe that only current and defunct teams in the top professional league of any given variant (turf, arena, Canadian rules) are notable, including officially associated farm leagues like NFL Europe. I can't think of any reason to include any other semi-pro or amateur team. You may disagree, and thats a discussion that should be had, either at the American Football Wikiproject or other suitable venue. But even so, that discussion will have no bearing on this debate - if the article can't pass WP:V, it wouldn't measure up to any other criteria, present or future. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 20:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sportman2, see It doesn't do any harm and It should be about everything. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:CORP/WP:ORG notability standards. I haven't found anything that indicates a link to the NFL team. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete How is the article not liable? Sources used to create the article:
• League's Official Site
• Team's Official Site
• Fan Website

Those are all liable sources. You (CosmicPenguin) state that you think only major league or affiliated minor league should be noted here. There are many non-affiliated leagues and teams listed here at Wikipedia. Just take the Frontier League for example. If you think only well-known teams should be listed here then take Wild West C.O.W.-Boys of Moo Mesa. That is a TV show I didn't hear about until today. Sure it could be big among people who like that kind of stuff but I don't like that kind of show. So I wouldn't be the one watching it. Maybe you wouldn't watch the Southern Ohio Patriots but that doesn’t mean their unpopular.--Sportman2 22:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that they were unpopular - and even if they were, Notability is not popularity. I also didn't say that only well-known teams are suitable for Wikipedia, I said I thought that only full-time professional teams qualified. That the NFL and AFL are also quite popular isn't part of that equation. Regardless, as I stated before, the threshold for your article is simply WP:V. And as per WP:V - the team website and the fan site are not reliable, since they are self published (and the fan site seems to be more about the USFA then the Southern Ohio Patriots). The League official website is the strongest of the three - I would be inclined to use it, especially if there existed other reliable sources to bolster it. -CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What would really help to justify this article would be coverage of this team in a mainstream newspaper, since that would be an independent, reliable source. The league's website and the team's website are not independent sources, and a fan website is not considered a reliable source since it generally would not have editorial oversight any more than a Myspace page or a blog would. This particular league is not even listed at Our Sports Central which is a website devoted to independent and minor league sports, which raises concerns about how notable it is. --Metropolitan90 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is unverified, then it should be deleted unless verified; that said, there must be a point along the line from NFL franchises to once-a-month pub teams on the Hackney Marshes where a team ceases to eb sufficiently notable for Wiki. A decision on that point would then allow the rational winnowing of the list of teams provided above. -- 62.25.109.196 10:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What?--Sportman2 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's saying that the community should decide what "level" a football team has to play at to be considered notable. It's just a general comment regarding that list you posted, not specific to this discussion. -Elmer Clark 21:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable minor league team without verifiable sources of info should be deleted. Warfieldian 23:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have not heard a legitimate argument in favor of keeping this article. I agree with Warfieldian, that especially notability is required. --Bejnar 03:22, 22 February 2007 (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; possible slight merge to hijacker articles. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:45Z

List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers[edit]

List of cars used by the 9/11 hijackers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-encyclopedic, non-notable information – Zntrip 01:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Haha, what's next? List of Pokemon cards owned by the 9/11 hijackers? Someone seems to have put a lot of effort into this, but seeing as there's no connection between these cars and the attacks themselves, I'm going to have to agree that this is completely non-notable. -Elmer Clark 01:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm working on the Karen cards and Simpsons memorabilia used by the 9/11 hijackers in everyday life, you insensitive clod!! --Action Jackson IV 05:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How about shampoos used by the 9/11 hijackers? That would be negative "product placement". :P Awyong J. M. Salleh 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The types of vehicles driven by the hijackers, and motoring incidents like speeding tickets and impounding of the cars post-attack, while interesting, has no connection to the events that made the hijackers infamous. As such, it is trivia, and should be deleted. -- saberwyn 02:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivia. Really crufty. Dragomiloff 02:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, belongs on some mythical 9/11pedia that wouldn't be overrun by conspiracy buffs. --Dhartung | Talk 02:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as completely worthless, non-notable information. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Why on earth would anyone think this is relevent? Resolute 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per WP:INTERESTING -- feb^talk 03:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge - do any of the 9/11 related pages have a trivia section? --Action Jackson IV 05:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neither notable nor encyclopedic. Maxamegalon2000 06:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ... and also mostly WP:OR, it seems. Sandstein 08:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and quickly. WP:NOT#INFO. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the articles focusing on the hijackers, or keep. ZimmerBarnes 14:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is completly not needed as it is completely random and can hurt people. (inside) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hiddenhearts (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Merge anything relevant into the hijackers articles (I assume the hijackers have articles) Jcuk 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no evidence to even support that this is list is real. --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 22:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the list is amusing and it is well-researched. I see nothing wrong with it. Nardman1 01:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just kidding. Nardman1 02:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no merge whatsoever. You have GOT to be kidding. Listing VINs? --Calton | Talk 01:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I find the information interesting. Some or all of it should be merged into the larger 9/11 articles. - Tronno ( t | c ) 04:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge A well thought out article with interesting, but nevertheless not fully worthwhile. MrMacMan 18:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge relevant information with hijacker articles - this is well-sourced. Extreme emphasis on "relevant information." - Chardish 01:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge relevant info with articles about the hijackers. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 02:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since the cars were not used in the attacks, the information is irrelevant about 9/11. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Even assuming that the subject were Wiki-suitable, how would one propose to *verify* the content ? Delete -- 62.25.109.196 10:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft unrelated to 9/11. Awyong J. M. Salleh 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minutae with no established relevance to the events. 23skidoo 22:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete someone spent a lot of time putting together something that really isn't encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 22:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - but DEFINITELY save the info somewhere, someone (for some reason) has spent a lot of time on it. Thedreamdied 00:07, 21 February 2007 (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.--Húsönd 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save the idiot[edit]

The term does not look notable Alex Bakharev 01:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable neologism. Google shows few relevant results.--TBCΦtalk? 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Turgidson 02:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, if not even WP:NFT or OR. eaolson 03:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge to Escort -- feb^talk 03:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NN--[|K.Z|] ^{T • V • C} 05:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- It's a common mechanic used in a number of games. Quiet a few actually, so I see no reason not to have an article on it. (Animedude 06:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Then you should be able to cite sources to show that it has already been researched and documented outside of Wikipedia, in accordance with our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. You have so far not cited any sources at all. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Demonstrate that you aren't coming to Wikipedia to document the undocumented. Uncle G 13:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cite what? Thats like asking me to cite "shooting game". There are games in which you shoot, there are games in which you escort an NPC. The article names three of these games. Would like a longer List?(Animedude 10:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
      • I beleive what you're thinking of is "Escort Mission", which is still probably not notable enough for WP, though more widely used than this -- feb^talk 11:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it IS fairly common in gaming, from Spider-Man 2 to Resident Evil 4. References and cleanup would be groovy. ZimmerBarnes 14:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge Not notable enough to have own article, but mention on the Lemmings/Earthworm Jim page. JameiLei 15:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, fails to meet wikipedia standards; delete. Retiono Virginian 17:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on lack of notability, unless reliable sources are found. This particular game mechanic (in platform games in particular) is familiar though not often used, another example would be the Comic Relief game Sleepwalker, though I've not heard a catch-all phrase for it and mixing up Lemmings with them weakens rather than strengthens the term. It's also quite derogatory - sounds more like a term bandied around on message boards by irate gamers than a widely-accepted descriptor. QuagmireDog 22:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. SriKorange

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:48Z

Prof.R K Sharma[edit]

