< January 6	January 8 >

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

The result was Speedy Deletion per CSD A2. Cbrown1023 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collections for Research into Sudeten German Minority[edit]

It is in german language, what I saw on interwiki it is just a copy&past of the article from german wikipedia. Although parts in other language then english should be deleted, it is obvious that it is more then 90% of the article. For this reason I propose deletion instead of keep. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article lost ((WikiProject Germany)) tag. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki: please be aware that all three articles (Deutsch, Hungary, English) come from the same author, and in this case interwiki notability cannot be asserted. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per above. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per Tevildo, Speedy A2 violation. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's some speedy criterion for this. I don't remember which, though. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A2. Tevildo 00:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great, thanks. WP:CSD#A2 ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Meno25 00:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or translate it Pernambuco 00:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CSD A2. I say no more. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - A2 but userfy it if anyone wants to do the translation. MER-C 02:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why do we have ((db-notenglish)) when we also have ((notenglish))? --- RockMFR 03:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, according to WP:CSD#Articles, point 2, apparently, it's for foreign language articles that don't exist on the corresponding Wikipedia. Axem Titanium 03:09, 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. — CharlotteWebb 08:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XPDL[edit]

I'm finding a couple sources here, but they are mostly trivial mentions. One that isn't, but nothing to build an article from. Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. This appears to be one of several competing standards for "business process management" (others include BPEL, BPMN, and UML, which we have articles on). This article could probably be expanded to the level of the articles on the other standards. I'm having a hard time figuring out how notable this one really is between all the seminars and press releases, but it seems to be mentioned often enough and apparently Fujitsu has a product based on it. Dave6 08:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has improved significantly since it was nominated. Dave6 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was weak before and did not do justice to the subject. This standard is the subject of intense academic research. Not only Fujitsu offers a products based on this language, but so does BEA(Fuego), IBM(FileNet), TIBCO(Staffware), and about 2 dozen others. More important from a Wikipedia point of view is the number of open source workflow projects which are designed around XPDL. The office of the Deputy Prime Minister in the UK has sponsored a national workflow project which officially endorses WfMC standards (including XPDL) for all workflow projects in the UK. There is a working group at ISO working to adopt the WfMC reference model as an official ISO standard.

What is more important is the number of refereed papers from conferences or well known journals which speak of XPDL. I have included citations from IEEE conferences, ACM conferences, Springer Verlag books, as well as PhD and Master's theses. XPDL is a subject which is well woven into the fabric of the information technology industry. None of the citations are WfMC publications. I tried to restrict the cited articles to those that mention XPDL directly in the title or abstract. But there are hundreds or possibly thousands more papers that mention XPDL or WfMC standards in one way or another, due to the central role that WfMC has played in the area of workflow for the past 13 years.

Before you delete this page, please look at these examples for comparison:

BPML - this is a proprietary language which was implemented only by two companies: Intalio and Sterling Commerce. The standardization group has dropped development of it. This page is certainly weak, and contains no proof of notability.
IBM Web Services Flow Language this is a proprietary langauge (not even a standard) which was never implemented by any party outside IBM. I see no evidence that it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."
XLANG was another proprietary language invented by Microsoft, and also was probably never implemented by anyone outside of Microsoft. I see no evidence that it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."

Goflow6206 17:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)goflow6206[reply]

Comment - Please see Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Comparison is sometimes useful, but is not in itself a valid reason for keeping an article. Lyrl ^Talk _C 16:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Legit business process stuff, albeit not well known. It's notable enough, given the number of products. Georgewilliamherbert 00:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent improvements demonstrate notability. Gwernol 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. An important workflow modelling/processing specification and interchange file format. John Vandenberg 21:45, 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 deleted per WP:SNOWBALL

Jincturing[edit]

Protologism with no ghits. Prod removed with claim in talk page that acknowledges it's a protologism but thinks WP is the place for spreading such things. Sorry, no. Jamoche 00:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like WP:NFT to me.--Tainter 01:31, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric_Dwight_Ben-Meir[edit]

non-notable, WP:BIO Joie de Vivre 01:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO as far as I can tell. MER-C 02:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Daniel5127 <Talk> 05:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Referenced links come org article is head of. Ronbo76 12:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? :) I don't understand. Joie de Vivre 20:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Bucketsofg 14:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 19:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:V or WP:N -- google mostly turns up wikipedia mirrors and blogs. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Meno25 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep won the 2006 Independent Publishers Award[1]so a notable author. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I am not familiar with the Independent Publishers Award... how notable is this award? Joie de Vivre 15:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about assasins[edit]

Subjective mispelled listcruft. Danny Lilithborne 01:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tevildo 01:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as notable as the other film lists out there. The list needs time to be populated by other films. The list was only created today, and has time to be fixed up. If it is decided to be kept, it can be moved to its proper spelling. --Nehrams2020 01:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This !vote just makes me think that we ought to ((AfD)) all the other lists as well.--Anthony.bradbury 16:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like this list is going to be deleted anyway, and I only voted the way I did as I had just stumbled over the list and figured it needed time to be populated. I left a note on its talk page before it was nominated for deletion, asking for guidelines to be set to verify what films would be included within the list. With its current title, its obvious its vague (including the improper spelling). However, the other film lists out there should not be merely deleted since categories can "easily" replace them. Lists are able to include more information, easier to sort through, and can be easier to find, instead of going through several pages of categories. There are many film lists that are well-established and populated, however, there are other lists that are just like this one. Wikipedia is for people to contribute, and lists need to be updated just as articles are.--Nehrams2020 05:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's entirely subjective what a film is about. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, easily covered by a category (if such a category were ever deemed necessary, if it doesn't exist already). Other film lists are probably ripe to be deleted too. Axem Titanium 03:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleet What about...JFK? What about...Elmer Fudd? What...is the point of this list??? Wavy G 04:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the other film lists out there, like this one, are indiscrimininate lists of information which do not belong in an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 05:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. See Wikipedia:Lists. There does not seem to be a way to identify what is included in this list. Plot summaries containing "assassin" seems too broad. List of films having an assassin as the lead character might work if there were a way to determine whether a character is the lead character. List of notable films about notable, non-fiction assassins might work. A problem here is that assassins by definition kill notable people and there may be a blur between whether it is the assassin that is notable or only their target being notable. Then there is the problem with clearly notable assassins, such as Lee Harvey Oswald. Of those movies whose plot contains references to Lee Harvey Oswald and titles contains a reference to Lee Harvey Oswald, how do you decide which movies to include in the list and which to exclude? Do student film titles about Lee Harvey Oswald get added to the list? Weak My deletion reasoning is weak because (i) Wikipedia has lists of films about capital punishment, disability, extraterrestrials, hobos and freighthopping, independent body parts, mathematicians, outer space, possessed body parts, possessed inanimate objects, possessed or sentient inanimate objects, space, and suicide. (ii) Wikipedia has lists of films based on comic strips, pomes, and video games. (iii) Wikipedia has lists of films featuring independent body parts, mental illness, and Mini cars. (iv) Then there are List of punk films, List of Skinhead films, List of films by gory death scene, List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck", List of films with a twist ending, List of gangster films, and List of Mafia movies. Some of these have survived AfD (some more than once), but they all seem subjective. -- Jreferee 08:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use cats. Lists suck. Here is one good reason they suck. Someone creates this list, and enthusiastically populates it with films that could be considered to be about "assasins". Great. Six months from now, that person has given up Wikipedia and no one is maintaining the list. So it's a list of films that could be considered to be about "assasins" as of Januaryish 2007. Ho hum. Grace Note 08:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant and inadequately defined list per above. The article creator's edit history would indicate that the article was created to promote a thus-far-nonexistent film called Classified. Doczilla 08:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. THE CATEGORY NAME IS MISSPELLED!!! Doczilla 04:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Bucketsofg 14:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subjective and arbitrary list created for promotional purposes. Demiurge 16:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A trivial, short and essentially useless list containing only three films. Wholly non-encyclopedic, and obviously created for some purpose other than for adding to the body of knowledge contained in the encyclopedia.--Anthony.bradbury 16:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — there is already a better list of films embedded in Assassin (disambiguation) ➥the Epopt 17:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —dima/s-ko/ 19:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to list of deleted cruft. This comes close to qualifying for speedy deletion under csd a1. I agree with several comments above that many (if not most) lists can be better handled as categories. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Meno25 23:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this will obviously end up being list cruft. Article is too bare to offer anything at the moment either.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:31, 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 by admin HappyCamper (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Carleschi (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Carleschi). Non admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Carleschi (2nd Nomination)[edit]

Non-notable political activist. Being a prospective candidate for council elections leaves him a long way short of WP:BIO One Night In Hackney 01:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Previous AfD here. Tevildo 02:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, also much of the info looks unverifiable. It should be noted that the previous AFD was "delete". Wickethewok 02:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tagged as a repost to determine such status, I can't remember this one. MER-C 02:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the previous article he has became a candidate for local council in Scotland. However since there were 1,222 councillors as of the 2003 elections, he's one of probably 4-5,000 potential candidates. One Night In Hackney 03:08, 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 10:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kieck seng tan[edit]

Non-notable, WP:BIO. Article appears to have been created and edited exclusively by the subject's son - as shown by the language used, his username and some of his other dubious edits: [2], [3]. PTSE 02:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO is an understatement here. Conflict of interest. MER-C 03:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 03:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Make it go away. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Ronbo76 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless we concede that his involvement with the Phillipino Chamber of Commerce confers minimal notability - not enough, I feel - should have been flagged ((db-bio))--Anthony.bradbury 16:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Meno25 00:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:23, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I.N.I. Streetwear[edit]

Abjectly fails WP:CORP and WP:V. The brand's 25 ghits consist of Wikipedia mirrors, astroturfing on the likes of MySpace and YouTube, and forum posts. The "All press coverages" external link in the article is actually to the (very very thin) press coverage of the parent company's internet portal. Previously speedied twice (by, er, me); respeedy was declined. —Cryptic 02:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable and in failure of WP:CORP. -- Kicking222 02:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and statements above. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Ronbo76 05:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an obvious advertisement, and I would have flagged it for ((db-spam)). Would I have been wrong?--Anthony.bradbury 16:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you wouldn't have been wrong. Actually, I am the person who nominated it for speedy deletion last night. User:Pilotguy removed it, then almost immediately, User:Cryptic listed it as an AfD. I'm not quite sure why this is to be an AfD, because it's obviously an advertisement, and I don't see why ((db-spam)) didn't work.--Адам12901 ^Talk 21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still trying to understand what is wrong and what is the right way to write an article here in Wikipedia. I did compared this brand with other same kind that exist on this site, and I still couldn't find what is so different about it. My intention is to write as much as possible about things from Asia that is worth mentioning here, but I will start with this first. Please guide. Thanks.--Bioclef 18:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. —dima/s-ko/ 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert. --Адам12901 ^Talk 21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Duke of Duchess Street 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baylor Religious Hour Choir[edit]

Subject does not meet notability requirements of WP:ORG -Nv8200p talk 02:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little, if any, notability asserted. There have been college choirs and a cappella troupes that have won awards and got hundreds of Google hits whose pages were still deleted; this group gets only 92 unique G-hits, and aside from WP/mirrors and Baylor web sites, none of them are even non-trivial, much less from reliable sources. -- Kicking222 02:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 03:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although I think it's guided by WP:ORG rather than music Citicat 04:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails BOTH WP:MUSIC and WP:ORG! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I went to Baylor's website and did a search on their, RHC, and the website reported Google had cached five stories. Here is the link to one where they went to Australia for nine days: Baylor Religious Hour Choir Experiences Life Down Under. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- How does one article from the choir's school count for anything? -- Kicking222 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete offers no notability, regardless of which guideline is used. Nuttah68 12:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There were five articles (Cf Above). All were official press releases from Baylor University. This one was the most recent and it concerned a nine day trip the choir spent in Australia. A choir that performs internationally seems notable. Wikipedia:Notability (music) states: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: The above is the central criterion for inclusion. Below are some criteria that make it very likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given group or individual musician." Further, (sub-paragraph 3) "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, (superscript 3) reported in reliable sources. (superscript 4)."
  - Comment, see Wikipedia:Verifiability, in particular the requirement for 3rd party sources. Press releases are not enough, you need reports from sources independent of the choir or university. Nuttah68 17:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pardon me for my lack of editting skills, I am a new member with seven months participation, one month as a registered member and an editor who participates both in the noms and debates of AfD. Recommend that the article be tagged in a manner that its historical contributions to music, like this international concert tour, be emphasized. Ronbo76 15:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are third party to the choir, and in any case "can be used as source material for an article" (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). Performing internationally makes them notable. Springnuts 10:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, yes can be used "can be used as source material for an article". However, the same guideline states press releases cannot be used to establish notability. The article has no third party sources to verify the claim to notability of performing internationally. Nuttah68 16:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it does not meet WP:MUSIC. Although they have performed in other countries, this is not really the spirit of the "international tour" requirement. --Mus Musculus 19:25, 12 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. In my opinion this should have been speedy deleted, but I digress... Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Brandt[edit]

Non-notable and uncited self-proclaimed professional video gammer. Darth griz⁹⁸ 02:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of his claims can be backed up. ^{[Check Google hits]} Only ~90 ghits for the name (52 "unique") and none of them appear to be about him. Presumably a joke article. ... discospinster _talk 02:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His other creation, Good Clan (which gave us the [g00d] tag which appears in two out of four listed accomplishments) was speedy-deleted for failing to assert notability. The standard WP:BIO criteria of playing in the "highest level" in the sport appears to not be met. Zetawoof^(ζ) 02:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:HOLE. MER-C 03:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: WP:CSD#A7. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-bio. Danny Lilithborne 05:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete as per nom. Ronbo76 12:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NN. Both he and his claims appear essentially unknown to Google. In today's environment, could ANY video-game player become notable thereby?--Anthony.bradbury 16:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as I have no idea about prof. gaming: Is a total winning of $9500 big in the gamers world? Alf photoman 18:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, further, his image con tribution identifies its subject as 'myself', indicating that the whole article's a pure vanity thing. ThuranX 19:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under db-bio. Mr Stephen 21:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately, CSD:A7 does not apply, because the article asserts the importance of the subject (all those awards, etc). If there was ever a poster child for how mis-guided the assertion clause was, this article is it. Non-notable vanity bio-cruft in the extreme, but by the letter of the law, it can't be speedied (at least not under A7). -- RoySmith (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn vanity. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Thinly disguised vanity page Dalassa 00:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a vanity page. By that logic any page on wikipedia about a single person could be considered as such. ejy2007 21:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ejy2007 is the article's creator. Mr Stephen 09:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. $9,500 from all those wins since (I guess February 06) is nothing. If he weren't a kid living off his parents, he'd probably be pumping gas to feed himself. Ohconfucius 06:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ $9500 is quite a bit in the world of gaming, especially considering just four tournaments. His notability has also been established within the football addition to the page. (I am the creator of the article.) ejy2007 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may comment as often as you wish, but please restrict yourself to one keep/delete. Mr Stephen 09:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Biography is legit. Regardless of video game wins (which some low-radar tournaments, such as college campus competitions, are not posted on the internet) other accomplishments include true statments about all-conference football and beekeeping. Taking personal stabs, such as that by Ohconfucius, violate wikipedia guidelines of personal conduct. Site should remain no matter how many "ghits" a name gets. jbraptor_4 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC) — jbraptor_4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

America's Army classes[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they should be deleted for the same reason:

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia does not create original research. Statements on Wikipedia must be verifiable. The only reason I didn't ((db-a1)) them (because their context is practically zero) is because they've been around for so long. There is enormous precedent for deleting game guide-like pages such as these. Here are just a few examples, in case you don't believe me. Axem Titanium 02:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki to one of the game-related wikis. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --- RockMFR 02:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 03:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per nom _SUBWAYguy 03:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to America's Army. VegaDark 04:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to America's Army to make sure they are not re-created. Make them go away please! :O Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of a redirect. These are not likely search terms, so Delete all. Wavy G 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please do not redirect. These articles truly do not belong in any encyclopedia which prides itself on having factual content. Lose the lot.--Anthony.bradbury 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to America's Army. per above. —dima/s-ko/ 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't see why there would be any complaints about redirecting these. The fact that these articles exist, and especially if you look at their edit histories, shows that enough people have visited these pages (via search or otherwise) to make redirects for each worthwhile. Comments like "Please do not redirect. These articles truly do not belong in any encyclopedia which prides itself on having factual content." I don't understand at all. Redirects are not articles, they are redirects. They also discourage recreation of the articles, and the edit history is preserved, both positive consequences. VegaDark 22:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three (and do not redirect). To address VegaDark's perfectly reasonable comment, the idea of a redirect is to capture a reasonable and/or likely search term about which there is information in the encyclopedia, just not under that name. It seems to me that if somebody was looking for information about the equipment used in America's Army, they would just type america's army (or, americas army, which is a redirect, as a common mis-spelling) into the search box. I find it difficult to believe anybody would type america's army equipment into a search box. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep or transwiki~~ In Battlefield 2142 article, the section about players classes and weapons "has been suggested ... be split into a new article". But same article(s) for America's Army is requested to be deleted. Have some consistency please! -- Wesha 23:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed that stuff because it is blatant game guide material. The consistency issue is no longer. Axem Titanium 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, redirect or transwiki -- +1 to saving edit history. Current ontent is interesting for enough people (myself included) it would be a shame to drop it irreversibly. -- Wesha 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll probably want to transwiki it yourself since the edit history is unlikely to be kept. StrategyWiki is a good destination. Axem Titanium 00:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we're not a game guide and this is best put in a game wiki. (Though I wonder what the nom means when invoking verifiability - the game itself is generally considered okay when plainly describing the game in question, and based on a cursory glance these articles don't seem to make any new big leaps of logic which would constitute original research...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three. Video game guides. Dragomiloff 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all (merge equipment content) to main article I recommend merging the equipment content if its not already in the main article - as these are virtual versions of real weapons the actual US Army is trying to familiarize players with through their game. So its of significantly more notability than your average video game weapon set. Hoo-ah. Bwithh 07:34, 13 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Livingston Airline Destinations[edit]

I cannot imagine how this information is encyclopedic—Wikipedia does not list other mass transit destination i.e. bus schedules or train schedules. GMS508 02:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precendent and move to Livingston Airlines destinations. The nominator's statement is incorrect, as WP does have similar listings; for example, American Airlines destinations, El Al destinations, Air France destinations, etc. -- Kicking222 02:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Kicking222 is right there is precedent for listing airline destinations (though not bus or train destinations). My point was that I do not think this type of listing has any encyclopedic worth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GMS508 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Understood- I definitely see your point. Well, I'll stick by my !vote, as I do think these sorts of lists have some encyclopedic worth. However, if the consensus is that this is an indiscriminate, unencyclopedic list, then delete the whole lot. You surely won't get a strong objection from me. -- Kicking222 14:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and nominate the others for deletion as well: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I'll be damned if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a directory. Merge into main article, possibly Citicat 04:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this AfD results in a delete, I'll nominate the others for deletion too. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, all 171 of them! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 06:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, nor a travel guide. If someone wants this info, the link to the company site is provided. Nuttah68 12:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with listings for American Airlines destinations, El Al destinations, Air France destinations. CyberAnth 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is the job of the Livingston Airlines webmasters. All this will ever be is an out-of-date mirror of a page on their website. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT indiscriminate or a directory. Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jobjörn. - Aagtbdfoua 14:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Cyberanth; they all should go. Akihabara 14:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel directory. I would support the deletion of all similar pages, and would like to offer thanks to editors above here for drawing them to our attention.--Anthony.bradbury 17:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Livingston Airlines. --Dennisthe2 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per WP:NOT, the whole entire lot of airline destination listings should be nominated for deletion. i.e., everything here. CyberAnth 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as said, I'll nominate the others in a batch if this one goes. As consensus seems to be delete, I'll put that AfD up tomorrow, using AutoWikiBrowser to add the appropriate template to the articles. I have even already written the AfD nomination ;) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You should be advised that the content of destinations by airline is maintained and dictated by Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines. As I feel the notability of airline destinations is between that of train stations and bus stops, I abstain. Tinlinkin 19:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Are you suggesting they should be notified, or that the entire case should be discussed there? Either way, I'll notify them on this AfD right now. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, you already did that. Well then. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These articles were split out of the airline articles since many of them are quite large so some guideline on what to split out was needed. The destination lists was one of the easiest to do since it can stand on its own. Note that this is not a list of routes which would be unmaintainable. The destination lists do not change all that much. If you force them back into the articles, then we will have to deal with oversize airline articles. Vegaswikian 23:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: So far, merging has not been proposed at all. We are speaking of deletion - no problem with oversized airline articles there! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Read up the list. I proposed it already. --Dennisthe2 00:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this needs to go too: Airline destinations - every page there. CyberAnth 02:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not quite as notable as say a 200 year old school, and I am a bit concerned that there are not multiple non-trivial sources provided for this article, but if this can be appropriately sourced prior to the closure of this debate, I can support this. Silensor 03:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting information of a potentially historic value, if it can be sourced with reliable sources I see no reason this cant remain. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Who would be willing to cite these destinations? And how would they?(formerly user:GMS508)--Riferimento 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: several keeps on the condition that sources are provided... but no sources provided! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In almost every case, the source would be the airlines web page. So including an external link to that should cover WP:V and WP:RS. Added reference to article. Vegaswikian 21:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If one wants to get picky; WP:V explicitly requires third-party sources: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That such a source is obviously not available (except for possibly listing the websites of every airport they fly too) makes this article fail the primary notability criterion cited in WP:N. However, that is not relevant to the concern of the nominator (and myself): the question is, is lists of airline destionations encyclopedic? After all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—in my state of residence the state mass transit authority publishes bus routes. Could a list of these stops listed on Wikipedia as bus route designations be considered encyclopedic?--Riferimento 04:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whether your state mass transit system operates on an international scale? John Vandenberg 13:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) relevant to this AfD? Perhaps you are thinking of Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), which includes nothing about being notable if operating on an international scale. And even if Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) WAS a relevant guideline, it says that an organization may be notable if it operates on an international or national level: just like Livingston Airlines. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful information of an international organisation; satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). John Vandenberg 13:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Do you people even bother to read the guidelines you refer to? Even if Livingston Airlines was an organization and not a [[Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)|company/corporation]], it's still not relevant. And no matter what guideline, it fails this: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a travel reference. --Mus Musculus 19:43, 12 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 and cleanup. Avi 01:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Richards[edit]

Non-notable teacher _SUBWAYguy 02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 03:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is not entirely non-notable, as evidenced in the minor scandal he caused at the school, which was reported on inside the county. He is also an author with multiple publishes. I am still looking for reviews of his work, but it is taking some time as most of his wider circulated works are pre-Internet age. Notability policy for people states that an article can be included if the topic is a "published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." -- Johnny06man 03:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note I have made several edits on this article prior to AfD nomination, and personally know the subject of the article in question. -- Johnny06man 03:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no sign of any independent reviews also his work as debate coach seems trivial. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Ronbo76 12:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite to emphasize his work as an author. I agree his work as a debate coach is trivial, but he's written or co-authored at least four novels that have all gotten customer reviews on Amazon.com (so people are still reading them). As Johnny06man said, official reviews for books published prior to the "internet age" (these books were all 1990-1996) are not online. Doesn't mean they don't exist. It certainly needs citations to the reviews, but the article is only a few days old - I don't think this is the time to delete it. Lyrl ^Talk _C 17:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a re-write like you suggest seems appropriate to me _SUBWAYguy 01:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Lyrl. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite After thinking about it a bit this would be better, some notability as a author, the teaching and debate sections have to go as they are probably unverifiable. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the other sections can be verified, some of them having already been confirmed. They may be harder to find sources for, and I do not say with certainty they are important enough to include in the article, but teaching is his profession. Something of this should discussed in the article. -- Johnny06man 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A friend and I are the main authors. What do you suggest we do to keep this article alive? We are former students and debaters under Ron Richards and can assure you what we write is indeed credible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.114.105.77 (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I would say that this is perhaps a conflict of interest as former students it is hard to be impartial. In any case his teaching style is mostly what I was referring to outside sources referencing it are a must otherwise it should be deleted. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'keep so our newbies can edit it and learn. The main item of notability seems to have been a public argument about privacy that must have been reported in the news sources. Find them and put them in. If 10/15 is that notable a record of success as a debate coach, there shoud also be some more detailed documentation. DGG 02:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, fails WP:PROF... Addhoc 21:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per DGG. More sources are required though. Addhoc 15:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daniel Levick, Lyrl, &c: needs rewritten to focus on his ghastly novels. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 14 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gareth MacFadyen Cup[edit]

I prodded this article a few weeks ago, but the prod was removed. This is a seemingly non-notable match contested by two non-notable teams in memory of a non-notable person; only two non-WP Google hits for the Cup. "Gareth MacFadyen" only gets 29 unique Google hits, including many Wikipedia mirros. Kicking222 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that the prod was removed by someone with zero WP edits to any other page, but the user gave a strong rationale on the article's talkpage and attempted to improve the page. Still, I cannot find much significance. -- Kicking222 03:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 05:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Lyrl ^Talk _C 17:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this seems to be a much bigger deal in Japan than in the other countries listed (it's always held in Tokyo, for example). I'm not sure we should expect tons of English-language results. Lyrl ^Talk _C 17:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's also apparently an entirely Japan's ex-pat community related event, so I'm not sure we should expect tons of Japanese-language results, either. TomorrowTime 19:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google search for Gareth MacFadyen Cup returns two results other than Wikipedia sites. Fg2 01:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOT info 3 "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." It was a tragic death and the memorial game between two non-professional(?) rugby teams isn't really notable. I tried several searches in Japanese language and I cannot find anything on the subject other than a mention on the webpage of the bar which sponsors the even. --Kunzite 03:03, 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 and cleanup. Avi 01:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yokel[edit]

Hopeless original research. Also, I believe it to be inaccurate--that is, the stereotype described is not strictly associated with the term "yokel" as opposed to various other similar terms. Chick Bowen 03:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. A bit more than a dicdef, and, with references for the etymology, potentially useful. See Hillbilly, Redneck. Tevildo 05:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those articles are both also severely under-referenced. Chick Bowen 06:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Incidentally, the OED does not support the etymology in the article, saying rather: "Of uncertain origin. Perh. a fig. application of dial. yokel (1) green woodpecker, (2) yellow-hammer." The bit about stupid owls is a speculative invention. Chick Bowen 06:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion of the etymology of the word belongs in wikt:yokel. That's dictionary article territory. This article should be an encyclopaedia article about yokels/bumpkins. However, there aren't sources that actually discuss them, per se. I cannot even find a good source for the claim that they chew straw. Uncle G 12:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - actually mentioned as a self-defining term in some anthropological literature, thus could be considered a sub-people group, but for lack of verifiability of the article - delete. CyberAnth 12:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very common british stereotype, could use an encyclopedic treatment. As with a lot of these older british terms good references could be difficult to google up on the fly, but it shouldn't be impossible. Artw 17:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - could be expanded and referenced.--HisSpaceResearch 17:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? How? I couldn't find any sources. What sources did you find? Did you do any research to look for sources? It appears that your rationale that you didn't. If you did, please cite what sources you found. Uncle G 10:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well known and commonly used ( at least on TV ) in the U.K. Both the Worzels and the Two Ronnies used it in their comedy shows. 145.253.108.22 14:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very common term and of interest in an encyclopedia as well as a dictionary. Remember Wikipedia is not Wikipedia America. There is a worls outside of the USA. Xanucia 19:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. Current content is nothing more than a dicdef plus some unreferenced info plus some extreme cruft, violating WP:NOT, WP:NOR and WP:V. The "keepers" can surely recreate this article once encyclopedic info is obtained. Since this article does not form a good basis for further expansion, it should go. Zun aid ©^{Review me!} 10:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Problems can be cleaned up and don't merit deletion. delldot | talk 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are no sources for a subject, it is unverifiable, and must be deleted per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. To show that this subject has sources, please cite some. As I noted above, I couldn't even find a good source for the claim that yokels chew straw. Uncle G 10:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep most of the examples here, and a good many more, can undoubtedly be verified. Since I think these wouldserve nicely as a start to improving the article, it should be kept with an unsourced tag. DGG 02:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article provides a place for sources, and is interwoven into a lot of other articles. However, the etymology really needs to be verified. John Vandenberg 13:57, 12 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuffed Grape Leaves with Rice[edit]

VasilGjika (talk · contribs) has been creating a series of articles about Albanian recipes. They are just recipes. These articles don't appear to be speediable but they clearly have no business in an encyclopedia. This particular prod got contested so I suppose I have to take it here. Note that I may end up adding other articles to this AfD if those prods are also contested. Pascal.Tesson 03:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual; the author may want to transwiki the articles to the Wikibooks cookbook. --Muchness 03:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Provide samples to all editors for evaluation~~ Delete as recipe but encourage creator to contribute to Albanian cuisine. Newyorkbrad 03:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my prod: Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 05:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. I'd normally say Transwiki, but can we transwiki to Wikibooks? Also, how much is a "package" of rice? Rice comes in dozens of package sizes, from 250 mg to 10 kg. --Charlene 06:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've got to eye it. Anyway you won't be able to stuff too much; there's a limit imposed by physics. Save the leftover rice for whatever. — coelacan talk — 07:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikibooks will take transwikis, but - honestly - they get altogether too many of them to maintain, so they end up deleting most of it. This probably wouldn't make the cut. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That applies more to articles that would form standalone books rather than to articles that can be slotted into the existing Cookbook, as this recipe can be. Uncle G 12:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this dish is really good. You should fix it in the next couple days before this AFD closes, just to give the "article" its due. — coelacan talk — 07:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I imagine it would be, except that this is only a list of ingredients; recipes usually also have instructions. Delete because there's not enough there to transwiki. --Jamoche 16:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the others, Wikipedia's not a compiler of recipes. Gazpacho 10:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LOL. :D CyberAnth 12:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It wouldn't even be so bad if it weren't just pasted in or written with no regard for what Wikipedia actually is (although what I'm saying here violates WP:BITE). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete It probably tastes great, and if instructions were included I might give it a go, but either way Wikipedia is not a cookbook.--Anthony.bradbury 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 22:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds yummy but wikipedia is not a cookbook. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dolma or Delete. And please no more horrible puns about WP:BITE. cab 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dolma. Redirects are cheap, and this is a plausible search. delldot | talk 18:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dolma. Curses, you beat me to it, delldot! But yes, a reasonable search term, and in essence is what this very stubby, badly formatted article is about anyway. -- Y|yukichigai 23:39, 11 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. Majorly 15:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy[edit]

The overwhelming majority of text in this article is unsourced. Worse, the overwhelming majority of text in this article is unverifiably vague, or simply false (e.g.: analytic philosophy is not identical to anglophone philosophy, and continental philosophy by that name is primarily practiced in anglophone philosophy departments). Numerous discussions on the talk page have made it clear that this page is essentially a piece of original research by User:Lucas. 271828182 04:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book that is cited by the article is not only subtitled "Comparing Analytic and Continental Philosophy", it also has a chapter on the subject of "On the Analytic-Continental Divide in philosophy" that runs to 42 pages. Then there are:
- page 11 of ISBN 3937202366 — where Simons argues that Austrian philosophy is "geographically continental" but "in content and tenor analytic"
- the two chapters of ISBN 0415162513 — chapter 5 where Sacks examines the two traditions' approaches to a single subject and chapter 3 where Ross argues that the analytic/continential dichotomy is incorrect
- ISBN 0631221255 — where Solomon discusses the twain on page 1
- ISBN 0415242096 — which discusses and critiques "Rorty's attempt to restore the peace" on pages 14 to 17
- ISBN 0748624716 — where Glendinning argues, like Ross, that the analytic/continential dichotomy is incorrect
And those are just for starters. There are plenty of sources on this subject to be used, both that describe the idea of the split and that argue against it. Any problems with this article are a matter of cleanup, not deletion. Keep. Uncle G 04:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While there are sources on the general topic of analytic and continental styles of philosophy, that has little to do with the issue at hand, which is the article in question. The article makes no reference to the sources Uncle G mentions (aside from one book), and the overwhelming majority of the claims in the article would be quite difficult to trace to such sources, owing to their vagueness or falsity. Crucially, the entire article is premised on a strongly POV assumption that the titular divide exists as a sharp distinction, capable of yielding the (unsourced) blanket generalizations made in practically every line of the article. An article needing cleanup "generally requires only editing skills" -- but this article would have to be rewritten almost from scratch, quite likely including the title. And as the history of this article shows, such a global revision would likely provoke a series of reverts and edit wars that would tax the patience or sanity of all but the saintliest of Wikipedians. Given these fundamental problems of verifiability and POV original research, this article is beyond mere cleanup. 271828182 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The assertion that an article needs rewriting, a cleanup action for which we have a cleanup tag (((cleanup-rewrite))), does not support a conclusion that fixing the problems with the article is not a matter of cleanup. Uncle G 11:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. on 271828182's comment aboveTo say it is beyond cleanup and should be deleted means you must deny the premise of the book which is called, as noted by Uncle G above: "Comparing Analytic and Continental Philosophy". You should also go to the pages Continental Philosophy and Analytic Philsophy and suggest they be deleted too since you deny such a divide exists. Given the divide and that neither of the two mentioned above pages can satisfy the requirment of an unbiased article we need a page to details the historical course of this schism (as Rorty calls it) and also provide some clarity to the huge amount of confusion that results in philosophy because of this split. --Lucas 14:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds more like a content dispute than an unsourced article. However, since I have absolutely no expertise on its subject, I'm not qualified to comment on its content. However, I agree that this is a keep based on UncleG's rationale above. -- The Anome 16:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in an encyclopedic tone but probably does contain some useful information, so keep. It could also possibly do with a renaming. --HisSpaceResearch 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There's no such thing as a renaming, unfortunately; there is only delete&merge vs. keep. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish
  - Wrong on both points. Please read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and the help pages. Uncle G 11:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - My mistake. Thanks. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 17:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The conflation of 'the philosophy that anglophones do' and analytic philosophy is bigoted and inaccurate. No cleaning up can possibly fix such a fundamental error in the article title. If the material were shifted to a page on the division between continental metaphysics and analytic philosophy, then I wouldn't object to that; but the current heading is unacceptable. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 18:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- No cleaning up can possibly fix such a fundamental error in the article title. — Rubbish! Of course it can. You, as an editor with an account, have a move button. No more than that is required. Uncle G 11:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My sympathy rests with deletion and moving of content, because of the sheer erroneousness of the title. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 17:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere is nothing wrong with Anglophone/Analytic philosophy and it is not bigoted but de facto. Suggest the name also is kept, it balances any accusation of bias, since nor is the word Continental, used by the continental Philosophers, who tend to use Anglophone to refer to U.S./British philosophy that is called by themselves Analytic. No one said Analytic was identical with Anglophone but they are often used nowadays interchangeably. There are sources there too, in all thirteen pblished philosophers. Nor is there "evidence on the talk page" that this is original or unsourced. One comment on the talk pages suggest it is the best article they have read in philosophy. --Lucas 22:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. First: there are three references, not thirteen. I'm not sure exactly where the latter number came from. Second: in any case, if Analytic philosophy is not meant to be paired with the Anglophone ethnicity in any rigid way, then this should not be suggested by the forward slash. Hence the requirement for moving the article. Third: there is a contingent historical connection between Anglophone countries and analytic philosophy that no-one will deny. However, if it is true that the two are used "interchangably" by some group of people -- an assertion which remains to be proven -- then it is out of carelessness, not prudence. Grad school programs at Northwestern University, Boston University, McGill University, SUNY Stony Brook, among many other so-called "Anglo" universities, presently emphasize an interdisciplinary education which is versed in both in continental and analytic forms. Moreover, I'm sure that the Polish logicians would be rather surprised to hear about the latent anglo-analytic suggestion (for one). { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 01:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The thirteen I referred to were the number of top line philosophers who wrotes essays in the book called "A House Divided". But it even took them 50 years before coming to that book, since as Rorty suggests it was in the 50s that the "take over" of English language philosophy schools occurred by the Analytic philosophers. Yet even these 13 are not the only ones who refer to this divide, it is also remarked upon by many others.
- The issue of using the term Anglophone is a little complicated but mainly under an accusation of Anglophone bias the words used by Continentals for themselves is not Continental, they are labelled as such by Analytics. However, Analytics call themselves Analytic. So we have to add a word that Continentals use for Analytics, that word is Anglophone (or do you know a better one). Lucas 14:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be sure, nobody doubts that there is a continental/analytic distinction in the history of philosophy. The item under question is not that, but whether or not use of "Anglo" as a synonymy for "Analytic" is a bigoted conflation.
  - The ugly story of slight and revenge is not at all grounding for Wikipedia's endorsement of it. It is curious that anyone could think that such a thing would be appropriate.
  - My alternative word is "analytic", because there is no reason which rests in facts to conflate analytic philosophy and those of anglophone heritage. "Continental (metaphysics)" may have been a more or less crappy phrase, but at least it was geographical, not ethnic. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is of course a fundamental error at the beginning of the article. The rest of the article is not terribly well written. Moreover it is mostly unsourced and appears to be a personal essay. By the way, who is use 271828182? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbuckner (talk • contribs)

- Comment This and other comments are time wasting. Many various editors have contributed to this article. If the voices here spend even a tenth of the time they spend complaining and actually on improving the article itself it would be a fuller representation, though inevitably on an English language website they will always be a tendency toward an Analytic style.
- delete hopelessly pov, simplistic & innacurate. terms 'b. analytic' & 'cont. phil.' are inherently slippery, & often only terms of abuse. granted they are are commonly used but (& the polish logicians are a good example here) these terms don't actually correspond to either schools, methodologies or even geographical distribution. would be better to have descriptions of how these terms are commonly (mis)used, in the relevant articles. the rest can be covered in more specific articles on the relevant issues/debates. this article also hopelessly oversimplifies most of the so called 'continental philosophy' it briefly teeters into. (also sentences like "At times parsimoniously reifying concepts that are, in fact, more complexly related." aside from possibly being meaningless, are not appropriate in a general purpose encyclopedia). cld be stubbed, but unlikely to ever produce a useful article, also problems with art. name. ⇒ bsnowball 10:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- "hopelessly pov, simplistic & innacurate" can be solved by ordinary editors doing ordinary editing, using the many sources that exist on the subject. "also problems with art. name" can, similarly, be solved by ordinary editors (that have accounts) using the normal editing tools that they possess. Uncle G 11:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - While what you say is true, it remains the case that there is a latent association in the article title that passes itself off as a necessary association. However we deal with this, be it through mere redirect or outright move, it is disrespectful to analytics in the world outside Anglophonia, and disrespectful to Continentals within it. I think that that rationale should be made totally clear, here. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 17:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some of the text is fine. But no article should exist with this title (opposing "Anglophone" with "Continental"). Delete page, move worthy content elsewhere (even to Analytic and Continental), and work on bringing it up to standards. CHE 01:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentThe issue of geography is made abundantly clear in the article. The reason for the article is that neither of the pages on Analytic or the one on Continental are capable of giving an unbiased overview of the split. Though both of these article do say they are defined mainly as being in distinction from the other. The issue of parsimony is not meaningless, nor is reifying. The section you refer to on pejorative uses gets across some of the heat of the division. The urgency with which a few editors seem to want to delete the article completely even thought they never edited it, also tells of this blind-spot in wiki philosophy. Anglophone seems to be the keyword here, Analytics do not like it, it seems, but why do you not like being "Anglophone", is it self-disgust or what? As to insulting those on the Continent who do Analytic in French, for example, I would say it is not insulting but a reality most of them have to read the major Analytic philosophers and they are mainly in English. Again we try to give a general sense of this divide without the one-to-one accuracy of terms that certain, mainly Analytic people, believe exists.

