< December 27	December 29 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyright violation from [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Characters and Caddies in PangYa[edit]

wikipedia is not for game guides. KaiFei 11:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 12:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the place for videogame guides. --SonicChao ^talk 15:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-The article is full of fancruft and violates WP:NOT. Also, the pictures added lace fair use rationales, as required by WP:FU. I will post ((frn)) to all of those images--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 18:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not a game guide--SUIT 19:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the Wikipedia is not comments above.--Wildnox (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Qqqqqq 20:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main game article, or into a game-guides article--Hotentot 20:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Hotentot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside AfD.
Delete, per WP:NOT. The article only serves as a guide/walkthrough. –The Great Llama^{sign here} 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very game guide-ish and written in an unencyclopedic tone.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article. For the record, this article is NOT A GAME GUIDE. It's cruft, yeah, but it doesn't explain how to play the game at all, which is pretty much the definition of game guide. -Ryanbomber 01:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possibly merge, but many other pages have seperate character pages ( [9] , [10] , [11] ). If merged, the PangYa article may be considered too long. And walkthrough? you're full of it. The article describes the characters in the game, that is not a walkthrough or guide as much as an explanation of fictional characters. This page is as much "cruft" as the other pages I linked are. As per the WP:NOT charge, what does it fall under? It is not an Internet Guide, Instruction Manual, or simply a listing, going by their definition: [12]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.85.214.4 (talk • contribs) 12:46, December 29, 2006
Keep: The anon above me makes a good point. Keep and cleanup. Merge would probably not pass as the main article is long enough. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 12:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renegade Motion Pictures[edit]

Bump from speedy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-18 09:41Z

Comment _{(may switch vote later)} - Isn't this a stub, instead? Insanephantom 09:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP, zero news ghits. MER-C 10:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not too sure about verifiability. It seems to have a page on IMDB. Terence Ong 10:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Hi, I am the one who made the page, and yes it does have an IMDB page. I have now added it. It is a production company that produces my favorite tv show, Beyond, which airs on the Space Channel in Canada. Nico2001 15:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, this article seems fine to me, but I'm not too sure. Seems to meet WP:V at any rate. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^(тąιк) 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - seems to fail WP:V w/ 0 ghits, 3 items on IMdb. Maybe worth a stub? SkierRMH 00:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 00:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per above. 24.169.255.232 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOTE, does not WP:CITE sources. IMDB is not generally taken to be an indication of notability. Additionally Nico2001's keep vote shows an obvious bias. -- wtfunkymonkey 01:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per various policies aforementioned, doesn't appear to deserve an article. Hello32020 02:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence seen that it passes WP:CORP. It does seem to pass WP:ILIKEIT, however. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. TSO1D 04:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail if not fails WP:CORP, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOTE -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability from WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Proto::► 13:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GamePark.eu[edit]

Tagged speedy A7 but contested. Not really sure whether it meets WP:WEB or not, the article does not make a credible case for it but that might just be accidental. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - alexa = 34,667: [13]. MER-C 11:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They do appear to be on the rise (up 24,692 in traffic) in the last three months; think the article needs to be re-written to reflect notariety of company and quick growth. SkierRMH 01:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This should be considered worthy material for an article due to its current importance and role in the gaming world. GamePark has absorbed a far greater amount of the AoE2 community than Gamespy has. In addition to that, it is the only remaining matchmaker for AoE2 which has rankings, seamless game launching, and natively supports the 1.0e anti-hack patch. For those which feel this article should be deleted, I strongly urge you to first see this article prior to drawing your conclusion. I do however recommend that we possibly rename this article to something such as GamePark_(Gaming), due to the fact there is an also popular Czech version of the site located at gamepark.cz, which should also be included. I understand that some have suggested the article does not meet WP:WEB, however, when a fairly new website plays such a de facto role in something - would deletion truly serve justice? --MaTrIx 04:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Serving justice is not really one of the goals of Wikipedia. Neither is promoting fairly new websites. If and when this site meets the criteria for notability and verifiabilty, it may easily be recreated. It's not like we're executing it forever. -- Satori Son 14:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 23:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep certainly seems like it could be notable enough. Keep for now unless a lack of notability can be shown. Koweja 23:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's very hard to prove a negative. MER-C 02:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 00:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under CSD:A7 despite contestation, article does not assert notability of any kind. Koweja's vote for keep unless a lack of notability can be shown is wrong-headed and discredited by wikipedia procedures. -- wtfunkymonkey 01:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. No non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 05:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't agree with speedying this, as article does attempt to demonstrate the notability of its subject. But there are no reliable sources for this notability. Heimstern Läufer 05:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it fails WP:NOTE at this time -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. Annamonckton 18:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Usefull page about a fast rising company. Just because its not based in the USA doesnt make it non-notable. --Hotentot 20:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Hotentot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside AfD.

The nominator is also not from the USA. WP:USEFUL does not trump WP:WEB. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, decent Alexa rank, but I'm not finding any WP:RS from third-party sources indicating notability in terms of WP:WEB. Note: my recommendation has nothing to do with it not being in the USA; further, the burden of proof to establish notability falls on those recommending to keep, not the other way around from those recommending deletion. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per nominator's withdrawal, but cleanup. AQu01rius (User  Talk) 03:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Soviet holidays[edit]

~~This is a list which contains two entries.~~ Withdraw per rewrite. Salad Days 00:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, list of holidays is exactly that article for encyclopedia. Two entries = stub, not removal. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Soviet Russia, holidays celebrate YOU!!! Delete unless it's expanded by the end of this AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 00:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Expanded by copy-paste Soviet Union#Holidays which is already complete (though I didn't see a reference). But it should be Public holidays in the Soviet Union to conform with other such lists (which can be found in Category:Public holidays by country). cab 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So are there 30 holidays as this article claims or 8, as Soviet Union#Holidays lists? If the former, expand still, if the latter, redirect. ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How many places do we need this information? Salad Days 01:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Public holidays by country is pretty much fully populated, and I'd oppose deletion of any of those too. You want to AfD all of them? cab 01:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not if the information isn't redundant. As you pointed out, Soviet Union#Holidays contains the information already, in addition to the article Public holidays in Russia. Having this information in three places seems silly. Salad Days 01:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Russia is not the Soviet Union, and Public holidays in Russia in fact does not discuss holidays which were abandoned after the Soviet period such as USSR Constitution Day. Further some public holidays from the Soviet period were downgraded to "observances" in Russia and other post-Soviet states. Anyway as per Wikipedia:Summary style, Public holidays in the Soviet Union can be further developed, and leave just the list at Soviet Union#Holidays. cab 01:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for improving the article. Salad Days 01:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per CaliforniaAliABaba, the article has useful and notable information in it. It also needs to be sourced, however. Tarinth 01:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep with rename, redirect, and/or merge. Useful, encyclopedic, verifiable information that needs to be condensed, and sourced. No reason to call for a delete just yet, but an overhaul is needed. Article(s) should be tagged for cleanup. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and WP:cleanup if the holidays are not as many as 30. Tonytypoon 02:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kchase T 08:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tour CB16[edit]

The 31st tallest building in the Paris region. Nothing makes it outstanding or encyclopedic. The relevant information is already covered in List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region anyway. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tour Gambetta. Punkmorten 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article - this article offers a picture of the building, which is not the case of the list mentionned, and its content may be expanded later, I see no reason to remove it. Metropolitan 18:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing especially notable about this particular building. Eusebeus 00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, non-notable building, etc. SkierRMH 04:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to La Defense. Terence Ong 05:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metropolitan. --Oakshade 06:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 00:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect as a unremarkable non-notable building. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Appears to violate WP:LOCAL and WP:CITE. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to La Defense, per being a non-notable building. Hello32020 02:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTE -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MER-C 08:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of big-bust models and performers (4th nomination)[edit]

The last Afd, closing as delete, was overturned at deletion review and is now back for Round 4. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per prior debate Akihabara 01:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article passing Neutral point of view . Tonytypoon 02:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per 3.5 out of 4 AfD's. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear consensus at last AfD. Tevildo 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why keep nominating over and over, its been proved it meets the standards Tonker83 03:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above votes. Why was it deleted last time? It was clear that the decision was overwelmingly keep, abuse of powers by the admin? TJ Spyke 03:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- admins are allowed to discount arguments which they believe are trivial. Jorcoga 03:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issues raised in the last afd (qualifications for list, etc) were all considered and consensus was that the article should stay. Keep AGAIN.... --- RockMFR 03:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus at last AfD. Jorcoga 03:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior debate. Quadzilla99 04:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful. I never knew that enjoying large breasted women was a fetish. Nor had I ever heard of Ms. Vanessa Bazoomz. DelPlaya 04:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep per prior consensus. TSO1D 04:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Have we lost our collective deletionist mind? FFS stop nominating this for deletion, the list is unquestionably notable. Silensor 06:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior debate. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Round 4 is one round too many. The fact that this is still being debated is borderline WP:BULL. I disagree with this list being kept but seriously let's move on. Like I said on deletion review there is room within the Wikipedia Is Not Paper argument to keep ONE such list. Let this be the one we keep and move on to more important issues. MartinDK 07:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am so sick of AFD becoming "nominate til I get the result I want" bullshit. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior debate. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 08:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Celorio (2nd nomination)[edit]

Edits to the article toward the end of the last AfD have not received due consideration and the deletion was overturned at deletion review. So now is the opportunity to decide if the additions change the prior verdict. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but its relatively novice editors did respond with evidence of notability at least, so let's give them a chance. Dicklyon 05:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy to assume good faith based on the work that's been done since the first nomination. At the moment the article is referenced, decently written, and gives good assertions of notability. Yes, it needs work, but in good shape for a starting article, and better referenced than a great many -Markeer 12:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs work but decently sourced ascertaining notability Alf photoman 16:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But needs more work. Annamonckton 18:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good article. --Hotentot 20:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Hotentot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside AfD.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 02:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forss Fagerström[edit]

A nonexistent person whose only claim to fame is that Conan O'Brien laughed on TV at what he assumed was his name. The fact that this is not actually a real person makes this nomination somewhat harder to classify. No sources save for the episode itself; some of the content may constitute original research, and it seems unlikely that the article could be expanded without adding more. The corresponding article on the Finnish Wikipedia has been nominated for deletion here (with the consensus so far being overwhelmingly in favor of deletion). I would suggest either deletion or merging to Late Night with Conan O'Brien. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, unverifiable, and unsourced conan-cruft. There is a very slim chance that this could qualify, with sources, as a merge but I highly doubt it. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Conan-cruft. Nobody will care about this in one year, or ten years, or a hundred years. --- RockMFR 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTE -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 08:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and unverifiable. --Tbonefin 08:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Abstain Ive never heard of this guy, or of conan o'brien. --Hotentot 20:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, WP:NOT a repository of one-shot late night talk show jokes. Not even notable within the whole Conan goes to Finland thing. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I saw this episode but haven't heard of the name ever since. Not even here in Finland. --Hapo 21:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 22:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 00:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yayyyy, a remotely funny joke. On TV. *sigh* Regrettably the world is full of funny jokes (and quite a few of them on TV) and this isn't really all that remarkable. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by RoySmith. MER-C 03:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airamoto[edit]

No assertion of notability. Possible vanity page. Salad Days 01:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under CSD:A7, additionally the article fails WP:CORP, WP:CITE, and is verging on WP:SPAM. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Article does not assert notability Savant45 02:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no reliable sources provided. —ShadowHalo 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep but cleanup. There's more than one album, as the group was previously known under another name. Participants also unearthed reviews by Rolling Stone Magazine and other notable sources and multiple news reports. Including these during a cleanup would easily establish notability. I've discounted the opinion of Hottentot since merely existing is not a valid reason for inclusion.

The Pale Pacific[edit]

Contested speedy. Indie band with one full length album according to allmusic. I thought they met A7 based on the article, but it was contested, so I bring it here for discussion Samir धर्म 01:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under CSD:A7 does not satisfy WP:BAND or WP:NOTE does not WP:CITE sources. Vry few non-youtube, myspace, blog, and lyric site hits. Even fewer when you remove sites, like overstock.com, that are trying to sell thier music. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep in mind: "failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion" from WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that I never said it was, thank you. - wtfunkymonkey 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless article can be expanded to show notability and verifiability. I could only find one independent published article on them (Seattle Indie press). JRHorse 02:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search finds plenty on them. http://www.google.com/musica?aid=ieFBIyehgAG&sa=X&oi=music&ct=result They're on the iTunes Store, what else do you guys want?

Take a look at WP:MUSIC and see if there's any criteria there that they meet.--Kchase T 03:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Does this include online reviews? I suppose those would be trivial, but if they aren't just Google them, and there are a bunch. They meet criteria 3 and 4. They aren't an unknown local band; they've been on tours all over the US, and they're quite popular around Bellingham and Seattle. You want to delete the article just because they aren't one of the more popular bands?Gert2 03:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined the speedy. I think there's enough independent coverage in the press section on their website that they might actually meet the criterion for non-trivial published sources. What do you all think?--Kchase T 03:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment"Many of us who spend a lot of time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an article here. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." The article doesn't break any rules, and it doesn't hurt to have it. I'd like it to stay, so the question is, do you really want it NOT to be kept? Gert2 04:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting MUSIC is old news for most of us. I think this is your better argument. Do you know who released these CDs? Was it a major label or an important indie? Some of them were released by SideCho, which probably isn't an important indie. I think this Rolling Stone review, and write-ups (albeit often brief ones) in Seattle Weekly, Spin, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and Amazon's review do more to establish notability.--Kchase T 04:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think they fail WP:NOTE at this time -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless concrete evidence is produced that the band passes WP:MUSIC. MER-C 08:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Kchase02's comment is enough to satisfy WP:NOTE, and their press and shows pages at thepale.com are enough for WP:MUSIC.
Delete As per WP:NOTE. Annamonckton 18:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep clearly notable, as a published band. Besides, inst this supposed to be an ecyclopedia? Theyre a band, they clearly exist, so they should be in. --Hotentot 20:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Hotentot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside AfD.
keep per Hotentot - also a few of the early deletes say only a few articles here and there. Well thats just it they are there. Its not delete there are no articles. Its delete just a few. Those few are independent, and verifiable. The band is notable. Wiki's not paper.--Xiahou 02:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per all relevant above. band is notable Guyanakoolaid 10:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 02:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T.A.T.u.'s fifth studio album[edit]

Crystal balling. An announcement that a fifth album is coming belongs on the band's article, not on a pointless placeholder article. Resolute 01:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to mention: creator removed both speedy and prod tags without comment. Resolute 01:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Tonytypoon 02:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article creator is continually removing AfD notices on this article. Resolute 02:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't have any problem with verifiable crystal balling (as the cited policy permits it), but there's nothing really here and the nom is correct about the placeholder being unnecessary until the album is released.--Kchase T 03:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with t.A.T.u. There's very little referenced information here, so it only needs a brief mention that they're working on a new album. —ShadowHalo 03:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. -- Satori Son 04:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL at this time -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 08:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced crystal balling. MER-C 08:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article says next to nothing about the album, and makes some irrelevant comments about the group. An article can wait until there's significant information available; as it stands, all this tells us is that T.A.T.u may be working on a new album - which is practically a given for any active major musical group. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with t.A.T.u. if a source beyond a blog can be found --Danreitz 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently sourced crystal-balling.-- danntm ^T _C 21:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL --Mhking 03:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 11:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7, Speedy revert to disambig - crz crztalk 02:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kabbala[edit]

This article does not meet the Wikipedia MUSIC notability requirements. No documentation other than a MySpace page. Seems like someone trying to promote themselves. Creates confusion with Kabbalah JZiegler2 02:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:49Z

Troy Adamitis[edit]

Notability. - crz crztalk 02:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evident way this person could meet WP:BIO. This is about the only coverage I could find in the first 3-4 pages of google results, and he's not even the primary subject, as BIO requires.--Kchase T 03:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Kchase. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kchase02-- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. Annamonckton 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Was speedy deleted by User:Pilotguy, reason was: "Article about a non-notable individual, band, service, website or other entity" using NPWatcher)

Midnight Riders (MLS supporters association)[edit]

Non-notable group _SUBWAYguy 03:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail WP:NOTE -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fan groups for sports teams are normally covered in the article about the team itself. This organization is already discussed in the appropriate article, New England Revolution; as a remote second choice, redirect to there. --Metropolitan90 07:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, unneeded search term. MER-C 08:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 14:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable supporters' club. I'd be hard pushed to think of a reason why any supporters' club would merit its own article independent from the club they support..... ChrisTheDude 15:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - group appears to be only around 30 strong --T-rex 18:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:50Z

Total Elimination[edit]

This article is not necessary, as it can't be expanded any further than its current state and all this information is already in Paintball variations. In short, this article isn't needed. Not to mention, its title is also incorrect as well - it's called 'Elimination' or 'Slayer'. Maximilli 03:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable enough for its own article and already sufficiently covered at Paintball variations. Heimstern Läufer 04:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for repetition from Paintball variations article -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree, it really isn't notable. Hey, isn't Elimination supposed to be in lowercaps? --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 08:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - refer to wikitionary Tonytypoon 08:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. My bad. I misread this the first time. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Months behind[edit]

Gaming guild. Some assertion of notability, but from what I can see, no Reliable Sources, no Verifiability. -- Fan-1967 03:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as ((db-group))/((db-web)). OR CoI rubbish. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom and so tagged. TSO1D 04:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. --Dennisthe2 18:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AES Password Manager[edit]

Article for a minor software program that does not meet the notability requirements of WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services or, as currently proposed, WP:SOFTWARE. No evidence of AES Password Manager being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the product itself. Google News search produces 0 hits. Yahoo! News search produces 0 hits. No third-party sources provided in article. Contested WP:PROD, so comes here for deletion. -- Satori Son 03:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I call spam. --Dennisthe2 05:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising? -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam, so tagged. Charlie 06:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable WP:SOFTWARE, spammy. MER-C 08:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:51Z

Z-680[edit]

Originally nominated by 67.174.25.116. There doesn't seem to be anything notable about these speakers that makes them any different than the hundreds of other models of speakers currently being sold. --- RockMFR 03:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services. -- Satori Son 03:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTE -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into some relevant article. Well written, shame to lose it. --Hotentot 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
— Hotentot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside AfD.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 KEMA Toren; redirect the rest to List of masts. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:37Z

Central Plains Pearl TV Tower[edit]

Some more unremarkable masts for you to consider. All are contested prods. MER-C 03:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except KEMA Toren. Merge KEMA Toren to KEMA. --- RockMFR 03:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a largely uncontested precedent for similar towers: List of towers. --Infrangible 04:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep KEMA Toren based on previous discussion of reinforced concrete towers. Neutral on Arkansas as someone has something to say, albeit of low quality. Delete the rest as they are simply height/location stubs. Akihabara 05:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep KEMA and Arkansas. Merge the rest into List of masts per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts. JYolkowski // talk 23:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, since none has multiple independent sources to show it is more notable than, say a fire hydrant (though admittedly taller). Fungible utilitarian structures lacking any hint of notability. Edison 23:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect all (except KEMA, which I'm Neutral on) to List of Masts. All necessary info in individual articles can be handled by the list (links, construction materials). Also, the Arkansas article can be flagged for original research. Citicat 21:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect all. Vegaswikian 09:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per now well established precedents. Ohconfucius 04:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, hoax. -- Gogo Dodo 07:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tinhead (UK)[edit]

A hoax that came up on my watchlist when the Nelvana article showed a change containing this speculative title. Crucial searches on Google give absolutely nothing of such an upcoming show's existence. Speedy Delete (G1) as nom. Slgr @n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 03:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as ((db-nocontext)), ((nonsense)) or ((vandalism)). The creator's only other article (Rocky the joey kangaroo) is a hoax/vandalism too. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G1. --Dennisthe2 05:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a put-on to me -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:52Z

Riottt[edit]

Spam for web site launched in late 2006. Much of the text of the article (and Google hits for "Riottt") focus on the "Be the Riottt!" festival, which appears to have been a music show like many others, not really a "festival", certainly not near notable enough for an article. The article says that it was written up in Pitchfork and Tripwire, but the links don't go anywhere useful; and in Spin, but no link given. Again, all this is for the "Be the Riottt!" show, which I guess was their big shoot-the-wad kickoff; it doesn't really have much bearing on the web site. Cutting to the chase: no assertion or proof of WP:WEB notability, spam. Herostratus 04:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur: delete unless notability per WP:WEB is established. Heimstern Läufer 04:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability established, as per above. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTE at this time -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB. MER-C 08:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delettte!, no evidence from WP:RS that site meets WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:52Z

Mac User's Forum[edit]

insufficient sourcing; article has been tagged with ((primarysources)) and was problematic before this CobaltBlueTony 04:31, 28 December 2006(UTC)

Delete. Fails to meet WP:WEB guidelines. Needs verifiable sources to establish noteworthiness. Quadzilla99 04:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTE - I agree with Quadzilla99 -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 3K members is rather small, as far as web forums go, and I'm really not seeing any assertions of real notability - being recognized by Apple sounds nice, but it turns out to just be an entry in a largish database. Zetawoof^(ζ) 10:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Irvine Unified School District. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:53Z

Eastshore Elementary[edit]

Unsourced, no indication of noteworthiness. Has not substantially changed in over a year, does not appear likely to. Disputed prod. Shimeru 04:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN school. TJ Spyke 05:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Heimstern Läufer 05:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTE -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Irvine Unified School District, no valid reason not to. Silensor 05:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per Silensor. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable school. MER-C 08:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge with the district as the school's existence is verifiable ([14]). Info on local education systems is OK, but the article is lacking in content. Strangely, a Google check did not show me any other schools with the name "Eastshore Elementary". Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Tank is Fight![edit]

No demonstration of notability. No citations. No independant, reliable, professional reviews. Drat (Talk) 05:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless some verifiable sources can be found to establish its notability. Heimstern Läufer 05:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google for "My Tank is Fight!" -wikipedia found 79800 finds, but most of them seem to be booksellers' sites and Amazon and suchlike. Anthony Appleyard 07:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Something Awful --Wafulz 15:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I think it barely passes WP:BK, in that it has a notable author. (On the other hand, WorldCat reports that the book appears in only one library, in London). Not the most notable book ever, to be sure, but Wikipedia is not paper and it's a good article. A merge/redirect to Something Awful seems inappropriate, since this book appears to be completely independent of that site. --Hyperbole 19:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's hard to believe that when every other front page feature these days talks about the book. Danny Lilithborne 22:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Hyperbole ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 22:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My Opinion is Delete! per nom. Edison 23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significantly-selling books are generally considered notable, and WP:BK is still only a proposal. There is also coverage of this book, but it's buried under all the listings of retailers selling it. I've seen a scan of a newspaper article about it, documenting that it sold out its first printing (over 10,000 copies total), but I don't have it on hand right now. The author was also covered in the Retrocrush podcast here, and in a number of other places around the internet. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now, per Night Gyr and Hyperbole. The subject is rather notable, and a redirect to Something Awful would be rather confusing. -- Grandpafootsoldier 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Night Gyr DelPlaya 06:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the book illuminates the technical responses of industrialized nations during an existential conflict. Eustace 14:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BK is only a proposed guideline, and there are no reliable sources provided. The author's name is thus far a redirect back to the Something Awful article, which is not connected to the book.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not only a proposed guideline? Then why is there a proposed guideline tag on it? Something Awful is connected to the book because it's published under the name by an author most known for his work on the site and it's based on a series of columns he published for the site. It's similar to the books published by Maddox and Tucker Max (The Alphabet of Manliness and I hope they serve beer in hell respectively). One has an article, the other doesn't. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "is only a proposed guideline". At any rate I don't think the author's notability is established.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good article and perfectly notable subject, though being a book retailer perhaps gives me a skewed perspective. Ford MF 17:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Night Gyr Havocrazy 00:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Merge with Zack Parsons--Havermayer 05:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, author and subject are both notable Iridescenti 15:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad faith nomination. Jtrainor 02:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Bad faith? There still aren't any independent citations in the article. And as I said on the talk page, there needs to be more than (to paraphrase) "some guy who works for a famous website wrote it".--Drat (Talk) 08:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with turnstile and redirect. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 05:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turnstile jumping[edit]

Do we really need a seperate article on this? I don't see how it's notable. Mabye this can be merged with turnstile -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced stub describing a particularly non-notable mundane act. I dont think we need an article on this any more than we need an article on Doorknob turning. At best this could merit a mention under turnstile. -- wtfunkymonkey 05:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition, and a circular one at that: "what is turnstile jumping?" "well, it's jumping, over a turnstyle." I just don't see any encyclopedic noteworthiness or import here. Wintermut3 06:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with turnstile. There is an informative sentence as well as the dictdef. Anthony Appleyard 07:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with turnstile. The phenomenon certainly exists, and is worth mentioning in the turnstile article, but by itself it's mostly a dicdef. BryanG^(talk) 08:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Real phenomenon that deserves mention in the main article.--Kchase T 08:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. MER-C 08:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, and because of the prevalance of the activity in pop culture (e.g. action movies, spy thrillers, etc). Doesn't deserve a separate article, particularly in its present form, but a comment on the turnstile article seems well justified. -Markeer 13:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Danny Lilithborne 22:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Nothing else to be done.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Note that a number of articles currently have external links to this magazine's website, which may or may not require cleanup (not sure). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 06:56Z

Being There Magazine[edit]

Procedural nomination; was prodded twice. I concur with the last prod reason, "nn online magazine, alexa of 1,507,874". Per the talk page: Writing about famous celebrities is so common, thousands of other magazines, publications, and even students do it, but that makes none of them notable. Apparently, neither is this magazine, with a paucity of reliable sources: [15]. Kimchi.sg 05:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN magazine. TJ Spyke 06:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- WP:NOT#IINFO Tonytypoon 08:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:WEB. MER-C 08:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. —ShadowHalo 08:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep magazine is at least as notable, if not moreso, than other webzines with entries on Wikipedia. Multiple substantive interviews with noted figures cited. 10dutcher 04:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interviewing the famous doesn't transfer the fame of the interviewee to the interviewer. Hell, I once interviewed Douglas Adams, and that didn't make me or the college radio program I did it for worth an article or even mildly notable. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star wars figures[edit]

I am nominating this group of articles I have come across because Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information. Also, I am pretty certain that the gallery pages will be copyvios, because the figurines are the intellectual property of the company that owns the rights to them, and any pictures of them are derivative works. I am also nominating

Go To Figure Gallery
Battle Pack Gallery
Delete J Milburn 06:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Violates WP:NOT. TJ Spyke 06:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article about the various Star Wars figures and other toys is a good thing. This attempt is not that. FrozenPurpleCube 06:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under CSD:A1, articles have been tagged. -- wtfunkymonkey 07:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Wars Expanded Universe. --Metropolitan90 07:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - galleries of images with unknown copyright status. MER-C 08:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per FrozenPurpleCube. I don't necessarily think that having a group of articles about individual figures as well as an overarching article on the figures as a whole is any more useless than the plethora of Pokemon or Gundam articles on Wikipedia, but this isn't even a good start.--Isotope23 17:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love Is Pain[edit]