Prof.R K Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a notable academic. I cannot verify that his textbook exists or is widely available outside of his class. Looks like a vanity page. Cybergoth 20:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination. Heavy POV, no citations, cannot find any mention of him anywhere and the text itself admits that the book he allegedly wrote is not yet notable: "aims to become" --Kimon 21:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 22:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 00:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable professor in Nepal. Needs sources, but we have maintenance tags for that. John Vandenberg 04:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless sources are provided since there are absolutely none. In response to Jayvdb, having no sources is a valid reason to delete. Maintenance tags for needing more sources are for pages that have sources establishing notability but don't have enough sources to back up statements needing citations. --The Way 08:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I should have explained myself more in that regards. I have just worked on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathmandu University High School (second nomination), adding sources. For this region of the world, they are pretty hard to find, and the Afd process is too short to be sure they will be found. I would prefer that in cases like this, tags are used first, and if after due course no sources are provided, then it comes to Afd. Listing it here as a first port of call smacks of having no WP:FAITH. To be fair tho, Cybergoth did welcome the newcomer and notify them about the Afd. John Vandenberg 08:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand your position, but policy generally holds that anything that is unsourced can and should be deleted. Information, quite frankly, shouldn't be added unless sources are provided when it is added. Nominating something for deletion because it violates policy is not a violation of WP:Faith. --The Way 08:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAITH is a principle that has made Wikipedia what it is. If a newcomer writes an article that violates policy, it is beneficial to the project to be gentle. Let me put it this way; if the article had of been tagged before being listed here, I would have voted delete because the article and editor had been given a chance. I have added three sources; they are not real good ones, but it is a start to put this subject in perspective. It looks like this is the person the original contributor is referring to, however I havent had much luck verifying that person is involved with Kathmandu University Medical School, simply because their website is down again (or the link into that region of Nepal is down). John Vandenberg 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- The Indian medical journals assert notability.Bakaman 18:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if verified/sourced. -- 62.25.109.196 10:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The KUMS website is visible again, and it confirms he is the sole member of their dept of forensic medicine.[3] John Vandenberg 10:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The verification listed above is sufficient. I wasn't sure that would be sufficient sources for Nepal, but it seems there are. DGG 04:09, 20 February 2007 (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:49Z

Shin Wen-Bing[edit]

Shin Wen-Bing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Ideogram 02:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Eastmain 02:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletions. -- Eastmain 02:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. University presidents are usually notable. Perhaps someone who reads Chinese will be able to expand the article. --Eastmain 02:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per WP:PROF. -- feb^talk 06:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I created this article as a result of monitoring new pages. Some one was authoring tons of content on Southern Taiwan University of Technology, and so I was trying to clean up everything. I have no preference whether it stays or goes, though I do feel it is notable. -- Zanimum 14:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As the mayor of a city and president of a University he deserves an article JameiLei 15:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Everything in the article says that this man is notable. If the article had been tagged with ((sources)) or the like, I would have voted delete; but bringing it to Afd without any attempt to give editors time to dig up sources is lacking WP:FAITH. John Vandenberg 03:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment John, technically sources are supposed to be provided when information is added. Quite frankly, a page shouldn't be created nor should information be added unless sources are provided at the same time so it really isn't a violation of WP:FAITH. --The Way 08:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created before we really started cracking down on sourcing. Anyway, it's a fairly sourcable article, it's not like some topic where there's likely to be argument or lies slipped in. -- Zanimum 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Doubly notable as a university president and town mayor. Can we do better than "not notable" when presenting arguments to delete something? (jarbarf) 00:50, 22 February 2007 (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 wasSpeedy deleted as hoax/vandalism per WP:SNOW. -- The Anome 11:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus Ham[edit]

Looks like Hoax, the only ghits are on role playing game Alex Bakharev 02:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax, WP:NFT. Looks like the worlds newest blogger is using Wikipedia as a playground. Resolute 03:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Apparent hoax, clear nonsense. I've also nominated Aronicus Bijork, created by the same user and linked from this article, for speedy deletion. ◄Zahakiel► 05:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utter nonsense., Actually, speedy delete since this is clearly vandalism. --Wafulz 06:22, 17 February 2007 (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 as WP:CSD#G4. riana_dzasta 04:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Janniger MD FAAD[edit]

Camila Janniger MD FAAD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - unsourced article on a non-notable doctor. Ghits are all wikis and directories. Otto4711 02:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Make that speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted article. I thought this name sounded familiar. Previous deletion under "Camila Janniger" Otto4711 02:32, 17 February 2007 (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverdale Community Football Association[edit]

Cloverdale Community Football Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable soccer football association. (Edit: correcting sport) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 02:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Its not a soccer association at all - rather a Canadian Community based organization for Canadian Rules football teams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.81.18.36 (talk • contribs).
• Weak Delete - Not notable enough for an article JameiLei 15:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:41, 17 February 2007 (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. - Daniel.Bryant 06:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shin-Ninjutsu[edit]

Shin-Ninjutsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Made up word with no real meaning. The article appears to be designed to advertise a non-notable single school. This was initially a PROD but the initial authors placed a comment on the Talk page. Because of that the PROD was removed. Peter Rehse 02:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Since it is about "new ninjutsu styles" that aren't verified, and "that have no direct relation with the established traditional Ninjutsu schools," there are inherent notability issues. ◄Zahakiel► 04:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, little more than an ad. -- feb^talk 06:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sorry, but Wikipedia is not for neologisms, or for things thought up in martial arts class one day. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just like everyone above has said, this article just doesn't belong here. --Kimon 21:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per what people have, had, and will say. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. They didn't even translate "Shin-ninjitsu" properly. --UsaSatsui 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ugh. JuJube 10:10, 19 February 2007 (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 deletion by admin Mailer diablo as the article falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 20:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood Anonymous[edit]

Torchwood Anonymous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No claim to notability. Fails WP:WEB

• Delete --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and so tagged. eaolson 03:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable Torchwood fan website. --Canley 05:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:WEB -- The Anome 12:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article itself states only 169 registered members. Not notable enough JameiLei 15:29, 17 February 2007 (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gupta Straddle[edit]

Gupta Straddle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An impressive ZERO Google hits for this sex position. Probable hoax -- see creator's edits and consider reverting if this is a hoax. N Shar 02:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - entirely unreferenced; and wow, an article that wiki-links to a walrus and an Indian cricketer. Checking off that scavenger hunt item... ◄Zahakiel► 04:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - quite apart from the wikilinks, Wikipedia is really not for stuff thought up in the bedroom one day. Pardon the pun, but this one really is complete bollocks. Indeed, I might go so far as to say that this article matches the "my left sock" pattern. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Joke article. Move to WP:BJAODN, and delete as unverifiable. -- The Anome 12:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Has to be a joke, has no notability, WP:NFT. --Kimon 21:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Riiiiiiiiiiight. (jarbarf) 00:49, 22 February 2007 (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filipino Victoria Cross recipients[edit]

List of Filipino Victoria Cross recipients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Antoine melancholy edited a number of Victoria Cross-related articles to claim that a Filipino named Michael Juarez won the VC in Iraq in 2003, and created this article claiming the same. This is a blatant hoax. All the other articles have been reverted, but since even being total rubbish doesn't qualify an article for CSD, I bring this AFD here. For those who are not knowledgable about the VC, only two have been awarded since the Falklands War in 1982 - Johnson Beharry for action in Iraq in 2004, and Bryan Budd for action in Afghanistan in 2006. -- Arwel (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PostScript: This apparent paragon of military virtue is claimed not only to have won the VC but also the Philippine Medal of Valor, and the Israeli Medal of Valor, and to be a Hero of the Russian Federation (information inserted by anon 206.73.209.94, now blocked for a year, having previously had a final warning against vandalism). -- Arwel (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• According to a website maintained by the Imperial War Museum on the Victoria Cross (http://collections.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.941), the information on this Wikipedia article is false. The webpage is slightly out of date, not listing the 2006 VC, but states that as of June 2004, only one VC was awarded after the Falkland conflict of 1982, to the abovementioned Mr. Beharry in 2004. If Mr. Juarez had been awarded a VC in 2003 as the article indicates, I believe it would have been listed on this site. Beharry's VC is, according to BBC News, the first to be awarded in 20 years (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4358921.stm). Again the conflict of dates indicates that this article is false information. -- saberwyn 04:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. --Canley 05:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. Nuttah68 10:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a blatant hoax. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Berserkerz Crit 10:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Delete this already. Berserkerz Crit 17:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't we delete this now? --Howard the Duck 14:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Bakaman 19:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If a Filipino abroad made it with something as big as the Victoria Cross, it should hit the local newespapers in as little as one day. And I've never even read of this. I don't think the others have, either. --- Tito Pao 22:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per Tito Pao. If this was true then Philippine media would have already reported it. Lenticel 06:11, 20 February 2007 (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cole[edit]