"The reason for the article is that neither of the pages on Analytic or the one on Continental are capable of giving an unbiased overview of the split." You are assuming that only analytic philosophers (with animosity toward so-called continental) edit the analytic article, and only 'continental' philosophers (with animosity toward analytic) edit the Continental philosophy article and never the twain shall meet. Why not assume good faith that those editing these articles do not have such an agenda. Zeusnoos 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As to insulting those on the Continent who do Analytic in French, for example, I would say it is not insulting but a reality most of them have to read the major Analytic philosophers and they are mainly in English." I do not understand how this sentence is intended to provide grounds for your conclusion. If "most of them have to read the major Analytic philosophers", then that provides grounds for the opposite conclusions. And analytic texts, like all texts, are translated into other tongues. Those that originate in English, may be translated into French. But this is so elementary that I must have misunderstood you. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The anonymous commentator above misunderstands me. My suggestion was that moving the material to an Analytic+Continental page would be an improvement, because Analytic and Anglophone philosophy are importantly different. CHE 16:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- As another endorsement I quote one comment from the talk page:

This text makes me somewhat cross-eyed as while I do not find it to conform to the usual standards of what makes a good article, it is despite this amongst the most enlightening I have read on Wikipedia. So if the question of "cleaning it up" should ever arise, I vote to forgive its blatant formal errors for the benefit of holism. :continental school: Staretsen 21:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucas 14:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - That endorsement does not deal with the title, which is the true grounding for deletion. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - The title just like the body of the article can be changed after discussion on the talk page. The overall commendation is still relevant since if the decision is to change the name then the body of the article is still endorsed by the above editor and should not be deleted. You already argued this issue of Anglophone on the talk page where your argument didnt seem to stack up. --Lucas 17:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A redirect gives it an ounce more credibility than it deserves, and that's too much. And for the record, I have yet to make a single comment on the talk page for this article. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 02:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title is obviously inappropriate. Indeed, the citation to Rorty which Lucas keeps mentioning is one I provided to demonstrate that analytic philosophy is something Anglophone philosophy departments started doing at some point in their history. Previously, they did something ELSE (mainly neo-Hegelianism), and they did it anglophonically. Furthermore, analytic philosophy has its most important roots in German-language philosophy - Frege, Wittgenstein, Carnap.

I have argued for deletion in the Talk section. I have also attempted to make changes - which really means deleting the many errors and leaving little substance (e.g. the "Schism" section), but the main author simply reverts. Even the "endorsement" mentions that there are "blatant formal errors"! There is nothing here which could not be covered in a couple of accurate sentences in the Continental and Analytic main articles. KD

Comment: One amusing feature of this discussion is that as a prominent non-analytic anglophone philosopher, Rorty himself is an excellent counter-example to the title's conflation. CHE 04:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This particular article is mainly an original-research essay and should not exist, and furthermore nothing should exist at the title "Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy". A better written, better sourced, and more cautious article on the schism between analytic and continental philosophy might be worth writing, though. --Delirium 13:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:There is nothing original about this article, again it is a major issue of contemporary philosophy, the article has many references, multiple editors work on it. Anyhow, this is not a delete but a re-write request. Nor does CHE seem to understand that Rorty crosses the divide he does not refute it, but sees it very clearly. --Lucas 09:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as OR essay. I know little about the issue, but I recognise that with blanket statements like "Continental and Analytic philosophers tend to ignore one another", this is one poor article. The topic is clearly notable, though. Sandstein 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well they do "tend to ignore one another"! Wake up and read the reference material or any entrenched Analytic or Continental philosopher, you will not seem them mention philosophers other than those in their own side of the schism, anyhow the statement is backed up by a reference. Searle remarked the attidude of Analytic to postmodernism is that "most of this stuff just passes them by, they wonder, why waste my time attackingit".
I really do not know from where this move to delete the article rather than rename it, the article has been the work of over 40 editors over only a few months, there are 7 references to books and journals by leading philosophers which is even better than the intro to the main wiki philosophy page! Not only this but the page has to resist trained minions who can only see Analytic or Continental philosophy but never both.
By the way, the page was called just "Analytic and Continental Philosophy", we could rename it to this if required. The reason Anglophone was added to the name I explained above, such reasons no one seems to refute, since balance is the key to this article. However, I added an extra caveat in the article on the much disliked word, "Anglophone." --Lucas 09:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, I have given any number of reasons to "refute" the new title on the Talk Page. (1) "Anglophone" just means English-speaking, which Wittgenstein, Frege, Carnap and the rest of the Vienna Circle, and countless lesser analytic philosophers were not (I mean, of course, they didn't write English as their first language). (2) As the Rorty quote makes clear, Anglophone philosophy departments existed for a century or so without teaching analytic philosophy. (3) As has been pointed out endlessly on the Talk page, and here, both these kinds of philosophy are done by Anglophone and non-Anglophone philosophers. The title has to change. As for re-writing, the main part of the article is a series of comparative sections (X vs Y). All of these are just wrong - they need to come out. The schism section has only a couple of arguably relevant entries. The rest needs to be deleted. Then just try to read what's left ("At times parsimoniously reifying concepts that are, in fact, more complexly related.") An entirely new article could be written, but I'd recommend a few, consistent sentences in the existing articles for Analytic and Continental (with balanced comments on the philosophers who have tried to understand both traditions: Dummett, Ryle, etc). As for "trained minions who can only see Analytic or Continental philosophy but never both", my undergraduate philosophy degree is from an Anglophone, analytic Philosophy Department, where I specialised in Wittgenstein; my postgraduate was based on Heidegger and Nietzsche. So I do both - which is not as freakish as this article implies. Note also that a bunch of references were added only after the article was threatened with deletion: it's not clear that the content of the article was based on that material - indeed, given the errors in the article it seems unlikely. KD
Yes you have given reasons but they do not refute this use of the word. (1) Anglophone connotes more than one thing (2) Rorty makes clear the Anglophone was "taken over" in the 50s and remains taken over by Analytic philosophy. When a country is conquered the flag is changed. (3) I remind you each time that the artcile makes it clear that Analytic also takes place in Italy etc. and that when they read they must read alot of English, you can't do Analytic without Anglophone otherwise you can't read all the latest Analytic stuff in the journals which is overwhelmingly Anglophone (4) The comparitive sections are backed up by references, they are well known differences between these two camps as illucidated in the 10 or so references given at the bottom of the article. By the way you obviously never read the referenced material? (5) It is based closely and with quotes on these references, most of which were already there if not so explicitly. (6) The article does not make out that doing both Analytic and Continental is freakish, Rorty seems to do ok and we quote him there. Ask youself why your degree was Analytic? and further why did you switch entirely to Continental for your postgrad? Did you learn anything, what was the difference? And if there is none why didnt you do Heidegger at degree level? Again if you spent a tenth of the time on the article instead of on the talk page and here trying to delete it, you might have contributed something to wiki. --Lucas 21:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also both the page for Analytic and Continental refer to this article to give a full and unbiased explanation of this contentious issue which I'm sure you'll appreaciate cannot be in a neutral way on either of those two pages. --Lucas 21:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Course vote count at cutoff point[edit]

4 say keep,

7 say delete.

Note, a number of the nay-sayers, suggest retaining the article but under another name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucaas (talk • contribs)

User:Lucaas, please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy. There is no "five-day cutoff" for AfD discussion. Your attempt to moderate this AfD discussion according to non-standard rules would be inappropriate even if you weren't the article's creator and chief editor. And note that AfD is not a vote. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. So the consensus here is either (1) delete, (2) keep, under the technical defense that the article could be entirely rewritten from the title on, or (3) Lucaas' (the page's ~~original researcher~~ creator) contention that it's fine. I wonder if those advocating option (2) would be so eager to vote thus if they had to endure said "editing" with Lucaas. 271828182 16:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. The consensus here does not exist, there are a number of people who say keep a number who say delete. According to wiki policy this means the article should stay. This page here is for deciding on keeping it or deleting it. To the page itself or the talk page if you want to edit it. As I said above there have been over 40 editors who have edited this page, and I am but one of them and usually we cooperate well. I have noticed contributions from 2718...(why not get real name!) have been mainly in controversy over the word "Anglophone", I'm sure in your dictionary at home you have blotted the word out. In any case I'd prefer if you now made some positive contributions to the article. --Lucas 15:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Addhoc 20:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Though there are some supporting citations for a few of its claims, the bulk of this article is idiosyncratic, original interpretation and synthesis, stated as though it were incontrovertible factual information, in Wikipedia's voice – exactly what the original research guideline is meant to guard against. There are serious NPOV issues with some of these claims as well, but this is a secondary concern. I agree that it would be possible to write a neutral, well-sourced, synthetic encyclopedia article on the analytic-continental split, but this is not that article. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are lots of supporting claims many more than other articles. The references list has about 10 references. And these are to unknown authors but to well known philosophers. So though someone might like to claim original authorship of such a fine article this has all been said by the referenced philosophers.

As to idiosyncratic, well this is not a delete claim this means you should go and edit it. Anyhow I believe these comments occurred after the 5 day deadline. --Lucas 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Note, mistake there are infact 11 references. --Lucas 00:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Note that the same article now exists in two places: Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy, with the AfD tag, and Analytic and Continental Philosophy, without the AfD tag but with a more complete edit history. -- Rbellin|Talk 23:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry about that. I was the one who did it. I didn't mean to rid the thing of an edit history. I take full responsibility. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 00:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No need to worry about claiming responsibility; the only issue is whether this AfD ought to apply to both articles (I think so, and my delete certainly goes for both, since the content is identical and the second one was created apparently by accident during the AfD discussion). A separate AfD discussion for each duplicate seems unnecessary. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please, and further develop the article on the same subject with the simpler title, Analytic and Continental Philosophy. It's an extremely interesting compare-and-contrast study, even if it categorizes the philosophical divide with very broad swipes. This divide is well recognized in the history of philosophy, and in due course with due diligence, holds the possibility of being an excellent and informative article. ... Kenosis 00:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is a move request not a delete. Again Anglophone is no less an incorrect term than Continental, there are plenty of philsophers doing Continental who do not live there.--Lucas 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dubious premise for an article, and most if not all of the current content consists either of drastic overgeneralizations or plain falsehoods -- Palthrow 01:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Coment - this is a dubious complaint, and unlike the article is unreferenced. --Lucas 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Lucas wrote: "Again if you spent a tenth of the time on the article instead of on the talk page and here trying to delete it, you might have contributed something to wiki." For the record, I corrected the Schism section, and Lucas reverted to the previous version. I know when I am wasting my time. The References - as I said above, these were dropped into the article as an afterthought when it was threatened with deletion. It would be interesting to check them (for the most part, page references are missing). The reference to Heidegger (#6) obviously does not support the (false) claim made in the article ("Continental philosophy on the other hand tends to use the term Logic more loosely...etc). Ref #8 is easily checked too, as its online, and it does not support the text in the article ("each accused of being either, too historical or completely ahistorical"). I wonder if the other references are much better.KD

- Coment: The references are there none the less, it is part of the work of the article build up the quality, and references are part of it. You have obviously not read the reference to Heidegger, otherwise you wouldn't be saying that. Again there are over 10 references and if you cared to check them you would find them to be correct. Page numbers are also given on a number of them others refer to the entire text. I reverted the change you made on the History of the Schism because you were not contributing, all you wanted to do was remove a whole lot of it without further illuminating the topic. I also gave reasons for leaving it there, that are apparent in the article itself, it is also referenced. --Lucas 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Overall Coment Prior to Closure: The article is undoubtedly controversial, inevitably so, because the issue rises between both of the main academic philosophies. Since this is an English speaking website, Analytic trained people have prepondered and wish to delete it. Why? because it shows up perhaps a whole other way of doing philosophy that is at least equal to it. The same would probably happen on the Continental website. With multiple references and 40 contributors, to delete it would be a waste and it would be giving in to prejudice. --Lucas 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. It mystifies me that much of the pro-"deletes" have been on the basis of content and referencing. Neither are grounds for deletion.

However, the bigoted title is very much grounds for deletion. Perhaps you disagree, and maintain the position that the forward-slash is not indicative of synonymy, etc. (As you know, I think this is an entirely untenable position.) But feigning innocence and confusion over this point on your part, making a variety of attributions of bad will, prejudice, etc. is disengenuous at best. I own a book by Lyotard. I am inspired by the existentialists. But these facts, far from endearing me to your position, actually motivate me further to clear up the error. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 02:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of adding Anglophone to the title was to even up the balance, since, someone had complained that it is unfair to call Continentals, "Continental" as they do not call themselves that. Anglophone evens it up a little. So the bigotry I must tell you is on your side (regardless of what books you read) and I feign no innocence: I mentioned clearly above that I see the bigoted view coming mainly from a very English-centred philosophy. However, the same I agreed might happen on a Continental website. --Lucas 12:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - THis is the kind of thing which makes progress impossible: "You have obviously not read the reference to Heidegger, otherwise you wouldn't be saying that." I have a doctorate in Heidegger's philosophy, I know Being and Time like the back of my hand; he does not say there or anywhere that COntinental philosophers understand logic more loosely in terms of Logos. Both the references I checked were wrong; given that the others were dumped long after the article appeared, skepticism is inevitable. If page numbers were provided by whoever (!) inserted them, they would be easier to check. I removed the entries under Key Moments in the Schism which didn't mention analytic philosopher or philosophers at all. I corrected the entries on Carnap and Searle/Derrida, but Lucas reverted to the previous factually incorrect entries. I would like to see the article deleted, and I am not an analytic philosopher. It is as much of an embarrassment to both schools. An article about difference between analytic and Continental philosophy could be written: the current article has a fatally misleading title, and is something like 90% wrong - either factually inaccurate or meaningless. Those calling for re-writes nevertheless have to realise, from this page and the talk page, that Lucas will block and undo any editing which changes the article fundamentally. KD P.S. Now we've voted, can it be deleted please?

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G11 and G1. Cbrown1023 05:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duvantin[edit]

AfD nominated by Sth9. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination, my opinion is Neutral. However, I should point out that "Duvantin" is actually an upcoming movie, and the article does not make this clear. Tevildo 04:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The movie that this fictional drug supposedly appears in is not even listed in the Internet Movie Database. This article is just advertising for a movie which has no independent sources to support it. --Metropolitan90 05:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as CSD G11 per above; promotional spam for a non-notable "in development" movie (related press release). --Muchness 05:08, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danville, Illinois, Mayoral Election, 2003[edit]

This does not fall under wikipedia's notability guidelines. Momo Hemo 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -WarthogDemon 04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 05:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be helpful if nominators spent a little time explaining why they believe an article fails wiki:whatever it is you feel it fails, so the rest of us have some guideline to go by. Not all of us live in America so wouldnt automatically know about things like the Danville Mayoral Election. Jcuk 14:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I just hope that we will not have elections on every single city/town in the United States. —dima/s-ko/ 19:19, 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 merge with List of House episodes and redirect thither. Joe 07:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of diseases featured on House[edit]

According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Further, according to Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. This article is nothing but a trivial collection of quite useless information, and it most definitely has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. I argue whole-heartedly for the deletion of this, and the many similar, articles. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of House episodes for a reason for this list to exist. I'm not going to go either way in this AfD because I have a bad conflict of interest here, since I wrote most of the article. NOTE to closing admin: if this page gets deleted, please let me copy the diseases themselves into my userspace for use in another article. PTO 04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Uh, I fail to see your point there - List of House episodes has not been nominated for deletion, and even though I don't think lists of the sort are worthy of inclusion here I wouldn't bother nominating them. The threshold has to be set somewhere, though, and a list of diseases featured in a television show just doesn't make it, in my opinion. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, in the FLC a couple users said that the episode list would be much more complete with the diagnoses in it. As the episode list uses a fixed template, ((Episode list)), it wouldn't be practical to force it in there. A different user had gone ahead and made the article and its skeleton, so I made lemons into lemonade. PTO 04:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then I suggest merging to that article, and well, a change in ((Episode list)) to allow these things. Or couldn't it be included in the plot summary? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's going to take some tweaking, but I'll be able to do it if I have to. I'd really like it if I didn't have to, though...if you get my drift. :D. Cheers, PTO 04:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I could help out, even though I have no experience of it whatsoever. However, inserting mentions of diseases into plot summaries - that I can do. I still want this one deleted though. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - As per comments to their respective episodes. Ronbo76 12:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the short diagnosis into the List of House episodes. If the template is awkward to adapt, just append "Diagnosis: Colchicine poisoning." to the episode summary. Merge all the other episode-disease info into respective episodes. It would be a shame to see all those good descriptions and references go to waste and most of the episode articles are just woefull stubs. Colin°^Talk 23:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to episode articles or List of House episodes. To be honest, I'm undecided which one to do. But the information should be kept in an easily accessible format. I'd also like to say that including real-world links for a large number of the diseases presented in the show was a nice touch - good on ya! Quack 688 05:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial list. I assume this information is already disseminated throughout the relevant episode articles already. Wickethewok 07:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content has now been merged to List of House episodes. Ohconfucius 07:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as content has been merged. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 08:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It will almost surely be observed that merge and delete (or, here, delete upon merge) is not a tenable AfD disposition in view of its non-compliance with the GFDL. Whilst that's not entirely true, any such close is disfavored by our GFDL policy and requires exorbitant time to effect. It is possible, I suppose, that one might argue that the content here comprised is not of the sort the copying of which should require history preservation, but we are always obliged to err on the side of attribution. Joe 07:04, 11 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 nomination withdrawn. MER-C 05:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-German (ideology)[edit]

A mess. Although it did for some unknown reason survive its first AfD nomination, it survived as "keep and cleanup" - and the article is STILL a mess. I believe it constitutes Wikipedia:Original research and never will go beyond it. It is very well possible that it is an inherently POV article. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The need for a cleanup is not a reason for deletion. Why would it be "inherently POV"?--Carabinieri 14:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On further thought, the points raised by Carabinieri are very valid. Therfore, I would like to rather adress it's verifiability, as I believe it constitutes original research. Although tagged (on occassions) with cleanup since April 2006, it still hasn't introduced one single reference.
Moreover, I would like to further question it's notability - what exactly is the "anti-german ideology"? The article isn't clear on that, and the very first two sentences appear to contradict each other: a generic name applied to a variety of theoretical and political tendencies within the radical, communist left in Germany versus the Anti-Germans emerged as a distinct political tendency immediately thereafter.
In conclusion, it seems to me that this is a weak attempt to brand opposition to the concept of nationstates (as the radical left tends to engage in) as an ideology bent on the destruction of Germany. After all, our own article on ideology states that an ideology is an organized collection of ideas - this doesn't seem to be organized, a collection or even an idea. It rather seems to be a description of Anti-German sentiment as expressed by Germans. And Anti-German sentiment already has an article. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The anti-Germans are, however, a unique current in the German left. "Anti-German" isn't just a term this article uses to describe them, but rather the way this current describes itself. I agree that the page should probably be moved to Anti-German (left-wing current) or better Anti-German (communist current). Especially since most anti-Germans would indeed reject the term "ideology". But just like the need for cleanup, the need for a page move also is not a reason for deletion. There is no single anti-German organization or even a homogenous anti-German theory, as there is a large difference between the various groups and organizations. But there is definately a current in the German left, which calls itself anti-German. And it is definately notable: there has even been an article in the Guardian about them ([4]), though I have to admit it's not very good. Here is some more English-language information available on the net about them just so you can get the idea who the anti-Germans are: [5], [6], [7].
  Hey, I agree with you this article is not very good. So the solution is to improve it, and I would actually be very thankful if you could help me in doing so though unfortunately most English-language sources aren't much use.--Carabinieri 21:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Convincing arguments, interesting articles. I hereby retract my nomination; or rather, I "vote" keep. The question now, though, is, what should the new article be named? How about Anti-Germany (communist current)? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:18, 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 10:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ShopFactory[edit]

Hardly notable, fails WP:N. Possibly self-promotion, the only contributor has made two edits, both related to this article. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 06:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Daniel J. Leivick 04:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 04:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that WP:CORP is met. MER-C 05:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Ronbo76 12:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable as notable via no refs. CyberAnth 12:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 19:20, 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. Majorly 11:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cortana[edit]

According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Further, according to Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. It is very, very, unlikely that an article on a character of a computer game will be the the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works unless it is very, very famous. Perhaps some useful content of this article could be merged into the articles on Halo (video game series), but this topic is clearly not encyclopedic. As thus, I argue for the deletion of this - and similar article. Or perhaps transwikiing to some specialized wiki. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly strong keep Are you kidding? What does "indiscriminate collection of info" have to do with this. She's the second-most notable character in one of the biggest game franchises in the world. Cortana+Halo gets 240,000 Google hits. If you think an article needs sources, tag it with ((unreferenced)), but don't mark something for deletion that is very clearly significant. -- Kicking222 04:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Far from. As a matter of fact, I have not made any mention of references or a lack thereof in my mention.
  The question is, how is she significant? Is she notable only because of her position as a character of Halo? That's notability by association, and on those grounds Jobjörn Folkesson could exist because I am related to Carolus Linnaeus - a quite far-fetched analogy but I do believe you see my point.
  Has she been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other as required by Wikipedia:Notability? Notice the stressing of subject here - that an publication dealing with Halo mentions Cortana doesn't do it.
  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Cortana, although famous, is neither significant or notable except as for her position as character in a indeed very notable game. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't really understand your final argument; almost every video game character is notable only as a character in a notable video game, just as Holly Golightly is only notable for being a character in Breakfast at Tiffany's. What kind of added notability do you expect a game character to have? -- Kicking222 12:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — TKD::Talk 05:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Striking; see below. — TKD::Talk 03:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Merge and heavily condense up to List of Halo series characters for now, unless someone can provide some out-of-universe commentary about her. (As a note, given the popularity of the Halo series and the media hype leading up to the release of Halo 3 later this year, I wouldn't be surprised if such commentary does in fact exist; there is a cliffhanger at the end of Halo 2 that has been exacerbated by recent teaser trailers). As for the list itself, it does need cleanup, but at least the likelihood for encyclopedic coverage is greater with the broader subject. — TKD::Talk 05:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: wonderful suggestion. However, all Cortana-editors beware: blogs and forums are not non-trivial published works! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Halo series characters with whatever reliably-sourced info is necessary. Excessive coverage, no notability demonstrated in own right. GassyGuy 06:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GassyGuy. I don't see how a character in a game franchise can be a priori notable. If the character hasn't been talked about separately by reliable, non-trivial third-party sources, the character isn't notable. After all, it's just a game. --Charlene 06:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Halo series characters per TKD. A major character in the game, true, but not notable outside it. Tevildo 07:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is also not paper. You may as well attempt to delete the article on Jean-Luc Picard. It's not like anyone is going to type in Cortana and expect some jurisprudence expert, and even then, that's what dab pages are for. --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A red herring! Well, two wrongs doesn't make a right. If this one succeeds, you can be sure there's only a matter of time before I'll come to the Star Trek articles - most of them belong on Memory Alpha. However, it should be duly noted that I do believe Jean-Luc Picard has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 09:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cortana is mentioned in independent game reviews, eg [8] and [9]. An NPR review called "Sequel to Video Game 'Halo' Debuts" also discussed Cortana. Cortana is enough of an archetype to be mentioned even in reviews of other games, eg [10]. Gimmetrow 16:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Mentioned, not subject of. The first two deal with Halo (video game series) - indeed a notable subject! They merely mention Cortana as part of the Halo (video game series). The latter mentions Cortana when comparing another video game character to her, but does nothing more - only her name is mentioned (twice). No description, no context, not even a reference to the game - for all we know, that just might another Cortana! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 06:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: And yet, Cortana is notable enough to mention. That "context" is not given in the last reference is a fairly strong argument for notability in itself; it says a character in some other game functions as a Cortana. If I said a character functioned as an "uncle tom" or a "falstaff" I wouldn't need to explain what works of fiction I was referencing. Gimmetrow 04:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, unverifiable, and not notable. "A topic is notable" - per WP:N - "if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." This has not; Gimmetrow's "references" are simply namechecks, not even trivial. Nothing to merge, but could be redirected per Gassyguy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reviews demonstrate that Cortana is significant to the storyline, and that the character is used as a reference point to describe other fictional characters. WP:FICT supports a separate article for major characters in a work of fiction, if otherwise the article on the main work would become too long. List of Halo series characters, with its current summary style, is 41k (37k prose). Gimmetrow 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - First of all, current lack of sourcing is NOT a reason to delete an article. I would also like to point out that per policy, items such as the Halo novels are intrisically self-referencing (I.E. they ARE a notable, verifiable source in and of themselves). The only qualifier is whether or not the work passes WP:NOTE, and any who would like to dispute the notability of the Halo series may feel free to try. Also, per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) it should be noted that major characters in works spanning multiple titles often get their own articles, such as Harry Potter (character) and Anakin Skywalker. Any information which could be merged would be needlessly repeated multiple times across a variety of articles including both the games and the novels. With all of that said, I would like to point out that this article does need a lot of work and most of the information here does enter the realm of fancruft. I would change my own vote to a firm Keep if the article could be better cited and made more encyclopedic. Cheers, Lankybugger 18:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or, failing that, merge.--HisSpaceResearch 18:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepArticle may need work, but this character is easily the second most important (after the Master Chief, actually she may be more important) in the series and spans all of the titles. Not all characters need their own pages but this one certainly does. Daniel J. Leivick 19:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per principle and as per Gimmetrow. I can certainly help with cleanup, but it deserves its own article. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know a game guide when I see it (I assume that is what the nominator means when citing WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE) - this is not one. At worst, it is a story spoiler. I can't imagine why there are any notability concerns. We are talking about the main supporting character of a multi-award winning game with sales of nearly 15 million, not some individual generic soldier in a mediocre FPS with a few hundred thousand sales. And as Gimmetrow says, Cortana has been the subject of non-trivial published works. Han Solo is a main supporting character, but I don't see his article being deleted any time soon. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep important characters from important fiction. — brighterorange (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, Derktar 06:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge - Some info to a Halo characters list. There really doesn't need to be this much info about her on Wikipedia. Most of the article is summary of the Halo series and various quotes. Wickethewok 07:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the objcetions raised above during my sleep:
The first line of WP:FICT is as follows: Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article. I suppose we can conclude that Cortana is a "major character" - even though the dialogue is quite sparse and that she is NEVER seen in actual gameplay (only in cutscenes, right?). Comparing her to Han Solo, star wars hero spanning three successful feature films and the subject of many many comics, is quite wrong though. But rest assured, I will come to him too - and Jean-Luc Picard mentioned above.
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) discusses how an article on said major character should be treated. It makes some points I'd like to raise here:
- In particular, plot synopses and character biographies should be kept terse.
- Articles should strive to describe the subject matter related to the real world.
- The article should contain no original research
If all the above points are considered, there is simply no need for an article about Cortana, as it can never ever be more than a stub. You see, even if the the primary notability criterion is ignored (the one requiring multiple, non-trivial sources dealing with the subject, you know...), it can under secondary guidelines not be written lengthier than a stub as
- In-universe prose should be kept terse - at the length of a stub, I suppose.
- Although the article should strive to describe the subject matter related to the real world, there is nothing to the describe as Cortana has no relation to the real world, unless
- Wikipedia:Original research is applied. Sure, it might be very very tempting to fill up half of the article with a comparison of Cortana and contemporary in-real-life artificial intelligences, but fact remains: there are no Wikipedia:Reliable sources able to provide a basis for such a comparison - or any other out-of-universe analysis.
As thus, we might - and should treat Cortana in the same way Alyosha Karamazov is treated in the example given in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): Alyosha Karamazov is a major character from the novel The Brothers Karamazov. He is covered comprehensively in the Brothers Karamazov article, and the Alyosha Karamazov link redirects there for convenience..
My stance remains: deletion and redirect to Halo (video game series).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobjörn (talk • contribs)
- - The three bullet points mentioned above are part of an draft rewrite of the WP:WAF guideline that has not yet achieved consensus. The stable version of WP:WAF does not contain these specific texts. I agree that "out of world" writing should be emphasized, however the difference between "in world" and "out of world" writing is style-based. (WP:WAF is a syle guideline.) Thus Cortana is a "SMART" artificial intelligence that was constructed from the flash-cloned brain of Dr. Catherine Elizabeth Halsey should be rewritten along the lines of: Cortana is a fictional AI in the Halo universe; The second cutscene in the first Halo game describes the character's origin from a cloned brain... Unless the content is "original research" it can usually be rephrased in an "out of world" style. Gimmetrow 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Damn, people re-writing the MOS while I am reading it :( Oh well. It doesn't really invalidate my point - out-of-universe analysis and prose on Cortana must necessarily be WP:OR except for the OoU depictions of in-universe Cortana, as the primary notability criterion of WP:N - requiring that the subject be the subject of multiple, non-trivial, third-party sources - cannot be met. So: while failure to meet the primary notability criterion may according to some not be reason for deletion, the very same failure concludes that an article on Cortana must be either 100% depiction of her in-universe appearances (even if written in OoU style) must be Wikipedia:Original Research. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why must any OoU prose necessarily be WP:OR? Who created the character, how the depiction was decided, who did the voice, other games the character appears in or was speculated to appear in, the role of this type of character in games, are all OoU statements. See also gamespot, which treats Cortana with more than a passing mention, and igniq. The character is a major character in a notable work of fiction, that should be enough to establish notability. Whether it has a separate article or not is then a question of length and summary style. Given that the "list of characters" article alone is 37k of prose and is already in summary style for a lot of characters, it's difficult to imagine merging this. Gimmetrow 04:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that the same version you quoted (granted, not a consensus version) also said: "Major characters in a fictional work or series of works are typically notable." Interesting, no? Gimmetrow 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, not at all interesting - the only major character in the Halo video game series is Master Chief. It's a game, not a movie or something. Cortana's participation is limited to a bunch of cutscenes.
      To adress your first point: the gamespot article does indeed not contain merely a passing mention of Cortana - it rather contains three passing mentions of Cortana. Hardly enough for the primary criterion. The iqniq "article" then? Well, it says: "Cortana is conspicuously the only character moving." and links to a picture where the silhouettes of the Dead or Alive characters are featured, all still, except one female, who is jumping up and down causing her breasts to wobble. Iqniq jokingly(?) suggests that this is Cortana as a guest character in DoA. Are you seriously trying to claim that as a serious source? Yes, I can see it in the article: The gaming website Iqniq has on one occasion put forward claims that Cortana will be featured as a guest character in Dead or Alive, equipped with a large pair of bouncing breasts. It's so encyclopedic it hurts!
      Furthermore - List of Halo series characters could, and should, be severely trimmed. Even if I could perhaps some time accept Cortana as notable, I will NEVER accept Admiral Whitcomb, Gunnery Sergeant Pete Stacker, Kalmiya, Endless Summer, Yayap The Grunt or any of the countless COMPLETELY USELESS characters listed in there. With those removed, and the so-called major characters left in, the article will be of perfect size - even including Cortana. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Now, this is progress. Iqniq never claims she would be so equipped, so that part would be WP:OR. All other mocking aside, that the Cortana character was considered for appearing in the other game would be legitimate "out of world" content for an article. As for the other characters you mention, you may very have a point, but this is not an AfD on Tartarus (Halo). Gimmetrow 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Great thing. That means we have found one non-trivial published work from a source that is reliable and independent of the subject itself - as the guideline I'm invoking requires several, find one more and write them into the article. Then I might consider withdrawing my nomination. (I am not kidding.)
        Good thing you appreciate my point on the List of Halo series characters. But if that list is severely trimmed, would not Cortana fit into it, making Cortana redundant? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you see the digging I did below, Job? Either way, you cant just arbitrarily say that Master Chief is the only major character. Halo isn't a story about fighting aliens; end; it's got its own plot twists, background, et al. Cutscenes are essentially movies, and there are plenty- you can't be saying that video games do not have the depth of movies. Cortana's participation is limited to a bunch of cutscenes- um... she gives you direction throughout the entire game... In any case, the Master Chief barely speaks five lines, (Two Betrayals is him at his wordiest), so your definition of 'major' seems limited to if he's a protagonist. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 01:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't notice those, actually. It is a shame that the first one is a blog, the three following are from some sort of forum, and the last one comes from Bungie.com. (I'll comment further on them below.)
        But as you say, either way, my argumentation isn't really based on whether Cortana and/or Master Chief are major characters or not (as I see it, the plot IS a story of fighting aliens), but on whether an article on Cortana is warranted per the "primary notability criterion" (the one requiring multiple non-... you know the rest). This AfD has for my part raised doubts over whether the "primary" of "primary notability criterion" actually means it is the PRIMARY notability criterion or if it's just there to make it sound cool. (Like the Prime Directive which undeniably sounds cool. An article which by the way needs some sources too. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The last two paragraphs of this gamespot article quote CJ Cowan (cinematics director):
        Following the abrupt end of Halo 2, it was unclear if Cortana had been corrupted by the Gravemind or had been destroyed altogether. "Given the variety of character and story arcs at the end of Halo 2, we wanted to boil down our announcement to a few key threads," he said. "Cortana and the Chief being a galaxy apart is a situation we haven't seen before, and is something that is a powerful component to Halo 3. We are using her transmissions in the demo to give the viewer a few subtle clues to her situation and state of mind, without revealing any specifics we want to save for the game itself."
      - That seems to me a non-trivial "out of world" reference too. Gimmetrow 02:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed. Throw it into the article, will you? Now, good night - really, I need to sleep some time. :O Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because she is really pretty! And notable! 172.143.75.9 11:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've been waiting for this one! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Cleanup - by my estimation, Cortana in and of herself is a major character within Halo itself and there is enough information in regards to her to warrant a separate character article. It does warrant some cleanup and sources, but deletion? No. Peptuck 21:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As of this point, we have twelve Keeps (one of them mine), three Merges, two Deletes, and two Redirects (I think? I'm typing this in the editing page right now, its hard to check....) Thus far the general consensus is Keep, though that may change later on. Peptuck 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another keep argument not addressing the argument raised by me. "Enough information" does not warrant an article - with that as policy, I'd write Jobjörn Folkesson right away. What's needed here is an establishment of notability. All I pledge for is TWO third-party sources discussing Cortana (and not Halo in general). Pleeaaassseee give me two of those and I'll retract my nomination. <puppy eyes here> Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please let me know when you write your WP article about yourself and it comes up for deletion so that I can say something like "keep because he's really pretty and there's so much information and it's not hurting anyone!!! Plus, we have articles on Carola Häggkvist and August Strindberg and they're both Swedish people, so how can we delete this one???" - GassyGuy 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You can be damned sure I'll notify you! I aim to get notable in, perhaps, 30 years or so... During that time, perhaps Cortana will get notable too? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You're requirement of sources 'discussing Cortana (and not Halo in general)' is frankly absurd. How do you talk about the character without mentioning the work the fictional character is in? No review or analysis of any kind does that. You're setting a ridiculously specific bar here. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the primary notability criterion - repeated countless times above - does specificially state that that is required. However, you are skewing my words slightly - I did not say that I wanted a source discussing Cortana without mentioning Halo, I want a source discussing Cortana, not Halo. I want a source where Cortana is the subject, not Halo. I can imagine an analysis on video game artificial intelligences, for example - if noone has ever written one, it's like the perfect kind of crap a MIT student could write and get published! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's plenty of non-published online discussions, et al, [11][12][13][14][15] and more (these are first page google hits), but lets face it; in the way of publishing, five years is not a lot of time and there have been relatively few AIs in games (Durandal, Cortana, 343GS... Gary from RvB... I got nothing else.) Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 22:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Five years SHOULD be enough to establish notability. If not, delete and re-write when notability has been established. While it may be true that Cortana is the subject of a lot of fan discussion, that doesn't establish it's notability, as the notability guideline explicitly requires published works. See also WP:RS, by the way. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - We're talking about video games here. Plenty of people think that they're either frivolous pursuits or maniacal machinations to teach kids to kill. Either way, little in the way of published gaming literature has ever been published, 'cepting the aformentioned Jack Thompson-esqe stuff. I mean, the stuff I can find is all about great games in general [16] or stuff about the industry [17]. Point is, most of the market finds it online. And there isn't a single article or book solely on the Master Chief either, but you're not talking about deleting it, are you? Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 02:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - A reliable source does not necessarily mean a printed source. We've got wired.com, [18] and literally thousands of computer/game magazines, websites, etcetera. And David - you bet I'll get to Master Chief (Halo) if this AfD results in deletion or merging. Somehow, however, I seriously doubt that :/ Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Don't worry, Job, I understand how you feel with this- there are guys accusing me of being an anti-manga US-supremist and an Afd troller because I nominated some Gundam articles. Only difference is that they can't come up with keep arguments except for personal attacks, and those articles are bound to be deleted, but I support you- well, not really, but how about saying I empathize with you? Good night, Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 02:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yay, no hard feelings then. Good we've got mutual assurance on that part. Now, I bid ye good night - it's 3:41 AM and I've got another day tomorrow! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not a halo fan, I've barely played a few hours at my friends house and even I've heard about her. The don't find the Nom's arguments to delete the article persuasive given that this is a main character in a major franchise. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, I am a Halo fan. That she is a main character in a major franchise doesn't make her meet the primary notability criterion: although the major franchise indeed does. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has zero non-trivial third party sources as far as I can see, but that is really a silly rule anyhow, isn't it? Silensor 03:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, that's officially the greatest point brought up so far in this discussion. WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V are all silly rules, let's ignore them! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia doesn't have the limitations of a paper encyclopedia, and this article is useful. Jlsilva 14:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Useful"? What do you mean, "useful"? Even if background story on a video game character could in any way be considered useful (it can't. It's useless), articles like Jobjörn Folkesson would be far more useful. I could write some information about myself there, and hey, when I'm out and someone wants my number or something, I could just say "Oh, look me up on Wikipedia!" The person would then 1) be amazed that I have my own wp article, and 2) not have to remember all those digits of my phone number. Now THAT is what I call useful! Nevertheless, Jobjörn Folkesson is still a redlink, and I intend it to continue to be a redlink. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major character in a major work. Maybe you could trim it down and merge it to a list of Halo characters, but AfD really isn't the place to do it. And personally, I'd rather have a handful of character articles like these than hard to navigate lists like List of Final Fantasy X characters. I personally think that List of Halo series characters needs a lot of trimming work first in clearing it up. - hahnchen 18:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A handful? There's more of those than there are articles on African cities! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you just making shit up? Or are you being purposely obtuse? I prefer Category:Halo characters over an List of Halo series characters. Although it is at least more relevant than your Carolus Linnaeus mention earlier. - hahnchen 23:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Obtuse"? After looking that up (I am not a native english speaker), I am wondering whether that is a personal attack or not. Whatever the case, no, I am not making shit up, and I am not being obtuse - not on purpose, not at all. While the Carolus Linnaeus argument is indeed quite exaggerated, the exaggeration was used to highlight the obvious flaws in the reasoning my argument replied to: namely that just because something is associated with something notable, doesn't mean it is notable. I am related to Carolus Linnaeus - but I don't claim that as making me notable, newsworthy, famous or whatever.
      As for the comment on categories versus lists, I don't get the point. It was apparently a reply on my statement, which in turn was a reply on the suggestion that there were only a handful of video game character biographies. Category:Computer and video game characters is not a handful. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That you thought the "handful" was a reference to every single article in Category:Computer and video game characters, shows that you misunderstood the point. Cortana is a major character in a major work. - hahnch e n 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Then, instead of calling me obtuse, please clarify the point. I did however not believe that his use of "handful" referred to every single article in Category:Computer and video game characters, but indeed rather to those in Category:Halo characters. My point, however, was that this is hardly an isolated problem: there are lots and lots of articles like this, most of them even LESS notable than Cortana - although that is merely possible at all. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, redirect to main game. I see no evidence of articles concentrating on the individual character, as opposed to the game.Eludium-q36 18:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per TKD. TJ Spyke 01:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak keep or merge and redirect — TKD::Talk 07:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)) ~~Keep~~. Using Google Scholar, I found a couple of extensive scholarly articles (albeit in foreign languages) analyzing Halo: Combat Evolved, its plot, and Cortana's role in it. Be warned; these are both PDFs. [19], [20]. If someone can read sufficiently well in these languages, these papers should be very useful not only for Cortana, but also for much of Category:Halo. — TKD::Talk 03:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I do know swedish, and as thus I read through the first one. Sadly, it does not discuss Cortana's involvement in the plot: Cortana's role in the essay consists of a bunch of plot summaries for 1) the game, 2) every single level in the game and 3) herself. While the third one, the description of Cortana, could provide some interesting insight, it does not (my translation): Pillar of Autumn's artificial intelligence. The AI runs the ship and navigation per the captain's orders. Takes the form of a hologram picturing a woman with short blonde hair in a circuit board suit. She can enter all computer systems you run into in the game and take care of information. She works both as character in the movie sequences and guide during the gaming sequences. By communicating with other entities and actively seeking information that she then shares with the gaming character she often works as a narrator. The only thing remotely interesting in there is the last sentence. It could very well be included in a shortened List of Halo characters article.
  Hey, it turns out the second one is danish. As a Swede, I can read danish to some extent. The analysis is practically the exact same as the one in Swedish, and the Cortana part reads (my translation): ~Cortana is an artificial intelligence, used to run the respective systems of Pillar of Autumn. In addition to this, she is an important part of the ship's navigation system, and it is the Master Chief's task to make sure that she doesn't fall into enemy hands. While this doesn't contain anything of use, it does later on say that Cortana is related to the narrating AI of bungie game Marathon - the only thing of interest to us in this essay.
  Well, my conclusion remains: this article should be deleted and interesting contents should be inserted into the list of halo characters article. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the translations and analysis. Bear in mind, though, that even plot summary in secondary sources is useful; many times, we have to rely on the exception in WP:NOR that allows for the use of primary sources for uncontroversial, descriptive facts. And, even though Wikipedia is not a collection for plot summaries, inclusion of some plot summary is necessary for a comprehensiveness — at least, this is the interpretation held by most people who frequwently participate in evaluating featured article candidates. I don't really have an objection to a merge, though. As a note, though, if you do favor a merge, bear in mind that "delete and merge" violates the terms of the GFDL, in that any text merged needs to have its edit history kept somewhere; this is usually done through keeping the old article as a redirect to the target. "Merge and redirect" is fine. If this is closed as kept, there isn't really a proscription against continuing discussion of "separate article versus merger" on talk pages. — TKD::Talk 04:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia procedures are odd. As I find it hard to believe any consensus would ever arise on deleting the article WITHOUT including Cortana in the list of characters article, "merge and redirect" is my desired outcome. To me, deleting does in practice mean setting up a redirect - if nothing else so for preventing the article's recreation. Such is the case with recently AfDed Motor Kombat, for example. But whatever. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I had the time or inclination, I could dig through sites like [21] and pull up a slew of English Cortana articles as well. Peptuck 04:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rampancy.net may be a reasonable source for some content within a Halo-related article, however it is pretty much a pro-Bungie site so it doesn't really qualify as a 3rd party reference of the subject's notability. Independent reviews and (from what I can tell) the PDFs above, are 3rd party references. Gimmetrow 04:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Isn't rampancy.net a fan site? — TKD::Talk 04:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whatever the case, I strongly doubt rampany.net qualifies as a WP:RS. It's front page reads like a blog - complete with postings by an obscure alias and Digg links. The rest of it is forums and other user-submitted articles - and even though I can't find anyone actually dealing with Cortana I doubt you could call those "non-trivial published works". Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't most of this info be compressed and placed into the "Halo characters" article? BishopTutu 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, especially if the Halo characters article is clean up. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, why can't we do so? BishopTutu 19:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep assuming cleanup, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is focused, not indiscriminate.DGG 03:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. If these squarepants characters deserve an article, a major halo character that has appeared in novels definitely does. John Vandenberg 14:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, as said above - two wrongs doesn't make a right. I suggest you instead go ahead and nominate the squarepants for deletion too - they sure do deserve it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, right? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. Cortana is the most important and developed character in the HALO series, second only to the Master Chief. The article could most definitely use a cleanup, but other than that, it deserves to stay.Ghetto Gandalf 09:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Have you even READ the discussion above? WHY does it deserve to stay? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. Per Above. Extremely notable main character, however cleanup is necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QuillOmega0 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: Again, have you even bothered to read the above discussions? Perhaps you could then provide some more input than "I like it"? How is she "extremely notable"? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I'd assume she'd be notable due to the fact that she is one of the primary characters in both the Halo video games, and Halo novels. And yes I did read all of the above conversation. QuillOmega0 18:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: even though I still argue she is not notable at all, I do think even you must agree "extremely notable" is something of an overstatement. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: How is she not notable? She's not a character you see or hear only two times during Halo, or Halo 2, unlike Sergeant Major Avery J. Johnson in Halo 1. I will admit I may have made an overstatement, but my point still stands that she is still a notable character. I however give you kudos in defending your AfD gallantly. I will also make another point that the Cortana article, as stated previously does need to be cleaned up and sourced, but this is not a valid point to delete it. QuillOmega0 19:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: As I suppose you have read above, I will not go on in great length as to why she is not notable - or, rather, not notable enough for an own article. But basically, it lies in the requirement of non-trivial third-party sources discussing the subject in question as specified in the "primary notability criterion" of WP:N (and WP:FICT, to some extent). As it has been proven (see discussions above) that an article on Cortana can't go beyond plot summary (or WP:OR), I think she would be better off included in the List of Halo series characters, and that article to be severely trimmed (as suggested on that article's talk page, yielding no results). Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Passes Notability on its own. Major character in the Halo series. I'd say merge, but there is enough information to keep this. Wizardman 19:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that this is either never going to reach consensus, or it's going to end up a weak keep. Personally, I feel that in the context of this being a video game, it is unlikely that there are going to be professional, scholastically written articles like you seem to want in order for it to be kept. This notwithstanding, main characters are allowed an article if putting them in the main article would make it too long. I disagree with the concept that since this is a video game, there can't be main characters besides the playable characters. One, there are novels in which she is a main character. Two, video games can be considered interactive movies, and the Halo series is a great argument for that. It is a classic sci-fi action trilogy, with a plot, antagonists, protagonists, cliffhangers, and epic battles, and Cortana is one of the characters that holds the plot together. WP:FICT allows us to give main characters a page even without meeting the general notability guidelines, and we're allowed to use the primary sources of the games and novels to source this where other sources miss things. Also, I feel that this nomination is on the borderline of being a WP:POINT nomination. I can understand nominating a character that only shows up in one game and isn't as important to the plot like Tartarus, but Cortana is one of the main characters of a massively popular video game trilogy. As for print sources, Cortana has a whole page write-up in one of my official game manuals if we absolutely need a print source, circling back to one of my reasons for keep: it's ok for writings not to focus on her as long as they include enough information on her from which to write an article. J0lt C0la 02:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who has said anything about print sources? Third-party, published, sources.
  Uh, I don't have time to argue against most of the recent arguments now, so I'll guess I'll just have to let them pass unchallenged. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for keeping it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.14.191.222 (talk • contribs).

