< January 1	January 3 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mango juice^talk 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthology: The Temptations (1964-73)[edit]

Not really much point in an article on this compilation. There's no content that can be added beyond its tracklisting. FuriousFreddy 00:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This article lists the songs of an album. Nimbat230 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Temptations are highly notable, but every reference to them isn't. This is just another compilation without any redeeming notability of its own. It might rate mention in the The Temptations article, at the very most. I do not understand Nimbat230's reasoning; listing song titles of an album does create notability for the album, even if these were new songs. --Bejnar 00:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Benjar, no notability. If sales info were included or chart position showing notability I would be inclined to keep it. Malla nox 02:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Keep, vote changed following consideraton of Warren's comment. Malla nox 05:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Benjar, while the Temptations are highly notable the album is not. — Arjun 03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Compilations of notable artists have precedence for being kept (the many for Rush), for example). A little work will fix this article. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just reproducing a tracklisting is not sufficient for an article. If the article asserted why this compliation was particularly notable, then it would be suitable. Proto::► 12:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just another "Very Best of Greatest Hits". IMHO, compilations even by very notable bands aren't automatically notable. To be sure of its notability, I'd like to see information on chart performance or links to independant non-trivial reviews. MaxSem 14:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as an album list.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, preferably expanding the description. Scienceman123 talk 21:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC which states that every album from a notable band is considered notable. Tarinth 21:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see nothing wrong with it, besides the fact that it could be expanded slightly. WP:MUSIC isn't against having all albums of a notable band. Floria L 22:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable album by notable band. --Ezeu 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the album section of WP:MUSIC is being contested. There is a proposed album notability requirement at WP:LP. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The content itself appears to meet WP:N given the prominence of The Temptations. Album article could be Merged into article on the band. --Shirahadasha 02:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Amazon's review lists this as an "Essential Recording", with an average of 5 stars from user reviews. allmusic.com also has a five-star rating on this album, saying that it "should really be considered the best available summation of their career"... to me this sounds like a notable album worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. -/- Warren 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warren. bbx 05:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I am working on the Album project - will bring this up to more-than-stub status soon. This does meet WP:MUSIC#ALBUM. SkierRMH,23:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - marked as stub, album template added to discussion page, which will bring it to the attention of the album project.SkierRMH 23:53, 7 January 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 A1, A3 lacking context. Tubezone 01:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jvcs[edit]

looks like SPAM/questionable notability/other edits by the same user (Special:Contributions/Haymoncollins) - all on the same day - are related Lars T. 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - just an empty page with a spam link. Get rid. - IceCreamAntisocial 00:41, 2 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Diamond Income Fund[edit]

I recommend Deletion for this article which is nothing but an advertisement for a non-notable company. The company primarily rents out trailers for the Canadian oil fields. The article has subsisted in the Wikipedia since August. It has no links to it except for the four redirect pages, which should also be deleted.

Black Diamond Income (redirect page)
Black Diamond Fund (redirect page)
Black Diamond Trust (redirect page)
Black Diamond Income Energy (redirect page) --Bejnar 00:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because it doesn't seem to pass the corporate notability guideline - Google picks up a few things, but the sources don't seem independent of the company, thereby failing criteria 1. (And there's no way it meets #2 or #3.) Furthermore, the article is replete with advertising jargon, but lacks content. Finally, it's unsourced. Picaroon 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as well as one of the only wikilinks is for a scottish trade unionist who died in 1965. ha.--Tainter 02:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above. WP:CORP. — Arjun 03:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't even appear to be a company website at all. --SYCTHOS ^talk 03:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 10:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails WP:CORP.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added the fact that the company is traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange, as well as the URL for the company's web site. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That does not change anything with regard to notability does it? --Bejnar 21:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As per nom, non-notable corporations do not need Wiki articles. Darth griz⁹⁸ 20:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Scienceman123 talk 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I don't think being in the Toronto Stock Exchange guarantees you notability - The RSJ (Sign my book) (CCD) 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. No publications have been cited except routine sites like Yahoo Finance and this reference doesn't show a single article or analyst covering the company (headlines consist only of a single routine press release on earnings). Absent evidence that someone covers or writes about this company, WP:N isn't met. Can reconsider if sources demonstrating notability are produced. --Shirahadasha 03:04, 3 January 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full Circle (Hieroglyphics album)[edit]

Entry says nothing useful, and the album does not appear notable enough to warrant its own entry Iridescenti 00:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you explain why you AfD-listed this album, and not the other by the same artist, Third Eye Vision? Wikipedia seems to have more than a few album-stubs like this, and I don't understand the need for this AfD. It seems to me that you could merge the content into Hieroglyphics (band) and redirect without the need for deletion. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 01:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge and redirect to Hieroglyphics (band). Not notable on its own but ok to keep as part of band info. Malla nox 02:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Hieroglyphics (band). — Arjun 03:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fairly straightforward, hopefully no one will mind if I go ahead and do this. Merged and redirected, both albums. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:MUSIC, every album by a notable band is considered notable. Tarinth 13:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Re the first post by Booyabazooka - only reason I AfD'd this & not the other, was that this was the one the random article brought up. Didn't want to go straight ahead and merge just in case this was the 'Sgt Pepper' of hip hop and I'd just not heard of it, as I'm not a hip hop fan. Iridescenti 11:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I just restored the article [1] as it was redirected today by Booyabazooka to Hieroglyphics (band), which is not appropriate as the AfD is still ongoing. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears I missed the above statement by Booyabazooka, but I still think the redirect should wait until the AfD is over (if that is the conclusion). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Tarinth. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tarinth and WP:MUSIC Since the band is considered notable, so is the album. TSO1D 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not concerned with notability as much as with article content. These albums have none. Since there are only two, and the band's article is not particularly long, what's wrong with the merge? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 22:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Logistical comment: Deletion is definitely not going to be the result here. Was I wrong in stepping over the AfD bureaucracy? We don't need AfD for this discussion. (Btw, I have reverted my changes to the other two articles for consistency) ~ Booya ^Bazooka 22:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD is not an appropriate forum for improving article content. To improve article content, you can make edits yourself; you could mark it with things like ((expert)) in hope that someone with subject knowledge will improve it (as well as a number of similar tags); or you could initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article. Tarinth 23:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Somebody had merged the content of the two albums into the artist page. This was a good merge. The page didn't become overly long or anything of that nature, and the content was still present on WP. I'm not seeing the problem. GassyGuy 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a album by a notable group. --Ted87 23:31, 4 January 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. —Cryptic 04:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Students of the University of Arizona (2nd Nomination)[edit]

Topic is not notable. Should be part of the University of Arizona article. Gpohara 00:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have created a separate AfD page for this second nomination; the nominator originally started this AfD on the page of the first AfD. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable student organization per the WP:ORG guideline. As a previously-deleted article, this article could probably fall as a speedy deletion under rule G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion; however, an admin would have to check how similar this article is to the previously deleted version, especially since this version was created about 5 months after the first AfD closed. Nevermind, a look at the article's talk page indicates this has more information about the organization than the previous article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per NeoChaosX. — Arjun 03:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G4, as recreation of deleted material. The deletion log of this page indicates that this article was not revived. --SYCTHOS^talk 03:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I initially brought up that it could be speedy deleted; however, as I noted, the talk page indicates this version of the article is much more expanded than the version that was deleted. G4 only applies if the page is "substantially identical" to the deleted version, which this version apparently isn't. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. (I am the nominator.) --Gpohara 07:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This student government doesn't appear to warrant encyclopedic coverage due to lack of independent sources per WP:ORG. No sources are provided at all. --Metropolitan90 07:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant information to University of Arizona. Would be helpful is someone more knowledgeable about the article could trim it so that it does not engulf the University of Arizona article.--Jersey Devil 08:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —dima/s-ko/ 19:20, 2 January 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 a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 06:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empyrean Hosting[edit]

A non-notable defunct small business for one, and a conflict of interest for another. The author even mentions himself in the article. Was de-prodded. - IceCreamAntisocial 00:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable company that no longer exists, per the nomination. --Dennisthe2 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails WP:CORP and doesn't even have any claims to notability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete appears to be an example of vanity. Malla nox 02:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - vanispamcruftisement. So tagged. MER-C 02:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and commentors. A7, G11. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 03:57, 2 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Design Associates, Inc.[edit]

Likely spamvertising by single purpose account. The article mentions a couple of pages of coverage in local magazines, but I doubt they meet WP:CORP, especially considering their whopping 17 ghits [2][3]. -- IslaySolomon | talk 00:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of lack of notability and WP:CRYSTAL. It asserts notability, but it points to local information and trade journals, without providing web links - and I think many of the trade journals have web sites that can provide the information we need. That, and the crystalballery comes from the further assertion that there is pending features on HGTV amongst others. --Dennisthe2 01:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:CORP. MER-C 02:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 06:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advert that fails WP:CORP.--Jersey Devil 08:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Scienceman123 talk 21:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of crystal balling and failing WP:CORP.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:06, 3 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W.K. (Kip) Stratton[edit]

This article had a prod tag placed upon it for reasons that were not made at all clear in the edit history. Perhaps this was due to the lack of anything resembling a statement of notability in the opening paragraph. Rmky87 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now.--Rmky87 01:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst the article needs a rewrite and seems like vanity, Google seems to suggest that the author is pretty notable [4] --Veesicle 01:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that there is an actor of the same name, as the author's website notes - so that may not be the best Google search to go by. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 02:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, silly me, it didn't occur to me to check.. however as Kevin Murray says below this author does appear to have some claim to notability. --Veesicle 14:12, 2 January 200(UTC)
- Comment I'm new to the Wiki thing; I only added the initial article becasue there was a link to it from Stratton's Alma mater sentry. I'm a serious fan of his work, but have no ambitions to be a regular Wikipedia contributor; I apologize for my clumsy work. You can find reviews of Kip Stratton's books in the L.A. Times on Sept. 11, 2002, and October 30, 2005; the Boston Globe on May 8, 2005; Publishers Weekly, March 3, 2005, and September 15, 2002; and Kirkus Reviews, February 15, 2005 and June 15, 2002. Author's profile is contained in Contemporary Authors, Volume 242. New contract with Harcourt (for the Patterson book) verified in Publisher's Marketplace, November 28, 2006. --Aitchmark 10:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rewrite I found a few independent non-trivial sources; however, in one the mention alludes to notability in a brief mention comparing another book to his. Not overly compelling evidence of prominence, but I think we are looking for notabilty not prominence. This has potential way beyond vanity; his books are sold through Amazon and other major booksellers.

Stratton talks with Texas Public Radio's Ernie Villarreal. November 25, 2005 Interview of Author
Publisher’s Weekly Discusses one of his books.
mentioned in Austin Chronicle

--Kevin Murray 02:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Would you mind sticking them in the actual article, nonsarcastically speaking? Especially that interview, which smells really valuable.--Rmky87 17:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DONE --Kevin Murray 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs some rewrites, but he is notable enough for me. Cleo123 08:12, 6 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Schizofreniks[edit]

Non-notable upstart label. Google brings forth 89 unique hits which isn't much. The article is carefully worded but the official site has bios that more clearly show that these individuals worked for companies that worked with notable artists...the "Schizofreniks" themselves may not have. The author RecordLabel has predominately made edits in reference to this subject so a conflict of interest may be at hand. Additionally, the whole article reads like an advertisement. IrishGuy ^talk 01:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not well formed at all, and the article notes that information on their albums appears on Myspace and Youtube. Can't rely on that as a source. --Dennisthe2 02:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP/WP:MUSIC. MER-C 05:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 08:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MERC, this article fails multiple sets of notability criteria. TSO1D 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MERC-Fails the various notability tests. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:16, 2 January 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 WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:CSD#G11, WP:COI, and that's before you even start looking at the content. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Therapy[edit]

Article created by DrJohnEaton (talk · contribs) about a therapy created by Dr. John Eaton. Google search seems to find an awful lot of self-generated entries, but precious little in the way of Reliable Sources. Looks a lot like advertising, not clear at all this is a Notable practice. Fan-1967 01:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be vanity. Or at least stubify. Malla nox 02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - copyvio from [5]. So tagged. Not similar enough to be a speedy, though. MER-C 02:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete; close to a db-copyvio, but I'd be inclined to say ((db-spam)) given circumstances. Add to that conflict of interest for good measure. --Dennisthe2 02:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per article Talk page, author asserts that it's not a copyvio, and in any case grants permission as it's from his site. Not relevant to reasons for nomination. Fan-1967 13:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like total pseudoscience first of all, then per nom. Scienceman123 talk 21:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is merely advertisment for non-notable pseudoscience. --Ezeu 00:32, 3 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting character chronology[edit]

This just seems to be a really pointless partial chronology of Batman and Superman supporting characters. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Batman/Superman lists Savant45 02:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Superman articles. Delete There's no useful information here that isn't already in the Batman and Superman articles. The article itself has a vague name. According to WP:FICTION minor supporting characters should be included in the main article on a notable work of fiction. Tarinth 05:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for redundancy and trivia as above. Clicking on the links for each individual character shows that creator and first appearance of each is prominently displayed on their respective article infoboxes. So lacking useful research data, this article suffers from the intrinsic POV issue of "what supporting chars and why are these important instead of others?" not to mention that the whole topic smacks of an indiscriminate collection of information anyway. -Markeer 13:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand and move unless there is another list out there that choronologically compares sidekicks, i think we should keep this. This list only suffers from intrinsic POV because the author did not follow WP:LIST guidlines in being more specific with the title and beginning with a lead that stated exactly what the scope of the list would entail. It could be solved simply by writing a lead section and moving the article to a more descriptive title. Also, it doesn't seem any of you scanned more than just the first few entries, Spider-Man is listed as well, I think the orginal editor just contributed his own knowledge, not intentionally leaving superheroes out. Other than the points stated above, this meets the requirements at WP:LIST and there is no other article (that i'm aware of) that lists all major supporting characters chronologically. How about List of major supporting characters (comic)? With an approriate lead describing what the title means by "major" the scope can be defined enough to justify keeping out Man in hat #3 and also describe a little about what a supporting character is. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand and move -- per above cogent points. // FrankB 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- apparantly cogency only gets u so far ;) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tarinth and Markeer. TJ Spyke 03:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as cruft. What's the purpose of merging Batman and Superman universes? Why not Fallout and Star Trek? MaxSem 14:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Batman and Superman are both part of the DC universe, so it makes sense to handle them in one place, versus Fallout and Star Trek which are entirely unrelated. In looking at DC universe I notice that there doesn't appear to be a "list of DC universe characters" article (at least one I can see)--something like that would be a good article. Tarinth 15:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - List of DC Comics characters Uncle G 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - well since the above list already has several sublists, why not moving the DC related stuff to List of supporting DC comics characters and the Marvel stuff to List of supporting Marvel comics characters?

Delete, almost completely redundant and original research (regarding, e.g. creators -- suggestive of legal/moral artistic rights). --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- what this suggests to you is purely subjective, even though i realize the comic industry has an ugly history of creative rights, the person who came up with a character is not usually called into question. If it is, then that can be noted within the list. This is no more redundant than creating a list by aspect A and a list by aspect B, which is not against any wiki guideline or policy and does indeed help in navigation. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless listcruft. Fram 13:19, 5 January 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Handjob[edit]

Handjob AfD arguments[edit]

Handjob - WP:NEO states that all article claims must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. Moreover, per the section "Reliable sources for neologism" mentioned, To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. In evaluating the references in in Handjob, #1, #2, and #3 which is all 3 of the references in the article, they are not books or articles about "Handjob" but are only articles that use the term trivially as a neologism and without discussing it as such. All of these references thus fail WP:NEO. In the External links section, a link is posted to a Usenet posting, which not only fails the heightened reference criteria of WP:NEO but the general criteria for all Wikipedia articles at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin_boards.2C wikis and posts to Usenet which states Usenet posts may not be used as references. The second External link points to a website that uses the word "handjob" to describe sexual technique but it is not a reliable secondary source. Therefore, and "even though there may be many examples of the term in use", this article must be deleted per WP:NEO and any pertinent content placed into Foreplay / Heavy petting where it belongs. CyberAnth 01:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fingering AfD arguments[edit]

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

Handjob AfD comments[edit]

Redirect & Merge reliably sourced content into ~~Masturbation~~ Mutual masturbation Bwithh 02:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, reference #3 does seem most pertinent to masturbation. I am also evaluating it for use in an article I am drafting Religious views of masturbation. CyberAnth 02:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- !?! Wouldn't mutual masturbation be a better target? ~ trialsanderrors 03:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, yeah, what trials said. Bwithh 06:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bwithh. Nothing more than a synonym; no justification for its own article. Tevildo 02:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, for reasons given by Bwithh. Malla nox 02:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Dennisthe2 02:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to mutual masturbation --SeizureDog 03:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I was adding the reliably sourced content it did seem to me that a merger to masturbation was in order, given what the sources were actually saying about hand jobs. However, there have been two proposed mergers discussed on the article's talk page, both of which were opposed. I suggest that all of the above editors review the several arguments already made against merger on Talk:Handjob and comment on them, because they have yet to be addressed and countered by any editor in this discussion.
Incidentally: CyberAnth is missing the point of WP:NEO in the nomination. If this were an article about a neologism, then we would need sources that discuss the word. But it isn't. ("hand job" isn't even a neologism, as the fact that one of the sources dates from 1975 should clearly imply.) It's an article about the actual thing that the phrase denotes, a hand job. So the fact that the sources simply use the phrase in their discussions of hand jobs is entirely proper. Uncle G 03:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, re the recent discussions about merging that have gone on previously, they got bogged down in who was doing what to who. A handjob is a kind of masturbation therefore the merge is valid in my opinion. Malla nox 04:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge although I would suggest proposed mergers for content to both Masturbation and Mutual masturbation to allow the editors involved in those articles the greatest amount of influence in the process. It would not be that big a loss though if we were to userfy this article to CyberAnth and worked from there. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 04:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - putting it in both places is a good idea, and perhaps in the places I pointed out too. But what the heck does your last sentence mean? CyberAnth 04:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy is to move a section/article into a userspace while being reworked into a new or existing article. I mentioned this as a possibility since you said you were working on a new article on the subject. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 17:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why don't we rename Semen to Cum? Or Sexual intercourse to Fucking? Or Cunnilingus to Going down on? Or Fellatio to Head job? Better yet, how about renaming handjob to Manual stimulation (sexual) or giving it its small place in Human sexual behavior? CyberAnth 05:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has not proposed a valid reason for deletion. There is no way that a word for which I easily found a 1968 citation qualifies as a neologism, the criteria for which include "recently coined". I would not be averse to a merge proposal, properly done, but the nomination is on invalid grounds. This is longstanding sexual slang, probably somewhat older than forty years. --Dhartung | Talk 05:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Dhartungh stated that handjob "is longstanding sexual slang" yet he uses a reference in which it is used to describe a slang term, a neologism at the time, in an article that is not about its use as slang but treats it like some scholarly encyclopedic term for Manual stimulation (sexual). It falls under neologism, therefore. Again, why not rename Sexual intercourse to Fucking? Because it is not the scholarly encyclopedic term for the act. Any article titled Fucking would need to be about the etymology and history of usage of the word "fuck". Same with this article handjob. CyberAnth 05:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I have no idea what your first sentence means. You seem to be confusing a deletion discussion with an article. Please try to make more sense. Just because you envision the article being "about the word" does not mean that it a) is, or b) that others see it that way. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further, not only is the term in use for (at least) 38 years, refuting the "recently coined" criterion, it appears in the following dictionaries: Webster's New Millennium Dictionary of English, Random House Unabridged Dictionary, MacQuarie Dictionary Online, and WordNet, refuting the second criterion that it is a word that "does not appear in dictionaries". --Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - With all due respect, it appears you might need to read WP:NEO completely. CyberAnth 10:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        With all due respect, perhaps you could quote the appropriate section to which you are referring. Precision is appreciated. --Dhartung | Talk 19:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Read the nomination. CyberAnth 00:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This is obviously pointless. You're proceeding from a completely unsupported contention that the word falls under our definition of neologism, and saying that it fails to meet the guidelines, but you have not presented any credible evidence that it is a neologism. Obviously we can continue going around in "is! is not!" circles. If you had a better rationale for deletion -- and you obviously don't, you think the topic is valid and should be given a different name -- you would have put it in the nomination. So you're basically putting something up for AFD that you do not want deleted. You just want a clinical name for the article. I'm sorry, to me that is a violation of WP:POINT and I'm calling you on that. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apart and rewrite with more information and better references. Masturbation and Mutual masturbation and Handjob are three very distinct sexual concepts. You could roll all the sexual topics in Wikipedia under sex. If the handjob article needs better references, then add the proper tag. If you want a merge, discuss it on the article discussion page. This is for deletion of the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has multiple verifiable, reliable, independent references. Merge recommendations are to inappropriate topics. Edison 06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article is not about mutual masturbation, it is about masturbation of a male as a primary sexual activity, often in the context of commercial sex. I know of no better term for this--and the apparent attempts of others to find one show their similar inability. it is not "mutual" anything, it is much more specific than "sexual stimulation", and more specific than "masturbation", and much more specific than petting, and not necessarily or even usually part of foreplay. it is much too old to be a neologism. It refers to an activity--it is not just about the word. RANorton & Edison have it right. Admittedly, the article is a little incoherent, but that calls for editing, not deletion. DGG 07:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I totally agree with DGG here, a handjob is by no means an act of Mutual masturbation. wtfunkymonkey 07:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep with a weak rename and/or redirect. Obviously notable, no problems finding sources, practically requires an article in it's own right. My only problem, albiet a very small one, is with the name. It's not exactly encyclopedic, but I can't think of a better name. Perhaps a merge with other articles on Manual stimulation (sexual). wtfunkymonkey 07:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated before mutual masturbation and "handjob" are different things and so should not be merged. Furthermore, the article topic does not fit WP:NEO, no valid reason given to delete.--Jersey Devil 08:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - To clarify: Handjob is a colloquial term for Manual-Genital Stimulation, the term the consensus of scholarship uses to describe the act. The yet uncreated article Manual-Genital Stimulation should mention that one of several colloquial terms for the act is "handjob". Therefore, since handjob is a colloquial term for Manual-Genital Stimulation, an article titled Handjob needs to be about the term as a colloquialism. Does that clear things up? CyberAnth 09:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, because it's wrong, being based upon an incorrect idea of what the article should be about. An article entitled handjob should be about hand jobs. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. An article about the word (more properly, the phrase) is a dictionary article. As previously mentioned, the dictionary already has a stub article about the phrase at hand job. Encyclopaedia articles are not about the words or phrases but about the people, concepts, events, places, or things that the words or phrases denote.
    If, as you assert, manual-genital stimulation and handjob are the same thing (which requires evidence that females can be given hand jobs, given that the literature talks about manual-genital stimulation of females), then the one should redirect to the other, since two articles about a single concept are Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. The one problem with the "Use the fomal name that is used in scholarship." idea is that it is in direct opposition to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names).
    AFD is not the correct place to discuss a simple issue with an article's title. It doesn't require administrator privileges in order to rename an article, and doesn't involve deletion. Uncle G 12:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - If, as UncleG says, a handjob is different from Manual-Genital Stimulation, then handjob needs to be about the term as such. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is one reason why. We don't name sexual intercourse by the common name Fucking. We use the common scholarly name. A dictionary entry and an article like Fuck that covers the etymology and history of a word are very different matters. Both male and female manual-genital stimulation can be covered in Manual-genital stimulation, and colloquialisms such as "handjob" and "third base" can be cited as colloquialisms for the act. CyberAnth 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you insist, use a more appropriate term and redirect. Wikikiwi 10:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it simply is not a neologism, but a common word. Therefore, WP:NEO does not apply. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fuck is an even more common word. But notice how Fuck is not about sexual intercourse but about "fuck" as a term. It uses Jesse Sheidlower's book The F Word for much of its info, which is a book about the word "fuck". Inthe same way, Handjob needs to be about the term, not Manual-Genital Stimulation. CyberAnth 12:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Encyclopaedia articles should be about the people, concepts, events, places, and things that the titles denote. Uncle G 12:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So move the darn article to Manual-Genital Stimulation. Perfectly fine with me. But you are requesting deletion here, which is not fine with me. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does it "need to be about the term"? You haven't given any reasoning other than a lot of, er, hand-waving. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect ~~to Mutual masturbation, as it is the same thing - a handjob is just a form of mutual masturbation.~~ with Mutual masturbation to Manual-genital stimulation. Note that Blowjob redirects to oral sex. Proto::► 12:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the same thing, as a handjob (or Manual-Genital Stimulation for that matter) is not necessarily mutual. That said, I have no objections to merging Mutual masturbation with Handjob in a single article Manual-Genital Stimulation. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point. I've changed my suggestion. Proto::► 13:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deals with a subject that is patently real. Maybe the article can be improved. But it is not the same subject as mutual masturbation, although it is related. Tarinth 13:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to mutual masturbation, on a second reading it appears to deal with the subject. Tarinth 13:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't merge, i'ts NOT mutual masturbation. If someone would like to rename it and rewrite to look more scientifical they should discuss this at WP:RM. MaxSem 14:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG said it all. Akihabara 15:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or reorganize this and related topics without deletion. The topics which need to be covered include at least:
- Manual stimulation of the genitals by another person (a handjob)
- Masturbation, which can be various types of stimulation of the genitals by one's self or a partner, not necessarily manual
- Mutual masturbation, when two people are involved in masturbation. --Strait 18:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there any serious argument against including descriptions of all three practices under the main Masturbation article, and merging both Handjob and Mutual masturbation to it? Tevildo 20:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. While "masturbation" can mean one person stimulating another, it is much more often associated with a person stimulating themselves only. Putting all of these topics at masturbation would be confusing. Moreover, the phenomenon of stimulating a partner is very different in many ways from that of stimulating one's self. There is a clear division of information, so it makes sense to have at least two pages. --Strait 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to mutual masturbation] Scienceman123 talk 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more sources can be added, but the topic of the article is different from mutual masturbation, so they should not be merged. TSO1D 22:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep never let it be said I want to do away with handjobs. Seriously, I don't understand why anyone would suggest merging into another unsourced article as a corrective measure. TonyTheTiger 23:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. Ridiculous nomination. Artw 23:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep with a weak merge and redirect to Manual-Genital Stimulation, which should also cover Fingering (sexual act) and Mutual masturbation.

Sdsds 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Usage is too widespread to use WP:NEO as justification for deletion. Caknuck 01:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, together with fingering (sexual act) to a new article manual genital stimulation. (This is on the grounds that these are not quite the same thing as mutual masturbation, which implies that each party masturbates the other; fingering/handjobs, on the other hand, can be one-way.) -- The Anome 10:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is sourced and uses of the term go back decades. Not the same as mutual masturbation. — brighterorange (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jooler 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definately not a neologism. Just H 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is verified by its sources, and the word is not a neologism. A merge with mutual masturbation is inappropriate, because a hand job is typically not mutual. A merge with masturbation is inappropriate, because masturbation is typically self stimulation. Nick Graves 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The guideline (and I stress, it is a guideline, not a policy) to which CyberAnth refers is found here: WP:NEO. Although CyberAnth's arguments are valid that articles on neologisms should be properly referenced, I do not believe anyone (but Rip van Winkle) would consider "hand job" a neologism. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary the term originated at least in the 1940's.

If we define neologisms as terms coined since 1940, and subsequently apply WP:NEO then we should also call for the deletion of the following articles, as they are :

Now I understand a certain need to police Wikipedia, but this is absurd, and perhaps an attempt at censorship.

Twas Now 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 05:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per every single user calling you out as a would-be censor. a simple glance at your user page and contributions shows a distinct WP:POINT Violation, you're going after any article about sex that is supported with anythign less than the entire Kinsey Report or the Bible. Every sexual term you think is slang you've shot as a neologism. uh oh. I bet one syllable of THAT word will get me busted, watch out. ThuranX 05:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fingering AfD comments[edit]

Comments merged from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fingering (sexual act)

Delete. Though it is well-known, it is still a neologism. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Keep~~ Comment - per discussion on handjob. This is a well-known term; hardly a nelogism. There seems to be an agenda in these recent nominations; please remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Akihabara 01:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC) (struck threw second vote portion and made into a Comment because user voted the same way above) CyberAnth 10:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

comment I think it may be better to hold off until a consensus is reached with Handjob. Adding yet another AfD discussion serves no purpose other than to dilute the discussion. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I would not at all be averse to merging this AfD into the handjob AfD, but I do not know how to do it. Does someone else? If so, please feel free. CyberAnth 02:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the idea of using the discussion on handjob. let's see what happens. --Tainter 02:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find this whole process incomprehensible. "We should rewrite the article so that it falls under WP:NEO, so that we can delete it." It's really verging on WP:POINT. --Dhartung | Talk 04:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge Possible merge to mutual masturbation, but the term 'fingering' is NOT a neologism, it's been used in numerous publications (any 'about your body' book ever written that covers masturbations I'd guess), and it's a distinct act. Saying this all belongs in mutual masturbation is something of a transitive error of logic, just because fingering is a kind of manual stimulation and often used in mutual masturbation play doesn't mean it's not a distinct act. I would only caution that it should be careful to avoid wp:NOT a how-to guide, there are enough sites for that as it is. I see nothing in WP:not that would preclude this article, it is a notable concept, verifiable, researched (Kinsey study, various studies of female sexual response, ect.) and discussed, performed in bedrooms across the world on a nightly basis and in no way unencyclopedic. I hesitate to call it such, but I think there might be a possible combined WP:point and WP:not censored issue here. Wintermut3 04:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is similar to the discussion on handjob. I don't consider this term to be neologism, and thus I believe the article should stay up. Of course, it needs more work, but it shouldn't be deleted. TSO1D 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, together with handjob to a new article manual genital stimulation. -- The Anome 10:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep (as this AfD was not fully merged with the handjob AfD, I am also voting here). Comment - This is not a neologism, so WP:NEO does simply not apply. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC) (struck threw second vote portion and made into a Comment because user voted the same way above CyberAnth 10:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

Delete We don't need this type of rubbish on Wikipedia, it doesn't seem to fit into our guidelines and really all pages like this do is bring in vandalism. Its a little sickening having pages like this, and plus, still being a huge online encyclopedia, people are not going to know and even think of looking for a page like this. We don't need it.--Rasillon 10:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment This is not a valid reason for deleting. WP is not censored. DGG 05:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not because it's a neologism (word is decades old to my knowledge) - it's slang. Article should be deleted because it is essentially a word definition and can shifted to Wiktionary. (And I would suggest the same for handjob.) Emeraude 10:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For defenders of this article "as is", instead of wasting your energy here, I suggest you expend it making the article worthy to keep as titled Fingering. "A topic is notable if and only "if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." "The subject of" does not equal merely mentioned in. Right now, the cold hard facts mean the article does not meet that criteria. Note: Culling together sources that merely mention or use Fingering as a colloquialism or slang term only asserts that the article is, in fact, Synthesis and Original Research. I suggest if you want to keep this article, you best expend your efforts finding sources where Fingering *AS A SPECIFIC TERM* "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other", or else concede that any adequately sourced material belongs in Manual-genital stimulation. Notability is not subjective. Meeting notability per Wikipedia policies, and only that, is what will keep this article. - CyberAnth 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I disagree. It is the subject of the article (the act or concept variously called "fingering", or a particular kind of "manual genital stimulation") that needs to satisfy the quotes you emphasize ("... multiple, non-trivial published works"). It is not the case that someone needs to publish a work about "fingering AS A SPECIFIC TERM". Who could possibly write a whole work about the name of something? — brighterorange (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - wikipedia is not about censorship so this article should be included, I would go as far to say that it isn't even a slang term RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or lets have banter} 12:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Right. As far as the name goes, it is only necessary to establish that the name is the correct name & that has been clearly demonstrated. DGG 05:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a neologism. — brighterorange (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is an encyolpedia, not a place for learning about inapropriate sexual acts such as this one, I think we should just get rid of this article and move it to Wiktionary, because really, people are not going to expect to find pages on useless non-important sexual acts on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rasillon (talk • contribs) 17:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- "inapropriate sexual acts", you just made me smile :) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that there are an awful lot of articles that contain information about "inapropriate sexual acts" - you better get started with the purification. wtfunkymonkey 22:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - useless sexual acts--that is even funnier. DGG 05:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged AfD comments[edit]

Comment, please add all new arguments to this section, now the two AfDs have been fully merged. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment to all the above Please don't take this the wrong way, it's hard to say this without sounding a bit terse, but if you're going to argue for deletion, a valid argument is vital. Neologism is a valid argument, one I dissagree with, but a valid argument; "disgusting" (so are many things, subjective criteria and violates wp:not censored)"unlikely to be searched for" (so are a lot of things, that isn't a deletion criterion) are not valid deletion arguments founded in wiki policy. Wikilawyering the exact definition of "subject of a non-trivial work" is unessesary and serves no purpose. A merge would eliminate the uniqueness of the two articles. Renames with redirects would be a suitable compromise, to me, creating Manual Genital Stimulation (male) and Manual Genital Stimulation (female). Wintermut3

Keep; wikipedia should use common English terms. Neither handjob or fingering is obscene, and both are much more common than the medical atrocity you want to redirect to.--Prosfilaes 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect. Both are informal usage not formal phrases for this, and the reuslt is duplication. The first major section in hand job seems to be a piece of local nonsense that has no obvious relevance outside of that one town. Nothing to do with censorship, everythign to do with building a credible encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the WP:NEO arguments, that page says neologisms are "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." One has been in use for at least 35 years and the other at least 15, and both appear in dictionaries. The merge suggestions ignore the fact that the two articles examine two completely different acts. Also agree with Prosfilaes's point above - Wikipedia should reflect common sense. Orderinchaos78 16:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unfortunately I feel that this AfD has been horrifically tainted with inappropriate comments on several sides of the debate. I'm afraid my original intention of closing the Fingering AfD was misapplied, it should have been closed not merged. We should have slowed down and waited for the Handjob AfD to reach a consensus, then use it as a precedent to apply to other articles. Instead we're running into another cluster-fuck discussion where it will be impossible to reach a clear consensus. Let's all calm down and make intelligent arguments that are backed up by wikipedia policy. Articles that attract vandalism (George W Bush) or some deem as "inappropriate" (Homosexuality) are not valid arguments for deletion, and neither is it a valid argument to keep an article because you heard of it before. There are policy backed arguments to use on either side of the table, let's try to debate guidelines instead of morality. -- wtfunkymonkey 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these are the common terms used for the activities in question. Indeed, "Handjob" returned 274 hits on Nexis. However, I am agreeable to merge and redirect to Manual Genital Stimulation, or renaming, as a compromise.-- danntm ^T _C 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I just searched LexisNexis. I came up with 16 hits for handjob. Let's look at the top three most relevant links to get an idea of them.

1) "USA Today Gives 2007 Sebring a Handjob" - this is a pickup from a blog by some nobody, an entry 158 words long, where the nobody chides USA today for giving a bad review to Chrysler's Sebring. The bad review is USA Today's handjob.

2) "Best of the Week That Was" - this is another nobody blog pickup, 171 words long. The term handjob appears in a list on the blog entry of titles to other nobody blog entries.

3) "Media Bubble: PSA Bombs" - yet another nobody blog pickup, 100 words long. As above, the term handjob appears in a list on the blog entry of titles to other nobody blog entries. The title is, "Oprah Winfrey gives Hearst Tower a handjob, calls it "out of the box." Yeah, it's that kind of morning."

A peruse of the remaining 13 hits indicate the same sort of content. For anyone with LexisNexis access, here is the URL searching the database with "handjob".

CyberAnth

Explanation Please excuse me for not better explaining my search. We probably searched different databases in LexisNexis. I searched in "News, All (English, Full Text)" in LexisNexis Total Reasearch System, which is it's legal offering, while I see you searched in Academic Universe. If found hits from both blogs and newspapers like the Canberra Times and The Guardian. These hits indicate that the term is in relatively common usage to describe the act in question, and I decline to apply WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 15:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I see it, there are two separate issues: (a) Is manual masturbation sufficiently distinct from masturbation in general to deserve its own article? (b) Are male (Handjob) and female (Fingering (sexual act)) manual masturbation sufficiently different from each other to deserve their own articles? I would answer "No" to both questions, and support a merge of both disputed articles into Masturbation. However, I would also regard answering "Yes" to (a) and "No" to (b), and merging the two disputed articles into a new one, Manual masturbation, to be an acceptable solution. Tevildo 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. Fingering can be a form of masturbation, but is not always. The term fingering also has some sociolinguistic significance. An article separate from masturbation concerning the term and the act may thus be justified. However, with no sources, this article is unverified and ought to be deleted. Nick Graves 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from CyberAnth

Someone above said, "Who could possibly write a whole work about the name of something?"

Fact is, articles constantly appear in various journals of linguistics (and related disciplines) that trace the origins, usages, and meanings of slang words, neologisms, and the like.

An entire book was written about the word "Fuck", as a word. See Jesse Sheidlower, The F Word ISBN 0-375-70634-8. The WP article Fuck is a nice example of an article about the word "Fuck" as a word, although it is duplicated in History of the word "fuck".

Do research with a University library's databases.

I searched with EBSCO with <- handjob -> and found two articles - both about Punk rock that mentioned the band Midget Handjob.

I then searched EBSCO with <- fingering AND sexual -> and then <- fingering AND sex ->. Nothing came up.

I then searched it with <- genital stimulation NOT self-stimulation NOT masturbation ->. 17 articles.

I then did with JSTOR what I did with EBSCO above. Keep in mind these are two of the most major databases of academic journals in English in the world.

<- handjob -> brought 2 results. Article #1 was about college student behaviors. It quoted a student using the word "handjob" as a slang term. Article #2 was a study of prostitutes. It quoted a prostitute using the word "handjob" as a slang term.

<- genital stimulation -> brought 275 articles.

The references cited in Handjob are from articles with prostitution as their subject, and in that context the slang word handjob would of course appear. No additional comment needed here.

Actually, I will. The references are themselves an argument for treating handjob as a neologism, a slang word, in an article about it as such, because that is exactly how it is treated in the references.

Fingering (sexual act) does not have any references.

Miriam-Webster Dictionary is considered by Wikipedia policy, along with the Oxford dictionary, to be the most authoritative.

Handjob does not appear in the Miriam-Webster Dictionary, see here. Neither does hand job, see here.

Handjob or hand job does appear in other non-slang dictionaries. The definitions all say "a slang word for masturbation." And it appears in every slang dictionary I checked.

Fingering turns up no specific sexual definition in Miriam-Webster, see here, nor any other one I checked.

Fingering as a sexual act appeared in several slang dictionaries I checked.

"Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities" (WP:NEO).

Yes indeed, handjob and fingering are certainly "used widely or within certain communities". The policy says that is not enough.

It might be argued, however, that handjob and fingering have been around for 20 - 40 years, so that is not "recent'. The objection is irrelevant. Neither are in any dictionary except as a slang word. This means they have not been around long enough to move from the slang to regular lexicon of any reliable source.

Articles titled "Fingering (sexual)" and "Handjob" need to be like Fuck, i.e., about the word, its etymology, history, etc.

The acts the slang terms denote should be covered in Genital stimulation. Oral sex, manual-genital stimulation, and masturbation should all have coverage in that one article.