Unsourced Crystal Ballism Charlie 06:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 06:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the article is unsourced but the album does appear to be real (see the citation I just added). P4k 07:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. No sense in future predicting Tonytypoon 08:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Ja Rule. The source provided doesn't seem to provide much information about the album itself, so it seems best just to mention it on the artist's page. —ShadowHalo 08:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CRYSTAL, until some solid information is provided beyond a working title. Citicat 22:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolaus Schafhausen[edit]

Notability, deprodded - crz crztalk 06:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google search for "Nicolaus Schafhausen" -wikipedia found 18400 entries, many in German. It needs to be put in a category. Anthony Appleyard 07:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - appears to be a notable author, lecturer, and curator, but most Google hits are from non-English sources and difficult to verify. Published books are in German [16]. More sources from English-language publications would push support to keep - Justin (Authalic) 08:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His position as curator of the German exhibit at the 2007 Bienalle, and the (unverified) postition at the Frankfurter Kunstverein make him notable enough, IMO. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but should have serious re-write as it's a bit too close to this. Agent 86 01:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 07:02Z

Bill thundercliff[edit]

Hoax. Zero googles, and I can find no evidence that the referenced books exist. The cameos with Lenin and in The Jazz Singer don't help, either. —Cryptic 06:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Duplicated at Bill Thundercliff. --Calton | Talk 16:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Heimstern Läufer 06:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 08:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of his bookrefs is "Diaries of a Child at Sea, ISBN 0 571 08989 5": this ISBN number is actually Old English Houses, Author: Hugh Braun, Publisher: Faber and Faber, Publication Date 1969-04, ASIN / ISBN: 0571089895, Taschenbuch, 168 Pages. HOAX. Anthony Appleyard 10:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His death was as dramatic as the rest of his life, he was struck by lightning whilst sailing off Cancun He may be notable as the first tourist in Cancun, Cancun wasn't developed for tourism until the mid 70's. ;-) In 1950 Cancun was home to three caretakers of a coconut plantation, probably even less was there in 1932. Tubezone 13:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxy nonsense, the sooner the better. Also, clean-up the insertions of this nonsense into other articles. --Calton | Talk 16:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 22:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely a hoax (and a pretty silly one, to boot—it reads like Uncyclopedia material). --Makaristos 01:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. People have provided convincing arguments to keep this article. Andrew Levine 22:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs containing covert references to real musicians[edit]

So how exactly do we decide what a "covert reference" to another performer is? Some on the list are pretty clear-cut ("I'll clone myself like that blonde chick who sings "Bette Davis Eyes'"), while some are very dubious ("it stoned me just like jelly roll" is Jelly Roll Morton?) and most are just guesswork and speculation ("American Pie", anyone?) Andrew Levine 07:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as unsourced, and thus appearing to be original research. (change to keep for now, see below.)Charlie 07:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per verifiability issues & original research --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also indiscriminate and arbitary. MER-C 08:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research as they surely cease being covert references once the song writer or performer confirms the covert reference does exist. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - confusing article name Tonytypoon 13:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly unverifiable Tarinth 14:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting, and I agree with most of the entries, but unverified and likely original research unless citations can be provided. Not to mention that this has a pretty arbitrary scope.-- danntm ^T _C 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Danny Lilithborne 22:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like this will be a very sad week for me. I always said that if Wikipedia became so tight-assed as to delete this article, then it was time for me to leave. Looks like that day has arrived. Sad. It's been a great three years. - Jmabel | Talk 07:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I suppose I might as well vote: Keep. - Jmabel | Talk 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Rather than deletion, I'd suggest that this article and List of songs containing overt references to real musicians be merged into a single article with a less-strange name, perhaps List of songs containing references to musicians (with the lede text noting that only real musicians other than the artist of the song are considered in the list's scope). Songs which overtly name the person or group in question shouldn't be a problem, anything currently on the "covert" list will need a citation from a source (the actual artist, someone involved with production, or a biography, most likely) indicating that the "covert reference" is not actually overt OR. Serpent's Choice 08:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP: This is a very interesting piece that surely has a place on Wikipedia. This list illustrates the greatness of a collaborative project: it has been a part of this encyclopedia for three years and has been continually edited by dozens of editors who have put in a great deal of work. Until tonight I have not been one of them because I wasn't aware of it, so I am not speaking on my own behalf, but on behalf of other hard-working contributors. Put one of your stickers on top, if you must, suggesting that references be added, and let the editors of the page consider if and how they wish to do so - in most cases it's a matter of reading the lyrics. But it should not be summarily trashed just because the policy du jour is remove, remove, remove, and a very small group of editors - far fewer than those who have diligently worked on this page for three years - have come to this page to vote it out as if this were an episode of "Survivor". Have some respect for the hard work of others and don't be so rigid. Does anyone remember "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them"? (WP:IAR for those who like acronyms.) User:Serpent's Choice's suggestion is also worth considering. Slow down, and think, don't just delete. Tvoz | talk 08:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: although trivia, this list can be useful, and for that reason augments Wikipedia's aim of forming as comprehensive and in-depth encyclopedia as possible. Additionally, the majority of songs listed provide references for their listing through excerpts of lyrics. In this way, I fail to see how this is original research. This article has been around for a real time. Please enlighten me: how exactly will deleting it further Wikipedia's aims? Ronline ✉ 09:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem with saying that the songs themselves provide references, is that is only true when the exact name of a person is used in the song. But, and especially because the article is covert references, anything beyond that would be an inference, or a hypothesis if you will. It might be a hypothesis that any informed music-lover might make, but unless it has been made, and by a credible, referenced source, it must be considered original research. It is tough to prove a negative, but if this is indeed not original research, I'm sure someone will come up with sources, and I'll change my opinion. Charlie 10:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Respond. I think that properly sourcing this list will require a couple of weeks. (This is why I have proposed that verifiability-related AfD's be given 14 days, rather than five). Would you be open to "Keep and renominate in 30 days if not substantially sourced by then?" Robert A.West (Talk) 07:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ronline. Dahn 09:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This AfD is an example of what's wrong with both Wikipedia in general and specifically the AfD process. Please use some common sense before nominating a good article for deletion. I cannot imagine a more bad faith nomination than this one -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 11:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Nomination makes no sense to me. --Zero^talk 11:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sensing an overall failure of WP:AGF with the Keep voters. Can you show us a reason why this isn't a randomly thrown-together assortment of trivia? Danny Lilithborne 12:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seeing as your part of this debate was "per above"; how can you in good conscience ask for any elaboration on the part of 'keep' voters? -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment So because I agree with what people before me have said, that makes me mindless? More failure. I simply agreed with the previous voters and had nothing more to add. Danny Lilithborne 20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I did not call you "mindless"; I simply asked you to live up to the same standard you ask for from others. From here: It is important to keep in mind that every listing of an article for deletion is not a vote, but rather a discussion. That means that if several people already have showed support for the nominator, adding nothing but a statement in support of the nominator will not contribute significantly to the conclusion that is made by the administrator closing the discussing. Showing support for the nomination certainly can be a good thing, but it is good to try to explain why this support is justified. Even better is to try to formulate the arguments for deletion in your own words, even if those arguments are very similar to those presented by the nominator. If that is too much work or too difficult, it might be better to refrain from making a statement at all. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 20:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Jmabel. Modernist 14:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for what it's worth - Jmabel referenced my edit She Belongs to Me when I supplied the source, the references are in place and future edits can be sourced. Modernist 15:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Ronline. Palmiro | Talk 14:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge (merge with List of songs containing overt references to real musicians per suggestion of Serpent's Choice above) but trim off line items that do not include the lyric that contains the reference; inclusion of the lyric constitutes de facto citation. There are cases where artists have said in interviews that they meant a particular part of their song as a reference to another person, event, or musician - a tribute - and in a quick scan I don't see any references to such interviews (wait, there is one reference included); inclusion of such would strengthen the list. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC) (changed from Keep to Merge, but my suggestion as to trimming and citing stands: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom. Entirely unencyclopedic, and inherently subjective - where's the line between "overt" and "covert" to be drawn? Reading the list, most of the entries seem to be "songs that contain lines from other, more famous, songs"; by this argument, every song that contains the words "I love you" is a "covert reference" to The Beatles. A trivial article that has no place here. Tevildo 15:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no real reason for deleting.--MariusM 19:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clean up and reference. I am certain that a goodly number of the entries are verifiable (and some are discussed at length in the individual articles, which IMO is good enough for a list like this). I see no reason not to take some time and source them. I'll help. Personally, I think this would make a better category than a list, but that effort is easier if the list exists. It can be renominated if/when the category is created. As to encyclopedic nature, songs with alleged cryptic references to real persons are an ancient and interesting phenomenon. Consider Sing a song of sixpence and Little Jack Horner. Tag and cleanup, rather than delete. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, harmless. -- Samuel Wantman 20:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and viciously source. Yes, it has problems, no it's not a bad list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Keep" voters; I hold you to the same standard to which I hold Danny Lilithborne above. If you are just voting, or regurgitating the exact thoughts of others, you aren't helping to keep this article. Thank you. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 20:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cruft, cruft, cruft. Unmaintainable cruft to boot. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how on earth do you maintain that this is cruft, any more than any other general music-related article? Palmiro | Talk 01:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I like Serpent's Choices suggestion. If it is kept in any form, it needs to be sourced.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep first, because if we lose this, we lose Jmabel, and second, because, although this list does need vigilant maintenance, verification, and pruning, the basic concept is a wholesome one, a fun one, and surely a harmless one. Biruitorul 23:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't mean this as a personal assault, but you opened a window I felt needed crawling through — what is being sought is an encyclopedic reason, not a wholesome or fun reason ... there is an encyclopedic reason afterall and that is establishment of notability. One artist referencing another artist in a work is a contributing factor to the notability of the artist being referenced and therefore contributes to the overall strength of the encyclopedia as a whole. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: point well taken. Indeed, the list is encyclopedic because the content is notable - or so I think. Biruitorul 23:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You've already basically lost me, at least as a significantly active participant, so that shouldn't be a factor. - Jmabel | Talk 02:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe not, but I just hope you reconsider, since your absence will be painful, and the project will suffer greatly without you. And it seems this article will survive. Biruitorul 02:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — J3ff 23:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry for causing loss of people's work. But this seems rather OR-ish to me. The word "covert" is a red flag. Sometimes with overt references, one can rely on the primary source. But covert, means that a straightforward reading of the lyrics doesn't prove its true, and it might even by denied, with an alternate explanation of what the song is referring to. No independent reliable sources have presented. If anybody wishes to save this, I recommend copying to user-space, finding sources, and making a new artricle, with citations on every item. Any place, other than article space, would be good. --Rob 04:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Assuming that the original research problems are tackled. ^Blank ^Verse 06:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Encyclopedias are more than, and have always been more than, repositories of obvious knowledge. Some of the best entries in the Encyclopedia Britannica are about little-known, covert aspects of culture. Admittedly, these may be harder to verify than obvious knowledge, and may run closer to personal viewpoints than some might feel comfortable with. But they are, in their own way, the reason that we have Encyclopedias in the first place. Keep this entry, and keep the small contribution it makes to the soul of Wikipedia.PaulLev 07:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per above and Jmabel. Asterion^talk 15:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per PaulLev. 71.167.194.125 18:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the overt/covert distinction is subjective and frankly a bit silly. >Radiant< 00:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tributes are core to popular music, in my openion it is excactly in this area that the project excels. Needs work, but work can be done. + Ceoil 01:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hope that it is not a surprise to anyone that musicians make inobvious allusions to earlier performers & their contemporaries. Deleting this article does not solve the problem that some editors will try to push their own theories & original research into this list; these tendentious editors will find other ways to accomplish their goals (will this also lead to a ban of any section header similar to "Trivia", "X in popular culture", "Cultural references in X", etc. that might appear in any article?). The proper way to fix this problem is on the Talk page for this article: state that a given claim needs references. If someone hasn't tried that solution before listing an article on AfD, it's hard to assume good faith when the article appears here first. -- llywrch 01:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've seen people throwing around the "it's hard to assume good faith" threat quite a bit in this discussion, and frankly I don't understand it. Why is it hard to assume good faith? From my point of view, the lack of references indicates that the list probably is original research, which is a good reason for AFD. It didn't take me long to arrive at that reasoning either, and that reasoning seems like a fine one if you need help in assuming good faith. Moreover, I haven't seen any of the keep voters really tackle the OR issue in their arguments, other than just claiming it is not OR, or claiming it is impossible to understand why anyone could think it is. I would really like to see that addressed, and not because I'm convinced the article definitely needs to go. I am sympathetic to Robert A.West's request that we consider how long it would take to properly source this, and vote keep for now, to give the authors time to source it. As such, and especially because this is not reaching consensus any time soon, I will change my recommendation to keep. Charlie 11:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - NOTE: I moved discussion about trivia to talk page Tvoz | talk 08:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There are now 15 explicit citations of sources. Moat of them have been added since the nomination, so I cannot criticize it; but it is out of date. Many of the uncited examples are references to songs by title or quotation instead of artist (whether these should be "covert" is another question). Do we need to trim this? Early and often. Delete it? No, not now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Jmabel frummer 21:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete; Toad the Wet Sprocket can add a sentence about where they got the name if the editors there want. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 07:05Z

Toad the Wet Sprocket (British band)[edit]

Neutral bump up from A7 speedy. There's an assertion to notability on the article that is elaborated on the talk page: that the band's participation in Metal for Muthas means they are notable. Procedural nomination. No opinion. Kchase T 07:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google search for "Toad the Wet Sprocket" -wikipedia found 586,000 entries, but how long will they remain so widely mentioned? Anthony Appleyard 07:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Many of those references are probably to a different, more famous band also called Toad the Wet Sprocket. This nomination is for the less famous band of that name. --Metropolitan90 07:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the British band with this name had two self-released singles and some appearances on compliation albums in the early 80s. Not notable under WP:BAND. - Justin (Authalic) 08:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 08:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete generic minor band Guy (Help!) 11:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the presence of other non-notable bands on WP is not a reason to keep this, see WP:ILIKEIT. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toad the Wet Sprocket - there are a couple claims in this article that, properly sourced, would be good to merge to the major band's article. I'm thinking maybe the "that's where they got their name from" (if indeed it was, right now the statement is unsourced) and a brief note that there was an earlier British band with the same name. Perel 11:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this fails WP:MUSIC. I'm not even sure a mention at Toad the Wet Sprocket is warrented...--Isotope23 18:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge These guys were on Metal For Muthas Vol. 1, which contained the highly notable NWOHBM bands on it, and we can always merge this with the article for the american TTWS band.--4.154.248.7 07:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND -- The Anome 01:29, 1 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 comments by apparent single purpose accounts were discounted. Recreation in a non-autobiographical form (as suggested by Bottesini) that also demonstrates notability is not ruled out by this. Sandstein 22:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cris Forster[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)).

~~More or less the same article as before when it was considered vanity / autobiography.~~ Rainwarrior 07:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as repost. So tagged. MER-C 08:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spammy article created by WP:SPA, but it's not a repost. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. For your edification: (1) http://www.aboutus.org/Chrysalis-Foundation.org, (2) http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.chrysalis-foundation.org, (3) http://www.oddmusic.com/chrysalis_foundation/index.html. The information contained in these three sites inspired me to write this article on Cris Forster. All the facts in my article may be verified by reviewing these sites. -Rees —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolf Rees (talk • contribs) 14:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC). — Wolf Rees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment is the chrysalis foundation notable, and if so not the founder? Alf photoman 17:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far as I can tell, the subject doesn't meet WP:BIO. If someone would care to explain how the subject meets the criteria though I'd be willing to reconsider.--Isotope23 18:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Cris Forster is known in the field of instrument building as possibly the finest and his work in theoretical just intonation theroy is indispensible to all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kraig grady (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC). — Kraig grady (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Appears to be a sockpuppet of Wolf Rees, creator of the article Citicat 22:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm edgy about the COI problem, but the oddmusic.com link makes him look notable to me. The Harry Partch connection helps, too. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, which requires that "the person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Just not enough quality sources here. -- Satori Son 22:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The microtonal music world is a small one, but Cris is well known there. Guidelines are guidelines, but they should scale according to the size of the discipline. -- jstarret 26:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC) — 70.58.4.27 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do Not Delete Forster's manuscript on Musical Mathematics is almost unique on the www, and that is rare. There is tuning information there I have not found anywhere else, internet or print. To delete the link would be to declare the study of tuning unimportant. Badmuthahubbard 04:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the manuscript actually available on the www? All I could find was a table of contents and an ongoing campaign to get it into print (which unfortunately makes all of this sudden linking to the Chrysalis Foundation suspiciously like self-promotion). How is an unpublished manuscript notable? - Rainwarrior 01:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Sorry but VANITY strikes a real sour note. Creating and article about yourself is not what wikipedia is about. Plus asking all your friends to vote is so pathetic that even if the article was well-written and notable, I am automatically opposed. MiracleMat 07:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I have followed Forster's work for 30 years and I feel strongly that his work deserves an entry in Wikipedia. There seems to be some bias against microtonality here -- last year the main entry on microtonal music was repeatedly challenged until the poster convinced the princpal critic (a physicist, as I recall), that the subject was appropriate. Microtonal music is a rapidly growing movement in contemporary music worldwide, and Forster is a leader in the field and has been for decades. His beautifully crafted instruments were featured in Xenharmonikon 7&8 back in 1979, btw. I have added an external link to the WIKI article on microtonal music to provide more context for Forster's page.John H. Chalmers 17:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC) — John H. Chalmers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment actually, the only bias I see here is against articles that are not verifiable by reliable sources; which is an absolute must for a wikipedia article. That is what is still missing here. If Forster is a leader in the field, where is any sourcing that indicates that? Like I said above I'd be willing to reconsider if some sort of reliable external sourcing were provided, but that has not happened as of yet.--Isotope23 20:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My nomination of this article a second time was because this is recreation of material that was deleted for being an autobiography. However, if Forster is demonstrably notable and we have several independent authors here willing to review and contribute to this article, I don't think this reason is any longer valid. If we can find some published sources about his notablity, then it should stay. - Rainwarrior 09:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he's notable, and the article can be edited and the external links cleaned up. - Mireut 14:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable artist in a tiny and somewhat out-there field, but one fairly central to students of modern music. Article needs sources, but that's not a good reason for deletion. Ford MF 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is a good reason for deletion. If something is not verifiable from reliable sources it shouldn't have an article and right now that is the case here.--Isotope23 06:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As in my comment above, I think there's enough interest here from other authors to make this a decent article. - Rainwarrior 22:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While I certainly appreciate Rainwarrior's willingness to assume good faith and be openminded, I am still of the opinion that this article should be deleted, despite the apparent withdrawal of nomination. -- Satori Son 01:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Well, anyone could have nominated it if I hadn't. I would hope that my change of opinion doesn't carry any more weight than any other comment here. - Rainwarrior 06:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite for vanity. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are articles about people from this concentration who contributed fewer instruments than Forster, with fewer potential sources than what's cited at this page, http://www.chrysalis-foundation.org/about_cris_forster.htm Mireut 14:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: maybe a delete and recreate or a blank and complete re-write to address WP:AUTO issues. -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 20:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like there might be quite a bit of sockpuppetry going on here. See the report filed here. Citicat 02:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 07:06Z

The Wave Board[edit]

No notability asserted. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable product per WP:CORP - Justin (Authalic) 08:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of meeting CORP.--Kchase T 22:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, unverifiable protologism. The information, if relevant, would belong at the Larry Sanger article anyway. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 07:18Z

Larry had the idea[edit]

This article describes a phrase which is purported to be a meme referring to people taking credit for other people's ideas. The phrase garners few Google hits, none of which clearly use it as a meme; rather, the Google hits refer to people named Larry having ideas. There are no Google Groups hits at all for the phrase. Normally I would have taken this to WP:PROD instead of WP:AFD, but the article is mostly about Larry Sanger ceasing to receive credit for having the idea of establishing Wikipedia. Consequently, the deletion of this article should take place under the open process so nobody accuses anyone of trying to cover up an article for portraying Jimmy Wales in a negative light. Regardless of anything else, though, the phrase "Larry had the idea" has no notability in itself, and this article should be deleted. --Metropolitan90 07:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, per nom. This just has no use for as encyclopedic content. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 08:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- WP:NOT#DICTIONARY - suggest to wikitionary Tonytypoon 08:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Self-referential. MER-C 08:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree 100% with nom. - Aagtbdfoua 16:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at the risk of being called one of Jimbo's minions, this page is little more than an attempt to get self-referential criticism in through the backdoor. Danny Lilithborne 22:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously self-referential and utterly non-notable outside of the WP community (which is itself, frankly, not all that notable). Might be acceptable within Wikipedia: space or User: space, but definitely not for main. Xtifr _tälk 02:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism, attack page, essay, non-notable, original research, and quite possibly things made up in school one day. Koweja 02:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOR, WP:ATK, WP:NOT, and WP:NOTE. Yuser31415 01:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - protologism, original research, attack page, self-referential... -- The Anome 01:32, 1 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, but once Victorian Institute of Sport is created this can be history undeleted and merged. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 07:47Z

VIS Soccer[edit]

I'm not sure what VIS is... from my research, it appears to be a training camp attended by soccer players from Victoria. Unfortunately, the article doesn't say much about it other than which notable players have passed through it. From what I can tell, it appears to be an amateur league of some sort, the only connection to notability being these players having participated in it. ~~Neutral~~ from me, since I'm no expert on this, but I brought it here because it is a suspected WP:COI, and the author (either directly or through an IP) repeatedly removes speedy deletion tags. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It appears that this is actually part of a larger organization, Victorian Institute of Sport. If there was an article on that, which would likely meet WP:ORG, I'd recommend merging and redirecting. However, since there is no article, and the soccer entity is merely a piece of the group as a whole and is non-notable as a standalone entity, per se, I am changing my recommendation to delete as indicated. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as corporate vanity. MER-C 12:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough for an article. Springnuts 12:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too small a subpart of an organisation to form an article on its own, though Victorian Institute of Sport would seem a viable article; if that gets created then I have no objections to a merge & redirect to that article. Qwghlm 12:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or potential merge to an article on the Victorian Institute of Sport, as per Qwghlm - fchd 14:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable organization. Seraphimblade 19:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 07:48Z

Fatah Harun[edit]

Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that subject meets WP:BIO for athletes. Only participation in sports appears to be at amateur level. Claim of actually having played on Oakleigh Cannons match squad is unsourceable. Possible speedy A7, but brought here for consensus due to repeated removal of tags. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page was started and much edited by User:VIS-soccer, who is under warning for vandalism. Anthony Appleyard 09:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 12:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --SonicChao ^talk 15:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was reset. The article has undergone a re-write that has introduced sources, and the question of if those sources are reliable or not has not, and in all likelyhood will not, get addressed in this discussion. A certain critical mass has been achieved where there are enough (now nullified) delete recomendation that it's going to be very hard to attract enough fresh meat to garner real consensus. Wait two weeks, argue about sources on the talk page, whatever, but there is not consensus to delete here.
brenneman 10:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewdar[edit]

Neologism and a dicdef. Google count is 4600 but besides Wikis and Urban dictionary (not a WP:RS), all the URLs I saw were from either blogs or hate sites. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Have heard this used a lot by Jewish friends, . Gaydar has an article. --SandyDancer 00:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable sources. Wp:IHAVEHEARDOFIT is not a valid argument. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced neologism and dictdef, if reliable sources cannot be provided within the next five days. (aeropagitica) 01:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, Zoe & aero. Deizio talk 02:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. MER-C 02:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 03:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently used neologism. 3 hits on Amazon books[17]. 4 on google books[18]. 8 hits on Factiva news database (including one in which Bryan Appleyard feels its okay to refer to this term in an interview article on Simon Schama) which includes a Washington Post editorial in which the word is used (with followup readers letters mentioning the term too)[19]. Not that the Washington Post editorial page is particularly reliable... Anyway, not enough here to merit an article Bwithh 03:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism, and many groups are using the suffix -dar as a joke, nothing makes this notable. Turning on my spamdar... SkierRMH 07:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and make a little section in Gaydar for it. Delete after that. Just H 17:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Oo7565 20:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is triggering by deletedar.-- danntm ^T _C 21:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I always use by Jewdar to find Kosher foods. --BigFishy 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Tarinth 17:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a repository for injokes and slang of minor importance. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 17:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, never heard of this in my life, it's clearly against WP:NEO. IZAK 13:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded the article and have provided a number of references. House of Scandal 09:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Wiktionary, once sourced. I've certainly heard it, and probably even used it, but I see no encyclopedic potential. - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to once again agree with Mer-C Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Davidpdx 12:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kchase T 08:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article now does more than define the term like Wiktionary would do. The current article puts the term in context as a meme in modern society. I think that the term has been used both by Jewish people and racists is of interest. Thanks for relisting it so people have a chance to view the revision. House of Scandal 09:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NEO. Why on earth was this relisted, BTW?--Nydas^(Talk) 09:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because all the !votes before HouseOfScandal's above were also before this expansion of the article.--Kchase T 10:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 07:48Z

Monkey Island 5[edit]

Unannounced game. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball Watchsmart 04:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Lucasarts. Anthony Appleyard 09:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal ball. BryanG^(talk) 19:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is crystal balling. Heimstern Läufer 19:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The extensive quotes from interviews are unencyclopedic and are copyvios, and there's no worthwhile info here that isn't aready in Monkey Island series#Future of the series. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like a dairy farmer per WP:CRYSTAL Danny Lilithborne 22:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the game was actually in production I'd say keep and rewrite, but at the moment, this is just a pipe dream. JN322 14:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Dismissed, as the article has been renamed to Strand Theater, Lakewood and edited by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), however I will delete the now-redirect Strand Theater/Temp. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 07:52Z

Strand Theater/Temp[edit]

Contested speedy. Temp page in mainspace. Not edited by author for 4 weeks Nuttah68 09:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and Delete Doesn't belong in mainspace, but give the author a copy. Shimeru 09:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, userfy on request per above. MER-C 12:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per above. Userfied articles are usually supposed to be moved to preserve attribution history, rather than copied over and deleted.--Kchase T 23:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The redirect should be deleted, though. That's what I was referring to. Shimeru 23:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, my misinterpretation then.--Kchase T 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. if this theatre has truly been added to the national register for historic places, how can it be considered non-notable? Theatre history is important. I'm leaning towards retaining... Shawn in Montreal 01:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a bad idea. The previous article was deleted as a copyvio. Thoughts?--Kchase T 01:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Strand Theatre, Lakewood. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC). I have moved it. While it did contain a lot of the same information from the official website, you have to remember that you can't copyright facts. The only phrase that bothered me was "playground for the rich" which I removed. I am glad the creator made a safety copy, or this would have been gone for a long time down the memory hole of deleted articles. The original article should have been edited, not deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Definitely a Keep, in my view. Notable. Its placement on the national register of historic places is the clincher, for meShawn in Montreal 18:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Khoi khoi 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism against Israel[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)).

