< October 18	October 20 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 already deleted

PastShows[edit]

Reason Tony 23:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Regardless of what happens with the other other related articles I concur that this should be deleted. I was following the model of what I thought was Wikipedia but was actually a Wikia (or whatever those semi-related sites like Glennpedia are).--Tony 23:24, 19 October 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 per CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 02:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Stevenson[edit]

DELETE not notable at all. 4.18GB 01:48, 19 October 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.

A concensus has been reached to delete the page. Thank you for your participation in the discussion. —Encephalon 15:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Basic English core words[edit]

This article is nothing more than a conlang's list of words linking to Wiktionary. As such, per common practice and WP:WINAD, I have transwikied it to Wiktionary as an appendix (wikt:Appendix:Basic English word list), fixed all links to it, and put a big ((wiktionary)) box pointer to it at Basic English [1]. It is now ready to be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Dmcdevit·t 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, not hurting anything, gives a sense of how basic the language is. Gazpacho 00:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not being erased, it has moved to Wiktionary, where it has been linked to now more prominently than the other list was. Of course it's not hurting anything. What does this have to do with the issue at hand? Dmcdevit·t 01:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless cleaned up. This appears to be one writer's POV regarding which words English words should be considered basic, yet the title and introductory context have an obvious matter-of-fact tone to them. — CharlotteWebb 02:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not only is this one writer's opinion of the English core words, but it is taken directly off of another website word for word. What possible significance or reason is there for this to be an article on Wikipedia? Wikipediarules2221 02:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. If it's already been moved to Wiktionary, it's ready to be deleted. Besides, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --BradBeattie 03:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BradBeattie. —Khoikhoi 03:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Trans-wiki to Wiktionary or just delete but unfortunately this is not suitable for Wikipedia. Cedars 04:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. (I see that ((db-transwiki)) only applies if AFD has already taken place.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think there's a place for this article, just not wikipedia. MonkBirdDuke 08:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and User:MonkBirdDuke's comment. --JaimeLesMaths 09:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Trans-wiki wiktionary should have something like this but not wikipedia. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Recury 14:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete from wikipedia per nom. (I support the Trans-wiki already done by the nominator.) AubreyEllenShomo 17:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per Commen Sense--Seadog.M.S 00:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An external link to these words can surely be found and would be sufficient, definitely no need for a Wikipedia article. -Elmer Clark 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 23:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is not just "one writer's opinion of the English core words" as many of the delete noms are stating (showing a disappointing lack of investigation into what they're voting to delete), this is "The 850 words as grouped and listed by C.K. Ogden in The ABC of Basic English (1932)", a notable concept (see Basic English) which has been promoted by such figures as Churchill and Roosevelt. Deleting this copy is fine, as all the links are to Wiktionary anyway, but I wish the earlier voter's would understand why it is fine. --Quiddity 23:52, 23 October 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. DS 01:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentimental Horde[edit]

Sentimental Horde is a non notable webcomic, seen here. Google brings up 80 hits, Alexa shoots back with a million+ rank. - Hahnchen 00:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on WP:WEB and no third party publications making it unverifiable. --Wafulz 01:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB, not verifiable. Hello32020 01:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, also article has almost no content. NawlinWiki 02:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. WP:WEB lists 3 criteria for notability. This article fails all three. Furthermore, "the article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section."
• Delete per...WP:WEB. —Khoikhoi 03:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable, fails WP:WEB, unverifiable.--Lord of Illusions 05:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per... everybody. EVula 15:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per, why the heck is this on here it is most likly spam--Seadog.M.S 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly non-notable per above -Elmer Clark 01:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. Blecccch. Johnbrownsbody 10:54, 20 October 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 16:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Traveling Gnome[edit]

Can more people please start nominating and deleting webcomics? This webcomic, seen here is hosted on the free web host Comic Genesis which pretty much proves its not popular. Now, before we use ((db-web)), someone is going to point out that it was nominated for the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. I'm going to state categorically that a nomination means absolutely nothing, being that there are roughly 100 comics nominated every year, and all the WCCA's are, are an online poll. If this were notable, there'd be quite a few reliable sources available when Googling its title, instead, it just generates 76 unique hits. - Hahnchen 00:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. As an aside: there are too many awards out there as its so easy to start an award. Not just on the web, but on TV, in newspapers, random publicity campaigns. It can be a very poor indicator of notability/achievement. Bwithh 01:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• But when I think crappy webcomics, I think Hahnchen! ...Yeah. ;^_^ Delete Danny Lilithborne 02:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; no reliable sources, WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 04:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think webcomics deserve their own article until they demonstrate form of notability. MonkBirdDuke 08:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To consider I only added the comic after I saw a few listings that were asking for a wiki page for Tales of the Traveling Gnome. The comic itself has had over 10,000 readers for months now, and it's constantly ranked in the top 150 comics in all of ComicGenesis ( Reference Link ) even though it's never done any advertising that I'm aware of. However, do as you see fit, if I erred in listing it, then I did and I apologize. -Hartm, 10:19 AM Eastern, 19 Oct 06
• Delete No assertion of notability. Artist got a nomination, but didn't win (closest thing to assertion that I could find). EVula 15:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this does not appear to meet WP:WEB.--Isotope23 19:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not convinced that this award nomination constitutes evidence of notability. -Elmer Clark 01:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agreed - "nominated" is not equivalent to "award-winning," hence not notable. Johnbrownsbody 10:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Thoughts Among these comments I've yet to see something that comes specifically from the guidelines to deletion. The closest I see is 'not notable' which in this seems more a matter of opinion based on a seeming bias towards webcomics. (See first line of nomination.. notice suggestion is towards all webcomics) The WCAA is actually considered a prestigious award ceremony among webcomic artists, and the fact that hundreds participate actually goes forward to show this. The idea that it takes place on line should make sense, given that the people involved aren't rich and live hundreds or more miles apart. The idea that 'being listed at Comic Genesis' makes it not popular and even crappy is yet mere opinion yet again. Many comics that have gone on to be very popular, and featured at Keenspot the 'holy grail' of webcomics started at ComicGenesis. Yes there are many crappy comics there, but that does not by default denote bad without so much as a perusal of the actual comic. It's a resource, therefore attracts good and bad. There are not specific rules against webcomics being listed in Wikipedia. Nor are there specific implied rules that webcomics must be 'popular' or 'noteworthy'. I can't imagine there could be, because such terms tend to be the realm of opinion, and wikipedia tends to take a neutral stance instead of opinionated stances. Deletion on opinion is expressing of opinion. Deletion just because of being a webcomic is doing the same. -JH (reachable at phreakphit@yahoo.com) 10:19 AM Eastern, 24 October 2006

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triquetra Cats[edit]

Not notable webcomic, seen here on a free web host. Manages 80 unique links, all of them worthless. See Talk:Triquetra Cats also, for a possible message from the webcomic writer. - Hahnchen 00:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. NawlinWiki 02:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. I found this a bit awkward. The article was created today, and the creator of the manga noticed it in the same day, and the AfD is listed in the same day. Anyways, the comic is obviously not notable enough to be listed here. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  02:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable sources, WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 04:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete--and protect from re-creation until the title has been featured in a MSM article if ever. I'm the writer of the comic, and even I understand we haven't paid the dues necessary to be here Chrysicat 06:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Simply non-notable. The content of the article would be best served on the comic's website, not here. EVula 15:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per Chrysicat, and by WP:SPEEDY. Article doesn't claim notability. CSD A7 is met. Also: Comic authorship doesn't assert notability. Who are we to argue with the comic's own authorship about its notability? WP:NN AubreyEllenShomo 21:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We argue with authors all the time over their works notability. Mostly they're wrong and misguided. - Hahnchen 01:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - All the more reason not to argue with this one. AubreyEllenShomo 01:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification - Per Elmer Clark, below, I want to clarify my position. I am applying WP:SPEEDY only, specifically CSD A7. I am not suggesting the author be given undue weight in the AfD process, which would be a violation of policy and process. I'm not even suggesting that the author be given undue weight in THIS AfD. I'm merely pointing out that 1) The article doesn't claim notability. 1a) The article's author didn't claim notability. 2) The article has been reviewed by numerous editors and none have added claims of notability. 3)The deletion appears non-contentious. 4) The subject has had a chance to review the article, and did not add a claim of notability. That the author doesn't think it's notable is only a plus, not a central reason. It shows even clearer consensus. (On a side note, per AQu01rius, it is interesting that the subject, or rather the subject's author, noticed it the same day it was created and asked for an AfD.) I believe in process, but I believe the AfD process is unnecessary here. It's the wrong process. There is consensus on deletion. WP:SPEEDY is met. There is no reasonable chance of there being dissent through the rest of the AfD period. The only discussion is wether to speedy delete or just normal delete. Anyway, I think I've clarified where I am comming from. It doesn't really matter at this point, I suppose. AubreyEllenShomo 16:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability, although I agree that the author's input should be no stronger than anyone else's, even if he is voting for deletion. -Elmer Clark 01:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TheRingess 19:52, 20 October 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. --Coredesat 06:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westbourne School[edit]

School w/o assertion of significance - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with either Sheffield or Broomhill per WP:LOCAL. Verifiable, just not a lot of info right now so the subject might be best treated in an article about the community. JYolkowski // talk 01:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete There's no reason for this article to exist on its own. -- Kicking222 03:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to assert notability.--Húsönd 03:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added the inspection report by the Independent Schools Inspectorate. All high schools are notable, and this school includes the high school grades. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cedars 04:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable. -- Necrothesp 11:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are less than 30 secondary schools in Sheffield, a city of more than half a million people, so it's notable in that context. It is regrettable that so many school articles in Wikipedia are so dull and empty, but my general view is that every school is worthy of a place. Emeraude 13:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Necrothesp. --Daniel Olsen 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all enduring public institutions. --Centauri 14:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Would you favor an article for every post office and every DMV office? Pan Dan 23:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. EVula 15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per JYolkowski, or else keep. — RJH (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a comprehensive school with more than enough information available to justify the promise of future expansion. The additions by TruthbringerToronto provide additional sources, and the INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS INSPECTORATE INSPECTION REPORT ON Westbourne School makes for fascinating reading on the school's functions and programs. Alansohn 17:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The government inspection report shows verifiability, yes. Notability, no. In general, the existence of non-trivial third-party sources shows that the outside world (as represented by the publisher of the source) deems the subject notable, hence we Wikipedians consider it notable enough for inclusion. But a government an inspection report on a school isn't published because its publisher, or anybody, deems the school notable, it's published because government schools are accountable to the public parents. So the government inspection report is not enough to show that this school is notable. Pan Dan 23:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on the above two contributions: It is not a comprehensive school. It is a fee paying private school. It is NOT a government report (which is not to say it is not as rigourour.) The Independent Schools Inspectorate is an inspectorate of independent (i.e. private) schools which are not inspected by the government OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education). Emeraude 23:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alansohn.  ALKIVAR™ 20:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim of notability. I do not agree that all high schools should have an article. Mention it in an article on the town. Edison 21:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why not have a lit of schools in the area article, rather than each specific school. There is no real reason to have an article on a school, unless it is famous in it's own right, which I don't think this is. Craighennessey 23:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. One of the most disputed topics in the history of AfD, I read in one of the namespace pages (I can't remember which), is the notability of schools (see WP:SCHOOL. I think it says secondary schools are decided as inherently notable. So keep it. That being said, the article doesn't say much. 129.98.197.86 01:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think a consensus needs to be reached at WP:SCHOOL before we start deleting articles on high schools. -Elmer Clark 01:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons established at User:Silensor/Schools (see also User:JoshuaZ/Schools if you are so inclined). Also meets criteria in proposed WP:SCHOOLS guideline and is verifiable subject matter. Silensor 05:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I feel all schools deserve an article. Though this one does require significant expansion. Konman72 06:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per the norm. Alpharigel 18:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alansohn. --Myles Long 06:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge do not keep. Don't wait on WP:SCHOOL since it is not likely to reach consensus. Even if it does, this article does not meet the minimal requirements in that proposal. Vegaswikian 04:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article doesn't even try to assert notability.Glendoremus 05:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability. Catchpole 11:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets all content policies (indeed, there is no suggestion that it does not). Christopher Parham (talk) 17:29, 24 October 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 16:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlogAdvance[edit]

This website doesn't meet WP:WEB inclusion criteria. No major third party publications about it, and no awards. Alexa ranking of approximately 106,000. There are plenty of Google hits, but it's a traffic exchange website, so this is a given. --Wafulz 01:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article lacks sufficient independent verification to satisfy WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 02:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, it's too minor. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks and feels like spam. EVula 15:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no claim of notability on any scale that would satisfy WP:WEB -Elmer Clark 01:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. *drew 11:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bloggy. Anomo 02:20, 21 October 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 06:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Divine[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)).

This was originally speedy deleted per A7 after a brief AfD yesterday. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure) However the user put up quite a number of good arguments and after discussing the issue with LunaSantin, I decided to make a second AfD has been made. Nishkid64 01:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: The article Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure was also originally linked to this afd and presumably nominated for deletion discussion.

Also, Ms._Divine's_Tee_Hee_Hee_Heure_(Short_sketch_one-lady_films) should be included in the nom as a essentially a shorter version of the other Tee Hee Hee article. Bwithh 12:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The performance artist Ms Divine is a director/actress and she and her films are listed in the movie guide. 'Do Not Delete' Here are the links again with reference and proof of notablility for Ms. Divine

Ms. Divine listed in the New York Times - http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=454333

Ms. Divine listed in IMDB (Internet Movie Database) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2345632/

Ms. Divine listed in All Movie Guide - http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=2:454333

Ms. Divine's film at the Pioneer Theatre http://www.twoboots.com/pioneer/monthly_programs/2005-11.htm

I also have the official website as well.

She also currently has several movies in the works on her official website. The internet movie database which is a very popular movie guide has her listed because their site encompasses a body of useful information. That's why people frequent that site so much, because they find information that is not always that easy to find.

In addition to Ms. Divine being a director/actress, she also has her local TV show as well. That is why there were 2 articles, one for Ms. Divine and one for Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure.

The Television network that her show airs on is supported by TimeWarner Cable and RCN Cable, under a franchise agreement with the City of New York. Which means that is a legit channel accessible to all cable customers.

Her program is listed in the guide at http://www.mnn.org/viewers/schedule On the drop down menu for channel selection select "TW 67/16 RCN 86"; For Time select Mon 10/16 scroll down to the time 10:30pm and you will see the program listing for the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure..

The other program is listed under http://www.qptv.org/iq/ProgramGuide/ChannelListings/tabid/95/Default.aspx Select Monday then scroll down to the time 8:30pm, on channel 34 You will see Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure listed there. Also select Wednesday then scroll down to 1:30pm on channel 56, again you will see the program listed there.

There are other programs that air on these channels that are defined in wikipedia. There are people out there that want to know and read more about these programs. That is one of the reasons why i took the time to write the articles. PeterWeller 01:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: PeterWeller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

• Strong Keep The external links provided seem to point to valid websites that people do trust and turn to for accurate information. For e.g., the New York Times, IMDB.com and local tv guides, are all well-known, well-regarded and well-trusted sites. She is listed for a reason...for public consumption and apparently that makes her a public figure and therefore is very notable. Plus, who is to say that she is not famous just for being associated with other "famous" people...what makes a person who has dated a quasi-celebrity (for e.g. a reality tv "star"), a celebrity by association and therefore newsworthy? I can list many examples of the case of celebrity be association...at least Ms. Divine actually has a growing list of interviews with public figures and a large body of work that has been featured on television and in theatres.