Specifically, Genital stimulation needs to be created. Material in Handjob, Fingering (sexual act), oral sex, and masturbation needs to be incorporated there, and then Handjob and Fingering (sexual act) deleted for the reasons outlined above.

CyberAnth 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CyberAnth: creating one singular topic for ALL genital stimulation isn't a viable solution in my opinion. That would lump sex, oral sex, masturbation, mutual masturbation, electro-gential stimulation and more that I probably can't think of right now into a topic that would get so big it'd need to be spun off into seperate topics immediately or shortly after creation. I think that 'manual genital stimulation (female) and' 'manual genital stimulation (male)' might be more appropriate topics, but the use of a clinical neologism invented as a pure function of wiki categorization isn't for me as valid as using the common colloquial term. For reasons described above, mutual masturbation is not equivilent to manual genital stimulation (fingering and handjobs if you will :P) or masturbation, they are distinct acts. Masturbation is self-induced sexual arousal and climax, whether it's manual or not (IE it is possible to masturbate without actual manual stimulation, IE by shower head or vibrator) and mutual masturbation is not equivilent to genital stimulation in that it involves both partners masturbating each other simultainiously (in the same way the 69 position is distinct in meaning from oral sex). In response to the first AfD, a handjob is identical in meaning to male manual genital stimulation, but "fingering" is a distinct activity, seperated from other methods of female manual genital stimulation. Lumping dissimular articles into a single polyglot whole serves no identifiable purpose in my opinion, and would be akin to combining sex, anal sex and oral sex into a single topic in terms of the dissolution of unique articles for distinct acts. Wintermut3 17:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the articles were just stubs I could see merging them, but when medium sized articles get merged it creates more problems than it solves. I get redirected to a page and have to search the page until I find what I am looking for, never sure if I am at the correct page until I find (or don't find) what I came for. Header redirects: Sex#Masturbation work only as long as the header names remain unchanged, which isn't long. Each of these articles already has its own set of external links and usage sections. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CyberAnth writes: "The acts the slang terms denote should be covered in Genital stimulation. Oral sex, manual-genital stimulation, and masturbation should all have coverage in that one article." This really sums up the entire argument, doesn't it? You want to roll everything into one article. You are not arguing that the topics are not valid. You are arguing for a move or a merge. This is not what AFD is for; this is a bad-faith nomination, and should be treated accordingly.

On a more diplomatic note, it is very disappointing that you did not look at this problem and think in a collaborative manner. An appropriate way to handle the problem that you see would be to start at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexuality and ask, "Is there any way we can improve these articles? I have some ideas about reorganizing them." You didn't do that, you came up with an argument based entirely on the articles' titles and not their content, and now you're trying to reach consensus on the basis of that wholly inappropriate argument, not giving an inch, even though you have long since conceded that the content belongs on Wikipedia. You just don't like the article name. Please don't waste people's time like this in the future. It's very frustrating to deal with the articles that truly do not belong. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a problem with an article entitled "handjob", but an article as such needs to be about the slang term, as with fuck. Obviously, some people are not willing to give an inch to concede this and are highly connected to Handjob as presently constituted. CyberAnth 00:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That simply makes no sense whatsoever and has absolutely no basis in policy. If the topic itself exists and meets WP:V and WP:RS, which hand jobs -- manual manipulation of the penis -- certainly does, then naming should be per naming conventions and at the "most common name", not at some made-up supercategory. Again, you are arguing that the article should be written such that it must be deleted, which is ridiculous, and basically bad faith. With your newest batch of noms, well, you're showing that collaborative processes are not in your kitbag. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - distinct terms in common usage. Johntex\^talk 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - more tiresome noms Albatross2147 00:10, 7 January 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. —Cryptic 04:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ren-raw chen[edit]

Does not seem any more notable than your average college professor. Appears to be self-written. --Infrangible 01:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be vanity, certainly doesn't read very encyclopaedically. Malla nox 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Clearly an autobiographical article. --Dennisthe2 02:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - autobiography of a non-notable person. MER-C 03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ordinary university teacher; does not satisfy relevant section of WP:BIO i.e. The professor test -- "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor (based on the U.S. practice of calling all full-time academics professors), they can and should be included." Emeraude 13:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He has published books (the only thing that could make this notable, but it is autobiographical (delete), and there isn't anything in the article verifying anything (delete). --Адам12901 ^Talk 21:34, 6 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Woodhams[edit]

Nom for del'n, but withhold vote pending better perspective. GTest:

331 of about 664 for "Stephen Woodhams"

Sounds closer to notability as article on his business than on him; such prizes are not like Nobels or Pulitzers, but usually for a trade to practice self-congratulation, and duly ignored by outsiders (at the least) after the winners' 15 minutes of fame; what are stds for notability in this area? (Of course self- or fan- promotion is not ground for deletion if material can be reworked -- but what is there to say beyond this ad-brochure-like copy, whether biz or bio?)
--Jerzy•t 07:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable gardener, who has won serious recognition, and author. (For the information of non-UK readers, Medals awarded at the Chelsea Flower Show are not trade self-congratulation prizes but prestigious awards made annually. The Chelsea Show is one of the leading such events in the world - read the article to see its importance.) Emeraude 13:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Careless of me to ignore the role of gardening in English culture; i should think it that tho not a Pulitzer, this would be something like winning the Super Bowel. Authors are a dime a dozen, but sometime their books and their own notabilities are eval'd on AfD by looking at Amazon sales-ranks. Could someone with a grasp of Amazon UK, & what those ranks would mean, undertake that investigation?
  --Jerzy•t 21:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with the nomination that the notability is divided between the business and the man, and individually each is really weak; collectively the notability is marginal. What about those awards? Trivial or not? I have no idea sitting here on the left-coast of the colonies -- maybe the prestige should be mentioned in the article. Perhaps a rewrite could explain why he is notable other than the notability of his clients. I think that this is a weakness of the Wikipedia system as I understand it; there is no middle ground between keep (and forget) and delete. Is this true? --Kevin Murray 18:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD can at least arrive at a decision to merge, &/or to refer to WP:Cleanup, and other maint tags might apply. (IMO a merge during AfD would usually disrespect the process, and merging after it was discussed on AfD with little approval would be take more discussion or unusually convincing arguments, but in general, AfD is only one tool, and many, many measures are available in parallel with, or independent of, it. I may be biased in even considering that the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion debate ~~for~~ on Nalgene and the results it drove could be instructive, but weigh in the fact that the first few votes were strongly~~solidly and IIRC vehemently~~ Del.)
  --Jerzy•t 21:28 & 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It should also be borne in mind that ideally an AfD Del vote expresses the view that the topic named is inherently unencyclopedic, on the logic that otherwise reducing it to a stub would be appropriate. E.g., if the article reads like an ad, the probem is not that, but (possibly) that the thing advertised is either non-notable or non-verifiable. I'd guess that the standards for what constitutes consensus to delete reflects some kind of a point of balance between the collective outrage levels of the deletionists and of the inclusionists among dedicated editors. But the presumption of keep-worthiness is IMO a reflection of the options that remain after a de facto decision to keep, including the potential for saying "this hasn't improved since the last two deletion debates, so can those who said it was redeemable still say so with a straight face?" If you think this on a probably notable topic, so that the article is likely to be sufficiently improvable, IMO you should vote "keep" without needing to be sure, and if you're wrong, we'll eventually figure that out.
  --Jerzy•t 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Award winning gardener at the largest flower show in Britain. Also works have been published. Malla nox 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only after replacement of COPYVIO content The Chelsea Flower Show is a contest with substantial significance in British culture. It may well be the most important gardening show in the world. Being a multiple gold and silver winner here seems to be sufficient encyclopedic notability as a gardener. However, the current article content appears to be mainly a copyright violation of http://www.woodhams.co.uk/ {see text pulled up through "Key Achievements". Bwithh 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He is a notable gardener. His books are widely held in libraries, and have been translated into Dutch, German and Spanish. I agree the article should be cleaned up. --
Keep Anyone who competes at the top of tier of their sport or area of interest is inherently notable. Assuming good faith on the references, it would appear reliable and supported by evidence. Tarinth 13:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough if won a british national competition Alf photoman 20:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Notable enough for the awards. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:21, 2 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brecon VHF-transmitter (2nd nomination)[edit]

Relisted following lack of consensus in mass deletion. Neither the article, nor the link attached, gives any indication what makes it notable: "The station is slightly unusual in that the antennas are mounted on wooden poles instead of the more usual steel lattice mast". From all indications, it's a plain boring bunch of antennae mounted on wooden poles. If anyone can indicate why this mast is special, please improve this year-old stub. Otherwise, there is ample precedence for deleting this stub about something about as notable as a telegraph pole. Ohconfucius 02:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. As a ham radio operator, there is novelty in that they use wooden mast instead of steel mast, but as is amazingly demonstrated, WP:ILIKEIT fails in the face of WP:N. Unless there's something else notable about this transmitter facility, it should not be here. --Dennisthe2 02:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —EdGl 02:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Malla nox 02:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 03:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nothing in the article justifies its notability, and little information about the facility is provided. --SYCTHOS ^talk 03:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable transmitter. JIP | Talk 07:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-whats so special about a wood pole? --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "slighty unusual" <> notable. Wikinfo, perhaps? Guy (Help!) 15:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just of one a thousand or so 'transposer' type relay stations in the UK. Let's keep the main broadcast and microwave sites, which form most of the entries in Category:UK transmitter sites and which do have an interesting history, and delete the relatively few articles about unremarkable relay stations like this one. Harumphy 10:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please see Category talk:UK transmitter sites. Harumphy 13:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Harumphy. Chillysnow 21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I have a feeling that this installation could be notable for its usage. However it is not clear that my guess is correct from the article as written. So unless some assertion of notability is made it needs to go. Vegaswikian 22:19, 5 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cezar Kurti[edit]

Article on a translator. May be notable but fails the Google test, created by what is probably a member of the subject's family. Note Geogre's First Law (incorrect capitalisation). Guy (Help!) 23:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is irresponsible nonsense. Speculation about who created this is irrelevant and clearly guesswork. What Google test? What were the results? What the heck does capitalization have to do with notability and verifiability? It appears that the nominator should gain some experience before judging other peoples contributions. --Kevin Murray 19:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Google test, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Marinkurti (talk · contribs). I think that answers your ~~aggressive assertions~~ concerns. Oh and please don't accuse admins of "irresponsible nonsense" when they bring contested speedies to AfD. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although it may have been added by a member of his family, WP:Conflict of interest states that this should not be used as the single criterion for deletion, "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to." The other policies being encyclopediac interest, NPOV, etc. And it is advised under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions that the Google Test alone not be used. I'm not used to these policies, so I go and read them each time, and it appears that this is nominated based upon Conflict of interest, which says that the editor is "irrelevant so long as" the article is otherwise worthy, and that the Google test should not stand alone. The capitalization should be corrected, but I don't understand that it is a cause for deletion. This is an interesting guy, fairly well known, if in an obscure field. As I said, I didn't know him by name, but the linguists I know are thrilled about this dude, the guy who translated Antony and Cleopatra into Albanian, and courtesy of Wikipedia, I intend to name drop Kurti ASAP. If I misunderstand any of these policies on arguments to avoid, and conflict of interest please let me know. I think this AfD could and should be closed though. KP Botany 20:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment The language was excessive, but the comment "probably created by a member of the subject's family" is in fact out of order, because it is purely negative speculation. It could also be said that originally suggesting for deletion on the basis of unfamiliarity alone is an incorrect use of the WP procedure. I'd think one would be specially careful with a relatively lesser-known language. DGG 05:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No vote. I have wikified the article a bit. However I cannot vote since I am not Albanian, nor do I speak Albanian (and I guess this applies to the majority of Wikipedians), so I do not feel myself qualified to pass a judgement. In the spirit of Countering systemic bias I would urge everyone not to be hasty, and not to make quick delete votes just because you have never heard of this person or because Google does not show up much on him. Please note that the article does make claims that he is an important and notable author/translator in the history of Albanian literature. It is true on the other hand that there are (as yet) no good sources. However not being Albanian and not knowing Albanian myself I cannot judge, hence no vote. -- Ekjon Lok 15:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment translated a dozen books, among them Dante's, into Albanian. I don't want to pass a judgment on the notability of this Alf photoman 17:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because the article seems to assert notability on the basis of the professor test, but the article needs better sourcing. Tarinth 18:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there and article on him in sq:? Caknuck 20:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: the only source currently linked appears to be the subject's own website. Additional reliable sources need to be added. The subject seems notable on the surface, but only if WP:V can back up some of the assertions in the article. I'll see what I can find and revisit this before closure. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep If his textbook has been used in university courses (per the last sentence), he passes WP:PROF. Badly needs outside sourcing but appears to be notable based on information included in article. Eluchil404 18:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 02:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable life experience, though would like to see sources to back this up. Translators of books are nearly as instrumental in the meanings held in books as the authors so really do belong on Wikipedia. Malla nox 02:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep asserts notability in Albainan literature. --Infrangible 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , with 1.270 ghits there is got to be somethiong .... Alf photoman 20:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep He's fairly well known for his translations into Albanian of Shakespeare's Sonnets and Antony and Cleopatra--although I could not have told you his name. Failed the google test? Shame on google, then. Not everything worth knowing is on the web. Professor Kurti (title on article should be Cezar Kurti) is respectably famous among translators, lovers of Shakespeare and academia--Western academia. Not everyone can translate Antoni Dhe Kleopatra (ISBN: 0971793832) into Albanian. The article needs work, but it belongs--speedy keep, in fact. KP Botany 21:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article describes quite a noteable person, so if we assume good faith there is no reason to delete the article. In addition, the fact that Amazon carries two books by him (both Albanian language books), and the independent recognition of his translation work in this thread are both evidence that the description in the article is accurate, and, therefore, noteable. Enuja 02:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Very notable in academic circles! Forget about Google! Cleo123 08:45, 6 January 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. —Cryptic 04:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Rhea[edit]

Nomination for deletion No assertion of encyclopedic notability as far as I can tell. Subject is a 18th century colonial churchman. Article was created by new account User:Foleyef. The article mentions that the history of the Rheas is outlined in "The Descendants of Rev. Joseph Rhea of Ireland" 1996 by Dr. Edward F. Foley. Mr. Foley is described as "an amateur historian and a member of genealogical societies in South Carolina and Tennessee... [who is] married into the Rhea clan" in this link. Mr. Foley's genealogical project is no doubt a fine and well-intentioned one, but unfortunately there isn't sufficient assertion of encyclopedic notability as the article stands at the moment for inclusion in Wikipedia, I believe. Fails WP:BIO. (Now an article about Joseph's son, John Rhea may well be more viable). Bwithh 02:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nominator, Delete. Malla nox 02:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. May be a copyvio. MER-C 03:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete for reasons above ::mikmt 04:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is clearly a conflict of interest, as Foleyef can be rearranged to E.F. Foley or Edward F. Foley. This is also patent original research from there. «TTV»(talk|contribs|email) 19:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if wikified and notability asserted by sources Alf photoman 20:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't appear in either the National Cyclopedia of American Biography or the Dictionary of American Biography. Delete, I'm afraid. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All that without any published sources? But, fine to keep per Alf photoman. KP Botany 22:35, 2 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El stuffo[edit]

It seems that I tagged this article for notability around seven months ago; since then, there's been no improvement. I would prod it, but, when I came across it again today, I found an incomplete afd nom, so I ~~dediced~~ (er, make that decided) to complete it. Anyways, delete per WP:NOT and WP:V. Picaroon 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No context, no actual (good) explanation of the definition of the term, and what little there is...well, we're not a dictionary. Add on to that the issue of WP:CRYSTAL: speculation that it will migrate to other cities. --Dennisthe2 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Format change. Doh! --Dennisthe2 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as neologism. Phrases such as "used only in" and "high school fad" throw away the word's notability. In addition, "high school fad" brings up the guideline (in progress) WP:SCHOOL. --SYCTHOS ^talk 03:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything related to this in WP:SCHOOL. Am I missing it, or do you mean another page? Picaroon 21:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, likely WP:NFT. Fan-1967 04:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sounds like nonsense. Wikikiwi 10:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -used only in one town? not notable. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the word were to spread as "other Anglo-Spanish words that have been created in Southern Spain" have not (according to the quote in the article), it would become a Spanish word, and should be a in a Spanish dictionary, not an English Encylopedia. It does seem like a good start to an article, and I wish it were, but it simply violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT. Enuja 02:50, 5 January 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. —Cryptic 04:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transmitter Truc de Fortunio[edit]

Contested prod by JYolkowski with the comments "cleanup is done by editing or merging, not deleting". However, there is nothing in these stubs which in any way suggests (whether in terms of height or construction) that these are but very pedestrian and uninteresting structures. The exception is Mont du Chat claims to have "very special design. It consists of a concrete tower, which is surrounded by a lattice tower", but does not explain why this construction is so special. Another editor has used the ((local|community)) tag on it. I say "Yawn". There is ample precedence for deletion of this collection of useless stubs. Improve or delete. Ohconfucius 03:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. MER-C 04:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The tower at Mont du Chat, in Savoy, may be viewed in the article "Les relais hertziens", it does not appear exceptional, just one of a common radio tower type. The Salbert Transmission Tower is more interesting from an architectural point of view. Image at "Salbert Transmission Tower". My problem is that this AfD is just for four of a large class of articles that detail radio masts, see Category:Guyed masts and Category:Mast stubs, most of the articles are at present of the short type like these five, but some are quite detailed like Swisscom-Sendeturm St. Chrischona which is on the request for deletion list of 29 December. I find these infinitely more valuable than stubs about individual Eurovision song titles, but I would classify them similarly, namely of particular interest to a small group of widely geographically separated individuals. As such I would question the "of local interest only" tag. In many ways they might be compared to the articles about individual botanical and zoological species. Now rather than piecemeal pick at these radio tower articles, it might be appropriate to ask those interested to develop guidelines for inclusion of individual tower articles, as opposed to general articles like maybe, Radio Towers of France, or maybe by mountain range Radio Towers of the Pyrenees. The general articles could have tables that provide the information now provided by these stubs, and where a full article is appropriate, say like Swisscom-Sendeturm St. Chrischona, then they could provide a link. --Bejnar 18:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The continued push to cleanup appears to be flushing out a good, sensible debate, but we have yet to hear from those who planted the stubs. Of course, views of those creators are welcome, but they must only help shape and not override wikipedia's policies. I have tried to make my approach and justifications clear, and I had hoped that my essay would help further that understanding. I felt that these masts (above) were slightly different from those delete before en masse in that they are not the huge American monsters, and that someone clearly opposed their deletion per WP:PROD, so I took the liberty of listing them separately. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't hold me responsible for the [over]zealous efforts of other editors wanting to delete all masts in an undiscriminating manner. I would urge you to concentrate discussion on the deletions proposed here. Ohconfucius 02:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Yes, if those who created the articles would say in the first place what was notable, as Bejnar has just done, these continual discussions would not be necessary. I do not think there would be objection to keeping articles about structures that can be shown to be of particular interest by outside documentation. So I'd say

relist the Salbert tower for expansion, and delete the others. DGG 05:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. If someone can assert that the Salbert Transmission Tower is notable, in the article, before this discussion closes then it can be kept. Otherwise it can be recreated with a new article that asserts its notability. Vegaswikian 22:25, 5 January 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, that'll do. WP:SNOW. Proto::► 12:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people[edit]

Bundling these three dealings by Hitler with particular Jews under the title Adolf Hitler's contacts with Jewish people is a clear case of Original Research and therefor does not belong in Wikipedia. As one can see in the reference list none of the sources deal with contacts of Hitler with Jews in general. The three dealings should be and probably are included in the respective biography articles, the interaction with the doctor may also be included under possible sources for Hitler's antisemitism. The latter is also a clear secondary focus of the article. This lack of focus is another reason to delete it. gidonb 03:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above gidonb 03:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and because this topic is covered elsewhere. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This never needed to exist.--C J King 03:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What next? It's full of red links for the supposed Jews he had contact with (do they deserve articles just because they were Hitler's alleged dentist/shoe-shine-boy/chimney-sweep/whatnots etc?) It's weirdly prurient. Do all the Jews killed in the Holocaust get to be in it? How about all the theories about Hitler having a Jewish ancestor, does that also count as him having "contact" with Jewish people? How about a new series on Adolf Hitler's contacts with gypsies, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Italian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with Russian people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with retarded people, Adolf Hitler's contacts with murderers this can go on forever, and then we can even create Category:Adolf Hitler's contacts with people. IZAK 03:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone reading the article and wondering what IZAK is talking about, it takes a bit of review of the history of the article in question. Although the huge redlinks that initially spurred some of IZAK's remarks are no longer evident in the article, they're painfully visible just 24 hours before this AfD was opened. The fact that they're no longer there should not be construed as a rationale for dismissing his opinion, since red links themselves are not the core of his opposition. Any further defense of IZAK's position I'll leave in his capable hands. :-) Tom e r ^talk 05:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, Non-encyclopedic.--Leflyman^Talk 04:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom --Lukobe 05:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - put any relevant info in individual biographies, per the nom, if it's not already there. Quack 688 05:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as I've outlined in my comments here. Tom e r ^talk 05:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jersey Devil 08:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per all the above.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Beit Or 10:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per WP:SNOW =). eh... Delete. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 11:10, 2 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Ashes series[edit]

Crystalballing - this is for an event that will take place in 2009; my only reservation is that since this is a "regular event", but the only real detail is that it will happen in England; but would this open the door to 2011, 2013, etc. articles being created? SkierRMH 03:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Crystalballing. TJ Spyke 03:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, despite WP:+1. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No crystalballing has occurred... yet. If and when it happens it can be reverted or posted to AfD again. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 04:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 05:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't have much content now (only the change in venue, at least that's sourced), but I'd rather have the article infrastructure in place. Note that the current Ashes series finishes in four days time - once it's over with, I think we'll see a few more reputable cricket publications turn their attention to the next series. (I think it passes crystal ball, btw - "notable and almost certain to take place").Quack 688 06:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I agree with Quack. Reyk _YO! 09:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major series that is only two years away (and this is the next Ashes series). Greg Grahame 02:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - by the time the AFD discussion closes, this will be the next contest. Meets WP:CRYSTAL, as event is notable, certain to take place, and preparations are under way, as evidenced by the venue list. Eludium-q36 18:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:Crystal because all it is reporting right now is the list of venues (which has been signed). SirFozzie 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we've got an article on the 2011 Cricket World Cup, this article is not crystal-balling and thus doing no harm. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. Hohohob 02:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable and useful placeholder which will be expanded shortly I'm sure. —Moondyne 01:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's going 99.9% likely to happen, so it's not Crystal Balling. No reason to delete otherwise. Just H 20:49, 6 January 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. - Keep arguments fail to show how article does pass WP:WEB, instead stating that it does without ever showing why. Proto::► 11:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GuildCafe (2nd nomination)[edit]

A prior "no consensus" closure was overturned at deletion review for lack of evidence that the subject meets WP:WEB and is now back for discussion of possible sourcing for this article. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete, lack of reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2.0. Another "hyped" brand-new website with little to no traffic. I don't care how many or how few sources it has, if I go to a social network or forum website and see 28 active users on their forums, it is clearly not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Including the phrase "Gaming 2.0" in the article does not help its cause.--- RockMFR 03:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't describe it as a forum, so I don't know what the forum's activity level (a subcomponent of the site) has to do with anything.

No, but thats an indication of the notability level of the site. Were a site truly notable you'd see a lot more than 28 active members on a forum that is part of it.--Crossmr 07:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem that I see is that this site is not notable, no matter how much media coverage it got. Wikipedia is not a mirror of AP/Reuters/etc- every story and subject that gets media coverage is not inherently notable (this is where WP:N really fails in my opinion). Is the subject worthy of the coverage it received? No, it's not. The sources that covered it are extremely questionable in this case. They all merely re-worded or expanded upon information in the press releases. Like most gaming news websites, they pick up any crap story they can get. --- RockMFR 18:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2.0 ^BETA! - no evidence from reliable sources that the site meets WP:WEB. MER-C 04:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still no non-trivial coverage being evidenced here. Until it can be shown to meet WP:WEB this doesn't belong here.--Crossmr 05:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What in particular is the objection to the sources? For example http://www.gamedailyxl.com/2006/12/22/systemaddict-digital-identity/ is America Online's gaming publication; might be a blog-style format, but it is a publication with editorial control that would seem to meet WP:RS. This sort of presentation is fairly typical within the gaming media. Tarinth 13:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: founded on 21 September 2006. You can't be sure if it will pass even 1-year test, not 25-or-100-years ones. MaxSem 14:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Tarinth 14:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Tarinth. I looked at the references and read through the referenced articles. For the most part they appear to be independent of the subject and the discussions are non-trivial. I think that there is some confusion in MaxSem's premise, since the company was renamed recently. I think that evaluators are confusing the word "notable" with "prominent." This appears to meet the WP guidelines for being notable and the references are sound. --Kevin Murray 17:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references cited are blogs, forums or rehashes of the press release. None of those satisfy WP:WEB.--Crossmr 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see good references, satisfying WP:WEB. — brighterorange (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which good references would those be? This was an issue with the original discussion and there were claims of good references, but none of them have actually been cited.--Crossmr 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm the original author of the article, although it has been crufted out quite a bit since I wrote it. Still, the reason I wrote it is that it is a video game development company founded by a notable person, Jon Radoff, who wrote one of the first MMORPGs, and because I found reliable sources to write the article. For example, Gamasutra, the most respectable online video game publication. More: Gamespot, Gamedaily, Next Generation. Note that this company is not just a social networking service, they are also developing video games themselves. [6] JACO PLANE • 2007-01-2 19:24
and each one of those are rehashes of the press release which fails WP:WEB in terms of notability. There hasn't been any non-trivial coverage shown per the guidelines which indicates this website is remotely notable.--Crossmr 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like stated, when I wrote the article I was not even aware there was going to be a website related with the company. I wrote an arcicle about a video game development company started by a notable person. The fact that they also have a website would not warrant an article on its own, and if that was all that is there to this company I would certainly agree that WP:WEB would apply, but it's not the case. JACO PLANE • 2007-01-3 02:44

Unfortunately we're discussing the article as it is now, not how you intended it when it created. The article focuses solely on the website with a trivial mention of its past and creator. That is what the discussion has to be based on unless you have an alternate version of the article to put forth which meets notability and verifiability guidelines.--Crossmr 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment I've cleaned up the sources somewhat. I'll try to improve the article somewhat more in the following days. JACO PLANE • 2007-01-4 03:34

Cleaning them up and how they are listed is not the issue. Its what they are. No matter how they're listed, displayed or organized, it doesn't change the fact that they don't qualify as multiple non-trivial mentions.--Crossmr 04:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that it would make a difference. Since this AfD is mainly about the sources I just cleaned them up, nothing more, nothing less. We clearly disagree about the viability of these sources, but I just wanted to say I've cleaned them up and will be improving the article over the coming days. JACO PLANE • 2007-01-4 04:57

The AfD is mainly about the notability, and the lack of sources which speak to that. Its not about the way the sources are displayed on the page. While reprints of the press release are reliable, they do not establish notability per WP:WEB. Its quite clear about that. --Crossmr 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of non-trivial sources. All the references read like press releases. Whispering 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Plenty of references, but no actual claims of notability. I might be inclined to keep if they had a product or something. --Alan Au 06:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides their social networking stuff they have announced that they are working on the GuildCafe Platform, which will be middleware (something like RenderWare, but then for MMORPGs). I agree that the article will be better once more information on that product becomes available. Regarding notability, the founder (Jon Radoff) is notable enough, which is why I felt this article was warranted when I originally wrote it. JACO PLANE • 2007-01-4 07:04

If you want to address it as a business, WP:CORP covers notability for that, and has similar criteria which this company still doesn't meet. If it ever gains that notability I have no problem with it being here, but right now it just does not have it.--Crossmr 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gamers.com, Gamasutra, and others are established Video Gaming News Sites. Just because its news that only certain people are interested in doesn't make it trivial. JN322 14:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And those are all just rehashes of the press release which per WP:WEB makes them trivial coverage. It doesn't matter who is or isn't interested in the website, there have been no sources provided which satisfy that criteria.--Crossmr 16:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well not all of them. GameDaily's coverage for example is more indepth. (GameDaily is AOL's video game industry news site). JACO PLANE • 2007-01-4 16:54
~~Which is a single non-trivial item. The notability guidelines require multiple non-trivial coverage. Find another example of in depth non-trivial coverage and I'll happily withdraw the AfD.~~--Crossmr 20:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And even this is again a blog. In depth or not. Gamedaily does publish stories in a non-blog form and in fact Steve Wong has written articles as such [7]. It being relegated to his blog indicates to me that it wasn't even notable enough for regular coverage.--Crossmr 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the reason that it is in blog format is because it is less notable, but because the article (appraisal of another games website) isn't typical of what GameDaily would publish. Infomanager 21:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And do you have something to back that up? You've basically made my point for me. This isn't something Gamedaily covers, so just because one of their staff have used their professional blog to write about it doesn't lend any credibility to it. The reason blogs can't be used as a reliable source for information is the lack of editorial oversight and the fact that its a self-published source. Do we have any evidence that Gamedaily approves what they can write in their blogs and edits them? If not, the blog is not only useless to gauge notability its useless as a reliable source.--Crossmr 03:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken those sources are able to choose to publish a press release or not. The fact that they have chosen to do so would indicate to me that people in the field feel it is newsworthy. Is it any different than news organizations getting news from the AP? Although obviously on a smaller scale.JN322 12:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines specifically address reprints of the press release. It makes no exception for how many or who reprints the press release. The only possibly exception I might see (which still isn't addressed by the guidelines) in that was if a major print magazine actually devoted valuable unpaid space to reprinting the press release and commenting on it/expanding on it. Otherwise it costs a website next to nothing to tack up their press release. Which is why its not considered for notability.--Crossmr 18:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I can see how references 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 could be considered trivial, however 5 is an interview by Game Daily (12th hit in Google search for "game news") with the GuildCafe's founder. 7 compares GuildCafe to other MMO/Game social networking sites by O'Reilly (I certainly run into O'Reilly online and in print regularly), if I was to come to this article not having read it before and compared it to WP:WEB I would say it barely meets the guidelines - but barely is good enough as long as the article is added too as more information becomes public. All references correct at the time and date of this comment. -- Richard Slater (Talk to me!) 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The O'Reilly mention is trivial. It mentions it only in passing and doesn't actually cover the site, it simply lists it as one of many examples. This is not in depth coverage of the topic as required by the notability guidelines, its also a blog, whether that blog is is on a notable site is immaterial unless the blog is used to source information about the writer or their product.--Crossmr 20:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:WEB & WP:RS #1. References #4 and #5 (Next-Generation and GameDaily) are considered among the best videogame sources in the industry. I feel that they are both reliable sources. GameDaily's article is in-depth and covers the website extensively; the reason that is in blog format is because it is an appraisal of another website. Next-Generation got its information from the press release but they are notoriously strict with what they cover (and usually only write 4-5 stories a day). If this got attention, that is enough for me. Infomanager 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit its a rehash of the press release. WP:WEB clearly indicates that does not give a site notability. It makes no exception for who carries the press release. This is basically the same thing which occurred in the last AfD. Several individuals claiming coverage was notable when the guideline clearly indicates that it is not. You can call the sky green all day, but in the end its still blue. The guideline clearly states that kind of coverage is not acceptable to indicate a site is notable, regardless of how picky you claim the site is. The simple fact that you have to make your argument not on the coverage of the site, but the site which ran the non-notable coverage indicates how non-notable this site is.--Crossmr 03:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only Next-Generation got the information from "rehashing" the press release. Gamedaily's article is all their own writing. Brendan Alcorn 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gamedaily's article is a blog posting. There is no assertion of editorial oversight per WP:RS#Non-scholarly_sources which doesn't make this a particularly reliable source, as well WP:RS#Self-published_sources addresses this. If the topic he was writing about in his blog was truly notable and worth reporting it would have been done. As this is the sole claim to non-trivial coverage I don't see that happening here.--Crossmr 07:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per infomanager and Tarinth. Meets WP:WEB, WP:RS. Alan Shatte 22:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which they've been continually shown not to. There hasn't been a single source shown which is non-trivial coverage.--Crossmr 03:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An entire article (Gamedaily) is non-trivial coverage and it is a reliable source. Brendan Alcorn 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on the strength of the Gamedaily coverage. However, WP:WEB does require multiple non-trivial sources and this article only has one. Brendan Alcorn 04:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionWouldn't the gamedaily coverage (it being a part of AOL) it being a well-known of electronic publication cause this to fall under WP:WEB #3?JN322 06:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete have one non-trivial source at best. This article should be improved and resubmitted though. Paul D. Meehan 05:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Greeves 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote, its a discussion, WP:ILIKEIT#Just_a_vote. Do you have a reason you feel the article should be kept?--Crossmr 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - GameDaily article passes WP:RS, WP:WEB met per Next-Generation and GameDaily Joel Jimenez 05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats your basis for Gamedaily passing WP:RS? Where is the assertion of editorial oversight? As well its already shown that Next-Gen is a rehash of the press release which specifically doesn't pass WP:WEB. At best they have a very tenuous connection to one piece of coverage which may be non-trivial. The fact that no one else has covered in in depth takes away from the reliability of the Gamedaily blog posting (which is addressed in WP:RS)--Crossmr 04:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GameDaily XL predominantly bears the GameDaily name. Any questionable content that appears there would reflect poorly on the website as a whole, not just the blog. The same editors contribute to both domains. I see this more of a ps3.ign.com and ps2.ign.com thing than ign.com and totally-unrelated-website.com. Joel Jimenez 04:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is your assumption. They may say "Post whatever you want so long as you don't do anything illegal or say anything that could get us in trouble". I see nothing there that would evidence that their letting any particular blog posting stand is an endorsement of that blog posting. WP:RS requires an assertion of editorial oversight not a conclusion drawn by an editor. WP:RS also states that any self-published material not covered by other sources is much less reliable. Also AfD is not a vote, summarizing vote counts is not appropriate.--Crossmr 04:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that is your assumption! We don't know which of us is right. Because the same editors contribute to both websites you can make a decent argument for oversight. Further, this is not self-published so I'm not sure why you brought this up. Joel Jimenez 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. You want to include it as a source therefore per WP:V the burden of evidence lies with you to prove that the blog posting is a reliable source that can prove notability. That the site approves or otherwise lends credibility to the posting and doesn't just let them post whatever they want with no liability.--Crossmr 04:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the Next-Generation article is not a re-hash of the press release. Compare Next-Generation's article] with this [re-hash of the press release on GameZone]. There isn't a phrase lifted from the press release in their article. They obviously had tog et the information from somewhere, but I think that we both agree that Guildcafe is a reliable and verifiable source for stuff regarding Guildcafe.Joel Jimenez 04:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They both include the same paragraph quote at the end and both say the same thing only slightly reworded. Next-gens coverage is no different than the other site only with a rewording. WP:WEB also addresses the trivial coverage on next gen with this statement a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or. That is all that is, and its very clearly indicated on WP:WEB that that is trivial coverage which cannot be used to establish notability. Guildcafe is fine as a source for info on guildcafe, but as reliable as the article may be, there is no notability per the guidelines. And I will remind you one more time that AfD is a discusion not a vote and listing vote counts is not appropriate.--Crossmr 04:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not list a vote count. I said that the comments above started with a particular word, which they did. If you interpret them as votes (and you shouldn't because AfD is not a vote, right) that is your own fault. Joel Jimenez 05:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to delete - I Googled for the past several minutes and couldn't find any other notices. No mention on IGN, GameSpot or websites for magaiznes such as Gameinformer, EGM (via 1UP) or Gamepro. Joel Jimenez 05:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Infomanager DelPlaya 09:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As its been pointed out Next-gen is trivial coverage per WP:WEB very clearly addressed as just a brief summary of the content of the site and a reprint of the press release. And no-one has demonstrated where the assertion of editorial oversight is on the gamedaily blog.--Crossmr 17:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following statement is linked from the bottom of every page in what you are calling the "GameDaily blog": http://www.gamedaily.com/contact-us . This page documents an editorial staff. The top of every page includes an American Online an logo. Further, I'm unable to find any disclaimer that states that "blog" content does not reflect the opinions of the editorial staff. Even if this editorial information was only linked from the main page of the GameDaily site, I would argue that it is unreasonable to ask that every sub-section of a site contain a separate assertion of editorial authority. It's clear that the staff and writers of any part of the site are subject to management by an editorial staff, and ultimately answerable to the corporate oversite of America Online. A similar structure is common in many websites in general, and the gaming media in particular. Tarinth 21:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can all agree a blog is a self-published source. For it not to be a self-published source it needs to include an assertion of editorial oversight. The burden of evidence is on the person wanting the information included, not those wanting it removed. While every page doesn't need any assertion of editorial oversight (like a general story like other stories that write has done and I linked to) any section would could be seen as self-published do. As it is we don't know HOW they run the blog section of their website, so it makes the source suspect. Since we have no other source out there to bolster its credibility that makes it even more suspect. If we had a few other good sources that clearly demonstrated notability, it would lend credibility to the blog entry, and you could be more lax on requiring a mention of editorial oversight. Which is kind of the way that works. There is more than one way you can lend credibility to a blog to be used as a source, but it needs something. Even with something, its still only a single mention at best. Reviewing WP:WEB and the Next-gen article its clearly addressed by WP:WEB as being trivial. It only describes the content and the rest of it is a reprint of the press release.--Crossmr 23:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't agree to that at all. If it was his personal blog, on his myspace or livejournal or something, then I would agree. This blog is part of an established company's website, and it would make sense to me that there would be editorial oversight on a commercial page. JN322 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of evidence lies with those who want the material in. We have no idea how that site works and unless there is some evidence to how it works, the source becomes dubious, but even still we don't have a second source. Notability requires more than one incident of non-trivial coverage.--Crossmr 05:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me pose a hypothetical to you then. If a prosecutor calls a witness who states "I saw the defendant commit the crime". Then you would argue that the witness's testimony shouldn't be admitted until the prosecution can somehow prove the witness isnt' moved by mercenary motives or isn't some sort of pathological liar? From this matter stands presently it would appear to me that it is an internet publication of AOL (certainly well-known and independant of GuildCafe) and the website's contents has editors (thereby editorial insight), and accordingly it is reliable, and would fall under WP:WEB #3. But then again, I'm not too familiar with these rules. (forgive my poor grammer, I just got home from a lacrosse game and I'm still a bit alcoholified)JN322 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. In this case we have a source which is normally not allowed at all, a blog. Regardless of where its hosted. These are typically only allowed as sources in a very limited capacity in sourcing something about the writer, i.e. the author of that article warranted an article on wikipedia and announced he had cancer in it, that could be used as a source for that. In order for it to be used as a source for anything else it has to meet one of the criteria in WP:RS which give it credibility, so far it only meets things which take away from credibility, namely the fact that no other site has deemed the subject notable enough for any in depth coverage. One can easily assume that in a publication the stories which are "printed" as stories have editors. If you want to draw the conclusion that that means all blog postings have editors and get their content approved, you can do that, but you need something to back it up. As I pointed out above, it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to say "Post what you want so long as its not anything that is going to get the company in trouble".--Crossmr 15:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess since you don't want to look at his blog as having editorial insight (which is your guess, and something we still dont' know for sure yet) then Under WP:RS we have "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications...". The author of that blog is a well-known net journalist covering gaming information (he's not interviewing presidents, but he's ceratainly a professional in his field). Accordingly since the author of the article is an established online journalist, even his blog can be said to be a reliable source. JN322 02:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what is it you're using to establish that he's a well known journalist? As far as Steven wong's go, he doesn't show up to the second page [8]. And he seems to have written only a very tiny amount of articles for gamedaily [9]. Most of those results are pages which have "most recent bloggers" listed on the right hand column. He only made his first blog post in november, and doesn't seem to really be there before that. Simply writing a couple articles for an internet game site doesn't make one a well known journalist. See Hunter S. Thompson if you want an example of a well known journalist.--Crossmr 03:38, 8 January 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. —Cryptic 04:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fan translated games[edit]