Comment: Let me add that I do not like using Wikipedia's notablity criteria for fictional characters; it is a very common justification to branch off important fictional characters from otherwise bloated lists precisely because information about these characters is extensive and including it, even in condensed format, would unnecessarily draw out the lists. This is commonly accepted in Wikipedia. How many scholarly third-party sources can we find for David Palmer or Liquid Snake, for example? Peptuck 04:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum I've looked over the WP:Notability guidelines, and I have noticed a very important part of the guideline that I want to address. Specifically, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction).

I believe we should be referring to guidelines on fictional characters as grounds for suitability for deletion. Specifically, Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article. Therefore, I propose that this debate should be shifted to "Is Cortana a major enough character within Halo to warrant an article of her own?" as per these established guidelines regarding fictional material. Peptuck 04:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC) -Additionally, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) acceptable sources for fictional characters include:[reply]

Annotated books or screenplays;
Behind-the-scenes documentaries;
Critical reviews;
Distribution materials;
DVD commentary tracks;
Interviews with creators, actors, etc.;
Press coverage;
Production diaries;
Sales figures;
Scholarly introductions to editions of the work;
Texts from fields like cultural studies, film studies, etc.;
Third-party analyses; and
Websites or blogs run by the creators.

Scholarly third party analyses only make up one of many acceptable sources for fictional material. With these facts and elements of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding fictional material, I reaffirm my position to oppose deletion of this article, at least on the grounds Joborn has cited. Peptuck 04:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability must be established by independent third-party sources. If notability of a subject is established independently, self-published sources may be used for content in an article about the subject. I think Cortana passes notability from third-party (non-Halo) sources. Gimmetrow 05:49, 16 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motor Kombat[edit]

Incredibly unencyclopedic article on a subject related to Mortal Kombat. Fails WP:N like nothing else. Delete and perhaps redirect to Mortal Kombat Armageddon. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly strong redirect to the game's page. -- Kicking222 04:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mortal Kombat: Armageddon, which has a section on it already. Nothing worth merging. BryanG^(talk) 07:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect.--HisSpaceResearch 18:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. —dima/s-ko/ 21:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect every piece of information is already in Armageddon's own article, this is just a rogue sub-page. QuagmireDog 00:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' per every person ever alive. BishopTutu 03:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It becomes "モーターコンバット(Motaa konbatto)" when translating into Japanese.--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions) 03:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect plus the description page is awful ;) Granger Toivets

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, blatant copyvio from http://www.stpetertheapostle.org/parish2/stat.html and http://www.stpetertheapostle.org/parish2/his.html. -- ReyBrujo 05:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Peter the Apostle Roman Catholic Church[edit]

An old church, but no assertion of notability. Speedy tag removed by someone other than the author, so gets bumped here. Aagtbdfoua 04:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, some famous people popping in a couple of hundred years ago isn't quite enough. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 04:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N--Jonpro 04:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I nominated, but should have made my view explicit. - Aagtbdfoua 04:34, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vothic[edit]

An art movement founded in December 2006, fails on neogolism and notability. Steve _(Slf67)^talk 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neogolism, as well as that it states an event happened in february of 2007.--Tainter 07:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. See also: crystal ball. Doczilla 08:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Get notability in the real world, not via Wikipedia. WP:NEO. --Folantin 11:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Neologism. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable protologism. ShadowHalo 22:39, 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 Delete. Blanked by author. utcursch | talk 15:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrillis[edit]

A non-notable pastry shop in Cyprus. Article claims it is "well known", so I didn't slap a db-corp tag on it. Aagtbdfoua 04:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, I believe this should be deleted. - Aagtbdfoua 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excluding the stuff about the food it says it is a well known shop near the centre of town. Not notable at all. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 04:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the few Google hits indicate that this shop exists, it does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria at WP:CORP. --Metropolitan90 04:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a blog that mentions them fondly, but that's it. Out!!! --Brianyoumans 05:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 05:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HOW do I add to this conversation, as opposed to adding in the "Talk" section? (other than manually editing this section like I did?) (the Author of the article - please see Discussion section for my feedback) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kipripedia (talk • contribs).
Kipripedia's comments pasted here:

Umm, I don't know which sources you looked up, but this shop IS the best known lokmades shop in Nicosia (perhaps Cyprus). It is a traditional shop and only mentioned so that people have a rough indication on where to get it (for example, tourists looking up the entry "loukoumades".

The article is not meant to advertise or promote the business, it IS notable, however the decision to delete it rests with you.

If you think it is more appropriate to remove the "well known" part I am happy to do it.

Thanks.

Delete per nomination. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 06:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Ronbo76 12:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kipripedia's comments

Since everyone is so keen in attacking this article, and they think they know better, I have removed the contents of the article which was 'contrary to policy' (again, contrary to policy), and I'll make sure I won't bother with wikipedia again. In fact, I've had a long line of 'bits and pieces of information' that can't be found in books, or google, or anywhere else, but then again you all know what you're talking about and Kyrillis is "non-notable". This will give me a good laugh. Now, if you please, ban my account as well because I'm acting "in a way contrary to policy". Nuff said here.

Comment page has now been blanked by the author, so I've tagged as speedy. - Aagtbdfoua 14:55, 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 both; hoaxes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nedwick Island[edit]

Probably a hoax -- the island is claimed to be "newly-named", and it is claimed that "Due to the expedience of the naming of this island, it is not yet registered on the Google search engine." The extremely vague history of the island is said to be tied in with the "Northern Russian Tribal Wars" -- which, despite the claim that it is "a label that contemporary historians use" to refer to alleged historical events, gets no Google hits either. I wonder if that is "due to the expedience of the naming" of these allegedly 150-year-old events. Antaeus Feldspar 04:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because the two pages share much of the same suspicious information:

Delete as per nom. Darth griz⁹⁸ 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both A couple of new accounts screwing around (not to BITE) by making up some nonsense. -- Kicking222 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both; hoaxes. Unverifiable. I liked the Abominable Snowman bit, that made me laugh at least. Antandrus (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. At best, these articles are completely unsourced and unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 04:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. --Slgr a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 05:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both an island that has "not yet registered on the Google search engine," is home to the Abominable Snowman, whose residents are shy, but like to ride dirt bikes, and is tied to the equally Google-elusive "Northern Russian Tribal Wars"? Are we sure this isn't the subject of a lost Rankin-Bass special? Wavy G 05:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google Earth check of the coordinates in the article gives the island of Ostrov Uyedineniya Citicat 05:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per above. MER-C 05:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both indeed. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 06:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. The author actually gives it away at the end: "The inhabitants of the island are not well known due to the location and their timidity to foreigners. It is known that the kids here like to ride mountain bikes in their free time." Yea, right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberAnth (talk • contribs)
Delete as a hoax. I would like to make a comment though - it seems that WP:LOCAL is the closest thing we have to notability guidelines for geography articles. There was a page I made several years ago, River Quoich, which may not pass these criteria, but since I am inclusionist I'd advocate keeping it instead of having it torn apart by deletionists...--HisSpaceResearch 18:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Delete Google-Earth shows no land at the stated co-ordinates. Therefore a hoax article. Proven. Kill it.--Anthony.bradbury 18:32, 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 Speedy G3 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 19:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Aaron Fritz[edit]

I believe this to be a hoax: I can't find any verification about anything there. Joyous! | Talk 05:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Depressingly well-written hoax, but hoax nevertheless. If these people would devote their undoubted talent and energy to writing proper articles, or, indeed, proper fiction in appropriate venues, the world would be a much better place... Tevildo 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 05:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant hoax; and yes, it is unquestionably a hoax. Yuser31415 06:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To paraphrase Moe Hailstone, this Fritz needs to be blitzed. Tubezone 07:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fiction. Good fiction, but still fiction. Among other things, he was apparently born into a family with a deceased mother, which might require some doing. --Ssbohio 07:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Ronbo76 12:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Nothing can be found on Google for his name, and although the Google test isn't foolproof, it would at least return some results if this were genuine.--HisSpaceResearch 18:32, 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 speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as "hoax". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miles O' Smiles[edit]

Possible hoax. I can find no verification of the information. The original author's other article is also a suspected hoax. Joyous! | Talk 05:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This one is just silly. Tevildo 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BOLLOCKS. MER-C 05:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, mounds o' frowns for this mill o' swill. Tubezone 07:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Tubezone's recommendation. Ronbo76 12:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verification and does not sound real Alf photoman 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually, this would be good in bad jokes and other deleted nonsense.--HisSpaceResearch 18:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube 23:14, 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.--Hús ö nd 03:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classified (film)[edit]

Delete article about nonexistent film from non-notable spec script with no final draft which, history shows, would have a low chance of becoming an actual film. No notable names are attached. Doczilla 05:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Pity that CSD:A7 doesn't apply to movies. Tevildo 05:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced crystal balling. MER-C 05:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Article reads, "This synopsis is based on the spec script. The final draft is not available." Best argument right from that statement as it is a future article (if it ever gets past the initial stages. Future, also, as Wikipedia is not a place the future can be predicted. Ronbo76 12:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Why is this article here?--Anthony.bradbury 18:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. To whoever closes this, there's also a redirect at Classified (the movie). JuJube 23:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: see my comments in the AfD debate on Drazen Zigic. WMMartin 17:33, 11 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 14:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Spring Fighting of 2004[edit]

~~This article is about a part of a war that already has its own page. C J King 05:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete or merge per nom. Unless there is something particularly noteworthy about any particular timeframe I see little value in breaking it out into many bits of little worth. Akihabara 14:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think that it should stick because it shows the inital uprising of the Mahdy army and their takeover of the south and the fight for Anbar that was in the same time frame, the fight for Fallujah, Ramadi, Husaybah and other cities in the psring of that year. I draw paralels with the Tet offensive so I think like the Vietnam war article has the Tet offensive Iraq should have this. The spring fighting of 2004 had a substantial inpact on the perspectiv of the war like Tet did. Like Tet it was an uprising of insurgents all over the country at the same time. This article is not about a war but a series of operations, like Tet, in a war that were interconected and had a sustantial incpact on the whole perspective of the war. This is just one battle of the war not an article about the war like CJ said.Top Gun 21:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep US Civil War and World War I and World War II are broken into articles on individual battles and campaigns. In many cases the popular name of the campaign changed over time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was an important phase of the overall Iraq War. It illustrated the strength of the Mahdi Army and showed how the war had changed from the conventionally perceived US vs Sunni insurgents to a more complicated US vs Shia militia and US vs Sunni insurgents and Shia militia vs Sunni insurgents. The only thing that should be considered in the future is not whether to keep this article, but whether the name is appropriate--it is a little unwieldy, but as the war progresses a better name might come up for this phase. Also, the Iraq war article needs more distinctions like this--for a 4 year war, there's little in the way of officially recognized campaigns beyond the various phases of invasion, occupation, insurgency, civil war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Publicus (talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep It shows how the separate battles during that period were connected with the religious tensions, the rise of Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army and a departure from the idea of battling against a foreign insurgency, and how the separate battles were connected with each other. It gives a summary and a bit of perspective on the Spring campaign as a whole, and I feel that it is a valuable article. Defenestrating Monday 21:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—the scope of the article is appropriate (the period it covers is a distinct and important phase of the war) and it could not possibly fit entirely into Iraq War. If it overlaps much with other articles, they should be merged to an article dealing chiefly with this topic, but the reason given in the nomination is unsound. —xyzzy_n 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep We should definately keep this article. as Defenestrating Monday says it shows how all the battles of this time are linked together, & I feel this article gives a clear explanation for how & why events occured the way they did with a level of detail often lacking in other articles. Also I feel this article, unlike some others, allow you to picture events from the viewpoint of the insurgents, particulaly that of the Shi'as under Sadr. This article gives us a valuable account of these events & thus is more then worthy of being kept by this encyclopedia. Redfox24 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Publicus; it would be a error to remove the article focused on what may have been the turning point in the current war.Freepsbane 03:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I have changed my mind and would really like this AfD to close.--C J King 04:17, 14 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Curley[edit]

Non-notable athlete, fails WP:BIO. 17th in the Philly marathon is not very notable, nor are the 2 minor races he won. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 06:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Punkmorten 16:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, there is not enough independent coverage of this individual to warrant an article, though hats off for winning the Norfolk Pub 10 Miler. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or add non-trivial sources Alf photoman 18:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notablethe Norfolk Pub 10 miler, although small has attracted some talent. This year the womans 11th place finisher in the New York City Marathon,Claudia Camargo, raced, and was the first overall woman in the race. The race has also seen the apparence of Eric Blake, the world record holder in the treadmill marathon, whos time Kevin Curley surpassed. -- User talk:Sassman84 — Sassman84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Wolf discography[edit]

This contains less information than Patrick Wolf's main page, and is poorly formatted. It's unnecessary and needs to go. Evan Reyes 05:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Patrick Wolf's main page is apparently a 'featured article', although obviously this is fake. --HisSpaceResearch 18:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Information already covered better on Patrick Wolf page. Discography not large enough to justify a separate page. Yorkshiresky 20:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough to require a separate article. —ShadowHalo 22:37, 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 G12 (copyvio) by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 08:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Ocean[edit]

This article is only the lyrics to the song with very little other information. Fez2005 05:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio. So tagged. MER-C 06:36, 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, remove suspected OR. — CharlotteWebb 07:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accurizing[edit]

Article appears to be Original Research and a how-to. Wibbble 05:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As it stands, the article could use some looking over to ensure encyclopedic tone and make sure there aren't any "how-to" sections. However, the topic is encyclopedic, and a Google search turns up a number of potential sources to address the OR concerns. Dave6 07:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, could be improved but contains information worthy of an encyclopedia.--HisSpaceResearch 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not OR, these techniques are widely discussed in the firearms industry. Georgewilliamherbert 00:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And the how-to element? Wibbble 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely not a justification for removal, per the AFD instructions. Should be tagged for cleanup etc. Georgewilliamherbert 02:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not OR, there's a whole bunch of reference links at the bottom that descrtibe various accurizing techniques and processes. Concerning the "how to" issue, why don't we discuss what does or doesn't constitute "how to" content at Talk:Accurizing? Certainly I didn't intend it to be a how-to article, that would be far, far larger... scot 02:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This and Rock climbing nominated for deletion on the same day? Where does it show that OR means the topic should be deleted from Wikipedia? WP:CLEAN AM I missing something? Next we'll be nominating George W. Bush for deletion because it gets hit by POV vandals. IS this really a criterion for deletion of an article, that it contains OR? KP Botany 16:17, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quaday Hot 100 Singles Philippines[edit]

I live in the Philippines and I've never ever heard of this "music chart." Perhaps a hoax, or an unknown website/group of people using Wikipedia as a free web host. (In other words, this is unnotable for Wikipedia). PROD was removed by an anon. (Also adding this to WT:PINOY's content for deletion) --Howard the Duck 06:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability or verifiability on Google. MER-C 06:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to exist, and even if it does, it isn't even something that I would consider as the Philippines' counterpart to the US' Billboard or UK's Top of the Pops(or any country's similar, notable music hits list) --- Tito Pao 07:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lol I'm a big music fan and I've never heard of Quaday Hot 100 Singles. And Singles top charts are not common in the Philippines because of the lack of reliable and accurate ways of tallying music records (Albums are but singles - not the norm except for MYX Daily Top Ten). Berserkerz Crit 20:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I searched the article in Yahoo and came up with links on Wikipedia on songs by different international artists (Hurt by Christina Aguilera; Do It To It by Cherish; I Don't Need A Man by the Pussycat Dolls etc.) whose pages have been listed with Quaday Hot 100 Singles as reference for chart position in the Philippines. I've removed all the links I could find. But lol what a dick whoever made this up. Berserkerz Crit 20:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a reference site can be stated. --Thankyoubaby 01:27, 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 10:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BF2Combat.net[edit]

Fails WP:WEB as criteria one says, "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." the article only provides one source and no more can be found on the web; it fails criteria two and three as well. Fails WP:V as you can not write a sourced article with one source and the article does not cite anything. Fails WP:OR as the whole article is original research sparing two sentences. The articles claim to notability and sources all lie in one article that itself has very little facts. BJ^Talk 05:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - alexa ~ 240k: [22]. Fails WP:WEB. MER-C 05:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Slugger9066 02:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 216.40.74.6 02:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sidonuke 02:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:WEB. No independent sources. Wickethewok 07:15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnarok Online jobs[edit]

Pure crufty game guide material. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Don't forget to nuke all the fair use images, too. MER-C 05:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke per nomination. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 06:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT gamefaqs.com. Dave6 07:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs (which happens to be a great article). --- RockMFR 08:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And as always, transwiki is encouraged. --- RockMFR 08:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not encyclopedic. Wickethewok 07:15, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Pride[edit]

Delete Non-notable, fails WP:BIO, and not even the thinnest assertion of verifiability. The article is a walled garden unto itself (complete with self-redirecting wikilinks). Article claims her to be a prolific writer, but of course not every crank author is notable for Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 06:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Her earlier books show a peak amazon rank (for "The Way Home") of #232,909. Her homeschooling books may be more notable, however. Harvest House Publishers is a specialty company with a definate agenda, which may invalidate them as a source, they are not, however, vanity press. Her other publisher appears to primarily publish religious tracts, but is also not vanity press. The most serious issue for me is the fact that only one trivial non-publisher source is given for her. The lack of sourcing does not mean the nonexistance of sources, however, and I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt, but the new community precident, as derived from the AfD for 2, The Ranting Griffon, is that if an author is notable only to a very limited group or set, then they do not merit inclusion. I have to endorse this precident, seeing as given a narrow enough set of the population, anything could be notable. Sources would strongly help salvage the article, but I haven't seen anything so far that would indicate any more notability than any other minor author. Wintermut3 06:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple published author. Sure it's only in one area but I'm sure you can think of many authors who stick on one genre. Malla nox 06:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I can think of plenty, yes. But having published multiple books actually does not mean that a person passes WP:BIO, which lays out our notability criteria to meet here. Go read WP:BIO and explain how she satisfies it in any way whatsoever. — coelacan talk — 07:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you explain specifically how it fails? CyberAnth 07:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The main criterion of WP:BIO does not apply to her: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." That's it, and she doesn't fit. — coelacan talk — 07:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how you define, and how you wish precedent set for, a "source independent of the person". CyberAnth 09:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who, me? I didn't write the notability guidelines. There's a lot of room for interpretation by consensus. The answers to your question have mostly been distilled into WP:RS Why don't you read over that and WP:BIO, and then if you think you have something that fits, bring it. — coelacan talk — 09:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can consensus be reached on the matter unless people explain their interpretation. Since you are the nominator, please start out. CyberAnth 09:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I make a reminder, WP:BIO is a guideline. She has had more than a couple of books published. I am concerned that common sense is not being used I am further concerned that the nomination comes not from naturally passing through wiki-articles but from a deliberate attempt to find articles of CyberAnth's to nominate. Comments on her talk page support this. Malla nox 15:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This page is a guideline" does not mean "Ignore this guideline". We have to have some way of establishing notability. WP:BIO is as good as any, and she doesn't meet it. Lots of people write lots of books, but unless they are notable outside their walled gardens, they don't belong on Wikipedia. Example: C. Stephen Evans has "more than a couple of books published", but he doesn't get a page on Wikipedia, because he's still non-notable outside of his little walled garden. As to the nomination itself, please assume good faith on my part. Yes, I was drawn to CyberAnth's user page. But I did not go looking for things to delete. On CyberAnth's user page, I was curious, he had linked to Prairie Muffins and Mary Pride, articles he was apparently proud of. The point of linking to such articles on one's userpage is to get others to click through, right? And I did. And what I found were horrible articles, unsourced, largely unverifiable, and probably unencyclopedic. Now, what was I supposed to do? Should I have backed up and said, "oh, what will people think if I nominate these?" Am I supposed to ignore bad articles just because of who authored them? That seems to me to be a poor choice if I care about the quality of this encyclopedia. — coelacan talk — 02:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyberAnth, it is not my job to explain the policies here to you. If you're unsure what "source independent of the person" means, you need to go ask at WP:HELPDESK. It is the responsibility of the editor who wants to content to stay up to establish the notability and verifiability of that content with reliable sources. When you think you have reliable sources, show them, and the editors in this AfD can discuss their merits. I am not going to run in circles for you, however. You need to start with a claim to notability. — coelacan talk — 02:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reracking the indent)

Coelacan, I think it's important to give CyberAnth the benefit of the doubt here. When I look at the sources, both within the article and without, I see sources that don't successfully meet both prongs of the WP:BIO test. Either the article is not independent of the subject or she is not a primary subject of the article. For example, the School Library Journal article cited below doesn't mention Pride within the article itself, but instead cites her book as an undifferentiated one of many. It only establishes that she wrote a book on subject matter similar to the journal article. Publisher's Weekly and Amazon.com likewise only establish that she's a published author, not that she has "been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." I think she likely merits inclusion within the homeschooling article, but lacks independent notability that can be established by reliable sources in order to justify her being the subject of an article. --Ssbohio 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge to homeschooling would make sense, even if she is not notable on her own. — coelacan talk — 18:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've checked for unbiased news sources that have taken an interest in her. Google News has no sources on her, and the only references I could Google seem either blatantly partisan or unreliable. In that it seems impossible to satisfy the verifiability criterion, and that the subject does not assert notability, deletion is called for. The only long-form piece on her that I reviewed was an excerpt from one of her books, a polemical screed against what she terms the Child Abuse Industry which intends to force abortions on children, deny them Christian teaching, and trample parental rights. Either this is the classic example of a fringe author or there is a vast left-wing conspiracy of which I am heretofore unaware. I don't see where the article currently merits inclusion, nor do I see any means presently available to change that. --Ssbohio 07:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article has been significantly improved since this AfD started. ~~Perhaps a merge to Quiverfull would be an option.~~ --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would be a good idea. However, your expressed opinion is to keep the independent article. Is there more to the interpretaion? From what I've seen of the improved article, I'm still having trouble seeing the article as overcoming the hurdles of biography, notability, and verifiability criteria in order to merit keeping under deletion policy. I'll go over the first three sources in the article to exemplify my point:

A decade-old journal article about the competition the Calgary, Alberta School Board is facing from religious educators, primarily Catholic schools. Pride is mentioned in passing, including pointing out that her public appearance there drew 400 people.[23]
A five-year-old Calgary Herald article by the same author as source 1. The title implies that the article's subject is the quiverfull movement, but the article's text is password protected and not accessible from Google nor from the Calgary Herald website. [24]
In this 2004 article, Publisher's Weekly surveys books marketed to the homeschool movement. It mentions Pride once as the author of a book, along with other similar authors, and quotes Pride extolling the more ready availability of study guides in recent years.[25]

These are reliable sources, to be sure, but they do not establish Mary Pride in any way greater than her own writing already has. They all agree that she wrote books that are among the canon of the homeschool movement, but they don't focus on her or assert her notability outside of the fact of her being a published author & sometime lecturer. --Ssbohio 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Verfiable and reliable sources do not seem to exist.--RWR8189 10:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not persuaded she is notable because her books seems to come from a minority publishing house, but I'm capable of being persuaded the other way. However, I would like to comment (without accusing anyone) that trying to get CyberAnth's articles deleted because people don't like the way he has been nominating articles about sexual terms for deletion strikes me as a bad way of behaving. Sam Blacketer 10:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - assuming good faith for on sources like "Slatery, Ann, "In a Class of their Own", The School Library Journal, (Aug. 2005 issue)" (which we can't check online) combined with the large number of books she's written (which would argue fairly well for professor-test guidelines; she may publish more than an average college professor, which I'd suggest on average is little or nothing) suggests notability to me. See WP:BIO re: "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor" Tarinth 10:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's "The professor test -- If the individual is more well known...". That's only for professors. The rule for authors in general is "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work."--Prosfilaes 13:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WP:BIO does not actually state that the test is limited to academics. But on a aelated and interesting note, doesn't this rule seem to suggest that around 50% of all academics in the world should be entitled to WP pages, assuming that 50% is what constitutes above-average? Tarinth 14:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:BIO links to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), which starts "This guideline, sometimes referred to as the professor test, is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements." --Prosfilaes 13:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I checked the mention in the School Library Journal reference. First, the author of the article is "Slattery" with two t's for anyone else checking - I've fixed the reference. Mary Pride is not mentioned in the text of the article at all, but her book The Complete Guide to Home Schooling is one of five books mentioned in an appendix as a resource with the comments "Written for the entire family, this guide is brief but informative." and "Pride's latest edition should be on all public library shelves." - Aagtbdfoua 14:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if she wasn't the primary subject of the article, then it doesn't count toward the first criterion of WP:BIO. Her notability score is still a big fat zero. Thanks for looking into that, Aagtbdfoua. — coelacan talk — 02:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Delete voters, please try a little test. Use this Google search with "Gay magazine" which will turn up in the top six as Outlook (magazine), Xtra!, Gay Times, Fab (magazine), Out (magazine), and The Advocate. Now take the URLs for those sites, http://www.outlooks.ca/, http://www.xtra.ca/, http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/, http://www.fabmagazine.com/, and http://www.out.com/, and http://www.advocate.com/, and place them at the Alexa traffic ranking alongside Pride's http://www.home-school.com/ and see which has the highest rankings. By the way, while you visit Outlook (magazine), Xtra!, Gay Times, Fab (magazine), Out (magazine), and The Advocate, be absolutely sure to click a good number of the scads and scads of "Notable writers" in the article sections and consider some of their level of proven notability via publications. Never mind, don't bother. I will just sit back and watch and act by the precedent set here. CyberAnth 10:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK... home-school.com has an Alexa rank around 196,000. I don't even care what the others' Alexa rankings are. -- Kicking222 12:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom DXRAW 11:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also don't like persecuting CyberAnth, but in the same way, I don't like CyberAnth persecuting the nominator in this AfD. Throwing out these issues, there is still no evidence that Mary Pride meets WP:BIO. -- Kicking222 12:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, when asserting notability we have to see wherein... and in the world of home schooling she is notable, even if the home-schoolers are a tiny minority in the US. Getting 55.200 ghits as a person that carters only to minorities should tell us something. Alf photoman 18:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What it doesn't tell us is anything relating to WP:BIO. Ghits are an indicator to look closer, yes, but what specifically are we finding that demonstrates notability by reliable sources? All I see are "reading lists of home schooling books" after I get past Pride's own self-published website. Gay Nigger Association of America" OR GNAA gets twice as many hits (114,000) as "Mary Pride", but we don't have an article on them, because they're not covered by reliable third party sources. And I guarantee a lot more people have heard of the GNAA than Mary Pride. But, no article. I'm not saying that's a precedent, but it is an example of when Ghits aren't enough for an article. Home schooling is a notable topic, and reliable sources talk about it, like TIME. But where are the reliable sources on Mary Pride? — coelacan talk — 02:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep audience is not restructed to people who agree with her - she has been personally criticised by founder of the Couple to Couple League, one of the largest organizations in the natural family planning movement. Lyrl ^Talk _C 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, another non-notable group had a spat with her. How does actually fulfill WP:N? — coelacan talk — 02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much indirect advertisement. Disgusting. St blac 22:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is definitely well known in homeschooling circles. MLilburne 23:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would think that would lead to some kind of reliable sources mentioning her outside of that little walled garden, though. Please explain how she fulfills WP:BIO. — coelacan talk — 03:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alberta Report and the Publishers Weekly reference are probably sufficient to demonstrate she has some recognition. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BIO, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." But both of those articles mention her only a couple of times in passing. So they do not begin to fulfill the notability requirements. — coelacan talk — 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We follow the spirit, not the letter, of the law. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just held a séance to be certain, and the spirits told me she's non-notable. I'll go double check with my ouija board to determine the appropriate letters. — coelacan talk — 03:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following the "spirit of the law" has nothing to do with consulting spirits. Harvardy 05:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. To be serious, it is clear that the spirit of WP:BIO is not "did she do a bunch of stuff?" but rather "was she specifically, deliberately noted by reliable sources for doing the stuff she did?" And that is the spirit that fails to move her. — coelacan talk — 15:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable author within a notable religious and cultural niche. I found at least three independent and reliable sources in the references section which gave substantial coverage of Pride and her books. Nick Graves 04:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Which ones? Because I looked at every one of them that was online and none of them addressed her as their primary subject. Help me out here; specifics? — coelacan talk — 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google News is not a reliable source for finding news articles. For example, an article in Wikipedia that I am very familiar with, Dominion of Melchizedek, shows nothing in Google News but actually has been mentioned is hundreds of major publications around the world over the past 17 years with articles last year in the Washington Post and the New York Post. Mary Pride is recognized as a leader in her field nationally. Suggest Coelacan use someting better than Google News if he really wants to find the truth. Harvardy 05:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I could try using the citations that the article's author has already put in the article, yeah? But none of them are about her. At best, they mention her peripherally. The cited texts amount to a couple of book reviews, and they don't much care for who the author was. If there's any room for this woman's info on Wikipedia, it should be merged into home schooling and/or quiverfull. She is not notable on her own. — coelacan talk — 15:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify regarding Google News, I want to point out that there were no Google News hits, so I moved on to Google "Mary Pride" as a search phrase, and the links that came back largely seemed not to be reliable sources. The ones that seemed to be something above blogs, bulletin boards, and newsgroups, either didn't have Mary Pride as a primary subject, or were not independent of her and her movement. I'm an inclusionist at heart, but this person doesn't have a verifiable claim of notability that I can find. --Ssbohio 05:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CanadianCaesar. Most Wikipedia articles have no references at all, so I am not hung up on "primary subject" when an author is at least multiply published and her works are reviewed in major trade journals. Seee how many of the 493 Pokemon characters were "primary subjects" in multiple independent reliable sources. See how many articles are sitting there tagged as unreferenced. Edison 15:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of other articles possibly needing deletion should not dissuade us from deleting any other particular article. Your advice is a council of despair. — coelacan talk — 15:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content of multiple references makes me confident you do not have access to some. You might want to go just a tad deeper than the title. CyberAnth 17:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a couple of points about this "keep" opinion. First, the nomination was not based on a lack of references, but on this biography being about a non-notable person. Second, it's not really probative with regard to this decision to discuss other articles that may also fail the same criteria. There are many articles that have many problems within this project, but arguing in favor of retaining one article because others are as bad or worse will only diminish the quality of the project overall. --Ssbohio 05:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete ordinarily i'd say keep this author with numerous publications, but Coelacan is right, we have no reliable sources referencing her, they all reference her books. If anything this article should be stripped down and merged into Homeschooling as her books are clearly popular in that regard, Mary Pride herself not so much. Sorry but them's the breaks. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CanadianCaesar. Notable and widely published author within the homeschooling sphere. Silensor 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at CanadianCaesar's comments above, it's important to keep in mind that the standard calls for the article's subject to have been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial articles in independent reliable sources. See my analysis of the first three sources from the article above. The references CanadianCaesar makes are to reliable sources, but Pride is only referenced in passing in those articles, not their subject. --Ssbohio 05:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CanadianCaesar's gut feeling aside, how, precisely, are we to establish notability if she fails WP:BIO? I don't see any helpful addendum like WP:BIO#FRINGE. — coelacan talk — 18:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I disagree with the suggestion that Mary Pride should just be mentioned at the "homeschooling" page instead of getting her own page. That page is already quite extensive, and while it could use a little bit more information about religious motivations for homeschooling, putting mini-bios about every author who is influential in homeschooling would make the page even more impenitrable. So, why is Mary Pride notable? Because she is notable in the community of religious homeschooling, having written notable books. The religious homeschooling community is a large and powerful one, not a small walled community that anyone can be notable in. She has been interviewed by members of that community (although I'm doing a really poor job of getting good links or interview transcripts from google) about her opinions. Mary Pride is notable ONLY as an author, so of course references about her are very much related to her work. The article seems to have put together actual verifiable information about her background in a useful way. It would be non-NPOV to put large amounts of information about this person on lots of different pages about her books or on the homeschooling page. This small, concise article seems like a very good compromise to me.Enuja 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, perhaps she doesn't belong on any other pages either. That means she definitely shouldn't have her own page here. That whole "I'm doing a really poor job of getting good links or interview transcripts from google" bit is very telling though. — coelacan talk — 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've continued to look around, wikipedia's quiverfull page has a min-bio of her already. But I've rescinded my position that she's noteable as a "homeschooling" personality. It remains quite possible that she's a noteable person in the american conservative evangelical movement at large, althought I can't tell which Google hits and interviews are outside of her organization. I did find google hits of interviews WITH her, it's just that the text of the interviews were not coming up. I changed my "keep" to a "weak" one, as there is quite an effective mini-bio of her already at the quiverfull page. Enuja 01:20, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True Christianity[edit]