--User:Workofordaman 02:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)— Workofordaman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment Aren't all of those movie links listing the exact same movie? --Wafulz 012:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 of the links are linking to that movie. The other internet links to her - http://imdb.com/name/nm2345632/ I put those links up there, for there are external links that validate Ms. Divine and her films.

• Strong Delete as encyclopedically non-notable public access channel filmmaker. To address the external links: 1) It's easy to get listed in the All Movie Guide[2]. The only criteria is that the film product has to be commercially available in the country of release. That's it. If it's a theatrical film not available as a video or DVD, all you need to do is send them a press kit - so even easier 2)The New York Times film database is taken from The All Movie Guide[3]. Main difference is that a "readers' review" forum is allowed so that indie filmmakers and friends can post vanity reviews of their own films. (Nice touch with the "only" 4 star gushy review but then the effect is spoilt with three 5 star gushy reviews) [4]. 3)It's not that hard to get into the IMDB (possibly even easier than it is to get on Amazon.com). IMDB is a database with barriers to entry that are as low or almost as low as the All Movie Guide, and which is not well policed. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Nguyen_(Second_Nomination) for instance. 4) The Pioneer Theater also has bracingly low barriers to entry for film screenings[5]. Good for them, but this does not make it a good reference for encyclopedic notability. 5) As for the qptv and manhattan neighborhood network showings - the whole point of these public access channels is that ANYONE living locally can have a chance to show their program at some point. The city authorities made the cable tv companies support these "community" channels in return for letting them dig up neighborhood streets to lay cable pipes. I've occasionally come across some entertaining stuff on MNN e.g. silly "opera" staged and sung with cuddly toy animals; raw unedited amateur footage of hot European fashion shows - but basically there's no quality or content control whatsoever... anyone can stage a show and pretend to be an expert at whatever or use it as platform for their unusual political/religious views or to show off their "unique art" or whatever Bwithh 02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, local cable shows fail notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, First my article is for Ms. Divine who is a performance artist NOT a public access channel filmmmaker. I was asked to proove her notability, so I proved it by providing those external links. Those links describe her diversity, which includes filmmaker/actress.

IMDB - Internet movie database is a popular database. If it has such low criteria as you stated, you would see all sorts of "bogus movies". That seems to be your opionion about IMDB than what you actually see. For instance, wikipedia has more bogus entries than Internet movie database.

Also the movie is mentioned in the New York Times, would you say that is bogus too?

The idea of wikipedia which is a user defined encylopedia is for users to access information that they want to find. Writing my article for Ms. Divine and Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure, does just that.

There are many Public TV shows that are long running and have gained cult status. What about Democracy Now by Amy Goodman. That is also a Public TV show. Should you then go and delete that entry? If this show is about "rubbish" as the user previously stated, then how did her movie and her work get accepted to Internet Movie database and to the local theatre.

And most importantly this discussion is also for the performance artist Ms. Divine not just for her show. As mentioned before I have proved her notablitity and existance from the links shown. PeterWeller 02:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)PeterWeller[reply]

Democracy Now is broadcast on over 500+ radio and tv stations in North America[6]. It also has established standards of content submission rather than an open access free-for-all. I already explained where the NYTimes listing comes from and about the theater and IMDB. Wikipedia has more intensive content policing that IMDB but also covers vastly more numerous subjects. I didn't say everything on public access is rubbish. I specifically said there is some stuff which is quite entertaining - this doesnt make it encyclopedically notable. Finally, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine or a directory. Bwithh 03:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy Now started as a very small independant media and then grew. The New York Times listed the movie because it is a valid movie that aired in a theatre. That prooves the notability.

There are more mistakes in wikipedia than I have seen in IMDB which makes me feel that IMDB's criteria is much higher. Determining what's notable has already been prooven with the links. The person does exist, she has an audience and her work is on display on all sorts of media ranging from TV to the internet to local theatres. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopedia where you can find information about subjects, especially hard to find subjects such as this underground performance artist. It seems to me that wikipedia is just for defining pop culture. PeterWeller 03:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)PeterWeller[reply]

"It seems to me that wikipedia is just for defining pop culture". Um... a lot of effort goes into trying not to be that. Anyway aren't you contradicting yourself by identifying with pop culture. And I look forward to the day when Ms. Divine is broadcast regularly and frequently on 500 stations all over a continent. I'm already gone over the issue with All Media Guide/NYTimes. And yes, NYTimes operates a local listing service which includes the Pioneer Theater. This doesnt prove encyclopedic notabilityBwithh 03:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it appears to me that wikipedia is there for pop culture. At the time that I did this article I thought wikipedia was for providing information about all sorts of topics which included information about underground artists. Sort of like finding information about topics ranging from general to obscure. If the Wikipedia authors are too narrow-minded and are unable to respect art, then wikipedia shall always remain a stagnant "closed off" encylopedia. Thankfully the artist has established her own underground audience.

• Strong Keep

The Pioneer Theater has high standards for feature movies. I saw the Bank Heist Movie in the Pioneer Theater. The theater has HIGHER standards than a commercial movie theater which only accepts movies based on their expected profit margin. The standard in question being a creative standard not a commercial one. They do no accept homemade movies, a lot of people tried that already - it does not work that way. On Public Access shows - Quite a few of them are far more entertaining and creative then the junk that gets passed as entertainment in US networks.

Deleting this article is equivalent to pandering to what Big Movie Studios Television Networks deem to be acceptable viewing. The fact is corporate media is filled with garbage shows with no real actors - just reality shows that are fed to the masses who watch anything on the networks.. A few numbers down and you get public television that features struggling artists trying to get their work out. So the morons who act in realty shows are notable? What a joke! In effect no independent film artist can be notable unless they appear in corporate media. Yippee Congrats Wikepidia...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlos00001 (talk • contribs) .— Carlos00001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Carlos00001 03:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, personally I'd delete 90% of the reality tv show contestants, and 60% of the reality tv shows, but popularity counts for a lot on Wikipedia. As for struggling artists, win a well-recognized & well-established award at an indie film festival or distribute online and get good reviews by well-known critics and you'll have a solid standing on Wikipedia. Bwithh 03:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok- so essentially what I just said. Win an award from Corporate Media (do you know what indie film festival is?!). Sure. By the way the show is quite popular online from what I've seen. But its good to know what Wikepidia accepts. I will remember that you guys only accept what what is popular. So I don't need to come to this site ever again to find out something, since I can get all my answers to popular stuff elsewhere. Thanks.

Carlos00001 03:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'd really like to give this one a chance, but I don't see evidence of real notability at this time. The media mentions seem to be just "drive-bys" rather than featuring this individual or her product. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article doesn't seem to demonstrate notability on the part of the person, despite the fight that was put up to keep it from being deleted. It sounds a lot like a vanity/self-promotion page. I don't see any reason to keep it at this time.--MonkBirdDuke 08:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bwithh and MonkBirdDuke. Reeks of WP:VAIN. --Aaron 12:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, although I'm more troubled by the attempt to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is deluded

The only reason I even signed up to make a comment was that I happened to notice the deletion notice and the invitation to comment. I decided to comment because I had seen some of her work. A search for Ms Divine on Google brings her website and this entry only appears afterwards so I doubt if she needs Wikepidia for promotion as one of your sagacious administrators claims. You admin people are clearly deluded, for I am not part of an drive by user or whatever ridiculous terms you assign to me.

I find it quite offensive too that you add that belittling little comment at the end of my username after clearly posting a link that regular users can comment on this.

I hope other regular users who read my comment (if it is not deleted) will refrain from adding anything to this stupid one-sided discussion among the narrowminded people who administrate the wikepidia.

I also urge the original poster who put up the original content to ignore this site and to remove all content from it- this site is clearly not meant to be a free encyclopedia

And this is not the only blatant deletion I have observed: An interesting piece on possible plagiarism by Albert Einstein at this site was suddenly deleted with no explanation given despite this information existing (and being confirmed) on other sites. (Even as an allegation this charge is quite 'notable')

I would advise Wikepidia to close off these discussions from the public since these do nothing but reveal the administrators blatant disregard for their general users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.105.38 (talk • contribs)

Any encyclopedia has to have guidelines and regulations as to what can be placed on the website and what can not. That's why this AfD was created in the first place. There was a little disagreement on my part regarding the deletion of the article after bearing witness to some of PeterWeller's arguments. That's why I made this AfD. Do not put the blame on the administrators, when this AfD is here so that anyone in the community can add thoughtful and meaningful discussion to the page. Nishkid64 23:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

incidentally, a google search browse for the einstein plagiarism issue suggests that this is an ugly anti-semitic rumour fabricated by white supremacist groups Bwithh 01:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Strong Keep

Issues of notability and validity with regard to my 2 articles

My first article was for the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee HEure. Some have argued saying that Public access channels are not valid thus the show is not valid. This is an ignorant statement to assume.To brush the matter off as a simple local channel show, shows a lack of respect and a lack of understanding of the importance of these channels and the role it plays in the community and culture of New York.

The Television network that her show airs on is supported by TimeWarner Cable and RCN Cable, under a franchise agreement with the City of New York. Which means that is a legit channel accessible to all cable customers. The reason I choose to write about this show, is because it is a show that has been running for the past 4 years, and has maintained an underground audience. I looked up the criteria for notablity in wiki and it states that it is notable if it has some sort of underground audience. Not many shows have done that. This show exists, is long running and has a cult audience and thus deserves notability.

There is a page in wiki on public access TV right? Is it not appropriate and perfectly NOTABLE for the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure to be mentioned as an example? And if so, would that not justify a page to link to the show to present the type of stuff they play on public access?

That seems reasonable to me. Also, it is a matter of New York TV, culture and art, particularly Queens and Manhattan. This is NOT about promotion or PROFIT. One wiki admin states that he is "worried" by the Selfpromotion and vanity. Nice snide remark but still not one of logic. Perhaps what one should be concerned about is the biasness that is related to "notability", and the other inaccuracies that plague wikipedia's articles, such as False information. The blatant self promotion that I see is more often in the profile of admin users, who list all these things in their profiles when in actuality they are not notable. Not to mention the obvious cooperate promotion that exists here. See more below for what I am referring to.

This article was written to present users with articles and information that they can find out about. I am arguing my points because its a matter of principal, and I do not believe that deleting both pages is justifiable. And yes, I am determined to atleast state my points before leaving.

Plus there are pages in wiki about bands (Front 242 , Devo

Devo,(http://www.mutatovisual.com/beautifulmutants/reports/fuse/html/gvc_intrv.html) Gary Numan, Lloyd Kaufman that have that have been interviewed by Ms. Divine and have been a part of the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure. So why can't the show be notable as it presents the users with information about the show that the artists have been guests of.

My second article was about the performer Ms. Divine who is the producer of this long running TV show comedy and in addition to that, she has been making numerous sketch films (one of which is listed in IMDB) that aired in local theatres, television and available thru various internet sites. She also has interviewed the above mentioned bands. She also as an established online presence. Ms. Divine is an all-round comedic performer and has gained an underground audience throughout the years, that's why I defined her as a performance artist and felt the article would be quite informative.

This article was not up for deletion at at all and was hastily deleted after the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure was deleted.

Again there are articles in wiki about independant performers, sketch comedians and thus it is perfectly NOTABLE for Ms. Divine's to be mentioned as an example and thus justify a page to explain the sort of stuff that she does.

To submit proof of her film and of her, I enclosed the external links (with the exclusion of the official site) for Internet Movie Database, the listing in the NY times and the listing the theatre. These links listed her movie and also listed her credits and bio which included director/actress etc. which is more proof to my article where I write that she is a diverse performance artist.

The links are not simply "passing links", if you look at the links carefully it is more than a simply listing, it contains more information. Please refer to the bottom of the page where i have enclosed the details of the link

One wiki admin author states that Internet Movie Database is not valid for anyone can submit information. That statement is NOT true. Just go to the site imdb.com and see how many "Bogus" INVALID articles that you find. Probably none. Thus IMDB has valid selection criteria. However, take a look at wikipedia and you will find a a good number of BOGUS and INVALID articles written. Thus one can conclude that it is wikipedia that has a much higher chance of NOT being credible. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that all of wikipedia is wrong, but we all know there are many inconsistencies and false facts in wikipedia.

In addition to that, the same wiki author states that Pioneer Theatre in New york City has low standards. That is a matter of opinion. The Pioneer Theatre is a legit theatre. They obviously do not accept just anything. They are known to promote the works of independant artists. Try submitting a bogus film to Pioneer or a home video. It will NOT get accepted. To slander a theatre without knowing how it really works shows a lack of knowledge and an ability to understand art.

The same wiki author tries to discredit the New York Times listing of Ms. Divine and her movie. The movie is valid and so is she. How many "false' listing have you come across in the NY TIMEs listing database. Now again compare the NY times database that to wikipedia, you will see that wikipedia always has more bogus articles than ever. Why not spend more effort in correcting these inconsistencies instead of spending time in deleting a page such as this that has validity and is LEGIT and NOTABLE.

I understand that there are many people who falsify documents and articles in wikipedia, so i can see why articles need to be investigated. However, i am not trying to do that. Ms. Divine is a legit peformance artist. The links that I have provided from various EXTERNAL sites proove that. However to dismiss the links as not notable has become more like a form of bias. The Wiki biography states once again that it is notable if the person has an underground audience. Thus the artist does fit that criteria. She obviously has a long running TV show and movies that have been acknowledged and validated via the links that I have sent were just some examples.

If wikipedia is going to continue their policy of their so-called "notablity" by only relying on cooporate entities to define what music is, or what artists are. Then wikipedia is living in a very "closed box" for they FAIL to understand the valuable contributions that independant artists have made. Not only that, but wiki shows no respect for people that want to find out about these contributions. The subject of notability appears to be more of an "opinion" among the wiki admins than that of reason or logic.

Apparantly defining Lionel Richie's daughter, Nicole richie is considered notable. Defining Hilton sisters is notable. Wikipedia is not a unique online site that encompasses a wide variety of topics. It is an online site that obeys co-operate media for wiki feels Paris Hilton is legit because co-operate media said so and thus she is notable? Thus wikipedia endorses cooperate promotion But yet, defining an independant artist is "non-notable" despite the fact that I have backed my article with various links that prooves her works, her existence etc..

There are many bands and topics that are defined in wikipedia that do not have any backing of external links, yet these articles continue to exist.

Wikipedia is an online Enclyopedia, its supposed to be an online site that amasses a large amount of information. People would want to use a system like that, to find articles on topics especially obscure topics that they can't always get their hands on. That is why I choose to write my 2 articles on the performance artist and the show. However, if the article is going to be deleted, then what use is wikipedia to the segment of the population that is trying to research hard to find items. Anybody can find out about Paris Hilton. There are millions of articles all over the web about that person.

Thus wikipedia is not unique in the way that it claims to be. It still contains lots of false information. It still only defines items that most people already know about. It doesn't serve as a source of information where one can find the answers to unqiue topics. Not only that, but many of these wikipedian authors or so called admins (I by no means mean that all admins are bad), appear to gleefully enjoy this "authority" of deleting articles, without using any kind of valid reason. Repeating "notability" like a parrot is not a valid point. Some of their reasons are irrelevant and mean spirited showing a complete lack of professional journalism and utter biasness. And these are the people behind wikipedia. Truly Pathetic! This only serves to impede the development of wikipedia even more. Thus users who want to find information about unique topics and artists will look elsewhere, for wikipedia has failed to provide that information to users.

It would be great if there were any admins out there with an open mind who can understand these points and is willing to KEEP the article. I am also very open to improving the article, categorizing etc etc.