Not the sort of list we need here at wikipedia. As the article fan translation points out, "fan translations are indisputably illegal". We don't need a list of games that people can search for to steal. Violates WP:C, WP:V, and notability requirements. SeizureDog 03:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 04:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as listcruft. YechielMan 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 04:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 05:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete legal issues aside, the list has no place here as fan translations aren't notable (or at least the vast majority of them). Koweja 05:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I'd just like to point out that seems to be an unintended double negative.~~--SeizureDog 07:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No more AfD at 1 in the morning.... Koweja 14:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cite. This is a stupid reason to delete this article. This is just a partial list of links to Wikipedia articles on copyrighted works and with some information on them, which is common in Wikipedia. There are already articles about emulation and ROMs, which are indisputably illegal. Wikipedia already has lists of old video games, which SeizureDog believes are lists of games that people can search for to steal. If the vast majority of the fan translations are not notable, then the vast majority of the games in the list are what many are unlikely to steal. Deleting this article will do you no good against piracy. Deleting this is like deleting other game lists. Fan translations are distributed with only the translated data and the directives for where it is to be placed in the original copyright material, without the original copyrighted material itself. Even though "fan translations are indisputablly illegal", the article fan translation also points out "it is unusually for copyright holders to object." For verifiability, I suggest you use Romhacking.net to cite whether the game is fan translated. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 08:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fan translations are distributed with only the translated data and the directives for where it is to be placed in the original copyright material, without the original copyrighted material itself."
  So you take the illegal translation patch and put it into the illegal ROM copy. I hardly see how that's any better. The simple fact is, this list is not useful for anyone who doesn't plan on searching for these patches, who shouldn't be in the first place.--SeizureDog 09:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The illegality of the game is accounted for the original ROM itself. There are already lists of games for people to steal. There are already lists of games for discontinued platforms. When they read the article on a game that is no longer commercially exploited, they might steal it. Therefore, deleting this article will do you no good. Copyright holders usually do not object to fan translations, which have been on the Internet a long time. The fan translation community also has an anti-piracy attitude, which may have made copyright holders turn a blind eye. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 09:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not following your logic. A list of games that include stealable games (such as List of Nintendo 64 games) is not the same thing as a list of games you can't play without breaking international copyright laws. The fact that copyright owners turn a blind eye carries no weight on Wikipedia. Anyways, let's forget I used the word "steal". It may not be theft, but this list certainly promotes copyright infringement.--SeizureDog 10:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The legal issues are irrelevant (WP:NOT censored applies just as much to this as to pornography, IMO), but notability isn't (WP:NOT a directory, or an indiscriminate collection of information). The article on fan translation is bad enough, but this is a list of (at least mostly) non-notable fan translations of games, which doesn't justify the existence of the list. Confusing Manifestation 09:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I don't agree with all of SeizureDog's reasons for nominating this article. Firstly, we should not be deleting content simply because people might misuse it. Secondly, even if all the translated games are copyright infringements, that does not make the list itself a copyright infringement. Nevertheless I say delete because in my opinion such a list is unencyclopedic. It's an indiscriminate collection of information and that is NOT what Wikipedia is about. By all means include a small selection of the most relevant fan-translated games in the fan translation article and maybe an external link to a fuller listing, but just because the fan translation phenomenon exists does not mean we need to slavishly record each and every instance of it. Reyk _YO! 10:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I object to the deletion. Many of the games on that list are notable or becoming notable. Japan-exclusive computer and video games are historically non-notable in English speaking worlds. There are justifications for this list. I might say that the list should include only fan translations that are notable or becoming notable. An alternative to deletion is to merge with the article fan translation, and include only the notable fan translations. There are also Wikipedia articles on obscure Japan-exclusive computer and video games that have been fan translated. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 10:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not the games that are considered non-notable, it's the fact that they have been fan-translated.--SeizureDog 10:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Like Reyk said, legal issues are irrelevant for deletion from Wikipedia. There are Wikipedia articles on non-notably fan translated games, and the fact that they have been fan translated may be stated in the respective articles. All MSX translations are notable, because they were done before the advent of console emulation. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 10:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice list, but wiki isn't the place. -Ryanbomber 12:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no good reason to delete from wiki. I had to copy this to my computer. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm not sure about the notability of the concept, but ROMs and emulators are not "indisputably illegal" provided that you own a copy of the work in question, digital backups are allowed under the DMCA. Also, illegality is not a reason not to have an article, otherwise what would become of otherwise very encyclopedic articles on drugs and the like. 69.210.39.245 23:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While emulators may be legal, possession (or acquisition) of ROMs may not be, especially when Wikipedia may be covered by non-US law. Describing or listing the fan translations will not cause problems, in the same way that describing drugs won't - however, there will be issues as soon as you provide either. --Sigma 7 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the back of any Nintendo game manual: "Copying of any video game for any Nintendo system is illegal.'Back-up' or 'archival' copies are not authorized and not necessary to protect your software. Violators will be prosecuted." Then notice how 80% of this list is for Nintendo games.--SeizureDog 21:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Notability is questionable, but the items in the list (at least the initial ones) have been referenced. In addition, information about fan translations can easily be posted on the individual games, thus creating interest for this listing. --Sigma 7 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopaedic and arbitrary list. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting list, but not encyclopedic. I might be okay if mentions were made in individual game articles. As for the legality, that's not Wikipedia's problem so long as the copyrighted materials themselves aren't available through Wikipedia servers. --Alan Au 06:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of Delete or Keep, let us say Merge. I suggest that the list be merged with the article fan translation. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 08:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The list is too long to merge. If anything, it should be turned into a category. Not entirely supportive of that either, but it's the lesser of the evils.--SeizureDog 02:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fan translation article is short enough to be merged with the list. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 22:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although not primarily due to illegality but because few if any of these can be verified using reliable independent sources (and no, linking to romhacking.net or other dubious websites does not count as sourcing!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about link to Web sites of the respective fan translators themselves? I hope that counts as sourcing. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 22:42, 6 January 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 all. Proto::► 11:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter in translation series[edit]

delete together with its sub-articles these lists of potterisms translated into all foreign langauges. This fancruft really went blown way out of proportions here. Why don't they do this in appropriate fandom sites? Is there any potter-wiki around? `'mikka 03:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely pointless--C J King 03:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unnecessary lists. YechielMan 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I added two articles to this nomination. MER-C 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These articles need separate nominations. John Reaves 06:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, John, articles closely linked that would presumably have similar outcomes can be AfD'd together. But if you think one should stay, for instance, say so. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 06:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just think it's cumbersome to vote for seperate article on one page. Though I suppose I go ahead and vote here. John Reaves 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I would think it it would be cumbersome to vote for separate articles all dealing with the same thing on multiple pages. Anyway… :-) --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 06:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all~~ Even as a member of the WP:Harry I endorse this deletion. This is something which should be left to a few external links in the Harry Potter article. And there is a wikia:harrypotter but it's not very closely maintained… I'd also like to urge people not to go out of control with the fan-hatin', as usually happens in an HP AfD… just keep to Keep, Delete or whatever, and leave the "überfancruftism" extremes out of it. :-) Just a friendly comment to keep things within reason here. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 06:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are some interesting points Sandpiper made. The information is scholarly, sure, but I just don't think it belongs all in one article. How about merge the information into each appropriate article and then delete? --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Delete as unnecessary lists, not fancruft. The translations are listed in a sidebar in the article. Translations aren't something fans rave about on the internet- so not fancruft. John Reaves 06:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, unnecessary lists. RHB 10:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as similar lists to the one nominated here --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete all unnessesary. —dima/s-ko/ 19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There is no reason why there should be an article for all these. TSO1D 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would first draw attention to comments made the last time this was debated [[10]]. Having done that, i would draw attention to the irony that these lists represent one of the best collections of such information I have seen, and thus a unique contribution to the very wide field of general interest in the subject of Harry potter. Most of our content on Hp, while informative, is not unique. From the scholarly point of view this actually represents a resource as an example of how concepts in one book have been translated into different languages. So, as I say, an irony that people should seek to delete it as 'fancruft'. Well, yes, perhaps that is exactly how the work of university professors of literature ought to be described.

The other specific importance of (parts) of these pages was to the ongoing puzzle set by Rowling at the end of the most recent book, as to the identity of a character known solely as RAB. The cross referencing of characters names in different languages is one of the more important, and officially verifiable, ways of eliminating candidates (by having the wrong translated initials).

Keep. Sandpiper 02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Belongs to Wiktionary. --Muhaha 10:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary, these can probably make some kind of appendix or concordance. Kappa 11:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki note that these almost certainly will not go in the en.wikt main namespace, they would make excellent appendicies. And the main article about Harry Potter in translation can then refer to the wikt appendicies. Robert Ullmann 12:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. Given that Kappa is an admin on that project I trust his judgment that Wiktionary can find a way of handeling this page. I only know the original and the Norwegian translations and these lists are kind of interesting but not very encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I suspect we'll be adding them back in a year or two as the fan literature accumulates. DGG 06:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this information is wanted out of Wikipedia, and either deleted or transwiki'd, I hope you have enough faith in editors who monitor Harry Potter pages to keep this information out if necessary. :-) Let's not put that kind of attitude into making the decision now -- this is for the present, not the future. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 06:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The pages have been transwikied to the Harry Potter Wiki. John Reaves 07:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikia:harrypotter appears to be one huge copyright violation (a derivative work with no transformative value) and its existance should be ignored. --SmokeyJoe 03:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are trying to say exactly? There's no copyright violation. John Reaves 04:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to say: The existance of information at wikia:harrypotter is not a reason to delete it from wikipedia. I further criticise wikia:harrypotter as not being a suitable repositiory for information because I see it containing a substantial amount of material that at any time could be removed because it is a copyright violation. Much of the material (not every page) is a copyright violation because it is a direct derivative of Rowling's work, without transformative merit such as commentary, and it diminishes her ability to profit by publishing her own "guide to the universe of Harry Potter". --SmokeyJoe 07:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has proposed that its existence at the HP Wiki is a reason for deletion. Please provide a few links to what you believe to be copyright violation on my talkpage. John Reaves 07:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge If this information can be made accesible without being cumbersome, then retain it: either by merging it into other articles, or, more likely, keeping the article itself. Michaelsanders 12:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep.

Mikka is wrong. This is not fandom. It is real world information. CJ King is wrong. The point is to record the international reach of the world’s most popular literature series. YechielMan is wrong. The lists are needed as a resource for subsequent improvement Fbv65edel: The existence of information outside wikipedia is no reason to remove that information from wikipedia.. What is the point of “merge”? The question is “delete”. Yes or no. John Reaves, like Mikka is wrong in that the information is not ficticious, fantasy speculative creation. It is real world information. It is data that should be allowed to evolve from a draft into a good article. Muhaha is wrong. Most of the information does not belong in a dictionary. Kappa; Robert Ullmann; Sjakkalle: By “Transwiki” I assume you mean “do not delete”. Agreed, the information has worth, even if it looks like appendix data at the moment. DGG: Agree. It is easy to see future use of the information. I also note that the page is almost two years old. Lets not be hasty. You should assume that every contributor also agrees in the worth of the page. --SmokeyJoe 00:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my name mentioned here? This post doesn't address anything I said. John Reaves 04:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, John. I apparently thought you accused it of being fancruft, where you actually wrote "not fancruft". It is hard to argue against "unnecessary", but I think it is useful for something--SmokeyJoe 06:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the user was trying to address all or most of the users who have expressed their thoughts here. To SmokeyJoe: By merge I am saying "no" to delete but "no" to keeping it in the article; I believe it belongs elsewhere. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 06:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify where you mean to have it merged?--SmokeyJoe 06:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also to SmokeyJoe, this isn't a supposed to be a vote in any direction, it's a discussion over whether or not to delete the article or ways in which it can be kept. John Reaves 06:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see this as a suitable forum to discuss "ways in which it can be kept". The threat of deletion, any day now, which is very difficult to reverse, does not create much of a positive, creative environment.--SmokeyJoe 07:49, 8 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Lovell[edit]

The person appears to non-notable, the only assertion of notability is that she appeared in a poem. The article is also unsourced. I did not think this was worthy of a speedy delete. J Milburn 03:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopaedic, OR, no sources, unverifiable, seems like a bit of obscure local history --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 03:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, although google throws up a lot, they mostly seem to be blog sites, especially relating to the University of Warwick. J Milburn 03:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May she rest in peace, far away from the Wikipedia servers. YechielMan 04:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For an "immortalised" story, this sure isn't mentioned by, well, anyone. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 20:50, 2 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White elephant gift exchange[edit]

Wikipedia is not a guide (WP:NOT). The article asserts a trivial notability for this game, and that's it. Most of the text consists merely of instructions how to play, without explaining why this game is significant in either a scholarly or cultural context. The overall style is childish, not encyclopedic. YechielMan 03:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Moogy^(talk) 03:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Took me less than a minute to find three newspaper articles of various quality that talk about white elephant gifts: [11] [12] [13]. I assume this is a good sign that this subject can be thoroughly sourced with reliable sources. --- RockMFR 04:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, your third link does not discuss a "gift exchange", it's only about "unique gifts" that may be considered white elephants. --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but this should not be a how-to ruleset (who promulgates them anyway?). There seem to be plenty of results for white.elephant+exchange, even seven Google Books results. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not the greatest article, but the topic is of encyclopedic merit.--Gpohara 07:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a venerable meme, encyclopedic. Tarinth 13:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the gift of being Wikipedia, not Brittanica, cultural trivia is eulogized. KP Botany 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a topic that should be explained as it is here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- Article violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, because it is an instruction manual. Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not says the following about instruction manuals: "Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks."Librarylefty 04:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up and maybe transwiki to WikiHow. While it's true that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, it appears to be a notable "activity". Just remove the instructions and you have a good stub article to start writing about. Axem Titanium 06:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-known, notable, etc. The article itself certainly needs some work, but the topic fits Wikipedia.--Velvet elvis81 06:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recently endured 3 of these horrible exchanges with 3 different parts of my family in 3 different states, so I would have to say that yes, it is a notable holiday institution. Static Universe 08:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very widespread practice. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It really does need serious cleaning up, though. It's a white elephant of an article for Wikipedia. KP Botany 21:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trans to wikihow This seems like a good article for there, but not for Wikipedia. --Адам12901 ^Talk 21:38, 6 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Comics film History[edit]

All this information (and a lot more) is already in the relevant Spider Man movie articles. There is no reason to duplicate this information in a separate article and no reason to believe this article can be anything but a fork of the main movie articles. Prod was removed without comment. Gwernol 03:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This info is already in the Spider-Man movie articles. TJ Spyke 04:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment shouldn't the scope of the article include a lot more than just one Spider Man movie? wtfunkymonkey 05:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It originally included the first two movies, but the author removed one while removing the prod notice. Even if it covered more than the 3 Spider Man movies, it would still be only redundant information as all the movies have their own article already and are part of the List of films based on Marvel Comics. Gwernol 05:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Misleading title. MER-C 06:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Articles shouldn't look like a forum comments. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Article is inaccurately named, incorrectly capitalized. Information is redundant to other articles. I really have to wonder if User:EJBanks deliberately creates articles and categories for the fun of getting them deleted. This user creates a lot of categories and a number of articles. They all get nominated for deletion, and I have yet to see one that did not have a clear consensus to delete. Doczilla 06:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until someone wants to redo with all of the films. Moscatanix 15:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom — J Greb 23:27, 2 January 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. Proto::► 11:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Han Lee - Tathagata[edit]

Delete nonverifiable self-written prophet. Mukadderat 04:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. TJ Spyke 04:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 06:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self Written ?? this was written by me.. my name is Paul Iddon,, so why say the article was self written ? the aticle has come about because I added Sam Han lee to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buddha_claimants

Although someone keeps deleting it,, what is it about ? List of Buddha Claimants ? If someone claims to be buddha then they go on that page ? So why keep deleting it.. Sam Han Lee not only claims to be Buddha, but is the only one who has any proof.. proof by having the third eye on his forehead,,,, proof in his actions that he travels non stop around the world teaching others,,, proof in his words that nobody can deny, proof that he is the only one that does not "sell" or profit from teaching.

Keep I believe there is some notability here. ( My third eye tells me so! LOL) It seems to me that the author has a bit of a language barrier that he/she may be struggling with. The author needs guidance regarding appropriate writing style and standards for Wikipedia. Perhaps some editors who have worked on articles related to mysticism and Buddha can take a look at this and give the author some help? I sense there is something here worth saving. Cleo123 08:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and article is entirely original research. Tendancer 22:21, 7 January 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. —Cryptic 04:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Debate[edit]

Apparently non-notable; just an editorial on IP. Twinxor t 04:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NEO. --Dhartung | Talk 05:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 06:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while there definitely was a Hamilton/Jefferson debate that involved intellectual property, this is definitely a neologism derived from it, and appears to have no serious popularity or standing. --Haemo 06:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. —dima/s-ko/ 19:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like this neologism, and the fact that some people still value logic in discourse. However, this still lacks the sources establish the import of the phrase, as required by WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 02:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a mere editorial. The argument presented hits important points and I have no doubt that it has been raised by a notable commentator on IP. The appropriate place for it is in an article on IP, in the context of a description of that commentator's views. Drake Dun 20:21, 3 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Yuasa[edit]

Notability in question. Author of the article disputed the prod by placing a ((hangon)) tag on the article, so I'm bringing it here. The article makes the most tenuous of notability assertions. ghits: [14] NMChico24 04:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Such notability assertions should be sourced in accordance with WP:V. Tarret 04:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of real notability. The author of this article has also been creating related Wikipedia articles to promote his various non-notable businesses. Gwernol 05:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 05:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Delete I was unaware of the policy and realize that this is not the time, maybe in five years thou! Thanks for reading —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astroflip (talk • contribs) 06:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per above, and might even be speedied now, since the original author is asking for deletion as well? Jayden54 14:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless neutral sources are cited by end of this AfD Alf photoman 20:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:19, 3 January 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Franklin[edit]

Unencyclopedic, fails WP:PORNBIO ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:PORNBIO, point 7. Check the IMDB profile. MER-C 05:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so she does. Still it seems like an arbitrary criterion with no reasons offered to explain why it qualifies a performer as famous. There are hundreds of porn stars like Franklin who have these horribly written stubs about them on Wikipedia simply because they appeal sexually to some contributor. Drafting the pornbio notability criteria was a good-minded effort at cleaning out some of these stubs by subjecting them to several clearly stated guidelines. However that effort is merely a codification of the judgement that minor porn stars (performers who make movies for several years, keep their real names private, and never break into the "mainstream" world of acting) should probably be excluded. An article about one of these stars, especially one that includes a useless and graphic transcription of a lesbian sex scene but does not offer any real biographical details, not even a filmography, is basically a crappy stub with no reason to exist. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, she doesn't. The film in question is a compilation, not an original film, as is the criterion. She fails WP:PORNBIO.—Chidom ^talk 07:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as MER-c says, she passes WP:PORNBIO which technically makes her notable enough. Jayden54 14:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- She was certainly honored by the production of A Cum Sucking Whore Named Kimberly Franklin, but what is it about such dubious recognition that makes her notable? (technicalities aside) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's assumed that only studs/starlets who have achieved a certain level of reknown in the industry merit being titular (no pun intended, however Beavis and Butthead it is) stars. Caknuck 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It means that the porno production house had a bunch of stock scenes featuring Kimberly Franklin that they decided to hastily throw together for a DVD. Some company's attempt to milk licensed footage by publishing it over and over does not necessarily signify renown. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but wikify and cite sources Alf photoman 20:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's a nobody and this article wastes server space that we are asking people to donate to pay for. Greg Grahame 02:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO. Caknuck 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO Delete as this article is not encyclopedic despite apparently meeting PORNO criteria. (It certainly seems silly that we keep poorly written and useless articles about nobody's simply because they meet one criteria out of the full Wiki list !) Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Flaws in the writing of the article itself (such as including a "useless and graphic transcription of a graphic lesbian sex scene" or being "poorly written") should inspire someone to expend effort improving the article; they are not grounds for deleting the entry. --152.121.17.61 19:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite technically meeting WP:PORNBIO. The criterion are a guideline for what is notable, not hard and fast rules. There is no evidence to suggest that simply having her name in the title lends any status or recognition to her in the industry. Call this vote WP:IAR, if you must. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 16:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anything that meets a guideline which has as it reason to exist preventing articles from being created should be kept. Vegaswikian 22:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO, as criterion 7 requires an original film, not a compilation. A Cum Sucking Whore Named Kimberly Franklin is a compilation of scenes from her other videos.—Chidom ^talk 02:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this slut passes WP:PORNBIO. Technically that makes her notable... ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:26, 7 January 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. Proto::► 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Torch[edit]

Disputed prod. Non-notable university publication. Claims to have won "Gold Crown Award" in 1999. Diregarding the notability of the award, I could not find it here [15]. Claims contributors have won awards. I don't believe that transfers to the publication; and notability of those awards is not demonstrated. Akihabara 04:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tried following the link that looked like a torch, but that went to the department's page. --Sigma 7 00:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a college student literary magazine; how notable can it be? I'm not impressed by awards from the Columbia Scholastic Press organization; they give out a lot of them. Brianyoumans 00:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one minor award (if given per Akihabara comments) does not confer notability, nor does any notability of the contrbutors (if any) transfer. Nuttah68 12:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Union University, Delete awardcruft. Tom e r ^talk 20:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No encyclopaedic notability here. Ohconfucius 03:51, 8 January 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. Proto::► 11:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette Chorduroys[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. ghits: [16]. NMChico24 05:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 05:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What criteria does it not meet? How can I fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeesmarc923 (talk • contribs)
- Please read WP:MUSIC. The guidelines there should answer all your questions. Thanks --NMChico24 05:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do meet this criteria. We have won or placed in a major music competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeesmarc923 (talk • contribs)
- You may also wish to review WP:COI as this appears to apply as well. --NMChico24 05:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Thanks for fessing up to your conflict of interest.MER-C 05:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no conflict of interest as everything that is stated on the page as a statement is backed up with links to outside websites. I have also just removed all objectivitiy or biasness that the page had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeesmarc923 (talk • contribs)
  - A conflict of interest means that the author of the article is related to the subject of the article. In these cases, it is extremely difficult for the author to write objective content in the same way it is extremely difficult to write an objective autobiography. --Sigma 7 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Jayden54 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and WP:COI --Sigma 7 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coming in second place out of 22 competitors does not qualify as a "major music competition". Lyrl ^Talk _C 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The ICCA is certainly a legitimate competition. Having participated in six ICCA events, I can say they consist of the best collegiate a cappella. It is also not restricted to 22 groups. Last year over 100 groups participated in the semi-final round, with even more applying to reach this level of competition. Listen to the Best of College A Cappella CD compiled from the winning groups every year. 11:53, 3 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.142.237.77 (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep, placing in an international collegiate competition does seem marginally notable. The conflict of interest is a problem, but is not a reason for deletion. The authors should be chastised for their self-promotion, and forced to learn to recite WP:AUTO in four-part harmony, and should be strongly discouraged from making further edits to their own article (except, perhaps, for monitoring it for vandalism), but I see no actual reason for deletion. If this is kept, I'll put it on my list for cleanup/pruning. Xtifr _tälk 02:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling you people I, and others, will do what it takes to make this page as unbiased as can be. Please let me know what part of this page shows a conflict of interest. Also, the competition is considered the biggest of its kind for this type of music, so placing 2nd out of 22 (not even looking at past results) is a huge deal to people in this field of music. Also, this page is NO different than any other collegiate a cappella's wikipedia page. I do not see what the difference is between those groups and this one.

With reference to other pages, Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability

As far as the "major competition" criteria, the ICCA does seem to be major, but the Chorduroys do not appear to have placed in the usual sense, as in the overall final competition. They placed in the quarterfinal, which I'm not convinced is sufficient to meet WP:MUSIC.

The "conflict of interest" refers not to specific content in the article, but to the fact that there is an inherent conflict of interest in members of a group editing the article about that group. While such activity is suspicious and often warrants scrutiny and criticism, it is not in and of itself criteria for deletion. Lyrl ^Talk _C 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no eveidence of notability offered. Nuttah68 12:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete although they did compete in the ICAA, I would think that making it to the finals would be the bar - i.e. competing at the highest level in sports, they didn't make it to the semi-finals. SkierRMH,00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Second place in a regional quarter-final? Subject does not appear to pass any of the criteria listed in WP:MUSIC. Ohconfucius 03:57, 8 January 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. Proto::► 11:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zanshindo[edit]

Delete Non-notable vanity advertisment Peter Rehse 05:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 05:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to an advertisement article for something non-notable. Jayden54 14:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carpet9 23:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, paring away the ad elements. Tom e r ^talk 20:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM. Had I seen this earlier, I would have had it speedied. There's nothing notable about the style, which is only taught in one school and was invented by the school's principal. Ohconfucius 04:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no prejudice for recreation, might as well start-from-scratch with this one. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:19, 8 January 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. Proto::► 11:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Fletcher[edit]

I had originally WP:PRODed this article in early December 2006. My reason was: "While certainly tragic, Wikipedia is not the place for memorials. Currently doesn't meet WP:BIO and searchs for Fletcher and leukaemia produce 67 hits on google mainly as memorials to his death; Needs to assert notability through reliable non-tivial sources besides being missed." The prod was removed and there was mention at the talk that there would be further sourcing. I have contacted said user recently, but haven't heard back yet. As I mentioned on the talk page, the statement that he was involved with charities was never confirmed, just an article that mentioned that he present a trophy at a regalla race. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 05:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 06:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nom says, tragic. But, not notable in the sense we normally apply to Wikipedia articles. Take each part separately, and there's really nothing here that couldn't apply to many, many other people. Mathew deserves to be remembered, but not in an encyclopaedia. As the cliche has it, "Wikipedia is not a memorial". Emeraude 13:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alf photoman 20:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Emeraude. Closing admin, don't overlook Image:Mathew Fletcher.jpg. --Dhartung | Talk 22:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as I was beggining to conclude that I could not justify the article's existance on Wikipedia, I had this emailed to me:

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/196/fletchershrink2oo8.jpg (appologies for the level of JPEG compression, but I couldn't get it hosted otherwise; a better quality is available if it helps)

...which appears to be the inside-page spread of the EDP, 17th November 2006.

Although I cannot confirm its authenticity personally, it looks perfectly legitimate, and has many important quotes supporting the case for {WPBio}, including:

'...working with the Anthony Nolan Trust across many fundraising events.' --Reverieuk 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'The young man was an inspiration ' - on the subject of the Regatta and subsequent registering of every member of the U16s Sudbury Rugby Team on the bone marrow donors register.

'...throughout his life, which he spent raising awareness for his illness...'

Thus, as User:ej159 stated on the disscusion page 'The criterion that Mathew complies with is of being "[a person] achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" as he was involved in much charity work and featured many times in the Eastern Daily Press.' is now sourced.

Your thoughts on this? --Reverieuk 19:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of how much charitable work he's done, he's no Jane Tomlinson. The Anthony Nolan trust has no mention of him on their website [17], a search for 'Fletcher' on their site only returns one article that briefly refers to a Gary Fletcher. In the UK local newspapers like EDP often cover stories about the ongoing health problems of young children, it doesn't make them notable. One Night In Hackney 09:12, 4 January 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. Proto::► 11:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WBC[edit]

The band appears only to have released one independent album and two independent EPs. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ShadowHalo 05:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the band's releases:

Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that WP:MUSIC has been met. MER-C 06:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fails WP:MUSIC. Jayden54 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have just added a link to an article in NZ Musician Magazine, which mentions at least one national tour. Meets WP:MUSIC-Ensembles-3. Darobsta 08:53, 3 January 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. Proto::► 11:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jancey Sheats[edit]

Not notable as per WP:N Amnewsboy 23:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see how she is notable --Kevin Murray 09:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dont delete No news personality is notable, but wiki has tons of bios on them. Jancey Sheats is a person notable to residents in central Arkansas.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.129.248 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I previously closed this as Delete, but the closure was contested and I admit that consensus was thin (2 delete / 1 keep). To avoid the appearance of bias, I'm extending debate for wider consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:00Z
Delete. Not notable outside of locality, no assertion of notability. Reads kind of like a fan page for the news personality. --Dennisthe2 06:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO by a long way. Gwernol 06:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note I think the original close as delete was fine, since the only keep opinion did not give a meaningful reason to keep the article. "There are lots of articles that break policy" is never a good reason to allow this article to break policy. Gwernol 06:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure the original closure would have been endorsed at DRV but I figured it'd be easier to just get five more delete votes so there'd be no argument against a strong consensus. Also I dislike how even though DRV is supposed to be meta-discussion about the procedure of the closure, in practice it's often more of an appeals process where DRV participants voice their own opinions on whether to delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:20Z

Delete non notable fails WP:BIO [18].--Dakota 06:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LOCAL. --- RockMFR 07:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Quarl? MER-C 08:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Unexplainedbacon 14:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the author of the page, I of course have a bias. But when I look at other bios for other news anchors or media, what makes them any more important? The fact they work in a larger more popular city as New York? Shall we delete Shepard Smith? I wonder if coming from a unimportant state as Arkansas makes one not as worthy of a bios. I had researched Miss Sheats info and it was not just a simple thrown togethr stub like a lot of wiki entries are. I don't see deletions of articles are that are one line sentences. In the catagory of Television Presenters, some of which are LOCAL news people, here is but a few articles that you must delete if you want to be considered fair and unpartial

Kerri Furey, Jeni Barnett, Pia Guanio, Carlo Rota, Johnny Ginger, Daniela Kosán, Ed Leigh, Alpana Singh. These are but a few in one catagory, you need to be fai on all aspects if you delete some.Kerusso 15:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, having looked at a few of these articles I agree that at least some of them should be deleted on the same grounds as the Jancey Sheats article. Please feel free to nominate those articles for deletion too. That being said we are talking about the Jancey Sheats article here and the question is: does this article meet Wikipedia's standards. The fact that there are other articles that don't meet our standards can never be an excuse to let this article slide. Its only an argument to discuss the deletion of those articles too. Sorry, Gwernol 16:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may be a fool, but what makes one more notable than another? The info in this article was researched. It is verifable. It was not created by Miss Sheats, so it is not self promoting. It is neutral.Kerusso 16:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shepard Smith is a national news personality on a national news network; he is not a local news anchor who is known only in one city. It appears, based on your assertion that Smith, Carlo Rota, Daniela Kosán or Jeni Barnett can be considered at all equivalent, that you have a problem grasping the distinction between national and local notability. A personality on a national television service is notable, because he or she is notable to an entire country. But a personality who is only known within one specific city's media market is not notable. Delete. Bearcat 01:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unless article is properly sourced by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added Kerusso 21:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Weak Keep, know TV personalty but as Amnewsboy puts it, there are far to many of them in the US. On the other hand, if one is in the other should be too or all should be deleted Alf photoman 00:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well others won't be deleted. Seems there is bias towards some and not others. Thank you for your weak keep support Kerusso 15:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason I listed this AfD is, simply put, there are way too many local television personalities in the United States for every single one of them to have a page. Should Jancey's co-anchor have a page? What about their weekend team? All the anchors at the other stations in Little Rock as well? All the other stations in Arkansas? The Southeast? I give credit for the work done on the article, but it's simply not about a notable subject as per WP:BIO -- think of it this way... is somebody in, say, Montana going to know who Jancey Sheats is? Amnewsboy 01:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Point taken, but half the articles in Wikipedia go the route that some, somewhere in this world will not know or care about some subject. We have a very large article on lightsabers. While for some this might be a much needed or interesting article, there are many that couldn't care less and might think it is a waste of time and space. While Jancey might not be popular or known in Montana or Michigan, she is known in Arkansas and Texas. Who's to say people in those states might not want a article on her? We have articles on governors or local politicians that most would have no desire knowing about, but they still exist Kerusso 02:18, 3 January 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. Proto::► 11:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle[edit]

Unsourced, original research Naconkantari 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Rory096 05:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 06:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. also. John Reaves 10:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wikipedia is not a dictionary and nom. Jayden54 13:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism, or at least a dicdef. Koweja 14:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire - unsourced, WP:NOR, and per above. Yuser31415 20:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOR. TSO1D 22:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the article should be noted as ((cleanup-date|January 2007)) ((unreferenced|article)) ((Orphan|January 2007)) ((Uncategorized|January 2007)) However, comparing it to random articles from the Category:Portmanteaus, it is an appropriate article. It could easily be turned into something like a joggling article. Encouragement is what is needed not deletion. TonyTheTiger 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, joggling has an entry in Guiness World Records and huggling does not. Axem Titanium 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO, dictdef, lots of other stuff. Axem Titanium 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I used it today to explain the term to a co-worker. So it's useful, which is surely the first test. Besides, the term's been around for at least 10 years. NuDejaNews shoes the term the term already in circulation in '93. This isn't some 4chan meme- Huggle is entrenched enough to deserve an article.-Derik18:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it isn't a neologism (might not be, I didn't realize it was that old) the article is still a dictionary definition and can't really become anything more. Koweja 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Useful" is not a good reason to keep (see WP:ILIKEIT). A better place is Wiktionary which takes articles like these. Axem Titanium 02:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, DELETE, fails WP:NEO, WP:NOT a dictionary, unsourced, original research, no independent and reliable sources. Burn it. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:53, 7 January 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. Proto::► 11:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graal Script 1[edit]

This script is only used by the game GraalOnline, which is in itself a non-notable game (the article was deleted at AfD as failing WP:WEB, then endorsed at DRV once immediately after the close, then endorsed again only recently - I can't find the links because the DRV archiving system isn't great...) Is a script only used in a game that has been deemed non-notable is therefore non-notable as well? I think so, hence I'm listing it here. Also, the lack of (multiple) reliable third-party sources means it fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Naconkantari 06:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable aspect of a subject with a ((deletedpage)). MER-C 08:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. -- The Anome 11:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and lack of any reliable sources to show notability. Jayden54 13:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Tarinth 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Tarinth 14:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Lack of content and restricted scope make expansion improbable. --Scottie theNerd 03:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, nom. Non-notable. Yuser31415 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete fails WP:V, and thus, WP:WEB Joel Jimenez 04:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable aspect of a non notable game, no use outside of that=huge problems with WP:V as well. SkierRMH,00:16, 8 January 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. Proto::► 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misnomer[edit]

Procedural note. This nomination wasn't listed when nominated (2006-12-30); it is listed now (2007-01-02). This AFD should be closed 5 days after this listing. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:25Z
Update: it was correctly listed, briefly, by User:mikkalai, but the listing was accidentally removed by someone else [19]. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:43Z

Misnomer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

del After a year and half since the first nomination it is still a dicdef augmented with a piece of trivial original research (the list of reasons why people may confuse things is endless) & a long list of examples. No references. Both the term and some examples are already wiktionarized. `'mikka 17:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A list alone is not enough to turn a wiktionary article into a wiktipedia article, and the examples cannot easily be referenced as they are partially matter of opinion. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 21:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Articles like this have their place here. See the newish discussion here on some matters which serve a similar use. This is not a dead tree limited venue after all.
Further, a quick search of this long history page for 'maintenance templates' like ((clean)), ((copyedit)), or just "((" brings up nothing pertinent including no ((unref)) templates. Imho, as much as I hate such in your face detriments to our reputation, those would be a better choice than the AFD tag, as this little article hasn't really been given a lot of maintenance request exposure. None, actually.
If someone were to tag deficiencies thoughtfully with their analysis and cogent and well considered view of it's shortcomings, instead taking the easy way out and nominating such for deletion— given a punch list, why some one like myself with a lesser grasp of minutia and your practiced perspective and experience would probably come along fairly quickly and fiddle it into better shape. // FrankB 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is definitely a valid article subject. --tjstrf talk 04:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: AFD listed at this point. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:25Z

Keep, looks like a valid article. May need cleanup, though. JIP | Talk 07:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article offers a good and useful survey, an acceptable definition, and lots of helpful links. Wikikiwi 10:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it's going to stay, it'll have to be more than just an indiscriminate and unbound list of misnomers. For that, you ought to just make a Category:Misnomer on Wiktionary. Can we get some sort of real-world context? Did misnomers ever cause any notable misunderstandings? Are there any people writing on the topic of misnomers? Any significance at all beyond lingual curiosity? –Gunslinger47 10:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, a number of notable controversies arose from misnomers (American "Indians" aren't from India); there are hoaxes/jokes of national proportions (Erik the Red supposedly intentionally misnamed Greenland) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 10:39Z

Heh. The "misnomers" category in Wiktionary is rather small. IMO, this is because no one could agree on what a misnomer is. Wiktionary's own definitions are: "The wrong name or term", which depends on one's notion of "wrong"; "An unsuitable or misleading name (for something)." which is just a bit less subjective and in line with the working definition in the present article; "(Wiktionary jargon) A term whose sense in common usage conflicts with a technical sense." which reflected the way people categorizing things as misnomers seemed to be using the term; "(non-standard: see usage notes) Something that is not true; a myth.". The usage notes just say that the usage is considered incorrect.

So not much help there. Eventually the category fell out of favor and most of the items tagged misnomer were untagged. This is yet another battle in the long-running descriptivist/prescriptivist war in Wiktionary land. The descriptivists appear to have won that one (full disclosure -- I'm a descriptivist ex-Wiktionarian).

A wider-ranging discussion of what a misnomer might or might not be, with examples, was considered more appropriate to Wikipedia, and I tend to concur. I would like to see more of a discussion than just a raw list, but I strongly lean toward trying to fix the article rather than gunning it. -Dmh 05:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no strong reason why this article should be deleted. MusiCitizen 17:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article contains a dictionary definition plus a usage guide plus some original research. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a reasonable topic (beyond a dicdef) and a reasonable list, but it does need references. So tagging. --Dhartung | Talk 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It has the potential to be a good article, though the giant list needs to be trimmed down. Strad 01:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dislike the original laundry list of "Why do we park on driveways and drive on parkways?" trifles, and I particularly dislike the "I know something you don't" angle, which is always very selectively applied to things the particular critic happens to know. However, there are a couple of interesting phenomena at work here. First is the process of linguistic change (by which, for example, the term steamroller comes to be applied to something that doesn't run on steam, but we don't call any train engine a steam engine). Second is the selectivity by which only some of the many, many possible candidates actually come to be regarded as misnomers. Some have complained that the list given is too long, but what stands out to me is how short it is.