I don't know if "true Christianity" is at all a topic that can be written about, but I do know as it stands, this article is an essay, which is something Wikipedia is not for. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not a term that is frequently used, and will have different meanings for different people. BenC7 06:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tevildo 06:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 07:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki_is_Freaakky. (talk • contribs)
Delete per above. MER-C 07:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there's any way to define this that won't be POV. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above arguments - and is not my POV! GB 08:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopelessly POV. Also WP:SOAPBOX. --Folantin 11:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, jump up and down on corpse, and visit wrath to seventh generation. Drake Dun 12:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Ronbo76 12:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - SOAP CyberAnth 12:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am a born-again Christian and can state with fair confidence that the contents of this article amounts to a personal essay and is in no way a reflection of actual usage. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ditto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberAnth (talk • contribs)
Delete per above. Bucketsofg 14:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Tarinth 14:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a strong inclusionist yet something like this, unreferenced, unwikified and poorly written, has absolutely no place here.--HisSpaceResearch 19:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True Delete JuJube 23:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HisSpaceResearch --Richard 10:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the place to post salvation howto tracts. Dragomiloff 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hogwash. Herostratus 05:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please. Swiftly. Personal essay, not encyclopedia article. Pastordavid 00:11, 11 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. Agent 86 01:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Dohr[edit]

Nominate per WP:HOLE. Wiki is Freaakky. 07:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Article Yahoo search with his name followed by horn revealed in the first hits this German URL with an automatic English translation Stefan Dohr with an English and Italian languaged URLs. Individual plays for the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra and his picture matches the English site. I would discount the second hit which is answer.com which automatically caches its info from Wikipedia (primarily) and other websites. (See my userpage for a discussion about how answer.com caches that was placed in the Village Pump). Ronbo76 12:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article is now reformatted as a stub article with my newbie editting. Ronbo76 13:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have been the subject of published works. I've added an external link to a biography on what seems to be his recording label. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 01:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy Keep The principal chair in a section of the BPO is unquestionably notable. The stated criterion of the nominator is an essay, and citation of it is normally used to indicate why the criterion "I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground." is altogether subjective and subject to personal limitation. Frankly, there is no television actor I could tell apart from another, and quite possibly no rock musician, but that doesnt affect my votes or my nominations. If no better reason can be given, I'd invoke WP:SNOW.. DGG 02:37, 11 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 14:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti cherie[edit]

A page devoted to multilingual lyrics for a "traditional Haitian song". No sources, and written in an OR tone. – ipso 12:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikisource. So tagged. MER-C 13:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikisource Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 01:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is more to this article than just a list of the lyrics. Assuming that the material in this article is true, this is a notable song of Haiti and an article on it is appropriate. Herostratus 17:29, 5 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, Agent 86 07:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Herostratus. Don't forget there are lots of articles on songs with lyrics. I can't see why Haiti cherie should be treated different from Yankee Doodle. MaxSem 08:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but possibly rename to Haiti Cherie, and find references. --HisSpaceResearch 19:34, 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, userfy not appropriate, as we don't know whether the creator User:Chase.munro is the subject. Also deleting the painting images, as they have low resolution, no encyclopedic use, no source indication and their GFDL licence tag sounds a bit fishy given these circumstances. Sandstein 08:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Bradley[edit]

Claimed to be a "leading impressionist painter of southern Mississippi", but no sources. Also including the images of her paintings (linked from the article) -- does Ms. Bradley realize that these paintings are tagged under the GFDL (meaning anyone can now copy them for free)?? NawlinWiki 15:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable; article fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOV. JRHorse 23:03, 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, Agent 86 07:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Userfy. Wiki is Freaakky. 07:20, 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, after Uncle G's edits. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 14:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loudest band in the world[edit]

Page has no reason to exist. Records can be looked up elsewhere. Aboutblank 07:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV based trivia. While claimed by The Who], numerous sources say manowar holds this title per Guiness. Wikipedia is not for trivia. Resolute 07:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't confirm W/Guinness site, as Resolute stated, others do claim this (remember This Is Spinal Tap? ;) SkierRMH,08:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia that contradicts verifiable records. More importantly, Wikipedia policy states that Wikipedia is not Guiness. Doczilla 08:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anyhow I thought the loudest band was "Disaster Area". Note that the article refers to loudness in "deciples". Sam Blacketer 10:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With the changes in the article since my !vote, I change my !vote to keep. Sam Blacketer 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced trivia. MER-C 10:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not trivia and it's sourced. "Contradicting verifiable records" is a cause to correct an article, not delete it. Keep. Uncle G 17:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unca G, I usually don't diagree with you, but the references in this article are total hearsay based junk written by notoriously techno-illiterate music writers. Not one is an actual document showing how this ranking was determined based on any scientific or engineering standards. Tubezone 17:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turn the Delete knob up to 11, (or maybe should be renamed to alleged loudest bands in the world?) Would only apply to bands that actually drag around their own sound equipment, anyway, which hasn't been common for years... (why pay roadies when you can just mic into the house system?) Otherwise you're just measuring the loudness of the venue. Then there's the lack of sound measurement parameters... 129.5 db at what distance? Weighted or not? Counting crowd noise? Indoor or outdoor? The article mentions "32 meters from the speakers"...but there's scads of speakers. engineering analysis of the compact discs on which their albums are published As in how, average level, what? All CD's have a certain maximum level, beyond that it's just digital clipping garbage, they don't work like tape recorders. Sounds like Ashare is being taken in by press release technobabble, which, BTW, he didn't bother to verify as valid. You're right, Doczilla, WP ain't Guinness... you can't even trade WP for a Guinness, unfortunately and sadly, which brings the value of the whole concept of WP into question, if you ask me.. Tubezone 17:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced, not trivia, as Uncle G has pointed out.--HisSpaceResearch 19:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Keep - I am still not convinced that this is not trivia, but the Uncle G's edits have radically altered this article such that it no longer resembles that which I voted on initially. Keep only because, IMO, the rewrite would necessitate a new AfD without !votes based on previous versions. Resolute 20:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really sort of an essay on the "goodness of loudness" is my take on it, the claims made are based on pretty poor research, IMHO. Apparently someone did measure the Manowar concert, but I don't see (a) how the numbers were taken, or (b) that comparable measurements of other bands were made. Also, since bands don't normally carry their own sound re-enforcement gear these days, Manowar is sort of winning a one-band race. Tubezone 21:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uncle G. -Toptomcat 01:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick Google confirms that the title "loudest band in the world" is claimed by a few different bands. We shouldn't write an article that declares "Bob's Banjo Brigade is the loudest band in the world. End of story." But what we can do is outline a few of the different claims that have been made over the years. Quack 688 06:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced by what? Tubezone 07:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers, books, and magazines? -Toptomcat 12:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-referenced and non-trivial. If there are concerns about biases and whatnot, they should be added to the article (see Best-selling music artist for an example). —ShadowHalo 03:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep the reasons given for nomination are not valid. That information can be found elsewhere is no criterion for WP, since,, between it and V, and OR, it would eliminate every single article."Page has no reason to exit" is meaningless, for it can be asserted of anything. It has reason to exist if it contains verifiable notable information, regardless of whether one finds the topic interesting.DGG 03:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Silly subject, but well-sourced and mildly notable. Sandstein 22:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since when has "Records can be looked up elsewhere." been a reason not to have a Wikipedia article on a subject. Lumos3 23:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stupid and is impossible to keep up. There are many more bands that exist in the world than the ones Guiness knows about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CJ King (talk • contribs) 04:24, 14 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, default to keep. Sandstein 12:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Bownds[edit]

Non-notable wrestler, article fails WP:BIO and WP:V. A Google search turns up no reliable sources and about 90 unique hits. If not for disruption caused by a banned editor, this would be a possible candidate for db-bio. Article should be deleted. RWR8189 07:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 10:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to neutral. MER-C 11:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of him, which doesn't mean much, I don't follow wraslin. A quick look at his website suggests the organisation he started is basically limited to Sydney. At a guess, he's mainly a small scale organiser/manager of wrestling bouts and wrestlers. I could be very wrong, but it's hard to to tell much from only what I can find on the net. ~~Unless more evidence to the contrary can be found, delete.~~ (But not speedy.) Regards, Ben Aveling 10:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC) See below. Ben Aveling 11:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Ben Aveling 10:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn unverifiable bio. Sarah 22:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess. I contributed some to this article, like adding the finishing moves and the championships, but if it doesn't meet the guidelines, I guess there's nothing else to do. -- FPAtl (holla, holla, holla) 10:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll need to do plenty of cleanup to tidy up the article, trimming it down to the essentials but... he's wrestled in Japan for Z1 Max who are a big promotion. He wrestled there under the Aussie Ozbone name according to the AWF site [26]. Aussie Ozbone (of AWF) appearing is confirmed by the official American Z1 Max site [27][28][29]. His matches were broadcast on Samurai TV as part of the Z1 TV shows, the official stockist has him listed on them [30]. I'm generally in favour of deletion of minor league wrestlers who only appear for local promotions, but the fact he's been to Japan and wrestled for a big promotion and appeared on TV makes him notable in my opinion. One Night In Hackney 10:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this has been another example of a wholesale attack on lesser wrestling articles. See User talk:Durova. Anyway, in this case, he's clearly notable - he's won an Australasian title. --Dweller 11:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC) (amended Dweller 11:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)) (amended again, see below Dweller 12:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment I must say I am curious under what criterion of Wikipedia:Speedy keep this falls under.--RWR8189 11:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite right and my apologies. The speedy keep was in response to my original thinking that this was part of the systematic attack on wrestling articles. It was then pointed out on my talk page that the nominator was a user in good standing. I should have amended my !vote at the same time as mu opinion. I have to say that I find the nomination very puzzling... he's clearly notable. --Dweller 12:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the most relevant section of WP:BIO
- Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad are worthy of articles. Third-party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level.

If wrestling in Australia is notable, then I guess this guy is also notable. It's not a very high standard, probably lower than I'd set, but I suspect he meets it (though I'd like to see some more sources to be 100% sure of WP:V. I guess I'm going to ask one question before I make up my mind. To be sure, there are a lot of other pages with less claim to exist than this does.

Is this guy one of the top 10 most notable people in Australian Professional Wrestling? If so, how can we be reasonable confident of that? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not aware of how notable wrestling is or isn't in Australia, as I don't have much knowledge of it. However the crux of my argument isn't really anything to do with Australia, it's the fact he's wrestled in Japan for a mainstream promotion on national TV. That's at a far higher level than anything in Australia, and makes him notable in my opinion. With regards to verifiability, I'm planning to have a look at the article and trim out anything that can't be properly sourced. However I'm hoping that the reliable sources I provided about are sufficient to demonstrate his notability, which is the most important thing. Most of the content that isn't verified at present doesn't have any bearing on his notability as far as I can see. One Night In Hackney 11:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:V is not negotiable. Thus far I have not seen non-trivial writeups in reliable sources. Most of the first page of Google results are mirrors of the Wikipedia page.--RWR8189 11:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've provided evidence of his notability from reliable sources above. One Night In Hackney 11:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems we have differing interpretations of WP:RS, the sources given above seem to be little more than non-notable fan sites, please correct me if I am far off base.--RWR8189 12:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Zero-One Max site isn't a fan site, it's the official English language site for the promotion and linked to from the official Japanese site. Steve Corino is heavily involved with Z1, and quite a lot of American wrestlers appear there so they have an English language site as well run by him. I'm only using the merchandise site (also run by Steve Corino) to demonstrate the matches did actually air on TV. The fact he wrestled in Japan (which is what makes him notable) is verifiable by reliable sources. One Night In Hackney 12:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - regarding the sources - it would be preferred if the sources were not the promoter - who can put whatever they want on their web page without having to do anything other than issue a short appology statement in a local newspaper if they substitute performers on the night of the performance.Ga rr ie 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. However the linked articles are actually the results of shows that have already happened. This could also be confirmed by independent fan sites (which is worse in my opinion), and could also be confirmed by the Japanese press who do actually cover wrestling but foreign language sources aren't well liked. One Night In Hackney 01:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Australian professional wrester. DXRAW 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been suggested to me that "Pro-wrestlers are entertainers participating in a scripted performance. They aren't sportspeople competing to the best of their ability in a contest of skill. Compare them to the actors section, because that's what they are" Without wishing to take a side on that argument, I'll copy the comment here and let people react as they will. Plus I'm not sure that BIO really covers actors outside of TV and movies. Perhaps a version of the professor test should apply: "Is this guy more significant than the average wrestler? Why or why not?" Regards, Ben Aveling 09:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "average" wrestler would depend on definition. There's hundreds and hundreds of "minor league" independent wrestlers, and not many who are "major league". So has this wrestler done anything to make him more significant than the hundreds of others, anything to make him stand out from the pack? Most definitely, he's been to Japan to work for a major promotion and appeared on TV. One Night In Hackney 09:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll own up to the criticism of the sport-person BIO test, and go along with this proposed modified Professor Test. Still no real opinion, I've not heard of him but Hulk Hogan is the only pro-wrestler I can both name and describe... vaguely! Ga rr ie 05:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify why wrestling in Japan makes someone notable. Wrestling in Japan is a mainstream "sport", it's covered by newspapers and magazines on a daily basis. For example sportsnavi is part of Yahoo, and has a comprehensive section dedicated to wrestling, in addition to soccer, tennis, baseball etc. In fact, there is even a show report from one of the shows Bownds appeared on [31], where Google translation manages to rename him to Orgy Osborne. One Night In Hackney 07:28, 13 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. Majorly 15:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Cannon[edit]

Possible db-bio candidate brought to AfD because of disruption in the deletion process by a banned editor. Non-notable wrestler, fails WP:BIO and WP:V, should be deleted. RWR8189 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He seems to be a fairly popular Indy Wrestler in Australia. A yahoo search brings up numerous pages on his career. I added a couple of references, one of which was apparently printed in an ~~australian~~ CANADIAN (edit: let's pretend that I can tell the difference between australia and canada. :P )newspaper. JN322 08:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sarah 22:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing to push him over the edge notability wise. One Night In Hackney 12:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as edited by JN322. Borderline case, so I default to weak keep.--Kubigula (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. GassyGuy 22:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I object to the premise of the deletion nomination, which is written in jargon and is not relevant to any cause for deletion, plus we have two rubber stamp deletes to a meaningless nomination. Let's talk about the merits of the subject not an editor (author or not) --Kevin Murray 05:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The premise being what? That the article fails WP:BIO and WP:V? If failing WP:BIO and WP:V are not relevant to deletion, I don't know what is...--RWR8189 06:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I object to the first sentence of the nomination because (a) "db bio" is jargon without a clear meaning and (b) "disruption by an editor" is irrelevant to the quality of the article, which is the subject of the AfD nomination.

(2) The second sentence is clear to me and pertinent, though debatable; however, is it clear to the authors of the article who may not be well versed in WP jargon? Would it be better to say "the article fails to demonstrate the notability of the topic per WP:BIO, and does not cite enough references per WP:V"? The authors have put a great deal of work into producing this article, perhaps we should put a little more time into crafting the deletion proposals.

This is not a criticism directed at the nominator; I think that the whole AfD process is getting bit sloppy and cavalier. I realize that clarity requires more work, but AfD is serious business not to be taken lightly or in a routine manner.

--Kevin Murray 16:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is jargon that perhaps should be avoided, but is simply explaining why the article has been nominated here rather than already deleted, and does not in any way constitute the "premise of the deletion nomination". The second sentence is the premise, and as you say, pertinent. It would be better if written without jargon, but surely advocating keeping the article because of the words used in the nomination rather than the nature of the article, is even less helpful than using jargon? It definitely doesn't help me form an opinion. JPD (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:BIO - Longhair\^talk 08:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question/Comment What went on exactly with this guy's deletion nomination as well as the others. I notice I can't even find my deletion discussion in my cont page anymore from the original. I believe someone argued that it was originally nominated for deletion (with other wrestlers from the same organization) by someone who had personal motives against it. Now I don't follow wrestling at all, be it American, Canadian, or otherwise. But if someone is nailing these things for some type of spiteful purpose, then I think we need to be more careful before nominating it for deciding to delete, as Kevin Murray pointed out above. JN322 06:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There was a prior discussion which resulted in speedy keep and deletion of the original discussion because it was nominated by a banned editor. However WP:V is not negotiable and all articles must stand on their own.--RWR8189 06:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But as I said before the SLAM article I added (which is an australian sports online publication) has an article which mentions him and his career far more than simply in passing. He has a cult following (which is what I would call Indy Wrestling fans in any country). So while he is not very popular outside his circle, it doesn't matter. Popularity is not requisite for notability. And as I posted previously a yahoo search of his "name" bring up many pages which mention parts of his career. So I would say that he meets notability. The Slam article (Slam being a online sports publication of the Calgary Sun). I contend that the article, the various websites, the cult following, etc. allow him to pass as notable, and have the Slam being varifiable, non-trivial w/editorial oversight on at least one account. JN322 07:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless more mainstream sources are included, agree the nom is poor. Addhoc 20:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One source of mainstream coverage doesn't cut it per WP:BIO. Sandstein 12:39, 16 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. Sandstein 12:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Jankosky[edit]

Does not satisfy WP:BIO, nor preliminary guidelines for local television personalities proposed by WikiProject Television Stations. Amnewsboy 08:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Local reporters are just as notable as the stations they work for. If Mr. Jankosky gets out of the televesion business, he'll lose notability then. --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that he is a television reporter causes him to meet WP:BIO's requirement that "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Television broadcasts would count as "published works," and the criterion is doubly true because he has worked for at least two television stations. Just because he is relatively unknown today does not preclude him from later becoming more renowned. Additionally I see no guidelines on notoriety listed under WikiProject Television Stations; if the proposed guidelines are accepted, then they should be followed, but not before that time. 345th 20:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any independant sources on him (in the 89 google hits), fails WP:BIO. Reporters would only be as notable as the stations they work for if the stations only had one reporter. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 08:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete does not meet the criteria of WP:BIO. He is only a (small) part of the presumably notable TV station and is not the main focus of the stories which he reports. Eluchil404 12:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:BIO, and does not establish notability in the article. Wizardman 19:22, 14 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mischa Oehlen Films[edit]

Delete non-notable film company that has produced no notable films (in fact, no completed films named in the article at all). Information in the article does not come from reliable sources. Doczilla 08:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 11:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbooth (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mischa Oehlen[edit]

Delete article about non-notable individual with a film company that has produced no movies. Information in article does not come from verifiable sources. Doczilla 08:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 11:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbooth (talk • contribs)
Delete Author is creating a series of articles (all have been on AFD, so far) for the sole purpose of self-promotion. Wavy G 15:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really have a vote here, but there's an article Jos Oehlen about this person's son that isn't AfD'd. JuJube 23:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seen the article on Simple English as an admin there (the one on his father) btuthere's not much notability there.--T dxi an g 10:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just added another source and deleted some nonesense. Kwazy 08:12, 9 January 2007 (GMT)
- Apparently after joining Wikipedia just to do that.[32] Doczilla 09:33, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of childhood-related films[edit]

Delete list with incredibly broad and therefore useless name. List explanation does not match list name. Doczilla 09:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subjective listcruft. MER-C 10:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - irretrievably POV in concept and execution. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft JuJube 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Examine the entries; the appropriateness, selectivityt, and significance of all of them justifies the list. One can say Listcruft about any list. I am not sure what Moreschi means by POV. Making films devoted in a significant way about childhood is a POV? Or is it thinkingthem important enough to collect the POV. the basis of selection is defined by the actual listDGG 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The basis of selction for a list needs to be clear, unambiguous, and relevant. There are no criteria given for deciding if the presentation of chilhood in a particular film is important enough to include it on the list. And I don't see the possibility of coming up with any. Thus the list is inherently POV. Eluchil404 12:40, 12 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 Coherence therapy, make the duplicate Coherence Therapy into a redirect. Sandstein 12:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coherence Therapy (also nominating exact duplicate Coherence therapy)[edit]

Very little on Google is found using "coherence therapy" "bruce ecker" (quotes included), those are blogs, primary, or selling something. No sources cited to indicate that this is not one more pseudoscientific bit to sell books to the gullible. Prod removed without explanation by article author Exactone. Seraphimblade 09:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep: 'Depth Oriented Brief Therapy' garners almost 3,000 google hits, indicating that notability for the renamed therapy is already established. The premise behind coherence therapy seems very similar to that of client-centered therapy, which has been very successful because it builds upon the perspectives of clients, rather than attempting to impose external control. The narrow search parameters offered above are not indicative of a well reasoned and/or researched AfD nomination. Ombudsman 10:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like an ad, created by a single purpose account and the only sources given are the creators' own publications. Please note that Google hits are not a reliable indicator of notability. Demiurge 13:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The original objection to this article was that it did not yield enoughs hits on Google. As previously noted, this is merely because the name of the therapy has been recently changed from 'Depth Oriented Brief Therapy'. This therapy is considered by prominent constructivists as the premier incarnation constructivist/postmodern theory. Those interested in establishing the credibility of this therapy should see Essential Psychotherapies: Theory and Practice by Gurman and Messer. The chapter on postmodern therapies is primarily focused on Depth Oriented Brief Therapy. Without needing to buy this book, you can search within it from the Amazon.com link for references to Ecker. There are several chapters in academic books on this therapy including Constructions of Disorder: Meaning-Making Frameworks for Psychotherapy edited by Neimeyer and Raskin and Brief Therapy with Individuals and Couples by Carlson and Sperry. There are also several articles about this therapy in the Journal of Constructivist Psychology, an APA journal. Ecker has also given keynote talks at the Constructivist Psychology Network Conference, a conference of leading constructivist academics. The University of Memphis' clinical psychology doctoral program, a leading program in psychotherapy research, has a strong focus on training their students in coherence therapy. Postcrypto (talk • — Postcrypto (talk) • I'm sorry that I didn't know to sign a post. I have also begun contributing to other sites. I had only worked on this site, because I have only recently set up an account.

Weak keep - It would be good to have more references from sources other than the original authors, but I am assuming good faith that the info above is accurate and that someone will fix the references and such in the article. Georgewilliamherbert 00:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an advert and may violate Wikipedia:Spam Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. TimVickers 00:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question How does it read differently than Cognitive therapy? How could it be written more objectively? It is an important type of postmodern therapy and the article should be saved. I would be happy to rewrite it. Postcrypto (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2007

Keep, the objection seems to be that maybe this is an ad, but i don't see anywhere on the page where one is encouraged to buy anything...granted that one can buy books about coherence therapy, but obviously there are tons of wikipedia pages about things that can be bought, and the people that are making them (one example of literally thousands would be en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Folk). to me this reads like a wikipedia newbie's article on a nascent technique...as stated in the article it was pioneered in the 80s, which means it's not had much time to generate corroborative writings. whether the techniques work or not (to respond to the thought of this being potential psudo-scientific quackery), it appears to be a genuine attempt to describe the thing. if the wiki community's job is to evaluate the efficacy of the ideas being described on wikipedia, my *keep* vote changes to a *question* and we need get after the scientology and vioxx pages next. finally, if the page isn't written from NPOV, then edits are necessary, but deletion is a bit much. edit away... Meddlecascade 22:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coherence therapy with lower case t and delete duplicate Coherence Therapy. It exists, regardless of popularity. Doczilla 10:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Ghits is meaningless if not searched carefully on name variations. DGG 03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per Postcrypto. Of course delete the duplicate. Wizardman 19:00, 14 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 10:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-State Justice[edit]

A Greek anarchist gang, unknown to most people, does not deserve its own encyclopedia article. It is not notable. Mitsos 09:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability on Google, howeverf someone might want to check their Greek name. MER-C 11:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect any sourced infomation to Anarchism in Greece. And what's up with the link to "photos of the damage"? Pride, anyone? Lyrl ^Talk _C 21:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "unknown to most people" and "does not deserve" (POV) are not valid arguments for deletion. Merge and redirect might also be appropriate as the group does not seem to be terribly active. - N1h1l 22:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per N1h1l. This is not an argument for deletion, but rather "Oh I don't like these people! Get them off my Internets!" Nominator has been targetting Greek anarchist groups, looks like a good old bad faith nomination. The article is cited. — coelacan talk — 01:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did that because there are a lot of articles about non-notable Greek anarchist groups, and I nominated them for deletion all together. The reason for deletion is WP:N. Mitsos 12:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think it's fair to accuse the nom of POV or bad faith based on this, but the group has been bombing stuff which I would think qualifies them as notable. I'd also be ok with a merge and redirect, but I prefer keep. delldot | talk 23:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It sounds strange to me to think that a terrorist organization which had several bombings and a few attempts of assassinating officials is "non-notable". bogdan 10:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The group was involved in only one incident, and I can assure that noone in Greece knows this organisation. Mitsos 14:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - One incident? I count at least five of them: targeted vehicles belonging to 1) the mayor of Therissos, 2) the Finnish Diplomat 3) a branch of the National Bank. 4) targeted a Greek post office and 5) an office of center-right political party, New Democracy bogdan 16:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has third-party coverage, blowing stuff up in public is pretty notable. Sandstein 22:45, 11 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. — CharlotteWebb 07:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Terdiman[edit]

Judging by the title, it appears to be about some author who does not meet WP:BIO. However, the article discusses itself and how its referenced by other articles. Only source is the subject's resume. Delete as failing WP:BIO. Wickethewok 09:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article has been completely rewritten with new sources since the nomination -- the article is about a journalist. --Kevin Murray 02:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. John Reaves 09:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has experienced major improvements. John Reaves 03:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My best guess is that someone decided none of the authorlinks in the Wikipedia notes should be redlinks, and so created this in an effort to fill the gap. WP:BIO and WP:ASR both apply. It'll be okay, redlinks are people, too! Serpent's Choice 09:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC) -- See below[reply]
- Why should there be red authorlinks (rather than just unlinked author names) in citations? -- Jeff G. 10:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, when there's no potential for the target to be expanded into an article, there probably is no reason. I imagine that this name was just authorlinked for its own sake (or because the other article authors weren't aware whether or not this would be a valid topic), and so the inbound references to this page can and probably should be purged upon its (assumed) deletion. Serpent's Choice 12:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This individual appears to meet the professor test, in that he 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). All information in the article can be independently verified now. "Daniel Terdiman" gets about 105,000 results on Google, about 53,500 results on Alexa, and about 126,000 results on Yahoo!. The original version did not reference the individual's resume, only some of the many articles he's written. -- Jeff G. 10:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "professor test", which I assume refers to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (which is excessively subjective), does not apply to this guy as his main publications are news articles, quite different from academic publications. I disagree with your notion that he's more notable than an average college professor. There are no independant articles on him, failing WP:V. Alexa/Google results aren't useful arguments for keeping an article. Wickethewok 10:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with Wickethewok, Gooogle hits are a much more valid argument for inclusion rather than exclusion. --Kevin Murray 22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that google hits are a criteria for exclusion. I'm merely saying that they are not useful information (he writes online articles, of course he comes up with a lot of Google hits). I'm sure every writer for CNet gets thousands and thousands of Google hits, that doesn't make them all notable. Wickethewok 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wicke, I agree, but looking past the number of hits to the quality of the content is making me think this guy is notable. Remeber that notable per the WP standards is "worthy of notice" and specifically not famous, important or newsworthy. I think this guy makes it with his award and body of work, and growing reputation as an expert on Burning Man. I'd sure like to see some independent reviews of his work, and am working on that this afternoon. --Kevin Murray 00:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~, a few entries in some zines does not make one a well published author and there is no evidence of the other claims nor are there references to them Alf photoman 17:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, additional information should suffice WP:BIO. Alf photoman 20:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is a mess and need some TLC. The subject is a journalist (not really an author per nomination), and some of his articles have been about Wikipedia and controversy around lack of accuaracy in our articles. Clearly the refererences within the article to G-hits etc. is odd, but telling as to potential notabillty. Why is the professor test being citied above? I don't see any reference to a teaching career. --Kevin Murray 22:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been a lot of work done to the article this afternoon by the original author and myself. WP notability is not a rigid nor rigorous standard. This subject has won an award for his journalism, is a recognized expert who is invited to speak at hi-tech conferences, moderates panels, and has developed a second source of notability as an author and expert on the Burning Man festival. Along with this there is an assumption of notability that can be inferred from the hi G-hits. --Kevin Murray 01:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better, and no longer WP:ASR, but I am still unconvinced. His award is from the local chapter of a notable organization. I don't think this rises to the level of awards suitable for determining notability by Wikipedia standards. As for the book, his contribution was as one of three members of the "Prose Editorial Team" and one of over 30 "writing contributors". It is also the only product by its publisher, which appears to be basically the personal project of the book's producer, Holly Kreuter. He has written a lot, because he's a staff writer. He has a lot of Google hits because he's a staff writer for outlets that provide their material online. Nearly all longtime staff writers for the Washington Post or the New York Times would have similar Google footprints, for example, but probably also do not meet the current notability standards. Serpent's Choice 03:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that pornstars can get WP notability by accumulating a large body of work, but journalists aren't so recognized. --Kevin Murray 03:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very interesting. Could it be that Wikipedians like porn better than news? :) -- Jeff G. 03:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Journalists are governed by the base WP:BIO, which requires, roughly, multiple independant coverage of the person's work. Terdiman is a prolific journalist, and seems very likely to be the kind of person who will evenetually meet the standards, but doesn't yet. Whether or not WP:PORNBIO serves the best intentions of the encyclopedia is a separate issue from the article at hand. If anything, this might be a convincing argument for a tightening of that guideline, rather than a loosening of the main one. Serpent's Choice 03:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serpent, we are on the same page on the porn issue. Clearly an inconsistent set of standards. --Kevin Murray 03:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to vote quite yet until i think about this one, but I want to note that WP:BIO's mention of the "professor test" (which is included there, not simply in the notability for academics) does not specifically state that the person needs to actually be a professor or academic. The article in question does assert that this journalist is an expert in certain fields, which would seem to be close enough to argue for it on this basis. I also note that the professor test, which merely requires that a person be more published than the "average college professor" is a fairly low bar (I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the "average" professor probably publishes zilch, or close to it...) Tarinth 14:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He doesn't seem any more published than any local reporter though (who normally writes a story or two every day). All of the "sources" given in the article are either written by him or merely mention him in passing, certainly not fulfilling the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works" central criterion. Wickethewok 20:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wickethewok, the "primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works" central criterion which you cite above is prefaced with the statement: "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." We have evidence that he is notable in other ways.

The references became confusing when they were moved into the footnote feature and the subjects were masking the more pertinent sources. The format has been changed so that the footnotes more clearly describe valid support for WP:BIO.
The most notable single item is his award -- multiple (two or more) awards or reviews would make him notable per WP BIO. Serpent disparages the award above, but WP BIO doesn't say that it has to be a national or international award. We need another award or review.
I think that we could to look at the Businessweek discussion of his expertise along with his mention/demonstration as an expert in game technology as a cumulative review by multiple non-trivial sources.
Per WP Notability, "Notable here means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice", not "important" or "famous". It is not synonymous with fame or importance. It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not "newsworthiness". This subject has clearly attracted notice as exemplified by the discussion of him online and many references to his work in blogs etc.
If I won't be chastized for citing blog material, I can give a bunch of references to his notability, but I have avoided this source. Most of what I'm hearing here is that we need to establish "importance" and that clearly contradicts the guidelines.

--Kevin Murray 22:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue the cleanup (which seems to be going well). Not every journalist is notable - showing up in the New York Times as a one-off contributor may not establish notability in the same way that it would if he were the subject of the article. But here the person seems to be a widely published journalist with work in major publications. It's possible in some cases that a person can write for one or two of these publications without becoming notable (if he were, say, nothing but a journeyman). But I don't think that's the case here. Given the breadth of publication of his work, it seems that he meets the WP:BIO standards. I think it should be kept, and want to thank those editors involved in the cleanup effort - good work, guys.--TheOther Bob 01:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TheOtherBob! -- Jeff G. 10:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following links represents the articles about Terdiman found in the first 6 pages of Yahoo listings (60 listings) on a search for “Daniel Terdiman”; there are 8 7 articles which are about him rather than by him, this represents about 1312%,. Considering the thousands of g-hits on hundreds of pages, this demonstrates that a lot of people are talking about Dan T. and/or his work. Some of this is nonsense, however some is critical review of his work – but is it non-trivial, independent and reliable?

If I put these at the article I'll be damned for improper referencing, so I'm putting them here as evidence of notability. We can discuss whether more time should be spent on finding more of type represented by the better quality of those above.