Procedural nomination. Proded/deproded/reproded. Neutral. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 09:13Z

Note: Terrorism against Israel was apparently copy&paste moved from Violence against Israelis back in 2005. The previous AFD is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis. It was suggested to merge to Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 10:02Z

Delete I don't see the special significance of the article since the Palestinians suffer more it should be re-named for both sides the least, other wise delete is very appropriate. Nareklm 09:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Anthony Appleyard 10:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, one sided. atricles on israeli massacres of palestinians were deleted for the same reason. Also Terrorism is WP:WTA Abu ali 10:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - irreversably POV. MER-C 12:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If this fails (which it will once the word of this AfD starts to spread) I suggest we merge with the recently nominated lists of terrorist attacks against Israel. MartinDK 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename - Does anything stand out on this list? --Tom 14:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things, really. The obvious renaming issue, and the lack of Category:Terrorism in Israel. I guess the Israeli category is named something odd, too. --- RockMFR 20:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the deletion of the article about massacres committed against Palestinians by Israelis. --Nyp 19:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nyp--Burgas00 19:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per Tom. --- RockMFR 20:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nyp. If one went the other has to. Akihabara 22:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete pov fork of Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict merge any non-pov to there. should be pointed out we already have lists of individual attacks, therefore entirely superfluous. ⇒ bsnowball 08:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or re-merge to the violence article).--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sure, you could make a violence against Palestine article, but since that was apparently deleted, not delting this one would make it POV. --Wizardman 22:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork of Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, and cleanup. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oil pulling[edit]

Not too many sources, not noteable as far as I know. FirefoxMan 02:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this practice is being heavily promoted in India by Idhayam, an Indian oil manufacturer. Their official site[20] (the official site of a notable company counts as a verifiable primary source, right?) discusses the practice in depth. Also, for reference, there are a plethora of non-reliable sources for this, which is why I looked for — and then created — the Wikipedia article. —Trevyn 02:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the article stay. Oil pulling seems to be a reasonably common practice in alternative medecine circles, and there should be a neutral, reliable article about it. --AutumnKent 02:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article seems valid and, while it might not be the most widely utilized treatment, could be a term that pops up once in a while. Should be expanded if possible to include possible benefits or risks. Alternatively, if a proper place is found, this could be merged into a larger article. Thoughts? ~~ M e eples (talk)(email) 10:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would be fine with me, if someone knows where to put it. The problem with this topic, which I readily admit, is that there are very few reliable sources, one of which was just deleted as "spam", sigh. —Trevyn 11:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, much to my surprise, I found four (!) references in PubMed that are surprisingly relevant. I now feel comfortable voting keep on my own article. ;) —Trevyn 13:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Sounds like a ludicrous 'treatment', but certainly exists. Several Indian books on the subject in print. (e.g. http://www.tirumala.org/activities_publi_others_telugu.htm) Annamonckton 18:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this is real. --- RockMFR 20:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable crackpot medicine voodoo. Ford MF 18:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 07:55Z

Temple Towers Residence Hall[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable university residence Nuttah68 09:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check if its contents are copied from a web site or paper publication by the university that it belongs to. Anthony Appleyard 10:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done so. Seems to be original content. MER-C 12:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unremarkable college dorm. MER-C 12:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Akihabara 13:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable. Jonathunder 17:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there has to be something notable about a specific building to justify having an article about it and that simply is not the case here.--Isotope23 18:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dormcruft. I see no notability, as a historical building, unit of the college, or otherwise. See WP:DUMB, item #12. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete College dorm buildings are presumed to be non-notable unless something special about the building justifies the article. Such is not the case here.-- danntm ^T _C 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 07:56Z

Gamesxposed[edit]

Non-notable gaming website, defunct for a year. Prod removed by author, who may be the website's creator Steve _(Slf67)^talk 09:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not entirely clear to me whether this site was notable even when it was active. Now that it has been offline for over a year, I'd say it's pretty obsolete. ~~ M e eples (talk)(email) 10:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. Fails WP:WEB. MER-C 12:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 22:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete for failing WP:WEB. — brighterorange (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --MegaBurn 07:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Pilotguy (repost). --- RockMFR 20:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raketu (2nd nomination)[edit]

Still fails WP:SOFTWARE. The result of the previous nomination was "delete". Edcolins 09:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Edcolins said it all.Gravity^Talk 10:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, tagged as ((db-repost)) to determine such status. MER-C 12:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete re-post of deleted contents. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete Tonywalton | Talk 18:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity High School (North Carolina)[edit]

It should not be in the encyclopedia at all. Gravity^Talk 10:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a child's attempt at writing a school prospectus. Google search is swamped by many Trinity High Schools in the USA. Anthony Appleyard 10:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed; see Trinity High School for a list. -- Visviva 11:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Trinity, North Carolina. Contains no mergeable content. -- Visviva 11:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 12:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic, original reseach, apart from being an advertisement. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tagged as an attack page, since it exists solely to disparage its subject. --Wafulz 15:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge per nom. TSO1D 16:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment following Wafulz tagging the article as ((db-attack)) and warning the author about attack articles, the author has blanked all the text except headings and tags from the article, leaving only a couple of images and "TO BE CONTINUED". As such I'm speedying it as WP:CSD#A1 - "very short articles providing little or no context". Tonywalton | Talk 18:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 07:56Z

UK airport parking[edit]

Appears to be an essay about parking at British airports. Unsourced, unverifiable and, as an essay, violates the policy that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously unacceptable in its current state, but I think reliable sources could be found for most of the key assertions. Anyone want to rewrite? —Trevyn 10:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay and OR unless seriously revised - and also because there is no such place as "Uk". Grutness...wha? 10:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The actual article that needs deleted is UK airport parking; Uk airport parking is a redirect. —Trevyn 10:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article was moved after I created the nomination. Should we keep it here or update it to reflect the change in name? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, to heck with it, did it anyway. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this original research. I am not sure that one could write an encyclopaedic article on this, since it varies dramatically between the various airports. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and suggest WP:REDIRECT. Tonytypoon 12:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced original research essay. MER-C 12:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, essay, nomination says it all. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:V and WP:OR - each airport has their own parking (it's not a national authority) so information about parking should be under the page for the individual airport, if at all. Orderinchaos78 04:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. MER-C 12:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.J. Simpson murder case[edit]

Original Research. Tux Linux Fax 10:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as bad faith nomination. Original research? You must be kidding, right? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 10:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cleanup. Definitely in dire need of having sources cited, but the reference section appears moderately reputable. ~~ M e eples (talk)(email) 10:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see above - Skysmith 10:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KeepThis looks like VANDALISM from a new signup --Kevin Murray 12:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep --Tone 10:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Unite[edit]

Delete.A single purpose account editor named Virgin United made this page just yesterday, after the organization started sponsoring Wikimedia Foundation's fundraising drive. The should not exempt it from Wikipedia's advertising rule as well as the self-reference rule. Lovelac7 10:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination. Sorry I brought it up. I was just being bold. Lovelac7 10:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Virgin Group--Tux Linux Fax 10:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. article is created by the arbcom. The Uber Ninja 10:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Created by the arbcom'? Not. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article has been edited and built up by several other users, it is in bad faith and poor manners to call for this afd-all year long we do this for free, do not support biting hands that feed you. Chris 10:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if this is a bad-faith nomination. I'm glad this group is helping us, but they should abide by the same rules as everyone else. Lovelac7 10:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad faith nomination as it cites specific rules for articles. Also, articles are not exempt from deletion simply because they are about the "hands that feed you". If that is your only argument, it is not a valid one. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-12-28 16:22Z

Speedy Keep Unless the author just found the page in a bad state and decided it was impossible to fix on the spot (as there does not seem to be any discussion prior to the statement of a clear need for deletion by the nominator) then they should stop screwing with the afd process. This page is not in violation of the advertising "rule" as it contains quotations which justify its statements. An article would have to be unverifiable and unfairly unneutral to fail that criteria, something which this is not. Also, avoiding self-references does not stop pages about Wikipedia existing. That is not a deletion issue again. Again, please stop mucking about with the process...Discuss in a rational manner first before taking the issue to here and the whole encyclopedia may be able to improve in an economically sound way. Ansell 10:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Virgin Group. What I see at the moment is a (mostly) encyclopaedic article, but one that isn't really enough to stand alone. It would make a muh better section in the Virgin Group article, which is at present basically an introductory paragraph and then a list of Virgin brands (which would probably work better as a separate list article). Thryduulf 10:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jumping to conclusions about original posters should not form part of an AfD discussion. Promotional content should not appear in articles, but this one has been edited intensively by experienced Wikipedians, and doesn't appear particularly problematic. Charles Matthews 10:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - wtf - David Gerard 10:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, do not merge. A distinct -- and newsworthy (and I'm not talking about the donation matching) -- arm of the Virgin Group, part of Branson's latest interests (see the Forbes story linked in the article. --Calton | Talk 11:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Errr.... what exactly is the reason for supporting deletion of this article? As of now it seems pretty much encyclopaedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.247.206.170 (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable anime movies listed by year[edit]

Another list article that replicates categories. Similar to afds for List of anime, List of animes, and Chronological list of anime. A list of anime films and OVAs which is incomplete and redundant. This article adds nothing more to what these categories: Category:Anime films, Category:Anime OVAs and Category:Anime by date of first release already do. The title also suggests notability which I do not see referenced at all in the article. All information that is contained in this article exists already in both the categories and in the articles themselves. I do not believe a third alternative way of listing the same information is required. Squilibob 10:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per. nom. ~~ M e eples (talk)(email) 10:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and similar AfDs from the past. -- Ned Scott 10:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. And what constitutes notable anyway? MER-C 12:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Gorxnvg 13:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 15:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per reasons stated by nominator--SUIT 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Tonytypoon 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons self-evident. Danny Lilithborne 22:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might want to get Notable anime TV series listed by year too. 69.120.246.213 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given by nominator. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a couple reason why deleting this list is not a good idea.

1.) It is already well maintained, if not by me, it is by a host of others.

2.) The page can have Japanese names attached, something no Category page can do. See Chinese animation listed by year for example.

3.) The reason why this list exist is because the original "list of animes" got too huge to maintain. Why are we going backwards?

4.) From animenewsnetwork if you extract the anime list to raw text, it comes out to a 4MB file. No one would ever go to wikipedia article that is 4MB of raw text.

5.) This page does not include Hentai. The same go for both movie and TV series page. Benjwong 04:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't include hentai? Now you've lost me. -- Ned Scott 04:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A joke a joke, but seriously, even if the vast majority of hentai is... well... crap as far as plot goes, to exclude it simply because it's hentai is pretty much censorship. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - reply.

1.) 49 edits to the page since 5 June. That is just over 8 edits a month. Well maintained?

2.) It can have Japanese names attached, but it doesn't. It also can have references attached but doesn't. How about we evaluate the article on what it does have?

3.) We're not going backwards by deleting redundant information. There are several categories that do the same job that this list does.

4.) I think I see your point on this one and wikipedia has several advantages over ANN, but remember the categories vs list argument as well.

5.) As per what Ned Scott said, wikipedia is not censored

--Squilibob 15:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- 9muses 16:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists are not redundant with categories. (But rename: "notable" is redundant.) AndyJones 19:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The goal was never to duplicate the "list of anime". The category pages already do that. Whether it is ranked by year or alphabetical, it doesn't matter. What matters is that this list highlights a few animes out of the thousands for convenience. So the bottomline question is..... why is that bad? Benjwong 23:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. To User:Benjwong: there are inherent POV issues in "highlighting" certain movies unless there are set criteria for inclusion. Why are they being highlighted? Is it a subjective judgment about their quality? WP:N is one thing, but the criteria used here seem to be inherently subjective. Dekimasu 08:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitrary list with no objective and verifiable criteria of what defines "notable anime". --TheFarix (Talk) 18:11, 1 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 subject/author request. El_C 13:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hart[edit]

Unremarkable subject/person...lack of notability...does not rise to the level of notoriety necessary for inclusion...classic vanity page (forgive me for using the term, but it's true) which in previous incarnations has included contributions from the subject such as labeling himself a 'great man' and pretending to be a third-party "attesting" to the subject's community involvement and charitable activities [21]...Mr. Hart then attempted to cover his tracks by blanking the talk page entry, including a subsequent response from a user raising WP:COI objections to the article. PassionoftheDamon 10:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC):[reply]

Delete per. nom. Not a prominent figure. Also, his website hails his entry into Wikipedia, which makes this seem like a vanity page of sorts. ~~ M e eples (talk)(email) 10:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We will add the additional reasons and proof of the notoriety. Every step that I have been insructed to do to keep this article on WIlk has been done. Why do I keep recieving deletion threats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davehart (talk • contribs)
With all do respect, as I mentioned, why do you consider Dave Hart to hace a lack of notability? Mr. Hart is known throughout the United States and has been an imporatant figure in many areas. In, since the main page was created, we have strived to follow every request to add references, etc. Also, just FYI the WILI link from the Dave Hart website has been removed since this seemed to be a problem. WHat in the world do we have to do to keep this page other than all of the changes and additions that we have already made. It seems to me that no page is safe and perhaps it may pass with 15 editors but then when one finds it to be non imporatant it gets deleted. Is this how Wikipedia works? Should I just gove up here or what?? I truly feel that this is a proper contribution to Wikipedia and just because you haven't heard of Dave Hart doesn't mean that thousands or millions of others haven't. (Steve, on behalf of Dave Hart) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davehart (talk • contribs)
- WP:BIO gives the requirements for notability. If Dave Hart is so well known, then you'll have no trouble finding plenty of supporting evidence from reliable sources (major newspapers, magazines, commentators, for example) which will allow others to verify all the information in the article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the references provided most of the "supporting evidence" is in print or on video. Shall I upload this information? Please help me here as I want to convey this. Example, Mr Hart has recently been inducted into the United STates Library of Congress' Who's Who In Executives and Professionals. Mr. Harts office has the documents but how can we get them to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davehart (talk • contribs) 6:25, 28 December 2006
  - Over 100,000 people are listed in the Who's Who of which you speak [22]. It hardly supplies the level of notoriety necessary for inclusion. WP:COI expressly states with respect to Who's Who directories:
    "These registries' criteria for listing are, as a rule, over-inclusive and may be nonexistent; some are vanity publishers and offer listing for a fee. The inclusion of a name in such a publication is therefore not sufficient to guarantee notability."

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a professional listing or a yellow pages. Might I also remind you, Mr. Hart, that you are violating WP:COI by editing your page and participating in this deletion discussion? Also, please remember to sign your comments. -PassionoftheDamon 11:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who's Who accepts payment for an individual to be listed, thus compromising its independence as a listing of influential people (contrary to popular perception). Tarinth 13:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - You haven't cited any evidence at all. You've listed the names of newspapers. A proper citation of a reference gives the date and the name of the newspaper article. Someone has to be able to check the citation - with these non-citations someone would have to read the entire archive of the newspaper. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not the US LoC's Who's Who. It's registered in the LoC; i.e. someone paid the thirty bucks to register it for a copyright. I'd be surprised if anyone but the people in it cared about it.--Prosfilaes 12:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Do what you must. We will contact you when we get the supporting evidence that you require. Thank you all.--davehart 12:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COI. Dave Hart created the article himself, and FYI, he already has his own User page, which basically says the same things. JRHorse 14:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity article. Annamonckton 18:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no evidence of notability, no attempt to provide reliable sources, and all the hallmarks of an article written by or on behalf of its subject for promotional reasons. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are many, many accomplished persons who are not, by Wikipedia standards, notable. We can't include them all. Wikipedia is not a resume-posting service. --Dhartung | Talk 19:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It - Stop wasting time talking about it. Just delete the damn thing. Just for the record, I am Dave Hart's web master, I am not Dave Hart. You folks keep saying that this is a conflict of interest because "Dave Hart is editing his own page!" I know the WIKI rules and if I was trying to be sneeky, why the hell would I have created the username of Dave Hart and not my own? When I sat the account up, I assumed that the username had to be the title name as well. WOW, you spent so much time anylizing this!! I set this page up (not as a marketing tool) but as many people consider Mr. Hart to be "imporatant." I am sorry that you don't, but you do have the power to delete the biography so DO IT!! Also, since all of you think you have figured it out see these notes: Passion of the... wrote "subject such as labeling himself a 'great man' and pretending to be a third-party "attesting" to the subject's community involvement and charitable activities ...Mr. Hart then attempted to cover his tracks by blanking the talk page entry, including a subsequent response from a user raising WP:COI objections to the article." MY Response, Dave Hart is a great man and does many charitable activities. It amazes me how much you spent going through the history on this stuff thinking you are diugging up "dirt" on someone. And then I, Steven Reed NOT Dave Hart did not try to "blank the talk page entry" to cover anything up. I made the necessary changes then I thought that I was able to delete the notes stating the errors since they had been fixed. There you go, now stop wasting time and just delete the Dave Hart page. People try to contribute to this site and you shoot them down. It's not like I stuck a site up of a local gas station of something..(here is my signed username : DAVE HART)

Although since just thoroughly reading the details on COI I agree, I think that some of you have forgotten about your own WIKI rule:

"During debates in articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from future considerate contributions. Avoid using the word "vanity" in a deletion discussion — such an accusation may be defamatory. Please assume good faith, and don't bite the newcomers."

May I say that this is exactly what has happened here. After recieving constructive criticism from WIKI user such as Elonka, we made the effort to do everything to make the user page acceptable. Then, suddenly this morning all of the derogatory accusations began flying. Of coarse I take it personnal when those who are avid WIKI's appear to be dirt digging and trying to make it as if I have tried doing things towards the wrong. Issues such as deleting an item from an editor was done because I did not know any different. As it was mentioned, I thought that once the issue was addressed, the editors note be deleted. My Bad!! But please don't try to make like I am trying to cover something up. I will speak with Jimmy about this next week. JR Horse used the term Vanity several times. Also, this is not conflict of interest, the actual Dave Hart has only seen the WIKI page of himself a couple of times and I did not recieve any compansation to create it. I am paid to manage his corporate website only. Thanks, Steve R on behalf of User talk:Dave Hart 16:09, 28 December 2006

Delete, insufficient WP:RS indicating subject is notable per WP:BIO. Aside to creator of article: WP:COI does not necessarily mean a subject is writing about oneself; see the section on that guideline page for "close relationships". As his webmaster (per your own admission), an article by you on him seems to fall under the purview of that. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, WP:COI is not limited to subjects writing about themselves, but also to people who are close to the subject. It's not an attack on you or Mr. Hart to nominate the article for deletion. It's simply a process of limiting articles only to ones that meet Wikipedia's notability standards. 206.213.209.31 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand completly. That was very well put and I agree that it should be deleted. I should have read the rules better before creating the article. I am sorry for the trouble. Steve R on behalf of User talk:Dave Hart 16:24, 28 December 2006
Steve, just shpw the facts. I have heard of Dave Hart and I live in Canada. All they need are references of proof. I have seen him on television, so I am sure that you have some direct links to print ads or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davehart (talk • contribs) Dec 28
Super-Strong Delete. For VANITY-yes VANITY and self-promotion Dave, Steve or whoever you want to call yourself. Articles such as this make me want to vomit. You are not special. You are somebody when you meet the wikipedia requirements AND somebody else writes an article about you (or makes less than the 100 edits you spent countless nights tediously making. MiracleMat 07:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as delete per request of User:Davehart at this edit on his talk page (and above comment "Delete It"). --Dhartung | Talk 08:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:MiracleMat has it ALL figured out! you are a smart person and must have a college education. I'll hold the bag while you vomit!! VANITY-yes VANITY VANITY-yes VANITY "You are not special"... I need to go and cry now because you have hurt my feelings. Damn, I may have created a page about someone that I know, but you are the one preaching WIKI bla bla rules and your breaking your own. My last entry was very polite and now your just being an a*s hole!!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Pilotguy (copyvio). --- RockMFR 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Gay Mens Health Project[edit]

Non-notable advice and help organisation, doing nothing that thousands of others worldwide aren't doing. Reads as a directory, which is not surprising since it is word for word from the organisation's website [23] with the substition of 'they' for 'we' - copyvio? Emeraude 10:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio. So tagged. MER-C 12:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete the text was copied directly from there. TSO1D 16:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noting completed deletion. This appears to be a local instance of the Gay Men's Health Project, which doesn't have an article itself, and is definitely notable. --Dhartung | Talk 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 07:58Z

Anekee van der Velden[edit]

Unsourced, no evidence offered of meeting WP:PORNBIO. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; does not assert notability by providing reliable sources --Nearly Headless Nick 11:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 12:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made an effort to find evidence of notability. Found none. Barring convincing evidence from another editor, Delete. Dekkappai 21:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe I was the creator of the article. That said, I'm inclined to believe Anekee's notability is far smaller than the size of her breasts. For the record, Abstain. (Her whole schtick is pretty weird to begin with though.) Haikupoet 07:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, as she still doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milena Velba[edit]

Unsourced article, no evidence of meeting WP:PORNBIO, much of this looks like WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PORNBIO, has an IMDB profile, however that would be an invalid criterion. --Nearly Headless Nick 11:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 12:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very not notable stroke-piece. Beaker342 08:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has external links, very notable model. The article needs a copy edit, but it's no reason to just delete the whole thing. Anthony Hit me up... 16:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a Czech tabloid [24] stated that she has probably the biggest known natural breasts in the world. A docent of social sciences from the University of Hradec Králové mentioned the same at a 2006 congress about sexual education [25] in Pardubice: [26]. He [27] is also an author of a book about sexuality throughout the history [28]. Otherwise the model looks practically unknown, at least in the Czech Republic. Pavel Vozenilek 03:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment appearance in a racy Czech tabloid is not itself notability, nor is a mention at a minor academic conference. Can I ask specifically what that academic says about her and on what grounds he bases those claims? I ask because I doubt many people here speak Czech.--Beaker342 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable within genre, article doesn't appear to be WP:OR. as source is listed Charlam 00 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of women endowed with huge breasts ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, but considering Nadine Jansen, Ines Cudna, Ewa Sonnet and the like all have articles in here, Milena is no less notable than any of them. Anthony Hit me up... 01:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 07:59Z

Judoon[edit]

This article is not compatible: WP:CRYSTAL. It must be deleted, (at least until we get some info from reliable sources. MER-C 12:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Completing unfinished nomination by User:Xdt. I can only assume that the reason was crystal-balling, though it's a weak one and - given the comments in the article - any info will be confirmed or otherwise within a few months. No vote. Grutness...wha? 11:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It will become notable if/when the Judoon appear in any episode which is broadcast. Anthony Appleyard 14:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also even if they do appear, they will probably only be one-off and they do not need their own article. The most they should get is to be listed on the Dr Who Monsters/Aliens list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xdt (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Merge with List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens. We know they will appear, from the trailer, and nothing is crystal balled, just not sourced properly (it is stated who said what, but not linked as such) and needs to be cleaned up to meet wikipedia standards. JQF • Talk • Contribs 20:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens. They are likely going to be important, since they were shown quite a bit in the trailer, so they shouldn't be deleted totally.--The last sheikah 21:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JQF and The last sheikah; mark as spoiler. mholland 00:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to monsters/aliens list. They don't need their own article but deserve an entry on the list of aliens page but not yet, not until transmission of Smith and Jones at least. Xdt (talk · contribs)
Merge into small section on M&A page (we know they exist, and what they look like); as more information comes from official sources on their details and how often they will appear, the entry there can expand and, if necessary, a full article made. Radagast 04:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:00Z

Balloon fetishism[edit]

I really cannot do much better here than to quote the final paragraph: "For people who desire treatment for the balloon fetish, is suggested Neuro Linguistic Programming. In fact, due to the very lack of information is observed by the Psychotherapy professionals the fetish is thought to be very obscure. Because of the perceived obscure nature of the fetish, fetishists keeping it secret, it is very common for Psychologists never to have heard about it." So there you have it. A fetish that most psychologists have never heard of, with (in confirmation) zero credible medical or psychological sources. The article is long, but reads as WP:OR and is heavily compromised by weasel words. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:OR and as it stands WP:V--Anthony.bradbury 12:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is original research, and judging by the lack of reliable sources, it does not seem appropriate to have an article on such a fetish at this time. The only ghits I can find on this are: [29],[30], and [31] but I am not certain these would constitute reliable sources. It seems, for now, to be a relatively obscure thing, with no credible sources that prove this exists. It's not a hoax, judging by the amount of ghits it gets - [32], but it doesn't seem encyclopedic either, perhaps in part, due to lack of official medical/psychological sources. --SunStar Net^talk 12:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 12:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Hello32020 13:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Unsourced fetishcruftbollocks. MartinDK 13:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SunStar Net. Danny Lilithborne 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 00:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:00Z

Fart fetishism[edit]

Another unsourced paraphilia. The closest it comes to a reliable source is citing Joyce, who the article speculates may have had the fetish. For fetishes we should require at the very least some citations from reliable sexual health and medical sources. Gassyerotica.com probably does not quite qualify there... Previously kept by what looks like a vote count back in 2005. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - WP:V and WP:RS are not negotiable. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:V SkierRMH 11:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:V and is probably original research. --Nearly Headless Nick 11:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V I know that there is no censorship on Wikipedia. I suppose this is a good idea.....--Anthony.bradbury 12:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 12:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Unsourced fetishcruftbollocks. MartinDK 13:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trivial stuff should not need verification. --Easyas12c 16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial stuff especially needs verification. Shimeru 20:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:V (needed, because it's policy). No WP:RS indicating this is a fetish noted outside of the generalization that "well, everything can be a fetish". --Kinu ^t/_c 21:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. And, um, ew. Danny Lilithborne 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified, thus failing a crucial content policy.-- danntm ^T _C 22:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 00:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:02Z

James Kerley[edit]

Completely un-notable under WP:NOTABILITY and, more specifically, WP:BIO. This is further proven by Kerley's "achievements", all of which are red-linked showing his achievements are so un-notable they have either not been created or have been deleted under WP:NOTABILITY. Anthonycfc (talk • email • tools) 12:08, Thursday December 28 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless evidence is provided that the guy meets WP:BIO. MER-C 12:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO as host of a popular kid's show, with multiple media mentions and two award nominations (Australia Kid's Choice and ASTRA, he won an ASTRA). Article needs to be cleaned up, referenced and expanded, though. Tubezone 12:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of those non-North-American subjects perfectly notable in their own context but kind of a cipher to the rest of the world. Ford MF 18:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable in Australia. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:06Z

Pontiac GR-Series[edit]

No ghits for this vehicle: appears to be probable hoax. I can't find anything on any car magazine websites about this, and no sources have been cited. This article also appears to be either crystal balling or wishful thinking. Delete this unless sources can be cited, and reliable ones, at that. SunStar Net^talk 12:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This page mentions a Pontiac GR-6 being at a 2006 auto show, but I can't find anything else so I'm thinking they probably meant Pontiac G6. If it's not a hoax, hopefully the author can provide some sources. Recury 19:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely bogus as seen on the page nominated for deletion.
Delete per nom American Patriot 1776 01:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And guess what, the image is an image of a Chevrolet Optra aka Daewoo Lacetti. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:05Z