Special thanks to Nish (one of the administrators) who was open-minded enough to re-open this article up for debate, and giving me the chance to express how I feel about that. Thank you very much...

And also thanks to all for taking the time to read my points. I do appreciate it very much. Have a good day. - Peter Weller

PS -

The zoologist Desmond Morris who wrote the book "the Human Zoo" provides some interesting insightful observations about the creative individual. I feel this quote is very appropriate.

"The creative talent will therefore find himself alternately praised and damned by society in a bewildering way, and will be constantly in doubt about this acceptance by the rest of the community:"

Desmond Morris (The Human Zoo, Chapter 12)

Thus inorder for the creative talented individual to be accepted, society must evolve first..

NOTES I have just re-listed a small portion of the links for quick reference and easier accessiblity. I think previously I didn't list the link that had the most details. Thus Please visit links again

---

Ms. Divine bio credits and film listed in the New York Times -

http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=339446

Ms. Divine bio and film listed in IMDB (Internet Movie Database) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2345632/bio

Ms. Divine's film at the Pioneer Theatre http://www.twoboots.com/pioneer/monthly_programs/2005-11.htm

Ms. Divine's Official site http://www.msdivine.net

Ms. Divine's Tee Heure w/ Devo featured artist on Devo's official page. http://www.mutatovisual.com/beautifulmutants/reports/fuse/html/gvc_intrv.html

Listing of program Her program is listed in the guide at http://www.mnn.org/viewers/schedule On the drop down menu for channel selection select "TW 67/16 RCN 86"; For Time select Mon

10/16 scroll down to the time 10:30pm and you will see the program listing for the show Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure..

The other program is listed under http://www.qptv.org/iq/ProgramGuide/ChannelListings/tabid/95/Default.aspx Select Monday then scroll down to the time 8:30pm, on channel 34 You will see Ms. Divine's Tee Hee Heure listed there. Also select Wednesday then scroll down to 1:30pm on channel 56, again you will see the program listed there.

---

PeterWeller 02:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)PeterWeller[reply]

Note: User:PeterWeller's second vote. -Elmer Clark 02:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:PeterWeller's third vote. Ohconfucius 06:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability. None of the sites you mentioned seek to screen their entries by notability. Several independent filmmakers I know, whose work is extremely obscure and has been seen only at very small local screenings (and in no way qualifies for Wikipedia inclusion), have entries at IMDB and the other sites. Inclusion on those sites have never been considered criteria for inclusion. Public access shows, as has been mentioned, are also not any sort of indicator of notability, nor is acting in local, non-distributed films. Peter, it sounds like you take issue with Wikipedia's notability guidelines in general. This is by no means the place to try to change them -- try the Talk page at Wikipedia:Notability. Under the current notability criteria, which the majority of Wikipedians agree with, Ms. Divine is not notable. Sorry. -Elmer Clark 02:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Also, since the topic was broached, Wikipedia is a community, not an island of one. I get rankled at the suggestion that I am "close-minded" simply because I do not agree with the article's creator. Also, agreed about the odious Einstein rumor. Johnbrownsbody 11:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bwithh. *drew 11:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All this interest alone should be enough to satisfy the notable criteria. Alpharigel 18:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.... do you actually read the discussion or do you just judge visually by the amount of text you see on screen? Bwithh 20:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Bwithh, that is a blatant assumption of bad faith and borderline WP:PA. --Marriedtofilm 05:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the "blatant" assumption of bad faith? It's not a personal attack, as I'm talking about his reasoning. Alpharigel says himself that he's judging by the amount of interest "alone" shown in the afd i.e. the amount of text the afd takes up on the afd page. Since he would have come to a discussion where everyone except one (who seems to have personal or professional links with the article subject) has made delete arguments, I'm questioning his logic. I say nothing about whether his logic is good faith or bad faith. I'm calling him on his strange reasoning. Possibly he may be talking about the NYT/IMDB/AMG references but that still sugggests he hasn't read the discussion, but merely scanned it. Bwithh 15:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You or I don't know how this editor came to their conclusion (nor if the editor is a he or she). "All this interest alone" in no way demonstrates they simply measured the amount of text on an afd screen to reach a conclusion. In your last response you brought up a second option on the comments by speculating that the they were referring to the article references which indicates that you yourself aren't even sure how they reached their opinion. Just by your own response showed your first comment was in bad faith. --Marriedtofilm 15:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. You're entitled to your own opinions. People arguing keep based on the amount of discussion in an afd crop up more often than you might think. I thought of the second option only after I wrote that comment. If you insisting on twisting my statements to paint me as a little tyrant, go ahead. There doesn't seem to be any reasoning with you. Frankly, you could do with taking your own advice. Bwithh 16:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest you take a look at what ad hominem actually means. Bwithh 16:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem doesn't apply here as neither of us know how the editor arrived at their conclusion and I'm not suggesting their conclusion is correct (haven't even voted and still up in the air on this). It's just that mean spirited comment - "do you just judge visually by the amount of text you see on screen" - was out of line. --Marriedtofilm 19:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The length of this AfD page is the only thing anywhere on Wikipedia that could indicate a lot of interest in this subject. Bwithh's assumption was reasonable and in no way a personal attack. Also, to Alpharigel: if you were serious, first of all note that almost all the discussion on this page has come from the article's creator and been more about Wikipedia policy in general than about Ms. Divine, and also that "interest" on Wikipedia itself is by no means one our notability critera. -Elmer Clark 21:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Clark, I appreciate your comment and wish you were the 1st responder to Alpharigel's comment. I think the 1st responder was mocking in tone, but that is my opinion. Your own response to the editor shows you gave benefit of the doubt, assumed good faith, didn't mock while explaning notability critera and seemed to value adhering to WP:BITE. --Marriedtofilm 23:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bwithh and Alpharigel. ~ trialsanderrors 06:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of Wikipedia is that is defines many various and sundry subjects, people, ideas etc. Having been a longtime viewer of Ms. Divine's creative efforts - weekly TV shows, movies etc. I support her fully and wonder why you would delete her from your website?

Any thinking human being should be able to look on this website, get a description of who/what is Ms. Divine or any other entity listed, access the original information referred to, and make up their own mind as to the value of the information thereby derived.

Please do not delete Ms. Divine from this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peejhayward (talk • contribs) — Peejhayward (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete all per Bwithh. There seems to be a walled garden growing around the subject both inside wiki and outside. If only the achievements were anything as impressive as the (filibustering) by socks taking plpace here! Not only does this appear not to pass WP:BIO, this is NPOV also violates WP:SPAM. Arguing for a "keep" based on the length of discussion is a sure way of improving the lengths of AfD pages with dubious consequences for quality of discussion and of articles. Ohconfucius 06:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nobody is arguing for a "keep" based on length. That is an assumption that lacks logic. Users that vote "keep", have a right to. It is unnecessary to take a harsh tone with ones that do..

If you are referring to my response with regard to notability as "spamming". That is an incorrect assumption to judge the length of my response as spamming. In order to debate, I need words, and in this case, I have used words to express my reasons for keeping this article. Yet, this is another case of some administrators that live in a "closed box", and are quick to be sarcastic.

Not to mention the fact that I have contributed to other articles on this site, but yet some administrator has tagged my user name to say that I have not contributed articles. Once again a lack of professional journalism is displayed. PeterWeller 00:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)PeterWeller ---[reply]

• Delete as I have found out, Wikipedia is more about "notability" than comprehensiveness. I concur, philosophically, with the guy who wrote "Wikipedia is deluded" in that I think Wikipedia should consider being more comprehensive in the realm of things in the public sphere (television, radio, newsprint, etc). But, at this moment they are not and as such this article is not notable under the Wikipedia guidelines and practices right now. Consistency in policy application would be best.--Tony 17:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Questioning this Forgive me: I am not an expert on the criteria for the deletion of articles on Wikipedia.

I noticed that the initial removal was a “speedy deletion”? After reviewing the criteria for this type of removal I did not see how the deletion met the guidelines: patent nonsense or pure vandalism?

I also noticed that regarding notability, verification was an issue. I did a search on Wikipedia for Public Access, found an article on this sight for that subject, scrolled down and saw a link for Queens Public Access, clicked on that site, then their programming schedule and found a listing for the artist’s show, as referenced in her article.

Thanx— Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWeller (talk • contribs)

The speedy deletion criteria applied was probably A7, lack of claim of notability. However, there was evidently some disagreement over that, hence its having been brought here. And I don't think verifiability is the main problem here, notability is. -Elmer Clark 08:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References given don't support notability claims.Glendoremus 02:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much heat, not enough light. - Richfife 04:02, 24 October 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, disregarding anon "votes". ((Afdanons)) should have been applied to this debate. --Coredesat 06:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Gabriel[edit]

Seems like a good and dedicated teacher, but one article in a local paper doesn't make her notable. NawlinWiki 02:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I was just getting ready to tag this for AfD, when NawlinWiki beat me to it. I see nothing notable here, and the article is a mess with little encyclopaedic content. This was tagged as db-bio a number of times, and the tags were just removed. Delete it. ---Charles 02:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Can we please be cuteous to each other, keep the language to a PG level at least, and just vote, add a justification, and move on, foul comments might sway people in certain directions. Gonzo883 03:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE - notability— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.18GB (talk • contribs)

• Delete no claim of notability. -Elmer Clark 02:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Merge with Foothill High School article, create a section called "Notable staff" and put this article under it. This would be the most appropriate way to me. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I Agree with AQu01ruis Gonzo883 02:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC) — Gonzo883 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Pretty sure im not a single use account, just becuase im new and happen to know Faye Gabriel doesn't mean I'm corrupting the wiki system.

• Merge Agree wit my boy AQu01ruis24.7.43.131 02:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)word — 24.7.43.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• DeleteOrigionally wanted to keep, but if its causing that much discontent then I exempt myself from this conversation.

Origonal vote: Add a staff section on foothills page per Aqu01rius says WalterWalrus3 02:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note The above user created the article in question. -- Kicking222 03:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Montco 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak merge per above. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 02:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per notability. Wikipediarules2221 02:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge If so many people have already voted, then i guess we have to consider a merge 24.4.26.112 02:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge While the article may not be notable enough for its own page, it seems reasonable to include it as part of Foothill's article. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmontez (talk • contribs)
• Superstrong speedy delete A "staff" section? Are you (pardon my French) f***ing kidding me? We should start listing every teacher at every school? Why not list every doctor at a hospital? I worked at a zoo with a WP article; why don't I throw my name into it? That's completely ludicrous. Gabriel seems like an excellent person and a strong supporter of teenagers; however, not just does she fail WP:BIO, but there is not a single assertion of notability in the article. -- Kicking222 03:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superstrong speedy delete doesnt make your vote count more, personal attack removed WalterWalrus3 04:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks; for example, calling someone such a name is in very poor taste. -- Kicking222 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the time I noticed my mistake, you replied. I really meant Notable staff instead of staff. Obviously your not notable enough to be mentioned in your Zoo article. But that's not the case for Faye Gabriel. Oh, and please remain cool, and refrain from using profanity. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  03:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely cool. I (honestly) apologize if you were offended, but Wikipedia is not censored. -- Kicking222 03:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow calm down, anyway the oldest teacher, and longest consecutive years teaching at a PUSD school seems like a notable merge to Foothill's article WalterWalrus3 03:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable and merge would create a dangerous precedent. (But the idea of dancing 25 minuets on Wednesday seems interesting.) -- RHaworth 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I think you didn't really read the article carefully because if you did, you would notice that it's a typo :) AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  03:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think RHaworth's vote should not be counted, nowhere in the entire artilce does it say anyhing about dancing on wednesday's, he has no idea what hes voting for.WalterWalrus3 03:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, WalterWalrus originally did not sign his comment and stated that he had not voted, which was a lie, as he had already "voted" (and, in fact, created the article). Second, AfD is not a vote- the person who closes the debate will consider (and, if necessary, give weight to) all comments. Third, the above user was very obviously referring to the fact that "minute" is misspelled "minuet" multiple times in the article; perhaps its original creator, who claims to not have voted, should copyedit it. -- Kicking222 03:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont insinuate who I am personal attack removed. I signed my merge about seven seconds (a rough estimation) after i made the merge comment. I have no idea who any of these single accounts are, theres one from a seperate ip adress, so that couldnt possibly be a sock puppet. I never claimed that i "voted" before, though i didnt, and lastly, would appreciate if you would stop picking out any spelling errors, as that isnt a proper reason to delete an article. WalterWalrus3 04:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, dear god, RHaworth was being sarcastic! -- Kicking222 03:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you know that I wasn't being sarcastic :)? Anyway, it's off-topic. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  04:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I delete the thing next to my name that says im a sock puppet? its really discearning Gonzo883 03:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not saying that you're a sockpuppet; I certainly don't believe that Gonzo883 is the alias of another user trying to stack votes. However, the ((spa)) tag applies, and only claims exactly what it says. The tag notes that you have few contributions to any articles besides this one, which is true. Your comments are not necessarily less valid than anyone else's, but it should be known that you have contributed to this article and few others. -- Kicking222 03:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it serves little purpose other than making it known that im new, which in some people's minds may make prejudice against a newbie? It seems to me like your singling me out Gonzo883 04:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How am I singling you out when I placed the same tag next to two other users' comments? -- Kicking222 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with RHaworth that merge is a dangerous precedent here. Also, sockpuppet operators should note that their actions are not going to convince anyone who reads the discussion. --N Shar 03:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppetry is indeed a concern. Please do not get me wrong however, I simply think that Mrs. Gabriel's dedication should be worth a mention in her school article. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  04:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was that the rationale for voting merge in a deletion debate was to make sure that a worthwhile topic does not drop of the map with the removal of the article (i.e., someone would merge the content before it was deleted). Here, I kind of think that the article should be deleted first, while the debate on inclusion is taken to the page on the school. Perhaps that's not a good way to do things, though -- I'm not very experienced here. --N Shar 04:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I also agree with RHaworth that a merger is a very bad idea, and sets a dangerous precedent. ---Charles 03:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Theoldanarchist, ur the one who kept reverting changes i made to my own userpage. Anyway, im pretty sure theres enough people voting merge to make a little tidbit on the Foothill page, so im gonna do that and if you want to debate it, i suggest you go to the Foothill High School (Pleasanton, California) page. WalterWalrus3 04:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is false. According to the history, Theoldanarchist has never edited User:WalterWalrus3. --N Shar 04:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow look at inspector gadget over here, as if saying that has any relevence to this discussion. Anyway, i dont know what happend via history but definatly remember previously seeing Theoldanarchist next to a revert, maybe it was the talk page. WalterWalrus3 04:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reverted your talk page after you deleted two warnings you received about vandalism. As anyone can see who looks at your talk page, those were not the last warnings you received either. I tend to feel that the deletion of said warnings gives newer visitors to your talk page the impression that you have not received said warnings in the past, and is intended to be deceptive. But, as I say, that is only my opinion. ---Charles 04:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If you want my personal opinion, Gonzo and all the others are sock puppets, but thats just my opinon, im too tired and actually have a life, so im going to leave this article is most likely to be deleted so im gonna surrender and apologize for wasting everybodys time based on an overwhelming discontent.