A misnomer is something that "everybody" uses incorrectly, but "everybody else" knows is "wrong". If I decide to get on a high horse about "down" no longer referring to hills, that's my own private crotchet. But if a generation of school teachers teaches that Koala bears (as they were once called even in Australia) aren't bears, or a widely-read language maven claims that "awesome" should only refer to things inspiring awe, then we've got ourselves a misnomer. This is a social phenomenon worth noting, and it's not material for a wiktionary definition.

This is why I went to the trouble to try to categorize the raw list and to try to tease out what does and doesn't constitute a misnomer (taking into account other editors' edits to my changes :-). Whether this is cataloging or original research is a bit fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure that actual psycholinguists have studied this same phenomenon. Which is why I left a hook for such research in the intro.

I'll see what I can dig up along those lines. As I understand it, if there is such research it would be pretty good evidence that an article is warranted. -Dmh 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to scrape up a couple of citations. I would expect that Western psycholinguists are not particularly concerned with "misnomers" per se, but lump it in with the larger question of the perception of "correct" usage.

Here are a the cites so far. The first one appears the more relevant: "Ghotra,Balvinder S . On riding the phenomenon of borrowing of misnomers . Indian Linguistics . Vol.61(1-4), pp.9-12 ." (found on http://www.languageinindia.com/jan2003/indicarticles.html). "Misnomer and the acceptance of misnomers as right ones" (http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/qikan/periodical.Articles/hfgydxxb-shkx/hfgy2004/0405/040529.htm), main article is in Chinese. -Dmh

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 11:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School Supplies[edit]

No evidence from reliable sources of notability. Does not assert notability. Contested prod. MER-C 06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete not only are there no sources, rendering this unverifiable, but I strongly suspect its a hoax that falls under not for things made up in school. Gwernol 06:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failure to establish notability. —ShadowHalo 07:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. Possibly patent nonsense / hoax. Prolog 09:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sounds like nonsense to me. Fails WP:V and WP:N as well. Jayden54 13:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LOL what is this. Well there are no sources, and it looks like a hoax, so delete. TSO1D 22:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RC productions is legit [20], however there is no mention of this on their website [21]. SkierRMH,00:22, 8 January 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; no concensus to merge. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huckle buckle beanstalk[edit]

Seems to have been made up one day. Non-notable children's game. Contested prod. MER-C 06:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly is this page being considered for deletion? A simple google search will prove it as a well known childhood game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EABair (talk • contribs)

Alright, I've added a pop-culture reference to suit your needs. EABair 06:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it was made up one day, that day was at least 50 years ago, and I suspect it is much older. Ideally, this article would be able to tell us just how old this game is.--OinkOink 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to meet notability requirements. Note that the game is described in dozens of books, according to a quick Google books search. schi ^talk 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge Hunt the Thimble with it. Games like this often have a long history and may be discussed by folklorists, anthropologists etc. (I've added a bit.) --HJMG 23:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep don't see the need necessarily to merge, this meets WP:N as a widespread, relatively well known children's game. SkierRMH,00:24, 8 January 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. Proto::► 11:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Bridgett[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Contested prod. MER-C 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. College athletes in sports with fully professional leagues don't meet WP:BIO on that count alone, and a quick google turns up no nontrivial coverage. —Cryptic 04:28, 7 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron beelner[edit]

Dwarf actor whose claims to notability cannot be verified and has had a small part in one film. Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BIO. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 08:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend Deletion I can not seem to verify notability outside wikipedia. Navou ^talk 09:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:BIO. Jayden54 13:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One small part in a minor film doesn't seem to do it. Rest of the article does nothing to establish notability. Fan-1967 13:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. The information in his IMDB page is practically nonexistent. I've begun to notice that most articles where the surname doesn't begin with a capital letter are not about notable people. Sam Blacketer 20:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless sources are included by end of this AfD Alf photoman 20:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no sources. John Reaves 08:28, 6 January 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. Proto::► 11:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HouseCall[edit]

Non-notable, online Virus scanner. Prod was contested. savid @n 06:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable per WP:SOFTWARE or WP:WEB. Jayden54 13:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have the lingo down, but it is helpful if you actually specify a rationale within those policies (see below). Tarinth 16:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trend Micro, not enough text and notability for the separate article. MaxSem 14:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOFTWARE which states that the core products of a notable company may have their own articles. Tarinth 16:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tarinth. Danny Lilithborne 22:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as this is more of a promotional product than a "core product". It would be better if some external references were added. Otherwise merge per MaxSem.--Dhartung | Talk 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, what about Housecall ? I'd call that a dicdef much more in need of deletion than this one. FrozenPurpleCube 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. TRKtv t c e 01:01, 3 January 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 all. Proto::► 11:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of North Carolina Tower[edit]

Following precedents (see User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts for fuller list) of mast stub deletions, I'm nominatiing this batch of US masts below 520m in height. None of the masts that I am nominating are notable in any way whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Most stubs are over a year old, and have remained in the same, sorry vegetative state since creation. None of these articles have any substantial additional information other than their name, location and height. This information already exists albeit in more concise but no less informative tabular form in List of masts, so I see no point in redirecting. Delete per WP:NN, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR. Ohconfucius 07:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. MER-C 08:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst I've generally agreed with most of the mass removal that has gone on here, and thank you for your effort, I'm interested at what point you intend to stop. When do these become notable for their height alone, whether or not they are stubs? I also believe that greater clarity and definiteness on this point will help you gain support for whichever remaining ones you intend to nominate, as several people clearly feel we are nearing that point. Akihabara 08:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Akihabara 08:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - nothing notable about these masts as far as I can see. Jayden54 13:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Replying to Akihabara's comment, I can't speak for Ohconfucius, but I don't see a reason to set a height limit for notability - if the article only contains the info from List of masts then scrap the article. If there is more to be said about a mast, which can't fit into the list, then it gets its own page. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now gone as far as I intended according to the arguments set, with penultimate and final AfD (barring contested prods to be brought here) and a number of prods to take care of the remaining US mast/tower stubs. I should also have prodded most of the properly categorised stubs from other countries now ;-) Ohconfucius 09:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - and, as in the prior prods (in answer to Akihabara) it doesn't appear that height alone has been a criteria in these, as long as there was something notable about the tower (architecture, history, notable controversy) it was removed from the AfD and handled on its own. SkierRMH,00:29, 8 January 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. Proto::► 11:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richland Towers Bithlo[edit]

Following the same principles established as precedent (see User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts), I am seeking consensus on these two shared masts. I do not believe that these are in any way different to the others which have been swept out of wikipedia, but am willing to be proven wrong. These masts appear to be in use by several small radio/tv stations. but AFAICT, they are still just two non-notable masts. Ohconfucius 07:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. MER-C 08:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - nothing notable about these masts... Jayden54 13:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Masts. Which, of course is already done except for the redirects, and delinking. These two tower articles are about particularly uninteresting towers, unlike some that have been put up recently for deletion. I am disheartened by the language of the requester in his article User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts, where he says "I am not embarked on a vendetta or crusade, but merely performing a systematic purge." Before we perform a systematic purge, I think that we should ask the radio/television tower people to draft their own guidelines for what requires an individual tower article, and what can be satisfactorily dealt with in a table in a list article, or in a more detailed, but more general article such as Radio towers in France. In many ways I view these radio tower articles like the Eurvision song articles, I would classify them similarly, namely of particular interest to a small group of widely geographically separated individuals. In many ways they might be compared to the articles about individual botanical and zoological species. Now rather than piecemeal pick at these radio tower articles, let us get some guidelines. --Bejnar 19:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would appreciate it if you did not quote me out of context. The systematic purge is of useless stubs. Nobody so far has demonstrated how/why these stubs are useful, only that it could be useful or someone might find it useful, in a rather crystal-ballish fashion. Ohconfucius 02:18, 3 January 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. Proto::► 11:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creation: The Physical Truth[edit]

Author removed both speedy and prod tags. Per the prod, "Non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (books). Book is published by a non-notable publisher and no notable reviews recieved." See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Aspden. It holds that the author of the article and the author of the book are one in the same, as well. Not only would this be procedural, but I agree with the deletion. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article does not assert notability of the subject, and there are no independant reviews cites. Tarinth 13:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any significant coverage of the book. Of the 13 non-wiki Google hits, most look self-generated. Nor, it seems, can the publisher find any coverage, as there's nothing about it on their page of Significant Media Coverage for Book Guild Authors. -- Fan-1967 13:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As of this time, Wikipedia is not a book review service. linas 16:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above. --Wildnox (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan-1967. -- Whpq 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice as I am the initial lister. --ScienceApologist 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm fond of cranks and their books, but they have to be notable cranks and notable books to be on Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 01:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per book notability criteria; see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harold_Aspden, current AfD on author for further discussion. Sdedeo (tips) 03:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Yuser31415 19:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per linas. --EMS | Talk 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, well, everybody. Anville 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete -- I only make this apparently superfluous vote to mention that the article includes as a highlight of the work that it contains "algebraic equations and integral calculus" DGG 23:28, 7 January 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 have callously and merrily ignored the single purpose accounts, sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Proto::► 11:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consumption Junction[edit]

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

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

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

Kept by default (no consensus) in January (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consumption junction), without much in the way of reasoning (we seem to have improved AfD since then! Hurrah!) but the article still, nearly a year later, has no reliable sources. With nothing on Factiva and only one trivial hit on GNews, that may be impossible to remedy. I'd merge and redirect to shock site, as Mailer Diablo recommended back then, but the debate is stale by now and WP:WEB has changed too. Back then a decent Alexa rank (~2k) was enough, now, it may not be, unless credible sources can be found. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Seems little more than advertising for a website DariusJersey 13:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:V as it relates to WP:WEB. If secondary sources can be found for this site demonstrating notabiliy, I'd be happy to change my vote. Until then though, the article in its current form is effectively an unsourced advertisement. Markeer 04:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MERGE with Shock site- and "Consumption Junction" redirect to Shock site Tonytypoon 14:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:WEB. I'm not sure that it counts as a shock site by the general definition, since its purpose isn't just to get unsuspecting people to look at something icky. But merge there if ye must, it's better than keeping an unverifiable article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge. This semi-notable site has been around for several years. Deleting it entirely would be wrong, despite the content of the site MiracleMat 07:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable website. Forbsey 21:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly a violation of WP:ATK. Yuser31415 01:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't appear to apply. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Shock site (which already has a paragraph each on a number of shock sites). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:09Z
- It really isn't a shock site by the existing definition, though - a defining characteristic of a shock site is that most viewers are looking at it by accident, not because they want to see a bunch of horrible things. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable website. Moscatanix 15:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Which parts of WP:WEB does it meet? Based on what sources? Guy (Help!) 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keepTho a few numbers might help to show this is the most naotable web site of this genre.DGG 06:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article needs to be fleshed out better, but this is certainly one of (if not THE) most well-known website of its type.--Velvet elvis81 06:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm sorry to say, but Consumption Junction were to be deleted, we would have to delete anything else along these lines. The site is rather unique in that it's not just a shock site (so it can't be merged with the Shock site article, and is in fact a flagship site among a network of other adult-oriented sites (sicksitenetwork.com), and is more popular in Alexa ratings (as of the writing of this comment, 2,088 for CJ versus 2,807 for Rotten.com). Whoever is nominating this for deletion is making a major mistake. However, I do see the need for it to be expanded and probably have sources better cited. Maqattaq 07:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not enjoy the content, nor do I subscribe to the information presented, but if you remove them from Wiki, what next--- web-book burnings??? -- — 216.43.158.88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Freedom of speech, anyone? It's a usual humor site, there's plenty on the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.234.5.137 (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

STRONG KEEP!!! Why remove it? If someone disagrees with knowledge, no matter how controversial should that knowledge be banned? Ever since 9/11 the governments of our planet have slowly taken away our freedoms.If someone is offended by this site, then it is oh so simple to just not click on. Imagine how dark our ages would be if any knowledge objected to by anyone were strikened? Checking this site out I found that it's not about porn, its about attitude!(Maybe that's what upsets some people.) -- — 67.186.28.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep!!! This site has been around for ages and it quite popular. rework the entry but leave it. -- — 71.57.155.213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - I see nothing wrong with the article, besides it being a bit short and lacking citations. Both of those can be fixed with a little effort. Offkorn 13:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This site has been around for a long time content can be verified. Probably the same kind of nazi who is against freedom of the internet freedom of speech called to have this deleted due to their weak pampered and otherwise sheltered way of life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.179.4.138 (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC). -- — 24.179.4.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

STRONG KEEP Very unique website. It transcends typical shock sites. The wiki entry should definitely not be deleted. --Tom 16:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It People need these kind of websites to keep from going insane! User:RnRjUnKiE -- — 217.50.35.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
STRONG KEEP It wouldn't surprise me if the same people who keep writing hatemails to CJ aren't somehow behind wanting to delete it's entry off of Wikipedia. This website has a very large and loyal following as well as many enemies that just don't understand what CJ is trying to do. While news today is mostly bad, it is still sugar coated somewhat. On CJ you can see what really goes down, what the news networks won't show you. Some call it cruel, others call it reality.... -- — 69.136.216.165 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I don't believe in censorship and therefore I would like to see this article remain where it is. It does not offend anyone and merely gives information about a cotroversial yet awesome websight!--Marcatzo for you 17:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC) -- — Marcatzo for you (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
since when did Wicki become the fifth reich? whats next? videos showing the burning of printouts from CJ? KeepItDanielsanw 01:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) -- — Danielsanw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Neutral+Comment. It doesn't violate WP:ATK, Wikipedia's not suitable for minors, and there's nothing that says that thie site can't be allowed. That being said, this is not an easy choice, as there are no references an it doesn't look encyclopedic as it it written now. Granted, no one ever bothered to put an unrefernced tag up (i'm doign that after I post this). But yeah, all these anon keeps aren't helpign matters at all, and they're almost pushing me towards delete. Nothing on google news, so this would be hard to site without referencing the cite itself... --Wizardman 05:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Freedom of speech need to apply to web sites also. — 71.205.210.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Does "freedom of speech" mean that you can go down to your local newspaper and demand that they print your manifesto? No? Then why does "freedom of speech" mean that Wikipedia needs to have an article about a website which can't demonstrate that it meets Wikipedia's pre-existing criteria for notability? Sorry, but the freedom-of-speech issue is a total red herring. There's no freedom of speech being impinged here. When someone is preventing you from saying what you want to say using your own resources, then there's a freedom of speech issue. This isn't one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Find sources to state that CJ is as big as some users above claim it to be. According to alexa.org, it is in the mid 2000's rank or so. Thousands of websites are larger, and there surely arent thousands of article dedicated to every one of those articles that outrank CJ in terms of traffic. ^[1].

Furthermore, I think this discussion has been poisoned by CJ, the website users there tend to be a bunch of wanna-be tough dudes and wanna-be sick people who think it's heroic to screw with a discussion with a legitimate website like Wikipedia. I saw if this fails, we do it again, most of the supporting users have no history at all with Wikipedia, and we ought to keep our eyes wide open for shill votes and arguments pulled from thin air.

- I'm forced to question whether you yourself are a 'supporting user' as you didn't even sign your rather bigoted comment. Offkorn 17:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unless our function is to prevent those people who are too weak to prevent themselves from clicking on a site that might offend them. This is an information site, not a censor. "Google" that particular web site and WP is just one of hundreds of hits. I'm sure that any of the search engines will produce the same result. Deleting it will only serve to discredit WP as a viable resource.Bobozr 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC) — Bobozr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- comment I am copying this comment that was posted directly on the article. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dictionary.com is an information site. Should it have an entry for consumptionjunction? Google Maps is an information site. Should it have an entry for consumptionjunction? Instead of merely claiming that Wikipedia must cover your favored website in order to retain its credibility (because we've never heard that argument before, of course) why not produce some evidence that the website meets Wikipedia's criteria for what information to cover? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a chainsaw. There is nothing in this discussion that even mildly comes close to qualifying as a legitimate reason to keep it. Contrary to the claim that Wikipedia is an "information site", Wikipedia is, in fact, specifically not a collection of information, it is an encyclopedia. The assertion that removing the article constitutes "censorship" is ludicrous--first because using that as a rationale for "keep" is a blatant admission that the WP article is nothing more than an advertisement, second because it clearly indicates an abject failure to understand the meaning of censorship. When WP goes out and tries to get this website shut down, then that silly argument will hold a little bit of water; until then, it's crazytalk. Tom e r ^talk 20:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB: no significant news coverage, no awards, no publication. The anonymous users pouring in aren't doing a lot for their case with me, either. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stile project has an entry, and no request that its entry be deleted. CJ is at least as prominent, and shares similar history and user base (mentioned online by Howard Stern, outrage over the Nick Berg video that garnered national media attention). At most, CJ should be combined into a single page for the SickSite Network, like StileNet's entry.

GALVINIZED KEEP FROM FORMER AND DISGRUNTLED CJ WRITER! Humbly stated, for all this vaunted, anacronym laden attempted highbrow "discussion" and back and forth is clearly over an issue that is most certaintly not about what does or does not constitute a valid Wikipedia article, but rather what a minority of individuals find to be intellectually palitable. Oh how shallow the depths of the mind become in action; in the short and sweet, if CJ was a site representing a financial quarterly that just happened to pull in an estimated 1.4 million unique IP per day audience, I grately doubt there would be such a fuss to be made. Consumption Junction created a legitimate cultural phenomenon, and whether the fruits of its proliferation would be welcome in the living rooms of the happily veiled "Moral" financialy secure class is utterly irrelevant. If Wikipedia is to be a depository of information made "by actual and average/real" individuals, it is at best elitism and at worst blatant censorship/revisionism to so calously delete the existence of this very real part of american media and culture, regardless of the fact that the entry was put together extremely poorly and was in desperate need of copius amounts of re-working, most likely due to the fact that Aaron "Phil" Dinin was involved, and should probably made to wear a helmet when he leaves the house, as everything he touches on CJ instantly turns to a parodoxical mix of attempted low brow humor and hidden high society roots. I have read the words, in great majority, calling for the reinstatement of this article, and here I add mine, even though I left the site, even though I would rather practice corporal mortification than work with the current editorial administration, no one can take the site away from its millions of patrons, nor can they take away what it was, and what it may again be in the future. Carlin

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability per WP:BIO provided despite assertions of notability. Proto::► 11:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kelly (journalist)[edit]

Non-notable journalist; all the external links are trivial references only (articles under his byline, directory entries, etc.) and so fail WP:N. The talk page claims he was a guest on The Late Late Show where he debated Richard Dawkins, but that show is viewable online and shows Gerard Casey (philosopher) as the guest who debates Dawkins. From the unsourced detail about his early life, the creation by a single purpose account and the similar shenanigans on the related The Irish Catholic article, I suspect a WP:COI. Demiurge 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom, and it doesn't seem like he did anything important--SUIT 19:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 20:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well-stated nom. Dar-Ape 20:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a competent journalist doing what he's paid to do. Not notable.Glendoremus 21:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, columnist for a well-established newspaper. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Fang Aili ^talk 05:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Expand as he is a columnist for a established newspaper. DoDoBirds 12:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC) — DoDoBirds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - The article makes an undocumented claim that he is a columnist but the article goes on to say that he is a staffer who contributes to a column--that does not necessarily make him a columnist. The article does not make a good (documented) case for his notabilty.Glendoremus 18:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Expand as he is a columnist for a established newspaper. — Hotandspicy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Prolog 09:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And the fact(?) that he's a columnist for an established newspaper does not, in itself make him notable, however notable the newspaper may be; notability must be 'earned', it doesn't rub off something else. Emeraude 14:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep In a sense it does, because well known newspapers pay for notable content. It's like knowing which publisher published a book.Not definitive, but it helps. DGG 06:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be suitably notable in Ireland, which means he's notable enough. Moscatanix 15:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough ion catholic circles Alf photoman 20:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no non-trivial mentions of him in independent sources, though he fails WP:BIO TSO1D 22:44, 2 January 2007
Keep, writes for a well-established and popular paper in Ireland, has numerous independent references —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.203.57.176 (talk • contribs).
- Comment When I saw this listed on Articles for Deletion I was terrified that somebody had nominated Michael Kelly, the late editor of The Atlantic who died in Iraq, for deletion. I see that the Michael Kelly I thought of was Michael Kelly (editor). If the Irish Michael Kelly stays, the page needs to be relabeled or at least have a If you searched for the American Journalist Michael Kelly heading atop his article. Michael Kelly (editor) is a journalist, and as a former columnist for The Washington Post and the former editor of two major American magazines, it's not hyperbole to say he's a dramatically better known journalist.--JayHenry 18:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable journalist. If anyone wants to add some of these references that got mentioned I could be persuaded to change my mind. One Night In Hackney 18:09, 5 January 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 all. Wikipedia policy on reliably sourcing our articles trumps "I quite like it". Proto::► 11:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longmont Potion Castle[edit]

Looks like a vanity article and reeks of WP:OR. The only reference used is a "webzine article" which is actually part of a no-name band's website. Delete. Tijuana Brass 08:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this AfD really should include the article's spin offs, which are Longmont Potion Castle (album), Longmont Potion Castle 2, Longmont Potion Castle 3, Longmont Potion Castle 4, Longmont Potion Castle 5, The Best of Longmont Potion Castle and Longbox Option Package. All are albums made by the subject. Tijuana Brass 08:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. MER-C 09:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it vanity? For whom that is? implying that the artist himself wrote the entry? I find that highly unlikely, it may seem vanity but according to his forum he has some 600 odd registered members, and I draw the conclusion he has a much larger fanbase, and not only domestic but foreign as well (I for one am residing in Iceland and fans of his I know here reach perhaps triple digits.

And perhaps the sources are scarce due to the fact the artist strives to keep a low profile outside his published work.

Still, I have just finished registering to Wikipedia and if I am in any way misunderstanding the rules then I apologize.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DagurKGJ (talk • contribs)

The most likely culprit to delete this article is probably the dude himself. :P I say leave the page.
Redlamp 19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination Lacks multiple independent sources such as newspaper reviews or performer or of albums, or demonstration of high sales figures for albums. Reverted article to previous version with AfD template, which was removed by Redlamp. Edison 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a real artist and I have a few of his albums. The description of his prank calls is relatively accurate. It gives a good account of what he does and what it sounds like without, of course, giving too much away. If you do ever get your hands on some, check out "Rope". -->Chemical Halo 21:52, 4 January 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 as failing Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. No problems with the article being created at a later date if reliably referenced. Proto::► 12:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Phillipson[edit]

No independent verifiable reliable sources provided to back this up, as needed per WP:V and WP:RS. Suggest deletion unless sources can be provided that conform to these policies.

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure obsessional OCD, which overlaps this article's content. -- The Anome 20:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. Looks like he may be notable though, so if just one thing crops up IMO we should keep. Akihabara 15:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless external reliable sources are cvited by end of this AfD Alf photoman 20:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Alf photoman. Paxsimius 05:00, 7 January 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 leave it to the experts to decide if a redirect to Giacomo Marini is appropriate. Proto::► 12:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marini Investments[edit]

Article does not assert notability. Does not meet WP:CORP guidelines for notability. Glendoremus 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible original research, as the article is unsourced, nor does it seem notable. –The Great Llama^{sign here} 22:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 09:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. No assertions of notability to be found from the 113 Google hits (altogether) either. Prolog 09:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jyothisingh 13:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as firm that founded NASDAQ-traded companies (but needs sourcing). Tarinth 16:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think you might be confusing Marini the person and Marini the company. Marini the person co-founded Logitech and there is a separate article about him. Marini Investments company hasn't founded any companies that I can see and those that it has invested in are all privately held, not Nasdaq listed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glendoremus (talk • contribs) 19:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - You're right. I was misled by the article's wording (I'll edit it in a moment to make it clearer). Still, if someone has such a distinguished and notable history, it seems reasonable that there could be an article for his new company or investment fund; and it is also worth noticing that the investment company has a stake in some other notable companies. Tarinth 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paxsimius 05:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is nothing here that isn't already in the Giacomo Marini article. Would need massive re-write, which doesn't seem possible from what i saw in the few ghits I scanned. SkierRMH,00:36, 8 January 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Higgins (rock climber)[edit]

Nominated for deletion by PWdiamond with reason: "This article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. Please research WP:BIO for more information." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral, although I should point out that this is a conversion from an uncontested, expired, prod to an AfD by the original prod nominator - It may just be a misunderstanding of the process on PWdiamond's part. Tevildo 21:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had not heard of this guy before having only a slight interest in climbing and that mainly in UK. It seems to me that his climbs and his writing on climbing do make him notable. Perhaps not quite up to the notability of Joe Brown (climber) or Don Whillans but notable nevertheless. However, the article does need cleaning up. --Bduke 23:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assuming good faith on the print-book references, seems like he's a notable figure in his sport. Tarinth 13:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough to me, and he is mentioned on the Bob Kamps page as a climbing partner. Agreed that some clean-up is needed, but otherwise a good article. Emeraude 14:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a USA climber. Higgins is noteworthy, but yes, the article needs to be wikified. I'll help (just not tonight, dear, I have a headache). Ratagonia 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this rock climber is notable and many verifiable sources are listed too Yuckfoo 03:34, 7 January 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. Proto::► 12:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Mor[edit]

No justification of notability, failure of WP:PORNBIO. Beaker342 21:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. Not even a gesture was made towards establishing notability. janejellyroll 05:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 09:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jyothisingh 13:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of women endowed with huge breasts ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete big tits alone is not enough to be noted Alf photoman 20:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the many obscure articles here, I don't see why there'd be desire to delete someone like this out. She's got a commercial website, so people might independantly find her name, then perhaps come here to see if there's more info. What's the harm in it staying? And for that matter, why shouldn't the site contain a directory of "big bust models and performers" (the definition of either of those terms being sketchy of course) when that is, let's face it, likely to be of interest to a fair number of people. It's the Information Age after all... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.180 (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nomination. There is plenty of info on obscure adult models elsewhere. Jlricherson 01:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's got big tits and a website. Who cares? Paxsimius 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails PORNBIO really huge time SkierRMH,00:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per invalid/nonsense arguments from unsigned participant. Ohconfucius 04:08, 8 January 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 a7, course at one college, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social and Organisational Issues in Computing[edit]

WHAT. Flowerykewlstuffz123 08:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, it's best if you elaborate a bit more -- why in particular do you feel the page should be deleted? Luna Santin 08:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a university course directory? Flowerykewlstuffz123 08:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah-so. Delete. WP:NOT a class catalog (or indiscriminate list of information). Don't see anything to establish notability of this particular class. Not sure how I missed that, at first glance; may be a speedy closure, here, but we'll see. Luna Santin 08:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unremarkable university course. Zero encyclopedic notability whatsoever. MER-C 08:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Speedy closure and Deletion Can't verify its notability, it seems to fail WP:NOT Navou ^talk 09:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:N. Prolog 09:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT and not really notable. Jayden54 13:43, 2 January 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. Proto::► 12:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimatum (band)[edit]

Judging from the article, this band appears to fail WP:MUSIC: no substantial independent coverage by reliable sources is cited, and there are no other clear indicators of notability. Sandstein 08:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence from reliable sources of passing WP:MUSIC. MER-C 09:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some notability is claimed in the article, but nothing to back it up, so at the moment the band doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Jayden54 13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are now some WP:ILIKEIT-type "keep" opinions on the article talk page. Sandstein 08:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've never heard of this band, but at least asserts notability in the sense that they were the first vegan straight edge band in Austrailia. Straight Edge (and is sub-subgenre vegan straight edge) are legitimate notable music styles.--Velvet elvis81 17:21, 6 January 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 Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auburndale Elementary School[edit]

Elementary school???? Come ON... Flowerykewlstuffz123 09:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator I need more clarification on why you feel this article should be deleted. Navou ^talk 09:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend Keep This article shows promise. Does the school have any sports teams, and notable history, etc? This article could be fleshed out, more of a could than a might. Navou ^talk 09:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does it show promise? It basically just says that the school exists. TJ Spyke 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why is this even being considered? The proposer has had vandlism activity in the past, and this is the second time he proposed a random deletion to the same article, even after being told to give a reason. Floria L 11:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although this is maybe a bad faith nom (according to the comments above), I don't see why we need an article on this school. Is there any notable about it? I did a few Google searches and found nothing noteworthy. Jayden54 13:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local elementary school that fails to meet any of the guidelines in Wikipedia:Schools. Emeraude 14:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of what the nominator has done, this school is about as non-notable as possible, and the article basically just says that the school exists. TJ Spyke 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable elementary school. Nlsanand 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Resolute 00:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason given for deletion. Greg Grahame 02:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What would your !vote be if someone nominated the article for deletion with the reasoning "encyclopedically insignificant school that fails all notability standards"? -- Kicking222 21:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: More of a discussion, less of a vote. :P Navou ^talk 21:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Follow-Up What I meant to convey, I feel we need more reasons/debate/discussion, and less "votes" all around. I don't think I was clear in my above comment, upon review, it looked snide, did not want it to appear so. :) Navou ^talk 22:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my above reasoning. -- Kicking222 21:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Miami-Dade County Public Schools. School does not demonstrate notability to WP:SCHOOLS, and whatever little content exists should be merged and the article redirected to the school district. Alansohn 05:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems non-notable, does nothing to assert notability - why isn't this a speedy? Guettarda 05:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Alansohn. bbx 07:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/REdirect per Alansohn. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 15:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to the district page makes the most sense to do Yuckfoo 03:39, 7 January 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 (default to keep). I never close as no consensus, but it really is appropriate here. I suggest that careful attention is paid to going through the article and pruning any unreferenced information as per WP:BLP, and only adding information back into the article when reliable sourcing can be obtained. If it is found that sufficient referenced assertion of notability cannot be found, then resubmitting the article to AFD would be appropriate. Proto::► 12:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further note - I have removed all unsourced info from the article to ensure WP:BLP can now be adhered to. Proto::► 12:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Bornmann[edit]

nn political consultant. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: might be notable, but current page reads like WP:AUTO and WP:VAIN, so it would be no great loss. - Jmabel | Talk 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page history, there are disputed allegations that have (properly) been removed under WP:BLP. Redirect to BC Legislature Raids, as it seems to be undisputed that he is involved in this affair as a prosecution witness[22]. Demiurge 19:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We shouldn't redirect to a page if there is no mention of the redirected title on that page. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He probably should be mentioned on that page though, seeing as how he's the prosecution's "star witness". Demiurge 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - And looking at the history again, he was indeed mentioned in previous versions e.g. [23] Demiurge 20:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'd be happy to delete the article, at least for the time being.~~ All of his notability, such as it is, seems to come from the Legislature incidents. ~~The nature of his involvement is unclear for now and pretty hard to discuss because of BLP.~~ The current version, edited largely by disposable accounts, is problematic as JMabel pointed out. Perhaps there could be an article here when the dust settles on the Legislature raids. ~~If the consensus is for a merge rather than delete, I'm fine with that.~~ --JGGardiner 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought about it for a while, I am no longer certain that I am happy with all of my original comments (i.e. "vote"). I'll leave the rest however. Thanks to the editors below, I now see that there may be more to this than I had realized earlier. --JGGardiner 11:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Bornmann is certainly notable for his involvement in the Liberal Party in BC, the public relations industry in BC and the Paul Martin Liberal Leadership Campaign. However it is obvious that this page was first created by persons interested posting libelous information about Bornmann with a clear view to discrediting him in advance of the criminal trial where he is expected to testify on behalf of the Crown. The continuous and malicious posts of one or two posters has compelled a number of us to return to this page on a regular basis to make corrections. At this point it is fruitless to debate who started deleting what first, but it is safe to say that the ensuing discourse has very much resembled that seen on many other pages profiling politically active persons. While others may have different ideas I suggest that the neutral Bornmann page, which was locked for editting by a previous Admin in the spring, be reposted and again locked for editting (maybe until after the trial) or that the page be deleted. rascalpatrol 21:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like egotistical, shameless self promotion to me. GreenJoe 06:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom and above. Just some articling student in Toronto who's one of many non-notable political activists. Agent 86 19:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Change to Keep, see below Agent 86 07:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BC Legislature Raids; add one or two lines about him in there if he isn't already mentioned. Bearcat 23:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable vanity. The only notable political intern I can think of is Monica Lewinsky. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. No point throwing away the work done so far, as a neutral article will likely emerge after the dust settles. Kla'quot 05:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or redirect per Bearcat. Fishhead64 00:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There have been some really inappropriate posts on this site. This is really unfortunate, but until a more neutral post is agreed upon, the site should be removed Titus Pollo 18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I previously closed this debate as Redirect to BC Legislature Raids. However, an editor who I assume wants to vote keep was blocked during the debate, and to avoid the appearance of trying to rig the system, I am allowing him to make his statement, and extending debate. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 09:15Z

Delete I see no value in this entry until this person and his testimony shows significant importance and usefulness in relation to the other convicting evidence. User:The Teacher 101 18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both "The Teacher 101" and "Titus Pollo" have only contributed to this page and have no other presence in Wikipedia. This is typical of the manipulation of information by SPAs which has plagued the Bornmann page. I have been trying to shorten my vote/statement as it's fairly lengthy but may just post it in its entirety, as it explores the misleading and false claims made by such SPAs in the history of this page, and I do not put it past other supporters of Mr. Bornmann to create Wiki accounts to vote in this process and for no other reason, as The Teacher 101 and Titus Pollo have done. Such votes should be discounted as irrelevant. Deletion would only serve the interests of those who wish to conceal the record of information manipulation and censorship by covering-up their activities in undermining Wikipedia's integrity and content by systemic vandalism and POV opinionating.Skookum1 20:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment It's worth mentioning that the political party Mr. Bornmann belongs to is well-known for bulk membership drives in order to advance candidacies and otherwise manipulate party democratic processes. That they would seek to do the same on Wikipedia - signing up new members in order to influence a vote (see towards the end of [24]- comes as no surprise to me at all.Skookum1 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Restore, and Protect This article’s uncensored, un-neutralized comments constituted valid encyclopedia content regarding an important current legal case and political scandal which is in the news on a regular basis. I feel the suggestions to delete are redirect are based in the manipulated, "neutralized" content (to use rascalpatrol’s term) of its current status. I also feel rascalpatrol’s post above is manipulative and deceptive, as the materials he and others deleted from the page were not "libelous" but are immune from defamation proceedings by dint of being from public documents (police reports/press releases, court documents, news copy) (see [[25]]).

Issues of core wiki principles – non-censorship and freedom of speech as well as civility and other principals linked/appended below – should be critical in deliberating the value and survival of this article and those connected to it. It is not incidental that the "neutralizing" camp here has counterparts on BC Legislature Raids who regularly work to keep Mr. Bornmann’s name from that article as well, or indeed any significant and already well-publicized and well-documented details currently made vague or left out entirely, as well as entirely valid media links and cites which were deleted by the Bornmann faction (on the basis that, in one case, the author belonged to a different political party). The allegation that occurs repeatedly in Talk:Erik Bornmann and in edit histories of that page and its article is that a concerted effort is being made to discredit Mr. Bornmann, which is entirely unfounded, as are the allegations by his supporters/promoters in the talk page that those attempting to add relevant materials are in league with “those criminaly charged” (sic), when in the course of posts on the talkpage rascalpatrol (now deleted, or hidden in deleted materials) describe themslves as a group of people who are actively seeking to patrol and “neutralize” the article. There is a fine line between neutralization and censorship, but "neutralization" as used by rascalpatrol et al. means nothing like what WP:NPOV is supposed to mean in Wiki; WP:BLP can be observed so long as only materials in police documents, court evidence etc or concerning the public interest are what’s there.

To delete this article on the grounds that it (currently) contains nothing worthwhile would be to unwittingly collaborate with a campaign of active and admitted censorship of material that, although unbeknownst to you outside of BC, concerns the public interest and is not a personal matter as rascalpatrol and others maintain that it is. Redirecting it to BC Legislature Raids is currently a non-starter partly because that article has also been persistently "neutralized" (as rascalpatrol puts it) by supporters of Mr. Bornmann, and also because each of the principal players in the case will (eventually) have as detailed an account here as well.. Admittedly Mr. Bornmann is and was not an elected official as with other political bios, but he is still a prominent party supporter/activist as well as a corporate lobbyist involved with the sale of public assets and with companies doing business with the government – and the sale of assets in question (the Crown-owned BC Rail was eventually sold to American-owned Canadian National Railways, not Mr. Bormann's client OmniTRAX) was and is a highly controversial sale the debate over which is still on the public agenda. Mr. Bornmann is a public figure whether he wants to be or not!! Backroom politics is still politics. Other lobbyists and party organizers in the US and Canada and other countries have valid Wiki articles that have not (always) been so "massaged" and worked-over.

The entire scandal is also framed by mounting allegations of a cover-up. The mutilation of the Bornmann article which has resulted in the circumstance of this AFD has greater consequences which should be considered in this light: i.e. deletion would be an unwitting cooperation with politically partisan cover-up efforts and "information washing" as much as tolerating the existing "neutralized" version of the page. It is not only Mr. Bornmann’s reputation that’s at stake here, it’s a matter of the public record and of civil democracy. Only POV material on Mr. Bornmann should be deleted (including the flummery that’s there now) - but NPOV citable material should be restored, and protected. Rascalpatrol and his allies also repeatedly and falsely alleged I am a returnee from previous edit wars on the page [26] [27] and have throughout the history of the page deleted talkpage comments by their opponents (including the section linked in the second reference just previous, which was a bulk deletion by Randy3 with the PAIN comment "a mind is an awful thing to loose" (sic), and this deletion was discussed approvingly and further disparaging comments made by Randy3, another Bornmann supporter or "patroller" like rascalpatrol and SaintNickIX and JGGardiner) claiming that I am just a returned former opponent in the page (along with another disparaging comment), which is quite ridiculous and can be proven by an examination of my User Contributions as to the date I first edited the article, and admins could confirm that my IP address has not contributed to that article under any other alias. You'd think from my writing style they'd know that's not the case!

NB: Deletion of this article will result in destruction of the edit history, which documents what constitutes a history of active and deliberate censorship, media muzzling and cover-up of the broader scandal surrounding the subject of this article by accomplices and allies of same – the story of the cover-up is itself becoming part of the Ledgegate scandal, and the attempts to censor this and related webpages can only be seen as part of that cover-up. Any deletion will, in effect, serve as part of the cover-up effort every bit as much as the euhemerization and bowdlerization of this article’s contents to its current state of flummery and irrelevance. The repeated deletions of any newscopy related to the case and their replacement by Mr. Bornmanns’ personal photo gallery speaks volumes as to the priorities and ethics of those who have been “patrolling” and “neutralizing” this page. Sections from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not are quoted and linked below, as it seems the SPAs involved in this case are unfamiliar with how Wiki works, and what’s expected of its contributors, and also what’s not appreciated/wanted.Skookum1 21:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet.
[Wikipedia is not censored]
Wikipedia is not a battleground Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If a user acts uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly, or intimidatingly toward you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same in retaliation. Either respond solely to the factual points brought forward and ignore its objectionable flavoring, or ignore the relevant message entirely.
Wikipedia is not a democracy Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding.