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

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

The result was delete all. Remember that AFD is not a vote, but rather an arguement at the basic level. The delete side argues why it should go, and the keep side gives reasons for it to stay. In this case, wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a sports reporting center, nor a complete collection of all of history so we can look at wikipedia in the future for everything that has happened in the past. I like it and "we've worked really hard" are also not reasons for keeping an article. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers[edit]

Excessive detail, well beyond the scope of Wikipedia; this is not a news archive or data dump. These pages are similar to the month by month results currently being considered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League results December 2006. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

FA Cup 2006-07 goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
UEFA Cup 2006-07 goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
UEFA Champions League 2006-07 goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dsreyn 13:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also add:

Serie A 2006-07 goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Danish Superliga 2006-07 goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Serie B 2006-07 goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Libyan Premier League 2006/2007 Goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eredivisie 2006/2007 goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eerste Divisie 2006/2007 goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scottish Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
La Liga 2006-07 goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Turkcell Super League 2006-07 goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Robdurbar 16:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FA Premier League 2006-07, FA Cup 2006-07, UEFA Cup 2006-07 and UEFA Champions League 2006-07 respectively. A short summary of the leading goalscorers may be appropriate, as is already done in FA Premier League 2006-07, but a list including every goal scored is overkill, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Oldelpaso 14:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Oldelpaso 14:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Far too high level of detail. Leave that to RSSSF. I don't even see the point for redirects. - fchd 14:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOT HornetMike 14:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm glad to see these are being delt with. See the talk on WP:NOT for my idea of specifying against alamanc material. --Robdurbar 16:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment further 9 articles added at this point Robdurbar 16:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UEFA Champions League 2006-07 goalscorers and UEFA Cup 2006-07 goalscorers. Delete the rest. Forbsey 17:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying goalscorers being included in this? Forbsey 17:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add it because I thought it was a slightly different issue. Worth commenting on, I think, but maybe in its own AfD if necessary. Robdurbar 17:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep Why make Wikipedia less informative just for the sake of it? I know this article is of great use to sport journalists (which I am) and is not 'freely' available elsewhere. There is all sorts of 'Almanac'-style information in many encyclopaedias such as Encarta or Britannica. Mjefm 19:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's issues of size (the articles get fairly big, and if we were doing this season after season after season...) and the fact that an individual Premiership goal isimply isn't that notable, as commented below. Having a list of top scorers in the season summary - notbale information. That le Sib has scored two goals this year, whilst surprising, isn't paticularly notable. --Robdurbar 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The idea is that all goals ever scored (and the people who scored them) are not inherently notable. Scope definitely plays a part in deciding what gets kept here. Just having a lot of information is not necessary, and Wikipedia's guidelines outline the amount that is acceptable. 206.213.251.31 19:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not ESPN/BBC Sport/etc. – Elisson • T • C • 21:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Mjefm, as well as the fact that this is a finite list, and will be great to have as a reference for future research on a players/club history. // Laughing Man 21:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep I think that this article and others of the same kind are very important and need to be kept because they help in any form of research, wether it is proffessional or personal. The template for football players which includes the amount of goals they've made for the club is not season-wise and it sometimes take long to update while this articles are usually updated instantaneously. I've looked for this kind of information in other sites and for other leageus such as Germany, and I've had no luck finding one. This articles can be consulted for knowledge about how is a player or a team is doing in the league and to know who has scored the goals for the team and how many they have. About size, these article don't grow more than they already are. Hardly you get new scorers by this time of the year. And I have to completely agree with Mjefm on why to make Wikipedia less informative just for the sake of it. Combines, these goalscorers articles don't occupy more then a megabyte on Wikipedia's servers. It's not like it includes any pictures.200.121.177.124 21:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not here to help in research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. – Elisson • T • C • 22:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And what does an encyclopedia do? I think it is helping in research when someone wants to know something.200.121.177.124 22:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and merge the offending pages as "Football Competitions 2006-07" containing only the notable information (per above). Any issue of size in that case is laughable. 220.236.116.110 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mjefm - also 'Excessive detail'?? would it be better lacking and general? Were not dealing with paper here the more relavant and detailed the better. People come here to learn. How is more relvant info on what they are looking at a reason for deletion? oh no I am learning more I wanted a general synopis.--Xiahou 03:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A professional footballer is notable, a goalscorers in top division of very notable league is even more. The goalscorer list provide information that cannot provide by player's article (some even not created). Matthew_hk t c 03:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep as per several speakers above. These lists provide lots of information which gives the readers of "our" encyclopedia the opportunity to see which players scored which amount of goals for a certain club in a certain season. I don't see why this would be overkill. The information is notible to the players which are notible to have an article in the encyclopedia. For those who don't have an article yet or those who are stubs these lists can easily help creating better articles on the players as more information on them is available and easily accessible, by creating links or by a simple click on the player's "what links here section". The comment that says the articles are becoming too large is total nonsense to me. So far the articles are not too large and I doubt they will be as the seasons in Europe are all half way or over already and you can assume most players who will score a goal in the second part of the season already have scored at least one goal in the first part of the season. Of course some players will be added who did not score a goal yet, but the articles won't be expanded that much anymore according to the size. A lot of people spend lots of their free time in this encyclopedia, inclusive very useful lists like these. Not that that particular fact should be a reason not to delete the articles, but I personally would feel all the time I spent in these articles would be thrown away in just one simple click for deletion. Better spend some more time in looking for total crap in this encyclopedia instead of deleting useful information. Also, the existance of these pages is already known for months. The pages have been updated ever since and are currently correct. Concluding that these have not been up for deletion in the past you can assume no one has had problems with them in the past. Everybody let the editors update these lists before nominating these for deletion in late December, so all work would be for nothing. Pretty sad in my opinion, but we will see what will happen, all I can do is give you my opinion and here it is. Cheers, SportsAddicted | discuss 04:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition' does this also mean we are going to delete all scored goals information from the players articles? Thousands of players on Wikipedia have their goals specified like in these goalscoring articles mentioned on their own articles year after year as well. Some, like in Boudewijn Zenden for instance even have them specified for league, cup, Champions League etc. If the goals are not notible in one article, why would they be notible in another article? I'm not telling these statistics on the players should be deleted, but if we are going to delete these goalscoring lists as they are considered overkill then the only conclusion can be that all the goals scored by a player should not be mentioned on their article page as that would be overkill and because Wikipedia is not Soccerbase, or any other football player profile page. SportsAddicted | discuss 04:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is a slightly bizzare argument - you appear to be calling for the same information to be displayed twice? I agree that a lsit of appearances and caps on a player's page is notable. But such information renders pages such as these redundent.

As for size issues - this is more a precdent thing. At the moment, we're talking about 14 aritcles for one season. But what if next year this is reapeated for every top level football league in Europe? And then someone adds a try scorer list for the Super Leauge? And that continues season after season after season. Suddenly, we have thoudands of fairly large pages that are a collection of facts and trivia, not knolwedge. The top scoreres in a league is relevant in a league summary. A player's total appearances and goals scored is relevant info in a page about him. Lists such as this one are not relevant. --Robdurbar 09:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bizzare argument. Just try to find something random on Wikipedia and you will most likely find it again somewhere else on Wikipedia, but in a slightly different form. That's also the case in this situation. The stats on player pages are extremely notible to the player in question. Once on his article page you see the amount of goals scored and you wonder where he was in the top goalscorers rankings for that season. Was he the club top goalscorer? Was he among the top 10 of the goalscorers in that league during the season? This way these questions are answered. If these are not available you should know each and every team mate in a certain year, browse to all of their separate player pages to find out the same results that can be found in these lists in one simple view. Yes it's the same information, but it's there in a different form, just like many other facts described on Wikipedia. As for the sizes, yes you're right, Wikipedia is growing and will always keep on growing as long as it will exist. You can't stop that and that should not be stopped as that would prevent us creating an encyclopedia that is as complete as possible. It will never be complete, but if we are leaving out notible information it might get lost and no one will ever be able to find this information again. The grow of Wikipedia should not be an argument to delete these documents. SportsAddicted | discuss 00:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not a news-reporting data dump. Only fans would remotely be interseted in this extemely high level of detail. In answer to everyone above who is jumping up and down and exclaiming that we should make this wiki as informative as possible, I MUST point out that this website is NOT free and requires extensize physical hardware which cost money to operate. So, please, before you vote to keep this useless drivel, look at the green bar at the top of the page. MiracleMat 07:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The size of these articles is minimal. They are not incredibly heavy articles that can disrupt servers or anything like that. They don't include pictures or vast amounts of characters. Space is not an issue.201.240.63.98 13:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeping these pages is rediculous, if people have decided we must delete results from the Bundesliga and the NBA, what makes these goals notable? These articles have been created out of sight by a few people without the rest of the Wiki community knowing, get rid of em. 88.107.250.220 10:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - but merge them into a 'results' or 'scorers' page. It's not non-notable information. Commentators of football frequently reference to such information, which it may be pointed out is most definitely fact and usable. As per arguments above regarding to size, yes, too much, cut it into one page and reduce the amount of info. But don't just get rid of it all for such an argument. Whilding87 12:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This kind of information is very useful to some people, its not useless drivel (just look at the new pages to see the usual pathetic nonsense that gets added to wikipedia). This is information that is factually correct, kept uptodate and is often unavailable without subscription. As for the "delete it to save space argument" I think there are plenty of vanity pages, made up rubbish and irrelevant nonsense articles on wikipedia to get rid of before we start removing verifiable information for the sake of space. By all means merge the articles, but to erase them completely, would be removing information just for the sake of it.King of the North East 13:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many other lists like this in Wikipedia (of other unrelated topics). Why not delete those too? I guess it is unnecessary to have a list of countries by GDP nominal, GDP by PPPm etc. 201.240.63.98 13:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel another list shouldn't be on Wikipedia, nominate it for deletion while citing proper reasons. The existence or non-existence of other articles isn't relevant to the existence of this one. 206.213.209.31 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are pages which should be left on wikipedia. Wikipedia is about arranging information for internet users in a readily accessable way. This is the most in dept and accessable information on goalscorers in major leagues on the net. Destroying this information is doing internet users a diservice. Wikipedia needs more detail, not less. Niall123 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a lot of discussion on how valuable the information is to a certain group of people... but that has never been a sole qualification for what gets kept and what gets removed. Plenty of things are useful to certain people that aren't notable or go beyond the scope of detail necessary. The usefulness of the information is not relevant, as far as I can tell. It's not one of the criteria that the deletion process is designed to consider. 206.213.209.31 17:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To elaborate further: The Yellow Pages contains useful information. It doesn't mean such information should be included in an encyclopedia. Punkmorten 17:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's a poor reference considering that the Yellow Pages is essentially an advertising device, which Wikipedia is not. Niall123 17:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it's useful, which is one of the primary arguments being presented in support of the article. Yellow Pages information would clearly violate other standards for Wikipedia, so the usefulness wouldn't be justifiable. I would be interested in hearing more reasons for why the lists need to stay that don't relate to usefulness. 206.213.251.31 17:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far we have heard reasons why it should be deleted. But we have heard no really reasons why it should be deleted. We have heard that it is too much detail. But why is too much detail a bad thing for wikipedia ? Niall123 18:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the sentiment is that it falls under the idea that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The rebuttal to this has been that the information is useful. Such a rebuttal is invalid. The justification for this reason to delete is up for debate, which is why I have not personally made a decision; I'm waiting to hear more arguments. 206.213.251.31 18:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell under which point in your above link does this type of information fall. I also can't understand why the above information can be described as "Indecriminate". Niall123 18:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<reduce indent>My logic behind saying 'this information, whilst useful, is not valid for Wikipedia' has two fundamental underpinnings:

The 'indiscriminate information' means that we don't just include everything factual. We are instead, in the business of recording knowledge. A list of countries by their GDP is knowledge because it informs us as to the relative macro-economic performances of countries, and is a statistic used by a number of institutions when formulating policy. A list of FA Cup winners is knowledge because it shows the victors of an important competition through the ages and the changes that have occured in English football. A list of the top scorers in a season in English football is knowledge, for similar reasons. However, a list of every goal in the Premiership/SerieA/La Liga (never mind the Libyan Prem and Dutch Second Division) is not knolwedge; it is trivia, it is statistics, it may be other things, but its not 'knowledge'. Indiscriminate refers to the fact that we are not discriminating between knowledge and other facts
As noted before, the scope for these articles to grow is quite frightening. We're basically justifying the creation of simialar articles for every season of football throughout in history in any top or second level league. THAT is a lot of info and that is the sort of stuff that should be in a football stats database, not an ecyclopedia. --Robdurbar 18:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course these pages are knowledge and the information is not only useful but also notible for the leagues, the players and the clubs. It informs us about which player scored for which team in which year and where he was in the top goalscorers list among his team mates. Wahetever you make out of it that information is notible. It may not be of your interest, but something not being of your interest should not be a reason to delete it from an encyvlopedia. The lists could be merged into the articles describing the seasons if that would be better for the servers, but from what I have seen everywhere on Wikipedia is that we try to keep article pages as small as possible and we create subpages where possible, to prevent the original articles becoming too large. I agree with Robdurbar that this is information that should be available in a football stats database, but that does still not say this information should not be on Wikipedia. If you can provide me a website on the internet that has all this information available for all these leagues let me know. RSSSF has a lot of information available, they have all matches, sometimes even with goalscorers and line-ups available in any league, but does not give us the information described in the way they are described in these lists. SportsAddicted | discuss 00:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep all. We should be encouraging editors who are prepared to write football articles and not discouraging them. We are not short of server space (and if we are the ever increasing barometer at the top of this page will buy lots more!) so the arguments over length, precedent etc don't hold water. These articles comply with all WP policies and as stated above are of both interest and use to some people. BlueValour 02:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per mjefm above. Neier 12:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if WP isn't here to be a useful internet source of information, what is it here for? It's own sake? Articles such as this have merit, are useful, concert a noteworthy subject (there are far more obscure subjects on WP that professional football, for goodness sake). Besides, the WP is not an Almanac 'rule' was only recently dreamt up and has subsequently been removed. An encyclopaedia is simply a collation of information. If some of it is in list form, hooray. Mjefm 14:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all since it is information not just per season but also for every team. I think such a competition, that information is usefull. If we merge it, the article wil be in big kilobites and that will be bad for reader. KRBN 13:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Some limited information on top scorers should be merged into the articles on the seasons, top 5 or 10 players maybe, such as those in previous FA Premier League season pages e.g. FA Premier League 1996-97. QmunkE 20:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wonder how many other events that occcur around 1000 times a year are also recorded on Wikipedia? --Robdurbar 10:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deaths in 2006 is one rather obvious example. Neier 12:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all per BlueValour . These are informative articles and I know of numerous people that use them for research. Bababoum 14:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Impact Communications[edit]

Claims notability I suppose, and you might expect it. However, only 150 ghits which seems trivial for such a company [33]; and they only seem to be press releases and own site. So propose deletion for failing WP:CORP, for failing WP:COI as created by a user called PIC, and for reading like a press release. Akihabara 13:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I think that an organization founded by such notable individuals is notable simply through association; but it needs a source for this. Tarinth 13:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being notable doesn't mean everything you do is notable. An organization like this needs to be able to stand on its own. Akihabara 14:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:CORP. Tarinth, this is not a band. There are no clauses in WP:CORP that state having a 'notable individual' as part of the company automatically makes the company notable like WP:BAND states for music groups. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find any published works where this company is the primary subject. They seem to float somewhat below the radar and thus do not appear to pass CORP.--Kubigula (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#A7, db-group. Deizio talk 18:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Strand Citizens for Life[edit]

Was speedy per A7, contested (no reason given) Tarinth 13:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, nothing in the article asserts the notability of the group.
Endorse previous speedy delete under CSD-A7, notability not asserted. Demiurge 14:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. 32 G-hits, the lead one being their own webpage, and most of the hits from sites like yellowpages.com. RGTraynor 15:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:11Z

James H Lyons[edit]

There are no provided sources for this article and nor are any independent ones to be found by a Google search. There are few claims to notability. No Retreat No Surrender

Delete, fails WP:BIO, no external sources. The only claims to notability are getting a photo featured on the front page at fotopic.net (if I get an article featured on the Wikipedia front page, does that make me notable?), opening a photo gallery and being listed in a web directory. Demiurge 14:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. You don't "have to be a god" to be on Wikipedia, you just have to be notable, and this fellow isn't; according to his webpage, he's a college student who wants to be a photographer. [34] That isn't enough to sustain notability. RGTraynor 15:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE www.jameshlyons.com is not the same person! userTheno2003

Cheers john Denham User:Theno2003 28th December 2006 15:23

Delete. Extremely unnotable. Also fails WP:BIO. --SonicChao ^talk 15:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS indicating subject meets WP:BIO. Author appears to consent to deletion per latest version of article, so can possibly be CSD G7ed. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" I the author has place the page back up as i feel the person deserves a page. I do not consent to deletion" User:Theno2003

Keep, Person is notable in the area of havering. I feel on the grounds of what i have been shown and from i have heard from the local area, as the person lives in the same area as i do. I feel "James H Lyons" Is notable enough to stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.229.225 (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

"Will the above anon person please msg me, i am the author of the article and would like to know what you know!!! : Note Grammer correct in last two edits." Theno2003

Delete, needs reliable sources. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop asking for "Reliable sources and give me some examples! So i can bring them to the debate. Thank you. ! User:Theno2003

Glad you asked. Follow this link: Wikipedia: Reliable Sources. Boiled down, "reliable sources" involve citations in mainstream print media, publications in non-vanity-press books and magazines and the like. RGTraynor 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no verifiable information sufficient to establish notability. TheMindsEye 21:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: P. Goret has been deleted. Dar-Ape 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. Goret[edit]

"An unknown medallist". Unable to find anything on google [35]. Nominate for deletion as unverifiable, and likely a hoax. Only external link not reassuring. Akihabara 14:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this is actually a copy of the link; so tagged as a copy vio. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akihabara (talk • contribs) 14:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. The only three G-hits for this fellow is the Wikipedia article and mirrors. Obscure he certainly is! RGTraynor 14:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:11Z

Hua Li[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:BIO either as an amateur artist in California or professional architect. Relatives have given collections of his artwork to Norris Medical Library at USC[36] and the Getty Trust (apparently uncatalogued/unlisted). Article tagged for cleanup/improvement since 2005. Mereda 14:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. A few donated prints not enough. Daniel J. Leivick 04:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like an interesting guy, but doesn't pass WP:BIO.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:12Z

Boys Legion[edit]

Originally PRODed for deletion by User:Fan-1967, page author removed it without explanation. It appears to be non-notable, unsourced and unverifiable. All google really throws up is one website, hosted on Angelfire. Delete from me. J Milburn 14:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prod'er. Free pages like Angelfire do not meet standards of Reliable Sources. -- Fan-1967 14:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This sounds a lot like WP:NFT. Ravenswing 14:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:RS. Hello32020 17:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NEU. Tonytypoon 20:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trash. Danny Lilithborne 22:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V and WP:RS. SkierRMH 03:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG and WP:V. I previously speedied this as an A7. --Core desat 02:35, 1 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, per WP:SNOW, and some legitimate questions about a nomination so soon after another speedy-keep. Discussions about a possible merge should go to Talk:Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey[edit]

Originally with the title Kurdish genocide, article fails WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V and is nothing but a pov fork of Human rights in Turkey. It probably also fails WP:N and WP:NOT. Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey can be a section in Human rights in Turkey.

Past discussion was disrupted by a redundent pov debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey

--Cat out 14:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, strong (as strong as it gets!) keep. The article has been renamed, and most reviewers seemed to accept this compromise. So, I honestly do not understand this new AfD. In any case, I strongly believe that we definitely need this article. The whole issue is very important (the article does not fail WP:N), notable and with many parametres we can develop. In the research I started to conduct, I read and learnt about an alleged genocide conducted against Kurds in 1937-1938. I do not necessarily endorse these allegations, but they are important issues and in my recent sourced edits you'll see the huge reprecussions of these events (such as the persecutions of a prominent Turk sociology). I do not argue for keeping this article because of blind nationalism. I may become unpleasant to the nominator or to other reviewers, but I strongly believe that we need this article for strictly encyclopedic reasons. I will continue my research and I'm sure I'll find other, even more interesting parametres. POV and OR can be dealt with, but encyclopedic knowledge shouldn't be thoughtlessly deleted.--Yannismarou 15:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC):*I have already started providing verifiable sources per WP:V. I hope you regard Google Book sources as verifiable!--Yannismarou 15:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest writing about those historic events under their respective titles (such as the said rebellion) rather than a blanket article about Kurdish rights in general. The past discussion was prematurely closed due to a rant between Greek and tuskish editors and I see no evidence of a compromise aside from senseless yelling casing abruptly with afds closure. --Cat out 15:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not consider bluntly biased sources reliable as per WP:V. --Cat out 15:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat out, do not hurry! More sources are coming! I'm gathering such important material about the "Bersim genocide or massacre", that I am now thinking that the first title of the article (Kurdish Genocide) was not after all so inaccurate as I was initially convinced. I am thinking about proposing the renaming of the article and the adoption of its initial title. If you think my sources from Google Search are biased, then provide your own sources and conduct your own research!--Yannismarou 15:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think well-researched information on historical genocides is very important, but the problem with this article is that it makes no attempt to discuss both sides of the event, nor does it document the events so well that that it makes it possible to treat potential criticisms dismissively, as mere fringe beliefs (as with Holocaust, which has 60 references). If you'd like to get this article accepted, you need to provide much stronger sourcing (more than one book, and an email archive) and you need to make an attempt to write it in a neutral voice. For now, I'd suggest taking some of your sourced information and amending existing articles on human rights or Kurdish history to reflect this information (where it will undoubtably be read by more people anyway). Tarinth 15:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I provide verifiable sources from Google Search. I would be grateful if the nominator or anybody else could provide other sources contradicting my own, so as to make this article less POV and more "objective".--Yannismarou 15:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find some verifiable media sources that name the event? I don't really understand what was wrong with the original "Kurdish Genocide" title, since that seems more descriptive, but perhaps there are no media sources that ever used that term (the new title strikes me as vague relative to what you want to talk about in this article). Tarinth 16:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am now conducting the material and making my own research. Until now, I was not actively involved in the article. But I also tend to believe that maybe the original title Kurdish genocide should be restored.--Yannismarou 16:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your statement that youare "making [your] own research" is troubling because it suggests you are using Wikipedia to publish original research. If you reference your own research it needs to be peer-reviewed research published by another reliable entity, or better yet, research that's been done independent of you. Tarinth 16:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - My own research of sources Tarinth. What has this to do with OR? Let's not argue for trivia. I do know how Wikipedia works; it is not the first time I am editing an article. See my edits and if you see any OR tell me. I only use verifiable sources.--Yannismarou 16:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It is original research to merge two/three unrelated incidents. The Dersim incident can be it's own article but has no connection with the incident involving the PKK nor does it have any connection with the European Human rights court decisions.
        With statements like "Beşikçi paid a heavy price for his moral and intellectual courage" I question the neutrality of the said source. I also question the objectivity of the editor writing the statement to the article. The question "why is a person with Greek origin is writing an article about Turkish/Kurdish history and human rights issues" bothers me. There is also the allegations of Greek vote stacking on the previous AfD.
        --Cat out 19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat, you oblige me to officially ask you to substantiate these allegations against me. I have the right to edit any article I want as long as I do not violate Wikipedia policies. If you think I do violate any Wiki policy, proceed to the due actions; otherwise, avoid unsubstantiated personal attacks. If you think my sources are biased, provide yours and contradict my findings. I'll rephrase the sentence you mentioned, because it qualifies indeed for POV - my mistake. But apart of that, I feel offended by your comments against me, and I ask you to provide evidence or to recall.--Yannismarou 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was an accident. Chill dude, take a walk or something. I was about to revert myself.
I cited one example on how what you wrote was biased, I probably can cite more. If you consider that a personal attack thats your problem and frankly I could care less.
I am not required nor expected to contradict your "findings". You are however required to write neutral articles and this one is far from neutral and it is digging into further bias and original research.
--Cat out 19:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool, but I'm accepting no unsubstantiated allegation against me. Therefore, I hope you won't repeat them. The argument of Original research is obviously ill-grounded. Everything I write is based on sources. Unless you regard the reports of EU, the decisions of the European Court or the articles of Economist as OR?!!!! It is your right, of cource, but I'm afraid that you are not particularly convincing. Now, as far as POV is concerned, everything I write is based on verifiable sources. Now, if you disagree, please contradict them. Speaking generally for POV does not help. If my phrasing is somewhere wrong, as you saw, I'm willing to change it (as I proved). But the most important it this: I do not accept allegations like this one: "There is also the allegations of Greek vote stacking on the previous AfD". If you think somebody committed vote stacking, go and speak to him; not to me. Don't throw phrases like these in order to create a wrong impression against me. You chose the wrong guy for such unsubstantiated accusations. I hope I made myself crystall clear.--Yannismarou 20:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now 13 sources (8 printed and 5 online). How many OR articles with this number of sources have you encountered in Wikipedia?--Yannismarou 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "allegation" stays. I do not consider you an impartial party. As for vote stacking there was an ANB/I case, I do not know if you were involved with that particular case. I do not recall accusing you.
Reports of EU, articles from the Economist and etc are not necessarily without bias. So far you have been only relying on sources "accusing". You also seem to be covering minor incidents.
--Cat out 20:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not know, do not accuse. Do you regard the burning of the village of Nurettin or the events in Diyarbakir as minor?! Well, this is indicative of your ideas about human rights. Now I do not care what you say about ANB/I cases. I just want to know one thing: Do you personally accuse me of vote stacking? If yes, prove it. If no say so. Otherwise, you will be officially called to prove your allegations against me.--Yannismarou 21:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Officially call to 'prove allegation' then, I am breathless with anticipation on what this offical thing is. --Cat out 12:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because you are breathless, you avoid to be specific in your accusations and you choose the road of confusion. But everybody is judged here. And your initiative for this AfD has been also judged. Any allegations for - how you called it? I liked the word - vote stacking for this particular AfD? Because obviously something went wrong again!! Don't you think? Try to find a new conspiracy theory. You look successful in this domain.--Yannismarou 12:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Yannismarou. --SonicChao ^talk 15:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why can't this article be merged with Human rights in Turkey? TSO1D 16:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a notable issue per se. Why merged when it can stand as a seperate article?--Yannismarou 16:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An argument in favor of merger is that if your information is notable and useful to people, then it's more likely that people looking for your subject will find the information they're looking for... But that's neither here or there until the information itself is sourced. Tarinth 16:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check WP:SS and you will understand why merger does not serve this purpose. The main article can lead to a sub-article.--Yannismarou 16:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at WP:SS#Avoidance_of_POV_forks... --Cat out 19:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We POV and un-POV articles Cool Cat by our writing. And why did you revert my previous edit? I hope it was a mistake of yours.--Yannismarou 19:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do not POV articles. POV isn't a verb. Articles are required to be neutral. And yes that particular case was an accident. --Cat out 19:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV isn't a verb? Well, I decide to use it as verb, and I tell you that yes, it is up to us to POV or to un-POV an article. We make the articles. The skilled editors can un-POV an article.--Yannismarou 20:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are expected to be written in a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Since start, this article has been biased. It isn't getting any better. --Cat out 20:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it is biased, why don't you provide sources contradicting mine. You make think that such sources do not exist. Does this happen?--Yannismarou 21:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in waisting time with such a poorly written article. --Cat out 12:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you are interested in losing time for this AfD "until you get a "good" decision" (per RockMFR). And you lost a whole day, because, watching your contributions, I saw this was almost the only think you was doing in Wikipedia yesterday!--Yannismarou 12:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the salvageable content to Human Rights in Turkey. Some of the stuff in there is definitely FORK, and of TWO articles: "HR in TR" and "Casualties of the TR-PKK conflict". Uninformed readers should take a look at the last AfD to understand the background of the article. It is pretty complicated :) Baristarim 20:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - Article seems better than most, with a lot of referencing now. I think it could continue to be made even better over time, with further input from the community. My only question now is why it isn't simply a section of Human Rights in Turkey. If it really stands on its own I think it needs a more unique name to avoid confusing, ~~perhaps rename it to the original "Kurdish Genocide,"~~ and provide links from Human Rights in Turkey. Tarinth 20:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already provided links from Human Rights in Turkey. We can discuss about a renaming.--Yannismarou 20:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - and WP:REDIRECT to Human rights in Turkey Tonytypoon 20:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Human rights in Turkey. I am confident that the latter can fully cover the topic, there really is no need for a separate article. TSO1D 23:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not this shit again. We JUST finished this debate. You cannot continue nominating the same article over and over until you get a "good" decision. --- RockMFR 23:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yannismarou. Turkey is a nation with a huge role in the history of the Middle East and Europe. There is no need to shove all human rights concerns with respect to Turkey into one article, when there are multiple reliable sources with respect to this one aspect of Turkish human rights. The article has numerous independent and verifiable sources. POV concerns are best addressed through the usual fine work of collaborative editing by Wikipedians. Edison 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while there are certainly problematic pieces (for example, the large Fernandes piece) this article is too big to be merged with Human rights in Turkey, and certainly does cover a relevant topic.--Aldux 02:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was a paragraph when nominated, the author is just inflating it. --Cat out 12:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison--Xiahou 03:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now back to square one :) I still think that some people have not understood why this is a fork... HR of KP in TR inevitably covers other subjects in HR in TR. The whole article is simply a mirror site, but only concentrating on HR as concerns the Kurdish people. The article is big because most of its info comes from other articles. Yannis, I don't think that you understand the true nature of the merge proposal: gender-equality is already talked about in HR in TR for example. Kurds in Turkey and casualties of the TR-PKK conflict already cover many sections in this article. In fact, I really think that this article is a fork of THREE articles as is. Well, I will restart working on HR in TR article soon, and when it will be finished it will cover the same thing as here. There is no need to list every single ECHR case either, even in Religion in Turkey article the landmark ECHR headscarf case is talked about in two sentences, not three looong paragraphs like it is here. Well, I will get around to it some day soon :) Baristarim 06:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is concentrated on the Kurds and elaborates on their human rights. The fact that it is related with other articles or that it repeats some assessments does not outdo the fact that:1) the topic is notable, 2) the article can stand as a seperate article, 3) POVs can be addressed, 4) the OR allegation is now at least weak. This is what I believe, and that is why I do not endorse the merger proposal. Now, if you re-work the articles you say and the overlaps become "annoying", we can reopen the whole discussion. It is not a problem to create new sub-articles, if these articles have a reason of existence and an encyclopedic value. This article fulfils both these criteria IMO. Again, I do not try to impose my opinion here. I respect your arguments, but I cannot endorse them.--Yannismarou 08:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Yannismarou, Edison and Aldux. Also, suggest speedy closing per RockMFR's note for this AfD being a WP:POINT violation. NikoSilver 11:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The last AFD was just closed on December 20. Dragomiloff 11:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. It was just over a week ago the other one ended; the arguments on both sides remain the same, I see no reason to delete. //Dirak 15:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous AFD. Naconkantari 15:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Push th' Little Daisies. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:14Z