--Kevin Murray 03:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - thanks for answering my previous comments; I'm persuaded by the keep arguments that he meets WP:BIO. Tarinth 19:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this award winning journalist meets bio guideline Yuckfoo 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't think he meets inclusion standards by much, but I'm satisfied that the work that has been done overcomes my primary objections. There's still obviously some to be done, including pruning some peacock phrasing ("versatile writer" ... "considered to be an expert" citing an article that doesn't actually call him that), but AFD isn't for editing. Serpent's Choice 10:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re claim of expert on Second Life. Here is the quote from Business Week: "I also owe a great debt to several writers who have pioneered coverage of what are now very real places to millions of people: Julian Dibbell, author of My Tiny Life: Crime and Passion in a Virtual World, about his experiences in the classic text-based world LambdaMOO, and also author of the upcoming book Play Money; Edward Castronova, author of the essential book on online games, Synthetic Worlds: The Business and Culture of Online Games; and CNET writer Daniel Terdiman, who seems to cover every significant issue inside Second Life." Within the context of the article this seems to assert his expertise, but maybe there is a better way to describe his knowledge of Second Life. Any ideas? --Kevin Murray 14:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Peacock Phrase "versatile", substituted " He writes about a wide range of subjects. --Kevin Murray 14:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep as now revised. I really do not see why the professor test was invoked. He's ot a professor. He's a broadcast journalist. If he were a professor of journalism it might be applicable, but he isnt. Apparently there is some idea that everyone who gets a masters degree is a professor. DGG 03:14, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Leabon[edit]

This is a Academy/Reserve player at a Football League Championship team. He has not made a first team (i.e. professional league) appearance, and doesn't even have a squad number. fchd 10:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if he has no squad number, fails WP:BIO. Punkmorten 16:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable player ChrisTheDude 10:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, with no prejudice against recreation but only if and when he becomes a first-team player. Qwghlm 10:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time as he has played for the first team (either of this club or of another professional club). Robotforaday 16:42, 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 Speedy delete g1, g3, nonsense/obvious hoax/vandalism. NawlinWiki 23:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Ballensworth[edit]

I can find no evidence of a person named the 'Duke of Ballensworth' or a place called Ballensworth in Cambridgeshire. The title does not appear in The Complete Peerage. Verica Atrebatum 10:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V. (This article is a duplicate of Ballensworth, Duke of, which has its own AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballensworth, Duke of). Demiurge 12:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Honbicot 14:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax. Bucketsofg 14:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hoax is not a qualification for a speedy delete, see WP:CSD#Non-criteria for details. (aeropagitica) 15:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but once the fake references and nobility title is stripped from this, it fails WP:BIO pretty miserably. Also, joke articles are vandalism, which is speediable, too. Tubezone 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nice try to get the better of us ... Alf photoman 17:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see also AfD for Ballensworth, Duke of, three entries down. Newyorkbrad 19:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —dima/s-ko/ 21:46, 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 merged to University of Colorado at Boulder. Sandstein 12:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Advanced Engineering and Technology Education (CAETE)[edit]

Fails WP:ORG as far as I can tell. Contested prod. MER-C 10:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge In the interest of full disclosure, I took 2 CAETEC classes when I was working on my graduate degree. That being said, I can't find an external source or article about this program, but I don't think WP:ORG fits here either, as the contested prod edit summary also said, since it's a department of the college of engineering, it's not really an organization but a functional educational group. Would you try to put WP:ORG to University of Colorado at Boulder? It is the first google hit for "CAETE". Though it doesn't seem to be the first, largest or even claim to be the best. Thus, I recommend mergeing to the University of Colorado at Boulder article, with this changed to a redirect and even a redirect created for CAETE. --MECU≈talk 15:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC) MECU≈talk 15:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to UC Boulder. A college of a university, such as the College of Engineering and Applied Science at UC Boulder, might rate an article (I suppose). The distance learning part of sich a college doesn't. I hate to recommend Merge because its extra work, but in this case, it fits. Herostratus 04:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — to UC Boulder per Mecu. Notable, just not enough for its own article. Wizardman 18:57, 14 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. — CharlotteWebb 08:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Center for American Politics and Citizenship[edit]

Fails WP:ORG as far as I can tell. Contested prod. MER-C 10:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, Nancy Pelosi accepted an award from them in person [33] and there are enough external references to them. Demiurge 13:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has issued studies of voter behavior and has participated in several state-level and independent studies of voting technology, frequently cited in press for expertise on both topics. --Dhartung | Talk 13:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though the article needs some work. Bucketsofg 14:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. That is, keep the information on Wikipedia, even if not in a separate article. One possible thing to do with centers like this and the preceding one is to create an article on "research establishments affiliated with (or subsidiaries of or whatever relationship to) XXX University" and merge all articles on similar centers there. Fg2 01:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep "as far as I can tell" is not a criterion. DGG 03:15, 11 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 by admin Pilotguy (Deleting page - reason was: "Article about a non-notable individual, band, service, website or other entity" using NPWatcher). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 01:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballensworth, Duke of[edit]

I can find no evidence of a person named the 'Duke of Ballensworth' or a place called Ballensworth in Cambridgeshire. The title does not appear in The Complete Peerage. Verica Atrebatum 10:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. The references mention several books: they are a mix of real ones that don't mention him, and fakes that have never been published. Sam Blacketer 11:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC) (PS there's a giveaway clue that the article is a fake in the reference to a return to the City of Cambridge in 1868. Cambridge was not given city status until 1950. Sam Blacketer 12:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V. (Duke of Ballensworth is a duplicate of this article, and has its own AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke of Ballensworth.) Demiurge 12:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, good work on city status research/knowledge by Sam Blacketer! Budgiekiller 14:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Honbicot 14:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and it should be speedy ... as far as I can see it is a hoax Alf photoman 17:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also AfD for Duke of Ballensworth, three entries up. Newyorkbrad 19:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —dima/s-ko/ 21:46, 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 per (CSD A7). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seek n Destroy[edit]

Apparent promotional of a hacker group of questionable notability. - Mike Rosoft 11:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - still no assertion of notability. Previous AFD ended in speedy, too. MER-C 11:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Nuttah68 11:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Budgiekiller 13:59, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles County Raceway/gallery[edit]

Delete - A gallery with one image and on a subject that probably doesn't need a lot of images to get the point across. Seems like a no-brainer to me Roguegeek (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Borderline speedy. MER-C 11:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No context, violates what guidelines we have on use of gallery pages, improper use of a subpage in mainspace. Probably fair use issues with the logo being used in a gallery, too. Serpent's Choice 12:13, 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 The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nom [34] Syrthiss 13:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Goff[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO, and one newspaper article link is not enough to establish this. Article claims him to be a magazine editor, but of course not every magazine editor is notable enough for inclusion Wikipedia. CyberAnth 11:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to this article (and it is cited, though poorly), Michael Goff was responsible for starting the 'red ribbon' of AIDS awareness. If this is true then he is notable. If not, he probably isn't. Sam Blacketer 11:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the founder of Out magazine really is all you need.source I seriously question whether this is a good-faith nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 13:05, 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. — CharlotteWebb 07:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Counts[edit]

Musician whose sole accomplishment seems to be getting a cease and desist from record labels for releasing a mashup album Sgt. Petsound's Lonely Hearts Club Band on his blog. No record contract, no chart positions, no external references except those that refer to the album takedown notice. Fails WP:MUSIC; may be worthy of a redirect to Sgt. Petsound's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Demiurge 11:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating ColoringBook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), another non-notable album by the same artist. Demiurge 11:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC as far as I can tell. MER-C 12:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clayton Counts has been featured in Rolling Stone, American Songwriter Magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Reader, Lumpen Times, E! Entertainment Online, the Boston Herald, Entertainment Weekly, and USA Today, in addition to more than 20,000 references online for "The Beachles." By stating that his "sole accomplishment" is receiving a cease and desist, you are completely ignoring the accomplishment that got him the cease and desist in the first place, which as I just mentioned appeared in many magazines and newspapers, some as recently as December of 2006. I will do what I can to expand the article, but it should be noted that this article was first nominated for deletion by Kurt Benbenek, who is an opponent of Counts', and who has posted here under many assumed names. He nominated this article for deletion as April Winchell, another DJ who Mr. Benbenek has attacked in the past. Benbenek has attacked many Wikipedia articles as the result of having his own article deleted. He has spent years impersonating music personalities and music historians like Otis Fodder and Irwin Chusid, and even Mr. Counts. If this article is non-notable, then djBC's article is, as well. It contains about as much biographical information, BC's claim to fame is also a Beatles mash-up record, and there are fewer sources and citations, as well. Notwithstanding that, I should say that I believe that neither djBC's article nor Counts' merit deletion. Both have been covered in the mainstream press, and both are likely to continue making records in the future. It should also be noted that Demiurge did not follow the appropriate procedure for deletion, and redirected Counts' article to the "Sgt. Petsound's" page after only a single day. This should serve as some indication of how antsy he is to see Mr. Counts' article disappear. Lots of artists listed in Wikipedia are less notable than Clayton Counts. TrevorPearce 03:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When TrevorPearce refers to the "original nomination for deletion", he's referring to this edit [35] by April Winchell, which I reverted because it was not a prod, speedy, or AFD tag, but vandalism. RedRollerskate 03:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you are incorrect about the external references. First of all, there are no citations yet on the page, but the ones on the "Sgt. Petsound's" page clearly show that the artist was mentioned in the press well before the take-down notice. You are cherry-picking to suit your argument, and I can only assume that you're not a fan, but the only reason this mash-up received a cease and desist in the first place is because it had been mentioned in many mainstream news outlets. The fact that he's released only one notable record should not be a factor in deciding whether this article is notable. I will make revisions to the article, add citations. And contrary to Demiurge's claims, according to a November 2006 interview with Mr. Counts, he is signing to a label and starting one of his own. Your assessment that he is non-notable will only mean that someone will have to write a completely new article about him in the near future. TrevorPearce 03:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is what Wikipedia has to say about notability for musicians and performers:

- begin quote -

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.1
- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries 2 except for the following:
  - Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
  - Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.

An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) does not automatically meet the this criteria, but facts from such an article can be used to establish that any other criteria below have been met.

The above is the central criterion for inclusion.

- end quote -

Demiurge has taken criteria from the secondary list, even though Mr. Counts meets the primary criteria. If we were to go around Wikipedia proposing articles for deletion every time we didn't like somebody, I doubt there'd be any articles left. If you had proposed this article for deletion because it was insufficient in its citations, that would be one thing, but to say he's non-notable is another thing entirely. By the primary criteria, Counts is notable. Record contracts, chart positions, and the like are secondary. TrevorPearce 04:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. Fails WP:MUSIC by any standard except press, which is a bad start. Of the articles cited, the Entertainment Weekly one is more or less trivial, the Herald one is about the cease-and-desist order, and the AP one is 404. That's not enough press coverage for him to be notable as a news story, and he's clearly not notable (yet) for music. Willing to change my mind if more and better press coverage is found. bikeable (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per new references. I would prefer a little more musical content to anyone who is kept as a musician, but there are enough references to merit a keep. The reviewers sure do hate that album, though. bikeable (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but how is the Entertainment Weekly piece trivial? It adequately describes the record, is a positive review, and it is not part of a more general article, i.e. it is written exclusively about the record and Mr. Counts. But to say that the article fails WP:MUSIC, except for press, is denying that press is the only criterion needed to sustain its notability. It says as much in the Wikipedia guidelines I cited. (quote) It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. (end quote) If he is "clearly not notable (yet)," when would he become "cleary notable"? That's about the most subjective call I ever heard. Being reviewed in magazines like Rolling Stone and American Songwriter alone makes him notable. The Herald article does cover the record, but even if it only mentioned the cease and desist (which it doesn't) it is a given that the cease and desist is the direct result of having released a noteworthy record. Otherwise, why cover the story at all? TrevorPearce 10:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some links to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the CBC, and Rolling Stone. Go ahead and delete or redirect it if this isn't enough. Someone is going to have to rewrite it and maintain it eventually, mark my words. Even if an article is "about the cease and desist order," it is pertinent. Articles about cease and desist orders are really about records that received cease and desist orders, and in this case also about a person who made such a record. Demiurge mentioned that there were "no external references except those that refer to the album takedown notice," but the Entertainment Weekly article was written prior to the cease and desist, as was the USA Today mention. The cease and desist and EMI's demand for Counts to hand over IP addresses only add to this article's notability. To suggest that they take away from it is ridiculous. TrevorPearce 10:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not a big fan of music articles about obscure bands, but this one has caused enough trouble to become noteworthy, or perhaps infamous, via media coverage. Either way this article should be kept because there are plenty of independent sources of info from reliable sources. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how is press a "bad start"? According to Wikipedia, press is the ONLY criterion needed. That's why it's the "central criterion for inclusion." How is he non-notable, when the guidelines themselves read that an artist IS "notable if he meets any of the following criteria"? This article more than meets the criteria, and is therefor notable. It should be mentioned also that Demiurge is a contributor to the mash-up article, which leaves me with the impression that to him this is about more than whether or not Counts is notable. He proposed this deletion out of spite, which is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, then immediately redirected the article. From the Guide to Deletion: "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to 'hide' the old content from scrutiny by the community." I'm not sure if Demiurge was also responsible for removing the Beachles mention under "notable bootlegs" on the mash-up page, but it seems likely. TrevorPearce 13:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of TrevorPearce's comments. And in case anyone asks: I started the Sgt. Petsound's Lonely Hearts Club Band article but I do not know Clayton Counts or anyone else involved or related to him, his article or this discussion personally in any way. JohnRussell 15:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for changing your vote, Bikeable. I'm not sure that the Rolling Stone mention counts as a review (any more than the Entertainment Weekly article, which gave it a thumbs up), but plenty of people hated "Metal Machine Music," too, and the Beachles record does have an underground following. Personally, there are some mash-ups I like better, but this is definitely one of the more original I've seen. TrevorPearce 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple non-trivial references. —ShadowHalo 22:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now shown to have met WP:MUSIC. MER-C 06:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why does the ColoringBook AFD discussion link point here, as I would think they are separate issues. Clayton Counts is notable for reasons mentioned above(somewhat), but I do not find ColoringBook notable in it's own right. Static Universe 04:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to removal of ColoringBook. Its AFD debate is linked here because Demiurge wanted to kill two birds with one stone and didn't want to follow procedure. TrevorPearce 06:18, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angels & Airwaves' second studio album[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Gzkn 11:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 12:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see you next year. Budgiekiller 13:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can be recreated when information exists. Trebor 23:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The album has been confirmed. — 82.36.248.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Yes I Have Heard Some Stuff About it on Podcasts GunSlinger360 17:47, 22 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope's Baby Girl[edit]

Previously pages for this same 'character' were created for Ciara Brady and Ciara Alice Brady, both deleted. This page is even weaker -- it's called Hope's Baby Girl. Whether or not the character deserves a page down the road is a debate for another time, but right now there is no need for a page, especially when the character doesn't even have a name. D'Amico 12:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a plot summary, written in an inappropriate in-universe style. Demiurge 12:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 12:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Budgiekiller 13:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G4, recreated content. This is an end-run around AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 19:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for recreated content. Trebor 23:14, 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. — CharlotteWebb 06:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of African-American writers[edit]

This is a list of 'african-american' writers, which, by the page's own admission can never be completed. It would be incredibly easy to vandalise as there is no-one to check if any of the people are indeed african-american, half the entries are Red links, and I genuinely can't think of any way in which this page would be useful as a resource. Thedreamdied 12:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, African American literature is a very notable literary genre so this is not an arbitrary list. Someone should only be included in this list if reliable sources state that they are African-American. Demiurge 12:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lists are better than categories precisely because of redlinks, which suggest articles that ought to be created. I'm uncertain why the risk of vandalism is greater here than in any other article, as how many authors have ever "passed" as African-American (John Howard Griffin excepted)? Any extraordinary claims -- e.g. Margaret Mitchell -- should be sourced per WP:BLP regardless. --Dhartung | Talk 13:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Dhartung. I think, however, that the biggest worry would not be 'passing' but the unfortunate tendency some have to call all black persons African-Americans, even if they aren't Americans. I keep flashing back to that KIRO-AM reporter who breathlessly announced the arrival in Seattle of noted African-American clergyman Desmond Tutu. Editing after login. --Charlene 14:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's valid as a form of literature as others say. In addition we have List of Mexican American writers, List of Chicano poets, List of Asian American Writers, List of Jewish American authors, List of Jewish American poets, and List of Irish American writers. (Tell me if I missed any)--T. Anthony 16:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valuable page, consistent with paralels per T. Anthony. Suggest speedy keep. Newyorkbrad 19:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in line with Charlene's comments, are the cases of white Americans from Africa addressed? Lyrl ^Talk _C 21:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no. In the US "African American" is basically short-hand for "one whose ancestors primarily come from Sub-Saharan Africa." It doesn't include North Africans and Afrikaners are ultimately of Dutch ancestry. Although occasionally jokes about White Africans in America, like Charlize Theron or Teresa Heinz Kerry, are made. Anyway one area where I just don't know is Malagasy people as their ancestry is largely Asian, but they are the native people of an African island. I believe any Malagasy in America are counted as African American unless they choose not to be.--T. Anthony 15:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition for the purpose of the page certainly needs to be tightened then. Should it be measured by whether they self-identify as one, or just by ancestry? Trebor 18:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It links to the African American article which states "In the United States the term is generally used for those of black African ancestry, and not, for example, to European colonial or Arab African ancestry, such as Arab Moroccan or white South African-European ancestry."--T. Anthony 18:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dhartung and the similar lists provided by T. Anthony, but make sure (as Charlene said) that African-Americans isn't made synonymous with black people. Trebor 23:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - can be notable— Preceding unsigned comment added by CarmenBryan (talk • contribs)
Keep per Demiurge. delldot | talk 23:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep "cannot be completed" -- any list of people not restricted to a time period cannot be completed. We keep getting new ones. This type of list is a reliable standard. The meaning of "African-american" in contemporary terms is rather well known, and need not be reargued every time the term appears.DGG 03:19, 11 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 band, ((db-band)) and WP:Music both refer. (aeropagitica) 14:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Singletons[edit]

Virtually empty, no notability asserted, and I can't find any on my own. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 13:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per MER-C. Budgiekiller 13:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Bucketsofg 14:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Charles Alexander[edit]

Does not meet notability guideline for Wiki Biography WP:BIO, WP:VAIN. Hollerbackgril 13:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like an advert, a large part of it is copyvio, on closer inspection he seems to have been just one of several mixers on thise albums, not the producer (example) and he seems to be counting the awards won by recordings he mixed on as his own. Demiurge 13:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some independent sources have mentioned him. As Demiurge said, it appears to be a copyvio and he seems to have only been a mixer on these albums. Article's only contributor is User:Pcalexander too, so conflict of interest. Trebor 23:24, 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 Speedy delete g1, nonsense protologism, unsourced. NawlinWiki 14:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alaskan chili dog[edit]

2 google hits, both use the term but don't define it and it's not clear from the context what the meaning is. This is an non-notable unverifiable protologism that should be deleted. Prod removed by anon-IP. Aagtbdfoua 13:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, per WP:NFT and per all the unverifiable "sexual acts" we've deleted in the past. Demiurge 14:41, 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. The consensus to is not overwhelming, but as several users have noted, in such cases it appears appropriate to honour what may be the subject's wishes. Sandstein 13:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Gorenfeld[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)).

(Certain editors perhaps unsympathetic to this article's deletion have been notified by creator of said article on talk pages Diff) Smeelgova 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I let the co-contributor to the article, Exucmember, know what was going on. Steve Dufour 21:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a contributor to the article, and I always put such pages on my watch list. I would have commented here even if Steve Dufour hadn't mentioned it.

If Smeelgova will affirm that he did not contact anyone surreptitiously (which would not be inconsistent with his past behavior), I will accept that affirmation at face value. -Exucmember 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only time that I contacted users regarding an AFD, I was previously unaware of the policy against this. I had apologized in that particular AFD and the AFD was unsuccessful. I have not contacted anyone regarding this particular AFD. Smeelgova 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi guys -- I don't think I'm nearly important enough to qualify for a Wikipedia entry on myself but I'm flattered that Rev. Moon follower SteveDufour created one about me. Nevertheless its claim that i'm an "unprincipled dogmatist" isn't really NPOV. Johngorenfeld 13:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - original nomination was incomplete and formatted incorrectly, so I've corrected (I think). I also removed the "unprincipled dogmatist" comment from the article which was inserted by an anon-IP, not by the article's creator. As far as the article, I'll have to think about this. I'm sympathetic to those who do not want WP articles about themselves, but I don't think that's a valid reason for deletion. - Aagtbdfoua 14:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a way of knowing that the WP editor "Johngorenfeld" is really the John Gorenfeld of the article? Steve Dufour 17:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can tell from my dogmatic lack of principles. Johngorenfeld 17:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in cases of borderline notability (which I'd classify this as) that a request from the individual to remove their article seems reasonable. I agree that certifying the person's identity is a bit of a problem, but since we are supposed to assume good faith I think we are thus inclined to accept the claim in the absence of contrary evidence. Tarinth 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I communicated with John Gorenfeld through the email address he uses on his personal website (which I whois'd and confirmed was owned by John Gorenfeld) so I'm quite satisfied that it is really him. Tarinth 19:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Frankly I could not believe that John would want to have the article removed. I would have thought that he would welcome the publicity. Steve Dufour 20:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in the article of notability to WP:BIO standards by being the primary subject of multiple independent and reliable published sources. GRBerry 15:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In fact, the piece plagiarizes from my professional bio at www.gorenfeld.net. Wikipedia isn't a who's-who of struggling freelance hacks, and I don't really belong among a list of important investigative journalists of our time. Johngorenfeld 16:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Huh? I did write (or start, most of the current words are not mine) the article. It was as part of my general work on Unification Church related articles. (I am a church member as "Johngorenfeld" mentioned.) I tried to be fair and accurate and certainly didn't plagiarize anything. I never used the words "unprincipled dogmatist", it is just not the kind of expression I would use. Exucmember, a critic of the Unification Church, also contributed to the article. Steve Dufour 17:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC) p.s. John was mentioned by newspapers all over the United States and was interviewed on National Public Radio and ABC TV for his role in reporting on the Sun Myung Moon Coronation incident. p.p.s. I did add the sentence, "He is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley's journalism school and was a crime reporter for the Modesto Bee newspaper of Modesto, California." based on information from John's site. However I don't think that would be considered plagiarism by any reasonable person.[reply]

Mr. Defour, you win the award for hilarity. Johngorenfeld 17:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete in deference to Mr. Gorenfeld; I'd normally vote "keep" on this, because the ABC news and Washington Post coverage of him certainly suggests a level of notability that's usually acceptable for inclusion--but given that Gorenfeld states that he wasn't really the subject of that coverage--and because it is already somewhat borderline and the subject himself would prefer not to have it, I don't see a reason not to delete. Tarinth 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is room to expand and there is a degree of notability greater than the one of an average journalist... the POV parts should be removed though Alf photoman 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He seems to be a blogster that has freelance authored a few newspaper and web articles. His google hits are many, but they seem to be his blog pages and very litte more. Doesn't meet WP:N at this time.

Here is a link to Google news archive search that shows 68 hits. Most are on his byline, only a handfull mention him and none of those mentions seem to be from a news-article.(blog sites) He is simply not notable/famous to merit an encylopedia article, at this time per WP:BIO. He's just one of the great unwashed, like the rest of us Mytwocents 21:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I see the date for the "unprincipled dogmatist" bit -- Mr. Defour, in all fairness, it's likely that it was inserted by a fan of Sam Harris, the atheist author whose fans are in high dudgeon this morning over my article about his books. So I will take your word.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johngorenfeld (talk • contribs).

Thanks John. Where is the article? I'd like to check it out. Steve Dufour 20:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Harris (author) Sounds like an interesting guy. Steve Dufour 00:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it[36]. Steve Dufour 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though the article Sun Myung Moon Coronation itself is notable, this article is not, and it should be noted that there are actually zero citations in the John Gorenfeld article. Smeelgova 21:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A reader has to go 2 inches down the page to the external links. All of the information in the article is from those sites.Steve Dufour 23:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The English Wikipedia contains loads of articles for little known journalists. Laurence Boyce 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per request of user by the same name. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In my view, it is entirely irrelevant whether or not the subject wishes to have an article. Laurence Boyce 10:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat relavent. In cases of borderline notability (like this), WP has removed articles at the request of the subject before. I think WP:IAR trumps all other policies in cases like this. Tarinth 13:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - How is it possible for the article to be an attack article when most of the information is copied from the subject's own website? Steve Dufour 16:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting User:Steve Dufour: "most of the information is copied from the subject's own website" - First off, there's something very wrong with that, right off the bat... I don't think Mr. Gorenfeld ever gave permission to have information "copied" from his site... Smeelgova 16:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I thought that was the main purpose of Wikipedia, and in fact of the Internet itself, to share information. Steve Dufour 16:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, in a vague sense, but if you didn't create it you have to get permission to use it. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to John's site so you can compare: [37] As you can see the facts are taken from there but not the exact words, and credit is given. Steve Dufour 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Changing to weak delete per below. Doesn't seem notable enough to me. How is this subject different from other journalists? I agree with Laurence Boyce about the subject's wishes, but it looks like in this case the subject has the right of it and is humble enough to say so. delldot | talk 23:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion John is demasiado modesto. :-) Steve Dufour 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the arguments below and the article as it is now, and I'm still not convinced of the subject's notability. He reported a story that got national attention, but how much of that national attention did he himself get, in a way that wasn't trivial? (I'd think just a mention of the fact that he wrote it is kind of trivial, unless the coverage featured him) Does just writing a story that gets national attention make you notable in itself? I admit that it wouldn't be terrible if the article is kept, since it's verifiable and that, in my mind, is the most important aspect of notability. I'll keep an eye on the discussion and change my mind if someone finds press coverage that specifically features him. delldot | talk 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary:

Reason 1 to delete: The subject of the article requested it. This reason may no longer apply.

The subject of the article is a new user, and seemed in his early comments not to understand vandalism (or not to believe the inappropriate phrase was vandalism). He happened to see the article just afterward, but not before the vandalism was removed. He can verify that it was vandalism by unregistered user 203.59.166.123 by going to the history tab. Perhaps he is afraid that the article might be vandalized again. Assuming he still wants the article deleted, unless he comments again here, giving his reason (other than vandalism), "Reason 1 to delete" seems to carry little weight.

Reason 2 to delete: Copyvio. If there ever was a copyvio, the article has been rewritten, and there is no longer any trace of the similar phrase or two that prompted the accusation. This reason clearly no longer applies.

Reason 3 to delete: Subject is not sufficiently notable. Undecided.

delldot says: "Doesn't seem notable enough to me. How is this subject different from other journalists?"
Alf photoman says: "there is a degree of notability greater than the one of an average journalist."

Opinions vary on this point. Laurence Boyce says "The English Wikipedia contains loads of articles for little known journalists," and contributor Steve Dufour says "John was mentioned by newspapers all over the United States and was interviewed on National Public Radio and ABC TV for his role in reporting on the Sun Myung Moon Coronation incident." Others do not find these arguments compelling, but much of the discussion above has become outdated because of improvements to the article.

The template above says "This is not a vote." But I have seen AfDs where lazy admins seemed to do nothing other than count up the votes (which are not supposed to be votes). Why do we have a tradition of putting our conclusion in the form of "Delete" or "Keep" in bold at the beginning of each entry? Shouldn't an admin deciding the outcome be required to check for changes to the article and read the entire discussion, looking for reasons rather than votes?

Since I have to go along with this questionable tradition, I will. I hope admins and others who comment on this page will read.

Keep (see reasoning immediately above). -Exucmember 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable enough to me. Moreover I have strong doubts that User:Johngorenfeld is really the same person as the subject of the article.--Ioannes Pragensis 16:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be the same person. This was talked about near the top of this page. Steve Dufour 16:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to you to be the same person. But I for myself do not see any real proof of it.--Ioannes Pragensis 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short of depositioning the person, I don't think we can do much better: the person confirmed their identity through an e-mail message, using the e-mail address on their website. On Wikipedia, you are encouraged to assume good faith. Tarinth 15:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also e-mailed him, using the address on his site, to let him know what was happening here. He returned my message with the answer "LOL". Steve Dufour 18:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for the effort. Nevertheless the identity of the user does not matter much in the case. The question is whether the article is encyclopedic and not whether the subject of the article wishes this or that.--Ioannes Pragensis 14:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete - lacks a mainstream secondary reference. Addhoc 20:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the Washington Post and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette mainstream? Steve Dufour 06:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because they do not discuss Mr. Gorenfeld directly as the subject of the article, only in passing. Smeelgova 11:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, the article said he wrote for "The London Guardian" which is meaningless. He actually has written for The Guardian, which combined with being mentioned in the Washington Post is good enough. Addhoc 15:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above. Addhoc 15:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sure he's a journalist, but this isn't Bob Woodward. When an individual of borderline notability requests that their bio be deleted we usually honor that desire. It won't make much of a dent in Wikipedia's overall value as a reference source and it shows respect for the person. Durova^Charge 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Durova. Usually on borderline cases I 'vote' keep to encourage article writing, however in this case, I'll make an exception because the subject has requested delete. Addhoc 11:17, 16 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emma's Dilemma[edit]

Not notable, trivial content, prod removed by anonymous editor CMummert 14:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable or verifiable. - Aagtbdfoua 15:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be verifiable in the sense that it once was discussed in a book somewhere; I doubt it is original here. Even if one such reference is provided, a single appearance in print does not make a simple combinatorics problem like this notable. CMummert 15:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even linked to from anywhere as an example; Wikipedia is not a how-to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sourced or verified.-- danntm ^T _C 22:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources is not an AFD criteria, provided that the information is verifiable. It is only notability that I think is the issue here. CMummert 22:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But information can only be verified through sources, surely. And notability (as the guideline describes it) is having multiple independent sources, so if notability is the issue then lack of sourcing certainly is. Trebor 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To nominate an article for deletion in good faith, you need to honestly believe the article is unverifiable (which is misleadingly called original research) or not notable. This article's topic is verifiable, even though it has no sources here to verify it, but it is not notable. CMummert 03:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by not notable then? (Just an aside, we obviously agree this article should be deleted.) Trebor 07:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTABLE, the question is whether multiple published sources have covered this topic (but not whether these sources are actually listed in the article). CMummert 12:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, I think I'm following you now. Trebor 18:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to be a GCSE coursework question, from the G-hits. It doesn't appear to have generated coverage in independent sources, so non-notable. Trebor 23:29, 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, obviously. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weenus[edit]

Nonsense protologism, cited to Urban Dictionary. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 14:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, urbandictionary is the opposite of a reliable source. Seems to be a nonsense word with some people pushing this "elbow skin" definition. Demiurge 14:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it that time of year again so soon? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wenis (June 2005) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wenis (disambiguation) (July 2006). Uncle G 15:48, 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 02:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Mayne[edit]

Philip Mayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Congratulations to Mr Mayne on his long life, but beyond that he is only thought to be notable. Moreover, is merely out surviving your peers notable in the first place? Nuttah68 14:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, as for all the other articles about the remaining WWI veterans. Extremely sexy 15:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. Last of a dying generation. Acctorp 03:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Being 107 years old is notable in its own right, I think. Tevildo 16:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. One of the last living British veterans of First World War, oldest living alumnus of Cambridge University Engineering Department and oldest living alumnus of King's College, Cambridge. Notable enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Budgiekiller (talk • contribs) 17:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: where in the article is the claim "oldest living British veteran of First World War", let alone backed up with verifiable sources? Nuttah68 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does the BBC count as a reliable source? And, you're right, he's not the oldest WWI veteran, that's Henry Allingham: Mr Mayne is the oldest surviving officer.Tevildo 18:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The BBC source only confirms he exists, which isn't being questioned. It makes no claims for him, neither does the article which says he is thought to be the oldest. As I originally asked, is out surviving your peers notable, because the source provided in the article makes it clear he never fought in WWI and has no other notability apart from his age. Nuttah68 18:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but include the BBC reference in the article Alf photoman 18:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--HisSpaceResearch 19:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AfD is not a vote - comments without reasoning will be disregarded. Trebor 23:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He has received borderline trivial/non-trivial comments in multiple reliable published sources, so it skirts the edges of notability. I expect when he dies a lot more information will become available, but until then I think it can just about be kept. Trebor 23:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I find him interesting, but do not feel he meets Wikipedia's notability standards. A specific age does not cut it. Setting a record does not either. Wikipedia is not Guinness. Even if it were, we have no verifiable confirmation that he has set any records. Doczilla 07:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article right here lists him as one of the remaing half dozen or so. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wiltshire/6192997.stm http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=1321914 there is more. I guess he didn't fight, but still. Vital Component 11:03 EST 1/8/07

So what exactly is your particular vote? Extremely sexy 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Given that there's barely a handful still alive, I suggest that verifiable surviving WWI soldiers are inherently notable.Eludium-q36 18:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please, the sources available say that this person is notable and he meets the bio guideline. Yuckfoo 02:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The last known surviving officer from one of the major combatant countries in a war that set the stage for the 20th century...I'd say that is certainly notable.Frankwomble 15:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so, but I still miss Robert Young's vote on the matter: very strange. Extremely sexy 16:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#A1, WP:CSD#G1. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ubermensch (habbo)[edit]

Notability of this subject is questionable - WP:BIO Wen 15:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable virtual community character. -- Kicking222 15:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A7. --Richmeister_talk 17:16, 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. Majorly 16:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lotion-Play[edit]

Disputed prod. Neologism, no reliable sources, largely unverifiable. Richmeister_talk 15:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see talk page for discussion- the links there and on the page confirms this exists, its a question of whether they are considered reliable sources or not (note lotion play is well known in the wet and messy fetish community) Urso 15:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. Top ghits are Wikipedia followed by "Hand Lotion Play Dough" from parenting websites. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment its a literal translation of the japanese term, as the article says its a japanese form of erotica, try googling with the japanese term Urso 17:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced. I'm not doubting its existence, but it needs to have been mentioned by reliable independent sources to be considered notable. It could be merged if a suitable target is found. Trebor 23:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Soapland, which primarily describes the context rather than the act itself, and is referenced. This article appears to be accurate but does need sourcing. Georgewilliamherbert 00:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. Doczilla 07:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another fetish article which lacks any independent reliable and verifiable sources, so it must go on the basis that "Wikipedia is not for things made up in a pool of lotion one day." Edison 15:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I resent the implication that I made this up. I fully accept that the article doesn't have the necessary independent sources (which would be in japanese anyway) and so will presumably be deleted, but the phenomenon does exist and I wrote the article in good faith Urso 15:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's not a neologism so those !votes shouldn't count for anything. Trebor 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Neologism" means new word, term newly utilized in its given sense, or new term for the amount of use. Maybe someone's family used it for seventy years before the rest of the world learned it. Calling it a neologism doesn't have to mean you personally made it up. Doczilla 06:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contingent Keep. Searching under the Japanese name, "ローションプレイ" gives 169,000. So there should be cites available out there, and it should be possible to bring the article up to WP:V. Instead of translating the title, it's probably best to tranliterate it instead, which will probably turn up more English sources. Can anybody here transliterate Japanese? — coelacan talk — 07:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There're a couple of transliterations, but "r[o/oo/ou][sh/shy]on purei" -- the katakana are directly representative of the English words "lotion play". Might find something using "l" instead of "r", too. Shimeru 09:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — to Soapland per George, I'd accept it deing deleted as well over notability rather than WP:NEO. Wizardman 19:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 20:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wet and messy fetishism --Joffeloff 01:37, 15 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grey School of Wizardry[edit]

Depending on how "in-universe" you are, this "article" is either an attempt to teach magic or an advert for an online "wizards school" designed to take money from Harry-Potter-manques. Wikipedia is neither a Web site advertising service nor a host for grimoires. Contested PROD. ➥the Epopt 15:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a marketing stunt for the book mentioned in the article. Demiurge 16:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply unencyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 22:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely in-universe, so nothing verifiable or which provides context. Wikipedia isn't free advertising. Trebor 23:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in-universe article lacking verifiability. Also per WP:NOT. Doczilla 07:12, 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, as the article's creator is a sock of a long-term blocked user. This is not a statement on the subject's notability. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles C. Poindexter[edit]

Notability really isn't established here. The article tries to claim that Poindexter was a founder of Alpha Phi Alpha, but at best, he was involved in organizing the group that became Alpha Phi Alpha, which doesn't qualify him as a founder. I suspect there's some POV issues here, related to a long-running feud on the Alpha page and a few other articles on African-American fraternities. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, it has become apparent that User:2Cold06, the article's creator and primary editor, is a sockpuppet of indef-blocked user Mykungfu, and I have blocked 2Cold06 indefinitely on that basis. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Nomination (1) The article states: "In March of 1906, the name Alpha Phi Alpha was informally adopted as designation of the group", and that Poindexter did not resign until December 1906. By the article, Poindexter was the originator of the group which became the Frat and was involved in the organization of the Frat, albeit in opposition, but none the less potentially notable. --Kevin Murray 20:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Nomination (2)The nominator "suspect(s)" a POV issue is a breach of WP policy of assuming good faith, and is unduly prejudicial toward the author, as NPOV is not a reason for AfD. --Kevin Murray 20:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Per nominator's proof of sockpuppetry I remove this comment. However, I still think that the article should sink or swim on its own merits, not the misbehavior of the author --Kevin Murray 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Nomination (1) I am going to have to agree with and reitterate the lined out comment by 20:55, 7 January 2007 Kevin Murray [38] The nominator "suspect(s)" a POV issue is a breach of WP policy of assuming good faith, and is unduly prejudicial toward the author, as NPOV is not a reason for AfD. Additional rationale is for tagging my account on this AFD [39] leaving a comment here as well for an administrative notice board that had nothing to do with the topic at hand [40] about 2 minutes later. CarmenBryan 06:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep In the official fraternity history book, The history of Alpha Phi Alpha, a development in in Negro College life by Charles Wesleym 6th printing copyright 1929,1950. Charles C Poindexter is mentioned on pages 24,26,28,30,32,33,34,35,36,37,39,41,42, and 43 (please note that pages 1-23 are introductory concerning US history).

On page 41 it specifically states "CC Poindexter deserves special mention. Without his serious and eager leadership, it is probably that the fraternal organization would have advanced more slowly. he was the moving spirit in teh literary organization which served as the predecessor of the fraternity. He acted as president of the group and continued in office during the formation of the early policies and also through the first initiation in Alpha Phi Alpha society."

On page 43, it states "the seventh place among the Jewels, has been in dispute for some time. Mr Poindexter has been suggested for the place"

"CC Poindexter is credited as being the man who brought together the group that would be known as Alpha Phi Alpha." -- Skip Mason 12min 11 second PBS documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WizAq0EuDUk

CC Poindexter is mentioned repeatedly in references and sources that were utilized by article Alpha Phi Alpha including Mason, Herman "Skip" [1997] (1999). The Talented Tenth,Wesley, Charles H. [1929] (1950). The History of Alpha Phi Alpha, Alpha Phi Alpha "A Century of Leadership" PBS Video, Alphi Phi Alpha Fraternity, Mu Nu Chapter, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Alpha Chapter.

The first meeting of Alpha Phi Alpha literary group took place at his residence of 421 North Albany St, Ithaca, New York. - page 27 The history of Alpha Phi Alpha.

CC Poindexter's place is akin to that of the 13 colonies and their relation to the United States. Simply read the article, look at the sources (watch the video link), there is no POV pushing, but simply a short bio of the role one man played in the planting the seed, and developing a group that became the first intercollegiate black fraternity in america, Alpha Phi Alpha. 2Cold06 20:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to predict that there will be deletion requests from Users:Ccson, Robotam, and Bearly541. The rationale behind this may not be entirely transparent or utilizing good faith. 2Cold06 20:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG, I'm not against an article if it contains brilliant prose, contain a NPOV, etc, however; this does not. It's written in the same sloppy and hurried way as Sigma Pi Phi and the now defunct Alpha Kappa Nu that you wrote with the only purpose to attack Alpha Phi Alpha. The only thing that can be attibuted to Poindexter regarding Alpha Phi Alpha is that he hosted the meeting where some of the others may have met for the first time. It's clear he fought against a fraternity from the outset, did nothing to help with its subsequent formation, and resigned once his own intentions were defeated.--Ccson 06:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (1) I am not satisfied with the premise of the nomination. (2) after reading the g-hits I am convinced that there is notability as there is a recognized controversy over Poindexter's role in the forming of APA. As the first black frat. APA is clearly notable, and a controversial figure from the inception seems to be notable, especially since the controversy is ongoing. I see plenty of solid reference material at the site. However, I think the article need some rewriting and balance to the POV. --Kevin Murray 21:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Nomination (1)The article should stand on its own merits if it has any good merits, but it's clearly written from a biased POV, misquoted and distorted information, and the author has been repeatedly told that he was banned as a user, yet he continues to appear with the sole purpose of causing the same disruption his other sockpuppet ids caused.

Having said that, the user is only providing parts of the quotes to satisfy his POV. For example, when he states above "On page 43, it states "the seventh place among the Jewels, has been in dispute for some time. Mr Poindexter has been suggested for the place". He conveniently omits the final part of the sentence "but as noted above he was not in sympathy with the Fraternity plan. I ask, how can someone who vehmently objected to the formation of a Fraternity be considered a founder; when he clearly wanted no part of the group. Page 29 staes the orginal seven were members who were part of the both the social study club and the fraternity, and Poindexter never wanted to be a member of the fraternity.

The article in incorrect regarding the date of March 1906 to become a fraternity; it was on december 23, 1906 the name Alpha Phi Alpha society was chosen, and it wasn't until December 4, 1906 that the decison was made to become a Fraternity. Poindexter was not present for the December meeting, but resgined upon learning the group was now a fraternity.

My final comment is I don't care if the article remains, but who will volunteer for the research, rewriting and balanced POV that the article needs since this user is banned, has displayed a tendency to distort the obvious truth, biased POV, and has repeated rejected Mason, removed his references in other articles, and now wants to quote him only when he says something the user agrees with but again, he only prints the parts he wants and distorts the context and information, (biased)?--Ccson 04:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CCson, your dates seem to be a bit confusing. If a fraternity was founded on Dec 4, 1906, why was the name chosen almost 3 weeks later? I did some research and found on page 182 of African American Fraternities And Sororities: The Legacy And The Vision edited by Tamara L. Brown, Gregory S. Parks, Clarenda M. Phillips, [41] it states that "Callis was credited with coming up with the name Alpha Phi Alpha, which was adopted informally at a meeting in March 1906, and formally approved on May 23. Advertising themselves as "A Phi A." the group sponsored a dance before the close of the spring semester. During the following school year, 1906-1907, the idea of a fraternity took on a more definitive shape. Minutes from the October 27, 1906, meeting of the society show that the members again voted on the name Alpha Phi Alpha, this time acknowledging a more fraternal influece by stating, "henceforth the group [will] be known by these three greek letters." It also states on page 182 that CC Poindexter served as president of this group when it was unnamed. It follows on page 182 that CC Poindexter in November 6, 1906 when it was named Alpha Phi Alpha. This would give CC Poindexter the distinction of being the first president of Alpha Phi Alpha. CarmenBryan 04:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC) — CarmenBryan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Heads up all, the prior user CarmenBryan is just another sockpuppet of MyFungFu, 2Cold06, etc. The user id was created on Jan 7, 2006 and someone find there way to a delete request to provide an opion, and just happens to have a copy of the very book (on the nightstand at midnight) that the banned user references to respond to my comment. I wil however respond to his comment.