Delete Skookum1 should also be aware that wikipedia is not a soap box or news blog. The problem with many of the posts to this site, including those of Skookum1, is that they are simply incorrect. Many have been libelous. Sourcing to political blogs is NOT verification. As for whether Skookum is a person with an interest in the BC Rail criminal trial, the length and tone of his contribution above speaks for itself. Wikipedia should not be a forum for parties embroiled in a criminal trial. Delete this page with no redirect. --Omar Jack 00:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:Omar Jack's only contribution to Wikipedia has been to this review and could possibly be a sock puppet. Mkdw ^talk 06:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Omar Jack is yet another SPA who has only "worked on" (vandalized) Erik Bornmann as well as Talk:Erik Bornmann; he has a total of six edits in Wikipedia only, including the above "vote". I am not soapboxing - I am standing up for genuinely NPOV principles and for "the right of the the public to know"; I do not have a partisan affiliation, unlike the SPAs who have perpetrated this fiasco, and only intervened in the interests of fairness and open information because of my interest in fully covering BC political history in Wikipedia, as part of my extensive contributions in history, geography, and biography as well as in many other areas of interest - I have over 12,000 edits in Wikipedia and entire and extensive bodies of infrastructure/topic content are due to my participation. Omar Jack, rascalpatrol et al. have done nothing to contribute to Wikipedia other than violating several of the above-cited Wikipedia principles. This is not a partisan cause; it is a case involving open democracy and freedom of information, being painted by those seeking to conceal it as if it were simply a personal matter, and they regularly denounce anyone disagreeing with them with "soapboxing" and worse. The insinuation in Omar Jack's post above that "I am a person with an interest in the BC Rail trial", as if I were another principal or player in the case, is outrageous, as even more is Wikipedia should not be a forum for parties embroiled in a criminal trial - these are clear examples the WP:PAIN this cadre have perpetrated in the article's talk page and thoughout the edit comments of the article. It also makes a mockery of their various allegations that those seeking to present a complete article are indulging in slander and libel, as Omar Jack's comments clearly fall into that category (since I am not a party "embroiled in a criminal trial". Why should a citizen not be interested in the suspect sale of BC Rail and the police reports which document Mr. Bornmann's own admitted attempt to influence it on behalf of OmniTRAX? I am not a person "of interest" as Omar Jack implies (without directly saying so): I am citizen wanting the public record concerning these events, of which Wikipedia is a part, to be full and complete. That's not soapboxing or blogging; it's principle.Skookum1 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please make the article visible so others can comment. DGG 06:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would require a fair bit of editing, as there were several rounds of deletions of valid material. I tried to sum them up in my post of December 28, but the re-additions were immediately deleted by Randy3 (the link goes to the comparison of my post with his deletions of it). Read through it for a summary; I think towards the bottom I also made a point of putting in material "they" had deleted from the main article, but I didn't "mine" its edit history it as thoroughly as I had that of the talkpage.Skookum1 07:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines as this person is a former political representative to one of the main political parties in Canada and also has been interviewed and written about by the public media. See: CBC National News: Eric Bornmann] article. Also, in a search for Erik Bornmann on the Globe and Mail online site, quoted:
VICTORIA -- The two men at the centre of one of the most riveting events in British Columbia's political history say they will be acquitted of all charges stemming from a raid on the provincial legislature that took place three years ago next week.
Which would mean even though he is of a non-notable position per nomination, he is historically notable, thus making the nomination and all the objections that said per nom, void. I do believe that elminates most of them. Mkdw ^talk 06:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed from "delete", above). It appears that I may not have been reading the "full" article when I first commented, and there's a lot of smoke at the article's talk page (which, disturbingly, has been deleted). If it had been apparent that this person is connected to the legislature raids, and was included in non-trivial press coverage, I doubt I'd have been so dismissive of the article. POV issues alone aren't reason for deletion - it is possible to stick to the facts. At least one Canadian Press [28] article is able to do so: "Bornmann is alleged to have paid almost $30,000 to three B.C. government officials in exchange for government information and is a key witness at an upcoming trial that flows from a raid on the B.C. legislature." This was picked up in numerous publications and media outlets[29], as were older reports[30][31]. This person is referred to as a "star witness" in this Globe and Mail report[32]. The subject of this article certainly meets WP:BIO. Agent 86 07:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note: the news quote you have provided is exactly the kind of material that rascalpatrol, Randy3, SaintNickIX, JGGardiner and others have consistently deleted and branded "slanderous", "libellous", "invalid" and so on; such material has been removed from the main article repeatedly, as well as from the talkpage (also repeatedly). Skookum1 07:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I think that you have me confused with someone else. The only thing that I removed from the article was one POV adjective ("ruthless") and a couple of self-serving and trivial details about Bornmann's life (the specifics of his university degrees, his service with youth groups and the army cadets, etc.) and some very general links. --JGGardiner 09:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I just looked through the edit history and you are in the right, and appear to have been a (rare) voice of moderation there as well as a boast-reducer on the article; I guess I was misled by your apparent chumminess with your remark on User talk:rascalpatrol and your apparent tolerance of the excessive deletions of material from the talkpage, and so associated you with that "camp" (partly because your edit contributions are generally about notable federal politicians....) even though I see you admonished other posters about their conduct (and were of course ignored). By the way, I have Alexander Mackenzie on my watchlist as well and saw your recent comment about whether he's a Rt. Hon. or an Hon. Didn't know the thing abou the Imperial P.C. being how you got that - I think in latter-day Canadian convention, post-Statutes of Westminster, perhaps post-1982 Constitution, the convention is that the Prime Minister is automatically a Rt. Hon.; or maybe that's just a popular misconception/misusage perpetrated in the press as well as curriculum. Not sure about that, just a guess.Skookum1 09:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article is missing content (check here for some that is available on a quick search), these sources make it pretty clear he meets notability guidelines. Clearly with a living person, particularly one whose testimony is pending in court, we have to be careful of what goes in the article, but there is content that can and should be added. KenWalker | Talk 07:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just an FYI that I reported suspected sockpuppetry related to this case, including some of the users above. See here if you want to see details, but just keep in mind that some users may be posing as more than one users here. Bobanny 17:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even this discussion is so over the top mean-spirited and abusive. My user name is now listed as a "sock puppet"??? You are right, I have never written an article on wikipedia. I didn't realize that means I am not allowed to have an opinion and/or speak out on an issue that is compelling. If there is some doubt to my authenticity, I would be happy to communicate directly with the administrators as they have my name and contact information from my account. I think it is very clear that some of the collaborators here have an axe to grind and are not capable of writing a legitimate, neutral article. Titus Pollo 18:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article is not visible, and there is clearly the possibility that it is notable, I say keep, if only because I do not think a truly not notable person would have been able to have so much comment. DGG 19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is impossible for us to put together a neutral page. Rather than picking between the he said and she said this matter should be left to the mainstream press until the end of the trial. It is almost impossible to distinguish fact from opinion and self-promotion. I don't think the redirect is required at this point either. Rick_H 12:10, 4 January 2007— Rick_H (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

'It's impossible'? I recommend you view other controversal on-going current events on Wikipedia such as Israel and Saddam Hussein. Make it a current event and report the facts. The facts right now are that he and his brother are being charged by the BC Supreme Court for 6 counts of fraud, etc. etc. That's all you have to report and the details that have led to those allegations. What would not be neutral is if you said, 'he is innocent or guilty' but the articles doesn't say that now does it? Langara College 05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment We don't need to wait for a trial to establish what facts are already reported by reliable sources. It is a fact that this person is named as a key witness in a notable trial. It is a fact that a search warrant was issued for the office of this person. There is nothing "impossible" about stating the facts without editorializing. Coverage in The Globe and Mail, the CBC, and CTV, among others, certainly meets WP:BIO and WP:RS. I now see that The Georgia Straight has also covered this person.[33] Agent 86 20:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "Bornmann lobby" position on that article is that because it was written by an NDPer, it's inadmissible, which is of course just plain silly. It's one of the newslinks that were repeatedly deleted from the Bornmann page, and also from the Ledgegate page (and, I think, the Mark Marissen page, which has similarly been "neutralized"). Skookum1 20:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rick_H is yet another brand-new account with only one post to this page only. I suggest that you and Titus Pollo acquaint yourself with how Wikipedia works, and its various guidelines and policies, before lecturing us further on what qualifies a Wiki article's existence. And maybe spend some time making some actual contributions, instead of just creating "memberships" to vote on this AFD and for no other reason. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is Not and read it in its entirety.Skookum1 20:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Everybody makes a first post sometime. I would suggest that Wikipedia would not be so successful if everyone that posted for the first time was attacked as I have been. If you disagree with me, just say so. I think my post is rather uncontroversial, especially for this article. BTW, the fact that the Georgia Straight has covered the issue is indicative of how much of a partisan issue this is. The Straight has a political bias , which is obivious to anyone who reads the paper or its Wikipedia entry.Rick_H 15:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I do not think "Skookum1" will be happy until we have a page dedicated to Skookum1's understanding of Erik Bornman and other matters. Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy of this user lecturing this discussion on the inappropriateness of using wikipedia as a battleground? I post on this page because it appears the only way to deal with the high volume of FALSE and OPINION information routinely added by a very small number of posters (Skookum1 included). I'm not sure about this sockpuppet thing, but I can assure you that I am my own person and these are certainly my views. --Omar Jack 00:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As much as I'm tempted to not reply, given the absurdity of your counter-allegations, but speaking of "false" your allegation/insinuation above that I am one of the charged in the trial in question is very offensive and utterly false. It is not even opinion, it is cant and typical of the paranoid behaviour of the Bornmannite faction on the article's talkpage and in its edit history comments. It is also clear from the response of the other Wikipedians above that I am not the only one who wants to see this article dealt with properly, instead of shuffled off into the dustbin as you want it to be. You're not saving face at this point, you're embarrassing yourself. This is really getting tiresome; I'm not the first regular Wikipedian to work on this page, just the first to not give up when it became very evident that a "very small number of posters" (yourself included) have been attacking anyone who dares disagree with your version of what the article's content should be. Please see Wikipedia:Don't be evil Skookum1 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Any discussion not having to do with the merits of deletion or retention should be taken to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Erik Bornmann. Agent 86 00:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Skookum1, don't you realize that you have been "attacking anyone who dares disagree with your version of what the article's content should be." You don't seem to understand that statements that are pure opinion or false do not belong on this site. Further, you seem to have trouble understanding wikipedia's policy on bias. Political bias in paticular. --Omar Jack 02:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My two cents: the fact that "Skookum1" wrote "It's worth mentioning that the political party Mr. Bornmann belongs to is well-known for bulk membership drives in order to advance candidacies and otherwise manipulate party democratic processes." just shows how partisan his intent is. This is the Liberal Party we're talking about, not some obscure anti-democratic entity. Clearly the entry/profile of this one organizer is being used to tar the Liberal party and tie it to scandal rather than provide insight on relevant issues. The fact that after three years there are no entries for anyone else involved in this raid - including the people acutally charged - highlights the fact that this whole entry should be scrapped. People shouldn't use Wikipedia to advance their political interests. - TomPettyFan 02:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not some anti-Liberal scandal. It's an event in BC Politics worth writing about and the facts are in. He was charged and convicted. One could even say 'it's a liberal plot to hide their negative political history', which its neither, so please, leave your conspiracy theories at home. Langara College 04:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Langara College, he wasn't charged, and nobody's been convicted yet. But other than that, you're right about the scandal (and its players, including EB) being worth writing about "and the facts are in". Not all of them, but enough for now....Skookum1 21:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Jammy Simpson | Talk | 15:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? Are you serious? The Globe and Mail as quoted above says, "..at the centre of one of the most riveting events in British Columbia's political history...". Oh PS The Globe and Mail is Canada's most widely read newspaper. Langara College 03:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously notable. Langara College 03:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable subject. Significant additional sourcing has been done since the initiation of this debate. Risker 07:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm a regular at this page. The back and forth is silly. Though I'm inclined to vote Keep, because the topic is as relevant as many other wikipedia bios, there is almost no way of verifying most, if not all, of what is written. The continued use of newspaper columns and blogs as sources is unacceptable. Until we have something conrete the page should go. --Randy3 05:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)— Randy3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep -- Umm.. newspaper reports are reliable sources. CBC, CTV, Canadian Press, Globe and Mail -- all the major new outlets in the country have covered this story, 782 google hits can't be wrong. Bobanny 07:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Umm.. google hits??? an indication of truthfulness??? where/did you go to school? This is an encyclopedia, not a a newspaper. --Randy3 11:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you're new here Randy but please mind the insults. And since you are unaware, a lot of editors use a so-called "google test" as a measure of notability. --JGGardiner 11:16, 8 January 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 John254 17:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball metaphors for sex[edit]

This article is about neologisms. WP:NEO states that, for all articles about neologisms, all article claims must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. Moreover, per the section "Reliable sources for neologism" mentioned, To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. This article contains no references whatsoever and indication on the talk page is that authors feel articles about colloquiallism do not need to be cited. Therefore, and "even though there may be many examples of the term in use", this article must be deleted per WP:NEO and any pertinent content that could be cited that uses but is not about the article's colloquialisms placed into Human sexual behavior. CyberAnth 09:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see no reason to have this deleted.--Borgarde 09:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion Rationale is sound, however, perhaps we should allow the ariticle more time to generate cites. Seems like a good article. Recommend Keep Navou ^talk 09:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment about potential for refs - No major database at my major University produces articles about the metaphor. Google scholar produces nothing. Google produces nothing but articles (e.g.,this one from the Washington Post) in which the metaphors are used as colloquialisms. No source is about the neologisms as such. CyberAnth 09:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See no reason why this article should be deleted. Baseball metaphors for sex are an important part of English language culture in North America and Wikipedia needs an article on that. Canjth 13:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the nomination cites an invalid reason, i.e., that this is an article about a neologism (which it isn't). Tarinth 13:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is not a neologism and therefore WP:NEO does not apply here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely, this is a part of the American culture, and clearly notable. Moscatanix 15:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"First base", "Second base", "Third base", "Home run" - what these represent in the article are neologisms. "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term"..."even though there may be many examples of the term in use". All of the cited references in the article merely use the terms as colloquialisms. That is insufficient to establish notability for its own article. Send Baseball metaphors for sex through a little test. Ask, Is there a similarly titled secondary source article or book chapter? If not, then this article must go. Wikipedia should never be the first place an article appears about a neologism or set of neologisms. That is clearly Synthesis and OR.CyberAnth 23:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep and add back much of the removed content if it can be adequately sourced. TonyTheTiger 23:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - invalid nomination. Otto4711 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I heard about them in Seinfeld. :-) bogdan 22:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these terms are used far too commonly and for too long a period of time to be considered neologisms. Wikipedia needs this article for completeness. Johntex\^talk 04:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NEO does not apply. These are not neologisms. --- RockMFR 20:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the article continues to need improvement in both tone and citations to meet Wikipedia quality standards. The more recent edits have been a step in the right direction. WikkiTikkiTavi 15:32, 7 January 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. John254 17:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanilla sex[edit]

This article is about a neologism. WP:NEO states that, for all articles about neologisms, all article claims must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. Moreover, per the section "Reliable sources for neologism" mentioned, To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. This article contains no references whatsoever and no indication based upon searches at a major University's databases, Google Scholar, or Google indicates that articles or books exist about the neologism as such. Therefore, and "even though there may be many examples of the term in use", this article must be deleted per WP:NEO and any pertinent content that could be cited that uses but is not about the article's colloquialisms placed into Homosexuality. CyberAnth 10:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio from here. The term could probably have an article about it since it's been around long enough that it's not really a neologism any more but obviously not with this text. Otto4711 13:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Keep per demonstration that it's not a copyvio. Otto4711 20:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that really a copyvio or a fork of Wikipedia? Tarinth
Rename to Conventional sex which seems like a reasonable article topic, stubify and redirect this article to there. The term itself doesn't appear to be a neologism in widespread use. Keep Changing my mind, I think some people here have demonstrated that this is a valid encyclopedic topic, and no better name than the current article's title has been put forth. Tarinth 17:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid sexual topic. Sourcing sexual topics is always difficult since you wont find articles about it in the New York Times or Time (magazine). Sex is taboo even here in Wikipedia, which is probably why there is a current campaign to delete the sexual stub articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard, I agree with your reasoning. I'm just suggesting that the title of the article may be more of a neologism, and a broader name might be more accurate. Tarinth 18:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tarinth. And I agree with you. Either on is fine with a redirect to the other. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - About the neologism thing, the term appeared as a song title on a 1989 album. Punkmorten 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a copyvio, the reported link [34] is not the source of this article, but the other way round. This is exemplified by (among others) this edit [35], where the last words of the alinea about the term were added separately (", in both sexual and non-sexual contexts."), but which is also present in the suggested link. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Cpt. Morgan. Squeezeweasel 18:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonably widespread term, certainly more so than the plethora of coprophilic sexual acts we have articles on, which repeatedly survive AFD. Fan-1967 19:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - renaming this to Conventional Sex will only change the grounds for deletion. "Conventional" asserts a POV. Also, sourcing sexual topics is always easy, if they are notable enough for their own article. CyberAnth 20:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seventy-nine Google News Archive results for "vanilla sex". I think you're deliberately not looking very hard, CyberAnth. --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And each of those are articles that merely use the term. Per WP:NEO, To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Like it or not, that is the criteria to make a neologism notable enough for its own article. CyberAnth 22:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, this seems to have more evidence of usage than at least half the items in Category:Sexual slang, many of which have survived AFD's on less. Fan-1967 22:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at Wanker which survived AfD. This is the first one I happened to look at. Here is its AfD page.

The nominator gave no rationale for its deletion but only listed it.
The discussion cited no policies, just votes apparently based on whether people were amused by it or not.
The admin User:JIP decided "Keep" but did not follow WP:N: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." Wanker has only one non-trivial published work cited. No blame to the admin, though, since no one even mentioned this glaring omission in the Afd discussion.

CyberAnth 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep It's used by numerous authors, columnists and writers and has become a valid part of the english language in my opinion. The only issue that remains is if this belongs here or wiktionary. Wintermut3 23:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of CanadianCaesar's "rules to live by" on his userpage is "Fuck morality, fuck notability, and fuck cleanup." CyberAnth 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely irrelavent tripe that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Tarinth 23:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fuck notability" - nothing to do with a "Keep" vote cast that is, at core, about notability? CyberAnth 00:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that is important are the arguments presented here, not something you saw on someone's User page and possibly taken out of context. Tarinth 15:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Non-notable neologism? I think not. I first heard the term nearly 20 years ago, so I doubt whether "neologism" stands up. As for "non notable", if it reached this far-flung corner of the English-speaking world it's fair to say that it is almost certainly in use in many countries. 68000 non-wiki ghits should be some kind of indication in itself. The term has been used widely in the media, too, by everyone from The New York Times to The Sydney Morning Herald to NPR. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not subjective. "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term", "even though there may be many examples of the term in use". That is the criteria for a neologism to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If you dislike this, you are free to write an article about the neologism and submit it for review and publication, or try to change WP:NEO. CyberAnth 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - When people stop writing about a neologism and just use the word, it's not a neologism anymore. Fan-1967 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with rename: It's a valid topic, but "vanilla sex" does not mean anything beyond "vanila" used figuratively and "sex". Conventional sex or a more precise clinical term would be an appropriate rename, with respect to worldwide view and usage among medical or other professionals. Peter Grey 16:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a well known term. In response to Peter Grey, Conventional sex would be a neologism. Malla nox 08:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also And vanilla sex violates

Comment - "A topic is notable if and only "if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." "The subject of" does not equal merely mentioned in. Right now, the cold hard facts mean the article does not meet that criteria. Note: Culling together sources that merely mention or use Vanilla sex as a colloquialism or slang term only asserts that the article is, in fact, Synthesis and Original Research. I suggest if you want to keep this article, you best expend your efforts finding sources where Vanilla sex *AS A SPECIFIC TERM* "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works with sources independent of the subject itself and each other." Notability is not subjective. Meeting notability per Wikipedia policies, and only that, is what will keep this article. - CyberAnth 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfelt plea - Please stop underlining stuff in your comments. It makes them hard to read. Otto4711 20:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep "vanilla sex" has been discussed at least by implication in essentially everything written about other flavors; the use is universal, and the content real. I remind Cyber that the verifiability has to be about the subject & what is said about the subject. The term merely has to be shown to be the standard term, and that is surely clear enough. WP is NOT wiktionary. DGG 06:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete "Vanilla Sex" is not in and of itself a topic or thing that can be talked about beyond mere definition. "Vanilla" is commonly used to describe something ordinary or boring, thus "vanilla sex" is just ordinary or boring sex. I can't see how something like that can ever move beyond the Dictionary stage (which I think is borne out by the article as it stands) and therefore is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Nothing in the article purports scholarly use or cites any sources--it's just a colloquialism for unexciting intercourse.--Velvet elvis81 07:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Uioh 18:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a couple of sources. One is a criticism of the term "Vanilla Sex". The other is from the British Medical Journal, whose use of the term adds weight to its credibility. Especially as the paper it comes from is dated 1997. 10 years makes a neologism just that little bit less "neo". Malla nox 20:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also added: related term Vanilla partner Malla nox 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable term. In use far too long to constitute a neologism. Should be kept for comprehensiveness of the Wikipedia. Johntex\^talk 04:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep bad faith nom. Artw 21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - another tiresome nom Albatross2147 00:11, 7 January 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. GRBerry 17:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cilantro Rodentatia[edit]

Non-Notable: Character from "Yet to be published" series of works GauntletWizard 10:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 12:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jayden54 13:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an otherwise non-notable character. According to WP:FICTION most characters should be included in the article on the book/fiction itself. Tarinth 18:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As speculation, since the books are not even published yet and there is no article for them then there should be none for a character that there is no information for. Darth griz⁹⁸ 20:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violation of WP:FICTION regarding characters' notability, this one don't even exist yet! SkierRMH,09:11, 8 January 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barabus TKR[edit]

Non-notable vapormobile; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barabus TKR. TomTheHand 11:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as repost. So tagged. MER-C 12:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's pretty clearly a new article on the same topic, so I don't think it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. TomTheHand 15:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, it's a rewrite so isn't really a G4. --Interiot 20:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep. I didn't create this article, but it's certainly notable - I just added 3 references. A quick Google search verifies this article is notable. The Chicago Sun-Times mentioned the Barabus TKR as the fastest car in the world, as did many automobile magazines and journals internationally.— Wackymacs 12:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The car does not exist. Please check out the previous AFD, where you can see more information. An unknown company brought a concept car to an auto show in July 2006, claimed it was the fastest car in the world, and then disappeared; their home page has been down since August. TomTheHand 12:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting. Maybe it warrants an article simply because it was a very successful hoax, then? — Wackymacs 13:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it was a hoax. I think it was a failed business venture that never actually produced anything. If we had reliable sources saying that it was a hoax I would probably consider that notable, depending on the circumstances. However, we shouldn't have articles on every failed attempt to build the best x in the world. TomTheHand 13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be fake, and not really notable as a hoax. Jayden54 13:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK I've changed my mind. Non-notable. — Wackymacs 15:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the concerns raised in the previous AfD have been addressed or have changed. The manufacturer is unknown, the car got no mainstream coverage while it was around, the car was supposed to have been released in November 2006, and the website has been down for many months. --Interiot 20:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my arguments on previous AFD. Philwelch 06:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Interiot. Dionyseus 08:16, 5 January 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, but source heavily and cleanup. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Amoeba[edit]

Non-notable, doesn't meet WP:CORP. Wackymacs 12:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article reads very much like an advertisement or an "about us" page, but setting aside those problems, the company doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. I found a few minor press mentions through Google News but nothing non-trivial or by a reliable source. Jayden54 13:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a quick search turns of numerous references, including reviews such as http://playlistmag.com/reviews/2005/03/airfoil/index.php ; appears to be a venerable (by software standards) and widely used application with plenty of readily-available sources. Tarinth 15:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK so you found 1 product review - but that doesn't mean the company is notable, see WP:CORP (that review would mean the product is notable, not the company). — Wackymacs 09:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CORP is too strict. Foobaz·o< 04:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote doesn't count - "too strict" isn't a valid reason. Please see WP:V as well, which this article fails to pass. — Wackymacs 07:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The hell it isn't valid. The guideline excludes just about anything that isn't a publically-traded megacorporation. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only the admin judging this deletion can decide whether or not my vote counts. Please note that WP:CORP is a guideline and not a policy. Also consider that the court systems of many countries allow defendants to challenge the validity of the law under which they are being prosecuted, so that cases can drive the evolution of law. Foobaz·o< 00:10, 5 January 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 Freetown & Lakeville Public Schools. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assawompsett Elementary School[edit]

Appears completely non-notable, even from a local perspective, and consists of near-total vandalism. Haemo 12:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unremarkable primary school. MER-C 13:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non notable school. Jayden54 13:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before the keep-all-schools bunnies arrive. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the uselessness of the article ("Nobody knows who still teaches there but there is some speculation." "It was built some time ago") this is a non-notable local elementary school that fails to meet any of the guidelines in Wikipedia:Schools. And the fact that "composer, musician Dan Gross attended" and the page was created by Dpgross rather kills it for me. Emeraude 14:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN school. TJ Spyke 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm the nominator, but I thought I might as well spell this out. If you delete material that is either NPOV, non-verifiable, or non-notable, you're left with "Assawompsett Elementary School is an elementary school in the town of Lakeville, Massachusetts." There are no references cited, and no external links. The article goes beyond being a stub - to the point of being more like a telephone directory entry. --Haemo 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- doubt anything notable will ever come of this. Twinxor t 22:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Freetown & Lakeville Public Schools. There's less and less in common between WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLS3, but one thing they both agree on is that schools such as this that do not meet notability criteria as independent articles be candidates for merge and redirection. This is a particularly non-notable article, and if I hadn't searched for and found a web page for it, I was guessing that it was a hoax. But, it does exist and should be redirected to the district article. Persistent refusal by the AfD regulars to consider and vote this as an option is becoming all the more disturbing. Alansohn 05:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it personally more disturbing that people are willing to merge articles where there is nothing to merge. The school is already mentioned in the school district (and the town) article. There is nothing else in the article we are discussing that is worth merging. This means we don't need to keep the history and don't need to keep the article. Fram 14:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article pretty much admits that the schools is non-notable. Guettarda 05:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing worth keeping or merging, non notable school. Fram 14:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its school district as suggested by Alansohn, per schools policies and competing guidelines. Verified as not a hoax. Nothing else needs to be merged. Barno 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no schools policies, there are only proposed an rather heavily disputed guidelines. You can of course support a redirect, but please don't use incorrect reasons. Fram 14:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incorrect?!?! There are two competing proposed policies for schools. Both suggest redirect. Please don't use incorrect reasons. Alansohn 15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, incorrect. They are proposed, so they are for the moment not "policies or guidelines". Furthermore, there is not much chance of them becoming a guideline, and there is completely no chance of them ever becoming a policy (not one notability guideline, not even the most used ones like WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO or WP:CORP, is a policy). It is not because a suggestion is made in two disputed proposed guidelines that it becomes a guideline or a policy all of a sudden. Fram 15:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The clear consensus among both proposals is to merge and redirect where articles do not meet notability criteria. It's probably the only thing they agree on. As you indicate and acknowledge that there are apparently no policies in Wikipedia guiding this issue (or apparently any other issue), your failure to follow a clear consensus is completely contradictory to Wikipedia policy and completely and totally incorrect. Why not try to work together with other editors who aren't quite so vindictive as you are in destroying information. It's Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 15:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry to see that already on this AfD alone, there are ten editors ignoring this "clear consensus" while only two editors endorse it. Furthermore, you haven't still adressed what there is to merge (i.e. what "information" am I vindictively destroying? None at all, it seems...). Fram 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to district page as per WP:SCHOOLS and common sense. Silensor 20:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Alansohn ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would appreciate it if anyone could give me an idea of what you are going to merge, as I don't see anything worth merging, and I don't think anyone has indicated anything I may have missed... Fram 21:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to district page please since people will search for this here Yuckfoo 03:41, 7 January 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. GRBerry 16:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned B. Stiles[edit]

Dintinguished lawyer not otherwise notable. Hundreds of such people in New York. Also a possible copyvio ("died Wednesday" reads like a newspaper. - crz crztalk 12:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he seems to have had a long and successful career as a lawyer but Wikipedia is not a memorial. (The article was created by Astiles (talk · contribs); compare with his son's name "Andrew Stiles".) Demiurge 12:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jyothisingh 13:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to be notable in any special way, besides a very successful career. Jayden54 13:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 13:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom WP:BIO, suspicion that this is an obit from wording, but can't find specific wording via Google. SkierRMH,09:15, 8 January 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. -Doc^g 20:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atiana de la Hoya[edit]

Almost all the content in the article is about her relatives (she is daughter/stepdaughter of somebody, somebody is half-brother/sister etc.) Apart from this, the article has only one line about her: ("is featured on the reality television show, Meet the Barkers"). According to her IMDB entry, she featured on one episode of Meet the Barkers.

The first nom was withdrawn with "Four keeps, three redirects, one merge, one delete, one merge or delete". A possible second deletion nom was reverted. The second nom ended with a no consensus. In the first nom, somebody argued that "if she and her immediate family have their own television show called Meet the Barkers then she is notable enough for inclusion as a standalone article". In the second nom somebody claimed that she passes WP:BIO because "both Barker and de la Hoya have a large fanbase, so the show has a large fanbase, so she meets the qualifications..". I couldn't find any reliable sources for her having a "large fanbase".

I don't think that being featured on a television show makes a person notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. At best, a merge and redirect. utcursch | talk 12:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. She is the seven year old daughter of someone, and has a brief appearance in a reality show on MTV. ArchStanton 13:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:BIO. Just being the daughter of someone famous doesn't immediately make that person notable as well. Jayden54 13:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually, Jenna Bush and Chelsea Clinton do have their own articles. But this dork's mother isn't one tenth as famous as a US president. No notability whatsoever. YechielMan 15:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appearing on 1 episode of a minor reality show doesn't make a person notable. TJ Spyke 22:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all above. DrKiernan 12:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMdb confirms just one appearance in one TV episode. Nada mas... SkierRMH,09:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At best a redirect to Oscar de la Hoya or Meet the Barkers would suffice, but nothing's lost by deleting it. --Wizardman 05:56, 9 January 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illam Moola[edit]

Subject does not meet notability guidelines of WP:LOCAL -Nv8200p talk 13:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - with Mattanur. Not notable enough to have its own article, but might be worth mentioning in the main article. Jayden54 13:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as by Jayden54 Alf photoman 20:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - with Mattanur and without prejudice. I was about to say "all towns are notable", but a google search showed only 53 hits and most of them being Wikipedia or mirror sites.[36] I can't find anything on this. If anyone else can, I'll be happy to change my vote. --Oakshade 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Towns and villages may be default notable, but this is "a scenic countryside". Delete without prejudice to re-creation. It could be a problem with the creator's English, and notability is poorly asserted. Ohconfucius 04:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't even say merge on this one, fails both notability and WP:LOCAL. --Wizardman 06:02, 9 January 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Club[edit]

Asserts notability but fails WP:V Otto4711 13:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom: fairly notable if the claims are true, but nothing to back them up. Jayden54 14:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark as stub - article sounds notable, but due to the fact that it is not a part of recent history it is difficult to find online sources for it. Editors should get a chance to improve it. Tarinth 16:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the burden of evidence is on those wishing to include it. I'm slightly dubious as to whether any detailed enough sources will be found but, if they are, it can be recreated then. Trebor 16:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a stub, which it can be marked as, is to give editors an opportunity to come along and supply more information. Tarinth 16:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But one definition of a stub is "an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library". I don't think that applies here; if sources exist, they don't appear to be easily accessible. The article can't be kept in its current state (is there anything to prove this even existed?) because it's completely unverified. Trebor 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against recreation if sources confirming the club's notability are found. The article's only a few sentences long, so it wouldn't be hard to recreate; at this point, it's unreferenced and (as a result) not worth keeping. -- Kicking222 21:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep only if something notable happened there. Otherwise, it's just another defunct club. 05:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete (with evidence). I went around looking for sources, and it does in fact exist. It in itself is not notable there, no evidence of anything special occuring. It's the second-olest gay club in Boston, but that's all I could find, and nothing to even confirm that statement. --Wizardman 06:08, 9 January 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. Even after reverting to a slightly more notable version, there were still two delete !votes. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Morrison[edit]

Non-notable person, book mentioned only obtainable from subjects website, only hits in google come from this page and subjects website, and if 'legendary' why have they not been heard of anywhere else? Rjayres 13:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to [37] (although that Brian Morrison is of dubious notability too). Demiurge 14:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted to the previous version of the page - the "other" Brian Morrison seems fairly clearly non-notable. If anyone wishes to disagree, the nominated version of the article is here. Trebor 17:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable. Paxsimius 05:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Found his imdb profile here (which says he IS the special effects guy_. I say srong becuase whoever has edited it recently hs almsot made it beyond repair, I cna't tell what's true and what's not. --Wizardman 06:13, 9 January 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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7th Son (Podiobook)[edit]

Delete - fails WP:WEB. Otto4711 14:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence of notability, I couldn't find anything on Google. The page is just a précis of the story, with no suggestion of external coverage. Trebor 17:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meets neither WP:WEB nor the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (books). —Cryptic 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom, fails WP:WEB Wizardman 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't get any ghits for this, ergo WP:V amongst the aforementioned. SkierRMH,09:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. —ShadowHalo 02:31, 9 January 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. GRBerry 15:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Mixx[edit]

AfD nominated by Scott5834 with reason: "This article is a vanity page." This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 16:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sounds like something made up or a neologism. Google provides very few relevant hits that show that this term is popular. Jayden54 18:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism. Resolute 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism bogdan 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism or Something someone made up while drinking too much Monster Energy drink SkierRMH,09:23, 8 January 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 Deleted as duplicate information from another article, unuseful as a redirect. - crz crztalk 15:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam[edit]

POV fork of Criticism of Islam established by Canadia (talk · contribs) who wishes to see any analysis or typicial response to the general critiques of Islam purged from the original article. ITAQALLAH 14:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 14:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like complete WP:OR and lacks any reliable sources and fails WP:V. Jayden54 14:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absurd recursion that will lead to endless forking. Presumably, one could put "Criticisms of" in front of something an infinite number of times. Tarinth 14:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POVFORK, not worthy of merging into Criticisms of Islam - crz crztalk 15:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- i may not have expressed the nom clearly. the material in this POV fork was already in Criticism of Islam, and has been replicated here as Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam in an attempt to cement its removal from the original article. please also see [38]. ITAQALLAH 15:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that event, we don't need to hold this AfD. - crz crztalk 15:39, 2 January 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. Proto::► 13:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty cat dance[edit]

Non-notable Flash cartoon. There are other precedents of deleted non-notable flash animation articles on wikipedia such as the deletion of Charlie the Unicorn. If this was notable it could stay but I see no purpose for it. b_cubed 14:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, thus the article fails WP:WEB and WP:V. – Anþony talk 14:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is claimed in the article ("a minor Internet phenomenon") but no sources to back it up, and I can't find anything through Google. Jayden54 14:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While precedent doesn't apply, far less notable than (say) "Gonads and Strife". Should Lobster Magnet be next? Tevildo 15:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be for deleting Lobster Magnet as well. b_cubed 16:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to oblige. Tevildo 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources. bogdan 19:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a google on "I'm a kitty-cat, and I dance, dance, dance" yield 65,000 results with leading results such as youtube and ebaumsworld. It seems to be a real phenomenon. I just don't know what rules I am checking this against. Does someone have a [[WP:XX]] to check this against. TonyTheTiger 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles on Wikipedia are required to be "notable", which is a term we use in a very particular and frequently confusing manner. "Notable" here means that other well-respected and responsible publications have devoted significant attention to the subject. Wikipedia:Notability (web) defines the specific criteria for establishing the notability of web-content; Wikipedia:Reliable sources describes what the kinds of publications we're looking for. Something that's popular, with thousands of Google hits may not be notable because most of those hits are going to be brief mentions on blogs and forum posts, which are not checked for accuracy or subject to an editorial process that filters out trivial material.
- Articles are also required to be verifiable, in that all of their content should be attributable to the previously-mentioned reliable sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of our core content policies which essentially states that we can't say anything that hasn't been said by someone else already. If there are no reliabe sources to drawn upon, we'd have nothing to say, so there's no point in having an article.
- I hope that helps. – Anþony talk 00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and WP:V due to lack of reliable sources. As a response to the above I tried googling "I'm a kitty-cat, and I dance, dance, dance", and did not get the 65K results claimed by TonyTheTiger. I got 159 unique hits out of 410 total, which makes this very minor by internet-meme standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete: Don't know if this matters, but I'm against deleting the entry. It's characterised as a minor interenet meme, which it is. But doesn't that very fact allow it to exist in wikipedia? Even perhaps in a "Minor Internet Memes" wikipedia entry?. Granted, I cannot remember how I know of this meme (I thought I happened upon it via b3ta, but I couldn't verify it after a quick search at the b3ta Yahoo group). Can't a youtube reference count? Hannes Engelbrecht 16:58, 7 January 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, also withdrawn (although this is inconsequential as the AfD was closed on its' merits anyways). Also, kudos to ElectricEye for the rewrite. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spero Dedes[edit]

I nominated this article for deletion on 1/2/2007 after the mini-controversy about his mistakes broadcasting a game was mentioned on the biographies of living persons board. If the only thing notable about him is that he made some mistakes while boadcasting a football game he is probably not notable enough for a WP bio. Steve Dufour 15:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No on Deletion Spero Dedes is the play-by-play announcer for the Los Angeles Lakers. I'd say that's pretty notable. MattyFridays 15:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Our criteria are Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Please explain, citing sources, how this person satisfies them. Uncle G 15:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As he is a media personality for one of the biggest sports franchises in the country, would it fall under the "sportsperson" criterion (performing in a league, as he's an employee of the Lakers) or television personality (employee of the NFL as part of the NFL Network)? MattyFridays 15:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or provide more proof of notibility. --ElectricEye (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak~~ Keep the article needs a better balance. Right now most of the article is about his "mistake" and therefore the presentation is not NPOV. --ElectricEye (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been much improved and more cites given for his notability. I still think he is not really important enough for a WP bio, if the standards about that were really being followed. However they are not and many people less important than Mr. Dedes have bios here so I would vote to let his stay. Steve Dufour 17:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Borderline non-notable, but these kinds of guys usually have a following in their local markets. Paxsimius 05:22, 7 January 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, possibly rename. Tom e r ^talk 19:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Jew[edit]