Push th' Little Daisies EP[edit]

Previously prod for deletion by an anon editor, but the prod tag was released with the reasoning "Album is notable if recording artist is as per WP:MUSIC". However, this isn't a full-length studio album, and I'm not convinced that a promo EP counts as being sufficiently notable. CLW 15:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to artist's page, might be useful information regarding a notable artist, but we're not talking about White Album. Tarinth 15:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as charting single, and the song most people know them for. If it must be merged, Pure Guava would be the best target. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this isn't an article about the single, which already has its own page Push th'Little Daisies - it's about a promo only EP for the single CLW 16:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then merge it there, although it probably should be at Push th' Little Daisies instead. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for, most notably, lack of reliable sources. If anyone wants to BJAODN part of the hilarious content, it's available on request. Sandstein 22:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur Sher Singh Parmar[edit]

Bio of "prophetic geographer" credited with, among other things, being the first to note that India was an emerging world power (in, from what I can tell, 2005) and being a profound influence on someone the article refers to as "George Walter Bush, junior, the USA President". The sources that clearly bear on the subject are from MSN groups; the others appear mostly to underpin other aspects of the article's tortuous argument. The man most likely exists, but whether his world influence rises to the notable certainly seems questionable. His name has recently been inserted into a range of other articles, from Feminist geography to Geopolitics. Robertissimo 15:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons mentioned above. "...an increasing number of Americans realized this folly and clamoured for return of their troops home from Iraq. Also, the Re-election of the War-Happy George Walter Bush, junior, the USA President further complicated the Global-Security Scenario. Simultaneously, the growing enmeshing and bonding of people all over the Globe in terms of the instant communication facilitated by the digital technology like the World Wide Web, popularly called the Internet, apparently started melting away the snow mountain of political boundaries to the ocean of insignificance." --Danreitz 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The dainiks prove notability but the stuff in the article is suspect.Baka man 18:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Though there is a citation list, external link list, and sources list, the article is very difficult to navigate right now. I'm hoping someone who cares about the article being kept will take the time to clean this up, i.e. connect facts in the article with the source from which they come. Also, the MSN links add a particularly unprofessional flavor; please consider providing more scholarly sources if they are available. Regards, Keesiewonder 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A hodgepodge of supposed genealogy, caste membership. references to "President George Walter Bush" and notes of (citation given). No clear notability can be readily found amongst the dreck of this article. No objection to re-creating it in the future id someone can figure out why this person is supposed to be notable and providing multiple reliable independent verifiable sources. Edison 23:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The artcile is no more hotch-potch.Supposedly racial reference is not racial reference and cannot be removed as it is harmless because it indicates individual's surname, family root n history.Links relating to MSN pages are ok because even other pages like India - [[37]]rely mostly on web pages.The page under discussion gives a good number of citations,sources and web page link.Sequencing has been done.Others can improve upon this article.There is no doubt about notability of the article.Amita Karpe 15:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

question: please remind me what you mean by sequencing. Thanks! Keesiewonder 15:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web pages as citations are, of course, fine. I don't see any MSN web pages on India's page. It does have several .gov and .org links, which, like .edu links, tend to be a bit more scholarly than .com ... and especially groups.msn.com. Keesiewonder 15:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [38]. So, Thakur Sher Singh Parmar and Sher Singh Parmar both use the alias Swami Apratimanand Ji ... And I cannot find any of these variants in book sources such as WorldCat. For me, the article currently reads as a personal biography written in the third person. My current vote on this article is Weak Delete; I'm open to receiving more, clearer, scholarly information that may sway my opinion. Perhaps something someone more fluent than me can check out is whether this article exists in the WP for any of the Indian languages. Keesiewonder 16:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listed sources are vague. Verifiablity problem, notability not established, a bunch of emails on MSN pages do not constitute reliable sources. Likely a vanity article. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Hindi dainiks (dailies) have probably published few of his poems, but that doesn't make him a notable Hindi poet. Other sources listed (MSN Groups) are not WP:RS. utcursch | talk 08:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP . Thakur Sher Singh Parmar and Sher Singh Parmar are variants of the same name.If a person has contributed to so many branches of geography, then naturally it is reflected in terms of his inclusion unde many headings.Receipt of a national level award like Dr.Manibhai Desai Rashtraseva Puraskar for contribution to hindi literature itself shows this person is notable.NO NON-NOTABLE RECEIVES SUCH A PRESTIGIOUS AWARD.The sources of dainiks show clearly that all his poems have been published and as such these have found a mention on the page. If this seems to be a biography , well what other Wikipedians doing - why don't they improve upon it.Its very easy to destroy or delete anything but it needs some hard work to improve.So why we don't improve upon this article instead of being bent upon destroying it.To say that "I don't see any MSN web pages on India's page. It does have several .gov and .org links, which, like .edu links, tend to be a bit more scholarly than .com ... and especially groups.msn.com." is sheer nonsense because scholarly articles can appear on any web pages including the MSN pages and by the way one can doubt that the so-called scholarly artciles on ".gov and .org links" are there simply because the scholars writing these had good personal relations with their editors and so managed to get their articles published there. All the objections being raised have only one clear aim of deleting this page, seems people are bent upon deleting this page.Honest officers like Sher Singh Parmar have thousands enemy who would like to see that no one comes to know of these honest people."And I cannot find any of these variants in book sources such as WorldCat." saying this is just running away from truth.If his name is not found on some searches then it means that the people running those searches have poor technology unlike GoogleIf we apply the logics being given by all these counter-vandal patrollers and others, then we have to delete all the pages from Wikipedia.There shall be no Wikipedia at all.I request the ADMINISTARTORS OF WIKIPEDIA TO BE MORE VIGILANT AND RETAIN THE CURRENT PAGE.

Monishasarkar 09:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Thanks for the clarification; I can now comfortably move my input from weak to strong delete. I have requested more information, asked relevant questions, suggested room for improvement and have not received any answers other than POV. If my questions were answered (perhaps the most important being one I posted here [39]), I would gladly help you clean up the article in hopes of it surviving the AfD process. If there is no material published regarding this person in a book with an ISBN or a journal with an ISSN, then ... he is probably not noteworthy and doesn't deserve an article in WP. If you have the ISBN or ISSN, then please share it so I can verify it with my own resources. Another piece of information that would be helpful, since I've heard this is such a prestigious award, is a verifiable source listing of all the other winners of Dr. Manibhai Desai Rashtraseva Puraskar's award, before and after Thakur Sher Singh Parmar's receipt. Keesiewonder 13:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this,

B. This guy’s book on economic geography is the most popular book amongst postgraduate geography students in and around Pune, the Oxford of the East.This book is the pride of book-shelves in nearly all departments of Geography and business schools in Pune.For example, University of Pune’s Jayakar Library and Departments of geography in Pune have more copies of this book on the subject of economic geography than by any other Indian or foreign author on the same subject. Not all academic authors enjoy such powerful acceptance.Thus, this guy and his book both are notable.

from the article's talk page, is true, then there must be an ISBN for the book. Please provide it. Thanks! Keesiewonder 13:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the daily papers cited in the article is The Indian Express. A link to the paper's advanced search page is here [40]. I have issued several queries, all yielding "No Results Found." i.e. Search Query: Swami Apratimanand Ji; Match: Any; Appearing in: Anywhere; Look for articles published - Date Range - 1 January 2002 through 11 March 2006.

I have also attempted to connect with the University of Pune's Library, but, interestingly, the link to their library off of the University's main page yields a blank document called "test page." I have email inquiries in to the University regarding this. Keesiewonder 15:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. FWIW, from what I've been able to find, Ghits on "Dr. Manibhai Desai Rashtraseva Puraskar" and variants not concerning the current subject is, more or less, 1 (a physician claiming the distinction). Robertissimo 15:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CONFIRM. Confirm the claims by sending emails to following of University of Pune -root@pumba.unipune.ernet.in, suresh@lib.unipune.ernet.in, ddss@unipune.ernet.in, webmaster@unipune.ernet.in, bhoogol@unipune.ernet.in, usupadhyay@unipune.ernet.in, coe@unipune.ernet.in, puvc@unipune.ernet.in, eavc@unipune.ernet.in, pupvc@unipune.ernet.in, regis@unipune.ernet.in, bcud@unipune.ernet.in, ecodept@unipune.ernet.in

For claims regarding Customs Seizure send emails to -cuspune@pn3.vsnl.net.in, mallikamahajan@yahoo.co.in, jkmeena67@hotmail.com, ptechcus@yahoo.com, zone3mumcustoms@yahoo.co.in I have found Pune Customs website -[[41]] Let us do complete checking.We should not believe in without confirmation. Patrolla 14:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the email addresses to the University of Pune; I found plenty on my own and will consider these if my first choices do not pan out. What I really want is an ISBN to the economic geography book written by our gentleman of interest that is reported as being so popular. Might you have that and be willing to share? The other thing that would be nice is if the University would fix the link to their library off of their home page. If I could do a search in the library's catalog, I would be all set ... I am doing quite complete checking for this AfD ... and am not finding much convincing material. There's time, and I'm relatively patient. :-) Regards, Keesiewonder 14:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is riddled with bad writing and POV, which would be worth mending were the subject's notability at all verifiable. Bearing in mind the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, the essence of which is:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

I typed this chap's name into Google Books and Amazon: Search Inside Books and came up hitless (in other words, our man wasn't even mentioned in one single book). Compared to the Herculean investigations of colleage Keesiewonder above, who I suspect could find a needle in the Sahara Desert, my casual clickings don't make me Sherlock Holmes, I admit; but unverifiable articles need firmly placing on their bikes, I fear. qp10qp 21:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patience. I agree with Keesiewonder who has more patience.It needs lot more research n patience before we can decide.I have found some links.Someone should follow it up

Pune Press Link- [[42]] Email/Url link to Navbharat – [[43]] Directory of Indian newspapers- [[44]] List of colleges in Pune- [[45]] Patrolla 13:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All these are well and good -- but none have any demonstrable link to the subject. It's fine to confirm that a given paper may or may not exist, but it does nothing to further presenting actual citations to the subject, his work, or his supposed influence on world events. Robertissimo 14:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out - [[46]] or www.ibmr.org is website of Institute of Business Management and Research , pimpri, Pune n email address - ibmrc@vsnl.in

CONTACT-[[47]], the Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies -[[48]], contact-[[49]] Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, (Deemed University), comprising of Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Pimpri, Pune- [[50]]and contact-[[51]] Dr. D. Y. Patil Institute of Management & Research, Pimpri- info@dypim.ac.in Department of Management Sciences, University of Pune- pumba@dms.unipune.ernet.in Moder college- [[52]] Someone should write to this college authorities and ask them- Does book "Geography,Economics and Economic Geography" by someone called Thakur Sher Singh Parmar exist in its library? If Yes, then how many copies does it have? IF THE CLAIM THAT THIS BOOK IS VERY POPULAR IN AND AROUND PUNE are true then this book should also be available in these management colleges of Pune. Same questions should be asked to all departments of geography in Pune. Patrolla 14:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't doubt that the book exists, and I don't doubt that there are many copies of it. However, if with my research and communication skills, I cannot find any reference to the book, and no-one can give me a citation that points to a published book, then, I am not convinced that we need an article on Parmar at this time. Even if the article is deleted, we can continue to work on this ... I have a colleague who has family in India ... maybe, just maybe, I'll involve him if he expresses interest. Kind (and patient) Regards, Keesiewonder 16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia readers (or AfD checkers) shouldn't have to be writing to colleges to find out if someone or their book exists, but should be quoted reliable sources by the article's writers, whose responsibility it is to do that. Whether the guy or his books exists or not isn't the point. The Wikipedia policy is "verifiability, not truth". (That doesn't mean verifiability of whether the person exists, by the way. The requirement is made explicit in the proposed policy Wikipedia:Attribution: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reputable published source, not whether it is true".) qp10qp 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely! I couldn't agree more. Keesiewonder 17:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From looking at the article, it reflects a lot of energy and information-gathering, but unfortunately the information does not include what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. User:Keesiewonder has done a Herculean job of trying to validate what was provided, but did not come up with anything. I previously did not find an OPAC (an online public access catalog) that was web accessible at any library based in India. The lack of such a catalog may perhaps slow down the process of checking that the books that are named really exist. EdJohnston 17:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:14Z

David Newman (writer)[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, WP:N Ccscott 15:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something showing conformity with WP:BIO is added to the article by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Deizio talk 18:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also nominate Truck It, a chapbook. --Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Arizona State University. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:45Z

Sun Devil Involvement Center[edit]

This is a non-notable department or room at Arizona State University. I didn't prod since it somehow survived a previous VFD debate since there were 2 votes to delete, 1 to merge (to the article on the building that is long deleted), and 1 to keep (the author). This is not notable and not even worth merging. Delete Aagtbdfoua 15:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to fix the broken link in the nomination, that'd be great. I used the afdx template, and now the link to the article is a redlink above. - Aagtbdfoua 15:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Fixed it. MartinDK 15:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 07:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It really looks like an ad, and like it is not notable. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 08:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to 109th United States Congress and 110th United States Congress. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:16Z

Partisan mix of congressional delegations, 109th congress[edit]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Duplicate, unencyclopedic lists/charts whose information is already contained at 109th Congress and 110th Congress. Merge any minor details, delete, and redirect. Italiavivi 15:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per nom. I don't think this information is currently presesented explicitly on the pages for the Congresses themselves. Qqqqqq 20:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per nom. For the reasons stated by User:Qqqqqq. —Markles 15:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Qqqqqq. --- RockMFR 07:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:19Z

Boren family[edit]

Article contains nothing of substance and if it did, could go under the David Boren article. NMajdan•talk 15:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, makes no attempt to be an encyclopedia article. Redir if desired. Deizio talk 18:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no explaination of why Boren's family is notable. Heimstern Läufer 18:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Läufer. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deizio, with all relevant information incorporated into the Lyle Boren and David Boren articles. Slic e NYC (Talk) 02:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, too complex for AFD. I suggest the participants work out how to merge/split/rename/rewrite the article, but if nothing happens for a month then it might have to be deleted. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 09:01Z

Kinshasa Highway[edit]

Kinshasa Highway could be any road in the direction of Kinshasa. The article is about a network of roads in central Africa that are not clearly defined. Only one or two books mention this "Kinshasa Highway" or highway to Kinshasa as a catalyst for the spreading of AIDS. This topic is not notable enough to be its own article and should be mentioned only in the history of AIDS. moyogo 01:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 01:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not passing notability guidelines. Sr13 01:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Trans-Africa Highway, which this seems to refer to. It's a real international project intermittently funded and is (in theory) an eventual coast-to-coast superhighway.[53] The spread of AIDS has been linked, rhetorically if not medically, to the upgrading of the highway.[54] I could find no significant unique usage of "Kinshasa Highway" or even "l'autoroute [de] Kinshasa". --Dhartung | Talk 01:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my mind, although the above is an appropriate article topic, this material should not be the basis of that article. It's more of a concept per Krich below. If kept, it should be renamed to AIDS Highway, and include material on the Indian and Chinese transport corridors also associated with that name for the same reason. --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per above and also add some references, such as those listed by Dhartung. Wikipedia has many articles on roads and highways, i.e. Texas State Highway 77, and this appears to have as much claim to stay as those, I would imagine. Bob talk 01:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about a single highway but more about a network or a series of roads in Central Africa. It is rather unclear what this Highway really is. --moyogo 01:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I don't feel that this article is notable enough, unless something major happens to it. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is completely unsourced, and needs vast improvement - but as for the article topic itself, in a quick search I found non-trivial references to the concept in several books, including "Global Order and Global Disorder: Globalization and the Nation-State" by Keith Suter; "The Hot Zone: A Terrifying True Story" by Richard Preston; "Our Cannibals, Ourselves" by Priscilla L. Walton; even a mention in a fiction book "Mosca: A Factual Fiction" by Richard Miller. I found other book citations as well, just stopping for space. Needs much work, but the topic is worth having an article on. --Krich (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, that is the more familiar and better sourced name. Chris 04:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep poorly written, but nothing else wrong with it. Atlantis Hawk 10:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems interesting and I have seen many articles worse than this one. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename, we do need articles on African roads, but the article's road should be clearly defined; a simple network of roads is to vague to be kept.--Aldux 13:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, despite being unreferenced, it seems to be a major highway, responsible for spreading AIDS (?). However, I must emphasize that it does not sufficiently substantiate its claim to notability. - SpLo T _(*C*+u+g) 16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If this article is to be recreated, it should be much more detailed and sourced. SupaStarGirl 17:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Weak Delete - the name is a bit too nebulous, better sourcing needs to be done. SkierRMH 19:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per User:AlduxRaveenS 19:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article seems fine to me and I see no problem with being part of Wikipedia --AresAndEnyo 21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename per Aldux.--Dakota 00:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs sources.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I may not have been sufficiently clear. There is no formal highway in Congo named "Kinshasa Highway"; it's an informal name for at least two concatenated routes that run from the Rwanda/Burundi/Uganda region to Kinshasa. This is only one African highway that has been called an "AIDS highway". The name and concept are usually attached to an unfinished Trans-African highway that's somewhat farther north, and nowhere near Kinshasa. Additionally, the concept of a highway being implicated in the spread of HIV is invoked in other places where HIV infection is rampant. I see the possibility of 1, an article on the real, separate Congo highways on this alignment, 2, an article on the Trans-African Highway which may yet be completed this decade, 3, an article on AIDS highways as a concept. I don't see the article as it stands helping anybody looking stuff up, because it's too vague. Firm delete after review. --Dhartung | Talk 08:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:19Z

Very Important Person[edit]

Delete dicdef plus includes unsourced information. Could also then move Very Important Person (film) to that space. Otto4711 16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Assertation that it's an Air Force acronym verified by three independent sources that do not appear to have gotten their information from each other or Wikipedia. 1 2 3. Therefore, article has viable content beyond dictionary definition. -Toptomcat 17:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your second source is something about serial numbers on planes and the other two merely note that the USAF uses the term. Which isn't notable, since all sorts of people and organizations use the term. And the sources within the article are to a site selling Bonnie Raitt VP tickets and dictionary.com. Otto4711 23:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Raitt source was for an event already passed, I replaced it with something less commercial, although any source by definition is going to refer to selling VIP tickets. Other sources have also been added.Simon12 01:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this page in May, 2006 as I was disambiguating links to VIP, and this was the number one cause of those links. (See Talk:VIP). There are now close to 150 links to this page. If not done already, I will add the source noted above. Simon12 17:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A number of sources have now been added to improve the article.Simon12 01:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still shit. Recury 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the category, and have used the page many times. Please vote to keep category.King of Anonymity 17:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please tell me how a category "Very Important Persons" can ever be encyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This vote is on the article, not the category. Simon12 20:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming that some useful sources can be added to the article; term is in widespread use. Tarinth 17:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see WP:NOT. Recury 19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - as above. VVIP (meaning Very Very Important Person , makes sense to me. Tonytypoon 20:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a stock phrase. A commonly used grouping of words which means exactly what it says.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes, this phrase is close to a dicdef, but given that there are so many links to it, I'd rather not move the movie into its place. So rather than leave this blank, I'd suggest keeping it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I would say the category itself shouldn't be kept. FrozenPurpleCube 01:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion to move the movie page there is separate from the Afd nom. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it. Otto4711 04:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to bring up any plans to change the page, no matter how minor. However, in this case, I wouldn't advise doing it, it would direct too many people to a page whose content isn't what they want. FrozenPurpleCube 12:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't blame the page for existing; instead blame the umpteen editors who all (independently) chose to link the phrase. Whatever happens, do not replace this page with a disambiguation page. Ewlyahoocom 04:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Capable of being encyclopedic beyond dicdef, for example can document types of "VIP treatment" (e.g. there are apparently military protocols for dealing with VIP's). Note this didn't originate in the USAF. Oxford English Dictionary says it's mostly military slang but gives a cite from 1933. 67.117.130.181 09:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable term deserving a place in an encyclopedia, but the article needs improvement.--Yannismarou 18:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite per 67.117.130.181. It is notable only for its use in protocol (i.e. military and state honours and accommodation) and in certain legislation in some countries, but the *term* itself belongs on Wiktionary (and a link should be provided). Orderinchaos78 04:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In the case of List_of_social_networking_websites, there is more information than mere links, and each one listed is notable in its own right with a wikipedia article. This is just links (with many external). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of open-content projects[edit]

Wikipedia articles should not exist as link-farms and fails;

Wikipedia is not a repository of links
Wikipedia is not a directory
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
precedent Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_stock_photography_archives--Hu12 16:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of precedent for lists like this, assuming that the list contains only notable items that contain Wikipedia articles. See: List_of_social_networking_websites. These lists can be helpful to readers who are interested in learning about related, notable sites. Remove the redlinks from the current list, however; and make the items in the list link to Wikipedia articles, rather than hyperlinks directly to the sites. Tarinth 17:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#IINFO. Tonytypoon 20:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a list of links, form whihc the weblinks must be purged if kept. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy redirect. Robdurbar 17:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baile Ailein[edit]

replica of article at Balallan, the English spelling of the placename. Maybe a re-direct would be better? JBellis 17:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all minus the goalscorer ones which are in a separate AFD. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Liga 2006/2007 results December 2006[edit]

This AFD applies to fourteen articles; namely those on the following templates excluding La Liga - 2006/2007, Serie A 2006-07 and the two goalscorers articles (these latter two come under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers)

v t e 2006/2007 Serie A Results
September \| October \| November \| December \| January \| February \| March \| April \| May Goalscorers

v t e 2006/2007 La Liga Results
August \| September \| October \| November \| December \| January \| February \| March \| April \| May \| June Goalscorers

These are almanac material only, not encyclopedic material. Per what Wikipedia is not, they are not articles but merely a list of stuff. They are a news archives with way too much data for Wikipedia.