Adam Cole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No outside links, probably not notable. --Hojimachong^talk_con 01:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. dcandeto 02:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are four people named Adam Cole in the IMDb, none of whom has been in any of the things the article claims. dcandeto 02:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Uncredited walk-ons do not a notable subject make. ... discospinster _talk 02:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - completely non-notable, no assertion of notability. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:39, 17 February 2007 (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myliye[edit]

Myliye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No outside sources, besides the band's page. Probably not notable. --Hojimachong^talk_con 01:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not many Google hits (105 total, with 64 "unique"). Many of the results appear to be self-submitted, except maybe the ones titled "Latest Penis Enlargement" (???). Not in AllMusic, either. ... discospinster _talk 02:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advertising an un-noteworthy band, lack of content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JameiLei (talk • contribs) 15:30, 17 February 2007 (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. A Train ^{take the} 05:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aerosmith in popular culture[edit]

Aerosmith in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - this is an indiscriminate list and directory filled with unsourced and trivial items seeking to gather together every appearance of the band, every use of one of its songs and every time something that resembles the band appears in any medium. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2. Otto4711 02:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Ckessler 03:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While I don't think this is original research (no "random event x in show y may be a ref to Aerosmith"), I don't see the need of a extensive list of Aerosmith appearances and references. If they're not in the main article, then they're clearly not important pieces of information. ' 04:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By original research I'm referring to items like A rock band of elves resembling Aerosmith is featured in the movie The Polar Express performing a song called "Rockin' on Top of the World." Steven Tyler sang the lyrics in the song, yet the rest of the band was either not featured in the song or not given credit, meaning it is likely one of Tyler's few solo works. I mean, it's not "theory of everything" style OR but still. Otto4711 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Ah, I see that now. ' 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or weak keep to Aerosmith. I know this is probably where the article started, but I'm sure most of what's in the article is verifiable, even if not currently verified. I suggest merging non-trivial popular culture references to Aerosmith, tagging them with ((fact)) and deleting them if they remain unsourced for more than, say, 2 weeks. I think this could be a stand-alone article, but it would require adding a lot of context, performing a great deal of cleanup, and sourcing every claim made. Possible, but hard to do--that's why I write "weak" keep. -- Black Falcon 05:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete or Incredibly Weak mini-Merge, as per the precedent listed above. I would actually consider an article like this even less encyclopedic than a list of Rush references - Aerosmith is just too gigantic for something like this. It would be similar to the color blue in popular culture, List of country songs about loving someone, or List of UPC codes divisible by two. A few of the more defining uses (i.e., the earliest known use of an Aerosmith song in a mainstream movie, some factoid involving Revolution X, and the Head First (Aerosmith) download) could be placed in the main Aerosmith article. As a side note, the Revolution X trivia blurb is a prime example of how not to write trivia - the game came out for several consoles at once, and the "focus" of the blurb should probably be on the arcade game, which came first and was the most successful. Okay, taking my Nerd Rage and signing out -- --Action Jackson IV 06:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Action Jackson IV. I don't see how a subject like this could effectively be merged into the Aerosmith article. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, just a collection of unencyclopedic random facts. Anyway, this article is pretty much nonsensical as Aerosmith are part of popular culture. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it looks like this, along with most articles in Category:Musicians in popular culture are being AfD'd. If that's the case, what about most of the articles in Category:Representations of people in popular culture and each category up the tree from there? Would it be allowed if referenced like AC/DC in popular culture or should that also be considered a useless list and get AfD'd? And since this is an internet discussion, I will bring up Hitler (and why not Stephen Hawking too). Does something make AC/DC more "worthy" than Aerosmith? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The simple response is that humans are not omnipresent. None of us have the ability to scour every article and nominate all offending ones for deletion. We are not debating those articles; we are debating Aerosmith. ' 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pointing to a single article or two here; there are entire category trees that start at the In Popular Culture as a root. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This changes my argument how? ' 01:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. This does need to be sourced, but it appears to be factual information. Also needs to be edited alot more. ZimmerBarnes 14:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subtrivial fancruft in popular culture. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Aerosmith has passed the test of time and culture into notability. It would be hard to deny that. Bbagot 19:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No one is denying that Aerosmith the band is highly notable. What is not notable or needed is a listing of every passing mention of the band wherever it may be found. Otto4711 06:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article wasn't just a listing, it was descriptive context, and appeared to be events that would be considered to be quite notable and verifiable. There was no indication it was an unabridged rendering. Bbagot 04:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What's with the Aerosmith hate-fest lately?? I sense some extreme bias against this band on Wikipeida and it disgusts me. We can have an article for every song the Beatles wrote, an article chronicling Madonna saying the F-word on Letterman, an article about the Beatlemania, a list of Christina Aguilera's B-sides an unreleased material, and even AC/DC can have their article about pop culture, but God forbid Aerosmith (a band that's been around making music for nearly 40 years and sold more records than any other American rock band) has a few specialty articles. Considering many kids today only know of Aerosmith because of their soundtrack contributions, their being featured in a rollercoaster attraction, and their appearances on Saturday Night Live, I think it's important to have this section. Otherwise, the band's history section is going to become incredibly long as we incorporate (merge) many of these important items into the band's history section, making the Aerosmith article, which is already too long, even longer. But who am I to say anything. I simply want to expand knowledge on Wikipedia, the rest of you seem to want to hinder it. --Abog 04:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, I am unaware of any "Aerosmith hate-fest" on Wikipedia. I am aware of two articles relating to Aerosmith being nominated for deletion recently, this one and one about outtakes. That does not amount to a "hate-fest" under any reasonable interpretation. Second, you are expected to assume good faith of your fellow Wikipedians and accusing them of orchestrating a campaign against your favorite band fails to do so. Finally, if you believe that articles on Madonna's swearing of Aguilara's b-sides or whatever else do not belong on Wikipedia, then put them up for deletion. The existence of one crap article does not justify the existence of another crap article, so arguing in favor of this one by pointing to other shitty articles is a poor argument. Otto4711 06:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ever say that I thought they were all shitty articles? No. Don't imply. I think they are all good articles and should stay, especially considering how prominent these musicians are in pop culture, and the fact that their main articles would be incredibly long if they weren't broken into these sub-sections. Aerosmith is no different, and it seemed as since their articles were all being gone after at the same time, like people were suddenly denying Aerosmith's importance or notability. And that's where I took issue. But now that I realize this is an artist-by-artist thing, I'll back off a little. Since many of these bulleted items already appear in the main Aerosmith article, I'm backing off a bit, and I think that we should just merge most of the rest, either into the Aerosmith article, or into the appropriate song articles. This isn't a matter of shitty articles, it's a matter of what appeared to me to be double standards. --Abog 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reasons I support the afd on Stephen Hawking in Popular Culture. I would make the argument that any article with "in Popular Culture" in the title should be deleted. Such articles are going to necessarily be original research and you have the added (and significant) problem of defining what, precisely, constitutes 'popular culture.' Essentially, "Aerosmith in Popular Culture" equals "Aerosmith in American Culture." This is unencyclopedic and US-centric (or at least Western-centric). If there is anything encyclopedic in the article then it should be merged into the Aerosmith article. --The Way 08:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've gone ahead and removed all the information from this article that I could find which already appeared in the main Aerosmith article. I'm sure there's stuff I've missed, but a lot of it is repeated. Ckessler 08:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, finally we can agree on something for once. I applaud you for your efforts. I had had this idea too, and knew that many of the factoids had been incorporated into the article already. Can we at least give this a couple days, so I can put in some of the more important things into the Aerosmith article or into the articles of the respective songs? Thanks. I think merging is a good compromise. --Abog 00:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete trivia section. Gazpacho 11:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indiscriminate collection of trivia, similar to precedent offered in nom. GassyGuy 05:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 23:01, 20 February 2007 (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 deletion by admin Mailer diablo as the article falls under the criteria of CSD G12. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 20:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telepresence-enabled cognitive apprenticeship model of teacher professional development[edit]