Delete per WP:NEO. This article reads like an ad for Jews for Allah and the content is a joke with a small list of historical conversions, some of which are debatable as they where possibly forced. WP:FORK of a good few other articles. frummer 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. frummer 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Rename Conversion from Judaism to Islam and trim out the "ad" stuff. - crz crztalk 15:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- that article wouldn't survive an AFD either. frummer 15:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. We'll see. - crz crztalk 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why do you think that? It wouldn't be for being unverifiable. It's discussed on page 197 of ISBN 0028642333, and there's some interesting discussion of the problems that it caused for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the 1620s and 1630s on pages 302–303 of ISBN 1860643574. Uncle G 15:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Think about the comparable viability and noteworthiness of analogous articles Conversion from Shintoism to Judaism, Conversion from Animism to Cao Dai, Conversion from Confuscianism to Christianity or even Conversion from Shintoism to Christianity...the latter two are far more common than Conversion from Judaism to Islam ever was or, r"l, ever will be... Tomer^talk 16:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but there's so much notable historical beef between J and I. Shabsi Tzvi alone is reason enough to keep this. Shintoism to Baha'i is somehow less exciting. - crz crztalk 16:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Those other potential articles are irrelevant. They are not reasons that the article at hand with the title given would not survive AFD. Thinking that they are relevant is making the error of thinking that we are somehow required to provide a complete set of articles, instead of discussing the subjects that the sources discuss. You are making one of the most common errors made in AFD discussions. "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. Uncle G 16:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        There is already List of Muslim converts and Category:Converts to Islam which are fine. IZAK 17:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        No, Unc, you're completely failing to understand the point. Let me make it quite plain to you: Crz's proposed name is ridiculous. Not only does the article have nothing to do with conversion from Judaism to Islam (the process for which is unexcitingly identical to the process for converstion from any other religion to Islam), the proposed namechange still doesn't deal with the problems inherent in the article itself. You'll notice, I'm just commenting here, I haven't bothered to vote...I'm in complete agreement that what we should be discussing is more appropriate names for the article. I think the List of Muslim converts IZAK points out below covers the topic quite well, but if there's some pathological attachment to keeping this unremarkable article, it should really be at Jewish converts to Islam...although I would propose that a better way of handling such a classification fetish would be by creating instead Category:Jewish converts to Islam as a subcat of Category:Converts to Islam, and the remarkably little independently noteworthy information contained [i.e., that which isn't more appropriately included in other articles] can be put in as heading text for that category. Tom e r ^talk 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        For the record, if I had been trying to propose good article names, a far more worthwhile and noteworthy article than any proposal here, would be Gnostic converts to Christianity. Tom e r ^talk 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Tomer: I had no idea you were my long-lost nephew. Well, I shoulda known, we're a brainy family...IZAK 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename per crz. Seems a very reasonable article, not sure why it's shown up here? Perhaps just needs a better title. Akihabara 15:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per crz. If you have a problem with perceived POV in the article, re-write it neutrally. Otto4711 15:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is. Excellent article, although short. I hope someone can do some research and improve it. --Gabi S. 15:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has been nominated before; this should have been mentioned in the nomination [39]. Akihabara 16:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and source. I'm adding ((fact)) to some of the more bold assertions in this article. Tarinth 16:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's factual and true. Direct parallel to Jewish Christians. IZAK 17:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A great example of yet another completely pointless article. Tom e r ^talk 23:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Islam and Judaism adding a section on Jewish conversion. As it stand it lacks context. Jon513 22:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty good article. Rename if you want to. --- RockMFR 01:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Amoruso 10:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rename "Muslim Jew is not a suitable name because it is totally uninformative, leaving it unclear whether it means an attempt at dual identity, or conversion in either one direction or the other. Jewish converts to Islam is specific. There is content, the content is notable, what more can be wanted? Even for those who think people shouldn't be doing this, it is still notable. DGG 06:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, rename if needed. --Rayis 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to better title. This is an informative article. Park3r 17:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a fact.--Tearfate 07:52, 1 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, but without prejudice to recreation once notability requirements are met. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catharsis (band)[edit]

nn-band? couldn't find anything on allmusic, only reference for the article is a link to their label...so seems to fail WP:MUSIC-- Syrthiss 12:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence of notability - there's nothing from which to construct an article. Related pages seem to be Requiem (band), Ümlaut and The Spectacle; none of which seem to have any sources either. Could they be included in this nom? Trebor 16:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I know from personal experience that Catharsis was a well-known band in the East Coast and North Carolina hardcore scenes around 2000. I can't find any articles online to verify it--mostly because the hardcore scene has tended to be focused around print publications/fanzines until very recently. I suppose "Scout's Honor" is insufficient?--Velvet elvis81 07:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately so. The burden is on the "keep" !voters to provide the sources as well; it can't be kept unless they're found. Trebor 15:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it was wishful thinking more than anything. I dug around to see what I could find to help out here but, admittedly, it's not much. The stuff on the homepage linked from the article has some stuff: the interviews archived here [40] indicate headlining overseas tour(s?). The fliers [41] show U.S., Canadian, and European shows. I think the fact that they could do multiple trips to Europe and Canada and that at least one flyer has them playing with the unquestionably notable Converge at least gives evidence of notability within a scene. Other than that, though, the info's limited to myspace tribute pages, random album reviews, and the occasional post on an mp3 blog. I do think it's important to keep in mind, though, that although specific music scenes certainly exist and can be notable it's difficult to document them when they are already within a niche market like hardcore punk. Perhaps some of this information could be moved to an expanded North Carolina hardcore.--Velvet elvis81 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a part of WP:MUSIC that says if they are well covered in their genre then that handles the notability (since there are several genres that don't get much coverage from mainstream media). But I agree that if we end up with a delete then the info could be used to help expand NC hardcore. Syrthiss 13:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Seems well-known locally, but I can't sya it passes WP:MUSIC. --Wizardman 01:17, 10 January 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. Proto::► 13:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retro metal[edit]

Clearly goes against WP:NEO. dposse 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on Wolfmother, since all of the references on this subject are simply about this band. Tarinth 19:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to disagree with this, for the sole reason it has nothing to do with Wolfmother. It is someone's opinion that it does just because they are influenced by old band, which doesn't make this true. "Retro metal" is, by the definition of the term, a neologism and shouldn't be added to any article just because MTV or Rolling Stone Magazine decided to describe them as such. dposse 19:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have been watching this article for some time. It has not improved, and is still based on some sources trivially mentioning the term "retro metal" or "hipster metal", making the article unverifiable and original research. This is not a notable neo-/protologism. Retro everything seems to be "hip" these days, but we can't have articles to document all such usage, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote certain terms or bands to make them more popular. Even persons listening to the supposed bands of this genre don't use these terms. [42] [43] The bands mentioned in the article were already situated in their well-documented genres (post-rock, hard rock, heavy metal), until the recent adding of "retro metal" to these bands' respective infoboxes. [44] [45] [46] The newly-created Category:Retro metal and Category:Retro metal bands should go too. Prolog 19:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Resources can be found to satisfy all parties involved, as well as additional information. Retro metal is one of the fastest growing genres in the world, and is worthy of an encyclopedic entry for that purpose alone. I oppose the deletion of both this article and the cat, which I created, and will defend the existence of both until any debate is over. Editor19841 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wikipedia is not a crystalball. There are hundreds of terms related to heavy metal music, so we should only document the ones that are already widely in use and well-documented. Prolog 19:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Prolong.Inhumer 02:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems pointless - the scene for bands and music like this (stoner rock / doom) has existed for decades already, it hardly requires a new definition because certain elements of the media have decided to pick up on it. Thinginajar 14:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already an article on doom metal and a ton of subgenres there of. This is redundant and a term that nobody uses. Also, Wolfmother is not metal, so this should be retro rock if anything. Most bands that are forcibly being lumped in would consider retro metal or hipster metal a derogatory term. Olliegrind 02:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you may not be familiar with the genre, but it isn't a part of doom, nor are there any sources to state it as that. I have proved below that it is used, even by some of the most famous music media sources in the world. - Deathrocker 06:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about all the bands from the 90s that fit the retro metal description (like Sleep, Spirit Caravan, Count Raven) or all the bands from the 80s (Saint Vitus, The Obsessed, Trouble). Should all these now be retroactively placed into "Retro Metal". This scene has been around since the 80s so why should new bands coming out suddenly be at the forefront of some overhyped music revolution? Bands in the article like Witchcraft, The Sword, and Witch are doom metal. I don't see how this genre can be seen as a new genre when bands have been making this music for decades. Olliegrind 18:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, the article clearly passes WP:V and WP:OR (which is policy) with ease, it has had mentions in Rolling Stone, MTV, Revolver, Classic Rock, Guitar World, Kerrang![47][48][49]... all prominent music media, there is the research, there it is vertified.

Deleting it on the grounds that the term is relitively new would be foolish, the genre has only been around since the early 2000s, of course the term isn't going to be decades old... but as shown, it has been mentioned in numerous prominent music media forums, and the bands who are a part of it are breaking through into commerical success (thus it passes WP:N) Wolfmother were one of the most famous bands of 05/06.

This isn't a "crystal ball" deal, as the movemet has been around for the last couple of years, and is still around currently. A crystal ball situation would be for something happening in the future, not something that has already happened and is happening right now.

WP:NEO is only a guideline not a policy, and the article passes it anyway, as it has "Reliable sources for neologisms"[50] Rolling Stone magazine the most famous music media outlet in the world, is reliable. MTV the most famous music video outlet in the world, is reliable. Remember this proccess is not a straw man vote... it is to make argument that is does or doesn't pass the policy, as I have shown, it unequivocally does with flying colours. - Deathrocker 06:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. The article has a serious WP:V problem: Notes do not contain information they are cited to contain, and might even be considered faked. Notes 1 and 2: Trivial mentions of the term "retro metal" on a page about Wolfmother. Note 3: Theilluminati.net, a band's (The Illuminati) own website, containing Revolver screenshot which is titled "Heavy Meta", and the article starts "Hipster rock acts Wolfmother, Witch and The Illuminati...". Thus, magazine article is not about "Hipster Metal" as claimed in the WP article and also, does not verify the sentence before it: It is not entirely clear the origins of the term "hipster metal", but music journalists have been using it in popular magazines such as Revolver, Classic Rock, Guitar World and Kerrang! since around 2005. Note 4: Again, about Wolfmother and used as a source for sentence Bands in this movement take influences from the originators of heavy metal such as Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Blue Cheer and Deep Purple. Incorrect. Note 5: A commercial link (Amazon.com) to a compilation album, that could be considered promotional and spam. This seems both unverified and unverifiable. Also, WP:NEO clearly states that "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." Trivial mentions do not help the fact that the article is original research, and the only way to avoid that would be turning it into a one-sentence stub, a dictionary definition. Prolog 08:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just don't see how a few bands "reviving" an "old sound" makes them a new genre and not just new bands of the genre their sound is said to be "reviving". Inhumer 07:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not familiar with the genre, but if that's truly all it is then the information needs to be merged into the article relevant to the "old sound" and the current article needs to be deleted. New terms for something that hasn't changed don't deserve their own article; it's not like Holocaust Revisionisn has its own article seperate from Holocaust denial, is it? Ours18 06:25, 3 January 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. John254 17:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C.[edit]

Minor law firm, WP:CORP - crz crztalk 15:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to meet WP:CORP. Could easily be speedy deleted under WP:CSD:G11 as well. Gwernol 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so, but if you do it, I won't cry. - crz crztalk 15:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changed to Weak keep based on the evidence shown on the article talk page. This is still right on the cusp of notability, so I reserve the right to change my opinion again :-) Gwernol 18:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I couldn't find any sources that gave more than a passing mention to the law firm - the stories were about the court cases themselves. It's possible, but I think unlikely, there are more detailed sources in which case it should be kept. Trebor 16:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep in light of new sources - it seems to pass WP:CORP now. Trebor 21:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please take a look at the comments on the article's talk page by another editor arguing that the article should be kept. The March 2005 issue of Intellectual Property Today magazine listed the firm as #1 in patents in the United States. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A trade magazine. Only known to professionals in that sub-industry. Much like "magic the gathering magazine" should not be used to justify the notability of a magic player. In our general encyclopedia, general notability is required. - crz crztalk 17:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that's entirely true. Reading our guidelines on reliable sources I see nothing to indicate that a trade publication is inherently unreliable for these purposes. Of course this particular publication may be unreliable, but we'd need evidence of that. I am coming round to the opinion that this article should probably be kept. If it is kept it needs to be rewritten so it doesn't read so much like an advert and (most importantly) so that the reference from the talk page is added to the article itself Gwernol 18:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd have to think that the March 2005 Intellectual Property Today report does not establish notability. All it is is a ranking of law firms by the number of patents issued over a three year period, and after State Street, its not that hard to get a patent. What WP:CORP expects is the article to provide substantial coverage of the firm, which this article does not.-- danntm ^T _C 18:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - A new law.com article citation was added to the article, which includes several paragraphs relating details of this law firm's advertising activities, and further rankings have been cited, as well. The case for notability should be stronger in view thereof. --Ryanaxp 21:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your objection here is off-base; we do look to trade mags for specialty areas. If pro-gamer is recognized as top in his field by PC Gamer, or magic player by Proquest, or porn star by AVN, aren't these good sources to take the word of? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, that ranking and these[51][52] establish notability. Crz, you can't pick and choose your reliable sources. Danntm, lack of references is an excuse for tagging, not for AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry, sir. I won't let that happen again. - crz crztalk 20:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please understand, I was just addressing one particular source, I hadn't made up my mind until now.-- danntm ^T _C 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (disclosure: original author). I updated the article to reference some additional rankings and a law.com article featuring non-trivial information regarding the law firm, and added a few more factoids regarding the firm's date of founding and relocation to Alexandria. It would seem that in view of these, Oblon Spivak meets the criteria of WP:CORP#Criteria for companies and corporations, because the relevant rankings are compiled by independent entities and the law.com article is written by a sizeable and independent journalistic webzine. --Ryanaxp 20:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources have now been brought forth to establish notability.-- danntm ^T _C 21:27, 2 January 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. John254 17:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Calamos[edit]

Recreation of deleted content Pleclech 16:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Recreation of deleted copyvio content - this article was recently speedied as copyvio from Forbes. The same user (who has a history of copyvio) has recreated it, but put the copyvio material on the talk page this time rather than in the article. For some background on the user see Major_article_spam.[reply]

Keep as patently notable and well-referenced. Tarinth 16:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's copyvio which needs to be addressed first. Pleclech 16:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's the copyvio? It's a two sentenace stub... If it is really a copyvio then I'm sure someone could reword it with less effort than this AfD will consume. Tarinth 16:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can't copyright facts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I don't see how just being an article about someone listed at Forbes is a copyvio. Delete the copyvio from the Talk page (no, don't bother, it's so ridiculously easy I'll do that for you). --Dhartung | Talk 20:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand and properly cite sources Alf photoman 20:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable person. If truly a copy vio, afd is not the place for it. may need rewrite and some cites. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:14, 3 January 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. Proto::► 13:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster Magnet[edit]

Delete. No cited sources, no evidence of notability. Fails WP:WEB, WP:MUSIC, WP:V. Tevildo 17:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete per a7. Tarinth 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an assertion of notability ("a popular internet meme"), so I don't think A7 strictly applies. However, we'll see. :) Tevildo 17:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm lord fez high mayor of over-agressive speedy deletions (according to some) but I would consider that not to be a claim to notability. Surely this is spilling the beans but if it said something like "and has been written up in newspapers and used in a movie" then it's a claim. - brenneman 23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable internet flash video. b_cubed 17:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, or at least no sources to backup the claim of notability. Jayden54 18:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources. bogdan 19:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google search for "Lobster Magnet" in quotation marks brings up 10,100 hits. And I tried to look up Lobster Magnet on wikipedia some time ago, although unfortunately at that time I had no success. Baiter 08:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources, thus failing WP:WEB, WP:V, etc. Borderline speedy, IMHO, but I guess there's no great reason not to give it the rest of its five days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I watched this flash animation in 2002, and it was certainly mildly popular back then, in the sense that I knew a number of people who had seen it. However, it is not groundbreaking in any way and seems to fail notability requirements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babcockd (talk • contribs) 04:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability, sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:15, 8 January 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, with a strong recommendation for better sourcing in the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destructoid[edit]

Delete: Appears to be shameless spam and has been deleted four times already. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. This page confirms that a fan of the site created the article. There are basically no independent sources listed and the Alexa rating isn't that impressive, esp. considering how Alexa can be rigged. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep assuming good faith on the Technorati rankings, suggests that it is in fairly widespread use. Like religion pages that are primarily made by members of the religion, or Evolution pages that are primarikly maintained by evolutionists, or Star Wars pages made by Star Wars fans-- I'm unpersuaded by arguments that a company's Wiki article is made by those who use and are fans of the company/website. Tarinth 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this instance of the article asserts notability. I recall the E3 incident with the robot head being mentioned by numerous gaming sites, and the thing with Joystiq should count for something. Also, their coverage of Jack Thompson's recent court case in Miami regarding Bully was second to none. Maxamegalon2000 18:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, under-1000 on Technorati is not that impressive, and trawling around, indicators are that the forums are perhaps more popular than the blog. One stunt briefly noticed by niche media doesn't count for much. (Btw, a "fan of the site" is a far cry from WP:COI.) --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did you look at their comment count? Trolls aside this is significant: this page Their helmet is also notable, surprised nobody had added a photo. — Andersonanderson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Firm Keep This is a fairly notable gaming news source, though it could use better sourcing. A lack of proper sourcing is entirely different from a lack of available sourcing. Lankybugger 23:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Destructoid seems to be on par with sites such as Kotaku and Joystiq, even surpassing them at times with their coverage of the Bully trial and as Andersonanderson said, the comment count that they get seems to be nothing to scoff at. Looking at their technorati, they also seem to be fairly syndicated by a number of sources. My one gripe is the sourcing material. 66.94.89.148 18:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely not the typical blog site, but it obviously has a huge following. If Capcom is willing to go to such great lengths to help them with weekly Lost Planet contests that surpass those on Kotaku, then it clearly has more than just Alexa and Technorati numbers. They've even been on G4TV several times in the past.68.225.92.123 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I cannot find evidence this has been the primary source of multiple non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Destructoid is a valable news source for video gaming. It also has importance in the rise of blogging that has happened and how different blogs can find their niche and do very well with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vetes (talk • contribs) 14:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Popular enough that I believe it could be sourced. Article could use a bit of cleanup. — brighterorange (talk) 03:34, 9 January 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. GRBerry 15:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Michigan Circle K[edit]

Delete Per WP:ORG Criteria 1: Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable and verifiable sources. This article has failed to show any notability among other chapters, and I do not feel that it is possible to do so. Адам12901 ^Talk 17:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and WP:ORG. Jayden54 18:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not follow WP:ORG-1 and WP:N. TRKtv t c e 20:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG.-- danntm ^T _C 22:42, 2 January 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 profanity. John254 17:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong language[edit]

This is a wholly banal and unencyclopaedic article based vaguely around an "Explicit content" label. It is an essay, not an article. Despite being flagged for substantial improvement almost since its creation there have been no substantive improvements and it remains totally below standard, even for the alleged stub status it claims. Fiddle Faddle 17:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to profanity, which deals with the same topic better. The idea that certain words in language are considered "strong" is encyclopedic and notable. Tarinth 18:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I never disputed the concept, just the article :) Fiddle Faddle 20:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Profanity. No need to have two articles on the same topic. Jayden54 18:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as nominator I would have redirected it instead if I had realised the other article existed. I have no objection to a speedy close as a redirect if a passing admin wishes to do that. The Profanity article is a real article whereas the nominated article is a banal essay which was created by an editor who was prolific as a creator, but, regrettably, the quantity of the articles was inversely proportional to the quality despite many editors who attempted to offer help and advice. Fiddle Faddle 20:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Profanity, per above users. Maybe add the termanology to the opening paragraph of that article. Bob talk 10:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Uioh 18:49, 5 January 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 as it fails WP:V and WP:OR. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Llama Song[edit]

Someone listed this incorrectly, so I'm fixing it for them. This is the second nomination; the first is here. It was deleted as a result of that discussion; then restored on the 8th of May. See the talk about restoring it here. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This song is very much often heard around my school, as when someone finds a funny video, they make it malware which spread to the whole school. While the song is undeniably odd and seemingly (well, really) without reason, its spawned several parodies, including one found by a friend just today, the beaver song. That, among the others, and the aforementioned fact that its used to cheer workers up, means in my eyes it should be kept. It, at least to me, is encyclopedial in nature, as peple I know found it here first, having heard it and wondered what it was. the previous comment is rather off i think, as it is a certantly a notable song, by a (now) somewhat-notable person. Delete it if you will, but i think that people will continue to restore and rename and rewerk the article, all in the name on human curiosity, i.e. people who look in encyclopeidas, online or otherwise. Or you could simply merge it, making it easier so we don't have to discuss it anymore. :P --Darkƒire Rules All!!! 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable song by a non notable person. Jayden54 18:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable and as the link above shows it was overwhelmingly decided last march to delete the article. for some bizarre reason no one actually did. b_cubed 18:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, b cubed, it was deleted last March. It was subsequently restored. Check the logs. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entry doesn't meet criteria: matter does not qualify for an encyclopaedia. Frankly it looks like self-advertisement. LMB 19:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to say size down and make a brief entry on internet phenomenon, but after reading through it again and seeing that it was deleted before, it's not that notable. Darth griz⁹⁸ 20:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The song definitely pervades internet culture, and I hear about it almost every day from everyone around me. Sure, notability is not subjective, but who is going to make a news report about the Llama Song?! (For comparison - when was the last time you read about Peanut Butter Jelly Time in a reliable publication?) At the very least, the Llama Song ought to be merged somewhere, maybe List of internet phenomena. V-Man737 20:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you ment to say, "Sure, notability is subjective" rather than "Sure, notability is not subjective". ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above summary of the history of the article is somewhat incomplete. In fact, the article was first created in November 2004, speedied immediately, recreated in March 2005, put on VfD (since renamed to AfD), deleted, recreated at a different title in October, moved to its current title in December, speedied immediately per CSD G4, and recreated again four days later. My restoration of the previously deleted revisions occurred four months after the latest recreation; I felt that the version at that point was no longer substantially identical to the version the original VfD had been for, and thus no longer qualified as a G4 speedy — and since the article didn't seem to be going away, I saw no reason to keep the old versions deleted. (For a longer summary, see my talk page.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is actually a very popular internet movie/phenomenon. Much more notable than some other things. I was deleted in the past when it wasn't as well known. Reywas92^Talk_{Sign Here} 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This song/animation is a culturally recognized phenomena on par with the Christmas light show video and other such Internet musings. It is used to cheer up co-workers in the office and deserves its notation in WP. If it cannot remain a stand-alone article it should be merged with another of similar relevance. Ventric 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VMan. Agree completely - who would write about "The Llama Song?" No reliable sourcing available. GassyGuy 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GASP! You twist my words! <soapbox> What I meant by that is that internet phenomena in general are so esoteric as to avoid the whole concept of "notability" altogether while still deserving mention at Wikipedia. </soapbox> V-Man737 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another 'net meme not covered by reliable sources and in all likelihood not going to be covered by reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not notable Af648 00:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep That is "pervades internet culture" is news to me, and depressing news at that. But apparently it does. DGG 07:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article demonstrates its claim that it is an internet phenomenon. It doesn't have sources, neither do other articles in the category.Brendan Alcorn 04:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. Crossmr 23:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good reason to clean out the category, but I'm not sure why it's a reason to ignore this article's lack of sourcing. GassyGuy 12:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does. WP:V and WP:OR are non-negotiable policies.--Crossmr 18:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable, third-party sources. —ShadowHalo 12:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -this isnt a third party matter it should stay.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.189.215.149 (talk • contribs) 17:15, January 6, 2007.

Would you kindly expound on that? It didn't make a whole lot of sense. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:26, 8 January 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 02:05, January 9, 2007

Palaeos[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Very few independent references. Article does not really assert notability ~~and seems to verge on violation of WP:Spam~~. Hatch68 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable per WP:WEB. Jayden54 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Not notable? Good grief, it's demise was noted in The Lancet, how many non-notables get that, written up in what even Wikipedia calls "one of the oldest peer-reviewed medical journals in the world?[53] And it's return got written up in Science (journal) for Pete's sake![54] We're really discussing this delete based on notability? My web page didn't even get written up in the school newspaper, much less some of the top peer-reviewed science journals in the world. KP Botany 21:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's set something straight in what you said. Your reference is a blogspot entry that is named "lancelet.blogspot.com" and is written by an individual. That is a far cry from being mentioned by The Lancet. Also, the responsibility to provide notability references lies with those wishing to keep the article. Blog entries don't count, btw. Hatch68 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Still, Science (journal) is good enough. And that was in the article. Why should I have to provide something that is already in the article? I can just delete something if I assert it's not notable and no one says it is? KP Botany 22:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, blogs don't count. It wasn't mentioned in Science the journal, it was mentioned on a blog on the the Science web site. Hatch68 22:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs do count just read the guideline from Notability (Web) "Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web host" (emphasis added)

The blog on the Science web site , as with similar blogs at other professional sites, is sponsored by the society and moderated. Established email lists of that sort are accepted and so are blogs (especially because they tend to be the exact equivalents). We adjust to new media--if anyone should, it's us. I mention that Notability (Web) is a guideline, not a policy. Even as a guideline, I note the wording "if the content itself is notable" it does not say: "if the site is notable"

I also take issue with the concept that the article has to assert notability. it has to demonstrate notability. I've seen articles listed for deletion because the editor didn't think of using the exact words. Aside from an obscure listing in Speedy, I do not see the words the article has to assert notability in any policy or guideline. DGG 08:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(A7) is certainly not obscure. It's commonly used to determine if an article should be deleted. I'm also moving your keep comment to where it belongs, to keep the !votes sequential. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per WP:WEB.

Criteria: Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

I listed two non-trivial published works in the references. Science's netwatch is clearly authoritative. Johnson 2003 is a print publication; you can see a screenshot of the Palaeos citation here.

Palaeos is also listed as a reference in Benton, 2004, Vertebrate Palaeontology p.10, regarding the Chengjiang fauna. Sure it is only a single reference, but note that Benton 2004 is a widely used college-level textbook; the taxonomy has been adopted in the Wikipedia coverage of vertebrates. Professor Mike Benton is a world authority in the field, so any website he lists would have to be important.

References to material on Palaeos is cited in the bibliography in Mark Isaak 2007 The Counter-Creationism Handbook - Page 316

Palaeos is mentioned a number of times in Science magazine, as indicated as you can see by Google Scholar.

72,000 Google webhits for "Palaeos" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=palaeos&sa=N&tab=bw (although obviously not all refer to the site), 24,300 for "Palaeos.com" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=palaeos&sa=N&tab=bw

newsgroups 207 http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=palaeos&sa=N&oe=UTF-8&tab=wg mostly relating to Evolution-Creationism debates (c.f. also Isaak 2007 in this regard)

I also fail to see how this page qualifies as Spam. From the Wikipedia Spam page There are three types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, wide-scale external link spamming, and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting"). Which one of those three is this page on the verge of violating? M Alan Kazlev 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read what you listed: "The content itself has been the subject of..." (emphasis added by me.) Being used as a reference and being mentioned in a short blog entry doesn't meet the standards in my opinion. Only the blog entry made Palaeos the subject of the reference.

You haven't even addressed the fact that notability is not asserted in the article in the first place. I also didn't say it was spam, I said it was verging on spam, which I am now acknowledge was not the case. Also, since you were one of the originators of the web site in question, you would have a difficult time convincing me that you have any NPOV in this debate. Hatch68 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it was on their website, not in their print journal, however, Science, the organization, calls it an article not a blog. And, no, the website for the American Association for the Advancement of Science is not rated the same as some anonymous blogger's website, it counts as an independent website of high credibility. Also, if it's spam what the heck is Palaeos selling, I want to buy some. T-shirts? I'd love to wear one. Anyway, it's surprising this nomination coming from someone with an interest in geology, as the many geologists I know love this website and its creators, and we even use it for research, like a specialized encyclopedia, it's a great place to start looking for information about life in the past. KP Botany 22:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the above comment re:Spam. Also, bringing my personal interests into this has no bearing upon the discussion. I would prefer to stay focused on the fact that no satisfactory references have been made about the notability. Hatch68 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science's Netwatch citation will also appear in the hardcopy magazine. That plus Johnson 2003 means Palaeos is discussed (not just cited as a reference, or an annotated reference as in the other Science articles) in two print non-trivial published works in the references. As for my POV in this debate, are you saying Hatch that I am uneligable as a wikipedian to vote on this issue or to provide evidence in favour of keeping this page? btw I agree with Firsfron that the page should be rewritten to better establish notability M Alan Kazlev 23:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, the article is most certainly not spam. Whether or not it is notable enough to avoid violation of the linked Wiki policy, I don't know. The way I read that policy, it doesn't seem that the references listed are sufficiant. It seems to mean something more along the lines of independent published articles about the site, not those that mention the site in passing or use it as a source, as Benton does. I'd support a delete unless some more prominant sources discussing the site are presented. I would, however, advocate the site being used as a reference more often in vertebrate articles. If it's good enough for Benton, it should be good enough for us! Dinoguy2 22:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So people should resource the site (and, heck, I agree, if it's good enough for Benton....), but when people want to know what is being resourced, folks can't come to Wikipedia and find out what it is? KP Botany 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's simply not much anyone can do if the world's largest scientific society deems a topic notable and Hatch68 deems the scientific organization unworthy of determining notability. If AAAS isn't notable according to your POV, that's that. KP Botany 22:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider what you just said an unfair attack on me. I have no bias as to whether the subject of this debate is notable or not. As I've said several times, notability requires references. You seem to be making arguments without being familiar with the underlying Wikipedia policies. If the proper references are made and notability is asserted, I have no problem changing my position to a strong keep for this article. Please avoiding attacking me in the future and focus on the discussion at hand. Hatch68 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's exactly what is going on, I asserted a reference, and you, without any evidence or citations that AAAS is not notable, dismissed the reference I provided. I gave a reference. You dismissed it without any proof of its non-notability--that is your POV, as you have NOT provided any evidence to back up the non-notability of AAAS. Please focus yourself on the discussion at hand. I gave a reference, you dismissed it as non-notable. KP Botany 00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be confusion about what constitutes a non-reliable blog. According to guidelines, a blog can't be considered as a reliable source only if it is essentially a "personal web site" with no editorial control. Simply because something is published in a blog or journal-style presentation does not invalidate it as a source; the things that Science publishes in a "blog" on its website are subject to a considerable amount of oversight and editorial control. Saying the Science magazine blog is unreliable borders on silliness. As for the argument that it apperas to be spam--I think that's patently false, specious wholecloth--or "bullshit" in the common vernacular. Tarinth 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out where anyone said the Science magazine blog is "unreliable."

In a discussion of the Science magazine blog as a source, it was stated that blogs don't count, which while it does not specifically use the term "unreliable" appears to invalidate the source under WP:RS guidelines.

Hatch68 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how a wikipage for Palaeos constitutes as spam. Both versions of the site are intended to display the history of Life, as well as the phylogenic trees of living and extinct organisms. I want to add that even though the trees are still under construction, they are still very extensive. --Mr Fink 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam is not the issue. Please read the entire discussion. Hatch68 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the discussion, and that's why I mentioned the fact that Palaeos is in the process of providing phylogenic trees of living and extinct organisms, as the main intent at the site is to have them as public reference. If it's a problem of notability, then how come the American Association for the Advancement of Science's opinion is not valid for determining notability? Does Palaeos need two or three more independant organizations to be deemed notable by Wikipedia? ~~Furthermore, if spam is not the issue, then why does it still say that one of the reasons for deletion is that it "verges on spam"?~~--Mr Fink 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it only needs one good reference that is used in the proper context to assert notability. I have no idea why no one seems to want to do so. The spam issue is now corrected with deletion tags thanks to a suggestion by Tarinth. Hatch68 23:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Science's Netwatch citation, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science?--Mr Fink 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Palaeos.com is a well-respected site which I use regularly as a source for Wikipedia articles. The current article does not establish any sort of notability, and thus is eligible for deletion. However, the links above give some claim to notability, and really should have been included in the article in the first place. Article needs a good re-write, establishing the notability the site apparently has (used by well-respected professional paleontologists? Notable). As for Palaeos.org, it is an unfinished wiki with no real claim to notability. It could be mentioned at the end of the article, as a brief note. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Based on the evidence above, and knowing this article lacks the assertion of notability required for a Wikipedia article, I've rewritten this article so that it should now conform to the policy, with notability asserted, with inline citation. Further comments? Firsfron of Ronchester 23:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Where is the assert notability policy? It makes common sense, but just because something makes common sense doesn't mean I can use it in Wikipedia. I've heard this before, assert notability, but can't find the policy. KP Botany 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's covered in several places, but WP:SPEEDY#Articles comes to mind: (A7) "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." This is also partly covered at WP:WEB, but there it is only a guideline. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the current form I have no problem with the article and this debate can be closed. I would like to bring attention to the numerous straw man arguments and misdirections by a few of the persons involved in this discussion so far. At no point did I assert that the Palaeos web site is non-notable. I said in the original nomination that it failed the WP:WEB policy. This was due to notability not being asserted and a lack of multiple non-trivial published works cited as references to back up the notability. I erred in believing that it was a possible case of link spam, but I quickly admitted this during the debate. It appears that many of the people injecting themselves into this debate have little or no understanding of WP:WEB or the notability policies in general. Hatch68 02:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wasn't sure, that's why I read the policy and asked questions about other policies. Here are the criteria for WP:WEB:

==Criteria==

Web-specific content^[2] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

The criteria for the WP:WEB policy, that you state it fails ("Fails WP:WEB.") ARE subsections of notability. So, if you state it fails WP:WEB, and I go to WP:WEB to see what's going on, and the big ole Criteria section starts with the statement, "Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria," it's reasonable that I would expect you are asserting it failed notability. That's what this policy is about, and it clearly states this in the article, which I went and read. If WP:WEB is not about notability, it should not so clearly, purposefully and obviously list notability as the deciding factor. KP Botany 02:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everyone calm down please. It's clear the original article didn't assert notability, but it now does. The citation for verifiability of notability is in place, and there's no sense in beating a dead equine, right? Hatch has admitted s/he erred in thinking the article was linkspam (the original article was in pretty bad shape; still could use some work, BTW), and KP admitted s/he wasn't all that familiar with the assertion of notability policy. It happens; let's move on, ok? :) If you want to continue the discussion about who was right, maybe take it off this page. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above M&NCenarius 02:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep DGG 08:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 08:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeos as a test case discussion[edit]

Some sections of the sciences have historically had long-standing traditions of interacting with the lay community, paleontology, botany in regards to native plants, and astronomy come to mind. One of the important things that an encyclopedia like Wikipedia can do is honor this relationship. There are a handful of paleontological websites designed either for the lay community (UCMP) or for the lay and professional community both. These websites should have their article pages on Wikipedia for the utility of users being able to find reliable information about those websites. An egregious omission in Wikipedia, for example, is an article about Oceans of Kansas. It's somewhat hard to find sources about these websites, though, making it difficult to argue for including an article about them. KP Botany 21:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been having similar difficulties with standard online reference works. They sound exotic, a fair description tends to sound like an advertisement, especially since pricing is relevant as a guide to availability to our users. The major professional websites speak for themselves, just like major computer ones do, and sourcing is almost impossible. The computer-oriented ones have no problem. Perhaps an approach of demonstrating number of links from university department sites might work. DGG 07:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's notable enough. --DanielCD 19:11, 4 January 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. Mango juice^talk 14:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project S (game)[edit]

The only assertion of notability is that the project lead was working on the Sonic X-treme, though this is still entirely unofficial and done without the approval of Sega. The verifiability of the project's status and development is limited entirely to forums on the project lead's homepage, which are not legitimate sources on Wikipedia. I couldn't find any information about the project from second party sources, though this may have something to do with the fact that this Sonic fangame happens to share the same name as an in-development game for the Nintendo Wii. With all of this in mind, I believe this needs to be Deleted, though a small note on both the Sonic X-treme page and the developer's page would probably be a good idea. Lankybugger 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The game hasn't even been released yet. Jayden54 18:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the fact that development just began (supposedly). Koweja 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete incomplete fan games. — brighterorange (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not a huge fan of having fan games on Wikipedia, unless they've received a good amount of attention from mainstream media sources. This game's details are largely unverifiable by reliable sources. It's worth a mention on the Sonic X-treme page though. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's recommendations. --Alan Au 06:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lankybugger, fails WP:V —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joel Jimenez (talk • contribs) 04:11, 6 January 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 keep, see discussion. Ashibaka (tock) 03:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Turner[edit]

Non-notable person. No stories or reports concerning Mr. Turner in mainstream news. All other google hits are from racist organizations, his webpage, and the blogosphere Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - seems very notable at the moment because of his feud with several notable web communities, but I'm not really sure whether that warrants inclusion. Jayden54 18:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - he's notable for his involvement in the death of a federal judge's family. Ulairix 18:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Are you sure about that? I know he got into a fight with an ex- city councilman, but I've never heard about the charge you make. Please provide some info on that, if you can. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article does talk about his opinion of Joan Lefkow and how he was interviewed after her husband and mother were murdered (see also Matt Hale). The Lefkow murders were definitively traced to a different matter. --Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. UPI, The Nation, and MSNBC are certainly mainstream. Calling the ADL and SPLC "racist orgainzations" is a bit much. The article is well-sourced and reasonably NPOV. The subject is notable due to his coverage in the press and his activities. -Will Beback · † · 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification I never intimated nor meant to imply that the ADL and SPLC were racist organizations. However, they are not mainstream news organizations. I have clarified and fixed my nomination reason to reflect this change. Also, the MSNBC link isn't about Mr. Turner but about the killing of Amy Lefkow and the white power movement. The Nation article is about Sean Hannity's coddling of racists.
Keep. This is an incredibly useful article. I first found it because someone posted a Hal Turner article in another forum, and I needed to verify the source. So whether or not Turner appears in the regular news feed, his articles do turn up, and Wikipedia is a good way to clarify who he is. Jstohler 19:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've noticed the same thing with a lot of deleted articles. It seems some people want Wikipedia to be less useful in favor of it being more like Britannica.
  - FTR- I listed this because of an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the article. Some felt that Wikipedia was racist for having this article. Other's disagreed. Personally, I am on the fence, but since it was an issue, I figured I'd let the community at large decide. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 138.000 ghits not notable ? Alf photoman 20:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable person.Umlautbob 21:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as demonstrated by Will Beback. hateless 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability demonstrated. The article is reasonably well sourced, but a bit of a mess. --Dhartung | Talk 21:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability demonstrated by Will Beback, I think we need to wait out this internet-feud thing and try to clear up that section afterwards when things are clearer. --Lor 21:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Will Beback. Turner has attracted attention from a variety of sources, far as I can tell. Edward Wakelin 22:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the Anti-Defamation League and SPLC thought he was important enough to write about, and they are eminently notable sources regarding which of these paleo-nazis are worthy of people knowing about. Tarinth 22:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to de-list this AfD nomination under WP:SNOW. Thanks for all comments. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hal is the comeback kid. He got knocked down a 2 years ago and now here is back. He will be back.