For precedents see:

--Robdurbar 17:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete all ... "with extreme prejudice," as CAPT Willard was told. WP is not a collection of information, and I certainly don't come to WP to find sports results, timely information on schedules, blah blah blah. This is also arguably promotion as it is serving as a marketing information resource for professional(?) sports. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep - This is information that needs to be on Wikipedia. I don't see anything unencylopedic about it. I would just like to comment on the timing of the delete after all the effort various people have put in for four months in maintaining these pages, why a delete discussion couldn't have been done far earlier. Niall123 18:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why this "needs to be on Wikipedia?" David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

- Comment Definition of Encyclopedia: "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.". The information that we are adding is referenced and well organised information which could be viewed as useful. How this information strays from the meaning of the word encyclopedia I don't know. You should try to go on the internet to find detailed results of matches from the internet as we were doing and discover how hard it actually is to find such detailed information. I also put the word comprehensive in bold. More detail is what we need here and not less.Niall123 13:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as David Spalding noted, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you look at WP:NOT, you can see the fifth comma saying that "almanac style information - such as lists of results or goalscorers - is not acceptable for Wikipedia. (...) Exceptions are made for major tournaments, such as the FIFA World Cup, Olympic Games, Wimbledon or Tour de France.". NBA, Bundesliga and La Liga are no way comparable to such events, in my opinion. --Angelo 18:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that that addition to WP:NOT is fairly recent. I'm not saying that lessens it per se, but its worth noting. --Robdurbar 20:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Retain -. The information is encyclopaedic, they are major world leagues. We have lists of all sorts of things on WP - palindromes, English historical counties. Just being a list does not mean something is not encyclopaedic. If you delete the results you should delete all sorts of lists on astronomy, geography and so on as they probably appear in Whittaker's Almanac. The whole point of WP is that it is definitive and detailed. If they were the Wakefield & District Sunday league results fair enough, but please everybody stop your tiresome and objectionable campaign against sport articles. If you wanted to delete it, have the decency to say at the start of the season. I don't know who updates them but it probably takes them forever. I 'don't come to WP to find' a lot of things, it doesn't mean they should all be deleted. Mjefm 19:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "we're half way through the season" argument doesn't really work. Lots of people put in a lot of effort on lots of articles that get deleted. It's unfortunate but people only list articles when they notice they're there. I suspect a lot of people voting delete would not have expected to find such info on Wikipedia.

As for claiming that this is something against sports articles - well I could tell you that I began the articles on Georg Totschnig, England national football team (B) and Barrow AFC, am one of the main contributors to England national football team, Steve Claridge, Ade Gardner, Michael Knighton and Millom RLFC and have worked a lot on Tour de France and European Nations Cup (rugby union), to name but a few. --Robdurbar 20:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Retain: I agree with the WP code; but then we should decide what's the meaning of "important tournament", since NBA, NHL, Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga, Premier League are all important tournaments in their sports. I think that by taking only major tournaments' results this remains an encyclopedia; it would become an almanac if we'd list ALL results. (What next, propose for deleting all F1 race reports?) Asendoh 19:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are around teweny grand prixs a year and many articles contain a detailed summary of the race and its surroundings. The difference here is that we are creating large articles that are not "information on knowledge" (from Encyclopedia) but are sports news archives. --Robdurbar 20:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent. --- RockMFR 20:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. AgentPeppermint 20:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Retain - Raymond Cruise 21:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - significant canvassing and vote rallying has taken place. Afdanons template being added to the discussion. --- RockMFR 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Tonytypoon 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or an almanac, and per the decisions in the NHL, NBA and Bundesliga result AfDs. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you please explain what you mean by indiscriminate in this context. The information present was well presented, complete and easy to access (just look at the results linked table). In my opinion, indescriminate was last thing these pages were. Niall123 13:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Elisson • T • C • 21:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not ESPN/BBC Sport/etc. – Elisson • T • C • 21:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Almanac material, not encyclopedic. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not a results database. Oldelpaso 21:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Note that 1. "Very Strong Restrain" isn't really a vote, and 2. All the Keep-esque votes use the same phrase. Danny Lilithborne 22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per overwhelming precedent, discussion at the football WikiProject, and of course Wikipedia policy. This is not a campaign against sports (I for one have started thousands of sports-related articles), rather against Wikipedia being a news service, database/indiscriminate collection of information or calendar. The timing of the deletion nomination is completely irrelevant, just like the fact that other lists exist. Punkmorten 22:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please review AfD discussion guidelines before leaving a comment. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep as per points already addressed with the word "retain", it looks like the articles were only put up for deletion because the editor is not interested in the sport. - Deathrocker 23:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That second point is just nonesense. I have edited and created a number of football and sport related articles. Did you read my post above? --Robdurbar 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Edison 23:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niall, read WP:NPA. This discussion will not be served by you taking swipes at other editors and their presumed motives. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll remove my comment. Niall123 00:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is many article about a football club by season, they also list out many details, or even more than the league by season. the league by season (by month) include result, goalscorers, cards is ok, The other international event like World Cup Qualifying also have these information. Amlost of match is not a reason. Or i would suggest merge back to one article, but it would very large. Matthew_hk t c 03:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep Piniricc65 06:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super-Duper Delete. "Hey mom, look at the pretty page I made on wikipedia today" Get rid of this crap for all reasons in the NOM and let's stick to writing articles. This is an ENCYCLOPDIA MiracleMat 07:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep The results are useful historical and encyclopedic material for anyone interested in football and sports statistics. By the way... I would like to remind you all what is written on the top of this page: please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors. CapPixel 08:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOT HornetMike 13:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that Almanac information has now been removed from WP:NOT after discussion Niall123 14:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a highly misleading statement. I had added the content very recently based on an apparent developing consensus at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and the premier league reuslts afd. However, given that I had also proposed such articles for deletion, I agreed that I had been hasty in adding it myself, due to the possible conflict of interest, and so pulled it back down. However, the current consensus at the talk page appears to be to include it. --Robdurbar 15:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell there is no real concencus on that talk page and that the best thing that could be done in such a situation is to continue the debate regarding the Almanac classification. As on editor pointed out, the original draft of "Almanac" took in a lot more than just sports results. And surely since a number of editors have based their arguements in this delete/keep discussion on that paragraph then surely they are invalid arguements ? Niall123 16:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one vote has mentioned it explicitly. The alamanc inclusion in WP:NOT is a clarification of policy, not a new addition to the policy. --Robdurbar 13:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep There are articles about both Serie A 2006-07 and La Liga - 2006/2007, so why shouldn't there also be the complete results? – Luxic 16:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~and Merge to one article per season per league. Separating by months is not all that useful.~~ Neier 12:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would make articles of hundereds of kilobytes in length. --Robdurbar 13:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Each Round's results could easily be hidden within a collapsable template which could be opened if and when a person wants to view the information. Just check out the way the table at the end of each week is done in the Serie A results. Niall123 00:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template does nothing to address the page size. All the data is still downloaded. And, I will scratch out my previous statement. Neier 14:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep all - A League's month-by-month history is encylcopedic.gigatotti 6:04, 31 December 2006

Weak Keep - Sometimes the best way to record history is in lists of data. However, the data should be better integrated with related contents in addition to their corresponding main pages such as the teams and players in question. akuyume^T_C 02:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all per precedent, and an actual policy comment. I have been seeing this type of article more and more recently, but there is never an assertion of notability or adequate sourcing (here the only sources are from the league itself). For that matter, there is no context. What is the significance of the data? For plot summaries (see WP:NOT) we require that "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." Why should we require less of sporting events? Dekimasu 14:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No point in dragging it out, I guess the article is here to stay. Majorly (Talk) 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Brandt[edit]

OK this is probably quite controversial, as this particular article has been nominated 10 times before. But please, consider these points.

The subject of the article has strongly objected to there being an article about him.
He is forced to check it every day for libel, slander etc.
He has now been banned for trying to get the article removed.
He has made an anti-Wikipedia website, and is a regular poster on the Wikipedia review. Probably both in response to this article.

Also, probably because of Wikipedia's popularity this article is first on a Google search. Please really consider your "vote", and don't "per" others here. I think this is a case where notability is irrelevant. I wish to end this silly battle once and for all with this, so the man can get on with his life. Majorly (Talk) 17:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well known privacy advocate, despite the lack of privacy he affords other people, many references in the press, important in the John Seigenthaler controversy. We cannot delete articles merely because the subjects don't want them to be here. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who says so? Is there a policy on this? --Majorly (Talk) 17:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say so. This is my opinion, and my contribution to the discussion. There is no policy one way or the other. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Clearly notable. His objections are irrelevant to his notability. His checking for defamation every day is his choice. No other individual is allowed to remove his article because he doesn't like it that I'm aware of so don't start with this one. Otto4711 17:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, just because something has not happened before doesn't mean it can never happen. --Majorly (Talk) 17:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am aware of that. The reason why something has not happened before, however, may prove instructive in deciding whether allowing it to start should happen. You have no offered a compelling reason or really even a legitimate reason as to why Daniel Brandt should be allowed to dictate whether he has an article or not. He's notable. "Exceptional" case or not, he has an article and there is no reason why he shouldn't. If he doesn't like it, I'm sorry, but the proverbial genie is out of the metaphorical bottle and Mr Brandt doesn't get to stuff it back inside. Otto4711 18:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly strong keep not just because of the notability of the subject, but because the nominator does not provide any reason for requesting deletion. There is no rationale along time lines of "non-notable" or "does not pass WP:BIO" or "unsourced and unverified"- the subject not wanting an aritcle or the subject being attacked frequently are not reasons to eliminate an article. -- Kicking222 17:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, even if possible libelous comments are a problem (which, as far as possible deletion of the entire article is concerned, they are not), I'm sure there are (literally) dozens upon dozens of editors who have this article on their watchlists and check for updates regularly. -- Kicking222 17:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already stated that this should be an exceptional case. Whether he is notable or not doesn't matter. The point is, he doesn't want an article, and since he plans to sue it is probably better it was deleted. --Majorly (Talk) 17:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly, your repeated commenting on everybody else's !vote will just start to annoy people and not help your cause. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until notability is asserted. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per my own belief that, only in cases where notability is borderline or marginal, article subjects should be allowed to request deletion of their own article. Yes, I know that isn't policy, but it ought to be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; would we delete David Irving if he asked us? Public figures are public figures, and they should not be able to get their (non-attack, non-libelous) Wikipedia article deleted just by asking. Does he check the rest of the web for libelous content? How about Slashdot or any other major news/blog/whatever that allows public posting?--Prosfilaes 18:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. If Shaquille O'Neal doesn't want an article on him, we won't deleted it; if someone puts in an unsourced statement saying "Shaq is a jerk," it'll be removed. -- Kicking222 18:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thing is, kicking, has Shaquille O'Neal asked for the article to be deleted? --Majorly (Talk) 18:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. In English, that "If ..., ..." structure is often used for statements where the clause that immediately follows the if is not currently true.--Prosfilaes 19:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Irving was not a random choice; the statements we make on that article, like denoting him a racist, are not nice, even if they are well-sourced.--Prosfilaes 19:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. None of the reasons cited are in the deletion policy, and an individual AfD is not the place to debate major policy changes. Those belong on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#"Biographies of living persons for deletion" (BLPfD) policy proposal. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Notable enough and the consensus is in favour. What I oppose is this afd, plenty of us check this article daily for libel etc not just Brandt, though dont know why he bothers as due to his own behaviour he is banned from editing. If George W. Bush wanted his article removing would we do that too. Brandt is internationally notable and far too important to consider having no article about him. 10 times is a mockery of our processes, as is the timing when many regular editors are on holiday and this page should be speedied, SqueakBox 19:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Is it that time again, already? Let's see: he's still notable, and his desire to remove it still doesn't count. He has a right to demand that content be accurate and verifiable. He doesn't have the right to demand it be removed. Fan-1967 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject of a biography does not determine if he belongs here or not. Libel issues need concrete examples. Diffs please? It's not like we just ignore if someone finds something libel. Also he is a known critic of Google and not just us. he is free to get on with his life, in fact I think both we and Google would appreciate that very much.MartinDK 19:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't agree with most of Majorly's arguments, which seem to play on our sympathy for Brandt. There's too little of that around here to go very far. Nor do I agree that Brandt is non-notable. He's made himself notable by his activities. I urge that this article be deleted simply because it is disruptive to the project. We don't need to have it, and it has directly and indirectly caused grief to many editors. Perhaps WP:DENY can be invoked, or even WP:IAR. The end effect is that having this article does not, on the whole, help this project. -Will Beback · † · 19:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, IMO, deleting this article would mean effectively allowing an outsider to dictate content, an absolutely unacceptable precedent. Fan-1967 19:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, this is a horrible attitude! Wikipedia is a free and open project that anyone and everyone has a chance to add to or edit. There are NO 'outsiders'. It is probably the most un-wikipedic thing I have ever heard/read from an established editor. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself! --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 19:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, Brandt is banned from editing, SqueakBox 19:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:21Z

Tommy Ga-Ken Wan[edit]

Claims of notability only in that this person has photographed famous people, and a writer has praised him. Only sources are his own website and his blog. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: As per Wikipedia's policy, the article is written from an objective point of view, stating only facts. The quotation by the writer is unsourced, but the photographs on the official site corroborate the truth of the article's claims of who he has photographed. Shouldn't the people a photographer photographs be an important part of his or her notability? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seventeenagain (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Existence is not notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Tis true, check out WP:BIO. Deizio talk 21:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not too sure about the reasoning "He has photographed notable people and is therefore notable" that is implied in the keep vote above. If it works though, then I've photographed Mount Rushmore, Big Ben, and Monte Carlo Casino, among other notable places. Someone write about me! Charlie 10:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the reasoning is that he has been commissioned to photograph notable people.
Delete: The claims of notability are weak, and they are also unsourced. Heimstern Läufer 18:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hair away from speedy. No evidence of notability. Deizio talk 18:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. When we've got publications, exhibitions, critical commentary, different story. Robertissimo 04:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I might be swayed if any of his subjects were more than borderline notable, but otherwise this guy seems like any other gainfully employed professional magazine photographer. Ford MF 18:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft-redirect to Wiktionary, who can write a new definition or view the history of this if they want -- not much point wasting time going through the official Transwiki process due to the limited content. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:25Z

Player hater (2nd nomination)[edit]

I previously nominated this for deletion on October 25, 2006, and the result was "no consensus." Since then, absolutely no effort has been made to make the article any more encyclopedic in content or in references. It remains a poorly attested neologism with unencyclopedic content. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Transwiki - Don't hate the player, hate the game. --PresN 18:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It aint no neologism son, y u all hatin? It has been seen on the New York Times and nets a cool 145k ghits for "Player hater" and 60k for "playa hater" and 50k for "playa hata". Perhaps move to wikitionary ?Baka man 18:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not possible to write an article on this topic, even if there were sources. What would the sections be? History of player hating? Notable player haters? Recury 19:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Of course it is possible; the content of the article would be about the neologism itself. Tarinth 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would have to be a damned important neologism to warrant an article on how its a neologism. It's not. Get rid of this crap. Recury 03:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation unless the article is significantly improved during the course of this AfD. I think the phrase definitely merits an article - it has a very real place in pop culture - but right now the article is no better than an urban dictionary entry. It looks like nothing more than someone's personal take on what the phrase means. --Hyperbole 19:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Is there a list that this can be put on?--SUIT 19:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced twaddle. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG. Danny Lilithborne 22:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary per WP:DICDEF. —ShadowHalo 23:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary; Wikipedia is not a dictionary and I really can't see how you can make a full article for this topic. TSO1D 23:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's a neologism that has entered widespread usage. However, the article needs some sources that talk about the neologism as a neologism, not merely sources that use the term. Tarinth 01:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per ShadowHalo, it's a simple dicdef, and seems unlikely to ever be more than a simple dicdef. Xtifr _tälk 02:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki while not a neologism, it still doesn't qualify for a wikipedia article. Koweja 02:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Not a neologism, but it's a dicdef - and we aren't a dictionary. --Dennisthe2 03:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what exactly all these "transwiki" votes want transwikied. Are these actually votes of confidence that the article properly defines "Player hater"? Because I don't think it does - I think it's one single random and perhaps nonstandard opinion, akin to an urbandictionary entry - which is why I !voted delete. --Hyperbole 07:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Transwiki option is not so much a vote that the definition is correct as stands and should be migrated to another wiki, it's simply a vote that it should to be migrated to another wiki. Whether it's correct... well, I guess that's up to the editors on Wiktionary in this particular case. =^_^= Not to say that it should be transwiki'd if it's incorrect; it should be correct, natch. --Dennisthe2 00:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Things don't get deleted just because they are incorrect or incomplete - they get fixed. The first step towards fixing this is to get it on the right site - which is Wiktionary. The editors there will correct it and bring it up to their standards. Koweja 00:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:26Z

Incite[edit]

Non-notable band. No label; official site is MySpace. Computerjoe 's talk 18:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No meaningful content the band is not even signed and it does not reach the Wikipedia standards. Nareklm 18:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verified notability. Heimstern Läufer 18:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NN.--Anthony.bradbury 20:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, no assertion of notability. —ShadowHalo 22:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:MUSIC, possible (probable) conflict of interest or at least inappropriate attempt to use Wikipedia as a tool for promotion (self- or otherwise). Xtifr _tälk 02:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Requesting early close Computerjoe's talk 23:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The mention of touring makes it possible that they might be able to squeak by WP:MUSIC. I suspect not, but still better to let this run its course, I think. Xtifr _tälk 23:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to University of St. Thomas (Houston). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:27Z

Academic Mall[edit]

Covered in article on University of St. Thomas; article discusses specific place and not the general concept of an "Academic Mall" Blwarren713 18:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable; possibly merge some of the additional content into University of St. Thomas. Heimstern Läufer 19:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Any additonal content should be merged. This page cannot be about a single mall at a single school. --Beaker342 04:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:28Z

Carlos E Contreras[edit]

Non-notable -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam/CoI (not quite blatant enough for speedy), and delete Ken lorber, TM Systems, TranStation and Deeny Kaplan (see: Deenyk (talk · contribs)) too for the same reasons. Demiurge 19:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Demiurge. Danny Lilithborne 21:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (the other four have already been speed-deleted). The company -- TM Systems -- could possibly have an article, not written like an ad for the company, if it is notable enough; but I frankly haven't seen any signs of it being that notable. (I don't work in the industry, so all I can go on is results from Google). Note that claims that theirs is the leading technical solution, reading very much like an advert and including external links, were inserted in several articles such as Translation process, Dubbing (filmmaking), Subtitle (captioning) and even the Translation category -- assuming good faith here, but it's still spam. As for the founders/employees and the products, no, per Demiurge. --Bonadea 09:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CSD#G11 and so tagged. Would appear to fail WP:RS also. Ohconfucius 08:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as A7/spam.--Kchase T 09:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boxingscene[edit]

Non notable -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The essential bit is "http://www.boxingscene.com/ is a boxing-related web site", which merge to a boxing-related Wikipedia page. Anthony Appleyard 19:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not passing WP:NEU. Tonytypoon 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu extremism[edit]

This page appears to be an attack page primarily meant to criticise "movement" it describes. Hindu extremism is a vague, non-scholarly term. The article only cites non-notable propagandist websites for sources like Why War, Freedom House(though the site itself claims to be secular, its agenda is clear from its partisan Christianocentric focus.), Dissident Voiceand obscure "scholars". Whats more we already have NPOV articles on the movements that are generally given the appellation "Hindu extremism". See Hindutva, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh... अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 19:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Its a neologism and is only sourced by blogs and partisan orgs. Also per WP:FRINGE, nearly everyone sourced in the article is regarded as a fringe figure, and none have any mainstream credentials. All the useful info is more apt for Hindu nationalism. Also wiki is not a soapbox for fringe views. Anti-Semites tried to push an article Jewish ethnocentrism which got deleted. This is hardly any different.Baka man 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wouldnt personally call his sources as terrorist organisations, but they are non-notable ideologically slanted websites nevertheless. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 19:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a neologism. --SunStar Net^talk 19:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have articles on Islamic extremism and Christian extremism; this article's sources do suggest that Hindu extremism is a real phenomenon. The article needs cleanup and NPOV work. --Hyperbole 19:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources themselves are ideologivally slanted and op-ed's to boot. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have changed my vote since re-reading this articles: since there are sources that suggest this is real, it would be wrong to delete this. --SunStar Net^talk 19:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps thoroughly weed out the non-NPOV stuff and keep? I have seen the terms "Hindu extremist/-sm" in various media (newspapers, email groups) Anthony Appleyard 19:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Its definitely a neologism when it nets only 11k ghits most of which are b1ogs, terrorist sites and other sites not sanctioned by WP:RS ? It nets a large total of 53 ghits for educational sites. Compared to 1.25 million for Islamic extremism and and 1.1 million for Christian extremism it has no use outside anti-Hindu circles. The more used terms are Hindutva or Hindu nationalism (meaning "Hindu-ness") and nearly all accusations of Hindu extremism refer to only one group of orgs: the Sangh Parivar. Baka man 19:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - propaganda--D-Boy 19:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every word in language was a neologism once upon a time. If there are Hindus who are extremist-type in how they promote their religion, then they are Hindu extremists. Anthony Appleyard 19:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They arent promoting their religion. The tag is only useful on one organization and therefore is useless as a wikipedia article. If you even took a cursory look at the ghits you would see the term hardly exists outside of partisan organizations unlike Islamic/Christian extremism. A made up connection of one attack on a Christian (most of these actually come from other Christians) to a religion riot in India, does not magically create a new pattern.Baka man 20:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept of Hindu extremism is very real. Article needs some better citations, but that's just an editorial matter. --- RockMFR 20:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we *already have* a balanced article on movement regarded as Hindu extremism... Hindutva. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 20:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is covered in Hindutva. This is a hate propaganda page, and is actually quite reminiscent in style of German writings about Poland in Autumn/Fall 1939.--Anthony.bradbury 20:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or substantially rewrite very soon~~: I don't agree with the idea that Hindutva and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh adequately cover the issue of Hindu extremism: I see next to nothing in those articles about the attacks on Christians in some provinces of India. That being said, the current article is so POV that it needs to be deleted ~~unless it can be fixed before the end of this discussion. If it is deleted, there should be no restriction against recreating it as an NPOV article.~~ Heimstern Läufer 20:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because most of those attacks come from other Christians. The Bajrang Dal is the one and it has a rather legnthy criticism section.Baka man 20:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Majority of those 'attacks' are insubtatiated allegations. Certain evangelist outlets exaggerate their extent. If you can provide reputed sources then you can add the info to Hindutva directly. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 20:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Changed my position somewhat, as I've become rather skeptical of the idea that [[<fill in name of religion> extremism]] can ever be NPOV. It would be good to have some coverage of the attacks that have occured (and yes, there are reliable sources for them), but I'll leave that to someone else. Heimstern Läufer 02:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The creator of the article makes Hindu Extremism sound like a major organized movement. Not. It sounds like he's trying to foment violence himself, with casually tossed phrases like 'burned alive by a Hindu extremist mob', when there's no evidence that that the 'mob' was an organized band of 'Hindu extremists'. Speedy delete this attempt to stir up racial and religious hatred, please. ॐ Priyanath talk 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Complete POV and Anti-Hinduism, the only sources present are not NPOV. Like Priyanath says above, the creater of the article makes Hindu Extremism sound like a major organized movement. Hinduism doesn't even condone conversion, saying that anyone can be Hindu as long as they seek the truth. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 21:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:No Reliable Sources, Basically just Christisn Missionary Propaganda from National Liberation Front of Tripura and other xtremist groups. Rumpelstiltskin223 21:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is supported by credible sources such as Freedomhouse and the topic is not notable enough that the article has the potential to grow. TSO1D 23:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A good article on Hindu extremism could be written, but this is propaganda: phrases like 'virulent hate campaign' and assertions such as 'one of the basic elements of such extremist agenda is to vanquish or expel the 14 per cent of the population who are Christian and Muslim' are not a good start/ stub. Scrap and start again. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every major religion has extremist elements. This one is no exception. Keep per Hyperbole. Edison 23:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Islamic extremism is presently nominated for deletion on the same grounds as here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamic_extremism. Rumpelstiltskin223 01:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And now Christian extremism is also nominated for deletion per my comments below: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_extremism. 'Vote early and vote often' :-) ॐ Priyanath talk 02:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure POV and as NobleEagle has said the sources are also POV. And per others. — Arjun 00:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've looked at the Christian extremism article, since some of the 'keepers' here are suggesting that if we have one, we should have the other. ~~If the Christian Extremism article were to be AfD'd I would vote 'delete' for that one also.~~ It's now up for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_extremism. The very definition of what is Extreme depends entirely on one's Point of View (POV). Thus, there's no way to have an article on Hindu or Christian Extremism without it being mostly, or entirely POV. ॐ Priyanath talk 00:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Hindutva - from what I know and from the article, it is clear that the cases of extremism are not of religious kind but rather political. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be sort of a POV fork of Hindu nationalism. 6SJ7 01:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because nearly any article that has "extremism" in the title predisposes the reader to interpret the subject in a negative way. Huge WP:POV problems. The existance of other extremism articles isn't a defense of this one (and many of those should be deleted). If there's anything salvageable within the content, it could be included in more balanced presentations within other articles. Tarinth 01:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV. --musicpvm 02:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Elizmr 02:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have an opinion that all Extremism sites should be removed whether they are about Hinduism, Islam, Christianity or any other, because those extremist elements are not derived from the ‘Truth’ of those religions but from those of who were ‘Fanatic’ of those religions or misused those religions.

Jesus Christ never said anywhere to spread the God’s message in ruthless ways, but what had actually happened in the Old Europe, West Asia and rest of the world. The newly Christianized Emperors and their local rulers destroyed the most beautiful Pagan Temples in then Roman Empire everywhere in the Old Europe and West Asia. Frankish King Charlemagne in the Saxon Wars converted Saxons into Christianity by massacring thousands of them ruthlessly. The European colonizers in Asia, Africa and Americas so ruthlessly killed native inhabitants to convert them into Christianity and destroyed their Temples. Islamic kings and Emperors were not second to others.

Even in the Hindu society was and is divided by various caste systems. But if you carefully analyze there is mystery on many things of their originality. Whether they really represent the original Hinduism or the derivatives, which was blended with.

When the Indo-Europeans conquered the Indus-Valley Civilization there were not only a mixture of religious faiths but also the customs and practices based on the dominant group toward the early Hinduism for their survival. One can’t rule out the warriors who conquered and married the local women brought the customs for their survival, which latter derived into rigid caste systems in India and the marginalization of widows for their own purposes. So it is not prudent to observe Extremism in Hinduism, but wipe out those weeds of customs, which were introduced within the Hinduism from the pre-historical times and the fanatics who misuse the Hinduism.