I wish i knew how to do that cross out effect, feel free to do so if you want. WalterWalrus3 04:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment <s> at the begining of what you want to cross out and</s> at the end.--Isotope23 19:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being a good teacher is valuable to society but usually not enough to warrant an encyclopedia article per WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 04:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a good teacher is worth his/her weight in gold but this fails WP:BIO.--Lord of Illusions 06:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm sure she's a great teacher, but Wikipedia is not a directory of great teachers.--MonkBirdDuke 08:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-noteable. not encyclopaedic SMC 09:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Faye is clearly a good, resourceful and dedicated teacher who does her job well, like millions of others, myself included. There is nothing innovative about the methods she uses and nothing in either the Wiki article or the linked local newspaper article to suggest that she is notable enough to warrant a place in an encyclopaedia. Emeraude 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ordinarily, I'd say Delete on a local teacher article, however in this case things seem to be best served by Merge and keep as redirect for GFDL purposes. She's pretty clearly (and verifiably!) notable within the school context, so mention her there. Keep it a short section to avoid undue weight, and let consensus there determine if this is an inappropriate inclusion in the school article. Oh, and everybody knock off the personalizing. -- nae'blis 15:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and keep as redirect as per Nae'blis. EVula 15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and no merge here. Though I am sure that Ms. Gabriel is a credit to her profession, she in no way meets WP:BIO. That said, I don't see any compelling reason to merge her into Foothill High School; circumventing WP:BIO by listing the subject in a related article is a just a very bad idea, not to mention the fact that it will encourage countless additions of students' favorite non-WP:BIO compliant teachers in their school articles. If she doesn't meet the guidelines to support a standalone article I don't see any reason to package her into another article.--Isotope23 19:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh? Lots of articles have biographical snippets on people who don't meet the standards of WP:BIO. It's a pretty common way of mentioning people who are notable only in a single context. -- nae'blis 19:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment and I think it is generally a bad practice unless the person has some important role in the article topic (company CEO, etc) and the information in someway enhances the article on said topic. I don't think an individual teacher, no matter how well liked, really qualifies.--Isotope23 20:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Being a long-time teacher at an American school isn't a sign of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of popular US teachers. --Charlene.fic 20:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see any of my teachers listed in Wikipedia... and I am not about to go creating any articles. Craighennessey 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One argument that's useful in AfD discussions is the "I could make five hundred articles like this one easily." Maybe it's more like five million. There are a lot of teachers in the world who have somewhat creative techniques and have had a story done about them in the local paper. So what? Who cares? Good grief! 129.98.197.86 02:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. No evidence of meeting WP:BIO whatsoever, the vast majority of the article is very trivial (read: Totally useless) information and wouldn't be worth any sort of merge I could ever envision. If I had come across this first, I would have speedied it (not without some guilt, true, but I would have done it.) Grandmasterka 09:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Non notable, though admirable. I too would have tagged this for speedy. --Dweller 09:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. ✔ She's a unique teacher. Look at these teaching techniques. This article is fucking increadible. (And it's well-fucking-written, too.)--HQCentral 09:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, she is not a unique teacher. Gifted, talented, inspired - almost certainly, but not unique. And the entry is not well-written unfortunately. It is/was full of typos and spelling errors, which have been and can be corrected. However, it would still be the sort of human interest article that is suitable for a local newspaper, not an encyclopaedia.Emeraude 13:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides, being "fucking increadible" (sic) and "well-fucking-written" wasn't speedy keep criteria last time I checked.--Isotope23 14:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's called a joke, troll. The fact that you value guidelines for some free encyclopedia more than reason shows me that you have a long way to go in life. The entry is educational and useful; therefore it should stay. By the way, I think what you meant to type above was "[sic]." (Since we're being pedantic now.)--HQCentral 05:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, fails WP:BIO. *drew 11:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without merge per Isotope23. Does not appear to pass WP:BIO. If she were "notable staff" (whch she is not), she would by definition have a wiki article by rights. Ohconfucius 06:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am a big advocate of loosening the requirements of "notability" for public items (radio/television programs, etc) but NOT as a directory listing for non-public rosters. What is next? Listing the honor roll? --Tony 17:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete School teacher mentioned in local paper is not notable. -- WillyWonty 22:09, 24 October 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 per WP:SNOW and as probable attack page ("Gift was born in a trash can."). NawlinWiki 15:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Gift[edit]

Obvious hoax. Article originally said he was born in 1994, which was changed to 1987, probably because I mentioned the unlikeliness of that birth year for a porn star on my PROD notice, which was removed. At any rate, this "cultural icon" produces only 105 unique Google hits, and only seven when "gay" is added to the search. -Elmer Clark 02:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed, obvious hoax. TJ Spyke 02:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 02:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax. I sort of chuckled when I noticed one of the "film" links leads to the kids' book, but just because it was so inappropriate in the context. Edward Wakelin 03:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, hoax, and very close to speedy delete g10 as attack page. NawlinWiki 03:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - this definately appears to be a hoax. —Khoikhoi 03:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:HOAX or possibly even Speedy Delete as per WP:ATK. Depends if this article was originally created to try and harm the reputation of a real-life Andre Gift. --BradBeattie 04:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that the article was started by a new account with no previous edits. --BradBeattie 04:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete obviously a non-serious hoax Mozzie 04:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as attack page. I understand that it is not unequivocally clear that this is an attack page, but on this issue it seems best to err on the side of removing slander/libel, especially when the consensus is so clearly to delete. --N Shar 04:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd nominate to BJAODN, but only after the date of birth gets reverted back to 1994. (A twelve year old porn star???) --RoninBK_ETC 05:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I was planning to nominate this article myself. -Kubigula (ave) 05:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax, failed google search, (starred with Rob Schneider) would not object to speedy delete.--Lord of Illusions 06:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete useless. MonkBirdDuke 08:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. There's some stuff in the article that's pretty clearly libelous. --JaimeLesMaths 09:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC) (Follow-up comment: I removed several unsourced and potentially libelous statements from the article as a precaution, so check the history. --JaimeLesMaths 09:29, 19 October 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...again. *sigh* - Mailer Diablo 16:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movement to impeach George W. Bush[edit]

Procedural nom. It was placed by 72.255.99.114 who could not create a new page with the reason this is simply a long partisan editorial and inappropriate in an encylopedia. Previous AfD is here --Wafulz 02:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is easily verifiable that there us a movement to impeach Bush. Even if it is purely partisan (and I think the reality is more complex than that), that needs to be documented. There's no Wikipedia rule that only movements which Congress gets involved in get to be documented.
• Keep. Easily verifiable and notable and encyclopedic. Maybe POV, I don't know, I haven't read the article (which is about 3x too long), but this is a well-documented topic in politics. --Wafulz 02:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable and significant. Lots of information and references; although the diction and content is POV, the title of the article implies a certain bias and can easily be fixed. Wikipediarules2221 02:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm the initiator of this request (sorry I didn't format afd correctly - thanks for fixing it wafulz). This article reads like an editorial or a partisan blog (left or right). This isn't a movement like Civil Rights Movement or even something small, it is a highly partisan effort. If congress takes this up in even a minor way, then document it. Right now, this is just a purely POV effort that belongs on Kos or some other political web site. 72.255.99.114 02:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument that has been addressed countless times in the talk page - where else on Wikipedia do we document efforts to impeach GWB? Please use the talk page as a first step, and also review prior AfD discussions, as was suggested before making an AfD. Also, the article does not "read like an editorial of a partisan blog" nor is it a "partisan effort", many people on both sides of the isle have worked hard on it over many years time. -- Stbalbach 03:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. This is actually the third AfD, the last one being 5 months ago:

• First nomination, 31 July 2005.
• Second nomination, 12 May 2006

This is obviously a controversial topic - a lot of people have spent a lot of time and energy to make the article NPOV. Just about every argument and complaint that anyone could possibly come up with has been addressed in the talk page over 100's of man-hours of discussions. -- Stbalbach 03:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there is a distinction between NPOV and fair and ballanced. NPOV is the use of neutral language. It is easy to talk about a partisan issue in a neutral tone. Fair and ballanced is where you try to represent both sides equally. But what does that mean? Do you give both sides equal time? Do you give each side equal time proportional to their contribution? After all the 'pro bush' side is not participating in the 'debate'. What if their are multiple sides, how do we calculate what is the right ballance? NPOV is something that can be achieved, it can be argued at the level of individual sentences and phrases. Fair and ballanced is just a matter of opinion. We will never satisfy everyone with such a rule rule, so wikipedia doesn't have it, and rightly so. Mozzie 23:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. (What the heck is a "speedy keep"?) Skimming over it (I agree it's too long), my assessment is, while this article may need NPOV improvements, it doesn't seem to be an article promoting the movement. Rather, it appears (to me) to be an article about the movement. Articles about a partisan effort are still valid for an encyclopedia. =Axlq 03:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Speedy Keep is when an article is kept before the usual mimimum of 5 a days or more for debate has passed. --65.95.17.190 03:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Forget about George Bush. Not important. What important is that this is a great article and is definetly verifiable as most of these movements were reported by national media.

The only reason I could think of to delete this article is its probable POV statements. But that's something needs to be worked on, not a reason to delete the article. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  03:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, cited and sourced out the wazzu. Nominator confused about the meaning of "editorial." Gazpacho 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, this is an ugly page, it desperately needs cleaning up, but there is absolutely no reason to delete it.Mozzie 04:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's an awfully slanted article because of its reliance on pro-impeachment sourcing and lack of anti-impeachment sourcing. But POV cases are never hopeless. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't catch anything in the entire, looooooong article casting doubt on the move to impeach or showing that it is advocated only by a fringe of the Democratic party in Congress. The article is warped. Nevertheless, deleting it isn't the answer, straightening it out is.Noroton 05:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's a pretty shoddy looking page...and doesn't really justify its own existence. It basically just rattles off opinions of individuals ad infinite...which may violate Wikipedia's provision on indiscriminate information, which is all that the page really is. There isn't really much information about the "Movement to Impeach Bush"...just people that want to. The opinions of his political opponents don't necessarily comprise a movement, nor justify its own article.--MonkBirdDuke 08:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Certainly a valid and encyclopedic article, POV concerns should be discussed and worked out amongst editors. --JaimeLesMaths 09:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wow! I stumbled into this AfD ready to argue for deletion. Once I looked at the article and its amazing reference section, I changed my mind. --Arbeiter 12:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a page to post partisan opinions. When someone does post something to contrary, its reverted. Look near the end of the talk page where you find...

"It seems to me that this article is one-sided and presents no one opposing or any viewpoints that oppose impeachment. Is there a way to add in those opposing viewpoints? I am sure that not everyone is for this, least of all George Bush. Fundamentaldan"

"Well if you can find anyone opposing impeachment who is part of the movement to impeach... Kevin Baas"

In other words, if something isn't part of our movement, don't put it here. Could you imagine a print encyclopedia putting in articles of this partisan and short-term nature? 72.255.99.114 13:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a specific movement. Stuff that isn't about the movement doesn't belong in the article. Criticisms of the movement do belong in the article. A lack of inclusion of criticism is a fixable POV problem, not reason to delete. Being of a short-term nature isn't reason to delete either, especially since any movement to impeach a president will have historical relevance in the future. -Amatulic 20:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across this entry, courtesy Google, in my research on the subject of impeachment, and found the content the most comprehensive of all the Search finds I have checked so far. The content is factual and balanced in listing pro-con views on the subject. The entry may be revised or complemented, but should NOT be deleted. I strongly recommend that the entry be removed from the deletion candidacy.

• Delete. A collection of criticism by obviously partisan opponents should not warrant an article, and it probably violates Wikipedia's legal policy for libel. --GoodSamaritan 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Where else on Wikipedia do you suggest we document the people and groups who want to impeach GWB? -- Stbalbach 13:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I was not clear. I did not suggest move or merge. I said delete. It is unsalvagable. --GoodSamaritan 09:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep by a mile and then some, even though it has severe POV issues certainly verifiable and well referenced. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the subject is worthy of an article. --Alex (Talk) 15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to previous afd discussion - While I'm not sure about the article has a netural POV, the bottom line is that this article has already survived the AFD process. So unless something significant has changed it should be kept for consistency with the prior discussions. Once a decision on afd is made it's a bad idea to keep renominating the article unless something major has changed; otherwise there's no actual closure from these discussions. Dugwiki 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am no Bush fan but this is notable enough to keep.--Lord of Illusions 18:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is notable per the many scientific polls showing public report in the 30's, about the same level as his present approval rating, and numerous articles abut it in national media. In the U.S. House of Representatives, 36 co-sponsors of impeachment resolution H. Res. 635. Ninety- something references. It is extremely unlikely to happen without some changes in the House and Senate and even then some "smoking gun" beyond what is cited so far as grounds. NPOV or unsupported statements should be deleted or fixed, and arguments against impeachment should be included, even if by proponents.Edison 22:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This is a VERY notable topic. I would sooner delete the article about Apollo moon landing hoax accusations than I would delete the article under discussion. The movement to impeach GWB is very real and has garnered the support of hundreds of people. Btw, the moon landing article is also important; don't misunderstand. 129.98.197.86 02:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is precisely the problem with this article. Only hundreds of people out of millions believe in this "movement" that has little attention outside of Cindy Sheehan.