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

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

The result was keep due to decent sourcing and improvements since nominated. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Wanta[edit]

Deprodded. Original proposed deletion rationale was I declined speedy and tried to rewrite this article, but after searching Lexis-Nexis and the web, I haven't been able to find anything that is arguably a reliable source other than NewsMax, and even that is dubious. Unless there's another source, this person fails WP:BIO, and the whole thing seems to be just internet rumor and hyperbole, anyway. The article now has a link to purported court documents on someone's website, and a bunch of other weblinks, but looks like few things that would qualify as reliable sources under WP:RS. Kchase T 18:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sounds like a big hoax to me. Nothing to back up any of the information in this article. Jayden54 18:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This goes under the "no smoke without fire" category for me. There are plenty of conspiracy articles on Wikipedia, why should this be any different?

195.92.67.75 18:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories deserve a place in Wikipedia when an idea emerges beyond the fringe media to become part of popular awareness, for example Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations.

Keep - See references on discussion page. 195.92.67.75 23:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more data is inbcluded in this article before the end of this AfD Alf photoman 20:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a trillion-dollar neutron bomb because this article makes absurd claims with sources that are entirely laughable. See WP:RS regarding: "Exceptional claims require exception sourcing." And as a conspiracy theory, there's no evidence of interest in the subject beyond the fringe. Tarinth 22:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a Clean Up. This at worst is an internet meme with a possible conspiracy mythology attached to it that appears on a number of relevant blogs, Presidential Candidate and Senator John Edwards for example. I cant determine if it would be considered as notable yet, but there is plenty of online chatter on it. Therefore, I suggest a clean up and some third party verifiable mention of it's notoriety as a urban myth.User:Tumbleman04:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for a while. After running across this story Wikipedia wasn't the first place I came to try to find some verifiable, or failing that, neutral information. Instead I came here after sloughing through dozens of dubious sites repeating the same wild stories. What's more, Leo Wanta keeps coming up. It really needs someone to find out what's really going on here, before deletion is considered. --Error28 07:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that would be a violation of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia:No original research!! What we need is for reliable sources to investigate this and report their findings before we even consider keeping an article like this! Strong delete unless reliable sources are provided. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised the guy isn't listed as being from Nigeria, as it sounds so much like the sort of thing that appears as an intro to an advance fee fraud. But I'll reserve judgement on that. Xtifr _tälk 11:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an internet meme; a Google search clearly indicates it. It should though be rewritten to reflect this. Alan Pascoe 12:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and recast clearly as an urban legend. (I looked up the Wanta article just this morning after getting a reference to the hoax in my inbox.) Tim Pierce 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Wanta is mentioned as a "businessman" in a publication of the United States Institute of Peace, so he is clearly not an "urban legend". 217.134.107.194 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep. The story looks like total nonsense. On the other hand, it's useful to find out that something's nonsense. Assuming suitable references can be found, I agree with Tim Pierce that it be recast as an urban legend piece. - Crosbiesmith 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Referenced well enough and looks notable. --Wizardman 06:23, 9 January 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 as blatant advertising. Carlpeterson (talk · contribs) had posted this same text to several articles, talk pages, and even three image pages (using a single image as a prop to support having the text on the image page). The text itself was a straight copy of the text that can be found on a web site entitled "Meaning Phrases Assist Learning By Carl H. Peterson". Clearly this was not an attempt to write encyclopaedia articles, but simply an attempt to abuse Wikipedia as an advertising billboard. Uncle G 19:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning Phrases Assist Learning[edit]

contested prod/contested speedy. It could also be spam for some sort of learning program: the contributor (Carlpeterson (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)) has created this same text in several places (COPYING SOUNDS OF RHYMES AND SONGS?/COPYING SOUNDS OF RHYMES AND SONGS), including shoe-horning it into discussion areas of images with innocuous but unrelated names (Image:Peterson Writing.jpg, Image:Meaning Phrases Assist Learning.jpg). Should add them to this nom if their speedy/prod is contested or removed inappropriate text is returned. DMacks 18:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creator shows a complete lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is. I'm trying to talk to him, with little success. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:42, 2 January 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 TO DELETE. I'm basing this mainly on Static Universe's argument, which seems stronger than any delete article. Apparantly the article has been expanded since it was nominated. Herostratus 07:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelite Daughters of the Divine Heart of Jesus[edit]

The article makes no claims to notability. A Google search [55] shows only the Wikipedia article and a mirror of the article. The article itself contains almost no information and the lack of sources and references means it would be almost impossible to find information with which to improve the article. Veesicle 18:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what little there is into Carmelites; otherwise, redirect to Carmelites. Agent 86 19:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as by Agent 86 Alf photoman 20:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Merge please give me 30 days to work on it. I have sources to make it better. Morlesg 00:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are over 200 Catholic orders in Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies. This is at least as notable as those, although it could use beter sources. Static Universe 06:09, 9 January 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 merge to Westpac Stadium after early closure as requested by nominator. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cake Tin[edit]

Article information already found at Westpac Stadium - delete and redirect. --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 18:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There isn't any more info in the small stub than currently exists in Westpac Stadium. Redirect. --Brad Beattie (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. When you see duplicate articles discussing the same thing, Wikipedia:Duplicate articles should be your first port of call, not AFD. Uncle G 19:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the information in The Cake Tin is worth keeping though.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 19:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So step #5 of the article merger process is going to be a simple one. That does not make deletion a part of the process. Uncle G 21:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay so this can be closed (!ADMIN!!!) and I will create a redirect.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 21:13, 2 January 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. TigerShark 23:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedestrian ping pong[edit]

Non-notable, unsourced and unsourceable (it was never mentioned in the press or any reliable source). It was already nominated for deletion once, it had three delete votes and one keep, but for some unknown reason, the AfD was closed keep. bogdan 18:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually closed as "no consensus". Uncle G 19:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable internet meme. --Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Resolute 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability asserted. -- Kicking222 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failure to establish notability. —ShadowHalo 12:13, 5 January 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. -Doc^g 20:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saide Ama[edit]

"she is expected to release her first album in spring/summer of 2007" Nekohakase 18:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Come back after notability requirements are met. Hatch68 19:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:Music Obina 19:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. ShadowHalo 22:42, 6 January 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 GRBerry 03:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRM helmet[edit]

A guy told a joke, which was repeated by a few blogs. That's a very non-notable topic to me. bogdan 19:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. (N.B., please cite policies when nominating.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not Digg. (OK, I just made that policy up, but...) Tarinth 22:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' under Hoax, and WP:N SirFozzie`

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

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

The result waskeepGRBerry 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Julien[edit]

Is this artist/filmmaker notable? It appears so, but I want to make sure with the community who might be more acquainted with this area, as currently the article reads non-notable. Neutral as it stands. --Nlu (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would make this a keep. The IMDB lists him and many of his films; the British Film Institute's 'Screenonline' also lists him in such a way that makes him out as notable. Sam Blacketer 20:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Sam Blacketer. And if unsure of notability, wouldn't it be better to tag it with ((notability)) rather than nominating it for deletion? -- Whpq 21:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he appears notable. AfD isn't an appropriate place to "bring things up with the community." Use it for things you actually feel strongly should be deleted. Tarinth 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Julien's a pretty important filmmaker. Freshacconci 22:37, 4 January 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven day roguelike[edit]

Delete There is nothing to indicate that this is a notable contest type and the article lacks verifiable sources. A cursory search fails to show the availability of sourcing, with Wikipedia (and Wikipedia mirrors) featuring among the top ten hits. The article was created on March 8th, 2006 and shows only 14 edits, 2 of which are the adding and subsequent removal of a Proposal for Deletion. At best, this warrants a sentence or two about this in the Roguelike article. Lankybugger 19:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-known within roguelike community. During the two 7drl contests this year, 19 new roguelikes were produced, which is about 2/3 of all new roguelikes which appeared this year. If roguelikes are notable then this subtype of roguelikes must be notable too. Also, Google Groups is far better search tool for this kind of content. Grue 20:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that Usenet postings aren't reliable sources (since, for one thing, their authorship is usually impossible to prove), it actually isn't. Google Groups is a useful search tool at Wiktionary, but not at Wikipedia. Are you seriously suggesting that a Wikipedia article be based upon nothing but Usenet posts? Uncle G 21:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like to point out that, since it's creation and according to the article, this contest has attracted a grand total of 47 participants in a period spanning almost two years, with only 32 of those participants happening this year. That certainly doesn't indicate notability. However, if you're willing to source your article with sources which verify under WP:NOTE, WP:SOFTWARE, and/or WP:WEB, I would consider changing to Keep. Until and unless that happens, I must maintain my own voice in the consensus as Delete. Lankybugger 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you don't want to rely on Usenet posts then how about the RogueBasin wiki? It is a major source of all roguelike information. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roguelike games are a notable area of game development, rooted in the lore and history of the game industry. If this article doesn't survive, I could see merging most of the content to Roguelike, but for organization's sake it is probably a better to keep separate. Tarinth 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Indeed Roguelike games are a notable area of game development (Castle of the Winds was one of my favourite games before I even knew what a roguelike was), but that doesn't necessarily make this challenge notable. Lankybugger 23:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an ongoing driving force in Roguelike games development. Unfortunately the main sources for information regarding Roguelike games fail WP:RS. I personally see that as a shortcoming with WP:RS rather than a shortcoming with the information on rec.games.roguelike.dev Garrie 00:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Query - can someone point out to me a source for roguelike activity which does meet WP:RS? I have asked similar questions on the talk page there but no useful response.Garrie 00:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Unfortunately, I don't think that such a source exists. I've found this (which I'll also be adding to the Roguelike page as a source), but for the most part Roguelikes are not featured in gaming news and tend to be a sort of niche market for gamers, especially since Roguelike games individually tend to have little instant recognizability due to the use of letters and symbols for their graphical representation. Lankybugger 00:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Tarinth 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roguelike. Also needs a stronger claim of notability and better sources, but that's a job for cleanup. --Alan Au 06:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a job for deletion if there are no sources, and that seems to be the assertion here: The only sources that exist for this are Usenet postings, whose authorship we cannot guarantee and which have not been fact checked. Uncle G 16:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but needs clean-up Joel Jimenez 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. Crossmr 23:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:V is non-negotiable, and then there's WP:N, an important part of WP:DP, which also calls for sources. No sources, no article, just as Uncle G says. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:10, 9 January 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. Speedied by Rmhermen. Agent 86 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Happ[edit]

Google shows no hits for a Nobel winner by this name FisherQueen 19:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. --Dhartung | Talk 19:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an obvious hoax. Supposed author of a scientific paper at the age of ten? There was no such winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Sam Blacketer 20:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Also a duplicate article at Doug happ. Danny Lilithborne 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax-a-mundo! --Haemo 22:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junk. Tubezone 00:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate articel notified. 68.39.174.238 22:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What a waste of our time. Resolute 00:46, 3 January 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 redirect (nothing sourced to merge). Proto::► 16:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War Corporatism[edit]

DeleteTerm appears to have no proper cites and is from an Internet video Cberlet 19:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost all Google hits seem to refer to the video directly, not to use the phrase as it is defined. I found one hit not refering to the video, but I don't think they are using the same definition. [56] Lyrl ^Talk _C 20:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Try Google Books instead of Google to judge "proper cites". About 20 hits once you take out "war, corporatism", "post-war corporatism", etc. One source that looks good there is Haydu Making American Industry Safe for Democracy; try p107 "From War Corporatism to Post-War Voluntarism". cab 22:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NEO. Dragomiloff 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Military industrial complex, unless someone can explain how the two concepts are different (doesn't look like it to me from a reading of the article). This could be a useful redirect that someone might look up, per CaliforniaAliBaba. delldot | talk 02:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This redirect idea actually makes a lot of sense.--Cberlet 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Military industrial complex per delldot. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:37, 8 January 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 Transwiki to StrategyWiki. Will move this to User:Prod's userspace as he volunteered to complete the Transwiki process. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved to User:Prod/MapleStory world. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MapleStory world[edit]

This article consists entirely of unreferenced original research. The only references are to a couple of maps of various areas in the game, and from this a huge how-to guide has been created. Not only is it unreferenced (failing WP:V), it is original research (failing WP:NOR), and it is very much a game guide, failing WP:NOT, consisting entirely of information on how to play the game, where different objects can be found in different locations, how to travel around the world, and so on. A small section in the parent article, MapleStory already exists on gameplay, and is sufficient. It may be useful to those who play the game, but there are many better places for this, such as any of the video game Wikis out there, or GameFAQs. Strong delete per What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and No original research. Proto::► 20:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to StrategyWiki or strong delete on Wikipedia per nom. TRKtv t c e 20:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Whpq 21:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. --- RockMFR 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To where? Proto::► 16:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
StrategyWiki, obviously. --- RockMFR 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If it is decided to delete/transwiki, move it to my namespace and I'll take care of it...as soon as I figure out how to get full histories exported. -- Prod-You 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, if not, Weak Agree I never quite thought about it this way but yes, I believe it should be transfered. It's just not... encyclopedia-like, and shouldn't be here. The Captain Returns 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this AFD was closed by an anon IP as 'redirect', which is something nobody suggested. I have reverted this. Proto::► 23:13, 7 January 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. Proto::► 16:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last Christmas (Ashley Tisdale song)[edit]

As a holiday single, it is not a "true" single (because it is essentially time-limited. As it is a non-notable "plain" cover, I feel the information can easily be merged onto the Last Christmas article, especially since there is very little info on the single. As far as I can tell, it is simply an iTunes release, and although a user recently put "Current Single" on the page, I see that there is already a followup single. I prod'd the page, and it was removed after the 5 days (well, on the 5th day), so...yeah. I propose a mergedeletion. Last Christmas mentions the cover, and that's enough. It's not really a notable release. SKS2K6 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I went to the next single's page, and it is listed as the singer's first single. So as far as I can tell, this song is simply a holiday release, not a legitimate single. SKS2K6 20:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. Please only nominate articles for deletion where an administrator hitting a delete button is actually part of the process that you want. Uncle G 21:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, it would actually be deleting, because there is very little info to merge. All there is "Ashley Tisdale has released a cover of Last Christmas, officially released on iTunes in December of 2006", if that. Last Christmas already mentions that she did a cover. Isn't that all the info that's needed for a non-notable semi-single? SKS2K6 21:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no reason why this requires its own article. The notation that she covered it at Last Christmas is about all that needs to be said, thus, no reason to merge. Resolute 00:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That she is mentioned in a list of people who covered the song is enough mention, since there doesn't appear to be much to say about this version. —ShadowHalo 06:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information already housed at Last Christmas. Perhaps this can be a redirect to that page, but article is unnecessary. GassyGuy 06:33, 3 January 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 del snowball: article was created as WP:POINT. `'mikka 07:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruskie commie[edit]

This unsourced and unverifiable (as well as misspelled) political epithet is a neologism apparently created solely to "balance" Jewish Bolshevism. Contested speedy and PROD. ➥the Epopt 20:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NEO. hateless 21:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a dictionary. Tarinth 21:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. See history of Jewish Bolshevism (now moved), specifically here; seems like it could be a WP:POINT vio as well. --Dhartung | Talk 21:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's not really a neologism, but it's also not a proper subject for an encyclopædia article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Useless. --Folantin 12:34, 3 January 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 don't think it's a likely redirect term, but if someone wants to redirect it, go for it. Proto::► 16:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seer stones and Urim Thummim[edit]

This is simply an unclear and unsourced essay. There is a much better article here Urim and Thummim. I would just take to prod but I'm hoping there is a basis to speedy it. Also I considered a bold redirect but the name itself is a mess so that too makes no sense.Obina 20:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm fairly certain that this does NOT meet any criteria for speedy deletion. However, it is an irrelevant (although appropriately sourced) essay. Everything that matters has already been said in the main article, Urim and Thummim. YechielMan 21:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the name is an even remotely feasible search term it should probably be redirected. I don't see objectionable content that the edit history has to be deleted. ~ trialsanderrors 21:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A bit too much content for an A1, but nothing that's not in the main article. I don't think it's worth a redirect. Tevildo 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirects are cheap, but this is going a little far. Probably the only people it would help are those looking for the original article. The content appears to be from the 1911 Britannica, and is duplicated here. The main article Urim and Thummim can include a link to that site if we want the content. delldot | talk 02:23, 3 January 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 Nom withdrawn and Keep. Navou ^talk 04:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like an ad. Navou ^talk 21:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interface Inc.[edit]

Delete. All the external links are from in-house. YechielMan 21:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This company appears to meet WP:CORP. They have been written about by reliable independent sources such as David Suzuki in this article, is studied as part of the curriculum of a Berkeley industrial design course (see week 16), and cited in news articles about green efforts like this one. -- Whpq 21:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - did not read like an ad to me. I peeked at the company's website...They trade on a public stock market and have a market cap of around $700M. They are listed on, and hence used to calculate, the NASDAQ index. That's enough for WP:CORP even without additional assertions of notability.

Tarinth 23:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite notable, I've heard of it bunches of times in reference to its environmental policies. It didn't seem to read like an ad to me, but even if it does, that wouldn't merit deletion if the company is notable. Just remove add-like material or leave the advert tag on. delldot | talk 02:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments here are convincing. I change my mind. YechielMan 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (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. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linux.org.ru[edit]

Speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review and is now here for full debate. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. trialsanderrors 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might be a perfectly good site, but given that it is in Russian I don't know that it is relavent to an English-language encyclopedia, unless it's been mentioned in the press. Tarinth 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LOR is the site where most Russian speaking IT guys get their latest news from. Many other Unix-themed web-sites all across the former Soviet Union publish RSS-feeds from LOR, or otherwise use LOR as their intelligence. MureninC 01:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability is made. Article fails every criterion of WP:WEB. Also fails WP:RS and WP:V.--RWR8189 07:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability claims The article does not fail every criterion of WP:WEB. For example, let's do a google on the unique title of a recent article that I've posted to Linux.org.ru: [57]: [58]. You clearly see that google returns 305 results for a Linux.org.ru article that was posted shortly before the new year -- approximately, that's the number of sites that reprint news from Linux.org.ru. Just some example of who does the reprinting: [59]; and RSS feeds: [60]. Linux.org.ru is a hugely popular web-site, much more popular in Russia than Slashdot.org etc. MureninC 14:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that it's in Russian has nothing to do with its notability - plenty of non-English speaking things appear on Wikipedia, as long as they're referenced. If we find some sources, keep, if not, delete. Just for reference, there is a Russian version of this article at [61] - maybe someone who speaks Russian can get something useful there. (Damn, just have a look at that Russian penguin. No soft-arse fluffy toy mascots there. He plays for keeps.) Quack 688 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, sounds like a notable website, useful for bilingual people. Snowman 14:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertions of notability, looks like it fails WP:WEB, WP:V. Wickethewok 19:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should we became directory of Linux portals in all languages? Pavel Vozenilek 23:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought we would be language-neutral. In any case the contribution of Russian programmers to Open source is so significant that it should be recognized.DGG 08:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the website itself is the source of some significant work, I'd be happy to call it notable. But are those contributions from Linux.org.ru, or are they just the contributions of Russian programmers who occasionally visit Linux.org.ru? Quack 688 11:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://ru.wikibooks.org/wiki/LOR-FAQ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.186.150.184 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Is the basic keep argument WP:ILIKEIT?--RWR8189 09:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, indeed not. I think I'm the only voter here who reads Russian, and we already have two other votes in keeping the article. Also notice how fast the decision against speedy delete was overturned, and how many people voted to overturn it. MureninC 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:WEB and RWR8189 Anomo 10:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this misinformed, misspelled and discriminative comment from the history tab: «07:13, 5 December 2006 RWR8189 (Talk | contribs) (not only is the forum non-notable, its in Russian)»? First, the site is not simply a forum, unless you call Slashdot a forum, too. Second, a lot of independent site owners integrate RSS-feeds from Linux.org.ru onto their own sites, or otherwise reprint articles from Linux.org.ru, which shows that Linux.org.ru is notable. Third, articles in this wikipedia are not limited to describing resources that have English references. MureninC 00:00, 6 January 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. Non-verifiability is indeed a valid reason for delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

36 Madison Avenue[edit]

NN college a cappella group. WP:MUSIC - crz crztalk 21:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the list of collegiate a cappella groups. Many of these groups have Wikipedia entries that are similar to this one, and are not being considered for deletion. I would like to know what makes this page different, so it can be rectified. Collegiate a cappella groups are an important part of the cultures of their colleges, and 36 Madison Avenue is extremely important to Drew University. Craazycarolyn 22:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Collegiate a cappella has become a big part of the popular music scene in colleges and universities. The annual Best of College A Cappella albums are extremely popular CDs on college campuses and beyond. The popularity of webpages such as Acatunes is also proof that collegiate a cappella groups are in the public eye. I think it is clear that 36 Madison Avenue is no less notable than the other collegiate groups with wikipedia entries. PixiesAreNice 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Inclusion is not an indication of notability. Or in simpler terms, just because other a cappella groups have articles on Wikipedia right now, doesn't mean they should. It's just no one's got around to deleting them. Please see Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of articles on musical groups. Basically, if you can find multiple articles in real newspapers (not school newspapers) written about your group, then it deserves to be kept, and I'll change my vote. Otherwise, I endorse the nominator.
    - Comment Per the ongoing discussion at the WP:N discussion page [62] college newspapers are not excluded as sources of information about college a capellaa groups, nor are they excluded as one of the multiple independent verifiable and reliable sources needed to establish notability. Edison 23:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Also Delete all on everything without sources in list of collegiate a cappella groups. cab 22:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Lack of sources displayed in an article is not sufficient cause to delete the article. Most Wikipedia articles currently lack any references at all. It is not appropriate to single out only college a capella groups for this basis for deletion and ignore hundreds of thousands of other articles. The article asserts some claim to notability and has at lleast some sources. Edison 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Nuttah68 13:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- every a capella group on every campus tours, releases CDs, and occasionally gets put on a compilation. Dylan 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as per above. The group may have been featured on compilations, but so has every other campus acapella group. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, almost none of these a capella groups are notable by the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Don't see any evidence of WP:CORP either, which they would need to meet to establish themselves as organizations notable for their campus presence. Does the college chess team get an article too? --Beaker342 00:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as student group at a single school, and precedent for deleting similar groups. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this group has won numerous awards in recent time, such as outstanding soloist and outstanding vocal percussion, at the International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella, qualifying them under criterion 8, which states "Has won or placed in a major music competition." Julesrbf 19:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability offered. Nuttah68 13:01, 7 January 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 wasdelete GRBerry 03:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DMC International[edit]

Promotional article about non-notable company RandomP 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, possibly speedy as spam. Artw 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough for me. delldot | talk 01:38, 3 January 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 Tubezone 15:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eth Bombo[edit]

Please sign your comments, and please do not erase other people's comments when you add your own. I'm re-inserting my previous reason here: "this sounds like it is made up or original research, and even if it is a real hominoid cryptid, it will probably fail the notability test too" Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 22:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no google hits for this, I've never come across the name in cryptozoology discussions, and the language stated to be the name's origin doesn't exist. Totnesmartin 22:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. Note that Michael Stamoulis (talk · contribs) is the article creator and almost all the user's edits concern this article or creating inbound wikilinks to it. --Dhartung | Talk 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks to be a hoax. Nothing on google, gnews, etc. If some sources can be found, maybe it should be kept.. but otherwise, no. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since two people here have called it a hoax, I added the hoax tag. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and WP not for monsters made up one day. Author tried inserting links to this in other articles, all wewre quickly deleted. Tubezone 00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX. Resolute 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm familiar with cryptozoology, but I've never come across this anywhere. Zagalejo 00:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You all suck eggs, retarts! I'm friends with Michael Stamoulis and if you don't keep this article i will delete all of yours!!!!!-Cusser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cusser (talk • contribs) — Cusser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete No evidence. Flibirigit 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go to ethbombo.googlepages.com-cusser
- Comment the above user edited the page to add a speedy deletion template in addition, which is redundant and could interfere with the due process of this debate. I removed that template and just left the regular deletion debate template where it is. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't add the speedy tag, I did, please look back in the history. If it's mostly or wholly a copy of a web page, it should have a speedy tag on it, right? I'm a bit puzzled as to why this rather poor piece of vandalism would need any due process. Tubezone 06:10, 4 January 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 am closing this debate early in the interest of WP:SNOW. With the ofwiki campaigning is getting out of control and no new evidence of notability being likely, continuing this will be disruptive. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wills (wrestling)[edit]

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

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

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

Viral Video meme that had 15 seconds of fame on Jimmy Kimmel Live, but utterly fails notability otherwise. Given about two weeks to improve the article, no improvement offered SirFozzie 22:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I got a good laugh the first time I watched it (as I suspect most people did, the same way they laughed at the N64 kid and thee Star Wars kid), but the video is nowhere near as widespread as those two. TJ Spyke 22:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 15 seconds is about right. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. Should it be deleted? I think SOOOOOO!. 49erInOregon 12:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Why? I DON'T KNOOOOOW! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.202 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Please note the reason the above person is voting the way they are, is in an attempt to justify a similar viral video meme on Lex Luger SirFozzie 14:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is pointless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoKeRsArMy86 (talk • contribs)

Comment I want the above vote discounted, since that user has less than 50 edits, most of it vandalism and hate speech. Booshakla 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My edit history has nothing to do with the fact that this article is garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoKeRsArMy86 (talk • contribs)
  - Said user has vandalized this page several times, and tried to manipulate votes. Booshakla 18:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere are countless articles on wikipedia about subjects that may not have huge mainstream popularity. A lot of the time when somebody hears some obscure reference, like "crying wrestling fan" or even the aforementioned Luger video, where do they check? Wikipedia of course. Now if people just go hog wild deleting everything they don't see as significant, we'll be stuck with a very incomplete encyclopedia. I say, if somebody takes the time to make a page for something, and if as many people as have commented on it and edited it do so, it is definitely noteworthy. It's not like somebody made up a page just to vainly showcase their own minimal accomplishments. Are people worried that the internet is going to run out of space or what? — 4.246.230.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Don't Delete I fail to see how a little blurb about something that got some media attention has to be deleted. Compared to some of the vast useless information on here, I think this is just fine the way it is. That's my view on it. And also, if the "I don't know" comment be striken then the "I think so" comment should as well. Hypocrisy shouldn't be becoming of a supposed unbiased site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.17.46.8 (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Very well-written, "dave wills" wrestling gets 1,800 ghits. The clip is one of the most famous clips on the internet, and not just with wrestling fans. He also appears at major independent shows in ring announcing roles and such. Being on Jimmy Kimmel is pretty big, and he has done radio interviews. He meets WP:BIO, and there is no reason for this to be deleted. Booshakla 07:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a well-written article and Dave Willis is probably the most well-known wrestling fan within the large Internet Wrestling Community (without being a one-time joke like the Cena-Fan-in-Shock), as well as being a special guest on radio programs and at southeast indy shows.24.228.59.90 07:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of course it is known within the wrestling community... so is Lex Luger's selling ability... does that mean people outside of the community care about it? "I Don't Think SOoooooO!", as your boy Lex would say. Bottom line is that it fails notability. The only reason the anon IP(s) want the inclusion is because they argue "well if Dave Wills has a page then Lex Luger's viral video should be included" Well then when this page went up for nominition, they pulled a Sid Eudy and decided that they need to vote for them in order to keep their wrestlecrap meme going. And of course as you can see from [63] they even posted a campaign telling people to vote for this... so if we see alot of contributions from people who's only edit is on this page then this is why (like the person who was wise enough to sign his post in his wrestlecrap forum name). 49erInOregon 12:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I strongly disagree that the keep votes are just a way to "keep the Luger info". These people have given valid reasons to why it should be kept. We can't control the fact that someone started a thread on the message board about it. Your vote should probably be discounted b/c you are just on a vendetta to make people upset and try to gain some power. We have a right to vote and discuss this article, and every valid reason should be considered. There's already been 2 attempts by anons to delete the keep votes, which is a pretty shady practice. Booshakla 13:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you serious about the "vendetta" comment to gain power? Where do you get that from? I'm not even on here enough to care about any form of power. That is ridiculous. If you read the thread and their thread about Lex Luger you can clearly see that is their point. Here's an example from Dave's talk page [64] from the same IP that voted keep here. As far as the GHits go, I guess it would depend on where they are coming from... if they are gorillamask and wrestling site hits then I don't know what to tell ya. Should we put up an article about every video on gorillamask? And for the one anon IP that deleted the info... how do you even know where that is coming from and what he/she is trying to cause with that disruption? 49erInOregon 13:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some related Ghit results: "crying wrestling fan" - 8,900 "it's still real to me" - 1,300. I mean c'mon, how much more notable does this guy have to be? Booshakla 13:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much Much more. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep an article. He fails notability, period. SirFozzie 14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making arguments about his notability, not that I like him or not. If you want to find articles that really need deleting, go pick out some random manga articles or something. He's very notable, I've given plenty of reasons and could come up with some more. Booshakla 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more points made besides the "I Like It" in WP:ILIKEIT 49erInOregon 17:16, 5 January 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. GRBerry 03:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from beauty[edit]

Fails on grounds of Original research, and neutral point of view. I see no evidence of anything called the "Argument from Beauty" which merits an encyclopaedia entry. All I see is one person indulging in some philosophical musing and trying to justify a particular stance on the (super)natural world. Where is the evidence that the "Argument from Beauty" is a concept that has occurred in the literature, or is a phrase widely used as a justification for belief in a god? Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a primary one. This looks more like blog-material than an encyclopaedia entry. Snalwibma 22:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not bad as an essay or a version of the teleological argument, but definitely OR. Should we merge this AfD with Argument from love? Tevildo 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this even remotely OR? It merely summarizes the points of a common variant of the teleological argument. I can only assume the original nominator isn't familiar with philosophy. See http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/godother.html for a good non-Wiki article on the subject. I agree that the article could use a good source for the outline of the argument, but one shouldn't be too hard to come up with. Tarinth 23:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - in reply to Tarinth - It is original research in the sense that it is an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" (see definition at WP:OR). The advancing of a position means that it also falls foul of WP:NPOV. Snalwibma 09:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm not sure there's a POV issue, but there is a lack of philosophical criticism on the argument. I added a section for that, which could probably be enhanced by other editors over time. Tarinth 15:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this. It's just another fork of the creation-evolution ocntroversy. We have more than enough of that shit already. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has nothing to do with creationism or evolution. Tarinth 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if drastically rewritten I do not think it is the best written piece I have ever seen. It is hard to read. Some of it is probably their own paraphrasing of the text in the arguments but not well sourced. However, this is a classic argument for the existence of God. The editor/editors have not dug very deeply into the literature and have not sourced their statements very well to tie the statements in the article to the references. This needs better citing, and more sources and more material. How about more on the history of this argument? It has a long rich history in philosophy I know. I think that the comment of the author above that "this is a fork of the creationism-evolution controversy and we have more than enough of that shit already" betrays a severe bias which makes me not take his comments very seriously. In fact, they color my opinion of his rationality quite negatively. Where does this article talk about evolution? Where does this article talk about the creationist myth? This is an argument for a deity. It is too much of a stub and needs to be filled out considerably. It needs better references. I am tempted to respond to "we have too much of that shit already" but that is inappropriate in the interests of comity. However, I will state that such a statement displays this editor in a very bad light indeed.--Filll 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I don't mind contributing more content to this article. I've already tried to add some information critical of the argument to the article, but I'll wait to see if it stays around to invest much more in it. I think it's an important concept with a fairly ancient history. Tarinth 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The policy on arguments for/against existence of God is that each significant argument has its own article, showing what the argument is and what the major points against the argument are. The argument, by definition, "seeks to advance a position" but the article simply reports the argument from an NPOV. By all means expand/improve it of course. NBeale 10:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I should disclose that I am the original author of the article. I should also add that "NPOV" is not considered a good reason for deletion but for improvement, and that if even Dawkins has heard of this argument and thinks it worth referring to in passing it can't be that obscure! I agree it needs expanding etc.. that's why I marked it a stub. But if we delete it the expansion will never happen! NBeale 14:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I have just checked, Dawkins has a section called The argument from beauty" and devotes 1½ pages to this, the same as he devotes to the first three of Aquinas's arguments combined If 'Dawkins' thinks the argument is that notable, that's pretty strong evidence for a keep IMHO NBeale 14:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NBeale. My personal views are more in line with Dawkins's, which is why I amended the article with some of the philosophical objections; I see no reason why people on either side of the discussion cannot make valuable contributions and keep the tone neutral (which I believe it is). Tarinth 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN view, merge any relevent, verifiable content with Teleological argument if possible.--Andrew c 15:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So should we take your !vote as a Merge then? Tarinth 21:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting ideas but author may need to find some other venue for it than a free-standing Wikipedia article. OR, unsourced, unverifiable. Wikipedia collects information, not creates it. Tragic romance 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is a form of teleological argument and I have edited the article to say that and it is an argument specifically addressed by other notables. I do not feel it is a POV fork of teleological argument as long as we keep in both for and against sides of this specific example. That aside, beauty is in the eye of the beholder so an infinite entity would fine all things "beautiful" even the most ugliest of creatures e.g. my personal fav the guinea worm. That we find some things beautiful and other things ugly and then some use this to prove the existence of an entity who would not make that distinction shows the true value of this argument. I like this argument as you can drive a train through it. Toot toot....Ttiotsw 07:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ttiotsw. Though the whole point of the AfB is that, according to classical Theism, Beauty is not simply "in the eye of the beholder" and that God distinguishes rightly between beauty and ugliness, as well as betwen truth and falsehood. You can hold that Premise (1) is mistaken, but if it is true then the argument is valid and the conclusion follows. But premises can always be debated NBeale 08:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't put my hands on the relevant info in a hurry, but I have encountered this line of argument in the established philosophical/theological literature, albeit in some sidewaters. It's not OR as far as I'm concerned. It does need to be tightened up, however. Pgg7 18:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This article could use a lot of work, but so could 80% of Wikipedia articles. IMHO, it is adequately referenced, relevent, and does not constitute OR. Keep it. — James.S ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 02:24, 8 January 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. Proto::► 13:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoKrida (third nomination)[edit]

This is the third nomination- normally I wouldn't do this, but the first two didn't actually discuss much (the second nomination took almost a month to generate any discussion). There are no reliable sources for this article at all. Google shows nothing and it looks like no major sites link to it. No mentions in google news either. The article is not verifiable Wafulz 22:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks fun/interesting, but nothing on LexisNexis, and only 67 unique Ghits after discounting Wikimirrors. No bias against re-creation if notability can subsequently be demonstrated. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to assert notability. Yuser31415 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Hit bull. -- Kicking222 21:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I couldn't figure out if I'm allowed to vote as an anonymous user. Even if not, please take my thoughts into consideration) GoKrida's Google Search may return only 14800 results, and it definitely has less than 1000 participants. However, RuneScape, a very popular online game, only returns 512000 results with about 175000 players online when I wrote this. GoKrida has many more results per player. With regards to reliable sources, GoKrida has little to nothing for official reference, since the point of the game is for the players to discover information. I would gladly cite some references made by respected players, but I do not know if that is good enough. I think it would be a shame for Wikipedia to lose an article about a unique game due to a lack of verifiable sources, so hopefully we can find a solution. --75.129.241.82 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether you're anonymous or not doesn't matter, it's just the point that you make. Unfortunately, the article needs sources (the Google pages illustrate that I could not find any). Wikipedia articles don't reflect anything about their subjects other than how many sources are available. --Wafulz 03:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've been trying to do some research that should make this a more Wikipedia-worthy article, but it's hard to find sources that satisfy certain Wikipedians. Because of this, I haven't really updated the article itself in a while. I would like it to be there so that I can keep working on it. B7T 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made the assertion that there are no sources that would fit WP:RS- the only way to keep the article would be to prove that sources exist. --Wafulz 03:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a guideline, not a policy; although this sort of information is what I have been trying to discover. B7T 03:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually WP:RS is a guideline in conjuction with WP:V, which is a policy. No reliable sources implies no verifiability. --Wafulz 03:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:V specifies that it is to be used if the material is challenged or likely to be challenged. Does this seem to be the case with this material? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.146.221.26 (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete "I would like it to be there so that I can keep working on it." tells me that the author feels like the article is not yet good enough. This is a red flag for me. Ask an administrator to userfy it for you, so that you can work on it until you feel like it is ready to be considered again. Brendan Alcorn 04:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, I thought it was good enough to remain since before the last AfD. I do, however, think it could be better, especially since other Wikipedians seem to find it controversial enough to keep nominating it for deletion. Userfying it might not be a bad idea, but this is intended to be a collaborative effort; and having it in my userspace may keep others who'd be useful in improving the article from finding it. B7T 06:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. This article does not appear to meet notability requirements, but has undergone no significant changes since the last two votes, both of which were judged to have a consensus of "keep". Note that this is different from "No Consensus" as was given to NexusWar the first time (article has subsequently been deleted after being nominated a second time by the same nominator as this article, Wafulz). Given that the community has already reached consensus to keep this article, not once, but twice, should it not fall to the nominator to demonstrate why the community was wrong both times previously? 68.146.221.26 09:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's in my first sentence. --Wafulz 18:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to what I can do to help improve the article if none of the outside sources on GoKrida are considered verifiable by Wikipedia. Would it help if similar information were published to a privately owned page and then referenced from this article? It seems a waste to create another page to verify this page but it's not that hard. The WP:RS Page says that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources" so would a player created page be considered a reliable secondary source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.225.100 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- "For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Missed that part-- should have read down farther...sorry! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.225.100 (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. If it was kept the first two times, nothing's changed since then. JWR 20:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read through my nomination and through consensus can change. The article didn't have sources then, and it doesn't have sources now. --Wafulz 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Consensus can change, but has it? The only real notice this article gets is when someone decides it needs to be nominated for deletion once again. And I wonder why it even gets notice at all in this regard, considering some of the badly-written and sparsely-sourced articles I've seen that have never been nominated. B7T 05:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only way to keep this from being deleted is to provide sources- read through the first two discussions. One was rife with confusion, and the other took almost a month and really should have ended in a delete or no consensus since there were a lot of WP:ILIKEIT votes. If I had more time I would nominate every "bad" article that I stumbled upon. Unfortunately, time is limited, so I can only do a few at a time, and about 50% of the time I get the argument that "there are other articles that should be nominated so why do you pick on us?" Nobody is stopping you from nominating them (however, don't just nominate articles frivolously to make a point). --Wafulz 05:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - What should we look for as sources? Do gaming directories count? 24.13.225.100 04:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I asked a more generalized version of this same question here, because it seemed that WP:RS and WP:NOR rather frustrated any efforts to include articles in Wikipedia for items of this type of media. Both articles mentioned in the agreeing response are still part of Wikipedia. B7T 07:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There has been some discussion on the application of Wikipedia policies to articles about browser-based games. We might want to consider things like this when nominating one for deletion. B7T 08:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like the other user pointed out, verifiability is non-negotiable. Your analogy is also flawed since book reviews tend to hash out the plot or book contents and any relevant details. I don't see the connection between books and games, or how WP:RS or WP:NOR are counterintuitive at all. Admittedly though, many "plot" sections of books need to be honed down significantly. --Wafulz 20:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If by pointing out that book reviews overdo it on summarizing the plot you're making a comparison to the "Player-created culture and history" section of the article, then I agree; most or all of the information there is actually unneccessary to anyone just looking to familiarize themselves with the concept of GoKrida but not actually intending to participate. I still stand by my assertion that WP:RS or WP:NOR may be counterintuitive, however; wouldn't the book/game itself be a reliable source or an obvious and logical place to discover details? B7T 06:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is only a guideline. Stop using it as an end-all argument as though it's Wikipedia policy. However, the Notability page links to this, which is a policy. B7T 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for this article, WP:V is also a policy. If there aren't any reliable sources about GoKrida (and it seems that there aren't), no information on it can have a place here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there are no reliable sources as Wikipedia policy goes. But those editing this page didn't make this stuff up. Users of Wikipedia seem to have a different concept of Wikipedia than some of its editors do, and consider Wikipedia itself to be a "reliable source". I've heard of several players who started GoKrida by finding it in a Google search (yes, apparently it can be found with the right keywords), and checking it out on Wikipedia to find out more about it, as there seem to be few other informative resources currently available to those who haven't created an account there. Since it seems you may have overlooked the link in my last post, let me make it clearer that I believe that this article falls under the policy WP:IAR. B7T 16:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Online games are notoriously hard to find sources for outside of the official site and fan base. RuneScape, for example, didn't have any third party sources in the Wikipedia entry for quite some time. Many other game entries still do not. Bear in mind that the spirit of the policies that have been mentioned is directed towards more scholarly assertions that are or could be disputed and argued over. Therefore I don't find the lack of sources to be a problem by itself. Although I vote to keep this article, I will add the provision that improvements should be made to it in the coming months. If it is still in the same state in several months time I would agree that it should be deleted. More specifically I think some of the information is only relevant to players of the game and should be deleted. Other topics are not expanded upon enough (for example the "GKF" is only mentioned in passing). But the talk page is more appropriate for such a discussion. 81.79.95.66 19:47, 8 January 2007
- Well it's gone a year without sources. I've asserted that there are no sources to be found- if this is untrue, then the only way to prove it is to bring the sources up. Everything on the encyclopedia should be "academic"- that is to say, it should all be sourced through secondary sources.--Wafulz 03:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - From what I can tell, there seems to have always been some sort of deliberate obfuscation of GoKrida on the part of the administration, design team, etc. I'm guessing we're unlikely to find any sources. B7T 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, that's unfortunate. Oh well. --Wafulz 07:04, 9 January 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, nomination withdrawn. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from love[edit]