Telepresence-enabled cognitive apprenticeship model of teacher professional development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and not content suitable for Wikipedia (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). --24fan24 (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as admitted original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. No evidence that this ...theory?... has any reliable sources from verifiable indpependent, non trivial publications. Resolute 03:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as highly unencyclopedic. Of very dubious notability. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as copyvio of [4]. So tagged. eaolson 03:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator of this article is apparently the author of that site, as asserted on its talk page. A speedy delete tag was already removed for this reason. Resolute 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research. Maxamegalon2000 06:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - OR, OR synthesis, and complete bollocks. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As I have stated, I, the author of the article, am the copyright holder for all of the text and information in the article. The article is a presentation of the state of the science in cognitive psychology as it applies to teacher professional development and telepresence in education. The research was peer-reviwed and published in a doctoral dissertation.rsedmo

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of players elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame with over 90% of the vote[edit]

List of players elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame with over 90% of the vote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The list is not encyclopedic - players elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame with over 90% of the vote is not a widely recognized category; the Hall of Fame does not differentiate between those with more than 90% and those with less. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Wikipedia already has two other lists of Hall of Famers, List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (alphabetical) and List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological). The information on this list is readily available at the Hall of Fame Web site [5]. BRMo 03:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an arbitrary standard for inclusion. Otto4711 03:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move the information regarding the percentages to List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (alphabetical) and List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological), then delete. The information appears useful to the understanding of indoctrinations into this hall of fame, but in my opinion does not need its own article. -- saberwyn 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without merge -- I think it is safer to take the information from the original source rather than merging it as this article may contain mistakes. -- Black Falcon 05:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant and unencyclopedic information, of which Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subtrivial sportcruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Information already found within the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological) article and, as stated by nom, no precedent for partial list cut off. If is was a constructed list that showed all members of the Hall of Fame by % of vote, then I would vote to Keep as per the other 2 lists above. Bbagot 19:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Trivial in nature. Neonblak 09:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after merging List of players elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame with over 90% of the vote, List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (alphabetical) and List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological) into a sortable list List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Why have three lists when 1 will work! Vegaswikian 07:17, 22 February 2007 (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix in popular culture[edit]

Jimi Hendrix in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - this is an indiscriminate list and directory filled with unsourced and trivial items seeking to gather together every appearance of Hendrix and every use of one of his songs appears in any medium, with no indication of the information's importance either in the fiction it comes from or in the real world. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2. Otto4711 03:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Now this has some original research, and I don't see the need of a extensive list of Hendrix appearances and references. If they're not in the main article, then they're clearly not important pieces of information. ' 04:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - again, just a random collection of unencyclopedic facts, and nonsensical as Jimi Hendrix is part of popular culture. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nonsense original research is good but not encyclopedic--Cometstyles 13:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it looks like this, along with most articles in Category:Musicians in popular culture are being AfD'd. If that's the case, what about most of the articles in Category:Representations of people in popular culture and each category up the tree from there? Would it be allowed if referenced like AC/DC in popular culture or should that also be considered a useless list and get AfD'd? And since this is an internet discussion, I will bring up Hitler (and why not Stephen Hawking too). Does something make AC/DC more "worthy" than Aerosmith? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The category tree is extensive. I've been reviewing the articles and as I find ones I consider AFD-able I'm AFD-ing them. It takes some time to do that. The AC/DC article was just nominated and closed with no consensus. If a consensus develops that these sorts of articles should be deleted, the AC/DC article can be renominated. Otto4711 17:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Take the most notable and merge into the already established sub-section. Delete the rest JameiLei 15:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cruft! Cited information could easily be condensed into a paragraph or two on the main Hendrix page. Ckessler 07:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reasons I've cited in the AfD's on Aerosmith and Stephen Hawking in Popular Culture; it's original research and 'popular culture' is a very ambiguous term that is very US centric, or at least Western centric. --The Way 08:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivia section. Funny, I was just thinking someone should start an "exterminate all Simpsons trivia" movement. Gazpacho 11:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 23:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wikipedia rules say WP:OR should go.. but its a shame, as its good information thats going to be lost. Thedreamdied 00:10, 21 February 2007 (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. If I were closing it factoring purely the strength of argument, it would probably be a delete anyway, as most of the 'keep' arguments are based on "I like it". However, all articles have been transwikied to Wiktionary; this is not only a reason for deletion, but a common reason for speedy deletion. I will not include List of common Chinese surnames at this point, as this is being addressed in a seperate deletion discussion. Proto ► 15:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of surnames[edit]

(View AfD)

List of Hmong surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Norman surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Italian surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Luo surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Jewish surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Slavic surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Maltese surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Japanese surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of German surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Middle Eastern surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of common Chinese surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Old English (Anglo-Saxon) surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:WINAD. These article are merely lists of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is the kind of thing that Wiktionary is made for, and so they have been transwikied to Wiktionary and may now be deleted.

• See precedent at, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of given names by language, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of East African given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Slavic given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zulu first names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Persian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zazaki given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most common Russian names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian given names‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian given names 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman praenomina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Modern Greek given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish given names Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latvian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kurdish given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of given names, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Zuid-Gelders surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Anglo-Saxon surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telugu Brahmin Surnames, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hispanic and Romance-speaking cultures surnames, etc.

Deletion after transwiki is standard procedure. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 03:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep List of common Chinese surnames - I don't know about the other articles, but the article for common Chinese surnames have a lot of useful information. It gives both the 1990 and 2006 rankings on how common the 100 most common Chinese surnames are, it gives the romanisation/pronounciations of several different Chinese dialects for each, and it lists the Vietnamese and Korean equivalents for each, if applicable. It's not just a simple list with no other information. As the article explains, the commonality rankings is a researched and published list. A plain list of Chinese surnames would actually be much much larger. The comparative commonality between 1990 and 2006 of these surnames alone would make this list encyclopedic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. List of common Chinese surnames: Chinese surnames are integral part of Chinese culture, and cannot be purely expressed in Wikitionary. If a list satisfies the requirements of WP:LIST, I don't think it's a great idea to delete them. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hesitant delete - If Wikipedia is going to mean anything more than the sum of its parts, this has to be discussed at a principled level. I will withold my final judgement as to whether these categories should be kept or not, but I think we need to be restrictive.--Niohe 05:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep List of common Chinese surnames which is clearly not merely lists of names belonging to a language (i.e. a word list) with no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose, especially given that many of the surnames themselves have individual pages. Weak keep on List of Japanese surnames (many of the links in the article actually lead to placename articles rather than surname articles, which isn't great). cab 05:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep and cleanup (and maybe rename) List of Hmong surnames. It's actually a listing of the Hmong clans, of which 18 exist; this can be cited (e.g. "18 hmong clans" GBooks Google). So this one has definite criteria for inclusion in the list, as well as being at least a weakly notable topic. However, Delete the others (including List of Japanese surnames which I voted weak keep above) as being collections of random information without any particular sourcing or criteria for inclusion, and also being fairly useless for navigation given that half the links in question go to placename articles or disambiguation pages instead of articles about the surnames in question. cab 14:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep List of common Chinese surnames per above. It is not just a list of names, but includes additional (encyclopedic) content. -- Black Falcon 06:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See below for other articles.