• Comment Clearly this article will be kept, but I find it pretty disturbing. It smells like a POV fork. Even a well-sourced repository of complaints about Bush is...a repository of complaints about Bush. The "impeachment resolutions" are presented as much more high-profile than they really are. The vast majority of even the most liberal groups don't advocate anything of the sort. Things like "The ImpeachBush.org website claims to have collected over 736,000 signatures (as of September 25, 2006) on a petition to impeach Bush. None are known to have been created to oppose it" feel like weasel words -- could the reason be, perhaps, that this movement is so low-profile that no one would bother to oppose it? I don't see any petitions opposing the movement for the violent overthrow of the US government either -- is this evidence for the movement's success? Of course not. The "rationales for impeachment" section is no better -- this title really just seems to be an excuse to make the article Why Bush sucks and not have it deleted. I am by no means a fan of Bush, but I am not a fan of weaseling POV into Wikipedia either. -Elmer Clark 02:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see "POV fork" thrown around quite often in AfD's -- but you can't label it a "fork" without saying where it forked from. If not here, where else on Wikipedia do we document the people and organizations who want to impeach GWB? If we did it in the George W. Bush article, it would be too large and would justify a Main article split. That's all this is. In fact, this article was originally created (year or two ago) because the amount of material was overwhelming the GWB article causing a POV unbalance in that article. There was no intentional foul-play ("POV fork") by anyone it just evolved organically like most articles on Wikipedia do when the subject matter becomes long. -- Stbalbach 03:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is not a literal POV fork, but it just feels like the "negative" aspects of the George W. Bush article were thrown together here with the weak connection that they're potential grounds for impeachment. -Elmer Clark 04:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be original research. The article is sourced pretty well. This is a real phenomenon. -- Stbalbach 04:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the idea behind POV forking needs some explination. It is where two different parties disagree on a topic so one starts up a new page to express their views. For this article to be a POV fork there would have to be another page on the movement to impeach President Bush. If that page doesn't exist, then this is not a POV fork 150.203.177.218 05:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, but RENAME I really thought I was going to be in favor of deletion when I saw the name of this article. The name doesn't do the article justice. By the way, I personally disagree with almost all the politics of the people described in the article, but I am aware that they are really out there, really vocal, and they have had a lot of activity in the public life of our country. maybe call the article "Campaigns to Initiate Impeachment Proceedings Against President George W. Bush." That might keep the title from implying that there is one significant "movement" of people who are all working together. We know that's not so.OfficeGirl 04:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename, the title as it is makes the original assertion that there is a particular movement, rather than a number of disparate people who all happen to want the same thing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but agreed that the article needs cleanup and a thorough NPOV bath. Johnbrownsbody 11:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is fact.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.130.196.68 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete: This article is just a political maneuver, will we need articles for every single politically driven crusade? This would never, ever, make it into an off-line encyclopedia. It's not even a real movement, just a bunch of opinions. 148.63.236.141 01:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my above comment, looking at the history of this article, it also looks like its been carefully kept POV for a long time. The previous AFD discussion also has comments regardings pov, yet when someone tries to edit it, they get yanked unless they are "the movement". This article belongs on a blog. 148.63.236.141 01:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where on Wikipedia do you suggest editors document the people and activities and headline news stories about this topic? Or do you propose we play whack-a-mole and remove it whenever it pops up in other articles (like it used to before this article was created)? Who do you propose will monitor this whack-a-mole activity, should we have a special Project set up for the purposes of censoring this information from all Wikipedia articles? Or do you think it makes sense to isolate it into a single location where it can properly be monitored? In other words, these activities are real, they exist, people will write about them, you can't stop that - but you can isolate and monitor it. -- Stbalbach 17:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wack-a-mole argument does make sense, at least its in one place. Just reading the comments here (many below) shows how partisan wiki-editing is. 148.63.236.141 01:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to politicize it. That is all these AfD's really are, now, stirring up the pot, a bureaucratic nuisance. We've have three AfD's in about a 15 month window, same discussion over and over. -- Stbalbach 02:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Feature this article! Anomo 02:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep even if the idea of impeaching George W. Bush, having an article on this notable, verifiable movement is not POV. If we deleted this we would need to delete (for example) Civil Rights Movement and Women's suffrage, since both of those are verifiable articles about notable political movements. Cynical 18:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. duh. Kevin Baas^talk 20:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The article has POV problems and needs cleanup, but the topic is valid. Erall 02:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Wiki's 'book burners', who can't compete in the marketplace of ideas are at it again. The movement exists. It's well documented. IMHO, AfD nominations like this, and the one on Andy Stephenson are travesties and the ultimate abuse of Wikipedia. Reign this XXXX in before it destroys a great idea. Some Wiki Conservatives have come full circle to become 21st century Wiki Stalinists!NBGPWS 04:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I've never heard Wiki conservatives described as being a problem...or even existing -Elmer Clark 05:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are people who advocate GW's impeachment, so this article shows what's been attempted so far. The only reason why anyone would want this article deleted is either if they support the idiot's reign or they've been successfully brainwashed by this failure of a government administration. 24.7.217.221 14:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reliably sourced discussion, albeit not a "widespread" movement. Question, why is this listed in the afd catagory:Places and transportation? --Marriedtofilm 17:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not agree that it breaks any wikipedia's deletion policies, and it is very informative and encyclopedic. Beltz 04:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rewrite to avoid the current POV fork.--Tbeatty 05:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable, but needs cleanup to resolve POV. Also could do with less inter-wiki links. --Zabadab 10:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I don't see any interwiki links... -Elmer Clark 11:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I just woke up when I wrote that. ~_~ I meant that there's too many blue links to other wiki pages (for dates, etc). In my humble opinion too many of them are annoying since they stand out too much. --Zabadab 12:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep qwm 15:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a follower of current events and politics I think this article is most accurately and objectively described as a major campaign theme or party philosophy for an election cycle. My view of Keep v Delete on this is how it likely should be remembered after 2008 (since any of these efforts are moot after 2008). My determination: as much as the 1994 campaign theme known as the Contract With America.--Tony 17:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears factual and sourced. Gamaliel 17:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but cleanup. It's an awful article that pretty much reads like a hypothetical Articles of Impeachment itself, but the subject matter meets WP:N. (And yes, I !vote this way knowing that my "keep" vote will be counted as a keep and not one iota of "cleanup" will actually take place.) --Aaron 18:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Aaron. And Comment. Please. This is a done debate for keep. Get rid of this template from the page. --ASDFGHJKL 00:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well cited, Obviously there is a feeling amongst some that GWB should be impeached and this should be documented. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 12:27, 24 October 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, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rossview High School[edit]

Non-notable high school with no assertions of notability. Also fails WP:SCHOOLS. TJ Spyke 02:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — Please note that WP:SCHOOLS suggests a merge for valid schools articles that fail it's criteria. So I don't see it as a deletion criteria, even though nominators seem to keep insisting on using it as such. — RJH (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the town article. — RJH (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep — It meets my personal criteria for notability. Thanks. — RJH (talk)
• Strong delete. Not to mention the repeated vandalisms by its students. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  03:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even the creator of the article seemed to think it wasn't notable, and just wanted to vent about something. I'm surprised there have been attempts to rescue the article from deletion. =Axlq 03:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has been improved since it was first nominated, and now adequately demonstrates notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, greatest of all keepers, explain how the article demonstrates notability. -- Kicking222 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please take note of the references. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is it that deletionists just vote NN Delete, and nobody even mentions it yet as soon as someone votes keep they are asked (in highly sarcastic tones sometimes!) to justify themselves? Jcuk 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since for almost any article type (see for examples WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:PROF) notability is not a default presumption. Notability must be demonstrated. JoshuaZ 04:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really an answer, since whether notability is demonstrated or not is frequently an opinion, not a foregone conclusion, which was the essence of the question. You can't just claim something is non-notable (just as you can't just claim that something is notable); you also have to say why it's not notable. Frequently in these debates (and with PRODed articles) I read the article and am at a complete loss as to why anyone should think it wasn't notable. The deletionists often seem to believe that determination of notability is their prerogative alone, hence the desire of non-deletionists to know their exact reasoning and not just a "NN Delete"-type response. -- Necrothesp 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well it is an answer. Any object by default isn't notable. A good rule of thumb in this regard for when dealing with common objects (such as schools) is that subjects to be notable need to meet some criterion which makes them distinctive from the norm. Hence, people point to age or the point of many notable alumni or something similar. Essentially, what makes this school at all different from any others? If you can't point to anything it isn't notable. JoshuaZ 18:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • As I'm sure you know, as far as schools are concerned many people believe that all schools (or at least all secondary schools) are notable, for reasons explained many times over on many different AfDs, and thus the "any object by default isn't notable" argument is disputed with regard to this particular subject. But my point was a general one, as was the original question. Just claiming non-notability without explaining why is, in my opinion, contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Some things are blatantly non-notable to pretty much everybody, true, but many articles that are nominated for deletion do in many people's eyes already establish notability. When notability is obviously clear to some, it is not productive to vote simply NN. -- Necrothesp 18:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This school is so non-notable, it can't even pass WP:SCHOOLS, and I think I know dog trainers whose schools pass those criteria. I'm all for a merge if an article on the school's district exists. -- Kicking222 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to assert notability.--Húsönd 03:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, doesn't meet the criteria in the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOLS. Lots of schools have marching bands, as well - this one having one doesn't make it more notable. --Coredesat 04:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Mycroft.Holmz 04:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Cedars 04:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless.MonkBirdDuke 08:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All schools, particularly high schools, have an inherent potential claim of notability. The article as it stands, particularly with the improvements wrought by TruthbringerToronto (who has again stepped up to the plate to improve articles), justifies its retention and future expansion. Deletion is destruction. Alansohn 18:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to disagree, saying that all schools have an inherent claim of notability is like saying every individual person has an inherent claim of notability. TJ Spyke 19:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment schools have no better "inherent claim of notability" than your local Wal-Mart. I abstain here, but that is a particularly poor line of reasoning.--Isotope23 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: A school, and particularly a public high school, has an inherent claim of notability that no Wal-Mart -- and certainly no individual person -- can ever make. Society seems to have this thing with education and schools that confers an inherent notability for all schools in general, and for each particular one. We are taxed to fund universal public education and required to send our children to school for an education (or to educate them independently). Wal-Mart meets none of these criteria. While I do not believe that every school deserves a Wikipedia article, I do believe that any one of them starts with a greater leg up on notability than does any Wal-Mart store or any individual. While this article will benefit greatly from expansion, the article (as updated) more than meets the minimum standards for retention. I disagree that schools are no more notable than a Wal-Mart (or an individual), which I find to be a particularly poor line of reasoning. Alansohn 21:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article does not meet the standards for retention, would you mind explaining how it does? It fails all the criteria of WP:SCHOOL, and two of the external links are the same article (one just re-prints what the other said). TJ Spyke 21:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm, I find your line of reasoning to be particularly poor (talking to Alansohn, not TJ). Society does have "this thing with education," which justifies articles on education, public education, compulsory education, etc. Society likewise has a "thing" with shopping, commerce, corporations, corporate welfare, the economy, etc. Neither of these "things," however, justify articles on individual schools or individual Wal-marts. Pan Dan 22:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree with Pan Dan. I'm required to pay taxes that pay for Police Stations and Fire Departments as well; that doesn't mean we need articles on every precinct station in America. Sorry, that just isn't compelling reasoning Alansohn.--Isotope23 00:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, high schools are inherently notable as long-term public institutions. Repeated vandalism is not a reason to delete an article, it is a reason to protect it. DWaterson 19:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nothing in the article suggests any notability. Edgecution 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep cleaned up article is worth keeping.  ALKIVAR™ 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alkivar and TT. We have many mechanisms in place to deal with vandalism, and deletion is not one of them. Silensor 21:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't nominate because of the vandalism, I nominated because the high school is in no way notable and fails WP:SCHOOL. And NO, schools are NOT inherently notable. TJ Spyke 21:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The school meets WP:SCHOOL Criterion 4: "The school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools." It was on the No Child Left Behind hit list in 2003. It instituted a apecial tutoring program for students with inadequate English skills, emphasizing peer tutoring by seniors in advanced English, and all students were brought up to meet all federal benchmarks by 2005. Many fine high schools have not been so fortunate. This special program and technique diffentiates it from other schools and merits its having an article. The article is still stubby and could use revision. I added the info on test scores being far above the state averages, and the peer tutoring.Edison 22:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Secondary school, ergo notable. I'm puzzled by the assertions that it should be deleted because it "fails WP:SCHOOL". You did notice the disclaimer at the top of that particular article that it is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline etc did you? Proposals are not policies. -- Necrothesp 00:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think a consensus needs to be reached at WP:SCHOOL before we start deleting articles on high schools. -Elmer Clark 02:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All schools are notable enough. Konman72 06:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you please explain how all schools are notable? I very much disagree with that. TJ Spyke 06:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Explain why you disagree then. -- Necrothesp 09:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Useless and non-notable. --GoodSamaritan 13:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alansohn and others who pointed out the issue of high schools and notability. Johnbrownsbody 11:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its notable to the people who go to the school. Somethings can be local and notable. Alpharigel 18:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My house is notable to me and everyone who lives with me, does that mean it deserves an article too? TJ Spyke 18:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you believe someone is going to be looking for information about your house, then yes! Alpharigel 18:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect that hundreds of people do not live in your house! -- Necrothesp 19:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but my point was that saying the school is notable just because its students think so doesn't make sense. TJ Spyke 19:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The more substantial example might be local garage bands that don't meet WP:MUSIC. JoshuaZ 04:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, large secondary school with over 1000 students. bbx 21:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 'A special tutoring and peer advising program was implemented after inadequate performance in the 2003 No Child Left Behind tests which helped to bring the school up to all federal benchmarks by 2005.' means it meets WP:SCHOOLS #5 'The school has a substantial and unique program, structure, or technique that differentiates it from similar schools.' Cynical 17:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Cynical. I'm not convinced this is that unique a program but its a good start JoshuaZ 04:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TruthBringerToronto and Joshuaz. --Myles Long 07:07, 23 October 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 -- Samir धर्म 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This close was overturned by DRV and relisted DRV log. Xoloz 15:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Sugden[edit]

This fellow plays for Halifax Town A.F.C., a club in the 5th flight of English football, Conference National. Is WP a dumping ground? There are only a few 5th flight players around, but almost all 4th flight players have a bio.....Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am not exactly sure about this. But I think a article for every athlete around the world is indeed too much. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  03:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity article. =Axlq 03:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If this is akin to the baseball minor leagues, definitely delete. Needs to have a professional appearance at the highest level before he's entitled to an article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the context of English football/soccer, "levels 1-4 " are considered en masse to be "the highest level".... ChrisTheDude 08:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on my comment And besides, see my point below about WP:BIO not specifying anything about "the highest level".... ChrisTheDude 08:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this doesn't appear to be notable at all. —Khoikhoi 03:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non notable Mozzie 04:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep since he has played in a fully professional league with Oldham and others. Punkmorten 06:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite a handful of league appearances for Oldham, that still does not meet the "competing at highest level requirement". Change to Keep per ChrisTheDude. If playing for a League Two club meets consensus for notability in English football then change to keep. Catchpole 06:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - WP:BIO doesn't say a sportsman must have competed at "the highest level", it says "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league". As this guy has played in The Football League, which is a fully professional league, then he fulfills that requirement.... ChrisTheDude 07:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unless it can be established he had a professional contract with Oldham, this player is not notable. Qwghlm 07:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I think the minor league baseball rationale is unsuitable, beacause I think there are quite a few minor league players that deserve their own article, especially in areas without pro teams. However, the article doesn't assert any claims of notability, and would need to be expanded before I made a call on it.--MonkBirdDuke 08:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No-brainer - Has played in a proffesional league. Rubbish article though. -- MLD · T · C · @:  11:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The soccerbase.com page linked says that he was at Oldham as a trainee. I think that moves him below the line for inclusion. -- Bpmullins 12:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no, it says he joined them as a trainee. He then proceeded to play 20 league matches, scoring 1 goal. Punkmorten 07:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The Soccerbase link on his page states for Oldham 20+ times, so that establishes his claim to notability. I'd still like to delete him mind, I really don't think many people are going to look up a player who played for a Division 2 side 20 odd times then disappeared into the lower leagues. HornetMike 13:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if we strictly followed WP:BIO on athletes, we would have millions of articles like this. Recury 14:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. The Conference may be the 5th flight of the English league, but it is regularly reported in all national newspapers and on television. Therefore, I would think players within it are fairly notable. DWaterson 21:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - but do they ever mention the names of the players or do they just go 2-0. I looked up some newspapers and they only have the team score. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep he's played professional football therefor he qualifies. As for not strictly following WP:BIO on atheletes what is the point of having rule regs and guidelines if we're not going to follow them strictly?? You cant say on one hand this doesnt meet wiki:schools so lets delete and on the other, this does meet wiki:bio but lets delete anyway. Jcuk 23:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would agree with you about following guidelines, but I think WP:BIO is way off on this point and I'm not the only one who thinks so. That is why new (and stricter) notability guidelines for athletes are going through the proposal process as we speak. Recury 13:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this proposal? If you are referring to the proposal Wikipedia:Notability (athletes) from a couple of months ago, it failed to reach anything remotely resembling consensus. Oldelpaso 10:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think players from the Conference probably meet notability criteria. Comparisons with baseball are almost certainly inaccurate and not particularly useful - British sport works on a completely different system. -- Necrothesp 01:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I doubt a fully pro team plays in a stadium with 1000 seats with players who have full time day jobs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. *drew 11:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep He has played in The Football League a notable league and the Confrerence is notable too. Kingjamie 09:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that doesn't make him notable. My university and high school are on wikipedia - and I won some awards there - does that make me notable? No it doesn't. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He had 5 starts for Oldham Athletic in the Football League in 3.5 years there so he scrapes in based on that. However, the Conference is not fully professional so anyone who has not played in the Football League fails WP:BIO. BlueValour 01:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - he was a trainee.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a number of starts you can count on your fingers does not constitute much of a professional career. Oldelpaso 10:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep 118 starts is an amount you can count on your fingers? Well, not everyone here is an octopuss, so we can't all quite count those on our fingers. And to the point, he is a proffessional footballer in a proffesional league, so he is worth notability. Mattythewhite 11:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to soccerbase he made 4 League starts for Oldham, plus one in the League Cup, and one "other" (presumably in the Football League Trophy), a total of six starts for a League club. The rest of his career has been at Conference level, and while that level has some professionals, on the whole it is a semi-pro league. Oldelpaso 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I went to the bio of some other 4-5th league player and the bio says he has a day job as a plumber - so eveidnetly not full pro.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:34, 25 October 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. "Merge and delete" arguments are invalid, as the GFDL requires the article to be turned into a redirect with the history; all such arguments have been discounted. There are few editors arguing for actual deletion and a decent case for notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Therapies (book)[edit]

Non-notable book to warrant an article. Best is to merge useful content with the author's article (Margaret Singer.