Rajsingam 03:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV fork. Beit Or 05:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AMbroodEY.POV Garbage!Akanksha 06:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - — Lost^(talk) 08:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Perhaps an article on Religious extremism (currently redirecting to Extremism) can be written that examines the general phenomenon based on academic studies rather than newspaper clippings. Only such a scholarly article dealing with the sociological, psychological, political, historical and religious aspects could be sufficiently encyclopedic. Abecedare 08:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hindu nationalism and delete this. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork, inherently POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. POV fork, inherently POV. They can use 'Hindutva' page. RSS was not founded by Fascism or Nazism admirers and it had nothing to do with Gandhi's murder. Godse was a member of Hindu Mahasabha. It is christian propaganda machinery at work. Aupmanyav 19:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Of course.nids (♂) 20:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep add reference of persecution of Muslims in Gujarat and other states; destruction of church, rape and murder of Nuns in various parts of India, murder of Graham Staines etc. Hindu Extremism is a reality. StopUntouchability

This users third edit. One of them was to create his user page.nids (♂) 16:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete, as per Christian extremism, Islamic extremism etc. I've changed my mind here. Islamic extremism which I thought was well-established as an article seems to be going down in flames in its AFD which would make keeping other articles on particular religious extermisms impossible to justify. A new article on Religious extremism is also preferable because of NPOV. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is an article on Hindu nationalism. The comparison with, say, 'Islamic extremism' doesn't work. 'Islamic extremism' (although I don't suggest that this would be an NPOV naming) is, in many cases, an ideological movement seeking to establish a political and legal system based in Islamic teachings. This is not really the case regarding so-called 'Hindu extremists'. Hindu nationalists (RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal, etc.) are not necessarily very devout religious people, but rather Hinduism is a group identity around which politics is formed. --Soman 15:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork per nom, Tewfik^Talk 18:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic article, rather a soap box collecting unrelated events under one label. Pavel Vozenilek 03:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, --Shyamsunder 12.57, 02 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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:29Z

Planet radio podcast[edit]

Non notable -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Wildnox (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom -- SUIT 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with podcast? Anthony Appleyard 19:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article does not assert the notability of its subject. Do not merge the content into podcast. --Hyperbole 19:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:31Z

Pure obsessional OCD[edit]

Is this really a widely-recognized distinct medical condition? This looks to me like just another name for for rumination. In particular, a Medline search for "Pure obsessional OCD" finds no hits at all, and a search for "pure obsessional" finds only two hits in Medline's index, neither of which seem to refer to the subject of the article in any way.

From what I can see, nearly all Google hits for this are mirrors of this Wikipedia article, and I cannot find any references to this being defined in either the DSM or ICD classifications. A Google search for "Pure obsessional OCD" -"it is distinct from traditional" seems to weed out most of the Wikipedia article mirrors, and leaves only 160 Google hits, of which many are blogs, chat forums, or yet other mirrors of, or indices generated from, Wikipedia. Only one of these hits is from a .edu domain, and that's from a wiki.

I propose that this article be deleted unless it can be shown from peer-reviewed medical literature that this is a widely-used medical diagnosis, rather than a neologism. -- The Anome 19:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that some US psychiatrists appear to delight in defining new conditions, this condition is wholly unknown at least on my side of pond (UK), and I can find no reference in the literature here.--Anthony.bradbury 19:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and suggest WP:REDIRECT. Tonytypoon 20:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anthony.bradbury. Danny Lilithborne 22:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe merge to main OCD article. For what it's worth, Edgar Allen Poe had another name for this: "the imp of the perverse". --Dennisthe2 03:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a quick search of several psych sites doesn't bring up anything on this. My assumption is that this is a localized neologism. SkierRMH 03:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a person who has obsessive compulsive disorder, I can tell you that many in the blogosphere and web forums have coined this term. I would normally want to maintain the article even if it hadn't been recognized as a disorder formally yet, but it fits as other symptoms and disorders. If a person ruminates but does not perform compulsive behaviors to directly or indirectly relieve the anxiety, the person is simply ruminating and probably has generalized anxiety disorder or a form of anxiety disorder involving a phobia or several phobias. If a person ruminates and does perform compulsive behaviors to directly or indirectly relieve the anxiety, the person has obsessive compulsive disorder.

thethirdperson 8:26, 31 December 2006 (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 no notability asserted.--Kchase T 22:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Eckdale[edit]

Trivial published coverage in the form of cross country times. Trngl999 20:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, CSD-A7, biography that does not assert notability. So tagged. Demiurge 20:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:33Z

NIXEL[edit]

Non-notable software jargon. Completely fails Google test. [55] Edcolins 20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced/unverifiable. This is the sort of term I would expect Google to turn up, if it existed. Demiurge 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified. Heimstern Läufer 21:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. -- Kicking222 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no cites given, apparently unverifiable. -- The Anome 01:41, 1 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 fair use images have been deleted already, I note. If someone wants a list of what images were on this gallery in order to add them to a category, please let me know and I'll provide them with it. Proto::► 16:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of United Kingdom academic heraldry[edit]

Delete: I have removed 78 fair use tagged images from this article per terms of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #8 and multiple discussions regarding the use of fair use images in galleries. This left 68 images, or less than half of the original images. Since this article can not hope to achieve a reasonably complete display of all the heraldic devices of these colleges and universities, it is inherently unencyclopedic. It would be as if we were to create an article on the Tower of London without being able to ever include anything about its history. This article is hopelessly hamstrung due to fair use policy restrictions and as such should be deleted as unencyclopedic. --Durin 16:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity to lose this. I suggest move to project space maybe as a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities, although I realise it contains images for schools as well as universities. --Bduke 21:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to United Kingdom academic heraldry. Instead of a gallery, it could be made into a table with information about the history of the logos, etc. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pity to lose but I agree that the article can never accomplish what it sets out to.--Dmz5 05:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Readers of this afd should consider that the purpose of this page can be handled just the same by a category of the images on Commons. For example, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Battle_of_Austerlitz. All of the images that can be hosted on this article are free license. Thus, all of them can be on Commons. Categories in commons perform essentially the same function that this article attempts. --Durin 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is likely a better way to go. Eusebeus 17:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after transferring remaining images to Commons as per User:Durin.HeartofaDog 01:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Durin. Categories now have the capability to display contained images, so this article (which merely displays them) is superfluous. Additionally, the fair use problem is significant. --Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Durin Guy (Help!) 19:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before deletion, categorize the images (Category:United Kingdom academic coat of arms images?) since they are currently only in the very broad category Category:British coat of arms images. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:36Z

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:39Z

Midnight Riders (band)[edit]

Appears not to be notable _SUBWAYguy 21:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A page for a 1980s band that only released one EP reeks of vanity. Note that the page was created by the band's singer. --Beaker342 21:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. –The Great Llama^{sign here} 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 22:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:40Z

John Rook[edit]

Extremely short article about a radio programmer. No reliable sources to verify the sole claim to notability for this person. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Conscious 21:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, copyvio. So tagged. There was a non-copyvio version in the history so I've reverted to that. Delete the existing version because while there are plenty of Google hits, there's nothing solid/verifiable. Demiurge 21:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete True or not, Rook doesn't seem to be notable. Bourne 21:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
delete it is not needed in my opinion Pernambuco 22:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Piedmont Park. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:41Z

Friends of Piedmont Park[edit]

Contested prod. They may do good work in their city, but this is still a pretty non-notable organization. D enni ^talk 22:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, per nomination (and I live in Metro Atlanta) --Mhking 22:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, on second thought, I'd like to rescind my vote; though I disagree with some of the group's past aims (notably trying to block a parking structure for park visitors), as a group, the organization has received plenty of attention not only in local Atlanta media, but from similar groups and media in support of and in relation to large urban parks across the nation (Griffith Park in L.A., Lincoln Park in Chicago, Jackson Square in New Orleans, and others). Based on that rationale, I'd have to change my vote to keep. --Mhking 23:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Conscious 21:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's rare that a local civic activism group becomes notable, since their notability (or notariety) tends to be very local. It's an admirable cause, but I'm going with WP:LOCAL here and pulling that one for my criterion. --Dennisthe2 03:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm just not seeing the notability here beyond local impact. --Dhartung | Talk 08:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (after trimming) with Piedmont Park. The Piedmont Park article is not overly long, and this seems like a perfect merge.--Kubigula (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:42Z

Parker trio[edit]

The article was originally nominated for speedy deletion per A7, no assertion of notability. There's some assertion of notability in the awards they have won, but I'm not in a position to tell whether those awards are notable enough to avoid regular deletion. I'm moving this to AFD instead. No opinion. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions and in the list of Music-related deletions. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 13:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say that multiple significant awards from the Canadian Gospel Music Association provides some encyclopedic merit for this article. Agent 86 21:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. Agent 86 22:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Conscious 21:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The awards are certainly a claim of notability, only I don't know how notable the awards are. The group's site doesn't provide much as far as references except for pastors from around North America (though this could indicate that they've toured the continent). A surprisingly high 1,080 total and 188 unique hits for "Parker Trio"+"Southern Gospel", though I didn't see many from particularly reliable sources. Overall, it's not much, but I think there's enough here to satisfy WP:MUSIC. -- Kicking222 22:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appear to be more noteable than plenty of other bands allowed with no problems Iridescenti 19:41, 1 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:43Z

Horns and Halos[edit]

Non-notable film. The "award" from the NY underground festival may not, in itself, be notable, either. Fortunate Son, the subject of the film may be notable, in which case this could possibly be merged to that article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Village Voice article plus the Variety review seem enough to establish notability. Otto4711 22:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple (lengthy) articles from reliable sources and an award at a semi-notable festival are enough for me. -- Kicking222 23:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of overall positive reviews at metacritic and rottentomatoes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timtak (talk • contribs) 05:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:44Z

Sander Hicks[edit]

Non-notable author/publisher. Notability as a politician is questionable, as he failed the Green Party nomination; principle notability as an author is from a forthcoming book, and notability as a publisher is questioned below. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Together with:

Notability is questioned, as the entire article consists of a list of published authors, without specifying if it's a "vanity press". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that Horns and Halos, also up for deletion, does not lend notability to these topics, as it's more about the book and the author. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joint nomination? ~ trialsanderrors 21:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Possible outcomes include merging of one article into the other, as it could be agreed that one is to be kept, and the other has only derived notability, so it should be merged into the kept article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Soft Skull Press per authors like Genesis P-Orridge and Paul Berman who are independently notable. A vanity publisher in my understanding gets paid by the author for publishing. ~ trialsanderrors 22:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Soft Skull Press, Weak keep or possibly merge Sander Hicks. Otto4711 23:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Soft Skull Press is a major independent press for a lot of notable authors, like William Upski Wimsatt. --Howrealisreal 23:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sander Hicks because "Horns and Halos" is well reviewed, and not least because Hicks starred in and was also the subject of it. His book, The Big Wedding, is no longer just "forthcoming," but pretty well reviewed at Amazon. And by the way, when Mr. Rubin points out that Horns and Halo's is also up for deletion, he means, I think that Mr. Rubin also put Horns and Halos up for deletion :-) I guess it is not to everyone's taste. --Timtak 05:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think Horns and Halos is enough about Sander Hicks for it to lend notability. Whether or not Horns and Halos is kept, it doesn't support keeping Sander. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definite keep. I would be surprised if Sander Hicks did not have a place on wikipedia. Stan weller 10:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Soft Skull is a notable non-vanity press, Hicks is an author for them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If Hicks were an author for them, it would be a serious point against his listing, as he was the owner of the firm. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, no one's arguing for the deletion. Merging is an editorial decision that anyone can do if they want to. - Bobet 11:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism[edit]

This article was already speedily deleted but nominator and deleting admin agreed am t DRV to give it a run at AfD. The claims were WP:CSD#A7 – no assertion of notability (by the nominator) and WP:CSD#A1 – no context (by the deleting admin). This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. trialsanderrors 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See the soon-to-be-moved-from-userspace version here. Seems like a worthwhile article and sourcing won't be a problem, and seems to be too large to place into the full Tablighi Jamaat article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to existing main article Tablighi Jamaat Substantial overlap with some of the subsection headings. Plus unwieldy title and I don't see enough justification for a separate article for what's left over -would work fine as a subsection paragraph in the main article and a condensed double-column wikilink list (table automatically takes more room). Plus, I don't see the special value of listing each allegation in a table (and is every single box in the Accuser column going to be JTF Gitmo?). Bwithh 21:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition I think this article content needs to undergo rebalancing for POV The whole premise of this article content seems to be to emphasize that there is a prevailing view that the missionary group Tablighi Jamaat is a terrorist jihadist incubator, but this appears to be highly contested in US expert discourse on this area. For instance, Marc Sageman testified to the 9/11 Commission that:"peaceful fundamentalist Muslim groups such as the Tablighi Jamaat may help to promote a peaceful message and repudiate terrorist violence. We need to elicit their help for they attract the same clusters of alienated young men as the Global Salafi Jihad and might provide them with a peaceful alternative to terror. Many such organizations are penetrated by the global jihad and we should help them regain their purity by unmasking those that subvert their message."
There's a good summary of the contested perceptions here, provided by the United States Institute of Peace(a US Government institution whose board of directors (including representatives of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense) is appointed by the President[56]) Bwithh 22:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a serious problem with merging. If you take a close look at Talk:Tablighi Jamaat you will see that:
  1. a lot of the contributors to that article are extremely inexperienced wikipedia contributors, and have never heard of the wikipedia's commitment to WP:NPOV. I created a modest subsection about the allegations against Tablighi followers who ended up in Guantanamo -- the most famous of whom was Murat Kurnaz the Turk who grew up in Germany. That section kept being deleted -- without explanation, by people who were more committed to the Tablighi movement than they were to the Wikipedia.
  2. You can see I proposed splitting out a separate article about the allegations on April 29 2006. And again on June 14th.
- December 22 2005 Added a (referenced) paragraph about a Guantanamo captive's detention being justified by association with Tablighi -- deleted without explanation.
- December 27 2005 Added a (referenced) paragraph about Guantanamo captives' detention being justified by association with Tablighi -- deleted without explanation.
- January 4 2006 reverted unexplained excision of the coverage of the US allegations. -- subsequently deleted again, without explanation.
- February 18 2006 reverted unexplained excision of the coverage of the US allegations. -- subsequently deleted again, without explanation.
- April 3 2006 reverted unexplained excision of the coverage of the US allegations. -- subsequently deleted again, without explanation.
- June 14 2006 reverted unexplained excision of the coverage of the US allegations. -- subsequently deleted again, without explanation.
- June 29 2006 reverted unexplained excision of the coverage of the US allegations. -- subsequently deleted again, without explanation.
- July 9 2006 reverted unexplained excision of the coverage of the US allegations. -- subsequently deleted again, without explanation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- Disclaimer, I created this article, and was in the middle of working on it when it was speedy deleted out from under me.
- The continued extrajudicial detention of at least three dozen Guantanamo captives has been justified by their alleged association with the Tablighi movement. My interpretation of WP:NPOV us wikipedia contributors should not be taking sides as to whether the the US allegation are credible. What we should do is provide the background necessary for wikipedia readers to make up their own mind as to the allegation's credibility. Coverage of these allegations is, I believe, an essential component for the wikipedia to fully cover the issues arising from the detention of captives taken in the war on terror. -- Geo Swan 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I'd like to hear from the anonymous administrator who originally speedy deleted the article, even though it had a {hangon} on it. If I understand what is going on here, I am having to spend hours, jumping through hoops, because they think their original deletion was justified -- yet they haven't offered a single defense of their original deletion -- which I believe it was agreed during the deletion review, was in violation of policy. -- Geo Swan 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All deletion history is stored at [[57]]; this should show you who deleted it and give a reason. Akihabara 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Geo Swan. He seems a reasonable person who has been trying to do the right thing. Akihabara 01:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 08:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originally tagged this for a speedy A7 at a time the article was in a much different form, didn't appear to assert notability, and lacked any sourcing. I probably jumped the gun and should have given the editor a chance to make further improvements. I still don't have an opinion on whether the article is factual or not (I'm just glad there -are- sources now) but I certainly think it is now a lot better than 95% of WP articles. Tarinth 21:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geo Swan; the draft is impressive work on a difficult topic. Bwithh's suggestion of a merge is superficially attractive, but seems likely to be problematic in the circumstances noted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:49Z

Acabion[edit]

This is a concept vehicle from a company that is not notable for anything else. It makes incredible claims with tons of marketing speak and is written almost entirely by one person, whose comments on uploaded pictures appear to me to imply that he's one of the two designers of the vehicle. It's being used as a platform for advertising. Please check the history to see the version before I started trying to clean it up. Not notable, advertisement, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TomTheHand 21:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I agree with TomTheHand, more sources backing up some of the outlandish claims need to be provided, perhaps some reputable news source has done a story on this vehicle. Daniel J. Leivick 01:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I apologize I spoke much too soon a quick Google search turns up many independent and reputable sources. However the ad like tone in the article must be toned down. Daniel J. Leivick 01:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources in question are just coverage of the claims made. A concept appeared at the 2006 Geneva auto show and there was a flurry of press because of the claims made, much like what happened with the Barabus TKR (successful AFD here). I see this AFD as essentially identical to that one: an unknown company brings a concept car to an auto show, claims it'll be the fastest thing ever, and gets drowned in press coverage. However, there's no actual product, at least not yet. This vehicle deserves an article when it actually exists; right now it's just hype and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. TomTheHand 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if it is a concept it is still a development which has received attention from a number of reputable sources.

I don't really see why concept cars are not appropriate for wikipedia especially if it is made clear that they are in fact concept cars and their performance claims are not substantiated. The Acabion appears to be a notable concept car. I've whittled down the page to the bear facts and it looks ok to me. More discussion and edits may be required. Daniel J. Leivick 03:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Daniel J. Leivick. The article needs tidying though. Ford MF 18:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I work with the Speed Record Club, and it is my opinion that the inclusion of the Acabion is valid for the encyclopedia. I have tested the machine from an unbiased point of view, and have found Dr Maskus to be intelligent, knowledgeable and polite. The Acabion is his vision of the future, and this vehicle, in the same way as the Peraves project, is an important step in the development of environmentally friendly travel. Just because it is not well known yet is not a valid reason to delete it from the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guttley (talk • contribs) .
Keep, following Daniel's cleanup of the page. Feezo (Talk) 03:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. —bbatsell ¿? 22:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BENBENEK[edit]

Doesn't seem to be very notable. Author's only contributions are to this article. Salad Days 22:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, CSD-G4 (recreated content) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Benbenek. Demiurge 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, repost. –The Great Llama^{sign here} 22:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Demiurge. Also of note: the creator's username is April Winchell, who is a semi-popular voice actress. That should probably be looked into. Danny Lilithborne 22:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:50Z

Velneo[edit]

Delete - this article does not assert notability with respect to the WP:SOFTWARE criteria. It cites no reliable secondary sources. The main contributors to this article are a single purpose account and an anon IP. No other articles link here, except for an entry added by the anon IP to a list article. All other attempts to link to this article have been removed as spam or non-notable entries. A prod was removed by the anon IP with no attempt to improve the article. JonHarder ^talk 22:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services or, as currently proposed, WP:SOFTWARE. No evidence of Velneo being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the product itself. -- Satori Son 22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Bobet 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cokelogic[edit]

It is a vanity article about a non-notable website, and is unfinished. Badly edited. Pernambuco 13:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[[]][reply]

I created this page because I am a fan of cokelogic. This page not only contains relevance to an art, but a place in time with numerous references source. All facts are accurate and related to the subject matter. I ask, is Wikipedia an encyclopedia for only "popular" material? Not a record of history, but a catalog of pop culture. Exactly how many records must be sold before a band is noteworthy enough to be recognized by Wikipedia?
I submit that no violation has been committed with this page. I am not a member of the band. I am a fan making a page for one
of my favorite bands. And there is nothing in Terms of Service that that tells me I can't; in fact it encourages me to do so.
Pernambuco's argument holds no water. I will overlook the personal attack laid upon me: I will debate his AfD submission, but I will not stand to be criticized as a "bad editor". To delete this page would be to deny useful and relevant information.--Paul Dempsey 14:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new website contains many resources and useful links to learn more about the bands history, and experience their sound. I think this is a fantastic article with poignant thoughts and relevant info. It would be a shame to deprive so many people of this bands richly textued sound and arrangements. --Melissa Skorupa

Please take a look at the article, Cokelogic needs a cleanup, although I prefer to delete it, that was why I nominated it. Let us see what others say, with me, my preference is deletion, and if not, then a clean up. Pernambuco 21:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:MUSIC is the applicable policy for bands, and this seems to fail it. In answer to the question above, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia for notable, verifiable things only. Demiurge 22:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soooo I took time and did some research.

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

I could not find any sources. Google did not bring anything up about this.

Has had a charted hit on any national music chart

Per Billboard, they never charted with the single or album. [58]

Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country

No, they have not certified anything with their album

Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources

My google search found nothing about any tours

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

They have only release one true album but non-the=less, both were self published. Coke Logic does appear on Billboard.com [59] however if we look, it is a self published title.

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such

Nope, none of the artists are notable beyone the band.

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability

Concidering they come from Illinois (Tinley Park and Flossmoor) they might be prominent reps in this style of music but again...need multiple independent reliable reputable published sources.

Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award

No they haven't

Has won or placed in a major music competition.

No, no mention that they have. No press coverage that they have.

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)

No, they have not created a theme for a network tv show or movie

Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

XM Radio...maybe? Not sure because XM will play nearly anything. When you have stations on XM that will play one one single artist for 24 hours straight, I'm not sure this is what is meant to be covered by WP:MUSIC, but I am willing to conceed this point...if true and sourced.

Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network"

Not that I can find.

All in all, the band failed WP:MUSIC DELETE --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to satifsy WP:MUSIC or general concepts of encyclopedic notability. Edison 00:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is outrageous. Am I actually reading that cokelogic is not noteworthy because, "they haven't won a Grammy"? The Doors never won a Grammy. Led Zeppelin never won a Grammy. Queen never won a Grammy. Should we tear them out of the history books? Madness.
And let me understand that you must now have toured internationally, as a simple inner-national tour amounts to nothing in the eyes of Wikipedia?.
And finally, I would like to point out yet another, 'editorial' in this so call fact sheet: "XM Radio...maybe? Not sure because XM will play nearly anything". Please site facts, not opinions. Suddenly we're calling in the merit of an international satellite company? It's becoming clear that this is not a matter of what is noteworthy for Wikipedia, but what people 'feel' is a popular, view 'hitting' page.
Finally, let me editorialize a little myself. I can't remember when I had a bigger laugh than when Brian posed the question, "have they created a theme for a network TV show or movie"; oh, dear lord. Are these really your points for deletion consideration? As far as I can recall, The Rolling Stones never wrote a TV theme songs and they got into Wikipedia just fine. So if you are keeping score: The Rembrandts (the band that wrote the Friends theme song), one; The Rolling Stones, zero.
Why don't we just delete that Beatles page because they never did a Mountain Dew jingle?--Paul Dempsey 00:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, all I did was look at WP:MUSIC (Had you looked at it before making the article?). What I did was take each point from what that guidelines states and then stacked CokeLogic next to Wikipedia's standards. This is NOT personal. I enjoy their music, but they do not meet Wikipedia's standards. Even if one of the artists was a friend or relative, I still would have the opinion of Delete. Don't be upset at me for pointing out the short comings. No, the doors never created a theme, but they did have multi platinum records and were charted. They did tour internationally. Same with the Rolling stones. You are grasping at straws here. --16:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. So far we have WP:MUSIC (explained above, WP:V (airplay, blogs, myspace, youtube, and web fora are not considered verifiable sources), and WP:NOTABILITY. Special nod to Paul, please read these articles; I understand that you're a fan, but...well, I like The Brown Sisters, and I like it is not a suitable inclusion criteria. --Dennisthe2 05:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad. This comment above is mine. --Dennisthe2 05:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to clear up Paul Dempsey's confusion, think of it as a point-scoring system. You get one point for a Grammy, one point for having one or more charted hits, one point for having at least two albums on a major label, one point for major national or international tours, etc. So if you add up the scores for the Doors or the Beatles, you get at least five or six. The minimum score required for Wikipedia is one. Cokelogic scores zero. They're outta here. Xtifr _tälk 09:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is alarming. The negativity from this site is beyond words. Shot and a miss for our friend Xrifr; so brave to pass judgement while hiding behind a screen name. Wikipedia has accepted pages for Paris Hilton, Ralph Wiggum and Toast. Three examples that hold only the most important of information in the great halls of this great institution. A rich man's daughter who's claim to fame is gonzo pronogrpahy, a fictional cartoon chracter (not even a main character of The Simpsons, mind you) and Toast. All of these subjects are seen fit in the Wikipedia record books, but not the musicians of Cokelogic? If this Cokelogic page does not stand, there is something inherently wrong. Both with the structure of this site and the elitist navs who pester these grounds.--Paul Dempsey 12:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton was on the cover of many woman's mags, has many articles written about her from reliable, reputable sources and has co-starred in a TV show. (has CokeLogic done any of these?) Ralph Wiggum is a part of the popular 'Simpsons' TV program. Normally, instead of creating a very large page, information on each character is seperated out into it's own article. As an asside, most Microsoft software has it's own wikipedia page because adding it to the main page would create information overload. As for Toast...well who doesn't know about toast? :) Anyway, the point is...Do the above mentions meet wikipedia standards? Paris Hilton with WP:BIO? Yes. Ralph with WP:Notability? Yes. Toast with WP:V? Yes. CokeLogic with WP:MUSIC? no. PROVE HOW THEY MEET WP:MUSIC, UPDATE THE ARTICLE BY CITING SOURCES AND MOST DELETES WILL CHANGE THEIR MINDS. Sorry for the caps but this is the only way I know to capture your attention. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 16:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry Paul. The difference between cokelogic and Ralph Wiggum, Paris Hilton, and Toast is that I've heard of those three but never heard of this band before. It shows only 2840 hits on google and I could find no mention of them in any sort of verifiable source. Please see WP:SOURCE, WP:MUSIC, and WP:V regarding this article. While Wikipedia does encourage people to Ignore All Rules, this is only in the context of places where the Wikipedia policies are vague or simply fail... and while Wikipedia is not limited, it is also a place for information which can be verified. Lankybugger 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if I actually voted, but I was the person who proposed this article for Deletion, so of course, it is obvious I support a delete for these reasons ....Pernambuco 17:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 2840 hits on google are enough for keeping.--MariusM 02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight, because Lankybugger has not heard of Cokelogic, the information is therefore insubmissable? This is your arguement? Perhaps with a place like Wikipedia you can learn about something you haven't heard of. Learn about Cokelogic. Is this not the point of the site? But no need for any new information, if Lankybugger hasn't heard of it, it doesn't exist. Please counter-point this respond and sound ridiculous; I need a good laugh.--Paul Dempsey 21:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It [cokelogic] shows only 2840 hits on google" -Lankybugger.
Oh, I see. It's not about research information, it's about popularity? We're not trying to make Wikipedia into a resource for information? It's just a "VH-1" style pop article catalog, waiting to for a buy out from aol or google? No. I refuse to believe that and I will stand up to this challenge. --Paul Dempsey 23:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Please read WP:N, WP:V and WP:MUSIC. There are well-defined standards for inclusion on Wikipedia which are applied to all articles. It's not about popularity, it's about notability, which is a subtly different concept. Demiurge 23:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- If you're going to quote me, it'd be nice if you did it in context. My point was not that I had not heard of this band and therefor it wasn't worthy of inclusion, but that the average person not in the underground music scene would not have heard of this band... and that they WOULD have at least a passing knowledge of who Paris Hilton is, what show Ralph Wiggum appears on, and what Toast is. They are notable simply by virtue of their immersion in popular culture. I'm sorry if that was unclear. Lankybugger 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge, I've read these before. If you actually read the debates above you'll see that you are last to point this out. I've stated before that I am a fan of the band putting up a page for Cokelogic. Now I'm being asked to be a professional investigator and pull up articles, TV apperences and the like. Since when has any page started "finished". Why do some of you add to the article. Do some research. The page should be dismissed because I don't have all the answers? Am I supose to know everything about the band?--Paul Dempsey 17:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I'm sorry if you're feeling picked on, but this is just one of the hundreds of articles listed for potential deletion each and every day. And this one (unlike many) was considered borderline enough to be listed for discussion first. Which means that it was posted where people who do know how to do some research are able to review it, and see if it can be salvaged. Many people (including me) browse the daily lists of articles to discuss to see what, if anything, can be salvaged. I know how to do some research on musical acts, and have helped salvage many articles, but I cannot find anything to help salvage this one. I'm sorry. [[Us
er:Xtifr|Xtifr]] _tälk 23:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I've made my case very clear, despite the naysayers. I await the verdict come in on weither the page stays or not.--Paul Dempsey 19:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while that's certain that you've made your case clear, we've also made ours equally clear - if this techno group is indeed notable as you insist it is, you need to stop arguing the point ad nauseam and improve the article. You have only argued with us and been generally uncivil, falling short only of climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, and according to the article's history, the only thing you've done to the article is create it, not improve it. If you wish the article to be kept, then you need to improve the article, and likewise, you need to stop trying to lawyer your way around with irrelevant examples as precedent for a keep, decontexted quoting, and generally being uncivil; by doing this, you aren't exactly going to win people over to your point of view. To distill this: if you want to change our minds, you need to improve the article, and stop wasting your time arguing. Unless you improve the article, my vote (for one) stands as delete. --Dennisthe2 22:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is Pernambuco again, I am the person who listed Cokelogic for deletion, and Paul was angry with me for that, but it was nothing personal, I just gave my reasons and I wanted to hear what others think. My own opinion is unchanged until now, I still support deletion, and if it is not deleted, then at least it needs to be rewritten and improved, it is one of these two. The current article is just not very good, this is why I always thought it needed either delete or improvement. Pernambuco 04:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've done fine, Pernambuco. The ball is now - and frankly, has been - in Paul's court: like I said above to him, he needs to quit arguing and fix the article if it is not to be deleted. --Dennisthe2 04:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, it is normal that pages are deleted or improved, I saw this one, and I listed it for deletion. It was nothing personal against cokelogic or Paul (I do not know Paul, and I have never heard of this band cokelogic before in my life) and I want to say that this is not the first time that I am suggesting a page for deletion, however, it is the first time someone is angry about it, I am sorry, but I still feel the way that I do. Pernambuco 14:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am open for suggestions. I'm hearing, 'improve the page' now. I'm not sure how to improve things here on a text based article. If anyone has suggestions, I'm will listen as it's closer to keeping the page up without threat.--Paul Dempsey 06:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested before, WP:V will tell you of the verifiability guidelines, and WP:N will tell you of the notability guidelines. WP:MUSIC in particular will apply here. Read those guidelines, and look for clues of this on the 'net. In particular, we're looking for anything - newspaper articles, for one; magazines, for another. Those are examples, and are by no means the limit - the articles I quote here will give you good guidelines of what to look for. In this case, Google is your friend - do your research.