• All of the above comments only address the List of common Chinese surnames article, because it seems people think that isn't in the same class as the others. As such, it shoudn't be listed in the same batch AfD. I hope it's okay to remove that to list it separately, and consider the others as a class for the rest of this discussion. Dmcdevit·t 09:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shouldn't be listed at all, seperately, or in this AfD. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With the exception of the Chinese one, all these articles are just indiscriminate lists - and would perhaps be better off at WikiSource or something. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 11:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These lists add useful information to Wikipedia, and should be expanded, rather than being deleted. -- The Anome 12:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:USEFUL. cab 14:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I concur with all else that's been said by people with "keep" votes. There's additional encyclopedic information, plus links to Wikipedia articles... more than useful, this is meaningful and encyclopedic. LordAmeth 15:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is some encyclopedic information in the lists, they should be merged to an article about the naming, not stuck in a list so that we have to keep the unencyclopedic stuff with it. See Japanese name, Vietnamese name, etc. Dmcdevit·t 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki/Keep I think all of them should be added to Wiktionary, then deleted from here. But theres no reason to lose this valuable information forever JameiLei 15:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The articles are already on Wiktionary. Dmcdevit·t 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also keep (I commented on List of Chinese surnames above) the following

1. List of Hmong surnames -- as noted by cab, there are only 18 Hmong clans, "so this one has definite criteria for inclusion in the list".
2. List of Italian surnames -- provides sourced encyclopedic (non-dictionary) information about commonality of surnames and geographic origin. However, adding ((wikify)) might be a good idea.
3. Weak keep on List of Jewish surnames (some encyclopedic content provided about historical/geographic distribution)--I am essentially neutral on this one.
4. Weak keep on List of Japanese surnames -- the article is well-organized and complements Category:Japanese surnames. Some people find lists easier to use than categories. I think keeping this list does no harm and instead makes WP more user-friendly.
5. As for the rest, delete after transwiki successfully completed. -- Black Falcon 17:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   If there is some encyclopedic information in the lists, they should be merged to an article about the naming, not stuck in a list so that we have to keep the unencyclopedic stuff with it. See Japanese name, Vietnamese name, etc. Dmcdevit·t 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to seeing the List of Hmong, Italian, and Jewish surnames merged into Vietnamese name, Italian name, Hebrew name articles (although not all Jews have Hebrew names). However, I think List of Japanese surnames should still be kept for navigation purposes (I will note again that some people finds lists easier to use than categories. -- Black Falcon 02:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Italian name and other articles are mostly about first names. Still, I'm not opposed to a merge, if it can be appropriately performed. -- Black Falcon 02:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since the information is now on Wiktionary. (There is clearly a difference in usefulness between some of these articles - perhaps it would have been helpful to list them separately - but some, for example List of Old English (Anglo-Saxon) surnames, are so poor that there is nothing to be gained from keeping them either here or on Wiktionary, but that's a different question). HeartofaDog 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I just want to ask, does anybody plan on relisting List of common Chinese surnames in a seperate AfD? If not, I'm going to remove the AfD notice on that article. As for the rest, I see that some are probably more encyclopedic than others. This should probably have been better done if they were listed seperately, because people seem to be commenting on different articles. An admin will have a hard time picking out what should be deleted and what should be kept. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it's no longer nominated. I removed the tag now. Dmcdevit·t 04:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glad to hear that, I just added to it. Shenme 05:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep List of Hmong surnames as it's a listing of clans, and includes totem symbolism and origin myths. Needs expansion instead of deletion. Delete all others as they make either no attempt or very little attempt at encyclopedic value, but are mostly lists of words that are used as surnames. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 05:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 05:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 05:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 05:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 05:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of the Middle East-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 05:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 05:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the listing from list of China-related deletions as List of common Chinese surnames is no longer one of the articles nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:V. Others have argued there's no encyclopedic content at all here, just a list of names, and I won't disagree. The main additional point I want to raise is that there's no verification at all. Without sources, how we tell whether an item on the list really is a common name or not? The claim that particular names are common (iand others not on the list are presumably not) appears to be entirely based on editor's own original research. Editors who wish the lists kept need, at a minimum, to show that reliable sources exist capable of making verification possible. This simply hasn't been done. --Shirahadasha 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Note that the List of Hmong surnames identifies a single source, but then the article states the source isn't very accurate. Based on what other source? Thanks. --Shirahadasha 05:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep. Although this is a group nomination, these articles are being discussed separately and are not all in the same state of (dis)repair, so they should be nominated separately. Dekimasuが... 06:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsourced directory/dictionary-style lists with too unclear criteria for inclusion. Kusma (討論) 14:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I just had a look at the List of common Chinese surnames, and I cannot image any other reason why people want to discuss this page separately other than the fact that we are distracted by the visuality of Chinese characters. Sure, Chinese characters are used for Korean and Vietnamese surnames. But are we to assume that people with these surnames are related to their namesakes in China? If yes, please give a source for that claim. Or are they listed for no other reasons that they correspond to the Chinese surnames. Well, then we are dealing with a typical dictionary article.--Niohe 15:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well firstly, that article has been delisted. But secondly, perhaps that article was misnamed, but it's not a list that's been gathered together by WP editors like most other lists. That list is actually a researched and published list in real life, and the article is about that list. The fact that it gives a commonality ranking for each surname for both 1990 and 2006, so readers can look at the rankings comparatively, already makes that article encyclopedic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I beg to differ and I want to relist the article. This article is a hodge-podge of unencyclopedic assumptions. Most common surname where? In the PRC? Taiwan? In the Chinese-speaking world as a whole? It seems that the list of common surnames is based on the PRC, which begs the question why Korean and Vietnamese names should be ranked according to the commonality in the PRC. If this article should be kept at all he only way this article should be moved to List of common surnames in the PRC, because that is what this article is about.--Niohe 18:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't stop you from re-listing it, but the issues you brought up are not criteria for deletion, they're just editorial issues, and the article is far from perfect and could use more work. Like I said, the commonality rankings alone would make the article encyclopedic, plus, the list is a researched and published list. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all and cleanup. The purpose of having these lists on WP is that the articles can add extra dimensions to the names and how the culture uses them. With some cleanup, all of these articles can accomplish that. --Danaman5 17:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Renomination - I would renominate List of common Chinese surnames for deletion as per WP:NOT#DIR. Wikipedia is not genealogical database and listing Chinese character surnames according to commonality in the PRC is unencyclopedic and adds nothing to our understanding of surnames outside of the PRC.--Niohe 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, an article on Richard Nixon adds little to our understanding of presidencies outside of the USA. Should that be deleted as well. A geneological database is simply a listing of names without any encyclopedic information (such as rank or related-language equivalents). That is hardly the case here. -- Black Falcon 18:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ???? I somehow fail to see the validity of the analogy.--Niohe 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how the commonality rankings or the fact that it's a researched and published list does not make it encyclopedic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is not on me, but on those who want to keep it. The article has already been transwikied, so the information will not be lost. If the article is not be kept in Wikipedia, it should be moved to List of common surnames in the PRC, referring to the only verfied encyclopedic value of the text, which is really just a figleaf as far as I am concerned.--Niohe 19:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the burden of showing how an article meets criteria for deletion falls on the nominator. Also, without further research by WP editors, there is no evidence that the list is applicable only to the PRC. Furthermore, believing that the article should be renamed is not criteria for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make the discussion more confused than it is, and please respond to my substantive arguments. I have already told you what policy I think this group of articles violate and I have also stated why I think this article is inappropriately named. To the extent that the burden of proof is on me, I have already fulfilled my part. Now the ball is in your court.