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)).

Attempts by Smeelgova (talk · contribs) to canvass votes for this AfD, without knowing that it is not an acepted behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book).' was Smeelgova's only mention of this on my talk page. I don't consider this innapropriate. There's nothing wrong with discussing things with users you share similar interests with. It's not like she wrote 'Go here and vote keep, vote keep!'Merkinsmum 16:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• merge and delete, as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deleting then merging would mean there is no content to merge. If you meant "merge and delete", that would be a violation of the GFDL (history preservation)... so delete, or merge? Also note that if the content was indeed reproduced from the jacket cover, that would constitute a copyright violation. ColourBurst 15:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currected. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as nominated. =Axlq 03:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, the book gets plenty of search engine hits. The book has not one, but two separate authors. According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria :

  "Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book."

  The book most certainly fits all of these listed criteria. It is readily available in libraries and bookshops, and has dozens of on-line and press-published reviews from notable sources. The book itself is used as a scholarly source in journal articles. Smeelgova 03:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You forgot to copy also from same guideline (my highlight) "[...]not every book somewhere cited in a references section of a Wikipedia article will necessarily get a separate wikipedia article for itself. Nonetheless there is no dictum against any book that is reasonably spread or otherwise well-known or remarkable." ≈ jossi ≈ t •

@ 03:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment to the closing admin. Can't we at the very least wait more than a few hours to see how this article develops? The AFD was put into effect a mere minutes after the article was created. Thank you. Smeelgova 04:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

NOTE: I have attempted to significantly modify the article as per suggestions here and on the article's talk page since the AFD began. Yours, Smeelgova 07:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment to the closing admin. - As stated above, I did not know that this particular action was a no-no by Wikipedia Administrators. Immediately after User:Jossi notifed me of this, I ceased "canvassing". There was a miscommunication after the fact between "consensus building" and "recruitment", however this only took place on talk pages. To reiterate, after the warning from User:Jossi, pointing out to me something that I had not previously known, which is that this action is considered inappropriate by Wikipedia Administrators - I ceased doing so. Yours, Smeelgova 23:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep or Merge This Author has published a number of books that appear to have recieved acclaim in her "abit small" area of expertise "Cults, brainwashing & Phycological manipulation" Mark1800 03:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and mergeredirect, as nom -- though there seems very little to actually merge, since the "article", as such, is almost all reprodcued text from the dust jacket. --Calton | Talk 04:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Blank and start-over I suppose the book itself could qualify as an article, but as it stands now, it's eminently unsuited for a Wikipedia article. Copying outright from the book cover is highly suspect. FrozenPurpleCube 05:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Merging this article the author's article would be a step backwards--useful information that currently exists in this article (e.g. the table of contents) would have to be deleted. Deleting the article outright would just be pointless: while it may not have broad appeal, that's one of the points of Wikipedia: you can find information on just about any topic, not only on a handful of topics that a group of oligarchs have decided are important. Ckerr 08:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having the table of contents outright in the article is not a point in this article's favor. Describing the contents of a book are ok, and very appropriate for an article. Listing the table of contents is not, it's rather bad form actually. FrozenPurpleCube 14:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Table of Contents has been removed. The number of reviews has been reduced. I retained the review by Philip Zimbardo, because he is a noted authority on the subject. If the article is given more than than the mere day it's had to be expanded I'm sure it will be expanded upon. Thank you for your time, and your commentary. Yours, Smeelgova 23:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete and merge per nom. --Aaron 10:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge to Margaret Singer.--Lord of Illusions 18:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete On the fence due to having been reviewed by notable sources (Philip Zimbardo is definitely considered an expert in the field), but it has an amazon.com SalesRank of 597,531 and produces only 164 unique Google hits. Also, the review by Zimbardo is copyrighted, and I'm not sure whether citing it like that is allowed. (also, what does "delete and merge mean? do you mean delete and redirect?) -Elmer Clark 02:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means merge any useful material and delete the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Because no provenance was given for the Zimbardo quote, even within an article that does seem to attempt to cite properly, I inferred, perhaps wrongly, that it was merely a cover blurb. -- Hoary 03:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ......... PS We're now told that it's not a cover blurb. But there's no indication of where it comes from.-- Hoary 09:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the quote to a reference from Behavioral Interventions. Hope this is satisfactory. Thank you for the advice and suggestions. Hopefully when someone finds the location to cite the Philip Zimbardo review, we can put that back in, as he is a noteworthy authority on the subject matter. Yours, Smeelgova 09:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Summarize (deleting such flab as the infobox and the utterly uncommunicative cover photo), merge, and redirect. -- Hoary 03:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, don't merge. Book by a notable author through a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Allow time to improve. I don't know the book, it would be more interesting to me if the article was wikified to link it to a discussion of Recovered Memory Therapy, Multiple Personality Disorder, Satanic Ritual Abuse and other such issues of controversial therapeutic practice that were quite crucial at the time, (1996) and are still important now. Then the article would be a good read, if the books'perspective on these issues was discussed. As it stands its a bit like something straight off 'amazon' or another book site, but linked to these issues it would make a good article for me. I supect this is what the books' about, those contemporary issues, discussing the authors views on these issues more to put the book in context would stop it being purely a rave about the book. I was referred here by user smeelgova as we had agreed on a previous article. But I like to think I've been reasonably impartial. I am passing my suggestions on to the article's talk page and smeelgova himself so if there is any value in them hopefully they will be used and the article will improve- for my tastes at leastMerkinsmum 00:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I disagree with Jossi's statement that user:Smeelgova has inappropriately canvassed votes for previous Afds. She informed several editors in a neutral tone to vote which I think is acceptable behavior. Andries 09:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. Do you feel the header still needs to be at the top of the page, especially taking into account my ignorance in the matter beforehand, and my ceasing to "canvass" after I was warned that this was a big Wikipedia no-no? Yours, Smeelgova 10:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, it should stay, to give people like Andries to comment. This is useful info for the closing admin. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that sounds reasonable. Smeelgova 05:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Blank and start over per FrozenPurpleCube. Anchoress 10:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know about this book but I would like to point out that the ridiculously inclusive quote from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria (Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, bla bla bla) is not representative of consensus. Much much closer to actual practice on AfDs is the proposed WP:BK. Whether or not this particular book meets the criteria, I don't know, but it should be a better basis for discussion. Pascal.Tesson 00:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Pascal.Tesson and User:Jossi's recommendation, I went ahead and looked at WP:BK#Criteria. The criteria clearly states that if one of the criteria is met, the book is "generally notable." One of these criteria is, "The book's author meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, based on his/her work as a writer.", which Margaret Singer most certainly does. Smeelgova 05:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. An extension to information relating to a notable author. The "Table of Contents" section provides a useful summary pending expansion of the article. Thanks to User:Smeelgova (as a fellow-editor with an interest in Margaret Singer) for bringing this proposed deletion to my attention in a non-partisan note. -- Pedant17 12:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep but get rid of the cheesy blurb at top of article--looks like an advertisement.Glendoremus 05:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, don't merge. She's a recognized author, and if the book has even a paragraph it should have its own article, however stubby. Pegship 03:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. It's obviously a book so should have its own article, but the article needs cleaning up - you can see the problems as soon as you arrive at the page. Also, I was only alerted to this Wikipedia Article Deletion debate when Smeelgova posted a message on my user talk page. Matthuxtable 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For note, Smeelgova's talk page says that the user is no longer editing Wikipedia. Matthuxtable 21:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this AfD debate yet? Smeelgova may have gone but that's irrelevant really, I still want this article to live!:)Merkinsmum 17:09, 28 October 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 16:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel Dementia[edit]

Non-notable webcomic. While it was nominated in the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards, it otherwise fails WP:WEB BradBeattie 03:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If being nominated is enough, I think it only has to match up with one of the criteria. But I think WP:WEB says "won" doesn't it?Edward Wakelin 03:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yeah, WP:WEB explicitly states "won", whereas this comic was only nomiated. --BradBeattie 03:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per BradBeatie's comment: WP:WEB says "won"Mozzie 04:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the didn't win so theres no other valid notability aspect. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The WCCAs are a gimmick award anyway, your local county's child bravery awards have more gravitas than this. - Hahnchen 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also note that pretty much everything (although not all) hosted on the free host Comic Genesis, is worthless in an encyclopedia, just like things hosted on Angelfire and Geocities are. - Hahnchen 16:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable per nom.--Lord of Illusions 01:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 29 Google hits for a WEB comic? I don't think so. -Elmer Clark 02:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Elmer Clark. Johnbrownsbody 11:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination.Glendoremus 06:01, 24 October 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 16:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repsher[edit]

Delete per lack of reliable sources from which to write this and the manifest lack of notability - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I see that most of the other articles in the category of German surnames list notable individuals with the surname in question. Repsher doesn't. For that matter, neither does Ritzel, which may need looking into if this article ends up being deleted. --BradBeattie 03:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete German surnames appear to warrant a page if there are notable people with that surname.Mozzie 04:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Who cares?? 129.98.197.86 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not really of encyclopedic value, maybe more suited to Wiktionary, but I'm not sure it'd really fit there either. If we get articles on some people with the name, then the page can stay as a sort of disambiguation page (like Schmidt, etc), but until then this really serves no purpose. -Elmer Clark 02:42, 20 October 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 16:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pawn (webcomic)[edit]

This comic fails all three critera in WP:WEB --BradBeattie 03:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I must admit that I had the urge of writing articles for my favorite web comics, but no. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  04:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per BradBeattie Mozzie 04:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable failed WP:WEB.--Lord of Illusions 14:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability. -Elmer Clark 02:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per BradBeattie Anomo 02:23, 21 October 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. Any merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Coredesat 06:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights groups and the Middle East[edit]

POV fork of parent articles. For HRW, what's here is actually a subset of what's in Human Rights Watch. For Amnesty International, it's about the same length, but somewhat different, and there's a section on Guantanmo (which is not in the Middle East). —Ashley Y 06:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If you check the history of the parent articles, all of this information at one time was there, and somehow, it was collated into this one article. Now people want it back in the parent articles? I guess you cannot please everybody. I would say If, and only if, all information can be returned to parent articles, then this can be redistributed and deleted, otherwise keep. -- Avi 04:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree with Avi. There are many critical informations included in this article. If these infomations can be properly returned to its parent articles, then delete. Otherwise, I recommend keep. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  04:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the information should be kept on wikipedia. Perhaps redistribute and then delete the pageMozzie 05:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Redistribute and then and only then, Delete per Avi. Also, the nomination is illegitimate. Not only is the article not a fork of any parent articles (although it could do with a somewhat better-descriptive title), it is not written as a vehicle for POV-pushing; it covers a legitimate and well-documented subject, as is readily demonstrable by the fact that the article itself is well-sourced. Tomer^talk 05:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or reintegrate back - per Avi & Tomer. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or reintegrate back same as Humus, Avi, and Tomer Robocracy 11:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The inclusion of Guantanamo Bay is...confusing, and the intro section "Human rights groups frequently run into controversy when reporting on an emotionally charged issue such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Often there is more attention given to their claims and counterclaims on Middle East issues than to their coverage of the rest of the world." sounds suspiciously like original research, but it's a notable enough topic, and poor article quality isn't a reason for deletion. -Elmer Clark 02:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless it is reintegrated, although I can see value in an article about criticisms of and responses from human rights groups working in the Mideast. Important subject, although only part of a larger subject on the fairness of these groups worldwide.Noroton 02:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In the case of HRW, at least, there's nothing to reintegrate. What's the point of having a separate article that has less than its parent articles? —Ashley Y 06:52, 22 October 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 as a copyvio. --Coredesat 06:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Bodies[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable company. The article does not assert the company's notability. See Criteria for companies and corporations and Criteria For Organizations Mozzie 04:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G12. Copyvio is from here. --N Shar 04:29, 19 October 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 deleted, obvious hoax. Garrett^Talk 09:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WarioWare: Word Up![edit]

Probable hoax article created by newly registered user, based on contributions, possibly as tests. Web search pulls up no results for any of the information. Purported Japanese name is actually the Japanese name for WarioWare: Touched!. Dancter 04:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based on creating user's history, and the verafiability of the topic. If the game is actually real and ever released an article can be restarted.Mozzie 05:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dancter 05:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Dancter 05:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The Kinslayer 08:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have no doubt there will be a new WarioWare game, but until there are sources on the game, its actual name, and some content, there shouldn't be an article since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Dskj 22:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete No sources, no Google hits -- as non-verifiable as it gets. Probable hoax to boot. -Elmer Clark 02:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete As an avid gamer I can assure all that this game does not exist...yet ;) Konman72 06:33, 20 October 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 - well, just about a consensus, as many of the "keeps" are weak ones. But nowhere near a consensus to delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screwed (song)[edit]

I applied a PROD to this article, but it was removed with no explanation. The song was rumored to be the first single off of Paris Hilton's debut album, but then it wasn't. It was briefly rumored to be the second single, but then it wasn't. There are now no confirmed plans to release this as a single, and it has done nothing to establish itself as an album track of encyclopaedic notability. GassyGuy 04:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, as much as I read these, I don't nominate articles very much. In case there's confusion, among other guidelines, I'm accusing this of violating WP:NOT a crystal ball. GassyGuy 04:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. "was planned," "was rumored" Is unsourced. Even if verifiable, which is doubtful, nobody cares about a single that could have happened but didn't. (And isn't "notable Paris Hilton song" an oxymoron, or am I being unkind?) Fan-1967 05:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. The leak and remix, and the disagreement over the rights with Hailie Duff, make the song slightly more notable than an average album track. VoluntarySlave 05:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Thousands of songs have disagreements over rights; that doesn't make them notable. -Amatulic 20:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Agreed with User:VoluntarySlave that the circumstances surrounding this single make it somewhat notable. Sort of on the fence, and the fact that it's by an undisputably notable artist pushes me to the "keep" side. -Elmer Clark 02:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a single. It's not even an aborted single. It's a song that was rumored to be a single but never came to fruition. What circumstances? That it was leaked? Entire albums often leak in this day and age, but the songs on them don't all become notable. That they had trouble clearing the rights for it? Can you imagine how many hip hop songs would become automatically notable if problems clearing rights equated with notability, given the amount of sampling etc. that is done? GassyGuy 03:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But the only other circumstance where artists fought over a song was over Mariah Carey's "Loverboy" and Jennifer Lopez' "I'm Real" (well, technically, they fought over a loop), and that was certainly notable. And it's not about clearing rights for it because of a sample, so I don't know where the comparison is there. And it IS an aborted single; why else would radio stations have received promos? The leaked version was played on a major radio station (I believe in LA), and remixes were done for the song as well. Remixes usually aren't done for album-only tracks. So this must have been planned as a single, at least for a while. In any case, my vote is...