First of all, "informally" is not "officially", otherwise there would have been no need to vote on it again during the 1906/07 school year. In fact, the group was organized in 1905-06, so they could really could have said the goup was founded in 1905 even though it remained unnamed for almost a year, but the Alpha Phi Alpha history book states they chose the founding day when the group was offically voted to becme a fraternity, Dec 4, 1906. I have provided the references in the Alpha Phi Alpha article regarding the name for Alpha Phi Alpha Society "offically" on November 23, 1906, of which Poindexter would have been the president of the "Society", however; the decison to become a fraternity and the name Alpha Phi Alpha Fraterntiy was made on December 4, 1906 without Poindexter present and against his wishes and he resigned upon learning the news.--Ccson 05:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ccson, I'm not sure where you received your information from, but aren't we suppossed to assume good faith? I don't have a copy of any book. I am not any type of sockpuppet, so i'd appreciate an apology. As I stated before, I went to this link http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0813123445&id=yfTYV_H2XoEC&pg=RA1-PA182&lpg=RA1-PA182&ots=eomwE1p32N&dq=cc+poindexter&sig=Cri-4O1YKyK2IQZASfGPwRUgDD0 which I gave a reference to. If you look above you stated December 23, 1906 and in your latter comment you state November 23, 1906. Your dates seemed off so I did a research on google and gave specific quotes from a book where you can see the specific quote on google. From the reading, Poindexter didn't resign upon learning the news on the day of the founding of the fraternity. CarmenBryan 06:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ccson, informally and officially.. informally (March 1906).. officially (May 23) reaffirmed (oct 27, 1906) from the book African American Fraternities And Sororities: The Legacy And The Vision [42] . So i'm wondering where did you get Dec 23, 1906? I was also wondering when you stated "request to provide an opion" what is an opion? I had no luck finding this word in the dictionary. Please clarify this for me. CC Poindexter was the first president of the greek letter organization named Alpha Phi Alpha. He did not continue on this role when it became known as the greek letter fraternity known as Alpha Phi Alpha. CarmenBryan 06:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the link, however; it stated that pages 183-210 are not a part this review, so how do you know what's contained on page 183 where it would mention November 6. I should have said October 23 was the day the name Alpha Phi Alpha Society was chosen, and December 4 was the day a vote was taken to become a fraterntiy. But, the dates in your reference are in direct conflict with Alpha PHi Alpha history book. Please review the Alpha Phi Alpha article where it provides a reputable and veriiable reference for the events that took place on October 23 and December 4 of 1906. Plus, how did you find your way to this AFD, then search the web and come back with an opinion on the AFD that was added the very day you became a wikipedian, learn how to provide links, have the wherewithall to mention "good faith", all in just over 24 hours of becoming a wikipedian? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccson (talk • contribs) 06:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If you look up CC Poindexter on the link you can actually view page 183. One of the writers of the book is Gregory Pecks who on page 2 is listed as a member of Alpha Phi Alpha. I have serious doubts he would give false information concerning his fraternity. The book also isn't a highly biased source which may be the case of the history of alpha phi alpha. I don't see why this book wouldn't be considered to be a good source. So now you're saying that the date is October 23rd but this is in conflict with Oct 27th reaffirmation and the May 23rd 1906 formal adoption. I've given you a glance of an actual page so you can go over this if you like. Ccson, becoming a member of Wikipedia and reading wikipedia and learning its rules are 2 very different things. CarmenBryan 07:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no real opinion here, but I urge that one of the interest parties who are opining that this should be kept clean the article up. There may be valuable content here, but you couldn't tell from looking at the article in its current state.--Isotope23 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But reduce to a one line stub. We shouldn't encourage banned used to add content and we can keep a notable article but rebuild it from scratch. --Spartaz 17:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would strongly support that recommendation, particularly after spending a bit more time reading through this article. 90+% of this article isn't based on anything I would consider to be reliable 3rd party sources and that is a huge problem. Not a reason for deletion, but certainly reason for busting this back to a stub and watching the article...--Isotope23 18:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also the discussion at ANI about the sockpuppet issue. Spartaz 17:58, 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 for having effectively zero content. The article's content is no more than a restatement of its title, and the title itself is false. Whilst "flint" is a verb, albeit not recognized as such by many dictionaries, its verbal meaning is the simple one: to furnish an object with flint. This is apparently an attempt to promote a silly protologism. (And if it isn't, then the speedy deletion criterion for not providing any context for determining what it actually is about applies.) The Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy also applies. Uncle G 16:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flinting: walking quickly while masturbating[edit]

Non-notable dicdef, if it is even a term. I'm never sure whether to speedy these as nonsense. Someone else tagged as afd1, but I'm finishing the nom. Delete. Aagtbdfoua 15:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not even in Urban Dictionary. Tevildo 16:05, 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. -Doc^g 01:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump Controversy[edit]

Non-Notable. How can this possibly be considered encyclopedic? Their spat is hardly a controversy, it's a feud and this page is all "he said, she said". There have been much bigger celebrity feuds and the only reason this one is noted is because both are among the most ridiculed "celebrities". There's no Tom Cruise controversy page, no Brad-Angelina-Aniston controversy page, no South Park and Barbara Streisand controversy. The page creator cited the Mel Gibson DUI incident when defending this page, but at least the Mel Gibson page is well cited and well written. It also has a much larger scope and affected his entire career, this feud will be over or forgotten in a month. This article has templates for not citing references, not being wikified and not being neutral. This feud is only "big" because the talk shows make fun of it and the tabloid news shows (like ET) make a big deal of it. I'm probably going to end up nominating this page for deletion, which I don't like doing, but this page is pointless. It also sets a dangerous precedent, because if this feud can become it's own page, why not all insignificant celebrity gossip? -- Scorpion 15:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, and the fact that Rosie and Donald are just throwing insults at each other like 3rd graders. This is the sort of thing that belongs in People magazine, not Wikipedia. PTO 17:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if they wind up killing each other, then I might actually care. As of now, this is unencyclopedic cruft. No reliable sources cited to affirm notability, WP:V and WP:RS problems. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and WP:V and WP:RS and perfectly gopod reasons to delete something right now, especially with an article like this where if you mess up, you get sued. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment-On the January 8th edition of Monday Night Raw, the Rosie and Donald contreversy was paroradied by Trump's friend Vince McMahon, with two imposters posing as Rosie and Donald fought in a match which resulted in Donald Trump winning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.216.254 (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - per creator - You don't know where this controversy will lead, so you can't judge this article yet until the dispute between them is over. Scorpion noted the Mel Gibson DUI incident because it affected his entire career. You do not know yet how this feud will affect the careers of either Rosie or Trump. Trump has threatened a lawsuit. Is a protracted lawsuit trivial?

You cite WP:V and WP:RS issues. But these become fixed over time. You don't DELETE articles because of WP:V or WP:RS issues without giving them time to be fixed. This article was created one day ago and you're already passing judgement. I agree that if within two weeks these statements aren't cited, it should be deleted. But you've only given it 24 hours. Was the Execution of Saddam Hussein nominated for deletion one day after it was created because it perhaps had WP:V problems? Citation problems can also be resolved over the course of time, and yet it's gotta be deleted because within 24 hours people didn't fix it.

Non-notable? "Notability is not subjective. Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc." I cite Scorpion's comment above: "this page is pointless". To YOU! This feud isn't entirely trivial. It could affect the careers of Rosie O'Donnell, Donald Trump, and Barbara Walters in different ways. Rosie could be fired from The View largely because of controversies like this. Is this notable? Donald Trump's credibility could suffer because his comments and behavior have been utterly childish. Please consider the arguments made here and your own bias. -- Rollo44 18:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I can't believe your comparing a silly spat between Rosie and Trump to a major world event like Saddam's hanging... And what makes this tiff more important than the thousands of pointless celebrity feuds out there like Letterman Vs. O'Relly, Elton John Vs. Madonna, Starr Jones Vs. The view, etc. -- Scorpion 18:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not comparing this spat with Saddam's execution in terms of significance. I simply used it as an example of an article that wasn't immediately nominated for deletion because of disputed neutrality. And I never said this tiff was more important than other celebrity feuds. -- Rollo44 01:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then why should it have a page? What makes it more important than all the others that it just HAS to have a page? -- Scorpion 02:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, I never argued that other feuds or celebrity controversies are less important or should not have a page of their own. And I have not yet seen a substantial reason as to why this page should not exist other than subjective whinings that it is trivial. -- Rollo44 02:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also keeping the article based on what might happen in the future is an act of crystalballism. --65.95.17.53 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article is not based on crystalballism. It's as much based on crystalballism as any developing current event. -- Rollo44 01:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - When I used the term crystalballism I was refering to your rational to keep the article. For example, you stated the possibility of Rosie being fired from the view. My agrument was the we should not keep the article based on what we think may happen in the future. The article may not be crystalballism but the rational certainly was. --70.48.108.229 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not even a substantive feud, just mutual contempt that surfaced during a slow news week. --Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial non-encyclopedic fluff. Agent 86 19:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is clearly your personal opinion. This article violates none of the tenets of What Wikipedia is not. -- Rollo44 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if Wikipedia is not a Tabloid is not there, it should be. -- Scorpion 02:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I encourage you to petition Wikipedia to modify its 'What Wikipedia is not' page in such a way. -- Rollo44 02:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. Thanks for the suggestion. -- Scorpion 02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agent 86 says it perfectly. As valuable an article as Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump's bad hairstyles. -- Fan-1967 23:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would nominate such an article for deletion because it would be patently subjective. Furthermore, you are implying that this article is inherently subjective which it is not. I would have no problem with an article such as Hairstyles of Celebrities. What could be wrong with that other than your subjective opinion that hairstyles are not worthy of documentation or discussion? -- Rollo44 02:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yup, Agent 86 is right on the button. The media coverage bugs me more than the stupidity of the story itself. KrewBay 02:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a current affairs show, and not Entertainment Tonight. No disrespect to the article's creator, but I don't think a lot of people will really care about this dummy spit between Rosie and the Don in a few years. It's perfectly appropriate to mention this in their individual bios, but I don't see the need for a page which just deals with this incident. We could probably write a large article about Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie's off-again, on-again friendship, but that wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia - it'd just duplicate what's in Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie. Quack 688 06:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your sensitivity. I am not arguing that this feud is important in the large scheme of things. However, Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump have in fact acted childishly and I believe their words should be duly noted and recorded. I don't see how adding celebrity information reduces Wikipedia's value or credibility if that information is cited and accurate. I am not opposed to a Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes Wedding article, nor am I opposed to an article on Paris Hilton's Internet Video. I do not care about this stuff. But I am taking a stand because people have every right to construct accurate articles and summaries about these human events - as well as analysis on what this tells us about our popular culture. Those who think these things are not important are not forced to visit and read such articles. - Rollo44 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a news source for every current event. Doczilla 07:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's only a war of words between the two and no one has been formally served with a lawsuit. This reminds me of the just as inconsequential Kelly Ripa/Clay Aiken/Rosie O'Donnell spat. Tinlinkin 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hill of beans (WP:HILLOFBEANS?. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not WikiNews. GassyGuy 22:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The time to write an article of this nature is after it becomes notable in some way. Zahir13 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep they are having a match on WWE RAW, and it will probably lead to something signifigant.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.172.28.136 (talk • contribs). User:Zoe|(talk) 00:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This controversy is receiving frequent news coverage. Q0 23:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add source citations to the article showing what mainstream news media have been covering it. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - [43] is a google search of news articles containing both "Rosie O'Donnell" and "Donald Trump". It gives 2684 results, but some of those appear to be duplicates. I have not been working on the article so it would be hard for me to know which references will verify which assertions. The best I can do is add an external links section with some of the news articles. Q0 23:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikinews is over there → User:Zoe|(talk) 00:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not news. Wikipedia is for useful, relevant information, and this isn't. There are more important things to cover. BlueStarz 03:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone has claimed there aren't more important things to cover. - Rollo44 02:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- IF 'useful, relevant information' is the criteria by which we should judge which articles to keep or delete, then there are thousands of wikipedia articles which should be deleted (hip-hop feuds, Lost: the Video Game, the Mel Gibson DUI incident among many others). Besides who is to judge what is useful and relevant? You may not find the information useful or relevant, but what if I do?Rikkwj 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Current article cites no sources at all and fails to meet WP:V. If it can be shown that the New York Times is tracking this story, well, then I'd say keep. The argument that "You don't know where this controversy will lead, so you can't judge this article yet" falls under WP:CRYSTAL. The contributors should certainly keep their notes and drafts of the article in progress, so that if it becomes major news they won't need to dig it all out again, but there's no need at all for this article today. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly inflated media hype, perhaps worthy of a mention in passing in main articles for subjects. Will be forgotten in one year, never mind 100.Eludium-q36 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Will be forgotten in one year is not an acceptable reason for deletion. - Rollo44 02:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even ignoring the fact that entire article is unreferenced origianl research, event is barely even worth mentioning, and a blip in the participants' long careers in the public eye. This non-news has only been brought back to attention recently on wiki due to wave of vandalism/nonsense edits by WWE fans on the Trump and O'Donnell pages. Tendancer 19:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can't speak for the New York Times, Dpbsmith, but in Canada the Globe and Mail and National Post certainly cover it [44] [45]. Given the amount of coverage, a lot of the info ought to be referenceable to appropriate sources. That it is not neutral and not wikified -- these are also fixable and not grounds for deletion. If the event drops off the radar without anyone having fixed this page, then it is probable that nobody will, but at the moment people care, so for now keep it around and give them a chance. 192.75.48.150 21:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So? The Britney Spears Panties incident and Britney K-Fed divorce also received mainstream coverage, let's go create pages for those incidents! -- Scorpion 21:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't be creating them myself. But, assuming that appropriate sources were availble, neither would I rush to delete them if other people did so. I basically agree with the reasoning given here. 192.75.48.150 21:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Why the rush to delete this article? Let's see how the story eventually pans out. When the story eventually dies (and it will), the article can be incorprated into the Rosie O'Donnell article and the Donald Trump article.

Why not instead wait and see if it actually turns into something and THEN create an article. -- Scorpion 04:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because as it has been mentioned on several occasions that is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Please see WP:CRYSTAL. --64.229.74.22 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with strong keep guy over here, its a developing story. It just needs some Wiki love to make it look nicer--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 22:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just needs some Wiki love - Absolutely. - Rollo44 02:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply edit this down and merge it into O'Donnell's and Trump's biographies?

That's the reason I created this article. More and more information was being added, but being whittled down because it was overshadowing Rosie's biography. So we trimmed its appearance in her biography, but placed a link to this article where editorial trimming is unnecessary and all real and accurate information is permissible. - Rollo44 02:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completely agree with Rollo44 on this page. It should be just part of Trump and O'Donnell's Biographies. - StarStan490

Keep. Per the Jennifer Wilbanks and Marguerite Perrin articles. I Go Moo 04:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely different thing. If there was a page for Wilbanks AND a page called Runaway Bride Incident, then they should be merged, but because Trump and O'Donnell have pages, this feud should be mentioned there. -- Scorpion 04:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait it out - Trump is right in his comments about Rosie being a bully. She can dish out criticism but surely can't take it. Trump is childish by continuing Rosie's stupid game. Leave it so we can record this embarrassing episode for future generations and show how child-like Donald and Rosie are! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.104.64.178 (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Ephemeral cruft. Does this pass the 100-year test? Hint: no. Herostratus 05:05, 10 January 2007 (UT

Does Wikipedia have a 100-year test? - Rollo44 05:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Alternative tests. --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too difficult to keep it even-handed, and I don't like repeating every single insult that Trump threw out unless all of Rosie's and Barbara Walters' responses are included as well, or else truncate this article and simply link to articles that lay it all out. Is it really necessary to repeat all this stuff here? I didn't think that was the purpose of Wikipedia. I also disagree with the commenter above that this should be on Rosie's and Donald's pages, as it will spur a non-stop struggle to conform each entry, IMO. This separate article seems to me to be the better solution, if folks really want to read about this. FirthFan1, 2:14, 10 January, 2007

Too difficult to keep it even-handed? By that rationale many articles regarding Israel would be thrown out. - Rollo44 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Does not need nor require a full-blown article, as this melodramatic argument is mostly about "he said/she said" babble. This entry should be incorporated in respective articles for both Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump (and maybe even in the article about Barbara Walters) in the same manner as the Star Jones episode at The View and the Clay Aiken spat. This info can also be incorporated into the article about Barbara Walters, since both the Trump-O'Donnell and the O'Donnell-Jones-Walters spats allude to misrepresentation on her (Walters) part. lwalt 08:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's alot of incorporation into seperate articles; why not have one article that documents the whole thing? IF the event is worthy of inclusion on three seperate Wiki articles, then it should be worthy of its own article. I think that the controversy should only be a blurb on the seperate pages with a link to this main page, much like it is now.Rikkwj 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that the article on Donald Trump gives only a passing reference to this, while the article on Rosie has a whole "controversies" section. If anything, Trump has gone way over the top, and his article should have more information about his overblown antics, while the article on O'Donnell could tone down the whole "controversies" section. As for having a unique article? Unless something spectacular happens (and it well could -- if one decided to sue the other, or if there was a major backlash against Trump, for example), it's probably unnecessary. "Celebrities" are not inherently interesting or encyclopaedia-worthy, despite the fawning obesiance given them by the media. Indeed, the most interesting and useful angle such an article might take would violate every Wikipedia rule: Trumps rants are clearly misogynist and homophobic. He calls O'Donnell an arrogant bully while taking every opportunity to bully her, and being famous for being arrogant on a world-class scale. He calls her mean while being famously mean, and so on. We can't say it in an article, but that's what's really fascinating about this feud, not that they are well-known people or the fact that they're feuding per se. Exploding Boy 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the arguments against keeping this article are very subjective. Who is to judge what is worthy, relevant or useful? Isn't the point of Wikipedia to give people a forum to document (in an objective and scholarly fashion) topics that are not covered in traditional, scholarly encyclopedias? If this article is unworthy, then wouldn't the article on the Mel Gibson DUI incident be unworthy? What about the lengthy and exhaustive list of hip-hop feuds? In the big scheme of things these articles document events that are just as meaningless as the Rosie-Donald feud. Why aren't those articles marked for deletion? The fact is that this is a significant event this year for many people that is being covered and documented by major news outlets. Also, why integrate it into two seperate existing articles when the story involves three different people (Walters, Trump and O'Donnell) with a wide variety of quotes and letters and such. Having said all of this, this article does need substantial clean up and thorough citations.Rikkwj 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you remove the unsourced material, you are left with nothing at all. Arlo Guthrie tells a story about asking his wife what happened to a huge stack of National Geographic magazines (well, that's what he said) he had been keeping in the garage. She said "I cleaned them up last week." He said, "They're not clean, they're gone." She replied, "Well, you can't get much cleaner than gone." If you clean up this article, it's gone. So in this case, cleanup is deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. All that needs to be done is to source the unsourced material and streamline the presentation of the material. The fact is that this is a real event that is notable enough to have attracted the attention of major media outlets and the general public; it shouldn't be deleted just because it dosen't interest some people.Rikkwj 03:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have been on wikipedia for 1 day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rikkwj and somehow you are already familiar with editing, voting and usage and only ever discussed this issue. What's your other account that you used to come here and cast votes? Tendancer 08:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm going to take that as a compliment! I don't have another account and this is indeed the first day I started an account. I have lurked on these pages for some time and tried to learn things before I posted and made a fool of myself. And let's be honest, Wikipedia isn't that hard to use.Rikkwj 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BrenDJ 00:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No more un-notable than Hip_hop_rivalries -- Philosophistry 04:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced material, unbaised, it either favors O'Donnell or Trump, doubt it will ever seem to be neautral. 68.203.248.140 05:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A major case of recent-itis. 6 months from now no one will care and in 6 years no one will remember. At best, this warrants the treatments it already has in their respective bios but even those will probably be trimmed down or deleted in the near future as it becomes less newsworthy. 205.157.110.11 08:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Wikipedia is WP:NOT the National Enquirer. ^Blank ^Verse 08:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets basic standards. No real substantitve reason to deleve. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with the ability to edit, which seems to be blocked today. Frankly, the entry seems biased in favor of Trump, and Rosie fans should have the ability to freely add her responses as well. FirthFan1, 13:47, 11 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FirthFan1 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete- I believe adding info to the bios is sufficient. Tazz765 14:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This isn't a news article, it is a current encyclopediaic entry. It just needs some references, but it looks fine by me. --Pinkkeith 16:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- This article should be deleted because it doesn't live up to WP standards NOT because it is not worthy as it is a current event and could change. However I implore the creator to make this article not be a cut and paste job. Thecolemanation 18:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I cut and paste because I thought more people would edit and change things. That's the way Wikipedia works! Unfortunately, that hasn't happened with this article... yet. It doesn't need to be deleted on that account. It does however need work and a banner that says the article needs to be Wikified. -- If anyone here is a Keeper, make some small or big changes if you see anything that needs fixing or improved. - Rollo44 19:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has been extremely notable and inclusion worthy. Trilemma 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.15.138.18 (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why are Wikiies so "DELETE HAPPY?" This forum of the Internet is not like a tradtional paper encyclopedia; the information can grow to infiniti and still fit on a computer. A paper encycolpedia must edit down in order to fit on a bookshelf. One person's article that is informative to some can be judged as redundant and unimportant to others. An example of this is sports articles to a non sports fan or teen pop culture trivia to an elderly person . THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH ROOM FOR INFORMATION ON WIKIPEDIA! IF NOT BILL GATES WILL IMPROVE THE SOFTWARE!!

Besides the fact this preson isn't a regular Wiki, he has point. This actually making headlines. Why be so quick to delete?

"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Thousands of things appear in headlines every day, that nevertheless do not render them encyclopedic. If one's interested in headlines, WikiNews is a couple clicks away. Tendancer 22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This has become much more than just a minor feud between two celebrities. Others are getting involved, including Madonna (having chimed in this morning on NBC's "Today") and Barbara Walters as well as the Trump kids. CNN has covered the matter with regular updates, not to mention other "Entertainment News" organizations. There are many, many other articles which have much less content (and Encyclopedia relevance) to them. MadHacktress 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely placing such information on the respective bio pages is enough. Delta 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it's funny that an article that so many people deem non-notable is notable for having so much argument about it. Should there be a wiki about the debate for its inculsion? ;)Rikkwj 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I myself am surprised at the volume of debate. - Rollo44 05:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. If no one truly cared, we wouldn't have an article at all--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 18:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Simply stated, we cannot delete and article like this until the feud, or at least its public manifestation, is over. Who knows what this will lead to? Gogf 04:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it goes somewhere and actually does end up being something, THEN create an article. It's not like Rosie and Donals don't already have pages. -- Scorpion 13:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We have articles for things that are important, not for things that a crystal-ball scryer sees looming as important in the future. Your statement "who knows what this will lead to" acknowledges that it is not important yet, and is a reason for deletion, not a reason for keeping. If nobody knows yet whether the feud is important, it should not have an article yet. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is only one argument for keeping the article. And as noted, it is not very strong. However, the feud is real, verifiable, ongoing, and a subject unto itself. - Rollo44 23:02, 12 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. —Cryptic 17:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ShootClub[edit]

A none notable e-fed (website where people pretend to be wrestlers). Englishrose 15:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete ((db-web)) as web content which does not assert notability. Demiurge 16:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete "few hundred players" doesn't make you and your e-fed the new Vince McMahon. Tubezone 16:46, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Titherley[edit]

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines for WP:BIO. Two Google results for "David Titherley" and 38 for "Dave Titherley". Three of his books are unpublished and the other two don't seem to be locatable. Related to the article Citizens Against Delta which was deleted as being a non-notable group. ... discospinster _talk 16:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, uncharted albums and obscure books do not add up to notability. Also contains a sprinkling of patent nonsense — "his older sister who was born with a crippling disease that saw her eventually need braces on her teeth", "David spent the early part of his childhood collecting rocks and sticks to sell at the local market in order to help feed his family". Demiurge 16:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - terminally non-notable, unlike the obviously non-terminal disease that left his sister in dire need of braces. See WP:BOLLOCKS, this one is a classic example. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent nonsense (and for failing WP:BIO pretty miserably). Budgiekiller 17:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy per Budgiekiller -- Chris 73 | Talk 21:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fairly obvious I hope. It barely asserts "notability", contains sections of nonsense and his books cannot be found. Trebor 23:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The American Constitution, A Reactionary Phase in History[edit]

The page is written as an essay. -- Jeff3000 16:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. POV essay. --Folantin 16:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And not a very good essay, at that. The author needs to do a lot of work on their punctuation, and learn the difference between colloquial and formal language. C-. Tevildo 16:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NFT of the worst sort. Please do not copy-and-paste your homework to Wikipedia. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for posting school essays, see WP:NOT and WP:NFT.-- danntm ^T _C 22:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The above is all true, and it violates no original research as well. Trebor 23:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - lots of bad essay AfDs today. GabrielF 05:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV essay Alex Bakharev 05:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this is a high quality essay and it is much better than other aarticels that have been written in this website. this is extremely and shows the sources where they have been used.--Mrahman1991 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While the article may be a good essay, it does not fit into Wikipedia policies. Please read no original research. -- Jeff3000 00:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badly referenced OR essay. Dragomiloff 00:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common phrases based on stereotypes[edit]

Kept no consensus by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common phrases based on stereotypes. Define "common". Define "stereotype" in this context. Is the stereotype the cause of or resultant from the phrase? Is this not just a slang or idiom guide? Someone else started the process, but I finished it. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We need a non-biased definition of "common". And are they truly based on the stereotypes, or just tangent? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, too vague and always subject to POV. Budgiekiller 17:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. How did this survive the first time? JuJube 23:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subjective enough to be unworkable, has a strong western-centric bias and is subject to lots of original research. Trebor 23:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Trebor. GassyGuy 22:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dragomiloff 00:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep - Jeez, look at the article before voting, please. The article is sourced and encyclopaedic. None of the rationals advanced for deletion are actually true. WilyD 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what if it's sourced? Sources can be biased. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read WP:V and WP:RS to understand why that's not an issue. WP:NPOV also explains that opinions are perfectly reasonable for articles when they're cited, verifiable opinions of experts and the like. Every source used in Wikipedia is biased - this isn't a problem, it's merely a fact of life - because every source we don't use is also biased. Sources need to be reliable, not unbiased. WilyD 14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can look at WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and then look at the nom to see that it's claimed that the very criteria for list inclusion are subjective and unencyclopaedic, therby making it unworkable, sourced or otherwise. In fact, I'm looking and I don't see where WP:V has been cited as something of which this "article" falls afoul. GassyGuy 04:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry if my tone was a little frustrated - it is frustrating when editors don't put due diligence into investigating an article nominated for deletion. Given that the list is well sourced, the claim that the list inclusion is subjective is demonstratably false, as I noted. Given the copious reliable sources, and the passing of all relevent guidelines and policies, the claim that the subject matter is unencyclopaedic is at best dubious and at worst false. Given the profusion of other demonstratably false claims made so far too vague and always subject to POV, subjective enough to be unworkable, Is this not just a slang or idiom guide? and so on, it's not unreasonable to look at a highly dubious assertion with no real rational that is incompatible with a thorough investigation of the circumstances and conclude it was an error made due to hasty judgement.
  - Which brings me to assuming good faith - although my tone may have been a little frustrated, it's clear from my earlier comments that I did assume good faith. I surmised that the editors reached their erroneous conclusions due to oversights that were the result of a hasty investigation, rather than any sort of maliciousness. Given that an in depth, good faith investigation of the article will necessitate a "vote" of keep, the only way to assume good faith is to assume the delete "votes" were the result of honest errors that arose from insufficient investigation, rather than some active desire to damage the encyclopaedia. WilyD 14:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does it occur to you that you might be wrong? You didn't understand my point, either; my point is that a biased claim being supported by a source does not mean that you are allowed to put that biased claim in an article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep There are good lists, and this is one of them The categorization within the list is helpful, and that's one of the criteria for lists. By WP standards, every one of the early commentators were behaving reasonably well. Wouldn't matter , anyway. Having looked at the title, and then looked at the list, it is understandable that those who looked only at the title might think this deleteableDGG 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused, but, regardless, I don't appreciate the insinuation that I or anyone else didn't look at this list. How is this not just an arbitrary collection of phrases? What is this demonstrating? What makes this encyclopaedic? GassyGuy 06:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that this is one of the few good list that we have here. I do think it needs to be renamed though. The "common" is too subjective to stay. How about just Phrases based on stereotypes. If you need to be more descriptive you could put "Racial stereotypes" or "Cultural stereotypes". 205.157.110.11 08:11, 11 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 per G1. Cbrown1023 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teeve Snacks[edit]

Even at the correct name - that's Teevee Snacks - this corporation gets only 748 ghits, none of which support notability as they seem to be mostly blogs. The article itself has little assertion of notability and contains no reliable sources, so problems with WP:V and WP:OR. Nothing leads me to believe that this company is notable, and the bit about Stalin looks like complete bollocks of the highest order. Contested speedy. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1. Article obviously written as a joke. If the title was correctly spelled I would say redirect to Arnott's Biscuits Holdings, but it isn't so delete. --Richmeister_talk 17:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd also like to point out that Teevee Snacks are a product of Arnotts and not a company as the nom suggests. --Richmeister_talk 17:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - (edit conflict) Fails WP:CORP, and, er...coi? It's also a load of nonsense and abused the ((Not verified)) template. PTO
Speedy delete, especially now it's turned into something of an attack page. Budgiekiller 17:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - a load of rubbish from a repeated vandal.Jeendan 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged this article for speedy deletion. PTO 20:26, 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 Speedy G12 by Jimfbleak. Tevildo 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SNP Tryst Branch[edit]

Local branch of a political party. I would A7 speedy it, but I'm not completely sure that is the right thing to do. No assertion of notability, of course, and the names will never be bluelinked as a result of participation in this organisaition alone. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - copyvio of http://en.allexperts.com/e/s/sn/snp_tryst_branch.htm. I tagged it with db-copyvio. PTO 17:18, 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. Remove the copyvio and it's an empty sentence. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme the Wand[edit]

Article about a song from a single episode of a cartoon. There's nothing to write about it other than the (copyvio?) lyrics. Skate-on 17:17, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Disher Project[edit]

Non-notable fictional band; occurred in only one episode with minimal information. CrazyLegsKC 17:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fancruft. Sub-trivial. Leave a redirect, possibly? Guy (Help!) 17:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cruft, cruft, cruft. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and leave redirect, as per Guy. Budgiekiller 17:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being incredibly trivial. Merge it if a suitable target exists, and may as well leave a redirect. Trebor 23:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Saw the episode, gotta agree with nom. OK with redirect. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into series-article & redirect this title. -- Simon Cursitor 15:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattaur[edit]

Article makes no claim as to this village's notability. Citicat 17:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it appears to be more info of only local interest about the same area:

Delete, notable for pirate CD shops? POV-zone, non-notable village. Budgiekiller 19:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absent extraordinary circumstances, assuming it's a real place with more than a handful of people. I believe there is ample precedent that inhabited places are noteworthy—we don't have AfD's and deletions based on "boring little town, nothing ever happens there." Article requires much cleanup but that's not a deletion criterion here. Newyorkbrad 19:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously every inhabited place isn't worthy - an apartment building is a place, and so is the street I live on (sounds like a Sesame Street song), but they're not getting articles. Also, the term village needs to be defined here - A handful of tents in the jungle can be called a "village". I've tried to look up what exactly what this region is, without any real success, other that wikipedia mirrors. Anyway, assuming it's a meaningful enough place to deserve keeping, there needs to be something in the article that explains what it is (the population, for instance) I'd say merge it into the main article of Mohali, but I'm not sure there's anything worth merging. Citicat 02:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles about villages of any size are automatically kept, but these are only areas of a town that do not assert notability. -- Kicking222 20:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a reference which paints a different picture of the village. --Eastmain 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reference is quite detailed and provides verifiable information and, per Newyorkbrad, real places with a reasonable number of people in are usually kept. Obvious cleanup needed. Trebor 23:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Villages of all shapes and sizes are included on Wikipedia, so long as they are verifiable. Silensor 03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a real town. Towns, villages and cities are inherently notable. --Oakshade 00:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I wish that villages were not automatically notable for WP purposes, but they are. This is one of the decisions that we're stuck with whether we like it or not, and deleting on that basis is WP:POINT.DGG 03:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The recent revisions have addressed my original concerns, I no longer feel the article should be deleted, although cleanup is still needed. Howver, the associated article Kumbra Chonk still should be deleted or merged into the main article. Citicat 15:08, 11 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 hoax. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Reyners[edit]

Likely hoax. The subject gets no Google hits, nor do the book titles given as references (I googled three of them). If not a hoax, may be an attack page. No links to this article, although one of the anon contributors did try to add a link from List of LGBT Jews with a misleading edit summary. Delete gadfium 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hopefully file under BJAODN. "Semites and the semantics of semen", nyuk nyuk. Probably a goof on this guy. --Dhartung | Talk 18:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Budgiekiller 19:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a hoax. If some (real) sources are supplied, it's worth another look. Trebor 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. --Wizardman 13:48, 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 RESULT: Speedy deleted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Cowan[edit]

Looks like a hoax, or at least very heavily embellished. Claims to have presented various TV shows on the BBC, BSkyB, Challenge TV and Channel Five. However...

A Google search shows no mention of anyone by that name on the BBC, BSkyB or Challenge TV sites. Two results from the Channel 5 website but these just show he entered their "Fifth Gear Idol" competition.
Claims to have won the BBC Talent competition, however searching for "nikki cowan" "bbc talent" only returns the subject's own MySpace and YouTube profiles and no official confirmation.
Claims to have presented "Grab a Grand" on Sky, but Google search only gives this page, his MySpace and his unverified CV on IMDB and no official confirmation.
Claims to have also won Fifth Gear Idol, however a check of the official site does not give any confirmation. Even if he did win it, that is not a very strong claim to notability.

I have been unable to verify any claim to notability in this article, and the user who created it was Nikkicowan (talk · contribs). Therefore delete as a hoax and probable vanity. Qwghlm 18:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well-researched nom. Article is vanity, and as for finding some notability, all roads lead to his IMDB "resume". Budgiekiller 19:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nom is thorough, and without independent sources notability can't be established. At the very least, a conflict of interest suggests the article has problems. Trebor 00:00, 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::► 13:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourceforts Clans[edit]

Incomplete nomination by CoolGuy. Page consists solely of external links. I have no opinion. --- RockMFR 18:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a list of the most well-known clans of a mod of Half Life 2. So many problems, but I'll settle with Wikipedia is not a directory, no original research (in determining "well-known") and no verifiable information. Trebor 00:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — or possibly Listify is notability can be established. Looks to violate WP:NOT though. Wizardman 19:20, 14 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. Herostratus 08:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zafer aracagök[edit]

Writer and composer from Turkey. Possible autobiography / advert. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 17:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well I tried to improve my entry in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia ... also linked it to both internal and external links from which you can observe whether he is notable or not. I wonder if an entry suitable to Wikipedia on the question of "notability" should necessarily belong to an American or European writer or composer? Isn't it being a bit of racist? feyhanFeyhan 18:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that the multiple records are enough to pass WP:MUSIC. He has performed in several different countries, although that might not count as an international tour. --Eastmain 22:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep. Artcle needs revision and cleanup but definitely not deletion..--Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 15:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — Passes WP:MUSIC, but borderline on WP:BIO. I'd like to see this expanded a bit. Wizardman 19:25, 14 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of shaggy dog stories[edit]

Un-encyclopedic. Wikisource might take it. -- RHaworth 18:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a compendium of jokes, and there is little that is canonical about shaggy dog stories. --Dhartung | Talk 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's what Wikipedia is not about. Pretty much schoolyard behaviour. Budgiekiller 18:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -- Mrmaroon25 18:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Doczilla 07:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, plus POV issues over what is a shaggy dog story! --Dweller 10:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Shaggy dog story#Removed Examples. By the way: Wikisource doesn't take material written firsthand by contributors. It only takes previously published material. Uncle G 13:22, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Goebbels' Nazi Party propaganda and censorship techniques[edit]

Student essay. Material already fully covered in other articles. -- RHaworth 18:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WP:V. No, Delete per nom. Tevildo 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Mrmaroon25 18:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing new or worthwhile in the article, no original research. Trebor 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a student essay, and info is redundant.-- danntm ^T _C 04:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced OR essay. Dragomiloff 00:53, 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. — CharlotteWebb 06:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have walked on the Moon[edit]

Just a list, already has a template for it and is pretty useless. -- Mrmaroon25 18:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It gives the order in which the walked, the mission names, and date walked -- overall a good table with easy access to relevant information. The template and category don't do that. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contains useful information about a notable subject, all in one place, with a greater level of detail than the template. I can't understand why someone would have nominated for deletion such a clearly useful page such as this. Badagnani 19:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks useful to me. Very very notable subject. --- RockMFR 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very reasonable succinct catch-all for the information accessible via the template. Budgiekiller 19:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Suggest speedy keep. Newyorkbrad 19:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one list that CAN easily be kept up-to-date!!! - fchd 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information is much more accessible than navigating via templates or categories.--A bit iffy 22:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it had simply been a list of names, I would have recommended creating a category instead, but since the names are organized, etc. I see nothing wrong with it. 23skidoo 23:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With a bit of work, I think this could become a very good list. Agree with speedy keep from Newyorkbrad. Trebor 00:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. It's clearly notable. Georgewilliamherbert 00:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adds value to the template GabrielF 04:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Organized list, with easily verifiable content. Alexj2002 12:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the provision that should a large number of people be walking on the moon (if for example, we end up with a Lunar Disneyland), it be renamed to say, the "List of the first 100 people who walked on the moon" or some such. FrozenPurpleCube 02:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Notable, exhaustive (for the foreseeible future), and fairly well done.--T. Anthony 02:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable lists. Lets hope its not too long before there are new names to add to it... WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 05:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expansion with some dates for an overview would be nice. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 08:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Mart[edit]

This article was marked with notability concerns three months ago, I don't see changes to the article to address this in the last three months and was unable to find references to Mission Mart in Google that met the necessary requirements of WP:NOT. All this having been said, this is one of my first AfD's, and if I am not following the process correctly, please be gentle. --Joe Decker 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability made for a non-descript shopping centre in Kansas. Budgiekiller 19:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability whatsoever. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MALL. 130,000 square feet is tiny, and no historic, architectural or other notability is claimed. Edison 15:23, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang van Maazut[edit]

hoax Lars T. 19:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax, no evidence of such a being. Looks like it's been around before. Budgiekiller 19:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, recreation of deleted content (if that doesn't stand, delete as hoax, unverifiable, whatever). Trebor 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, for all the reasons Trebor has pointed out. John Vandenberg 00:32, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murtle[edit]

Murtle is a mix between a turtle and a monkey... Also, it seems this is based on "eyewitness reports" so OR. No google hits except for us and urban dictionary. cohesion 16:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mythological but known to have lived and had frequent sightings. Hmm, not convinced, is this WP:NFT? Hmm? Budgiekiller 19:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Budgiekiller. --Адам12901 ^Talk 21:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 23:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Hoax. "Conceived by a turtle and a monkey", trying to figure out how that would work. Firelement85 23:49, 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 and Merge into the section "Muslims in Modern India" in the article Islam in India. There's really nothing wrong with the article, but:

A good part of the article is redundant with Muslims in Parliament of India. Generally, there should not be identical lists in two places, especially when the list is subject to change. This is a maintenance issue.
Once that list is removed, the article is short. Islam in India#Muslims in Modern India is tagged as needing expansion, so it makes sense to expand it by merging what is left of the article into that section.