Fails on grounds of original research and neutral point of view. I see no evidence of anything called the "Argument from love" which merits an encyclopaedia entry. All I see is one person indulging in some philosophical musing and trying to justify a particular stance on the (super)natural world. Where is the evidence that the "Argument from love" is a concept that has occurred in the literature, or is a phrase widely used as a justification for belief in a god? Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a primary one. This looks more like blog-material than an encyclopaedia entry. Snalwibma 22:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I understand Snalwibma's further comment below his nomination for deletion is withdrawn. It is common ground that this article needs further work and I hope that a number of the users who have contributed will work on it. I'll certainly do my bit when I get back from the US later this month. Together we can continue to make Wikipedia stronger. NBeale 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tevildo 06:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless referenced and rewritten. --EthicsGradient 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a really pervasive thread in the whole of Christian Philosophy - the books listed are good sources and it would be straightforward although tedious to list a dozen more. I'll try to put up more specific refs but I have work to do today, big family events at weekend and business trip Monday-Thurs, and only found out today about this delete proposal. NBeale 10:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I am the primary author of the article. I also note that NPOV is not considered a particularly good reason for deleting, cos such articles can be re-written if that's the problem NBeale 12:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am less familiar with this argument than the argument from beauty. I am less persuaded by it. As in the case of Argument from beauty, the article is too scanty and needs to be fleshed out. The history is not described adequately. I am unsure of its importance in philosophy and its venerability. If it can be demonstrated to have an extensive history like the argument from beauty, it could be kept. I wonder if might not be smarter to Merge this with the argument from beauty or similar arguments? However, that might not be the best option. I am unsure. Perhaps the article should be drastically fleshed out first so that it can be more properly judged, and its relevance would be better understood from that perspective? If it is removed, I would favor the editors working on it in draft form and then trying again. How many other arguments are there? There must be many. Can a better way to organize them be imagined?--Filll 14:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An unsourced, bulleted list is not an encyclopedia entry and fails other wikipedia policies as well. Merge any verifiable content if possible.--Andrew c 15:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be a Merge therefore. However I would note that this argument now has has more refs than the Cosmological argument which as been well-establised since 2001. It was a stub originally and the way to deal with a new-ish "unsourced" is to source, not delete the article. NBeale 14:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am familiar with this argument and think it deserves to be kept, though further development in terms of sourcing would be good. 193.63.62.252 18:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an independent argument though significant editing is required - Mclaugb 12:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see enough hits in a Google Book search here to convince me that this is now an argument in theology with its own name. None of the full book results in that search are about this argument from love, however, they only use if as part of "argument from love of ____" with varying blanks. There are also at least two relevant google scholar results here. GRBerry 02:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - on that basis I would be happy to retract my nomination for deletion - but the article must demonstrate that it is an "argument with its own name". It needs considerable rewriting to turn it into an explanation and discussion of a notable argument used by others. At present it still consists largely of blog-style musing, and appears to be trying to persuade the reader of the existence of a god. As it stands it is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Unless this is changed within a reasonable time I will renominate for deletion. Snalwibma 09:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I had mistaken this for the argument from beauty, which survived the AfD, so I also added this one the Template:God Arguments, but I have since removed it. I have no idea, if this is a notable argument or not, and I didn't remove it because I don't think it is notable, I simply don't know... I think it should be added to the template when this RfD has been decided. On the other hand if anybody might want to put this back on it, to get more traffic to this debate for example, it is fine with me. Anyway.... I will make a relevant comment or rather ask a question here, the argument from beauty has changed drastically since the AfD, but this one has not. Was all attention on the other one, or is this one simply less sourceable? --Merzul 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge I would rather tend towards keeping this one. Unless we have things that are blatantly self-promotions, such as an argument that is simply the title of somebody's essay, etc. I'm hardly offended at having too many arguments for or against the existence of God. This is not a less significant question than the fictional characters in the World of Warcraft ;) The question is of course, and this is mainly to supporters of this argument. NBeale for example, you have worked hard at asserting the notability of this argument, but you also have to ask yourself: are you willing to maintain so many independent articles at a high quality? Thus merging love and beauty into "The arguments from love and beauty" is probably just simpler to maintain! --Merzul 19:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since my "Delete unless referenced and rewritten", the article has been referenced. However, the text gives the impression that the Argument has a more-or-less logical, formal structure. While there are plenty connections between the perception of love and the notion that God exists in literature, what the article needs in its current form is a reference to where it is spelled out in a more or less formal manner. --EthicsGradient 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per comments by GR Berry and Mclaugb above Laura H S 09:38, 9 January 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 as unverifiable trivia; Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. (aeropagitica) 11:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone like[edit]

This is an odd list, based on a non-notable phase. It doesn't even list actors cast because the director wanted someone like someone else, but actors who were cast because they were like themselves. Oops, that includes every actor. Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The story about Peter Jones and the Hitch-hiker's Guide is to my knowledge correct but I don't see any sources backing up the five entries - so it seems to break verifiability policy. It's also a somewhat random collection of information. Sam Blacketer 23:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sam. Yuser31415 03:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unverifiable, and likely to descend into a meaningless list of trivia. Snalwibma 09:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, probably unverifiable and pretty pointless in any case. --Folantin 12:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really want this info to be on Wikipedia, because that is a legitimate concept. Don't know if it merits an entire article though. In any case, the article as is, is not up to standard. No sources, etc. Material should perhaps be exported to a wider article on moviemaking. Tragic romance 23:11, 5 January 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. Proto::► 13:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Chaos[edit]

An unsourcable webgame article. Google doesn't turn up any reliable sources. I found some reviews and walkthroughs, but they were of the "submit-a-review" variety or from personal websites/blogs. Couldn't find any sources through a search either. Not verifiable. If reliable sources do turn up somehow, the article will need a massive overhaul since it is basically serving as an in-game history, which is not encylopedic. Wafulz 23:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources and established notability. Heimstern Läufer 23:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eye witnesses aren't sources? The stuff here is all fairly accurate. Removing the article would make our work useless and would remove a useful article from wikipedia. I agree that it could use an overhaul, but deleting it is needless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.11.137 (talk • contribs)
- No, "eyewitnesses" (in this case I'm guessing gamers) are not reliable sources. We need reliable sources to avoid original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias never allow primary or preliminary research- they only summarize what has already been said by other reputable sources. I'm sure there are plenty of gaming wikis out there who would be glad to have an article on this game. --Wafulz 03:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I know, there are no other wikis on KoC. If KoC gets deleted, I expect many other articles on games to be deleted.The 1337 04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Has anyone bothered to stop and think that such "reliable sources" can be found on both the game's official forum and respective clan forums? Tytrox 05:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been involved in the game and with its administrators since its first age (I'm an operator in its IRC channel, and an admin on the official game forum)... The information is pretty much accurate. And if I were to ask an administrator to verify it would it satisfy this debate? If you wanted to argue that pages on games are pointless; that could be a valid argument, though the counterpoint to that would be that pages on TV Shows are also pointless. Though I'm glad these debates exist... else the truthiness of this article would simply be assumed nonexistant. Snoop0x7b 05:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snoop0x7b (talk • contribs) 05:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - No, we need secondary sources, which are defined by being non-trivial third party sources that go through an editorial process- no interviews or forum posts or descriptions from the game's website/fanpages/personal pages/etc. Otherwise it's original research. And by "gaming wiki" I meant a wiki focused on video games, not a wiki based on KoC. I'm relatively sure that they exist. --Wafulz 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps this may be news to you... You probably won't find a secondary source on an online game, as it really isn't interesting enough to be in a professional journal, or a book written about games. If an administrator of the defacto KoC communities (someone that would be in a position to do online puiblication or editation of information on the game), an administrator of the game (a primary source), and the KoC community as a whole agree with the content of this article it's a good chance it's accurate. By precluding a primary source such as an administrator of the game, who exactly would be qualified in this case to talk about it; since obviously no third party is going to do a legitimate publication on it. Snoop0x7b 05:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You could also verify the existance of 4 races in the game, attack turns, etc by visitting the kingsofchaos home page. The argument that something that obvious isn't fact because someone didn't publish it should be considered to be bad; since it is verifiable by visitting the homepage. Snoop0x7b 06:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course there is also the point of random players showing up and editting themselves into the history. In which case yes that is bad. Perhaps the page should be restructured and moderated in some way (locked?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snoop0x7b (talk • contribs) 06:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      - (edit conflict) Actually, lots of third parties publish information on video games. Typically these come in the forms of online or print magazines doing reviews or talking about popular games (RuneScape#Footnotes and Urban Dead#External links are examples). Some shows such as Attack of the Show also feature online games. Articles cannot be based on primary sources. Sorry, but this is fundamental to the encyclopedia, in particular to keeping neutral point of view. I won't budge on this, and neither will any administrators. --Wafulz 06:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm willing to admit that in game history is non-encyclopedic and should definately be removed. However I think information such as the races, the turn based nature of it, and information on weapons, etc; should be included. Something such as this: http://www.kingsofchaos.com/help.php# covers it all and should be cited as a source. When writing a research publication a user's manual for an instrument is admissible as a citation; and that is written by the engineers that made said item. Thus I'd make the argument that it is possible to have verifiable sources for things such as that. However the nonverifiable information such as, goings-on in game should be removed. BUT the heavyhanded suggestion of the complete removal of this article is just bad. Snoop0x7b 06:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are targeting KoC specifically. I assume there will be more articles also deleted for the same reasons. As of I don't see that, which may infer something.The 1337 05:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You haven't been looking. I nominate articles as I come across them and if I believe they can't meet certain policies, such as those stated above. Here are some related examples:

I also tend to use the proposed deletion route most of the time. I have several dozen more examples but I think I've illustrated my point. I would prefer that you assume good faith and not suggest I have some hidden agenda. --Wafulz 06:10, 4 January 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 as a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 11:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qualys[edit]

The ((prod)) tag I placed on this article was removed by someone referring to the company as "we". The changes that were made make it look slightly less like advertising, but the article still fails to establish notability worthy of inclusion and represents an admitted violation of our guidelines regarding conflict of interest. Notability has not been established; the article represents a conflict of interest; and the only sources as of this writing are company sponsored. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 23:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no real assertion of notability. Heimstern Läufer 23:36, 2 January 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 g3 vandalism, author now blocked for creating numerous nonsense articles. NawlinWiki 23:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hacka[edit]

This page is a hoax because when I searched in Google, I found no specific confirmation on this new "animal." I even checked a few reliable new sources (e.g. CNN, Fox News, Reuters, New York Times) and those places don't have articles about it either. Another reason this is a hoax is because the island of Jecke doesn't exist, nor does the fruit mwa wa. Note that I previously proposed deletion, but someone removed the tag and replaced it with the clean-up tag. Squirepants101 23:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research at best, hoax at worst. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Author's contribs have nothing but nonsense/vandalism. Fan-1967 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that the original creator of the article has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Squirepants101 23:12, 2 January 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 Merge to Yorktown High School (Virginia). Deathphoenix ʕ 04:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Yorktown Sentry[edit]

I did speedy this, but at protests from the creator I'm putting it here. I'm concerned that this article doesn't meet WP:NOT guidelines; I see nothing in the article that merits its own page. Rather, I propose merge into the appropriate Yorktown High School article. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creator: Actually I didn't know that an article could also be put here ... hmm. Well I still think the article should be kept seperate, if added to the Yorktown High School page (linked above) I believe that page would become cluttered. There is a full category for Student Newspapers, quite a few of which are high school newspapers, and I see no reason why this shouldn't be in that category. Danielfolsom 23:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. What is this page (what I'm writting in)? Why aren't we using the talk page anymore?

This is the official forum for discussion of this article, to see if there's a consensus for delete/merge and keep. As for 'cluttered', if not much on the page is notable, then getting rid of the non-notable stuff would result in less clutter, and make a better article. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the article, I think a Smerge of a few sentences to the "Activities and Clubs" section of Yorktown High School (Virginia) would be the best solution, for the reasons stated by the nominator. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge first sentence into the school's page as suggested, while deleting the unencyclopedic rest of the article. I see no reason even to leave a redirect in place, so the AfD is not wholly pointless. Henning Makholm 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, we aren't supposed to merge and delete, since it violates the chain of contribution. A merge and redirect would be fine, though. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then, and afterwards let somebody add a single sentence to the school's article stating that it has a student-run newspaper. Henning Makholm 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic? In what way? Given that it is the most succesful student paper in Arlington (it prints more copies than the Sun Gazzete, a non-student newspaper) I think it's relative, and as far as information goes it details the process involved in the creation of the Sentry, the contents in the Sentry, and the Sentry website.Danielfolsom 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Nuttah68 13:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what's notable into main high school article per nom. --Wizardman 05:54, 9 January 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 as a location lacking in sources to verify its notability. I don't see why it can't be recreated if reliable sources can be found to supply evidence for notability. (aeropagitica) 11:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Avenue (Brooklyn)[edit]

I think this article should be deleted because it is about a non-notable street in Brooklyn and because the article is a very short stub. Also I think it should be deleted because it has no sources. Natl1 23:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete db-empty Akihabara 02:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is a major street and sources will be found. I've started adding. This street furthermore has some ethnic significance. Is there a WikiProject Brooklyn?DGG 08:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a WikiProject New York City. --NE2 11:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we notify them? DGG 01:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a major street. It's a major commercial strip in East New York ("The main commercial strip, Pennsylvania Avenue, is now dotted by chain stores." and the site of a landfill. It connects the end of the Interborough Parkway to the Belt Parkway. --NE2 11:49, 4 January 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 as a dictionary definition, per WP:WINAD. (aeropagitica) 11:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rival[edit]

dictionary definition; the parts that aren't a definition are best handled elsewhere - we have a Sports rivalry article and a page for Rival (disambiguation). Prod contested. Brianyoumans 23:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is an extended dicdef and more appropriate for Wictionary (where undoubtedly a definition of "rival" already exists). --Hyperbole 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rival (disambiguation). There are numerous links at Rival that should be added to the disambig page. --- RockMFR 01:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added most of the disambiguation links to Rival (disambiguation). I left out the list of fictional rivals as being very incomplete and mostly obscure; I put in a link to List of famous fictional pairs instead. --Brianyoumans 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Rival (disambiguation) here. —Cryptic 05:03, 7 January 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 as a non-notable website per WP:WEB and lacking in reliable sources. (aeropagitica) 11:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikIran[edit]

A non-notable wiki with 600 article. There is not even a single reliable source discussing it. The only thing they have is being linked by a couple of Iranian directory sites.

It claims that "Articles by WikIran continue to be mirrored, referenced, and copied by various other sources such as factbites.com." But factbites.com is a search engine! Being indexed by a search engine also does not make one notable.

This article was nominated before, but it was kept only because the Iranian crowd voted en-masse keep, disregarding the policy on "reliable sources". bogdan 23:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Strong delete, as it fails WP:WEB and other criteria for inclusion. Simply because it runs on MediaWiki software does not count as notability. From the references provided, we have:

The website itself, cited as a reference!?
This... thing which doesn't even mention WikIran anywhere.
A reference for Iranian.com being a large website, which doesn't look very reliable either because it is only a first-party claim.
This other... thing which doesn't look too reliable either.
And factbites.com which, being a search engine, is capable of finding any website you want it to, if you try hard enough.

Ergo, it seems to fail inclusion criteria since it has not reliable outside sources and must be deleted per WP:NOT#IINFO. Axem Titanium 00:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero reliable sources, fails WP:V. Resolute 00:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB, and the fact it uses MediaWiki software is not an indicator of notability per se: also, this article lacks referencing, reliable sources, and no verifiable sources. Until these can be provided, there is no assertion of notability yet. --SunStar Net^talk 00:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SunStar Net. It appears to be a simple fork of Wikipedia, which makes me doubtful that it will have multiple independant third-party reliable sources to fufill WP:WEB and WP:V. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Srong Keep "WikIran" is a notable website, it was featured on the most notable English-language Iranian media outlet Iranian.com, and several Iranian newspapers with multi-million copy circulations such as Shargh. The term "WikIran" generats thousands of Google hits, that's notbility in itself. [65] --Mardavich 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Google hits aren't really a notable gauge of notability or verifiability. Doing a more complex search eliminates web boards, wikipedia itself, a few pollution-spam sites, and mirror sites, and while it's still around 1500, again, ghits aren't necessarily notable. But, you do mention the other news sources. It's worth a shot, but it may run afoul of WP:LOCAL. I'm not prejudiced to deletion, but it does need to meet standards. --Dennisthe2 03:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which Shargh article? When?! That newspaper is available online (although it has been closed monthes ago!). Put a link to that article, I don't beleive it exists with no direct link. Hessam 10:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Please change my mind. --Dennisthe2 03:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Mardavich--Sa.vakilian 03:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Google hits do not beget notability.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a wiki is not itself a claim to notability. This page's sources are minimal, and the wiki itself has only 57 registered users. --Metropolitan90 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Wikiran's content is licensed under the GFDL similar to Wikipedia, it is not like Wikiran's owners are making any profit of it. I dont understand why would you want to delete an article about a constructive FREE encyclopedia. - Marmoulak 06:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing the merits of the site or its owners, we're discussing whether it's notable enough. yandman 08:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it isn't. Delete. yandman 08:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per the nom and Axem Titanium. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Even Iranian.com removed link to this small wiki.[66]. What are you talking about anymore? Hessam 09:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's not true. Iranian.com has not removed the link to WikIran, the link is where it should be, in the November archive. --Mardavich 09:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok. So it's a simple link. Could all websites that has been linked there have and article on wikipedia? I think it's better we archive it too. Hessam 10:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated in many AfDs, WP:WEB is not policy and notability criteria are subjective at best. What some others view as notable, others may not. Clearly there is a strong reaction against this wiki and other wikis such Wikinfo and Wipipedia. I find this disheartening, as many of the people involved with these wikis are most likely strong Wikipedia contributors and thus a frequent exchange between wikis as regards information is inevitable. metaspheres 11:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:WEB may not be a policy, but Verifiability certainly is a core policy. bogdan 11:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not subjective. WP:WEB is full of Objective measures. Show me that it passes ANY. ---J.S ^(T/C) 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:WEB, no substantial third party coverage. Note this AN discussion which alleges that the operators of this wiki abuse Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Incidentally... a POV fork of the entire encyclopedia? I'm not optimistic about the quality of the result, but maybe it will improve Wikipedia's quality if POV warriors (should there be any around here, I haste to add) migrate there. Sandstein 11:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you guys ever get tired of the bad faith assumptions? The discussion you referenced so far isn't much of a discussion, but a series of allegations made by Hessam, and some inquiries from others. From what I can see of wikIran, there is nothing to suggest that it's a "POV fork" similar to Wikinfo or Citizendium. Many of the articles there look original to the site, and I see no evidence of "POV-warrior" edits there. I suggest that you and others tone it down big time. Like I told another editor on a different AfD, this is a dicussion, not a vicious circle, and your attitude, and the attitude of others displayed here which would frighten away the casual reader, is not conducive to the spirit of Wikipedia. metaspheres 12:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep --Rayis 11:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
_{User has less than 50 edits}_{---J.S ^(T/C) 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
Strong Delete--Sina 12:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per the impressive vote by Axem Titanium. Multiple non-trivial third-party references from reliable major sources, anyone? No, thought not. Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, come back when you established yourself as a notable wiki. --Conti|✉ 15:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some non-trivial reliable secondary sources can be found... ---J.S ^(T/C) 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Mardavich. Also, none of the reasons given for the deletion of this article are "good enough" reasons.Azerbaijani 20:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is a "good enough" reason, then? --Conti|✉ 21:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Azerbaijani and Mardavich--Pejman47 20:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no reason for deleting it. Tājik 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The website contains information that can enrich WP.--Zereshk 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It looks notable enough to be kept. I agree wiht Tajik, there is no reason to delete it.Gol 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Gzkn 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is also armeniapedia and other such links through Wikipedia. Also the article was nominated for deletion once and it was voted to keep. I am sure if there is nth deletion trial, it will be deleted by some users who might have other intentions. --alidoostzadeh 02:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I see no reason to delete either.--Nightryder84 04:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB miserably. no amount of "Keep"s can circumvent that fundamental fact. the iranian.com ref provided is merely a one-lined advertisement, and thus trivial coverage. ghits alone is not a reliable indicator of notability. ITAQALLAH 04:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable page.Nokhodi 04:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Well, the article is not used for advertisement, and WikIran is becoming, although slowly, more popular. The article can improve significantly, It doesn't have to be deleted. --04:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: this user had been solicited to "vote Keep" on this AfD by User:Marmoulak [67]. ITAQALLAH 04:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IF I was going to change my vote, although i see this comment. Whether you think I was solicited or not, I'm going to give my vote. And yes Keep IF the article is going to be cleaned up. I mean the references are ridiculous. You can't say the website "Iranian.com" is the biggest online community of Iranians in N.A Because the website itself stats so. Or that WikIran is important because WikIran says so. I believe that WikIran is significant in a way, but the article in Wikipedia is not. --Arad 04:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is a double-standard here. By some peoples standards here, Wikispecies and Wikiversity and Persian Wikipedia and Kurdish Wikipedia cannot have articles here, but since they are Wikimedia sites, I guess the rules don't apply, yes? But like another editor says here those rules are not "rules" but guidelines and they are viewed in a different ways by different editors. From what I see, it is notable and significant project as others have shown especially as it is the only Iranian wiki. On the Admin Noticeboard it is interesting to note that someone suggests that WP and WikIran have "interwiki" and then when he finds out that WikIran is not Wikimedia, says that since it is not an "official wiki" (whatever that means) that any links to WikIran are "wiki-spam" and should be "nuked". That's very nice, but is a hostile attitude and I agree with others who say that this is against the spirit of Wikipedia. I am 100% sure that most people on WP do not agree with attacking other wikis or editors because they are involved with other wikis or add links to other wikis. If an article on a wiki is sourced and has references, there should be no problem. A site like WP is no more or less reliable than a site like WikIran. I have looked at articles on WikIran and they have just as many sources as WP articles and alot of them use the Encyclopedia Iranica as a source. I see good arguments for and against but the people against look more concerned with attacking the project and its editors and mocking them than anything else. I have been on WP awhile and I don't care how anyone wants to justify it, but those are personal attacks and just because its against another wiki or off-wiki editors doesn't make it right. Also the nominator is incorrect in saying that WP:RS is a policy - it is a guideline. Like I am saying there is a double-standards here. Khorshid 05:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...the people against look more concerned with attacking the project and its editors and mocking them than anything else. I have been on WP awhile and I don't care how anyone wants to justify it, but those are personal attacks and just because its against another wiki or off-wiki editors doesn't make it right." Please don't make sweeping, ad-hominem accusations like that. Registering a delete !vote = a personal attack? Take a closer look at WP:NPA. Gzkn 05:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the right to make my comment and the comments here speak for themselves. Again there should be no double-standards so when you say "don't make ad hominem" accusations you should really be telling that to others who are actually making such accusations. There is clearly a problem when others attacks and accusations are overlooked and any criticism of those attacks and accusations are written off. Khorshid 06:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please take into account the basic rule that the existence of a non-notable article does not justify the existence of all similar articles. I'm going to nominate "Kurdish Wikipedia" and "Persian Wikipedia" for deletion as non-notable per WP:WEB. Could people !voting please limit themselves to the argument in question: Have there been multiple, non trivial, references to WikIran in the press? We're not asking whether this is a good site, we're asking whether anyone knows about it. yandman 08:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep To delete an article about a wiki in a country with such controversial importance implies to be a suggestion of possible unrecognized and unconscious bias. DGG 08:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. - Francis Tyers · 11:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petition accepted doesn't meet WP:WEB, recreate when/if it does. - Francis Tyers · 11:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say it like it is: "Dr. Lukas Pietsch's petition accepted" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.132.11 (talk • contribs)

Comment Hasn't there already been a debate and vote on this? What has changed since the last time?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Some of those voting to keep the article last time did so on the basis that there were precedents for such Wikimedia-related articles on Wikipedia, notably Armeniapedia. But now I see that they have been removed from Wikipedia.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough and I agree with user:khorshid. Behaafarid 22:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You really think so? I thought you would pay more attention to guidelines. Comparing with other articles is the right way to decide? Hessam 22:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I voted keep last time on the basis that there were articles on similar Wikimedia projects. Now that these articles are deleted and WikIran is still not yet notable, I have changed my mind.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 00:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. This Wikipedia could be just as notable as any other. Sr13 (T|C) 04:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of WP:WEB. Yuser31415 05:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There are loads of wikis listed in wikipedia (please see List_of_wikis) and I'm sure if the same scrutiny was applied to them, most them should have been deleted. This wiki is not less notable than any of those. Mahanchian 21:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparing with other non-notable articles is your best reason. That's interesting. Start creating AfD for them instead. Hessam 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Small wikis that don't meet WP:WEB aren't notable. I worry that a simple Google search isn't valid to establish notability due to alledged spam on Wikipedia (according to WP:AN). I also think that due to the notablity of the Wikimedia Foundation, any contrast to something like Wikispecies is unfair - I believe a less-notable product by a bigger company is worthy of an article over a small product by a small company (if that makes sense). -Halo 07:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and noting WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to make the article include some verifiable information, but not much can be said about it except that it's a wiki that tries to say good things about Iran/Persia. The claims in the article are overstated (It may be between Iranica and Wikipedia, who says that? They are mentioned twice in two Iranian websites, so what?), and several of the keep votes above seem to be by Iranians who perhaps founded it or moved there after not being able to push their views in the English Wikipedia itself. roozbeh 14:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep per sahaban15.45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Per yourself? --Conti|✉ 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per what?! :D _{This user has less than 50 edits either} It seems that vote spamming started again.Hessam 16:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Halo. Pepsidrinka 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those who doesn't know where some of these votes come from I suggest reading this. I didn't want to mention it until this vote has submited. Hessam 20:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I hope that !votes from new and anonim users who do not provide any valid arguments would be ignored by the closing admin. On the other hand, lets not resurface meatpuppeting allegiations of 9 months ago. 9 months is aloms an infinity on wiki. Alex Bakharev 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy the subject does not seems to meet WP:WEB yet, but obviously it is dear to many good editors. It could also be put into the Portal:Iran space. I hope it is not an Iranian variant of Encyclopedia Dramatica with personal attacks Alex Bakharev 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have looked through their site and could not find any discussions of our wiki or its editors, just Iranian topics with more Iranian perspective than here and some internal policy discussions. Alex Bakharev 03:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per other users including Mahanchian and Khorshid who states correctly that Wikiversity, Wikispecies, Persian Wikipedia, Kurdish Wikipedia, etc. have articles here but are not being deleted though according to people like Bogdan, Hessam, Roozbeh they would not be "notable". Roozbeh, in a bad faith claim, says "Iranians who perhaps founded it or moved there after not being able to push their views in the English Wikipedia itself." I ask, where is the POV pushing? Where on that site you will find people "pushing" views? Hessam [68] and Roozbeh have attacked Zereshk, made the false claim that he owns the site, and attacked the site itself like a couple of other people here and making claims with no evidence like "POV fork" and "POV-warring". I agree that this is not the "Wikipedia way". Khodavand 03:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then see what has been removed just after this AfD started. [69] Hessam 09:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes and then see this [70]. You were warned against that twice yet you continue to use vulgarity in reference to WikIran and making false claims against me this time. You are not fooling anyone. Khodavand 10:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB. Also it should be noted that the existence of other articles that fail WP:WEB simply means that we have more work to do in removing articles written about non-notable websites, not that we should therefore include another one instead. ju66l3r 06:24, 7 January 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, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. (aeropagitica) 11:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional road numbers[edit]

This article seems to violate WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Additionally, out of the 21 fictional roads listed, 12 are from the same radio show, 3 are from Back to the Future, and one is from a fan fiction script.

It appears someone did try to blank this page before, while he was wrong in blanking it without discussion, I agree with his edit statement that the one piece of notable information in this article is already duplicated elsewhere. Krimpet 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT#IINFO. Axem Titanium 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An indiscriminant collection of non-notable information. Eluchil404 06:04, 7 January 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. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.games.final-fantasy[edit]

This Usenet group may have been borderline notable at some point in the past but it has few (if any) verifiable sources reporting on its notability (WP:OR, much?). The article itself seems to talk about completely unsourceable information and I don't think an article on Wikipedia is appropriate for the topic. Axem Titanium 23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Newsgroups are not inherently notable. Artw 23:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to take the above one step forward, newsgroups are virtually never notable. And nothing in the article suggests this particular one is some great exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As someone who used to be a large participent of the group, I'll refrain from placing my !vote. I just wonder when the criteria for a notable newsgroup would be -- and if you think about it, are they any less notable than certain web forums? I wonder. Because usenet used to be what forums now act as, so I wonder if it's simply a matter of the fact there was, I guess you could say, no real documenting of them back then. Maybe someone ought to create a Usenet History Wiki....♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although newsgroups are not part of the web, for our purposes their articles should at a minimum meet the WP:WEB standards, in particular being verifiable using reliable sources. Note also our AfD precedents page, which states in part, "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable". You are correct in that many parallels exist between newsgroups and web forums... most web forum articles are deleted too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newsgroup does not appear to be notable. Hello32020 21:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are some notable newsgroups, but this one isn't particularly so. (And I say this as a former regular, from the days when it was actually on-topic...) Very much doubt there are any reliable secondary sources that mention it. Shimeru 05:56, 6 January 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 to delete. - brenneman 05:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with heterochromia[edit]

Tagged as unverifiable, un-encyclopaedic, massive number of external links to photos instead of sourcing suitable free images --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It could be mentioned in the appropriate articles where heterochromia had an impact of some kind, if there are any. Peter Grey 03:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peter Grey. Just H 03:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source better. How can it be indiscriminate if there is an article on the same subject? Is the article also indiscriminate? Concerning "massive number of external links to photos instead of sourcing suitable free images", I haven't a clue where in the article you are seeing this. I see five links that are no different than linking to any other external source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean up perhaps. Not sure how others stumbled into this, but I was actually in an real discussion about "who has heterochromia?" and landed here. Also, as a new editor, I (inappropriately?) added one of the photo links in question, (but the column header does say, "link to photo".) It may apply to most AfDs, but it seems that there is a lot of information that nobody/most people don't care about, but exists nowhere else; exactly what I was looking for! I'm not attached, but it seems a waste to lose the content. --Rossman7000 06:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, but remove everybody who's unsourced or fictional, and kill all the external photo links. It could be a useful resource if handled in the right way. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:51, 3 January 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. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Kinkella (2nd nomination)[edit]

Notability not established as "Grand Rapids Developmental Arena Football League" returns only this article in a Google search, and no record exists of Kinkella with the Columbus Destroyers, leading one to believe these claims are entirely fictional.Dhmachine31 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 00:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I happened to come across this page [71] listing Kinkella as part of the New Orleans VooDoo in the AFL; and this page [72] listing him as presently or formerly part of the Arizona Rattlers in the AFL. Most of the hits for Kinkella point to Wikipedia and mirrors, though. I'm not going to cast a !vote at this point, since I can't say with confidence whether Kinkella really is a notable AFL player (and I'm not sure what precedent says about the notability of Arena Football players). --Hyperbole 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's not an Arena Football player at all. According to the page itself he's only 18 years old. If he were an AFL player - which he's not - it would be a large news story in the league, the youngest player ever to play. That news story doesn't exist anywhere, because it's not true. There is no Mike Kinkella on any transaction list, any roster, any player database (including the comprehensive ArenaFan.com website, which lists statistics for all players) for the AFL. This article was voted for deletion once before, and it should be again. Dhmachine31 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two pages listed in the above comment are just rebranded Wikipedia pages, so most likely those were just vandalism. I checked the player database on my site ArenaFan.com and we do not have a record of him at all, and while the player search only returns players who have been in a game, our data entry area did not return a record, which would exist if he had appeared in any transactions. Furthermore, a player cannot be "signed to the practice squad" until the regular season rosters have been finalized.

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

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

The result was delete, with apologies to the article's defenders, your arguments were in the right direction but since they failed to convince anyone in the community, I have to interpret consensus here as for deletion. Mango juice^talk 14:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dear Hunter (2nd nomination)[edit]

This article was proposed for deletion on August 1, 2006, and the consensus at that time was "delete." Since then, it was recreated, with slightly more content, and that's why I was hesitant to speedy delete it as a recreation and wanted to resubmit it. Delete, speedy delete if there is a consensus quickly that it's still a non-notable band. --Nlu (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the article on their album Act I:The Lake South, The River North EP for deletion. Same reason. --Nlu (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The band contains one barely notable member, who was briefly a part of the barely notable band The Receiving End of Sirens, whose main accomplishment seems to be touring with the Warped Tour in 2005. Does this get The Dear Hunter past WP:MUSIC? I don't really think so. --Hyperbole 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. Still not notable. Resolute 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you are aware (probably not since your specialty is asian culture) but a band does not have to be played on the radio for it to be notable, and The Receiving End of Sirens are one of the fastest growing bands in the alternative rock music scene. Warp tour is not notable for any band, the music they make and the impact they have is what makes them notable. The Dear Hunter are on a Label, and are growing at an extremely quick rate, there are plenty of other bands on this site that are worth less than this band. If you are going to delete articles no what you are taking about before you do it. Just because you do not know the band does not mean they are not notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.63.0.88 (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Which of the WP:BAND criteria do you believe that the band is (verifiably) notable by? --Nlu (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm from the area, I keep close tabs on all music, but I really haven't heard anything about you guys nor have I any inclination that you meet WP:MUSIC. Yanksox 06:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to pass WP:MUSIC. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning toward Delete. They've got an AMG link but no profile and no review, and I can't find much news coverage. Seems like a band that may become notable, but isn't there yet. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with more information, and there is more information readily available if you guys deem it as not sufficient.Also, the Dear Hunter now can boast two of the WP rules of eligibility.

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). (Though they have not technically released the second album as of right now, it is almost finished and will be released barring any catastrophes)
Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. (The Receiving End of Sirens is a very notable band, with a huge devoted fanbase and a second major indie album in the process of being recorded)

Also, the Dear Hunter's EP has been reviewed favorably by absolutepunk.net (THE source for online reviews of punk/pop rock music) as well as Alternative Press Magazine (5/5) (Haven't heard of it? Go to Borders, there will guaranteed be a few kids dressed in black drinking mochas and reading it) This would qualify the Dear Hunter as well.--Striderider 01:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- All the second criterion indicates is that it might be notable enough to justify a redirect, not an article of its own. As to the first, as you admitted, it's not true yet (and I question as whether these releases are "on a major label or one of the more important indie labels"). --Nlu (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, as an aside, I find it absolutely ludicrous ([73]) that you think that this band is more notable than emperors of Chen Dynasty, Northern Qi, and Northern Zhou. Perhaps this doesn't speak well of your evaluation on the notability and importance of persons. --Nlu (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though the second criterion might stipulate the use of a redirect in the case of a side-project, the Dear Hunter has become much more than just a side project, considering its releases, line-up, and label status. That is like saying the New Amsterdams shouldn't have a wikipedia article because it is the side project of one of the members of the Get Up Kids.
- I think Triple Crown can be considered a strong indie label (Brand New, Hot Rod Circuit... etc)
  - I'm sorry if you misunderstood my intent. Obviously in the scope of world history the emperors of Chinese dynasties are more important than a band. However, that is a poor argument. The fact that they are more important shouldn't mean that people that are less important shouldn't be allowed wikipedia pages. If that were true, I could find you thousands of articles about people that are less important than ancient chinese emperors. I was soleley using that as an example to show relevance. If that many articles about ancient chinese men are needed, I don't understand how wikipedia can't accept one more article about a great and up and coming new band.--Striderider 02:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The question is: is the band notable, period, by standards established by the community? I don't think you've shown it. --Nlu (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nlu why do you care about a band you have never heard of so much, go back making articles about asian emperors and leave the music part of wikipedia to people that know something about independent music. If you know who bands like Circa Survive, As Tall As Lions, The Receiving End of Sirens, Brand New, Taking Back Sunday, Boys Like Girls, Kevin Devine, Dashboard Confessional, Underoath, Head Automatica, Glassjaw, Jimmy Eat World and Chiodos are, then I think you have some type of authority to talk about the subject but I highly doubt in your Asian studies you came across these bands.There is a huge music scene below the scene viewed by corporate american and mtv.--Bdonovan12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.0.88 (talk • contribs)
Taken Directly From the WP:Music article.
- It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.
  - The fact that the Dear Hunter has met that criterion should be enough already to warrant an article.--Striderider 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, please establish that those published works are "non-trivial"? --Nlu (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since we're on wikipedia right now, and you are so adamant on removing trivial articles, it would be fair to say that if something has an article that has not been deleted, it is non-trivial, right? Among other reviews and interviews listed on the TDH page, both absolutepunk.net and Alternative Press (music magazine) have given TDH's first ep a good review. --Striderider 18:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of an article does not itself establish notability -- because just because something has not been deleted pursuant to an AfD doesn't mean that it should not be deleted. --Nlu (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still, there is no way anyone can dispute the notability of both absolutepunk.net and Alternative Press magazine. They are two of the most respected and widely read sources of critique for this kind of music.--Striderider 17:09, 6 January 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.