• to keep the page...I guess a weak keep. There was a lot of press over this song, so that makes it notable. SKS2K6 07:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comparing it because it's still about clearing rights, and there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of songs where there have been disputes over rights for usage, be it due to sample usage or what have you. Those disputes are at least legal - these sorts of disputes don't even have legal bases. <shrug> I may be wrong that it isn't an aborted single, but it was still aborted, so it still wasn't a single. It also wouldn't be the first time that album tracks received airplay - I mean, isn't that what FM radio play was all about in the day? Or, for a more modern example, a station or two spun Kelly Clarkson's "Gone," but it too wasn't a single. I just don't see how this has done anything to set it apart from other album tracks. GassyGuy 08:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This song is not a single and there are no plans to release it. Nothing is notable about this song. One suggestion, however, is to merge it with the article about Paris' album.

• Keep; there seems to be enough to write about even if it's not a single. Everyking 04:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough to write about a lot of songs to fill out articles - does that mean every song deserves one? I can cull all sorts of album track info from liner notes etc., and as far as the planned single angle, there are all sorts of songs that were originally going to be promoted and then had promotion switched over to a different song. Does each of these become notable? GassyGuy 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A rumored Paris Hilton single is much more notable than most of the stuff I see here. WillyWonty 22:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not really an argument to include this so much as one to nominate a lot of other crap. Feel free to do so. GassyGuy 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the main article about Hilton's album. No need for a separate page. JoshuaZ 18:47, 27 October 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, per WP:WEB. --Coredesat 06:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Dice[edit]

Fails criteria of WP:WEB --BradBeattie 04:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yet another non-notable webcomic Mozzie 05:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WEB or no WEB, attempting to delete a Keenspot comic as non-notable is clearly counterproductive. As Dragonfriend acerbically pointed out, even the prominent Checkerboard Nightmare could be claimed to fail WP:WEB. --Kizor 10:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Theres a school of thought that seems to believe that anything picked up by the Keenspot network instantly makes it a notable work. I don't subscribe to that view at all. Even though the editors at Keenspot may think that its a cool comic which would draw the advertising money in, it doesn't make it notable or popular. Alien Dice is no longer a member of Keenspot. It has an Alexa ranking of 700,000, and Wikipedia's awesome advertising board is one of the top sources for incoming links. Why users like Kizor treat Webcomics like a special needs case is beyond me. How Alien Dice can possibly compete in terms of notability and popularity to such deleted sites such as Soompi, Pokemon-Safari or Encyclopedia Dramatica is beyond me. When a website still needs to rely on people clicking on votes to topsites such as Alien Dice, it doesn't exactly suggest that it's encyclopedic. There's another comment that comes across a lot on webcomic debates, is that webcomics are such an amateurish new phenomenon that we can't be expected to have reliable sources, well, so is game modding and thats been picked up by the popular press. This, hasn't. - Hahnchen 17:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim of notability in the article, and 109 unique Google hits for "Alien Dice" "Tiffany Ross" is abysmally low for something that's Internet-based to begin with. -Elmer Clark 02:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What Mozzie said: Just another non-notable webcomic. WillyWonty 22:15, 24 October 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 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Ross[edit]

Non-notable individual. Fails, as far as I can tell, the notability requirements for people on Wikipedia. --BradBeattie 04:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, perilously close to CSD A7, no real substantiation of notability beyond being a a webcomic artist -- Samir धर्म 04:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete no reason to suspect that the subject is notable Mozzie 05:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete useless and annoying. MonkBirdDuke 08:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per everyone. --Kizor 11:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Brim 18:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a nn, unverifiable bio. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being the author of one webcomic which is itself of questionable notability does not constitute a pass of WP:BIO -Elmer Clark 02:57, 20 October 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 Falkenbach. Deizio talk 00:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Havamal (Album)[edit]

This is clearly a non-notable album. The article itself asserts it's non-notability. There is a page for the band, which essentially contains all of the information in the article, so arguably it would be a candidate for a redirect. Although redirects are cheap, who on earth would search for an album with only 9 copies? Mozzie 04:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I know that, in general, albums by notable artists are considered notable; however, this isn't a full length album, but rather a three track demo with under ten copies pressed. Neat rarity worth mentioning in the band's article if it can be sourced properly, but does not merit its own page. No need to redirect from this title as it isn't even formatted correctly. GassyGuy 04:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the band. Even if you do stipulate that albums by notable bands are notable, notability alone does not a worthy article make. If there isn't anything to say about something (like about a 3-track demo, for example), then there isn't an article to be had. - Che Nuevara 05:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. The same thing applies to Laeknishendr, Promo '95 and Skinn Af Sverði Söl Valtiva.... Demo albums aren't notable. Punkmorten 06:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Nine copies?? Sorry, even a Beatles album with that many copies isn't notable in my book... -Elmer Clark 02:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Albums generally get articles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For starters, albums don't by default get articles (I'm 99% sure they have to be notable in some way, otherwise we'd get overloaded with stupid articles). Secondly, how is it supposed to be expanded? With only nine copies in existence, the likelihood of this ever being expanded is infinitesimally small. EVula 17:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very few band articles have the album information meshed into the article proper. It breaks the discographies on the infobox, and it usually ruins the flow of the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect In the extremely unlikely even that someone searches for the album, it should redirect to the band's article. EVula 17:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I can't find information that would verify the existence of this demo. It's not even listed on Encyclopaedia Metallum [7]. Strong keep for all the demos that are verifiable, as demos are albums too. Although these might be heavily limited in terms of cassette distribution, they usually get a lot of Internet listeners later on. Prolog 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. -- WillyWonty 22:18, 24 October 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, but leaning towards keep as notable hoaxes are legitimate topics, and there is evidence to suggest that he is notable in that regard. If no-one can be found to add the other side of the story to the article, it may be worth considering stubbing it until someone finds time to write a neutral version. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Priore[edit]

NN-psuedoscientist with badly sourced results delete DesertSky85451 04:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find anything to assert his notability Mozzie 05:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Funded by the French government, published by the French Academy and subject of several books and articles. Seems to satisfy notability criteria. Article provides sources. Can't see the problem with it. -- Necrothesp 10:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A read of [8] - the third referenced (but unquoted) reference in the article - describes the experiments. They have all the hallmarks of a hoax. If not deleted, this needs a serious cleanup under WP:NPOV as the Priore doubter views are not referenced QuiteUnusual 20:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Needs much cleanup, including a section on criticism regarding alleged hoaxes. -Amatulic 20:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A book about him, "Dossier Priore," is the #7 best selling book on French Amazon.com per[9]. This establishes notability, as does funding by the French government. It is outside the jurisdiction of those voting here to determine the scientific truth of his claims, since we are not the editorial board of a peer review scientific journal and no one here has credentials for determining scientific truth which are verifiable by the others. Whether it is pseudoscience is an open question. But notable technological experimentation is still notable. A criticism section, or even better citations to reliable and verifiable criticsms is absuolutely needed. I sincerely doubt the claimed 100% cure rate for all types of cancer. Edison 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funding by the French government does not establish notability in itself. The nursery school in my village gets government funding, but that hardly makes it notable. Governments fund thousands and thousands of projects, some tiny and insignificant, others important and notable. QuiteUnusual 21:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no bestselling book about the nursery school in your village. Hektor 14:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - very famous scientific hoax in France, on par with the "sniffing planes affair", one of the scientific scandals of the end of the Pompidou era. Lots of articles in magazines such as Science & Vie, and a book about it. A hoax indeed, but absolutely notable. Hektor 13:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure hoakum. Glendoremus 06:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Surely whether his ideas were "hoakum" or not is irrelevant - what is relevant is whether he and they are known. The sources would tend to suggest that they are, ergo he deserves an article. It is not Wikipedia's place to judge his ideas, merely to provide information about them. -- Necrothesp 10:23, 24 October 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 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After Eden[edit]

Non-notable webcomic fails WP:WEB --BradBeattie 04:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable webcomic Mozzie 05:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've declined the speedy delete since the comic is associated with a notable group (Answers in Genesis) and has been around for nearly seven years (which, in webcomic terms, is a pretty long time). I take those as de facto assertions of notability. -- Merope 14:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom Anomo 02:28, 21 October 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. Dakota 21:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acid Reflux (webcomic)[edit]

Non-notable webcomic fails WP:WEB --BradBeattie 04:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable webcomic Mozzie 05:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We had this discussion already, and I don't see any change in the circumstances. The comic was historically popular and prominent at the definitive web comic portal of its time [10], comparable to CRFH!!! in popularity at a time when Acid Reflux was already in decline and CRFH!!!, though smaller than now, definitely notable.
  Failing WP:WEB is by no means automatically applicable, nor is failing it straight grounds for deletion. In its own words it's "a rough guideline" intended to help editors, as opposed to WP:V, which is an "offical policy" and a demand, and - as Dragonfriend acerbically pointed out - even very prominent webcomics fail WP:WEB. It suggests a "well-known independent award", or distribution via a similar site? Both of those were in their infancy for webcomics at Acid Reflux's time. --Kizor 11:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim of notabiility is made in the article. Find newspaper article telling how important and popular it was, and cite them in the article.Edison 22:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Penny Arcade and PvP don't have a newspaper article. --Kizor 23:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, historically notable webcomic as established by AFD1, the past has not changed since that AFD. You cannot judge older published works by their present popularity. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 10:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This used to be a fairly popular webcomic while it was still updating. How can I prove that, or say anything about this webcomic that isn't sourced to the webcomic itself or to webcomic forums? I can't. This article and this subject, albeit once somewhat popular, fails WP:WEB miserably, and should be deleted. Comparisons to PvP (covered and reprinted in RPG/card game trade press) and Penny Arcade (widely covered in viceo game press, hosting a yearly national convention), both of which have multiple printed collections, is a red herring. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no illusions about AR being comparable to either PvP or PA. I'm just pointing out that in my arrogant opinion Edison's standard is unreasonable. Now, why does failing WEB constitute straight grounds for deletion when it's expressly meant to be applied together with common sense and there's a (so far completely ignored) case to be made for the article? Why is absence of proof the proof of absence, when the article already survived one AfD and especially since it's uncontested that the comic did, in fact, meet the requirements? In fact, how is BradBeattie not liking the result of the first AfD a sufficient change of circumstance to merit having another one? --Kizor 12:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, everything about WP:WEB is negotiable if you can make a good case except for the part of it that is derived straight from WP:V. What can you say about Acid Reflux that can be verified? I'm not unsympathetic to the desire to keep an article on this comic (I !voted keep in the last AFD), but there needs to be something verifiable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This required possibly the biggest chill pill I've ever needed in my editing history. I'll try to keep things from getting to me so much in the future. There's very little in the article that can't be readily confirmed on the website, but if it's any good, Acid Reflux got a glowing review on Tangents, which certainly is a respected and popular site in its community. --Kizor 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless it's gotten huge in the last two months, Tangents was the comic review blog where Rob sucked up to comics writers he happened to like. It's one man's personal opinion site, not a "respected and popular site." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Worth a shot. --Kizor 07:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fair enough. Better than when Snowspinner was citing that one godawful embarassing blog (I'm blocking on Talkaboutcomics, that wasn't it) that's associated with Comixpedia as though it were the Princeton Review of webcomics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - article gives me (and probably wikipedia) acid reflux. Anomo 02:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable webcomic. WillyWonty 22:19, 24 October 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 16:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd Notions[edit]

Non-notable webcomic fails WP:WEB --BradBeattie 04:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable webcomic. Why is it listed twice? Mozzie 05:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim of notability.Edison 22:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above.UberCryxic 01:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete an absurd notion to keep this NN comic. Anomo 02:29, 21 October 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 per A7. Nishkid64 22:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9th Elsewhere[edit]

Non-notable webcomic fails WP:WEB. The one referenced review isn't from a notable source. --BradBeattie 04:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:44, 19 October 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. --Coredesat 06:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Cutler[edit]

Non-notable bio as per WP:BIO. The best assertion to notability on this page appears to be contorversey surrounding his blogging. I a google search for "Jeff Cutler" and "blog" brought up quite a few hits, the most notable being a Boston Globe news story[11]. In this story Jeff Cutler is only given as an example of cash for comments in blogs. Mozzie 04:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, one Boston Globe story written about bloggers accepting money to shill for products mentions Jeff Cutler. As noted in the nomination, the article is not primarily about him. There are some blog posts about him and the practice, but in the end there are are not WP:RS articles dedicated to Mr. Cutler and he does not meet the WP:BIO guidelines.--Isotope23 19:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Vanity page. -Amatulic 20:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity. Also, looking at the edit history shows that nobody cares who this idiot is. 129.98.197.86 02:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. non-notable blogger. WillyWonty 22:20, 24 October 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. DS 03:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Minute Therapy[edit]

This page reads very much like an advertisement. There has been no one since myself to touch the page after it was created, and the creator has no other contributions, and the creator's username is DrEdelstein, which happens to be one of the authors of the book in the article titled Three Minute Therapy. The more I look at it, the more I want this article deleted. Wirbelwind 05:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nomination; sounds like someone is trying to advertise their own services, and there isn't really any information about the "three minute therapy" itself. All leading way to thinking that this is made by Albert Ellis (the "doc"), himself.
• Delete as per nom. How about a Three Minute Deletion? Emeraude 13:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:SPAM - advert QuiteUnusual 20:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I see consensus here. 129.98.197.86 02:12, 20 October 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 kept per WP:SNOW, this is clearly a notable topic and consensus is never going going to be reached to delete it because deleting it would be a very bad idea. Of course shock sites are notable, and of course we should have an article on them. --Cyde Weys 00:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shock site[edit]