One thing that's important to keep in mind - we are not prejudiced to a deletion. If you can get these guidelines going before the AfD here is complete, it's probably a keep; if you can't, and it gets deleted, keep up with your research, and go to deletion review to get it undeleted when you complete it. What would, however, make us prejudiced to deletion in the future (should this get deleted in the meantime) is insistent recreation of the article with a failure to follow these guidelines. In I think a good idea behind this is probably looking at the recent AfD for comedian 2 The Ranting Gryphon. (I submitted this one myself. I like the guy, and he's funny as hell, but I like it is not a suitable reason to keep something here - and he's only really that notable within the furry fandom.)

As soon as I (or someone else) can get it, there'll be an introduction to Wikipedia on your talk page, explaining what we're about, and explaining in brief the five "pillars" of Wikipedia. In the meantime, you may want to make a backup of the article just in case, and work on it in your userspace somewhere if it gets deleted.

--Dennisthe2 06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Obvious bad faith nom. --- RockMFR 23:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Pataki[edit]

Not too well known person. I bet nobody knows him outside New York State. - User: WaWa12 10:51 PM UTC

Strong Keep He's a govener that could be running in the 2008 Presidental election. He is well known more than say the Govener of Nebraska. Carpet9 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Strong Keep What is this a joke? I suggest this nomination be withdrawn quickly as it is clearly without merit. TSO1D 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong Ke ... ah I missed the "debate" already. Newyorkbrad 23:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I merged the contents per Quarl's suggestion, because merging is fun. If someone thinks it'd be better off as a separate article, please add some more content (but don't take the afd result as binding in that sense). - Bobet 12:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SEERI[edit]

Deleted by PROD and contested post-hoc. I don't see that this passes notability guidelines. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep — SEERI is a constituant part of Mahatma Gandhi University, we have plenty of other articles on teaching divisions and faculties of universities, and this one happens to have a major role in the academic field of Syriac. — Gareth Hughes 01:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mahatma Gandhi University. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:52Z

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:52Z

United States Senate elections, 2012[edit]

The group of people who were up for election in 2012 were up for election in 2006. This is six years away, all the senators listed could be retiring, no one is going to make an annoucment for years. No one's annouced whether there retiring or whether they could potentialy run. Who knows if Artur Davis of Alabama will run in 2012? 2008 is more for sure.. In conclusion the page is completely useless if it's 2012. Carpet9 23:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this ends in delete, I'd ask that it gets moved to a subpage so that it can be moved back when there are some sources. Or at the very least leave a notice on the talk page. Hopefully some editor will notice that and ask for a restoration. A lot of work went into this page, so there's no reason it needs to be duplicated when the page does become more desirable.--Kchase T 23:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful advance planning, appropriately caveated without crossing the line into "crystal ball" territory. It doesn't duplicate the 2006 elections article because some incumbents retired and some were defeated in 2006, and although the information in the 2012 article could be extrapolated from other pages, why should the reader have to when an editor has already usefully compiled it in this form? (N.B.: To the creator, don't push your luck and draft the 2018 page. :) ) Newyorkbrad 23:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally I would only support including a page for the next elections (in 2008 in this case), however as one third of the senators elected this year will be up for reelection then, I guess there's no harm in having the page up. TSO1D 01:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment actually, all of the Senators just elected will face re-election in 2012 unless they die or quit. --Dhartung | Talk 08:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jumping off what TSO1D said, this is the "next" election for this class of senators -- that is, we know what seats will be open and whose seat the new senators will be inheriting. Perhaps the "so-and-so may retire" parts of the "Races" section is too crystal ball-like, but the table of which senators will be up for re-election and the 2006 results aren't. Slic e NYC (Talk) 02:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much speculation about retiring congresscritters which could be borderline crystalballery, but beyond this I think the other "Keep" votes above have the right idea. --Dennisthe2 02:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More important than individual Senators' futures is the question of which party holds the seat and how their state voted in the Presidential or other intervening elections. There are also likely links from the articles of lower-level politicians considering whether to run in the next election (2008 or 2010, depending on state) or this one. --Dhartung | Talk 08:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think some of the content needs to be sourced, but the page itself is not objectionable. FrozenPurpleCube 16:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but fix the article. It contains good information for the future elections, but the use of WP:SS is terrible. Links to a series of not yet existing main articles!--Yannismarou 18:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:53Z

Bess Martin[edit]

The page is for a proposed name for a child that was miscarried. The child has no legal name and never actually existed on the show. It is sufficient to mention the miscarriage of the unnamed child in other pages without creating it's own. D'Amico 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somehow I can't see someone interested in a miscarried fictional character. TSO1D 01:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Are you kidding? Babies on soap operas do not deserve articles, unless they killed someone or caused the hero to cheat on the heroine or something stupid soaps would do. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Cornell University. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:47Z

Cornell EMS[edit]

non notable student organization; should be merged with Cornell University or just deleted; prod removed. Brianyoumans 23:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree it has no notability. TSO1D 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete I disagree - Cornell University EMS is one of the most important student organizations in a notable Ivy League university. It is a large organization that has many physician alumni that have gone on to make important contributions in medicine and science. As part of Wikipedia, this page is part of a larger subdirectory of student organizations at Cornell, and this subdirectory would be incomplete if the EMS page were removed. It is a brief, well structured article that is inappropriately targeted for deletion. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.203.127.64 (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. No non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 07:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It also raises the question about the number of student organizations at the school that have articles and don't seem notable. Vegaswikian 09:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought this was one of the weakest articles on Cornell student organizations; I may try to delete others later on. --Brianyoumans 09:33, 1 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:48Z

Salina Soto[edit]

Non-notable actress, only hits are to her website, hasn't appeared in much, only couple of TV shows, and no films until next year Delete Steve _(Slf67)^talk 23:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find her mentioned by any non-trivial and important sources, so she doesn't pass WP:BIO. TSO1D 01:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NDF india[edit]

The result was Keep (Nomination Withdrawn). utcursch | talk 08:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No notability - also, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thejas_Online --Sigma 7 22:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Nomination Withdrawn, as sufficient references have been recorded at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NDF_india&oldid=97115510. However, the page will still need to be watched for POV issues. --Sigma 7 14:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If, as seems likely, this organization is pro-Muslim partisan, the page should say so and be category-classed accordingly. Anthony Appleyard 23:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs extreme POV cleaning - They are notable yes, but they are a front for a terrorist organization, not a "Human rights" org. Their idea of human rights is letting Abdul Nasser Madani roam the roads of South India perpetrating the genocide of Hindus.Baka man 18:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. It's an organisation with news notability despite the POV issues. I've added a few sources that seem reliable, and deleted the unsourced sentence naming the person who founded it. Mereda 10:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Rewritten. --Mereda 15:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Highly notable organization in Kerala politics. The article should be thouroughly POV-checked though. They are accused of being communal, like their hindu counterparts (RSS, VHP, etc.), and a discussion about their role in communal clashes should be dealt with, but not necessarily in the intro. Same standards should be applied to NDF as to RSS, etc. to keep the articles on communal forces NPOV. --Soman 12:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Loud (TV series). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:55Z

Power 30[edit]

A half hour clip block on a music channel. Not that notable, really limited article. Not much prospect of improvement TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: run-of-the-mill pop music weekly that likely did not run long. Anthony Appleyard 23:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daily, actually, but who's counting? Bearcat 11:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every bit as valid an article as French Kiss, Video Flow or The Wedge. And yes, it most certainly is expandable. Keep. Bearcat 11:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Loud (TV series). Basically the same show with a rebranded name. Might as well combine them all into one article. Resolute 15:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge - it's noteworthy enough. --Mista-X 22:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I watched a lot of Muchmusic during the 90's, and I've never heard of this show. Also, I don't think this show satifies the guidlines of W:N.Librarylefty 07:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic extremism[edit]

The article seemed to originally redirect to Islamic terrorism. The redirect was undone by a user User:Poulton who has done the same to a number of religions in an attempt to create POV forks against them. see these diffs [60][61][62] and [63] for further POV-pushing acts. There is a similar deletion debate on Hindu Extremism. Such articles are watering holes for partisan edits and POV forkings and should be avoided. Useful material should be redirected to Islamism or Islamic terrorism where they can be added with neitrality.Rumpelstiltskin223 23:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with Islamic terrorism per nom; there's no need for a fork. TSO1D 01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any definition of 'extremism' is POV. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Better referenced than Christian extremism, but still blatantly POV and West-centric (is that a word? Well, it is now!). I don't see much potential for a rewrite, either. Some of this material could be added to Islamic terrorism if done so in an NPOV manner. Heimstern Läufer 02:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Foo Extremism is a neologism.Baka man 03:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have an opinion that all Extremism sites should be removed whether they are about Hinduism, Islam, Christianity or any other, because those extremist elements are not derived from the ‘Truth’ of those religions but from those of who were ‘Fanatic’ of those religions or misused those religions. So it is not prudent to observe Extremism in Islam, but wipe out those weeds of customs, which were introduced within the Islam from the pre-historical times and the fanatics who misuse the Islam.

Rajsingam 07:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I oppose having this term redirect to Islamic terrorism - it would promote the POV idea that any Muslim who is "extreme" about their faith - i.e., a fundamentalist - is necessarily a terrorist. If anything, if the result is "delete," it would be better redirected to Islam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyperbole (talk • contribs) 07:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

A more prudent course is to work on Religious extremism, and salt all the X-ist extremism pages.Baka man 16:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inherently pov — Lost^(talk) 07:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Perhaps an article on Religious extremism (currently redirecting to Extremism) can be written that examines the general phenomenon based on academic studies rather than newspaper clippings. Only such a scholarly article dealing with the sociological, psychological, political, historical and religious aspects could be sufficiently encyclopedic. Abecedare 08:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Akihabara 09:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Note Please let's kill Islamic Extremism with a capital 'E' whilst we're at it. Akihabara 09:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ITAQALLAH 15:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 15:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree it should be deleted and any relavent material should be merge with Islamic terrorism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ALM scientist (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, ok, I've changed my mind on this topic. New article on Religious extremism would be a better option. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely low quality, magnet for warriors. Pavel Vozenilek 03:05, 1 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:49Z

Damon Kaswell[edit]

AfD nominated by 70.90.135.186 with reason: "Should Damon have his own page? (No offence Damon, you are so cool! ^ _ ^)". This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is ~~Neutral~~. Tevildo 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that depends. Are Writers of the Future winners considered notable? Incidentally, Loreen Heneghan actually is published. I'm assuming you - Tevildo - are the one who added that, and are a Wordo? Are you also the one who keeps uncorrecting the Wordos entry? For the record, I won in Q2, not Q3, and it was the contest for 2007, not 2006 (Blake Hutchins is published in the 2006 anthology). So anyway, my vote is Keep but I'm biased. --GoodDamon 00:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Delete as non-notable author. Going on WP:N, WP:V, and WP:BIO here. --Dennisthe2 02:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment - please change my mind. --Dennisthe2 02:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Damon has posed the critical question - are Writers of the Future winners considered notable? According to WP:BIO, a writer is notable if they have "received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." Does having a short story accepted in an annual anthology published by a firm with - let's say - connections to an organization that is not without its critics - count as "receiving an award"? If so, the article should stay. If not - and I don't personally believe it is - and if Damon has no other claims to notability, it should go. Tevildo 03:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd personally kind of waffle on this, but lean toward "no", only on account that the founding organization of this award is...well, incredibly self-isolated. Based on your points, Tevildo, I'm going to downgrade my vote to a weak delete. I want to keep this. By the way, Damon, I for one appreciate your understanding in this - and wish you much luck. =^^= --Dennisthe2 05:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my mind again... sort of. I looked at the article, and in that it's only loosely connected with the Scientologists (remember, Hubbard was a sci-fi writer himself), it probably should have some notability to factor in. I'll leave this as an exercise to others out there; please comment, and really, please change my mind about that delete. --Dennisthe2 05:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm obviously somewhat biased here, so take this with a grain of salt. I would argue for the notability of Writers of the Future winners in general, regardless of the criticism one might level at Scientology (and I agree that there's lots to criticize). The contest has yielded a large number of successful science fiction and fantasy writers, such as Jay Lake, Nina Kiriki Hoffman, and R. Garcia y Robertson (who really ought to have a Wikipedia entry). As for my own notability - aside from winning the contest, that is - I have to admit it would only stem from my association with the Wordos workshop. If those combined merit a full entry, so be it. If not, so be it. --GoodDamon 05:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I really don't think one minor short-story award is enough to establish notability, especially not when it's just for third place. And especially not when it's really more of a "we're going to include you in our annual anthology" (i.e. a sale) which is called an award in order to promote the anthology. It's nice that they encourage as-yet-unpublished writers, and yes, they've helped some good ones get started. But I still think its status as an actual award is a bit iffy. And given that, and given that the third-place-winning story is still unpublished, and given that there's no actual evidence that Mr. Kaswell will go on to be a successful author in the future, I think notability is not (yet) established. But I do agree that it's a promising start for Mr. Kaswell, and I wish him continued success in the future. Xtifr _tälk 09:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the vote of confidence. I can't really disagree with the comments made here, and can only say I hope circumstances change sufficiently - and soon - enough to merit reconsideration. --GoodDamon 23:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete premature, he's not even a published writer yet. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I just don't see any way of expanding this article beyond a stub at this point. Maybe at some point in the future Mr. Kaswell will have achieved enough prominence as a science fiction writer to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. However, that doesn't appear to be the case at this point in time. Also, Mr. Kaswell is most likely unknown outside the world of writers and avid readers of science fiction writing at this time.Librarylefty 07:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as OR POV fork. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Christian countries[edit]

There are several reasons which I think show that this page should be deleted: What is a "Christian country"? Defining whether or not a country is a "Christian country" will require original research. Now, the article itself says "Traditionally Christian countries". But what the hell does that mean? Not only does that change the topic of the article, it again requires original research. We already have Islam in the United States, Islam by country, et. al. This article's intention seems to be a point of view fork. And finally, Why is some of the article about Christians in Muslim countries? Again, that reeks of point of view forkingDelete. Thank you. Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 00:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs to be cleaned up, but the topic is interesting. Rather than presenting info about Muslims in individual countries this is a more general article on the situation of Islam and its followers in Christian countries. Of course the definition of a Christian country can be subjective, but arbitrary parameters, such as a Christian majority can be used. TSO1D 01:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns. However, the problem is that there is no general situation of Islam in Christian countries. There is no specific decree in Islam that deals with Islam in Christian countries. There could be an article titled Muslims living in Dar al-Dawa, with differing Muslim interpretations about how to live in societies that do not have Muslim majorities. Please see Divisions of the world in Islam. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 01:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:INTERESTING aside, this article seems to have more sources than most, and trends regarding major shifts in religious ethnography sounds inherently notable. I agree that a slight title change might be a good idea (How about "Islam in Historically Christian-Majority Countries"?) since the title suggests that it might only apply to Christian theocracies. Question: why is the factual accuracy of the article in dispute?

Yes, I agree that this is an inherently notable subject. However, that is not why I nominated it for deletion. I am worrying that this is a pov fork, given that its content can already be fully explained in other articles. Also, I did not put the factual accuracy tag, but according to the talk page, it seems to be placed based on a controversy surrounding the number of Arabs vs the number of Muslims in the United States. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also due to the fact we already have Islam in the United Kingdom, Islam in the United States, Islam in Europe, if that is what is meant by "Christian countries". i would opine inserting any salvagable material from here into Demographics of Islam, Islam by country, or into the other aforementioned articles. ITAQALLAH 15:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think its a POV topic. We have to define what is indeed a christian country. We already have articles related to all the countries individually and do not feel any need to create this new article whose topic itself is not right/clear. One could create then Islam in Non-Christian countries and so on... Does not look useful ....--- ALM 16:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIf kept, the name should be "Islam in predominantly Christian countries", I think. It does seem redundant with several other articles, though.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support the creation of an article entitled "Islam in predominately non-Christian countries"? Why should Christianity be used as the primary qualification? --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 00:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice I didn't vote to keep or delete one way or another, and said the article was redundant with several other articles. I was merely suggesting a more accurate name if this ended up being kept, thank you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But as a member of Wikipedia with the potential to make future edits to the outcome of this article, I think it is important for your position on the matter to be fully explained. You can have neither a keep nor a delete vote, that's your privilege. But you failed to address my question, which was why you think that "Islam in predominantly Christian countries" would be an appropriate title for an article. Again I ask, why should Christianity be used as the primary qualification? Would you support "Islam in non-Christian countries", "Hinduism in Christian countries", "Hinduism in non-Christian countries", "Christianity in Christian countries", "Christianity in non-Christian countries"? Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 02:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You read way to much into what I said. I only proposed "predominantly Christian countries" as a substitute for "Christian countries" in the event the article is kept. It is a better title in that it doesn't imply the countries discussed are Christian officially or rightfully, only that its citizens are "predominantly Christian". For instance, most citizens of the United States are Christian, but the country has no official religion, and Muslim Americans are not any less American because of their faith. I really don't see how you interpret what I said to mean I would "support" "Islam in non-Christian countries" or "Hinduism in Christian countries", etc, any more than I "support" this article. A much better analogy would be "Christianity in predominantly Islamic countries" or "Hinduism in predominantly Islamic countries" (note the predominantly, the only thing I actually suggested). "Predominantly Christian countries" is only appropriate because the article is discussing predominantly Christian countries. Whether this is a useful topic is a different question; I already expressed my feelings on this in my first comment.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what is a Christian country ? Baka man 23:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to something like Islam outside of the Muslim World. Also needs to be cleaned up. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NPOV definition of 'Christian country' virtually impossible. The Christian world is not monolithic, no useful (for this subject) common denominator between say Serbia and the Philippines. --Soman 15:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wrong title (there is whole Category:Islam by country), the text is rather low on actual facts and events. I would also accept thorough cleanup, though. Pavel Vozenilek 03:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Redundant considering several articles exist covering Islam in predominantly Christian countries. The phrase "Christian countries" implies some ignorance on the part of the author when one considers that most of the "Christian countries" named in the article are actually secular democracies. The title is POV,the content seems somewhat POV-driven, and the content overall shows poor research. Falcon2020 17:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:OR in spades. Morton devonshire 03:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Strothra 14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, closing early due to clear delete consensus and article creator was just blocked for trolling and disruption. --Core desat 07:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pregnant[edit]

Completing a started AfD by an anon. This article is very obviously on a non-notable person. The article was created by User:WaWa12, who has little on his Wikipedia resume that is not vandalism. Unsurprisingly, mrpregnant.com has an Alexa rank of 475,597. Lots of Google hits for "Mr. Pregnant", but the ones that are related to this blogger are all video postings on YouTube, Google Video, etc. Strong delete. Kicking222 00:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Unfortunately the article makes a claim to notability through youtube popularity so it's not eligible for speedy deletion, however the topic is definitely not notable per WP:WEB. TSO1D 01:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. —ShadowHalo 01:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO. Anomo 02:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. If posts on Youtube constitute notability.... --Dennisthe2 02:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, just assertions thereof.--Kchase T 04:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was about to afd this myself earlier tonight. Ya beat me to it. --- RockMFR 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-bio. I would argue that claiming popularity on YouTube is the definition of not asserting notability. Danny Lilithborne 11:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Yet another Youtube idiot who gets more attention than he deserves.

User:Siii112 7:11 AM 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 No consensus, but perhaps some of the more indiscriminate parts of the article can be trimmed. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 08:52Z

Library damage resulting from the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake[edit]

Mainly to see what people here think and because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but see further comments below. Carcharoth 00:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm nominating this to generate further discussion, as I feel that the article in its present form violates the concept that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is some notable stuff in here, but after the non-notable stuff has been weeded out, what is left could be put somewhere like 2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake#Other_effects, or a new section created on the cultural impact of the disaster. Carcharoth 00:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article history - I have notified the creator here. Please also note the creator's contributions (from 2-6 November 2006: a draft of this article, a US Department of Defense photo, and moving the draft article into the main article space and a few more edits there). The draft article is at User:Elesemichelle/New sub page. Carcharoth 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't consider this indiscriminate, though I think it might be good to add a section in the opening that establishes the significance of the article. —ShadowHalo 01:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment - Damage from a hurricane is notable, and the article seems properly sourced. I think the only qualms I have is that the article may be too specific, but the sheer amount of information warrants this topic to have its own article.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Damage from a hurricane? :-) You mean a tsunami don't you? Carcharoth 04:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For an event like this, I really believe we need many subarticles to cover it. The tsunami had a gigantic effect on many aspects of life. In the big picture, library damage may seem like peanuts compared to other effects of the disaster, but I wouldn't go as far to say it is an indiscriminate collection of information. If anything, we need more articles about the tsunami. --- RockMFR 04:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can't believe we have this, can't believe I'm saying keep it, but it is well-referenced and demonstrates some notability, particularly in saying a famous library in Aceh was destroyed and its valuable collection lost. Just create a Ancient library damage in Pompeii to avoid recentism. ;) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purest cruft, WP not an indiscriminate collection of info. Just because it's true doesn't mean there should be an article on it. Moreschi ^Deletion! 18:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the following points are what I believe should be rescued from the article (the tables and lists of libraries and damage ratings should go - I think this is actually some paper presented at a librarian's conference that the author has stuck online because they think that is what Wikipedia is for):
  - "The Aceh Documentation and Information Center, known for its collection of rare books and manuscripts chronicling the heritage of Aceh, was completely destroyed. Only half of the building remained standing, and the entire collection was swept away. A team from the National Library of Indonesia visiting in January 2005 was able to salvage only three books and one sheet of the genealogy of the Muslim kings of Aceh. These were taken to Jakarta for restoration."
  - "Aceh branch of the National Land Register Agency was inundated with water. Roughly 629 boxes of materials certifying individual land ownership in the province were damaged. Due to the efforts of a team of conservators from Japan and archivists from the National Archives in Jakarta, many of these land register documents were preserved."
  - "The National Maritime Museum in Galle lost 90 percent of its collection, mostly artifacts salvaged from underwater wrecks and archaeology sites. The Maritime Archaeology Unit of the Central Cultural Fund was also severely damaged, resulting in the loss of artifacts from an 18th century Dutch shipwreck."
  - Plus several of the stats about numbers of buildings destroyed and people killed: "2,364 teachers and staff members were killed and 2,240 schools were destroyed on Sumatra and its outlying islands." (Indonesia) and "it is estimated that 1.2 million volumes of books and other reading materials were destroyed in the disaster" (Sri Lanka).
- That is about all I could find that I considered worth keeping. If people want more, they can follow the links to the sources, IMO. Carcharoth 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it may seem trivial information to those of us in the West but the article addresses a very serious issue. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The earthquake is still quite a big topic as RockMFR has pointed out, which requires a number of articles to support it. This article is long enough. Failing that, a merge is possible, but this would mean another article would become too long. Therefore, I would rather keep. Insanephantom 12:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- While the information in this article is valuable, I think it's too in-depth for an encyclopedia. As such, I don't think that Wikipedia is the appropriate place for this information.Librarylefty 07:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagswarm[edit]

The article appears to be a WP:NEO with very few web hits other than the activities related to Missouri Botanical Garden. John Vandenberg 00:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - NN Neologism Artw 01:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The comment on Talk:Tagswarm by Chrisfreeland (talk · contribs) indicates that the purpose of this article is to "to publicize [this effort by the Missouri Botanical Gardens in order] to get more volunteers", not to be an encyclopaedia article on a concept that is an existing and documented part of the corpus of human knowledge. Of course, that was in 2005, and it is possible that the concept of tagswarming has become documented since then. Searching reveals that it hasn't, however. The only documentation to be found is things like this which is an article on a personal web log of one Chris Freeland, who states that xe is an employee of the Botanical Gardens, and this, which is an article hosted by a free wiki hosting service that is written by a user named "chrisfreeland". It appears that this is a concept that has not garnered traction in the world outside of its creator and proponent, and thus a violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Delete. Uncle G 02:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as neologism. --Duke of Duchess Street 03:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Tag cloud, which is a more common term, although not exactly the same thing. - cohesion 02:36, 1 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.