Category:Wikipedians born in the 1990s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy deleted, over a UCfD of no consensus. You can't speedy things that survive XfD. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close - this is an exact re-run of the debate #Category:Child_Wikipedians we've just concluded. A clear consensus endorsed the speedy deletion of such things, and there is no substantive non-process argument for keeping them. Let's not do this again.--Doc^g 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a valid challenge to an WP:IAR decision, and the only way to determine whether the application of WP:IAR was valid is to let it run for the prescribed five days. ~ trialsanderrors 20:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close per Doc. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Undelete. As Amarkov points out these users are 16/17. Although technically within the scope of WP:CHILD, it is hardly a category of people at risk. Should not have been deleted without concensus. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, this is the last time I change my mind (promise). Quack 688 has pointed out the error in my above thought process-a list of Wikipedians between 7 and 17 is clearly problematic for the same reason as the Child Wikipedians category. I therefore return to a vote of Speedy close per Doc. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close per Doc. Process is not a reason to do stupid things - David Gerard 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy close My arguments exactly as those already given for Category:Child Wikipedians.--Alf ^melmac 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close; Doc is correct; this category is the same as the other. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Um... the scope is different. This include 17 year olds, too, you know. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Any discussion about whether or not we should have category lists of teenagers on Wikipedia should be taking place at Category:Teenage Wikipedians - I have no comment on that. However, irrespective of the teenager issue, this one still carries the same child-related risks as outlined in the last CfD.

Best possible case: Someone born on 1 Jan 90 -> just turned 17

Worst possible case: Someone born on 31 Dec 99 -> just turned 7 Quack 688 02:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could salt all categories above 1992. I think it's pretty firmly decided that 13 is the arbitrary cutoff age? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if WP:CHILD sets the bright-line divider at 13 years old, we could lockdown this category to make that possible. E.g. compared to Category:Wikipedians_born_in_the_1980s, we could set up cats for 1990 to 1993, salt the rest, and protect the main page, so people don't add themselves as just "children of the 90's". However, that's a big if. I still find the idea of a list of 13 year olds disconcerting. Until such a clear policy's set, we should err on the side of caution and delete this category. Quack 688 07:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per the arguments last time. There was no reason to speedy this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted — at the very least, all categories for children younger than the COPPA age (13) need to go. I think some of the ones above that should go as well, but that's not at issue here. --Cyde Weys 04:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• At least be consistent and also delete Category:Wikipedians born in the 1980s. None of that 'pedian-by-age categorization is particularly useful, but seeing a cat for 20-year-old users is just begging people to make one for 10-year-old users as well. >Radiant< 07:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason this category is being considered for deletion is to deal with specific child protection issues. That clearly doesn't apply to people born in the 80's, 70's, or earlier. Quack 688 09:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, but like I said above, seeing a cat for 20-year-old users is just begging people to make one for 10-year-old users as well. >Radiant< 11:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I see your point... hmm, you've given me an idea, see below. Quack 688 13:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep delete but not a speedy close, please - we need to ensure there are no excuses or reasons for complaint when this is rightly salted. Proto::► 09:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted Get rid of all "Wikipedians by age" categories if necessary, but put a stake through the heart of this one right away. --Folantin 09:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. "Bad idea" is not a speedy criterion, nor is it even a good argument. We have process and Wikipedia:User categories for discussion for a reason. As the Ucfd for this category shows, it was a valid discussion involving several users. Prolog 11:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - if adults want to stick themselves in silly unencyclopedic user age categories that's fine, but we should not have a list of child/adolescent Wikipedians. What possible good could come from that? Can't think of any, but I can envisage a lot of harm. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted - per the recent Arbcom case results. - jc37 11:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I still think they should be deleted, but we could have problems with people recreating them under other names, without understanding why they're not appropriate. For now, what about crippling and re-directing the 90's category (plus 90, 91, etc. sub-categories) to a brief "child protection" page, saying why these are bad ideas and aren't allowed? If, later on, we decide some age groups are okay, we can re-activate those specific ones. E.g. if we decide 13's the cutoff age, we can turn 90, 91, 92, and 93 into valid categories, but keep the others as locked down redirects. Next year, we activate 94, and so on. If we decide 16's the cutoff age, then we only re-activate 90 for now. I don't know if this is practical with categories or not, but I'm just throwing the idea out there. Quack 688 13:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. - Mailer Diablo 14:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete 1/1/2008, when it starts including 18 year olds. It will then no longer be identical to Category:Child Wikipedians, and not subject to the arguments against it. --tjstrf talk 05:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It will still include all children over the age of 9 (plus many 8-year olds). --Folantin 09:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Nonetheless, it will no longer be a category just for children. "It contains only children (and liars)" may very well be a valid argument against a category, but "it contains many children" (or even "it contains mostly children") is not. There are numerous other categories that contain mostly children, conveniently filed under Category:Wikipedians by interest or psuedocatted under userbox whatlinkshere? pages. They are not deleted for concerns of exposing children to predators because they do not only contain children. As of 1/1/2008, Category:Wikipedians born in the 1990s will no longer contain only children. --tjstrf talk 09:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but it will just mean virtually everyone in it will be a child. I've also yet to see any argument stating why we need these categories in the first place. They are of no benefit to building an encyclopaedia. --Folantin 09:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that respect, it will be no different than Category:Wikipedians who like Naruto and its 27 subcategories. While the Naruto categories may not strictly contain only children (I'm sure there at least 1 adult in there), the idea of usefulness to predators is just as applicable. In answer to your second question, the cat is basic demographic information. --tjstrf talk 11:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • BTW I've already said I would delete most user categories as worthless. In fact, I would change the burden of proof so that if any editor wanted a new user category they would first have to show it was necessary for WP. Most of them are simply tolerated because they have no potential to cause harm. This one does. How is "basic demographic information" in user categories necessary for building this encyclopaedia? (In any case, this user category would be statistically worthless as it would be filled only by random self-selectors not the sum total of all Wikipedians born in the 1990s). --Folantin 11:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • On WP:UCFD, interested in categories are probably the most kept set, because they are encyclopedic and do aid in collaboration on those subjects. The potential for harm that the 1990s category will have as of 2008 will be no worse than that held by many of the collaboration categories. --tjstrf talk 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Undelete I don't see the issue here. Even someone born on January 1st 1990 is 17 by now. They are allowed to view R-rated movies, buy M-rated games, etc. They are clearly not a child. Brendan Alcorn 08:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I failed basic math. There is a Teenager Wikipedians category which seems to be okay, so I propose that the age limit be set at 13. I don't see a problem with having categories for "Wikipedians born in 1994" (or 93, 92, 91 or 90) but because half of the decade is still not 13, the category should be deleted. Brendan Alcorn 08:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete categories for 13 and unders per Cyde above. COPPA provides additional legal arguments which can trump consensus but I see no compelling reason to ignore process for teenage categories. Eluchil404 15:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH. No. It does not. COPPA applies to commercial sites. Which solicit the information. We are neither. I thought that point was driven into the ground by now. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amarkov, as a Wikipedian you are smarter and more computer literate than most people. I understand your concern because Wikipedia shouldn't be serving as a parent but I don't see how the encyclopedia is being harmed by being over-cautious here. Brendan Alcorn 04:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe it isn't being harmed. I don't know if it is, although I believe it. The issue of the encyclopedia being harmed should still be decided through an XfD, not through an admin unilaterally deleting, or claiming a law which does not apply really does. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, I understand your concern but it looks like he acted in good faith in concensus to the other category deletion. Yes, this does include 17 year olds but it also inlcudes 7 year olds. Brendan Alcorn 05:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • But the argument for deletion is that the category is children, not just that it might contain some. Any category is likely to contain some children, but that's useless, without knowing anything more. For that matter, I don't think that the specific year categories are helpful at all, which is why I deliberately did not include them in the DRV. Thus, we don't really have the problem with specific years giving ages. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I wouldn't be overly concerned if they all disappeared either. Brendan Alcorn 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been thinking of nominating them for merging into the parent categories, actually. This conversation is off-topic, but strangely, I like discussing this better than explaining to people why COPPA doesn't apply to us. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xe (pronoun) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I want to use a single line of its content in gender-neutral pronoun