This is a procedural nomination; a new user is requesting to have this article deleted, and seemed to be having some trouble with starting the discussion, so I'm taking care of that step for them. The prior VfD discussion may also be of note. Luna Santin 05:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the reason? Edward Wakelin 05:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Depending on if they make their way here, Talk:Shock site#Deletion_Reccomended! looks to have their rationale. I figured they should be able to have their say. Luna Santin 05:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I understand the nominator's point of view, Wikipedia is not censored. I wouldn't be upset if there were more content dealing with the concept of shock sites and less simply detailing examples, however. GassyGuy 05:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep going through the critera for deletion, especially the core policies WP:NOR, WP:V andWP:NPOV, I fail to see how this page meets any of them. The subject matter is offensive, but that isn't a reason for deletion Mozzie 05:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. After reviewing the reasons found here[12] as to why the article was nominated, I must disagree with the original nominator. First of all, "grotesque" is a very subjective word and open to multiple interpretations. Second, Wikipedia isn't endorsing these websites by writing an article about them anymore than they are endorsing George W. Bush for writing an article about him. Third, we cannot rely on unreasonable hypothetical scenarios when judging the criteria for deletion. It is unreasonable to delete the article because "a hacker" might come to the page and link one of these websites to someone else's webpage. Using the George W. Bush comparison again, we would have to delete that article because it lists his address (1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) and thus someone could use that information to harm him. This deletion nomination is therefore unreasonable and should be denied. --Hemlock Martinis 05:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, let me give both sets of arguments at once. My opinion is somewhat neutral, I've been involved in trying to keep this article from being a liability for some time. The reason behind the actual decision to nominate by a new user are along the lines of "this is gross, why should we cover it," but there are definitely reasons to be concerned here. Mangojuice^talk 05:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Pro deletion: This article is, basically, entirely made up of original research. Most of the article consists of the list of various shock sites, very few of which have really satisfactory source (Goatse.cx does, but it has its own article anyway). Although individual sites have some references, a bigger problem is that the non-list part of the article is completely unreferenced, and probably unverifiable. A web search for the term "shock site" on google turns up around half as many hits when we exclude Wikipedia & its mirrors.. and apart from Encyclopedia Dramatica and Urban Dictionary, nothing really comes close to the level of describing the use of the term or defining it; the rest are examples of use. Mangojuice^talk 05:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Con deletion: First of all, List of shock sites, which got merged to Shock site, was already nominated for deletion four times: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th; each time, the article was kept (the first three debates had "keep" outcomes, while the 4th one was a "no consensus," with a hella lot of participation). Although the content is distasteful, Wikipedia is not censored, and this is certainly a notable phenomenon. Finally, this article attracts vandalism and inappropriate edits from new users a lot... but this probably keeps those users from continually creating new articles on their favorite shock sites individually. Also, the article is sourced, even if the sources push the boundary of WP:RS, that may be necessary given the kind of topic this article covers. Mangojuice^talk 05:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced this isn't a keep, but I do question some of the examples; do we really have any good sourcing of "penis bird" that it belongs on the list? GassyGuy 05:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source for that one is an official letter from Slashdot complaining about that picture being used for trolling; they ask Rotten.com to move it to a different URL. The letter is posted on Rotten.com's page with the picture. Mangojuice^talk 14:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We now accept content hosted by the primary source as third party coverage? GassyGuy 16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I said, I think the sourcing is generally sketchy, but this is something. Personally, Rotten.com has a reputation for posting complaint correspondence, and they have no reason to fabricate the letter. If you want to discuss individual sourcing issues, I invite you (beg you, even) to join us at Talk:Shock site where we have to constantly explain basic WP policies regarding sources and verifiability. If you have a problem with this one, I don't blame you, but look at all the other ones too: this is, IMO, one of the better sources in the article. Mangojuice^talk 16:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mangojuice --AAA! 08:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it's a relevant site, a documentable internet phenomena, and doesn't belong on the articles for deletion. --MonkBirdDuke 10:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's handy to have some place to link to when someone out there asks "What's Goatse?" --JDHarper 10:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree, Wikipedia should not be not censored. Rixth 10:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Wikipedia should not be censored. Wikipedia is where all human knowledge should be. 'Nuf said.--Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves/Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} 11:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article doesn't suck. -- Chris chat edits essays 12:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - It's an evil, albeit vital part of the internet. Original research can be fixed. --DodgerOfZion 13:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As people have said, censorship isn't a reason to get rid of a page. I personally have gotten use from the article, as every now and then I've used it to figure out what a shock site is without having to see an unpleasant picture. Edward Wakelin 13:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per mangojuice, but isn't it just listcruft. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I fail to see how any of this has encyclopedic value, but I don't find the nominator's arguments compelling either. -Amatulic 20:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now lets stop being stupid, people 86.42.165.146
• Strong Delete This article contains useless sites that can have no benefit to people at all. Maybe friends can joke eachother into going into the sites, but that's about it. These sites are grotesque and need to be removed, along with this whole article. Some of these sites contain pornography, viruses, trojans, and more horrible things. If a hacker gets on someone's site they could come to this wiki, look for one of these sites, and redirect the homepage he is hacking to the shock site. A friend could trick a gullible friend into going to the site. None of these things have any benefits to anyone at all. People don't even need to know this information because it can not benefit them in any way positive, besides for them to make a mental note to never go to that site... This topic needs to be deleted because of these reasons.Sumperson01 23:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those reasons fall under any WP policies I've seen, and like I said, I have used the article in question to avoid finding out what some awful site (I'm a very curious person) by going to it. Instead I can read that it's a picture of awful thing X. So, it actually does benefit people in positive ways.Edward Wakelin 23:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't help people in positive ways, but it does help people in negative ways.
      • Err... So being able to satisfy one's curiosity without seeing something stomach-churning is negative? Anyway, I'm pretty sure that there's no standard of "positivity" for inclusion on WP. Edward Wakelin 23:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shock sites are an important cultural aspect of the Internet. Any studies done into the counter cultures of the Internet will always include things like Goatse and GNAA. Its unavoidable and is research worthy. - UnlimitedAccess 01:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I understand why this page bothers some people, and it's a little disorganized by the nature of the topic, but it definitely needs to be kept. It's notable and verifiable. 129.98.197.86 02:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously the concept itself is valid, it's an observable and reported phenomenom, and itself an outgrowth of more traditional juvenile behavior like mooning. It seems to me that the real problem is that this article includes links to sites that cause this sort of problem. That may be so, but itself is not a reason to remove information from Wikipedia, any more than we remove information about software emulators because people might pirate video games, or information from chemistry articles so people can't make poisons or explosives. Or heck, pick a gun based on information about firearms here. Unfortunate though those risks may be, censoring this site just to avoid a person's possible misconduct is not a viable choice. It would be equivalent to an ostrict sticking its head in the sand. (Which if you look it up, you might find that they don't do that) FrozenPurpleCube 02:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the other keeps RZ heretic 04:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Okay, I gave two sets of arguments above, but I'm rather surprised how easily everyone seems to be willing to dismiss our longstanding no original research policy in favor of weak arguments like "Wikipedia is not censored." Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, but that doesn't mean that offensive things should be kept regardless of other policies, just because they're offensive. I want to endorse this side of the argument, because I want to see some discussion of this issue, not just blanket endorsements of Wikipedia not being censored, which is all we've had so far. Mangojuice^talk 04:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, many of us who came in early were addressing the original nomination, which didn't really raise this point. I haven't finished sorting through the article, but so far, all of the sources appear to be primary, which is definitely a problem. However, I was thinking perhaps we could go through and purge some of the most egregious violations. First, though, I must question: has there anything been written on the concept of shock sites? If so, then I'd say keep this, as its unsourced but verifiable; if there really isn't anything reliable on the topic, then I will amend my vote accordingly as it becomes unverifiable OR. GassyGuy 05:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sources and NOR are valid concerns, but I don't see them as especially problematic for this article. Still, this [13] result should be enough to establish that there are some sources out there, though they may be hard to establish, if only because of the various terms used (one place may use shock, others might stick with offensive, or something else, but mean the same thing), but it's still something that is understood to exist. I suspect the best immediate source would be various tutorials on avoiding the evils of the internet, but I'm not too familiar with them myself. FrozenPurpleCube 05:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong KEEP. What's the reason for deletion? Wikipedia is not censored. --Czj 06:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is no reason for deletion and it allowed me to check suspect web sites from work without having to view them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.153.131.254 (talk • contribs) .
• Strong delete It's articles like this that severely weaken and cripple Wikipedia's credibility. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a repository of useless, senseless crap, which is what "shock sites" are. Honestly, I can't fathom how anyone who has ever listened to the vision of Wikipedia as espoused by Jimmy Wales can support the inclusion of this or any other junk article. Wikipedia is supposed to add to human knowledge and increase our understanding - that is the purpose of any encyclopedia. Instead, Wikipedia is gradually becoming more and more of not just a pop culture resource (with endless television episode guides and character profiles), but a resource of useless trivia. Even Jimbo has acknowledged these problems. If we want Wikipedia to be taken seriously, if we want Wikipedia to be accepted as an encyclopedia, then we're going to have the cut this crap out of the loop once and for all. If anyone here is interested in the true mandate of this project, which is to help build a free encyclopedia, they will vote to delete. IMHO, anyone who votes to keep this and other articles like it is not interested in this mandate, and is instead contributing to the demise of this fine resource. metaspheres 18:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree that the list isn't necessary and will probably just turn the article into a "post your own shock link" page. If this page has a list, it should only contain info on shock sites that are notable enough to have their own articles. I don't believe, though, that the whole article should be deleted, as shock sites are a notable internet phenominon. I also suspect that the user's personal taste may be influencing this deletion nomination. Grotesque or no, Wikipedia is not censored and content shouldn't be removed just because certain users find it offensive.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 21:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - The reasons given two years ago, along with many of the comments above, are more than enough to keep this page This isn't PuritanWiki. Tarc 23:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Maybe the article should be merged with Internet troll.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 02:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The question should not be, "Is it offensive?" but rather, "Is it encyclopedic?" The question of offensiveness is moot. There are plenty of things in any encyclopedia - even Britannica - that one may find offensive. For instance, articles about human anatomy or sexuality. As I have stated in my comment, Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform and educate. This is the goal of Wikipedia and this is why we have featured articles and Wikipedia:Wikipedia 1.0. Articles such as this do not conform to the mandate of Wikipedia and if this project is to ever achieve parity with "closed-source" encyclopedias (Britannica, Columbia, Encarta, etc.) these articles will have to eventually be phased out. If not now, then in the near future. But I can assure you that it will happen, and it's already been slowly occurring since late 2005 when it became clear that the quality of articles in the arts and humanities and culture (as opposed to science) leaves much to be desired. Let us not avoid the inevitable but quickly set things into motion. The sooner Wikipedia cleans this junk out, the sooner we will arrive at a high-quality 1.0 release, and even better releases beyond that one. metaspheres 08:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Metaspheres, I'm afraid I must disagree. While you may be right to have concerns over the contents of this article, as I'm sure there are folks who see this sort of thing as the place to troll, that's not a reason for deletion. It's a reason for concern, and attention, but this article is still about a real phenomenon, which is itself the outgrowth of yet nother aspect of human behavior. It probably does need some study and documentation, as it is important for the social sciences to study humans as they behave, and ignoring it doesn't do anybody any good. in fact, that sort of stick your head in the sand and just believe what you want to believe mindset has been the bane of social science for a long, long time. It really needs study by clear-minded folks, and if Wikipedia wants to help with that, it won't be by deleting this article. FrozenPurpleCube 18:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But you see, what you have just described is original research. As far as I know, there are currently no academic works on "shock sites." If Wikipedia's policy on original research is still in effect (last I checked, it was), then this is one for the sociologists and culture critics. Once they've come up with a thesis or two and published their findings, then more power to everyone who wants to include this junk. metaspheres 20:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In case you failed to notice, the article in question does cite sources in the references section. Your claim of "original research" holds no water. Tarc 01:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow. Did you look at those references? Because they (1) don't back up any of the substance of the article, they're only in the list. (2) Even for the sites, some of them are kind of sketchy in backing up the inclusion of the site or its status as a shock site. (3) Not a single one of them is clearly a reliable source. Mangojuice^talk 02:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Precisely. metaspheres 09:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, I have looked at the references and while not perfect, it is a start. Better effort could've been made into cleaning up the arcitle reather than carrying on a frivolous AfD for a myriad scattershot of reasons. Tarc 20:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but even if I agreed with you about anything being OR in the article, the problem of original research is not so endemic to this article that it warrants deletion. This article isn't about a theory of behavior that leads to the creation of shock sites, but describing a real and observable phenomena, that nobody is going about denying that they exist. There is a wide gap between theory and observation, that sometimes that NOR policy doesn't cover very well. And yes, there are people writing about them, here's a book [14] on the subject of disgusting websites. Not serious and academic, but enough to demonstrate some interest. On TV, there's this report of a Consumer Reports article [15] which indicates that this exists, not to mention this [16] bit of news which uses the term to describe the actions of the German gov't. (and they aren't the only gov't to take action [17]. This page [18] describes them from a security perspective. Even though they use different terms, I think it is clear what they are talking about. Since they are a firm providing tech support services, I'm reluctant to add them to the page, but they do show that there is interest in the subject. I suspect there's more in discussions on content-filtering, protecting children, and whatnot, but I must admit, I have little familiarity with them, so I'm not even sure where to look. Still, I don't find your objections, either in terms of what Wikipedia should be, or OR, very persuasive. FrozenPurpleCube 21:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up to add this [19] link, which is a Whittier Law Review article on the subject of internet domain names. I think that satisfies the question of whether there is any possibility of any valid sources. I'd prefer something more substantial like this article, but this should show that it can be achieved. (And in this case, the shock site refers to Macromedia Shockwave, which is one of the things complicating searches on this subject) FrozenPurpleCube 21:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is regularly pruned of vanispamcruftisement and there are sources for these being described as shock sites. Guy 18:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• VERY Strong keep Yes, I actually had to go the extra mile with the "VERY" portion, this article is more of a resource for people who want to actually AVOID these kind of sites, so they will know when the link they are going to is real, or just a skillfully devised prank to gross you out! But, I'll only go by these words...IF you allow us to add Meatspin to it, it's more popular then Lemonparty, Tubgirl, and Goatse combined! ViperSnake151 19:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's also spam. Guy 23:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep for reasons stated above, and that it's good to have this article in existence when someone asks in a forum "what's Goatse?" after someone posts a link. -Ich (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article you are looking for is goatse.cx. Guy 09:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. However, I'd say that it would look better with notable sites only. --UNKNOWNFILE 02:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - It is reality and it is mentioned in Wikipedia policy. --Ineffable3000 04:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. metaspheres argues: "The sooner Wikipedia cleans this junk out, the sooner we will arrive at a high-quality 1.0 release...." I respond that we won't reach 1.0 by screening all 1.4 million articles and deleting those that don't belong. The more common vision of 1.0 is that it would represent a selection from among all the articles. There's a large middle ground of articles that wouldn't go in 1.0 but that shouldn't be deleted. JamesMLane t c 09:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my comments at the AfD for Time Cube and Wikipedia:Five pillars. The vision of Wikipedia, as outlined by Jimbo, is as a free encyclopedia. Which is to say, an encyclopedia along the lines of a traditional one such as Britannica or Encarta. The only difference being that it is free (obviously) and perhaps just a bit more "liberal" in it's outlook and what is included - for instance, including articles on localities, institutions, software programs, etc. that wouldn't normally be included in a traditional print encyclopedia. But, not so liberal as to go ahead and include articles (such as this one and Time Cube) which literally add nothing to the "sum of human knowledge" (per Jimbo's original vision) but actually take away from it. I'm serious - articles like this one have become so numerous that like reality shows on television, Wikipedia will begin lowering one's IQ. Most visitors invariably will come across these articles if they spend more than a few minutes here. What you're basically saying is that Wikipedia 1.0 will be the actual encyclopedia and that this, the original Wikipedia, is just a "knowledge base," a repository, if you will. That's fine. Then Wikipedia should redefine itself, and Wikimedia should fork Wikipedia into two, similar to the original setup with Nupedia and Wikipedia. One, the actual encyclopedia with informative, educational articles, and the other, a repository of mostly useless pop and Internet culture references. metaspheres 16:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia's not censored. This is a silly nomination. Bryan 17:34, 22 October 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 Cohabitation. --Coredesat 06:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Living in sin[edit]

Non-encyclopedic content per rv discussed on Talk:Cohabitation PsYoP78 05:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Cohabitation. That article explains the term fine. There is no need for a separate article dealing with this phrase. GassyGuy 05:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NEO, or Redirect as per GassyGuy. --BradBeattie 05:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cohabitation. Mozzie 05:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dictdef --RoninBK_ETC 05:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect as per above. Grutness...wha? 05:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Have a good laugh, redirect to cohabitation, and transwiki to Wiktionary - Che Nuevara 05:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This article should be Redirected to Cohabitation. --MonkBirdDuke 09:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cohabitation as suggested. --JaimeLesMaths 09:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cohabitation per GassyGuy, a separate article for this term is superflous.-- danntm ^T _C 14:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect It is a valid term, but it doesn't deserve its own article. EVula 14:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect We'll save this article title for the schmaltzy Bon Jovi single. Caknuck 20:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. People will type this term into the search field, but it doesn't deserve its own article. 129.98.197.86 02:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. JamesMLane t c 09:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. WillyWonty 22:21, 24 October 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.