This doesn't mean that, in future, if editors want to add more material into Islam in India#Muslims in Modern India than will comfortably fit, a new article could not be created. Perhaps that article should be named "Muslims in modern India" rather than "State of Muslims in India". Herostratus 08:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State of Muslims in India[edit]

BAsed on Single source and essentially an attempt to create a POV fork of Islam in India. Allegations of lack of Muslim representation are largely partisan (and made by leftist - based partisan media hype, bearing in mind that president of India is a Muslim). Data from Sachar report may be incorporated into Islam in India and this article deleted please. Rumpelstiltskin223 19:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 20:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, Valid encylopedia article with demographic details about a community of a country. Similar articles exist for african americans in US. Non, partisan sources like indian express are mentioned. Its also an Indian related stub. Pure Vandalism --Shacs 20:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Such bullying tactics will not work with me. I never said that the information be removed. Merely that it be placed in the appropriate article. muslims in India cannot be compared to articles on ethnic groups like African Americans since Muslims are not an ethnicity but adherents of a religion. Rumpelstiltskin223 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Islam in India is a very long article and is related to religion in general. This piece relates to muslims in particular and their current position. --Linxengine 21:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The only way by which Muslims are defined is through Islam. Muslims are neither a race or creed. They are the adherents of Islam and thus any information on Muslims (particularly ones this little) can be merged with the Islam in India article.Rumpelstiltskin223 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a main article and can be refered in Islam in India. As mentioned above similar articles exsist for different racial, linguistic, political, and religious groups. I don't see any reason why it should be deleted or merged. It Presents the current socio-economic details of over 150 million people. Its hard to beleive that we are resisting them even a page in wikipedia. --Linxengine 21:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What religious group? Is there any article called State of Hindus in India??? Is there any article called State of Bahaii in Japan???State of Muslims in Kamchatka??? There is a Hinduism in India but also an Islam in India. The information in discussion is based on a single source and does not merit it's own article but in Islam in India.Rumpelstiltskin223 22:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no article, it doesn't mean it should not. Contribute one if you like, but honour others work. --Linxengine 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Islam in India. --Адам12901 ^Talk 21:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Race and religion are two different things. One can choose their religion, one cannot choose their race. This can easily be readded onto Islam in India, since its about two sentences of useful info. Muslim is not an ethnic group[, and a similar article Christians in Pakistan was deleted.Baka man 21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read Timesofinda every day and also some others. Few day ago I had read that India PM said giving Muslims equal chances. Similarly President of India had said something similar about Muslims-In-Indian-Army few months ago because there are very less Muslim in Army. It was a long debate on it. It is a fact that Indian Muslims are much backward as compare to Hindus. One can find references from India's press. Similarly when I was in USA working on H1B visa then there was many Hindus on H1B visa (in Silicon Valley, CA) but Muslims of India was verrrry less. Hence I think a very good quality article can be created based on many references easily. I will try to contribute too on this one. Quick google seach gives me these references [46] sky-has-fallen-muslim-in-army-asked [47] Untouchability like apartheid, says PM, pushes Muslim equity --- ALM 23:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Guys, It is differnt topic and has nothing to do with Islam in India. Please see the differences. --- ALM 23:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I do not disagree, but why is that a valid argument for a separate article? Why not include all this data in Islam in India. I can equally argue that I should write a State of Hindus in India article and write about attack on Akshardham temple and Indian Parliament by Muslims and increasing Islamic terrorism and how it's affected Hindus. I can write about votebank politics in favor of Muslims and CPM,s support for radical Islamism etc. etc. I am sure that such an article would be AfD'ed in a second and scores of people rush in to vote "delete-delete". Rumpelstiltskin223 23:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: It depends on two things 1) Importance of topic and 2) amount of material available on it. If topic is not much important and if there is NOT much material available. Then a section in existing article is good. However, in this case the topic is very important because Muslims are lot in number and the issue is hot enough in press (see December 27th Report). Hence for me it is justified to have a seperate article on it. --- ALM 23:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Same thing with Hindus as well. here are some articles on the situation with the marginalization of Hindus in Bangladesh, for instance [48][49][50][51][52][53][54]. If I created a separate article on State of Hindus in Bangladesh, every Muslim on wikipedia would yell "Hindu lies!Delete-delete". Rumpelstiltskin223 00:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would like to support State of Hindus in Bangladesh however above mentioned sources are not neutral. You are giving me Indian News paper to show Hindus status in Bangladesh. Those News papers are of other Hindu country hence might be biased. Unlike this I am giving you Hindu News papers of the same country to present situation of Muslim. Do you see the difference? --- ALM 01:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - sorry I just found that some of your sources are neutral too. Hence I will support that article. --- ALM 01:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - There are no "Hindu newspapers". Please read about India before you make ignorant generalizations. India is a secular country, unlike other more backward countries in the area. The word "Hindu" in "The Hindu" does not mean it is a "Hindu" newspaper but "Hindu" in that context means India. In fact, "The Hindu" is a leftist biased newspaper that frequently makes hatred against Hindus in favor of radical leftist and Islamist groups (which explains their obsession with this subject).Regarding my argument above,I think you have misunderstood my position. My point of the above statement was that none of those articles cited is justification for a separate article on this problem but is a justification for including information in Hinduism in Bangladesh. To create a separate article is a POV fork. In the same vein, all this information about reports of Muslims is not enough for a separate article but inclusion into the Islam in India article where it belongs.Rumpelstiltskin223 02:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Islam in India. KazakhPol 00:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - consider WP:NPOV and consider that there is no State of Muslims in Israel article then why this ? _{Freedom skies| talk} 19:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Baka man 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopediac--Sefringle 07:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Shyamsunde 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good article. Reasons for deletion and Redirect given above are humourous. --Mastiboy 13:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into an appropriate (or separate, if none exist) sect of Islam in India. ITAQALLAH 01:41, 11 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)).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mastiboy (talk • contribs) 13:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep or Merge with islam in india. Various articles dealing with American demographics exist as well.RiseRobotRise 17:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- An unjustifiable comparison. There are no articles on the demographics of religions in America (other than the articles on the religions in USA themselves like Islam in the United States, no state of Muslims in the United States). There is already an Islam in India so this content can be put there. Rumpelstiltskin223 08:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as separate article as Islam in India is more suitable as a History related page and this article discusses the current scenario and this is one of the main topics being debated in India (Media, Parliament etc). Vjdchauhan 06:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Comment - That creates way too many POV forks and, given the tendency for Indian Islamic and Hindu Fundamentalist editors, as well as the comrades from the far left, to troll in these types of articles it is better to keep them all in one place to avoid further disruption of wikipedia (by now, I'm sure everybody is aware of the argumentative shenanigans of some South Asian editors on wikipedia). Rumpelstiltskin223 08:43, 15 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 00:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfisti[edit]

Delete because WP:NEO, WP:NOT, WP:OR AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to WP:NEO and lacking WP:RS. Budgiekiller 20:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although the article does need work, I was really surprised to see about 190,000 ghits for the phrase, including countries/languages- Italy, Turkey, Poland, Russia, Greece... it's too widespread to be a simple neologism! SkierRMH 23:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a word can be widespread and still be a neologism. For example, "e-mail" is a neologism. Some become widespread and notable enough to merit articles; I just don't think this is one. It can be sufficiently addressed in the underlying article.--Kubigula (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis globally recognised word derives from the name of an historic European motor manufacturer.It is right that the world has an encyclopaedic entry for Alfisti. It's root in history is too great to be denied.Hogan 23:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per reasons cited by nom. I was going to suggest merge with Alfa Romeo, but it's already adequately covered there.--Kubigula (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, specifically per Kubigula. WMMartin 20:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete — Would've said merge, but it's covered in Alfa Romeo. If better references can be found, or some news source, then maybe it could be redone in the future. Wizardman 17:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The word has more relevance in Europe and Australia than the USA where Alfa is a very small specialist brand. To balance this though, Wiki has more of a US rather than European slant.82.42.125.4 22:15, 15 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 01:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ewing Irrigation[edit]

Delete: Vanity article about non-notable company that doesn't meet WP:CORP. Many Google hits but most appear to be self-promo and directory listings. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable family business. Caknuck 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They did partner to publish a book, but the book should have an article (if at all), not the company that partnered to publish it. Because of that, I vote delete. --Адам12901 ^Talk 21:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References from several sources may be sufficient to meet WP:CORP --Eastmain 22:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. Having some references is important but is not sufficient. Doczilla 07:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation if notability can be more clearly demonstrated. Existence on its own is not notable. WMMartin 20:52, 12 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luciano DiOssi[edit]

Too much fictional information Mrsteak613 20:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am from Liverpool, New York, a suburb of Syracuse. I have followed the Syracuse Crunch since they were founded and never heard of a player named "Luciano DiOssi" ever play for the Crunch. In addition, the name does not register on the Intenet Hockey Database. Also, Ryan Getzlaf And Corey Perry Were Named Rbk/AHL Rookies of the Month in December of the 2005-06 season. I found that by searching "ahl rookie of the month december 2005" on yahoo.

Overall, I believe that Luciano DiOssi does not exist.

Delete as a blatant hoax. This person does not exist, as a Google search will confirm hits only from WP and mirrors. His supposed brother, who supposedly plays at Boston University, also does not exist.[55][56] -- Kicking222 20:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention of him at the Syracuse Crunch site, almost all of the ghits point to WP/mirrors. Caknuck 20:33, 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 14:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARPIA2[edit]

Not notable, just a game modification, I asked WP:CVG and they agreed with me--Carabinieri 20:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What of the other game modifications that are on Wikipedia? There are a lot for other games, and ask anyone in the Nova community, and they will tell you ARPIA2 is the first big one in years… --PACraddock

Delete without merge. The first big one in years for Escape Velocity Nova, but that's primarily because EVN isn't a massively popular game, so there aren't a lot of modifications being developed. It's already mentioned on the main article, which is more than enough. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ARPIA2 was worked on by actual developers of Escape Velocity Nova itself, so, in that sense, it can be considered as more than just a 'user-made patch'. Besides, why must it be deleted in vague terms of notability? Futhuremore, a quick Google search reveals more revelant results on ARPIA2 as opposed to Bolo, which has its own article. Also to note is that ARPIA is in the process of becoming a novel and quite well into the process. How many game addons do you see becoming novels? If the plug in itself is not 'notable' enough, then it should be altered to be about the novel, and thus have the title changed accordingly. After all, are not novels 'notable'? -TwilightPhoenix 04:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite sure how the disambiguation page Bolo is relevant to anything. In any case, the existence of Google hits doesn't really mean anything about ARPIA2 except that it exists (which doesn't confer notability). The novel is not inherently notable either, particularly if it hasn't been published yet. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this mod; then review all other mod-based article with a view to merge/delete or total delete. Mods are inherently cruft -- Simon Cursitor 15:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd just like to point out that Counterstrike started out as a Half-Life mod and is now one of the most recognizable first person shooters on the planet. I'm not saying that ALL mods are inherently notable. However the statement that "Mods are inherently cruft" is a fallacy. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication this meets the guidelines set out in WP:SOFTWARE --Pak21 15:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The clear conflict of interest concerning PACraddock's claims of notability concerns me somewhat, but not as much as this mod's lack of sourcing regarding the notability. I'd be a lot more comfortable with this mod if I could see some sourcing in notable third-party publishings. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what, put up a figure like "In the past four weeks since its release, 75 people have given it an average rating of 96.27%"? -- PACraddock
  - What are your views on the proposed WP:SOFTWARE as a guideline for Wikipedia? --Pak21 17:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - ARPIA2 isn't software, as it is not a self-standing application. Since it's a user-made add-on, unless Ambrosia decided to support it, it would have no reason to be the object of any kind of media coverage. -- PACraddock 7:38, 9th of January 2007 (GMT)
      - And therefore it's not notable and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia. Also, you have an interesting definition of "software". End of discussion, let's go home. --Pak21 08:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. Please see what we mean by reading Wikipedia:Verifiability,Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability. These three will tell you exactly what the criteria for notability is and what sources are considered verifiable and reliable. Cheers, Lankybugger 18:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So basically, if a few users write independent objective reviews and say for example that it has even more depth to it than most novels, or that it is considered by many players to be "maybe as good as EVN itself", this article can stay/be resubmitted (since it seems it's going to be deleted)? -- PACraddock 7:43, 9th of January 2007 (GMT)
      - No. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources which you've just been pointed to. --Pak21 08:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        … Thank you, I already did, and there is no clear definition of "reliable source", and no way for me to assume that user reviews on any kind of website are "unreliable". I read every article that has been cited, and nothing excludes objective reviews. Unless there's some hidden message behind these articles that only the Wiki "masters" know of. Indeed, after reading these articles, I find myself intrigued as to how certain articles exist. Just to name another user-made add-on, why don't you try looking at Jaymod? Most interesting in terms of notability and reliable sources. In conclusion, I feel like only half of what has been shown to me is of any interest, and the other half of the replies here have been almost offensive… Kindly, -- PACraddock 13:09, 9th of January 2007 (GMT)
        1) WP:RS#Self-published sources would seem to me to be very clear on the subject of user comments. 2) WP:INN: nobody is claiming that every article on Wikipedia is in accordance with policy. --Pak21 12:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given my close ties to the Nova community, I hate to do it, but I gotta !vote delete on this one. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't meet the notability standards. Being produced by ATMOS members isn't an automatic conferment of notability; ExoBattle was made by Matt Burch, but that doesn't mean it has (or warrants) an article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not evident. WMMartin 20:49, 12 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 g1, patent nonsense, obvious hoax/copy of Superman. NawlinWiki 23:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Joel[edit]

Fictional character. Hoax. (Disputed prod - otherwise would have speedied it.) -- RHaworth 20:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete... though I'm not sure under what criterion. It's very obviously a hoax. If you can pick out the right criteria, speedy it; otherwise, we might as well wait five days to take out the trash. -- Kicking222 21:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G1. Patent nonsense. Appropriate tag added. Also potentially valid for a G3. Tevildo 22:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete with kryptonite. JuJube 23:03, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madconfusion[edit]

Nominating these two articles. Borderline speediable except they do claim some level of notability. However, the Google search for Madconfusion + Clint + Compton comes up empty which for an electronic musician that produces music for websites is a pretty ominous sign. No evidence of third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 20:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I could find on google were some pages on a 1950s baseball player of the same name and some wikipedia mirrors. Delete--Tainter 01:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to meet WP:BAND/WP:BIO. Wickethewok 07:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 02:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredible Amoeba[edit]

Not-notable painter. From WP:BIO: "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." Fails. First google hit is also a myspace page. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, my suspicion is that the original creator is either the artist or a friend as this article is one of only 3 edits (the other two being on talk pages) from that account. Arnoutf 22:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Frankenmosquito gets two google hits, as does "incredible amoeba" painter, and they're mostly myspace. Mr Stephen 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 just another non notable game player. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twysted[edit]

Disputed speedy deletion - see this comment. -- RHaworth 20:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I think it's obviously why... --Адам12901 ^Talk 21:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete possibly under nonsense. This article makes no sense RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or lets have banter} 21:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Nonsense. Arnoutf 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above _SUBWAYguy 22:06, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steel and Stone[edit]

The film is not notable. Both of the creators of this film are not listed on Wikipedia (The Chris Thomas we are talking about isn't listed on the disambiguation page). There are no notable ghits for "Steel and Stone" and "Chris Thomas". It sounds to me as if the creators of this film are simply everyday guys who made a small film and put an article about it on Wikipedia. Sue H. Ping 20:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find any google hits that related to this. not notable.--Tainter 01:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability. Ms. Sue H. Ping, since you are pretty new here, I'd just like to say that for uncontroversial cases like this it is best to add ((prod)) to the article instead of putting it here on AfD. Of course, if you could see an argument made from the other side then yes, use AfD. And if it is a speedy deletion candidate, tag it as such. —EdGl 03:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will do that for uncontroversial cases like this from now on Sue H. Ping 14:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Goldenrowley 03:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. —ShadowHalo 02:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete no notability asserted or demonstrated. Eluchil404 13:53, 12 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 by admin Pilotguy (Deleting page - reason was: "Nonsense page" using NPWatcher). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 01:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Male Dance[edit]

This topic is really self explanatory. The article body reads as mostly original research. I'm not sure if this is a particular organization or not, but it doesn't seem encyclopedic. Delete. Wickethewok 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not even going to dignify why with an answer...it's OBVIOUS. --Адам12901 ^Talk 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 22:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy Delete per nomination - no context. If you have to ask, you'll never know. --Dennisthe2 22:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for what it's worth, the article consists of an explanation of what an all male dance team consists of and does: a bunch of men (or boys) who do choreographed (oppose freeform) dance. Thing is, though, that it's my opinion that the name identifies what this is (i.e., it does exactly what it says on the tin), so there's really no context. As such, I'm upgrading my vote to a speedy, citing no context. --Dennisthe2 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. — CharlotteWebb 07:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beer pong[edit]

This is virtually a 40+KB article on how to play a drinking game. Not only does the content violate Wikipedia Policy of being an instruction manual, but the article serves no real purpose other than to both glorify and encourage the abuse of alcohol –and more particularly, abuse of it by minors. Delete. Ryecatcher773 20:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, discussion of game in major media demonstrates notability, as does its co-optation by commercial interests. 43 Google News hits, 902 GNA hits, and good golly, even hits on Google Scholar (though not all are academic papers). The article veers into WP:HOWTO territory, but that's a content problem. As for "abuse of alcohol" and "by minors", see WP:CENSOR. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is clearly verifiable. Wikipedia is not censored Content disputes are not a reason for deletion.--RWR8189 21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly strong keep Not just is the topic very obviously notable, but the article even includes citations from highly reliable sources. If you have problems with an article, bring it up on the article's talk page. AfD is not the place to discuss changing an article on an extremely well-known, verifiable topic. -- Kicking222 21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per RWR8189. Subject is verifiable. Content disputes should be handled on the article's talk page. --- RockMFR 21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possibly edit out the instructions part. Glorifying drinking in itself is IMHO not an opinion for deletion; wikipedia is not censored. Arnoutf 21:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just looked this up a few days ago. There is lots of unsourced stuff however, which should be tagged or removed as necessary. VegaDark 22:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article may focus too heavily on how to play the game, but any article about a game is going to have to have some description of how to play. This is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator's second point is also invalid per WP:CENSOR. GabrielF 04:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like crazy there's no way to say this isn't a notable game. Maybe it's too heavy on instructions, but that's a reason to clean it up (as we've been doing). And I would argue that it's not really instructions, it's more "here's what people do." --AW 07:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep & cleanup it reads like a how-to manual but it is very notable. Cornell Rockey 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Needs better references, and needs removal of junk content, but the topic is clearly notable. The cited sources clearly indicate the notability of this widely played indoor tabletop game. —ptk✰fgs 19:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, per RWR8189 and others above. schi ^talk 23:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Cleanup. The article is wordier than it needs to be, but it is definitely notable. Lovelac7 07:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The argument for its deletion is relative and borders on censorship; by the explanation given one could argue against other, more accepted games or sports, such as Boxing, where the rules are not only clearly expressed here on wiki, but could also be considered glorifying and encouraging violent behavior. Keep it - it is the parents responsibility to raise their own kids. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.28.241.17 (talk • contribs) 16:25, January 9, 2007 (UTC).
Keep and Cleanup It's notable enough to keep, but it really doesn't need a description of every possible way to throw a ping-pong ball! Other sections could be improved by being condensed, too. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we close this AFD already? This is unanimously a keep, for good reason --AW 22:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Damn right it glorifies the abuse - and use - of alcohol. I don't like that. However, for such a useless article, it's very good - had we been talking about Beer Pong variations I would have voted delete. Now, !vote. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Cleanup (it is tagged as such), probably TMI, but no reason to delete. SkierRMH,01:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup the howto stuff. Seraphimblade 08:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs to be cleaned a bit Pbroks13 04:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable Atchius 05:11, 11 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. Herostratus 08:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A past I want to erase[edit]

Wikipedia is not a movie/TV series guide (WP:NOT). No sources, fully unverifiable (WP:V, WP:RS). Mart inp23 20:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have it wrong, it is not a TV guide in the sense that it doesn't tell you when each episode will come on and a brief description. This episode summary doesn't fall under TV guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.61.156 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2007
Keep and Cleanup There are already plenty of Naruto episode articles. JuJube 23:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPart of a series, there are plenty of articles giving summaries of individual episodes of a series. The article needs wikifiying, not deleting. D-Angle 00:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and "wikify" I'm sorry but whoever wrote it needs to go pick up a dictionary and read it all the way through, a few grammar points wouldn't hurt either. I will restore a previous version without errors soon.

Keep it! The article just needs a little judicious editing, which I will be more than happy to provide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.251.48.178 (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Perhaps we can find a more efficient way in AfD of deaing with these articles, because the next episode is always coming. Could we make a decision once & for all that each episode of a given series is notable? DGG 04:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because we don't make any decisions once and for all. Though I agree that creating some kind of actionable guideline in this area would be useful. Eluchil404 13:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Last time I looked we weren't a repository for this kind of stuff, but in any case there in no evidence of notability cited, nor can I find any via google. The topic of an article must be notable. WMMartin 20:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, why was the AfD box removed ? So far as I can tell this debate has not closed, so I have restored the AfD box. Please let me know if this was a mistake. WMMartin 20:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - [57]. The box was removed on January 8th. Mart inp23 22:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if someone wants to nominate other episodes for deletion, you have my full support to delete all those that are not notable. We're an encyclopedia, not a directory of episodes. WMMartin 20:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Wikipedia isn't an enclyopedia.....

Keep and Cleanup — It really needs to be fixed up, but WP:NOT covers when shows come on and the like, othrwise we'd be gettign rid of the thousands of episodes flying around. Wizardman 17:15, 14 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Creek Church[edit]

Notability has not been assessed, nor do I think that it could be. The only reference given is to the church website, and that is hardly considered verifiable information. Адам12901 ^Talk 21:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and has not evolved from the oneliner stub since it origin in May 2006. Arnoutf 21:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete sizeable church for rural Wisconsin, but the article has been up for many months with no improvement. Delete without prejudice. Does not meet WP:CONG, has no claim or evidence of notability and, like the majority of Wikipedia articles, no independent sources. Edison 04:47, 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. -- Steel 15:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkinson Street tram stop[edit]

Non-notable. As per WP:NOT 1.8 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 21:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles for individual stations, even if they are stubs, seem to be easier to manage than one merged Nottingham Express Transit article with descriptions of every station. As well, articles on individual stations make it easier to add relevant station links to articles on Nottingham's landmarks. A photo would help, though. --Eastmain 21:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment What is there to describe? Each is just a raised platform. They're all the same, just in different locations, (apart from the 3 that are part of national rail services, which I've kept). See Supertram or Manchester Metrolink for an idea of how NET could look. L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 21:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tram stops are just to minor to allow their own articles (unless of course they are truely notable for another reason). It is not like a train station but closer to a bus stop. Arnoutf 21:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tram stops are in general not notable. This tram stop does not appear to have been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works" (to quote Wikipedia:Notability). The stop is referenced in Google searches I've just done, but the Google hits do not yield articles etc. about the stop itself. The reason that tram stops are not subjects of other published works is, in my opinion, because they are relatively temporary structures: simply raised pavements with a small shelters beside - almost as easy to remove as bus stops. I must confess I had once considered nominating articles on stops on Croydon's Tramlink for this reason, but wasn't confident of getting support. I'll think again now, depending on how the AfD goes.--A bit iffy 22:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I's suggest you do so Iffy. I prod-ed all the NET stops which were not also train stations. Only this and one other survived (I'll AfD that too if this goes OK, as it seems to be), so maybe prod Croydon articles. I'll check Supertram, Manchester Metrolink and Midland Metro whilst I'm at it. L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 15:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim or independent evidence of notability, any more than the corner mailbox. Edison 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well tram stops are kind of in between bus stops and subway stations when it comes to notability. I feel that stops for trams which run in the city streets like busses can be treated like bus stops while stops for light rail systems on separate guideways are more on the level with subway stops. I am not sure exactly how the Nottingham system is. Notable or not, this article does not have much content (That Wilkinson Street tram stop serves Wilkinson Street is reasonably obvious), and it is all pretty much covered in the Nottingham Express Transit article anyway (which has a system map for example). I think we can redirect this page there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I see what you're saying, but in Sheffield some street-stops (ie West Street, University, Hillsborough) and some are separated from the roads (ie Valley Centertainment, Crystal Peaks, Arena/Don Valley Stadium). Some (such as Crystal Peaks, Meadowhall, University) and notable for other reasons (shopping centre, shopping centre and train/bus interchange and one of the city's universities respectively) but if the grade saparated platforms are just raise platforms. L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 15:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability cited: indeed, fails to be more notable than my socks. WMMartin 20:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Friday (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom. Wizardman 19:23, 14 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 differentate them ad...ahhh just delete all. ;) - Mailer Diablo 20:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of differences[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

These articles simply demonstrate the difference between two English words; WP:NOT a dictionary. If these differences are truly significant, they can be detailed on the individual articles for hair, fur, etc. Skate-on 21:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all The subpages are all just dicdefs, and the entire thing is unencyclopedic on its own (that is, if these differences need to be explained, they will be explained within the context of larger articles). -- Kicking222 21:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete all per above Arnoutf 21:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Obviously these "articles" as they stand have no merit as articles. There are possibly some cases where the differences between things deserve an article (I can't think of any at the moment), but "articles" like these are rather too arbitrary in their subject. You could extend this sort of thing forever: Difference between Algeria and Tunisia, Difference between coffee and tea, Difference between cardboard and paper, and so on, all adding nothing of value.--A bit iffy 21:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all- there are an infinite number of "differences" and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide for telling differences between rocks and stones anyway. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously Strong Delete All. List of differences, that's it?! Holy jeez, I think that says it all. --Dennisthe2 22:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. Mitaphane _talk 22:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sweet fancy Moses. JuJube 23:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminate or is it delete, if only there were an article that told me the difference between the two ;) This is the job of a good cross referenced thesaurus/dictionary. SkierRMH,23:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Partial delete for all except Difference between boat and ship as that is an interesting topic that has some value. Most people in the Marine community get confused on this issue and this is as good an explanation as any that I have seen. --- Safemariner 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. GassyGuy 22:36, 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 Speedy A3 by Chris 73. Tevildo 21:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tarik tawfek[edit]

Because it contains nothing, and therefore it is useless Turbonate 21:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 20:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Roberts[edit]

Deleted on prod, undeleted per request, prod rationale was "This article does not demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's generally accepted criteria for inclusion of biographies. Television personalities are not automatically notable merely for being on TV. Without some form of reference or source, it is impossible to verify whether this person meets one of the inclusion criteria." Procedural, abstain. crz crztalk 21:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator for Prod-deletion and noting that the page is unchanged since that time, I stand by the arguments presented above. No evidence is presented in the article suggesting that this person is in any way exceptional. Rossami (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable talking head. Herostratus 04:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, no independant verifiable sources. I will be removing the redlinks from WAVY-TV - they're just asking to be filled in. I'll also make a seperate nomination for his co-worker, Kerri Furey. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 05:53, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

419eater.com[edit]

Meets criteria for what WP:NOT. Whole article reads as an advertisement or alike boasting only about the websites functions. Article, as is, fails to establish notability guidelines, per WP:WEB. Luke! 22:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable website, well-known and mentioned in numerous print media sources, as well as on TV, as mentioned in the article. Currently ranked 21,285 on Alexa. Article needs some cleanup and expansion, but organic expansion cannot happen if the article is deleted. Any poor or biased writing will be fixed in due time, the article needs cleaning up, not deleting. D-Angle 22:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - carries its own notability and has some folk-hero status (ok, granted, the latter isn't enough for here), but certainly needs some cleanup. Been mentioned all over media. --Dennisthe2 22:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very-notable website. Google search returns independent sources discussing the site on the subject of 419 scams. Ocatecir 00:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak DeleteArticle presents only 1 independent source to show notability,which is not multiple. Edison 04:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per D-Angle, Dennisthe2 and Ocatecir. WegianWarrior 07:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. One of the best known scambaiting sites. The article mentions BBC coverage. Also, the site was notable enough to warrant a book of its own. The rest is cleanup. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the website has been featured in many different mediums, BBC radio ran a program about it also Adamshappy 14:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, I've seen it linked from Slashdot GabrielF 16:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is a notable scambaiting website a highly ranked too Yuckfoo 02:34, 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 Speedy delete g4, not significantly different from Philip Dukes, also fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 23:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Dukes[edit]

AfD nominated by Jamesbourne11. No reason specified. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination appears to be nominator's first edit. (Referrring to Jamesbourne11, not Tevildo.) Newyorkbrad 22:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can shed some light on this: it's reposted rubbish. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Dukes from last October. Fys. Ta fys aym. 23:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like it can be speedied as recreated content, although I guess an admin should check it really is the same first (not that it looks like there's been a lot of valuable improvement since the version Fys recalls). Newyorkbrad 23:10, 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 KEEP. Reasons:

I'm not too keen on renominating an article that was closed as Keep only a few months ago. What has changed since then?
The argument that this stands alone as a subject I find unconvincing. I understand the argument along this line, and it does have merit. However, I think the counter-argument that this is basically an overflow from RuneScape to keep that article from being too long, and that we have many articles like that, to also have merit.
The raw vote total is 12-10 in favor of Keep, for whatever that's worth.
WP:CRUFT is just an essay, and WP:NOT#IINFO apply as this article is not a game guide.
The quality of the article is not very germane, although it does have some bearing; but generally, an article is deleted only if the topic is unencyclopedic. It's asserted here that a decent article can't be made on this topic, but that is unproven. There are (apparently) several people willing to work on it.

It's not that the Keep arguments are all that strong; it's more that the Delete commentors failed to prove their case. This is the fifth nomination. Not counting the withdrawn nomination, this makes the last two closed as Keep, so I think it's time to stop renominating this article until 2008 at the earliest. The comments that the article should be renamed are well taken, and although I'm not going to do that now as part of the close, I don't see why another editor shouldn't move the article. Herostratus 07:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape gods[edit]

WP:CRUFT RuneScape gods is an excellent example of fancruft on Wikipedia. There is an endless amount of unimportant information in this article that has absolutely no meaning to anyone outside of an enthusiastic RuneScape fan. RuneScape gods is NOT encyclopaedic.

Does anyone actually believe that a non-RuneScape player will care that the god Jahalsel has a symbol of "a horizontal line coming from a vertical line. -|"?

OR how by "Using the Staff of Armadyl, which he obtained through a series of circumstances mentioned in more detail during the miniquest, Zamorak was able to stab Zaros in the back…"

OR how about that "In the mage arena one can learn the spell "Flames of Zamorak" which sets fire to the target."

WP:OR and WP:V "They have little or no active followers, no letters, but maybe some holy objects dedicated to them. The creators of RuneScape have on occasion hinted at there being 20 or more gods, demigods and immortals, but rarely are they forthcoming with information."

Talk about notability! Talk about some valid research! Just look at the bottom of the article! Pages and pages of references the back up all of the information on the article! I don’t see an original research here…

To those who didn’t understand, that was sarcasm. This article is horribly packed with unverifiable information of original research. There are not nearly enough reliable sources cited or any sources cited for anything for that matter. Can someone prove to me that "Thammaron leaves a skeletal corpse, while any other demon killed in the game only leaves ashes"?

WP:NOT#IINFO Wikipedia is not a game guide. However, this article is very useful if one wants to know that "Armadyl's Staff is kept in the Temple of Ikov after its uses in banishing one god while creating another".

This article is poorly written and does not appear to have any hope for improvement. For example, the article has been tagged since June of 2006 for a lack of citing references or sources. I vote Delete. Audacious One 22:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Was there even a fourth nomination? The third was just two months ago, this is too early for another. The article needs a rewrite to remove some cruft + WP:OR, but other than that it's fine. Also, try to be a bit more careful on your next AfD, there's red links everywhere, I think we skipped the 4th nom, and I had to look in your contribs to find this page. Agentscott00^(talk) 22:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I apologize about the problems there were with this page but I believe I've fixed them all now. According to the discussion page, this article was nominated for deletion four times. However, the fourth nomination was withdrawn - but still a nomination nonetheless. That makes the last completed one four months ago in September. I then do not think it is too early for another discussion. Audacious One 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean it up then. I'd really love to see this gone, but I can't think of a single reason why it should be deleted, and apparently you can't either. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I gave several reasons why it should be deleted. My main point is that it is impossible to have this article because of the above problems. If I were to clean it up as you say, there would be nothing left. Audacious One 22:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it hard to differentiate between your reasons for deletion, and your apparent need to be sarcastic. We can definitely clean it up and still have an article left, it's not "impossible". Agentscott00^(talk) 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, rename and rewrite per QuagmireDog - fancruft isn't a criteria for deletion. If you see it, take it out. I've been considering removing some of the very sentences you've cited for a while now. The article is the current collaboration at WP:RUNESCAPE, with citing sources the main objective. The sources exist - i've seen them - the article simply hasn't had as much attention paid to it as, for example, the notorious RuneScape armour and RuneScape weaponry articles, so has never been through one of the massive decrufting operations of mid/late 2006. As for the gameguide concerns, this is as much use as a RuneScape gameguide as a recipe for Rogan Josh. It rarely even names the quests involved, never mind tells you how to pass them. I'm not even sure simply naming a quest counts as cruft. On the other hand, it is a combined characters and backstory article, both of which, as per the previous debates and the equivalent articles in every other fictional franchise series on Wikipedia, are encyclopedic. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 23:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to strong keep/rename/rewrite - QuagmireDog's proposal sounds like a plan to me. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename RuneScape history on closure of AFD Immediately after. This article's problem is that it is focussed on the wrong topic, not that attention hasn't or couldn't be given to it. RS gods are not like the D&D gods, or other well-detailed fictional pantheons, assertions to that affect are mistaken. Instead, RS has three main gods, representing good, evil and neutrality/nature - these gods are covered in detail in masses of citable material from the RS site. A couple of other gods get a mention. The rest are bit-players, their stories are worked through and forgotten, the developer does not write them into new quests or material.

The flip side would be a history of RS - there's a page on it already available to gather info from. Writing the history of the game world instead of fixating on gods would have many advantages:

It would contain relevant info on the gods, much more so than the current article but also in better context than even a mass-cleanup'd gods article.
Readers get the bigger picture, they understand why the three main gods are given so much coverage, they'd understand where the lesser gods fit in - even RS players would find out new information.
Any character in the RS universe who is covered in detail and an important part of the history could be included, a much broader scope.
We'd (jubilantly) get away from the flawed argument "If the character is referred to as a god, they're important by default", this is plain wrong and in many cases obvious.
God letters and Postbag from the Hedge - here are the citations. If it's on there, it's citable, it's tangible, no we didn't just make up "The mighty black shiny thong of Thurr-Grar", click the link sweetie.
Every time articles are merged so they have broader scope, they improve, profoundly. The information becomes more streamlined and by definition free of fancruft, inappropriate context and uncited text - these stick out a mile and are therefore sanitized on sight. A history article does the same, it isn't about one particular caste of NPCs, it's about all of them that had an impact, it isn't even just about NPCs anymore - battles, locations, relics, aspects of the playable RS etc. ad nauseum.
The article would be lead from citations, rather than a splurge of muddled fancruft with none.

Keeping this article as is, with the same title, will not result in a stable, meaninful article. The focus of the article is wrong and the need (as well as the objective) of what is just a list of NPCs has not been demonstrated. Characters that don't belong aren't left in the article for weeks on end because deleting them is difficult, they're left because they'll only be added again because the entire article is geared to self-defeat and conflicts with all the progress the RS series has made. Twenty contributors aren't going to change that, they'll spend their time arguing back and forth and leaving a different mess to the one they found.

Articles like RuneScape weaponry, RuneScape armour and RuneScape minigames were not a success. They were filled with fancruft, unmanageable, meaningless to non-players and worst of all they missed the point - to provide relevant, readable material. RuneScape combat (the resultant merge) has been quite the opposite. Minigames was an article I was working on myself, though after seeing it gone all I see are steadily improving articles where it used to be.

The experiment has been run enough times for us to learn from it - can we please accept that and get on with the task at hand? Or do we have to set up the bubbling flasks again and meet back here when the weather's warmer?