As for applicability to the PRC, I note that the article for 2006 states "调查涉及全国１１１０个县和市，得到了２．９６亿人口的数据，共获得姓氏４１００个。" I also note that the book quoted for 1990 is published in Beijing and I think it is reasonable to assume that this book is based on PRC data only.--Niohe 21:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... You haven't really said anything substantive. You've cited WP:NOT#DIR, but as I've said, the listing is a researched and published list, it has comparative commonality rankings, etc etc. More than one editor have stated that this is not just a mere list with no other information. And this article is not a genealogy. Please actually read WP:NOT#DIR, the genealogy clause pertains to biological articles or listings of persons to show only genealogical relations. It doesn't even apply to this list because it's not a biographical article, nor is it a genealogy. And again, believing that the article is misnamed is not criteria for deletion - simply to say, do you believe the article should be renamed, or do you believe it should be deleted? There are two completely different sets of criteria for the two. Also, just because it was published in Beijing, and that it says it's about common surnames in the whole country does not necessarily mean it excludes Taiwan. If this publication is PRC-government related at all, I'm pretty sure it will claim to include Taiwan. But this whole issue is a different discussion altogether. You've mentioned nothing that actually warrants the deletion of this article. It just seems like you don't like it, that's all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to most of these points at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common Chinese surnames.--Niohe 01:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Personally I think it was way to early for Japanes surnames to be transwikied, considering there are way over 200,000 Japanese surnames in existence. If this list was deleted, what you would have is a very incomplete list that has been transwikied with no access to the easiest of the wikies, and the information on a much less used wiki, to edit on to help fill in gaps and finish it.Williamb 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this comment at all. Could you please explain why the articles are encyclopedic? Transwikied articles aren't erased, it still exists at wikt:Appendix:Japanese surnames where it can be expanded. Wiktionary is a wiki just like Wikipedia. Dmcdevit·t 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• New Nomination - I have started a new nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common Chinese surnames.--Niohe 00:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the other surnames were. Usedup 02:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep --Java7837 04:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep -- I don't see how Wiktionary is appropriate for this at all; and, given the fact that the Chinese article contains some referenced info above and beyond most of the articles, perhaps everyone's time would be better spent tagging the other articles for improvement (not deletion), or, even working on the article content, instead of debating the same points over and over. Neier 14:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rescind wikt remarks, after finding http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Names - Neier 14:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The burden of improving the articles rather than deleting them falls on those who want to keep them - not on those who want to delete.--Niohe 14:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, my point being that articles in need of improving should not even be brought to AFD to begin with. WP:DEL#Editing (There used be an instructive table regarding this, but, it has disappeared in the past few days. The gist remains, however). It is that type of "Improve this article in the next five days, or else" posturing that is starting to grow old. Neier 23:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep article is encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammertime123 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-19 19:25:16
• Marginal delete -- I'm assuming articles like Mottershead and Jones are not to be transwikied... If they're staying, then the majority of these articles offer very little that a decent categorization wouldn't.
• Keep, the List of Jewish surnames is very useful and links to good articles and is a perfect source for information in Category:Hebrew names. IZAK 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The list of Jewish surnames is interesting, but it is not an encyclopedic article at all. Just a list with a lot of red links. It should be transferred to Wiktionary.--Niohe 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the creator of the List of Luo surnames, I can say that the comment "no prose or explanatory text or encyclopedic purpose" does not apply there. There is a brief description of Luo nomenclature/name structure, then most of the surnames listed have a "meaning" or explanatory note after them. The argument, therefore, does not always hold.... Valerius Tygart 18:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The List of Luo surnames is one of the worst examples of unencyclopedic articles. I doesn't even lead anywhere else. I would suggest that you rewrite the article into a generic article about Luo surnames. As it stands now, it just a worthless list with little content.--Niohe 01:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your careful & thoughtful comments! Have a NICE day... ;-) Valerius Tygart 14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete totally and utterly worthless. Thedreamdied 00:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Clean-up all per the above. If one article should be kept, they all should, as they all have the same potential. JQF • Talk • Contribs 17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The same potential?! Another example of circular reasoning.--Niohe 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, speedy keep - I use these articles all the time in my own research. Why would a Wikipedian try to remove information that others use frequently and is, in fact, essential to their research? Incomprehensible. Please improve Wikipedia in some other....productive way. Badagnani 03:28, 23 February 2007 (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. - Daniel.Bryant 06:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Inch Nails in popular culture[edit]

Nine Inch Nails in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - this is another indiscriminate list and directory filled with largely unsourced and trivial items seeking to gather together every appearance of the band, every use of one of its songs and every time something that resembles the band or its name appears in any medium. No context provided to indicate the importance of the listed items either within the fictional item from which they are drawn or in the real world. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2. Otto4711 03:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per above. It is a page much better suited for the new "ninwiki.com", not Wikipedia. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 06:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I bet I can find more references than this to Domino's Pizza in popular culture; should I start a page on that? This set of pages could be endless. --Brianyoumans 06:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete except that while 90% of these are just drive-by name-checks (or a listing of minor bits of music heard somewhere else) a few, such as the whole Tori Amos entry, have some relevance to the history of the "band" (Reznor). Items like that should be included somewhere else (and properly sourced; there are a couple of books that have brought up that one) if they are not already. --Dhartung | Talk 07:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yet again, just a random collection of unencyclopedic facts: and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it looks like this, along with most articles in Category:Musicians in popular culture are being AfD'd. If that's the case, what about most of the articles in Category:Representations of people in popular culture and each category up the tree from there? This article was spun off of the original Nine Inch Nails article because it, like many other articles, had a large "In Popular Culture" section. Would it be allowed if referenced like AC/DC in popular culture or should that also be considered a useless list and get AfD'd? And since this is an internet discussion, I will bring up Hitler (and why not Stephen Hawking too). Does something make AC/DC more "worthy" than Aerosmith? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles appear to be in part "all the references to the band that were too trivial to put in the main article, but we wanted to put them somewhere so that people wouldn't keep adding them." I suspect some of these subjects could have a useful article on "the image of x in popular culture", expanding upon their branding, use in subcultures, differing perceptions worldwide perhaps, etc. On the whole, though, I would agree that most of these ...in popular culture articles could go. --Brianyoumans 17:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Ckessler 16:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subtrivial fancruft in popular culture. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To quote from my arguments given in the number of other 'in popular culture articles: I would make the argument that any article with "in Popular Culture" in the title should be deleted. Such articles are going to necessarily be original research and you have the added (and significant) problem of defining what, precisely, constitutes 'popular culture.' Essentially, "NIN in Popular Culture" equals "NIN in American Culture." This is unencyclopedic and US-centric (or at least Western-centric). --The Way 08:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivia section. Gazpacho 11:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial, unencylopaedic, all the stuff the nom said, precedent... GassyGuy 05:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Trivial. MichaelGriffin 00:09, 21 February 2007 (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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley[edit]

Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - This article was split off from Elvis Presley with the comment that the trivia section in that article had gotten out of hand. I agree, and the trivia works no better as an independent article. Most of the items are unsourced and some of it requires original research. Otto4711 03:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Detailing every reference to Elvis would simply be a long list of unnotable trivia, whatnot with his immense popularity and influence. ' 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any important cultural figure will have a lot of "cultural depictions" That, combined with silly trivia like "Elvis had a pet rabbit named Dean, after James Dean", make this a permanent list or repository of loosely associated topics. szyslak (t, c) 07:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - purely an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Splitting off trivia sections from the main article prevents useless trivia from collecting in the main article. I had trouble even getting the Elvis article to load on my computer before I split off the trivia section. Now those who want to add information about what TV shows Elis has been mentioned on have a place to do so. As for it being an indiscriminate collection of information - it's true that it isn't the most organized article, but with some effort it can be brought up to the standard of some other similar articles (like the Joan of Arc and George Washington ones). YankeeDoodle14 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• If the content is "useless trivia" then it belongs neither in the main article nor in a separate article. The proper response to useless trivia in articles is to delete it, not split it off. Otto4711 06:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with YankeeDoodle14. Elvis is notable as are his cultural contributions and a fork from the main Elvis page is warranted. That the article could use work is a call for better editing, not for deletion. Bbagot 19:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cruftalicious. As I have stated on the AFDs for similar pages, this stuff could easily be condensed down to a paragraph or two, and added to the main Elvis page. Ckessler 07:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Elvis is a notable figure who has been portrayed both seriously and not-so-seriously in an extensive amount of media over the years. I see this as a worthwhile spin-off of the main artcile. 23skidoo 22:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 23:01, 20 February 2007 (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. I felt the "delete" arguments here were stronger than the "keeps". Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Who in popular culture[edit]