* A discussion about theory of Mind: a paper from 2000 that uses and defines these pronouns

This will become a reference over at gender-neutral pronoun thus demonstrating that the single line that Xe has in that article does not constitute original research. Obviously the article at Xe should remain a redirect. Simply a redirect with history for attribution reasons. Martin 21:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you already know what the thing you want says, you don't have to go through DRV. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want it undeleted so that I can say "from Xe (pronoun)" in my edit summary to cite where I got it from. Maybe it's small enough that that doesn't matter. Martin 21:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One sentence can't be copyrighted, so it isn't necessary to preserve GFDL history for it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, some sentences are long enough for copyright, but be that as it may, this is a non-issue: you can mention the article in the edit summary irrespective of whether it's electronically available or not. A list of editors can be procured if it ever really needs to be. Sandstein 22:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't see any copyvio or attack content, so I restored the edit history. If anyone finds objectionable content or this is being used to surreptitiously restore the article it can be deleted again. ~ trialsanderrors 05:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Strong Community interest (ie Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (6th nomination) ) Mineralè 09:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete - see reasoning above Mineralè 09:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. "Strong community interest" (whatever that means) is not a reason for undeleting an article which had noted verifiability and sourcing problems. WarpstarRider 09:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, brave and valid. Only one source was ever found for this supposed "global phenomenon", and this despite the existence of an external web community dedicated to finding references. I'm not even convinced that the newspaper report was independent, as it may have used Wikipedia as its source for the supposed scope of the game. It's also been a vandal magnet for ever. Bwithh's comments in the AfD are especially persuasive. In the end, as the closer more or less says, WP:ILIKEIT does not trump WP:V and WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No Vote. I will be the first to point out that I don't spend much time editing Wikipedia, so red flag my name all you want. I haven't read all the WP guidelines and therefore I am refraining from "voting" on this subject. However, I wanted to throw out there that while there may be no official or reported (at least ones that qualify) sources, the existence of such a game can exist and be of significant interest to humans now and in the future. While I understand the importance of keeping opinions out and facts in, I also wonder if the simple fact that such a game has spread to so many people is worth mentioning anyway, perhaps noting that there are no verifiable sources for it. Again, against my credibility on the subject, I would like to mention that for 7 years (possibly 8) my friends and I have introduced such a game to most people we meet and have "played" ourselves for just as long. Even now as we are college students having started "playing" in middle school we will hear someone yelling about having lost with all of us subsequently fretting about losing as well. I must admit that something that has stuck so strongly is probably worth mentioning somewhere, though perhaps an encyclopedia is not the best place. I just feel that Wikipedia is the perfect place for such storage of knowledge as it presents itself as an encyclopedia written by the everyman and edited, reedited, and verified by their peers. What better place to save such information, if it is truly worthy of saving that is. So with this long winded, opinionated, whatever you want to call it, I'll leave it up to the more reputable and common editors of this fine piece on Internet real-estate to decide what it should contain. Mais 10:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is the verified by peers bit. We keep trying to verify it form external sources, per policy, and we can't. because none exist. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You can't really make an article and have it say that no verifiable sources exist; having sources is a requirement for keeping the article here. WarpstarRider 11:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately, there inlies the problem. Just because an encyclopedia is edited by common people doesn't mean we can use common people's knowledge as reliable sources of information. Many people believe things that are patently false; urban legends, for example. This is why we need reliable sources. ColourBurst 17:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - valid closure within admin discretion. AFD is not a vote and admins have to look at the arguments. Judging by what people said at AFD this article had only one fairly minor source that supported the assertion of notability, and per WP:N that just isn't good enough. Most of the keep votes seemed to be ILIKEIT ones, which closing admins have every right to discount. Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid close based on lack of multiple non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. A single reliable source is rarely enough to base an article upon, let alone one with heavily disputed reliability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion It was dumb then, and it's still dumb now. Danny Lilithborne 14:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion was brave and correct admin decision made entirely within process; insufficient sources to satisfy WP:V, WP:N or WP:RS, and no truly convincing arguments to keep article. Kinitawowi 15:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - purely counting heads, it was a tad bit short, but most of the keeps were WP:ILIKEIT. If anyone has any question that this was the right decision, take a look at the google cache and all doubts will melt away. Maybe we need to amend WP:NFT to includ "Wikipedia is not for things made up on Facebook one day". --BigDT 15:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Not much I can really add other then that the AfD was completely within process and the closing admin's decision was valid given the discussion. "Strong Community interest" is not a valid reason to overturn an AfD discussion nor is WP:DRV a place to reargue the AfD. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Joy to the death of the GNAA clause. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as no new reliable sources have appeared since the 5th AfD I've closed to give it more time. Guess this has failed. - Mailer Diablo 19:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I count 24 Keep votes and 28 legitimate (non-joke or "article is dumb") Delete votes. Of these delete votes, I count 6 that accept the notability of the article, but simply have concerns about the lack of sources, NPOV concerns, or request cleanup. Since by definition the stipulation of notability means the article passes WP:N, I don't think we can count these as delete votes. That leaves us with a 24:22 keep victory. This is a No consensus result, NOT a consensus for deletion. I'll remind editors that the number or subjective reliability of published sources is completely irrelevant to this debate; the existence of this meme and the nature thereof are well-established (sourcing these is an article quality consideration, NOT a possible justification for deletion). The sole concern here is its notability, and the number of websites dedicated to the game and the thousands of Google results for it obviously satisfy notability. There's no debate here, restore the article.

• To clarify my position: This article would be eligible for deletion if one of two conditions were met: The article fails factual accuracy, or is non-notable. The first condition is not met, as the factual accuracy of the article is not in dispute. More sources would make the article BETTER, but this is simply an article quality/cleanup consideration, not a justification for deletion. As for the second, I believe the article is clearly notable, as it is the subject of a newspaper article and has two domains, one that includes a line of clothing. There are also dozens to hundreds of blog posts discussing this meme, and Google returns over 10,000 results of Game references. I think we have two main problems here that lead editors to think this article was eligible for deletion, which is the confusion or conflation of the two conditions above, and confusing WAYS that WP:N can be satisfied with REQUIREMENTS for its satisfaction. Alereon 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Alereon 19:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment AFD isn't a vote. --Coredesat 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, it's a finding of consensus. And there's no way you can say there was a consensus supporting deletion. Alereon 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an article can not be sourced, it should be deleted. Not kept in hope that someone will eventually create sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please refer to my clarification above. Alereon 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not how it works. Our policies require sources, period, not sources unless factual accuracy isn't in dispute. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:V is clearly satisfied for this article. Your desire for additional sources, or more reliable sources, is an article quality consideration, NOT a justification for deletion. Alereon 20:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... no, it isn't clearly satisfied. There may well be reliable sources saying this exists, but that's not enough, because articles with no information other than existence are pointless. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (To Alereon) I take it you decided to count my 'passes WP:N, fails WP:V' !vote as not being a delete above? Just because something's notable doesn't mean it should be kept. --ais523 14:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no reliable sources provided, and no verifiability provided. --Coredesat 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - This should have been deleted years ago. WP:ENC. - hahnchen 20:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: All sources are undeniably accurate, but none justifies the significance of "The Game." None describes the origin of "The Game," and all sources, although accurate, are unverifiable. Finally, the authors' purposes to revive the article are in question, as the article attempts to manipulate the reader, much as the front page of SaveTheGame does. (Comment kept for reference reasons) --SYCTHOS^talk 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Extreme speedy close, "interest" is not a valid reason for keeping an article. See WP:ILIKEIT. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Guy (all the way up the top) and Zoe directly above me. I could almost agree with a speedy close, but maybe it is best to let this one go for five days. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, where are the sources?! --Cyde Weys 04:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted but not a speedy close. Proto::► 09:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion fails WP:RS Brendan Alcorn 08:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion closed per WP:DP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion That the article lasted more than 5 minutes was something of a miracle, and its proponents should be happy that it had as long of a run as it did. It's gone for good now though, and "Community Interest" (whatever that even means) is not and never will be a reason to undelete any article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, please, for the love of God. If the state of verifiability with respect to this topic changes significantly, THEN it will be time to revisit the issue; until then, these endless debates just sap community attention way too much. This debate was clean and well-closed. Remember, AfD is not a vote. Mangojuice^talk 15:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:PETA dumpster incident dead animal retrieval.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (IfD)

The IFD discussion of this image was closed as a keep here. This is a news media photo for which Wikipedia has permission to use, but which is not a free image. (The permission was obtained late in the discussion - we had neither the permission nor even the source for most of the discussion so most of the discussion is moot.) We do not use "by permission" images unless they also qualify for fair use. WP:FAIR#counterexamples lists news media photos specifically as not qualifying for fair use. We only use media photos for an article on the photo itself, not to illustrate the subject of the photo. Most of the keep !votes were WP:ILIKEIT and no reason was ever demonstrated why this image should be an exception to our general rule on using media images. I suggest overturn and delete. BigDT 03:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete as not fair use (by permission" images that do not qualify for fair use are speedy deletion candidates). --Coredesat 05:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. It is not obvious that this is even legal fair use. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 07:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Wikipedia is not the only place these photos end up - several for-profit sites use the images/text from WP as well, and therefore a "Wikipedia-only" license is most definitely invalid. ColourBurst 16:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete unless permission is granted to allow this image to be used by others than Wikipedia. If not, these images are speedy deleted by order of Jimbo Wales since May of 2005. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be worth noting that we can use our permission only images if fair use also applies; I say this without commenting on whether fair use does apply in this case. Ral315 (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct, of course. Permission is essentially a "non-issue" for Wikipedia's image use. Even if we don't have permission, we will use the image if it qualifies for fair use. If we do have permission, we will not use it if it does not qualify for fair use. My contention is that this image is a media photo being used to illustrate the subject of the photo, rather than for commentary on the photo itself, and therefore it does not qualify for fair use according to WP:FAIR#counterexamples #5. News media photos are deleted regularly at IFD and no reason was ever given why this image should be considered any different from any other media photo. BigDT 00:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six Laws of Adam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This (translated) term is a concept mentioned in the Midrash, Mishna and Gemara, and in Yad Hachazaka of the Rambam. I think they deserve to be differentiated from the Seven Laws of Noah due to the fact that according to Judaism they where inact for the 930 years from Adam to Noah, as predecessors of the Noahide Laws. frummer 02:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure There was consensus in the AFD. You have two paths forward - you can either go find reliable sources and rewrite the article using them, or you can redirect to Noahide Laws and add a sentence about "the first six are sometimes known as the Six Laws of Adam", or something to that effect. For the latteryou should at least have a source for that fact. GRBerry 03:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - valid AFD and no source provided for the information. If the six laws of Adam are discussed in the Talmud, can you point to them in an English translation of it? Wikipedia is not the place for novel religious interpretations or theories - if this is a new interpretation of the Torah, it really doesn't belong here. BigDT 03:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 04:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, AFD looks valid to me, no sources provided. --Coredesat 05:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, "deserving to be differentiated" does not provide sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 07:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, foregone conclusion. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]