I should point out that the idea of a history article was none of mine, Captain Vindaloo mentioned it. If he had not done so I would be asking for this article to be deleted. However, the idea of creating a history article to turn the article upside down into a great opportunity for us and something good for our readers. QuagmireDog 01:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would consider the deities in a major MMORPG to be a worthy subject. We do not have inidividual articles on each deity, but a list of reasonable length to cover the subject is what is encouraged by WP:FICT. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Armadyl's Staff is kept in the Temple of Ikov after its uses in banishing one god while creating another". Game guides are not for the Wiki, but it's a good thing this isn't a game guide. Saying what an object was used for IN THE PLOT is not a how-to. -Ryanbomber 12:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above -- Simon Cursitor 15:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. While WP:CRUFT etcetera may not be bad enough for deletion, WP:N certainly is. The question here is, has the Gods of the RuneScape universe been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, third-party, published works? I think not. Make it go away please. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What? That doesn't make sense. RuneScape passes notability requirements easily. The Gods are part of RuneScape, therefore notable. This is separate just to keep the article size down. WP:N applies to entire subjects, not components of subjects. A subject is either notable or non-notable. You can't have partly notable subjects. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare, for starters. The game's system requirements are not notable, but what would be the point of excluding them? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 20:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: No, THAT does not make sense, seriously. Let's dissect the opening paragraph of WP:N:
    - A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. (my boldings)
  - Now. We can all agree that RuneScape is notable. That has not been contested, an behold, there's an article on RuneScape. However, RuneScape gods is not a subpage of RuneScape or a section in RuneScape - it is an article. An article in an encyclopedia, dealing with the topic of the article as mentioned in the header of the article and the html page title - namely, RuneScape gods. As thus, while the gods are part of RuneScape, RuneScape gods are not part of RuneScape it is an independent topic and is so required to assert, and reference, notability per WP:N's primary notability criterion. Do you see what I mean? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. "RuneScape gods is not a subpage of RuneScape or a section in RuneScape" - erm, yes it is, hence the "RuneScape" part of the title. And the only reason it is not a section in the main article is to keep the article size down, otherwise we'd have a browser-crashing monster on our hands. RuneScape/Gods wouldn't work, as the page/subpage feature doesn't work in article namespace (this is to allow articles like Face/Off to exist without technical difficulty). The topic here is RuneScape. This article contains an important component of that topic. Topics and Articles are not the same. A Topic must be sufficiently notable to deserve inclusion here. Articles are simply containers for these topics. If a topic has to be split across several articles to be included, edited and read conveniently, then so be it. Articles and topics are not synonymous. Most non-notable topics can only manage one article, and some notable topics can fit conveniently in one article, but in this case, the notable topic (RuneScape) is too large to fit in a single article, so it has been split across several articles, per WP:SIZE. WP:N is not meant for this situation. Rules like WP:NOT and essays like WP:CRUFT are; these are meant to keep the coverage of a topic in check. Think like a reader: you hear of something famous, and you go to Wikipedia to find out more about it. As it has a claim to fame, notability, then the reader will very likely know what makes it famous. Wikipedia would be utterly worthless to the reader if it simply repeated what makes the topic notable and nothing else. You already know that David Beckham is a footballer. What use is an Wikipedia entry that just says "David Beckham is a footballer"? What if you want to know where he grew up? What he did before he became a footballer? His footballing career before becoming notable playing with Manchester United? Follow the spirit of the rules, not the letter. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this constitutes an irreconcilable difference in our views on Wikipedia. However, are you actually suggesting that RuneScape gods are famous? I could find more third-party sources dealing with Jobjörn Folkesson, I can assure you that. Thinking like a "reader" in the manner you suggested would make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information - if said reader doesn't find any entry on RuneScape gods (you must agree it sounds completely ridiculous) on Wikipedia, there's always the rest of the internet. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, thinking like the reader in my example would make Wikipedia an encyclopedia. The RuneScape gods are notable as a part of RuneScape, just as David Beckham is notable as a football player. Without RS, the gods wouldn't be notable, without football, Beckham wouldn't be notable, without Formula 1, Michael Schumacher wouldn't be notable, without the space program, Neil Armstrong wouldn't be notable, et cetera ad nauseum. Everything is connected like this. Readers interested in the major characters and backstory of RuneScape (the article has been somewhat mistitled; the Gods are the most frequent recurring characters and major players in the game backstory; see QuagmireDog's rename !vote) won't find this indiscriminate at all: its not a mere FAQ, Travel Guide, Memorial, Instruction Manual (at least while regular editors keep an eye on it), Internet Guide, Textbook, raw Plot Summary, Lyrics, or something stupid made up in school. It is a focused overview of the backstory of a notable MMORPG. Any ambiguity of the title is the reason we have links and a template. And the rest of the internet sucks :-) . CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 23:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree strongly, it is to me apparent that the dominant view (NOT consensus) of Wikipedia editors on fictional game content is that it doesn't have to meet the primary notability criterion. As thus, I will leave the matter - no point in arguing when I don't have a snowball's chance in hell to succeed. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination reasons are invalid. Cruft is not a reason for deletion, it's a derogatory term that should not be used in an AfD. As to the rest, If there is any content that is a game guide, or original research, edit it, clean up this article. But I'd no more expect this article's contents to be deleted than I would the contents of Category:Dungeons % Dragons deities. While some of them are based on real-world deities, others are completely made up. I doubt much has been written about some of them outside the D&D universe, yet they are related to something real and notable. Thus they should be included in Wikipedia. The same applies to this. Runescape is notable. It is set in a particular world. That world is notable, and verifiable as a fictional creation. These gods are an aspect of that creation, and as such should be discussed somewhere. I could live with a merge if that were proposed, I don't think the World of Runescape is given enough attention, but that's a problem for another day. FrozenPurpleCube 02:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not wish to make a vote, merely an observation that Wikipedia habitually will turn a blind eye in favor of Pokemon, The Simpsons, Family Guy, Harry Potter, Halo, LOTR, Star Wars, Star Trek, or any other video game-related sub-cruft type articles. The general standard is that all articles must be built using reliable third party sources. Why does this standard need not apply to the aforementioned subjects? Just wondering. Silensor 23:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish I knew. :( Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a reason why it should be removed. BishopTutu 03:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or Merge with the character list. This has a mediocre style of writing and some info seems Wikia-esque. I changed my vote after a review over the article. BishopTutu 03:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no character list, as of yet, since the gods are in the most part the only characters which could reasonably assumed to be worth covering here - emphasis on in the most part. The current article is biased against non-gods yet also asserts that RS gods by their very nature are notable, which is extremely debatable (and in my humble opinion a load of pants). Worse still, it's being used as an excuse to include non-gods which are also not-notable - a weak argument which none the less has not been countered.

With the exception of the RS Locations article, which is being rewritten in a more encyclopedic fashion, Gods is the last remaining article from the original mass-split of the main article. This resulted in loads of crufty RS articles which have now been merged or deleted. Of the remaining sub-articles, combat is a mass-merge, skills is a mass-merge and wilderness is in the process of being merged. That's why gods does not hold-up in comparison.

Whilst there is nothing to 'merge' the article with, renaming the article RS history and rebuilding it will have the same effect - notable characters included, non-notable characters excluded, the actions of the gods are spelled out (which negates all the 'you can get Guthix armour' justification language in the current article), fictional battles which happened 'before' the age of RS which players access when they play the game can be included. I'm quite sympathetic with anyone who wishes for the article to be deleted, it is a mess, the article was not cleaned-up despite that recommendation at the close of the last AFD. All that said, take a look at the new locations article and the current main article, as well as combat and skills. This is what contributors can do with RS info, something much better than the gods and current location articles would lead you to believe.

If we could come to some consensus, in this AFD, that it would be a good idea to change the direction of the article and start insisting on sources being supplied, we could do some good work here. I'm worried that deletion will result in the info being splattered amongst other articles but a blanket 'keep' would just result in the article remaining meaningless to non-players, just a bit cleaned-up. We did the 'clean-up this mess' thing before, having an article simply called 'Gods' with no focus or balance is a mistake. QuagmireDog 05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rename and Rewrite per Quagmire above. The RuneScape article series is rather small by Wikipedia standards, and the number of active Wikipedians working on it is limited. However, the contributors appear to be aware of its failings and want to improve the article— I therefore encourage the nominator to have more patience and wikifaith. There are other, larger article series out there where cleanup is a much more of endemic problem; articles are always looking for more contributors. —DavidHOzAu 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment about article-series notability I also do not think notability applies to sub-articles of an article series, provided the parent article is notable; if notability needed to be asserted every single time, nobody would ever split any article because it (the possibility of outsiders thinking the sub-article is not notable) would make many attempts of providing Wikipedia with a document hierarchy in vain. For example, consider List of highways in Queensland and ask yourself the question "should we expect a sub-article to need assert notability by citing external sources?" Of course not! The grandfather article is notable, so therefore the parent article and the sub-article is notable too. Now apply that same logic to this case and connect the dots. There, that wasn't so hard, was it? ;-) —DavidHOzAu 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite ironically, you picked a comparison that is actually controversial. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I'll accept that. ^_^ However in my experience conflicts like this only seems controversial because it is easy to think that guidelines are set in stone; I know I did when I joined. However, as you know, guidelines are not so prescriptive as some would imagine. They are only meant to guide us, not to legislate... in other words, guidelines have obvious exceptions while policies should be followed religiously. This is the core idea behind ignore all rules, namely, that we can ignore guidelines if it will improve Wikipedia. In this case and the case I mentioned, keeping it improves Wikipedia as a reference source (to preferably other references) and as both a micropedia (summary style) and a macropedia (detail articles) if we choose to ignore notability concerns when the parent articles are notable. I agree with Quagmire that the article has glaring problems, but I believe that they can be fixed given time and a small rewrite. —DavidH Oz Au 06:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would be entirely happy to keep this article, even though it looks like fancruft to me, if we could only deal with the fact that (a) there appears, even to my beginner's eye, to be a lot of OR here, and (b) no adequate case is being made for notability of the subject. Since it's not meeting our normal criteria, it should go. We shouldn't have one rule for some articles and another rule for RuneScape, however many fanboys are contributing to this AfD debate. WMMartin 20:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It looks like the article is going to be remodeled soon anyways, so your citation concerns will be addressed. However, we generally do not make sure that every new section of an article is notable in-and-of-itself in case it may later need splitting, just in relation to the topic being discussed in the [original] article; after a section is split off, sub-article notability depends on the parent article's notability and the size of the split. The core concept of WP:SS is that sizable sub-articles remain part of the parent article, just on a separate page for (a) size concerns; (b) focused editing; and, (c) reduction of page history clutter in the parent article. Normal notability concerns do not apply here because this isn't a normal case. (For the record, I have never played RuneScape, nor do I plan to, nor have I edited any RuneScape-related articles.) —DavidH Oz Au 07:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The series are notable, and it is not a game guide. Fancruft is not part of the deletion criteria. Wikipedia:Fancruft is an essay, not an official policy, and it's something to be avoided in deletion debates. Dtm142 19:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So is something else. WP:FICT does say that list of minor characters are good bla bla bla, but these are hardly even minor characters. They're less than that. So, we don't have lists of RuneScape NPCs... we shouldn't have a list os RS gods. Perhaps a section on the "background story" of RuneScape could be included in RuneScape, though? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If an article is a "subarticle" according to summary style, does the subarticle need to meet notability in its own right? Even if it is assumed that summary style is an exception to notability, I think every article must still meet the verifiability aspect of notability. It must have some references from third-party reliable sources. Above it was stated that Michael Schumacher wouldn't be known without Formula 1. That's true, but Schumacher is not a notable topic simply because Formula 1 is a notable sport. (If that were true, then WP should have an article on every person remotely connected with Formula 1.) It ought to be common sense that random pit crew are not notable simply because Formula 1 is notable, unless they are discussed by reliable third-party sources. Likewise, RuneScape gods are not notable simply because RuneScape is notable. There should be some discussion of these entities in non-blog, non-forum, non-RuneScape sources. Are they mentioned in independent game reviews? I tried looking for a third party reference even for Guthix and was not successful, and I don't see where any of the "keep" !votes have provided third-party references either. If this topic is only referenced by RuneScape sources, how would an outside reader distinguish it from trivia? Gimmetrow 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: AMEN BROTHER! :D Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read quite a few RuneScape reviews now, and so far none of them have mentioned the gods of the RuneScape universe. I can't even find a mention in the extensive walkthrough/FAQ at ign.com. I see the September '06 AfD encouraged a rewrite. The November '06 AfD was withdrawn because it was only two months later. It is now another two months later, and the article still hasn't improved much. The RuneScape gods do provide a sort of mythical background to the game. I'm tempted to say this topic should be summarized and merged into the main RuneScape article, with a result similar to the "Premise" section in Unreal. But with a rewrite promised above, I won't.Gimmetrow 17:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On a tangential note, why does the bottom navigation template contain a link to a wikiproject task force? That seems inappropriate in article space. Also, why link to Portal:RuneScape when the regular portal template is also used, and easily recognized? Gimmetrow 17:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The outside reader would distinguish it from trivia in that it leans heavily towards inclusion in the parent article. As you and I have stated, if the article's contents were still in a section of the parent article, there would not be an immediate problem. Interestingly, most of the delete votes here are clearly because it is a sub-article, not because it isn't verifiable. Perhaps we should nominate WP:SS at MfD or tag it obsolete? --DavidHOzAu 11:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:N refers to WP:SS in the section on merging, where it refers to "Information which ... is not sufficient to build a full, sourced encyclopedia article that stands independent of the main subject." WP:SS is not a license to split out any part of a large article, but only those parts that can stand alone as a full, sourced encyclopedia article satisfying WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR. Within an article on RuneScape, if the RuneScape gods are important to a full explanation of RuneScape as a topic, then it is fine to describe the RuneScape gods with reference to RuneScape-published sources. However, I don't think this is enough for a stand-alone article on RuneScape gods. I think we should be hesitant to endorse stand-alone articles that cannot be referenced to any third-party sources. I'm still concerned that none of the !keeps have even attempted to provide a third-party reference. Gimmetrow 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep — I'd like to see some referenes added (not sure how long this article's been marked as needing them), but I'm uncomfortable voting delete seeing as how it's the fifth nomination and third in 6 months, so I'd rather see this article rewritten. Wizardman 19:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gimmetrow above. Notability, it has long been said in the context of biographical pieces, is not contagious. Therefore, the argument that Runescape is notable, therefore any given article which can be connect to Runescape is notable, is a weak one. Indeed, Runescape-related articles have been deleted before now. As noted, the article has not been fixed, remaining riddled with WP:OR and liberally sprinkled with ((fact)) tags, in spite of multiple AfDs. AfD may not be cleanup, but articles which remain persistently unreferenced are clearly problematic. Notable subjects are easily referenced because other commentators (WP:RS) have done all the hard work of collecting the data. Primary sources - the game and its supporting materials - should only serve for adding vivid (and misleading?) detail. Since any compliant article would necessarily be rewritten from scratch, deletion serves to purge Wikipedia of non-compliant (with WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:FICT, WP:V, WP:RS) material. There's no downside to deletion: either we lose an unacceptable article, and it is replaced by a rewritten one which is acceptable, or it isn't replaced. Either way we come out ahead. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment I can think of several downsides. —DavidH Oz Au 11:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and keep It is not a game guide and its part of a notable series. This is part of an ongoing improvement drive - • The Giant Puffin • 12:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The main purpose of having subpages is to reduce the size of the main article. Therefore, there should only be subpages on the most important aspects of RuneScape's gameplay, such as skills and combat, which non-players researching on the game may find useful. However, the gods are not even mentioned in the Gameplay section of the main article. If a reliable source wrote a review or article on RuneScape, several paragraphs may be devoted to explaining skills or combat, but the gods are unlikely to get even a passing mention. This suggests that the gods are not a notable element of RuneScape's gameplay, and information about them is unlikely to interest non-players (or even casual players).

I performed the Google test on the names of each of the three main gods. I'm not sure whether 50 kilogoogles is sufficient to assert notability, so I'll let others judge.

51.7 kilogoogles for "Zamorak".

59.7 kilogoogles for "Guthix".

40.6 kilogoogles for "Saradomin".

COI DISCLAIMER: I play RuneScape. My main account, Hildanknight, is level 57 with a total level of 540. Unlike some moron named Velocity who joined my friend's Google group about RuneScape, I do not worship any of the RuneScape gods. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Chrisch 13:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the nom isn't a very good reason really:

WP:CRUFT - not a reason for deletion (it's an essay, not policy).
WP:OR/WP:V - not very good in this case where sources exist (Questions/Postbag/Kbase - official sources).
WP:NOT#IINFO (gameguide) - not a reason, as the article isn't a game guide.

WP:N shouldn't be a concern - according to WP:FICT, fictional character lists should be included in the main article, unless the main article becomes too long, in which case it is better to have a separate article instead. Article length is one of the main reasons RuneScape failed it's GA nomination. Guess what got split to keep the length down? :-) I strongly urge everyone to take a look at QuagmireDog's !vote. Let's rename, keep Guth/Sara/Zammy and replace the minor gods with a summary of the backstory. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Richard 17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ok, it looks bad with all the ((fact)) tags all over everything, but thats just a bunch of spam. Most of those tags are things that have citations in RuneScape, and or things that would use the same citation are tagged 3,4,5 times. I'll concede that it needs a moderate overhaul, but the cruft isn't as bad as it looks, if you want cruft look Here. Other than those reasons for deleters i bashed, I agree with User:CaptainVindaloo and totally think it should stay. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS ^C_RS 17:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Keep- The nomination uses WP:CRUFT to support the deletion of the article, which is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. I suggest that a new AfD entirely supported by policy be submitted in a few months again.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 18:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three other guidelines were called, not to mention the extensive discussion above. Come on. That's filibustering o_O Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, a non-policy/non-guideline present on the nomination can sway consensus on this discussion. What would the consensus have been if WP:CRUFT wasn't used as a factor? We will never know, until a sixth AfD is submitted in a few months.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 18:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It had been brought up in the discussion if nothing else. And the discussion above doesn't contain much talking about cruft - most delete !votes seem to think about other things. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at a few comments above these comments: "Delete per nom" and "Delete as per nom". Well, it's nice that they agree with the nomination, but its not too good to know that they endorse the use of an essay to justify a deletion.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 19:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two out of... how many? Many. Also, they were posted late in the discussion, so they may also be influenced by the cruft-free discussion above them. Furthermore, I am confident the closing admin will ignore votes like those and instead look for the consensus as established through our dialectic. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see little useful purpose, it appears to not have enough useful material if the fancruft was removed.Exarion 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Above I argued that WP:SS is not a license to split out any parts of a large article, but only those parts which can stand alone satisfying WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR. WP:N#Merging refers to "information which ... is not sufficient to build a full, sourced encyclopedia article that stands independent of the main subject". This seems fairly appropriate here. Within an article on RuneScape, if the RuneScape gods are important to a full explanation of RuneScape as a topic (whose notabilty is already independently established), then it is fine to describe the RuneScape gods with reference to RuneScape-published sources. However, I don't think this is enough for a stand-alone article on RuneScape gods. I think we should be hesitant to endorse stand-alone articles that cannot be referenced to any third-party sources. Gimmetrow 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of the things pertain only to RuneScape based information, and no one outside of the RuneScape realm could find any of this information extensively useful. Who else in Wikipedia would find an article about gods from a game they've probably never heard of for anything constructive? Makoto 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who would find information on combat in World of Warcraft useful but people who play the game? I also am not sure a large number of people are going to not have heard of Runescape, it's hardly a tiny game. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:33, 16 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. - Mailer Diablo 20:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Catterall[edit]

One of twelve presenters on a Channel 4 (UK) show that got dismal ratings and was absolutely panned by the critics; none of the presenters had past form, and it doesn't look like this one has present form either. A couple of English editors have stated they would not know him from a hole in the ground. I am one of them. May one day be well know, but definitely is not yet. He's not even the top Google hit for the name, the European Sales Director of Strand Lighting gets that honour, followed by an Australian priest then a bloke who works for Direct Line Insurance. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails WP:V and WP:BIO. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am another English editor who would not know him from a hole in the ground. Also, his show (Whatever) seems not to be notable enough to have an article (and, the WP:HOLE comment of mine applies to the show to, but I trust Guy's judgement that it was crap). Also, doesn't seem to meet notability criteria - not every TV presented has/needs/deserves an article. Mart inp23 23:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - don't seem to be any sources to establish notability. At the very least it should be a disambig for the sales director, priest and insurance salesman as well (sarcasm). Trebor 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMdb gives 0 hits for him (1 for another person w/same name), 20ghits for that name, and most don't seem to be relative. SkierRMH,08:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nearly-English editor wouldn't know him from the proverbial hole either. WP:V and WP:N refer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 20:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Attic Project[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, didn't speedy because the entry has been on since september. No notable hits on google RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or lets have banter} 23:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources so not notable. Being produced by an Elton John engineer isn't exactly special. Trebor 00:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 02:50, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the car[edit]

This article is almost entirely unsourced speculation about the future. WP:NOT a crystal ball -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC) *Delete. Agree with nomination, plus this is original research. Trebor 00:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak keep per below. It's an offshoot of a large page and, with a lot of care, could probably be written in a NPOV NOR manner. Definite cleanup needed, and I'm not even sure it has the right title (as an offshoot of Automobile, surely it should at least be Future of the automobile?). Trebor 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup - It's not really OR; there's a little OR in the context, but the bulk of the article is links to other WP entries for future car technologies, which are not OR. It's not OR for an author to group those technologies together. It's really badly written, and the comments need cleanup for ORness, but the underlying info is ok. Georgewilliamherbert 00:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per above. OR is for material an editor invented themselves. The only entries that should be removed are entries that we can't find sources for. If there's an appropriate article this should be merged with, we can consider it. But it's fine to have a section, or a page, which outlines published theories about future car technologies. Quack 688 06:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak listify This article's almost a list already; List of future vehicle technologies (it needs a better name than that) would probably better than what we have at the moment, but I'm not sure. --ais523 11:57, 8 January 2007 (U T C)
Delete and rewrite if there's no usable material, otherwise Purge, source and rewrite due to crystal-ballery and original research. None of the claims that this-or-that technology will/may be used is backed up by citations from reliable sources. Moreover, the synthesis of these various bits of info to advance the claim that "these technologies represent the future of the car" is an OR claim unless backed up. Zun aid ©^{Review me!} 12:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed that Future of the car is a sub-article of Automobile - i.e. the automobile article has a brief description of future technologies, but relies on this off-shoot for more detailed information. I agree that this article needs more sourcing, but I still don't think what it's crystal-ballery or OR. Crystal-ballery would be, "The technology that's probably going to be adapted is X". OR would be, "There's also this theory I thought up in science class where you...". The article doesn't have to speculate what the next step in the car's evolution will actually be - it just has to outline the technological alternatives in a NPOV manner. Quack 688 14:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outlining technologies is fine, that's mere secondary research from primary sources. However, advancing the claim that these technologies are going to be used, or even "may" be used as future technology in a car is a claim that needs strong backing and citations for each and every technology presented in the article. Without such, it is OR. That said, as a sub-article of Automobile it is quite vital to the completeness of the main article. I've changed my !vote as a result. Zun aid ©^{Review me!} 10:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup per above. This is a useful article, even if it is a work in progress. -- Ssilvers 20:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs some structure, but very useful in connecting the threads of other articles. Authors should follow NPOV and not promote or debate any of the concepts, or predict success/failure. --Dlatimer 03:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete as crystal-balling. Didn't we have this discussion just before Christmas , or was it the future of transport more generally ? WMMartin 20:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As WMMartin says, this is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL, specifically 'Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate.' —David Eppstein 03:28, 13 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. Bad faith nomination withdrawn. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 05:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne[edit]

This is a niche product. Absolutely useless on wikipedia and I'll tell you why. No one knows about this game. It is too insignificant to be on wikipedia. I mean, the Adventure Company is barely afloat. This is better served on a company website not wikipedia. it is too insignificant and warrants deletion. Also the prose is so sloppy that it reads horribly. Shaanxiquake 23:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the nominator has admitted here [58] that he only nominated another article by Paaerduag due to an ongoing conflict with him, saying "the act of nominating it was purely so that Paaerduag's work would be deleted". The same rationale seems to apply here. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP who is to say whether a game is niche or popular? this is a game, just like every other game article on wikipedia. why not target them? the 'prose is so sloppy' maybe it's not perfect but it conveys a point. honestly, don't tell me you're a sock puppet of Kiran90, seriously whoever you are, after vandalising my talk page you resort to using 'niche product' as a reason to delete a legit page? i don't know how to deal with some people on wikipedia, i honestly don't. --Paaerduag 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly notable, PC game that is available for purchase, and there are several articles on PC games on Wikipedia. Lots of effort gone into the article as well. If you think any of the prose is sloppy, then Wikipedia would be better served by you editing it than trying to get this whole article deleted. D-Angle 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad nom - significance isn't a criteria to be on Wikipedia, notability (as defined objectively be the guideline) is. Bad prose is also not a reason for deletion. Trebor 00:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly sufficiently notable. Published by a notable company, based on a notable license, and most importantly, reviewed by plenty of reliable gaming web sites. -- Kicking222 00:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Article asserts notability. Significant. Navou ^talk 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak sources to support notability, and promotes a commercial product. Edison 04:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes all policies I can think of. Nominator didn't even give a valid reason for deletion. --- RockMFR 05:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe a bit of clean-up but I see nothing here to be deleted. Clever editor as well - his first edit was to do an AFD.... --Charlesknight 07:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Adventure company is not an insignificant company; Khepos Studio does not appear to be insignificant either. About 19,000 ghits for the game, covering several languages. SkierRMH,08:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep to reduce clutter on AFD, this subject is clearly notable. Silensor 03:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination per my note above. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWL because this was done in bad faith and I don't want it to go any further. --Shaanxiquake 05:01, 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. -Doc^g 01:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Instance[edit]

Non-notable podcast. Google search turned up only promotion, no unbiased sources. Seems to be a self promotion article. Ocatecir 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related article for consideration Scott Johnson (artist) who hosts the podcast. Trebor 00:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any independent sources, just blogs and links to Wikipedia, therefore not-notable. Trebor 00:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no attempt to assert notability outside of the realm of some WoW fans. No reliable sources cited and an altogether crufty/spammy feel. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I am working right now to buff out this article and have noted so in the article. I am gathering information on notability and relevance to the MMORPG community. The podcast is well listened to and has an impact on the users of the game. Let me have some more time to build it. Thanks Aselman 15:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless if the article is a work in progress there still is a lack of articles from 3rd party independent sources that lend credibility to the notability of the subject. The subject might be listened to, but it lacks the notability for an encyclopedia article about it. 16:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what I'm working on right now. I'm not associated with the podcast and will do my best to support the article. There hasn't been any discussion on the show on the main page at all before it was marked for deletion. The original authors where never even given a chance to remedy the article before this deletion was posted. However, if I can't find anything notable about it, I will join the chorus asking for its removal. Aselman 03:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I add the following references and arguments from the originating articles discussion page, where this should have been brought up in the first place. I preface this by stating that an immediate call for deletion without so much as a single argument on the article's discussion page violates community spirit if not policy. My references for the page follow: This podcast was originally broadcast through iTunes distribution as a podcast on January 1, 2005 and has produced 47 episodes that have covered the entire year. Pursuant to the notability rules: "Web-specific content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria...3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." You have been arguing here just the first of three criteria, when any of the 3 is an argument for notability. It is difficult if not impossible to argue that distributions via iTunes for a year is trival. On the podcast homepage, over 394 people have commented on the podcast with an average rating of 4.5 (of 5) stars. According to the site comments are being logged as late as January 8th. Also notable that if you run a search for World of Warcraft in iTunes 30 podcasts are returned. This show has 390+ user comments. The next nearest cast has 140 or so. Its also important to note that the podcast has two sponsors, "TypeFrag" - a Ventrillo server company and perhaps more importantly Upper Deck Company sponsors the show with advertising and prizes surrounding its World of Warcraft Trading Card Game. I would argue that companies that spend advertising money on a podcast, clearly makes the show as notable as ANY television show that accepts advertising. Finally, outside links to the podcast. Since podcasts are downloadable media, the reside on a single server and are advertised at multiple directories around the Internet. This is how subscribers find the show. Podcast Alley contains a listing for the show at here. The Yahoo Podcast Directory contains a listing here. Podcast Pickle also contains a listing here. The podcast is active and clearly has a following. Moreover, it meets the requirements for notability. WP:WEB also notes that sites that are new should be given a chance to grow. I believe that is the case here as well. Aselman 04:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of what you've said isn't an argument for keeping. It's easy to argue that distributions of podcasts on iTunes is trivial. They host literally thousands of podcasts, not all of which can be considered notable. Popularity is not one of the criteria for deletion (or keeping), so that's irrelevant. The problem is that it's received no independent coverage. Trebor 10:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trebor, you keep arguing about independent coverage of the podcast but you are missing the fact that that is just one of three possible tests for notability. You may feel you can dismiss my argument under the 3rd test, but it meets the criteria laid out laid out under WP:WEB, that a program distributed by a third party makes it relevant. Independent citations of the podcast are not required if one of the other two tests there are met. World of Warcraft has over 7 million subscribers, this podcast brings news and information to that community. It is this podcast's service of that community that makes it notable. Podcasts should be tested like radio programs and there are any number of programs that have a far more limited audience and far less significance. Yet there they are in a their own article in Wikipedia. The US Radio Program Listing is here. All I ask is that you actually read the rules for notability completely and not stop with the first one. Aselman 13:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been outside press of the podcast. Virginworlds.com, a popular site that tracks MMORPGs, [reviewed the Instance] and noted that:

"This professionally produced 25 minute hot-topic podcast is hosted by two very capable gentlemen. Due to the short format, topics are not explored in depth, but if you do not have the time or patience for long podcasts, this is the one you should listen to. Efficiency and professionalism describe The Instance very well. Be sure to subscribe to this one if you�re a WoW player." Aselman 15:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that simply being one of the thousands of podcasts on iTunes is a trivial distribution. What makes you think otherwise? Trebor 20:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are saying is true than this article should not exist either[59], a list of minor bounty hunters featured in Star Wars. I'm pretty sure that many of the characters in that list or on this much bigger one[60] don't have a big amount of "independent sources" writing 5 page papers on them, as you feel an article requires. If this shouldn't exist, why should articles on characters that have mostly been in maybe a page of a comic book have any mention at all? "Because they are a part of Star Wars and that has a large fanbase." Well WoW, being very similar to Star Wars, could replace the words "Star Wars" in that last sentence! It has over 7 million players. And if something like this[61] is allowed on Wikipedia than a minor podcast that is considered to be among the best and most popular of its kind^{[citation needed]} should too. Sfrostee 10 January 2007

Please assume good faith. I never said, or even implied, it needed a 5 page paper. At present, you seem to be ignoring my argument and instead resorting to WP:ILIKEIT ones. The Star Wars analogue has little relevance - writing about fictional characters comes under WP:FICT, not WP:WEB, so it's not comparable. Again, how does this qualify under WP:WEB given the lack of external coverage and the fact that being one of thousands of podcasts on iTunes is a trivial distribution? Trebor 07:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I did not create the article for promotional reasons and I have no other connection to The Instance other than the article (in fact I have quit playing WoW altogether); I believe that it has enough relevance to exist, regardless of "third - party sources." I did not include the Show Sponsors section when I originally created the article. That section has been removed to prevent it from appearing to be a promotion. However, I would not call it a "promotion" of the podcast because it costs nothing to subscribe to it. And aren't all articles a promotion of their topics? While Leebo says that the article "only has relevance to some WoW fans," he/she neglects that that is exactly the point of the podcast, to be relevant to WoW fans! And by some, he/she means thousands! The Instance is among the most listened to WoW podcasts (as evidenced by it being one of the few WoWcasts to have sponsors) and has one of the highest amounts in customer reviews on Itunes with over 350. It has arguably the largest fan base of contributors and show participants, whether through posts on forums, emails, and phone calls of any podcast. What is meant by those who say that they can't find any unbiased sources about the topic of the article. Why would this article require unbiased sources? There is no debate about the podcast or the topics it covers and the article has by all means a neutral POV. If you do a Google search of "most popular warcraft podcasts, "here you will find the truth about whether or not this article should by AfD. Also see this [62]. Sfrostee P.S. please do not flood this AfD page with links that answer the questions I propose and just listen to the facts I present about the article's relevance. 9 January 2007

Please see WP:Notability for the criteria for notability. While a podcast might be listened to in to World of Warcraft community, whether or not that is notable enough to deserve its own article is a separate issue. Being listed on directories does not establish notability, as evidenced in the "Primary notability criterion": "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject. There are a lack of published works discussing this podcast. So far all the evidence of its notability have been its listing in directories of podcasts and the amount of comments left for it on those directories. Once again, please review WP:Notability. Ocatecir 10:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the only possible test for notability. Please see my comments above about Web Based content. A program is notable also based on its distribution method. Aselman 13:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. Please read WP:Notability and WP:ILIKEIT, especially "This number is big." Also see: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)#Podcasts You are confused about what being distributed by a third party means. That does not mean being listed in a directory such as yahoo. Yahoo distributes plenty of non notable podcasts. Yours is among them. Ocatecir

None of what you've said is an argument for keeping. Popularity does not equal notability. You asked "Why would this article require unbiased sources?". I would hope that is self-apparent: without unbiased sources, there is no way to be sure of writing a reliable NPOV article. Many of your arguments are WP:ILIKEIT ones. Trebor 10:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look everybody should just listen to what Aselman is saying and not me because he is making better points and I am only seeming to make you all dig your trenches deeper on this issue for which I apologize. Sfrostee
Delete no reliable or verifiable sources offered. I'm not totally convinced that being on iTunes is notable or that having more comments than other podcasts makes it notable. Metros232 03:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sourcing/references. I particularly suggest that we keep Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)#Podcasts in mind, particularly comments by Nifboy. WMMartin 20:14, 12 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 Nomination withdrawn and keep. Navou ^banter 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWAL OF AFD BY NOMINATOR (REASONS EXPLAINED BELOW) --Shaanxiquake 04:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There being no objections to the closure of this AFD (I believe all AFDs are closed without prejudice) and the only delete vote is in concurrence, I'll close this as keep and withdrawn. Navou ^banter 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thoroughly unremarkable song. not on any real album, and only some performance song. also so small that it's too little for wikipedia. this is a severe stub, should be removed because it is thoroughly a waste of space. no point to it, no one's ever heard of this song and no one ever will. Shaanxiquake 00:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Here To Change The World[edit]

STRONG KEEP whoever you are you're targetting the pages I made it's wont work using the same argument twice. it's hooligans like you who ruin wikipedia; just stop this nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paaerduag (talk • contribs)
Speedy keep It appears this article has asserted its importance and is notable due the song writer. Very many new articles started out as small, lets give this one more time. Disagreement on the merits of the nomination. Navou ^talk 00:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a song performed by a notable artist and is included on an album (I don't know how the nom defines a "real album"). It follows in the vein of similar articles dealing with a single song. Soltak | Talk 00:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Captain EO. Precedent has been to only keep those songs which were released as singles or had major significance of their own (e.g. themes to a TV series ec.). This has neither, and while it was definitely performed by a major artist, IMO it is well below the bar of notability. This song is already mentioned in passing in the Captian EO article, so no real need to merge any more either. - fchd 06:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree with fchd regarding the precedent, but would say that the c. 10 year run with the captain EO film in Disneyland might raise it above the bar. Its not being a hit on its own is a bit of a problem, however. SkierRMH,08:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have agreed with a redirect to Captain EO BEFORE the song was placed on the Michael Jackson Ultimate Collection, but now that it has been released on that album (yes the album is real) a redirect would only remove valid information from wikipedia. Captain EO is about the film. This is about the song, and the song's importance in particular. there are several song stub articles on wikipedia. but i believe that this is relevant enough to say. and if you have noticed, Shaanxiquake has nominated the only two articles I created for deletion. Coincidence? I think not. why target two, totally unrelated articles which I happened to create? Looks to me like a personal attack. --Paaerduag 12:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at worst, redirect to whichever target houses it. Thoroughly non-notable song in its own right. If Captain EO is the only reason people might search it, house the info in Captain EO. By no means does this merit its own article. GassyGuy 22:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Captain EO. Song is not sufficiently notable for its own article. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWAL BY SHAANXIQUAKE This has gone far enough. The only reason I voted for this article was because it was Paaerduag's, and we've had a 'history' on wikipedia. I don't want to be blamed again for vandalism. So I withdraw this, because the act of nominating it was purely so that Paaerduag's work would be deleted. I'm already on a thin string (been blocked before) so this is it. I WITHDRAW THIS AFD BECAUSE IT WAS PURELY CREATED ON THE BASIS OF REMOVING THE ARTICLE FOR A PERSONAL VENDETTA. --Shaanxiquake 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Interesting. There still seems to be a view from a number of editors (myself included) that this song is not notable enough for its own article and should be merged. Can this AfD continue notwithstanding the bad faith of the nom? WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definate Withdrawl we all know that song articles start out as stubs, and there are also a lot of song articles on wikipedia that are not notable, but no one deletes them. I actually think this is notable, despite my above abhorrence and offensiveness to Paaerduag. I really hope that you will understand that I don't want this article to be deleted anymore. I would feel so guilty if it was. I know that it's only fledgling but I feel it should stay. it was in bad faith that I nominated this anyway. PLEASE don't remove it, or me and paaerduag will start feuding all over again. I don't want this removed. Please just agree to let it stay so that Paaerduag can expand it at his own time. I don't want to be blocked again, or have another row with paaerduag. Please, just let's keep the article. I'm begging you. I don't want to be associated with bad faith nominations anymore. --Shaanxiquake 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Query Are there any actual objections to the closure of this AFD as Nom withdrawn and keep~~? Navou ^banter 13:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't close this one anyway, I made a recommendation. We shall wait for an admin as there are delete and redirect recommendations as well. Navou ^banter 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with a withdrawn nomination, as this one is odd, so long as it closes without prejudice for renomination. GassyGuy 17:09, 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 delete. - brenneman 03:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Development of political parties in the United States[edit]

Written as an essay. Note, written by the same author as another article that is up for AFD above. Jeff3000 20:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unneeded essay; see WP:NOT and WP:OR for policy here. Any information here is contained in encyclopedic form in various United States history articles. Crystallina 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment/Question~~ Delete Is there any sign that the information in this article could be cited and footnoted? Yes, it reads like an original paper on the subject, but the TOPIC of the history and development of political parties in the US is certainly an encyclopaedic one. I find it impossible to believe there haven't been dozens of scholarly works on the subject, so a wikipedia article summarizing those works would be a valuable addition to political and historical projects. That said...this article in its current uncited form does not appear to be that article, but I'm wondering if it could be made into that article. -Markeer 04:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay (and a bad one at that) - to respond to Markeer, First Party System covers the history much better. GabrielF 04:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And then follows up to Second Party System I see. Thank you GabrielF. I've updated my vote above to delete. -Markeer 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is original and describes things very well. There is no need to delete these valuable works such as these. Very educational and I really took my time while writing this. Please do not delete this, let us all work together to make this more wikipediaish, or w/e you guys say. after reading countless wikipedia articles, i think this has a higher quality than others!--Mrahman1991 00:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While it might be educational, it does not fit into Wikipedia policies. Please read no original research. -- Jeff3000 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mrahman1991: It's obvious you can write, and you're certainly willing and interested in developing a full article on a subject. These are wonderful traits in a wikipedia editor and I hope you continue working here. However Jeff3000 is correct that the problem here is no original research. You've presented an original thought without citation or reference, which is acceptable in many fora, but not here. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reports on information that has already been published in peer reviewed verifiable sources. However, since it would indeed be unfortunate if your pages were deleted outright, I would suggest you copy both of your current articles to your sandbox and work on them there. If you can reference your assertions from acceptable sources, I see no reason why some of your information can't be merged into other articles on the subjects at a future date (note: this suggestion is if the two articles are in fact set for deletion at the end of these discussions, which currently seems to be likely) -Markeer 19:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Worthwhile topic, already well covered in many other articles. OR essay. Dragomiloff 00:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make disambig to First Party System and Second Party System--Ioannes Pragensis 16:33, 11 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.