The Who in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - this is an indiscriminate list and directory filled with unsourced and trivial items seeking to gather together every appearance of the band, every use of one of its songs and every time even a poster of one or another of the band members appears in any medium. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2. Otto4711 03:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or weak keep to The Who. I know this is probably where the article started, but I'm sure most of what's in the article is verifiable, even if not currently verified. I suggest merging non-trivial popular culture references to The Who, tagging them with ((fact)) and deleting them if they remain unsourced for more than, say, 2 weeks. I think this could be a stand-alone article, but it would require adding a lot of context, performing a great deal of cleanup, and sourcing every claim made. Possible, but hard to do--that's why I write "weak" keep or merge. -- Black Falcon 05:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The Who is a rock band. It is part of popular culture. So the title makes no sense. But besides that, it is not clear what the point of this article, and those like it, is. The only justifiable purpose is to show that the band has had a major influence on (other) popular culture. But their influence is better attested by benchmarks that are actually relevant to being a musical group, such as album/single sales, successful tours, and statements by later musicians saying that The Who was influential on them. These can all be put in the main article. Any other way of conveying the idea of influence will do nothing but be a collection of trivia. Andrew Levine 06:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and Andrew Levine, just a random collection of unencyclopedic facts. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it looks like this, along with most articles in Category:Musicians in popular culture are being AfD'd. If that's the case, what about most of the articles in Category:Representations of people in popular culture and each category up the tree from there? Would it be allowed if referenced like AC/DC in popular culture or should that also be considered a useless list and get AfD'd? And since this is an internet discussion, I will bring up Hitler (and why not Stephen Hawking too). Does something make AC/DC more "worthy" than Aerosmith? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The category tree is extensive. I've been reviewing the articles and as I find ones I consider AFD-able I'm AFD-ing them. It takes some time to do that. The AC/DC article was just nominated and closed with no consensus. If a consensus develops that these sorts of articles should be deleted, the AC/DC article can be renominated. Otto4711 17:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems The Who's contributions to modern culture are notable, including having the theme song to what was the #1 ranked show on television. While I do not listen to them personally, the article makes a strong case for notability. Bbagot 19:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The band is notable and no one is suggesting otherwise. The notability of the band, however, does not confer notability onto every appearance of the band, its music, or random photo of a band member drawn from every other medium ever. Otto4711 06:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fancruft, any sourced information can be added to the main article. Ckessler 06:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To quote from my arguments given in the number of other 'in popular culture' articles: I would make the argument that any article with "in Popular Culture" in the title should be deleted. Such articles are going to necessarily be original research and you have the added (and significant) problem of defining what, precisely, constitutes 'popular culture.' Essentially, "in Popular Culture" equals "in American Culture." This is unencyclopedic and US-centric (or at least Western-centric). --The Way 08:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I disagree with The Way that all "In popular culture" articles should be deleted, but THIS one definitely should, it's nothing but insignificant trivia. Furthermore, no article on this topic should exist either.. The Who are an element of popular culture, anything really worth having should become part of the main article. Mangojuice^talk 01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 23:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs some work and sources, but it is an article worth saving. The main The Who article is already too long and this article shouldn't be merged with it under any circumstances. TheWho822 4:22, 21 February 2007

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Díaz[edit]

Milton Díaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unverifiable, and unsourced. Only real claim to fame appears to be participation on post 9/11 committees. Fails WP:BIO. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no notability claimed, established or likely. Nuttah68 10:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not even sure from the article which hearing he participated in. Congressional, City council or "Free Speech Day" at the local YMCA. Montco 12:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment that is probably my fault; I did some work with the article before I decided it was better to delete it propose it for deletion. The previous (highly POV) statement did mention more thoroughly the nature and source of Mr. Díaz's comment. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 17:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources, no references and unverified citations. All this makes it necessary to delete a living persons bio Alf photoman 14:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity bio. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable as per nom.Veronica Mars fanatic 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. (jarbarf) 00:46, 22 February 2007 (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 Biological determinism. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-22 13:51Z

Biologism[edit]

Biologism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A basically incoherent article. Doesn't even define the article's subject. It has something to do with evolution and homosexuality and testosterone. Or something. De-proded by author without explanation. eaolson 03:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Peter G Werner, below. Thanks for finding that. eaolson 14:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: nn neologism. -- feb^talk 03:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Under what speedy delete criteria? eaolson 03:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A1 or G1. Honestly, makes next to no sense. Kind of like those "arugment maker" sites, you put in the name of something you don't like, and it comes up with a bunch of perfectly fine english to describe what's so awful about it, but if you actually read it it doesn't actually have content -- feb^talk 06:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - Article appears to be using an existing word as a neologism for something else. According to the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia, Helicon Publishing LTD 2007, biologism is "biological theory; use of biological terms." This is a very general idea, and appears to have nothing to do with the content of the Wikipedia entry of that name. In addition, the sentence "Biologism will become the underlying principle of the future societies" is probably the worst violation of WP:CRYSTAL I've yet seen. ◄Zahakiel► 04:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to the proper term, as below, unless it is properly sourced in short order. But in either case, the content of the current article should still be removed (i.e., do not merge with anything) per what I said above. The existing content is not salvagable. ◄Zahakiel► 16:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Biological determinism, which this term is clearly a neologistic synonym of. I'd recommend a merge, but the writing in "Biologism" is so unclear, that I don't think it can be salvaged. A google search of "biologism -wikipedia" yields 55600 hits, most having something to do with biological determinism, so clearly the word is a semi-established synonym. Peter G Werner 07:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not neologistic. A quick search turns up books discussing biologism at length that go back several decades. It is the "attempt to reduce social science to biology" in the words of ISBN 9027719136, published in 1985, and "biological reductionism" according to ISBN 0802088600. ISBN 0887068219, published in 1988, discusses the "new biologism" that arose in the 1940s. ISBN 0873955188, published in 1981, talks about the biologism of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Oswald Spengler. There are books from 1938 discussing biologism in British philosophy, and books from 1946 discussing the attraction of biologism for George Bernard Shaw. Uncle G 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uncle G. Copy Uncle G's comments to article & put it on the clean-up list. It's marginal & obscure, but a worthy topic. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Peter G Werner. » K i G O E | talk 05:30, 19 February 2007 (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. - Daniel.Bryant 06:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of swear words[edit]

List of swear words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No real use, unencyclopaedic, no guidelines for what words should be included and which shouldn't. Would seem to be better to use Category:Profanity than this list feb^talk 03:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an indiscriminate list. Otto4711 04:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. List that is better suited in a CAT. --[|K.Z|] ^{T • V • C} 05:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per WP:LIST. The list is informative, even if not particularly englightening. Unlike Category:Profanity, this list includes definitions after each of the terms, so it aids in navigation. By WP:LIST, it should stay. However, I do believe it should be rephrased to the more verifiable title List of profane words. -- Black Falcon 05:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Doesn't your comment sort of point out WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, particularly #2? -- feb^talk 13:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words: It's a dictionary of swear words. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. List of profanities (AfD discussion) was deleted for being a dictionary, too. There is no navigational purpose to this list, because it doesn't link to articles on the words. The articles that are bluelinked, such as lance (a thing) and Gaylord (a name disambiguation), have nothing to do with the words and are pretty much bluelinked by accident. Dictionary articles on the words will be found on the project that is a dictionary: Wiktionary. Wiktionary has plenty of lists of swear words and profanities that editors who want to be lexicographers can work on, such as wikt:Category:Vulgarities, and wikt:Category:Swear words by language, for examples. Uncle G 13:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, those blue-links don't link to the words, but others like honky and wanker do. In any case, my goal was not to keep this list as is, but to keep and see it improved with encyclopedic content (such as information on origins, commonality of use, geographic distribution of use, etc.). However, as I doubt anyone will, I have removed by suggestion to "keep". I do agree with you and the nominator that the list cannot remain as it is. I though it could be expanded, but upon further consideration, I seem to have overestimated its potential for expansion. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what exactly is a swear word anyway, and how do we verify it? Rklawton 07:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It serves no purpose--Cometstyles 13:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is yet another dictionary of words, mostly slang words, many of which are not, in fact used to swear. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, of slang or otherwise. Its articles are not dictionary articles, nor are they dictionaries in their own rights. wikt:Category:English swear words is the proper place for this, and it already exists. Delete. Uncle G 13:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a dictionary. If the information on each word were expanded, it would have to be done in a non-dictionary, encyclopedic way, and I don't see how that's possible when the list clearly focuses on words, which is just the focus of Wictionary, not Wikipedia.Noroton 18:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteCategory:Profanity would work much better. Dfrg.msc 21:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per msc. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the others...and really, what qualifies as a swear word? "Krutz" isn't even on the list. --UsaSatsui 16:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Joie de Vivre 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A large majority of these words aren't swear words, they're slang. What's the point, seriously? 80.41.104.38 20:01, 19 February 2007 (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 per consensus. PeaceNT 08:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Victorian election campaign[edit]

2006 Victorian election campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is a chronological summary of media reports about the election campaign for the Victorian general election, 2006. Seperate articles deal with encyclopedic content about the candidates and the election itself. I would consider an article on the policies of the parties and candidates of the election to be encyclopedic, but this is just a collection of sourced opinions, media stunts and quotations. Grumpyyoungman01 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 04:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a notable topic and is well sourced. John Vandenberg 05:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree that this is unencyclopedic, and it's clearly notable and verifiable within Wikipedia policies. --Canley 05:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Victorian general election, 2006 article is about the election and this article is about the campaign. I see nothing wrong with that, especially given that it's presented in encyclopedic format (it is not a list of links with brief summaries--the article is a coherent whole). Both topics pass WP:Notability and are encyclopedic. -- Black Falcon 05:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It would detract from Victorian general election, 2006 to have more than a summary of this article included there. The campaign is equally notable to the election itself. Clearly the success of the various parties campaigns are shown in the result of the election.Garrie 06:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources, notable, etc. —Nightstallion (?) 07:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that the topic per se is notable and the article is well sourced. I haven't found any official WP policy which refers to this type of article, but from a search of "election campaign" this is the first article of its type. This section from 'what WP is not' is the closet I could come to a guideline. I refer to section 7 - plot summaries. The article in question is a massive plot summary, which doesn't actually discuss itself in broader terms. Grumpyyoungman01 08:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Section 7 of WP:NOT#IINFO refers only to "works of fiction". -- Black Falcon 17:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate that, but as this is a new type of article it isn't dealt with anywhere in WP, so I decided to use an argument from analogy. Surely some of the ideas in section 7 are relevant to all plots whether fictional or non-fictional. Grumpyyoungman01 01:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't think the analogy is appropriate, as the whole point of section 7 is that plot summaries complement "real-world context and sourced analysis". This is real-world context and sourced analysis. -- Black Falcon 04:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. No reason for deletion. Dfrg.msc 09:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep verifiable, notable and useful article about the election campaign. Sarah 09:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, the article should be cleaned up so that it is a history, or a chronology, of the election, rather than a list of media mentions of the election. But that alone is not sufficient reason to delete. The article might be improved by a rename, though not sure to what. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments above. It needs at least a partial rewrite, but is good enough to not warrant a deletion. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 11:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments above - the subject is not in violation of any policies although the style and content is in drastic need of revision per WP:SELF and WP:LENGTH IMO. Orderinchaos78 12:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the topic is encyclopaedic, even if not all the content is. I'd suggest the article be pared down substantially. Joestella 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as topic is clearly notable. Possibly needs a bit of a rewrite but that can be further addressed in the talk page. Capitalistroadster 01:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It meets notability, NPOV and source criteria. I could do with a tidy up though, and the last two weeks of the campaign needs to be added. I think the actual content and style of the campaign are likely to be of considerable historical interest, particularly the last two weeks Peter Campbell 02:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a news service. Compress important information and integrate it into the main article. michael ^talk 08:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Michael is 100% right that we should improve the article as he describes. But that doesn't mean we should delete it in the meantime. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, loads of precedent for "election campaign" articles like this one.

Lankiveil 12:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment It was my impression that there weren't any precedents from a quick search. Grumpyyoungman01 03:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Public government elections are notable. Just H^{editor review} 22:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Obviously. But are election campaigns notable? That is the point in discussion. Grumpyyoungman01 03:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. Worst case scenario, merge it into a bigger article. Just H^{editor review} 17:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The only criterion by which we should be judging events is WP:N. This article clearly passes. To debate whether certain classes of events are notable outside of the guidelines set by WP:N is original research and subjective. -- Black Falcon 04:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Shorten and merge The campaing is not separate from the elections.Circeus 13:20, 21 February 2007 (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. -- Steel 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Txhc.com[edit]

Txhc.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. --- RockMFR 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Per WP:SNOW -- feb^talk 04:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Umm..... what? --- RockMFR 04:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB --[|K.Z|] ^{T • V • C} 05:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Was just created, hardly enough time to even become notable. --Dennisthe2 05:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; fails WP:WEB criterias.--TBCΦtalk? 07:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per everyone else, fails WP:WEB, does not assert notability. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -not notable, fails to meet WP:WEB. Retiono Virginian 17:37, 17 February 2007 (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 per consensus PeaceNT 08:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GayNZ.com[edit]

GayNZ.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable website. No secondary sources seem to exist which verify notability. --- RockMFR 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - taking a look at the Ghits, it may meet point 3 of WP:WEB: "The content is distributed via a medium 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 distribution of GayNZ.com stories by multiple other sites is enough to tip me to a keep !vote although it's hardly cast in stone. Otto4711 04:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB. Has to meet most of the criterias of notability, not just one. --[|K.Z|] ^{T • V • C} 05:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Quoting from WP:WEB: "Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability using reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content are deemed notable, if they meet any one of the following criteria." (emphasis in the original) Otto4711 16:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Otto4711's opinion, plus countering RockMFR's assertion that it's not notable as GayNZ is NZ's largest on-line GLBT community and is referenced by NZ media as a source for the views of the GLBT community. Enzedbrit 10:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to be a dick, but would you mind providing links to where it is referenced by the NZ media? --- RockMFR 18:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Television New Zealand, Scoop.co.nz, New Zealand Herald, NZ Edge... Grutness...wha? 00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Grutness. I'd have suggested www.scoop.co.nz with a searchEnzedbrit 09:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per comments above. The page is notable enough. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it appears notable. Though a secondary resource would be nice, it gets over 22,000 hits on Google. ZimmerBarnes 15:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability = Pass. Dfrg.msc 21:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per above. There's a lot less notable stuff than this on Wikipedia. Alun 17:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Otto4711 and the sources provided by Grutness. The website appears to be a notable NZ online community. WjBscribe 09:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable. Carlossuarez46 22:50, 20 February 2007 (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.